This is why I respect Apple. Most tech forums would have been flooded people whinging about how mere humans can’t perceive such low latencies and how improving them is a waste. Meanwhile Apple knows not to leave anything on the table for UX.
For 9ms you need at least 90Hz. Don't know many who do that. Specially if you take in consideration the battery hit that the faster update rate requires.
In the worst case 60Hz + this new pen will add up to (16 + 9) 15ms of latency, right?
If the screen refreshes at T=0,16,33,50 and you create input at T=8 then the input will be processed at T=17 (8+9), so you will need to wait for T=33 before it show up for a total latency of 25ms (33-8).
Which is a lot better than the potential total latency of 36ms with a 20ms pen.
Refresh rate isn't latency. Though you are right that you do have to wait for the screen to redraw.
There is screen latency as a completely separate number though, and those would add up. Many lcd monitors can have up to a 20ms latency. And those numbers would add up like you suggest. It's why gaming monitors can charge a bunch for their 1ms latency at 60hz.
It is also possible to have 120hz and 20ms latency. The numbers are not related.
I don't know what the iPads screen latency is.
If you have enough control over your devices, you can arrange for your input to arrive at just the right time to be included in each frame without extra latency, though.
The kind of latency you describe is that internal to the display; it could be called the video-signal-to-photon latency. The parent you're replying to is explaining the action-to-video-signal and compute-to-video-signal latency, and its effects on the action-to-photon latency.
But someone please explain how a refresh rate less than infinity doesn't create some sort of delay. In my naive understanding a 60Hz monitor means it refreshes the screen every 16ms. If you miss one refresh, you'll have to wait 16ms for the next one. This would be an extra 16ms it takes between moving the pen and seeing the reaction, right?
Really, who does it better? This is already < 60hz, so we're talking about 120 hz devices to begin with...
I wonder if we will ever get sub 5ms in End to End Latency.
Someone says it would be nice to get even lower, and you say it isn't important.
Full circle in three comments.
It might not be necessary information to know to understand that an improvement was made, but knowing the end to end latency would be interesting to see. The gp expressed an interest in the end to end latency and you responded with a dismissive comment which didn't answer their question.
It wasn't meant to answer their question, it was meant to point on the relevance (or lack thereof) of the answer to the question to appreciate the improvement.
In other words, the gp seemed to dismiss the improvement, because what would be important for them would be to know the "end to end" latency.
This is pretty cool. It keeps them within the app I want them to be in. you can even set it up so that when they're watching a movie, you can disable taps so they can't exit the video accidentally.
Your original comment implies there's some kind of fundamental flaw with GA that makes it useless, which apparently couldn't be further from the truth.
Even with a 4 digit pin it takes 5 seconds to change it if it's figured out, and if the child has enough time to brute force 10,000 possible combinations without you being able to intervene and rebuff that behavior, I'd say that's it's own problem.
10k is a representation of the fact it’s not likely to guess it easily, and the new GA lock increases that number to 1 million combinations with 10 second lockouts.
Not to mention, you should yes, generally avoid showing a pin to the person you’re keeping out.
You don’t need to enter the pin to use GA. It’s also not the same pin used to unlock the iPad as your comment seems to imply.
I would be very surprised if we ever see a multi-user mode for iOS.
For years I have been putting off buying another iPad until they have this feature. Guess I'm still waiting.
With the tvOS, you need different profiles for different members of the family. Otherwise your five-year-old ends up seeing a lot of mature TV shows in their recommendations. And the adults see various recommendations meant for small children. If you have small children and Netflix or you don’t have multiple user accounts set up you know what I mean.
This is the simple and easy solution for the tvOS because they can’t realistically expect you to purchase multiple Apple TVs for the multiple members of your family.
On the other hand, they very much do hope you’ll purchase multiple iPads.
Let’s see how that works out?
It has been fascinating to watch the evolution of the iPad version of iOS and the desktop version of Windows 10 to better support a screen/pen/detachable keyboard sort of world.
From my understanding, "iPadOS" is essentially just a marketing signal that the iPad-version of the OS will have more features unique to iPad. For developers, Xcode will still have the option to compile the same codebase for iOS and iPadOS. It's up to the developer to take advantage of more screen real estate when available, though SwiftUI will probably make that easier on the developer (i.e., more likely to show up in the apps you use).
Consider that most of the iPadOS features shown are refinements of or much-asked-for enhancements of existing features:
- Multi-document Split View
- Slide Over app switcher
- Network share and external media support in the Files app
[edit: props to snazz, who corrected me on the iOS split view release.]
Actually it appeared in iOS 9, many moons ago.
iPadOS runs in at most 10-20 devices (and all are iPad models). HoneyComb and WinRT run on hundreds and hundreds of devices, with widely different capabilities.
So there's that fragmentation there too.
Honeycomb, Android 3.0, was released Feb 2011 for tablets. It was a radical new UI and introduced several new APIs. It was the largest Android update ever, except that no devices were updated to it. Android tablets didn't sell very well and developers had little to no reason to support Honeycomb.
Ice Cream Sandwich, Android 4.0, October 2011. This refined the Honeycomb changes and was appropriate for use on phones. It did work on tablets but wasn't really optimized for them until 4.1/jellybean.
Honeycomb wasn't a fork or anything, but the strong divergence and poor sales of Android tablets meant that no one wanted to target Honeycomb until they were actually targeting Ice Cream Sandwich, and then at that point it was barely worth supporting Honeycomb tablets, but still work supporting Gingerbread phones.
I don't think it's particular relevant to the iPadOS situation.
Also relevant, that Honeycomb wasn't released into AOSP until ICS, which meant there were no third-party builds or even support from off-name brands.
Since most of the improvements ended up being useful for the upcoming "phablets" as much as tablets, Google just merged those features into Jelly Bean and gave up on a separate tablet UI.
No, not at all. Android's UI has scaled exceptionally well since long before then, and nobody on Android was using 320x240 screens at that time. Android had already long since done the high DPI jump from 320x480 (HTC G1) to 480x800 (Nexus One).
You need a UI that takes advantage of the extra screen real-estate, yes, but there was nothing about Android's core UI toolkit that failed to handle that in any way.
> Since most of the improvements ended up being useful for the upcoming "phablets" as much as tablets, Google just merged those features into Jelly Bean and gave up on a separate tablet UI.
Google never actually forked Android for tablets, so there was nothing to "merge." They just focused on the tablet UIs & devices such that the phone ones had bugs. You can boot up Honeycomb on a phone-sized device and poke about. Everything's basically there, it's just super buggy.
I haven't tried it so I don't know.
Edit: “immediately obvious” was a bit strong. They can do it in ways that are significantly easier to discover.
I think an interface that presents you with multiple windows by default, and then lets you drag them, is a lot more discoverable than what the iPad is doing.
I'm not sure, though, what a better approach is on the iPad, assuming that we don't just give a menu bar. I'm pretty interested in a lot of these changes; as silly as it may sound, being able to display two documents from the same app side by side on the iPad will alone solve one of my huge frustrations with the system as it is now, and the changes to the Files app sound like they'll be really useful in practice. I know there will be a lot of folks, particularly in the HN crowd, who will be upset that iPads can't do [Insert Thing They Need], but iOS, er, iPadOS is reaching a point where there's very little it can't do that I personally need. (Adding my proviso that "the iPad can't do this thing I need to do the way I'm used to doing it" should not be conflated with "the iPad can't do this thing I need.")
GTK+3 has a good approach there, I think. It turns the window titlebar into a thick "header bar", which includes a "title" part for easy grabbing as well as a handful of button-accessible menus (fewer than the top levels in a traditional menubar), including a kitchen-sink "hamburger menu" for lesser-used options. It becomes a bit less convenient for mouse&keyboard use, but the touch usability is absolutely there. Too bad that running Linux on tablet-like computers is still way too fiddly, it could be a fierce competitor to the iPad ecosystem for more pro tasks.
Added: And on recent GTK+3 releases, one can shrink the window horizontally and the buttons will simply shift to the bottom when there's not enough room for them in the top headerbar. This solves a flexibility issue with the previous headerbar-only approach (especially on smaller or lower-res screens), while still being quite intuitive.
In case you don’t know, that’s what modeled after macOS. (It had it from the beginning. AFAIK)
(And why on Earth does iOS allow me to split a portrait mode vertically, creating two thin strips that are seemingly useless for any work?)
Because developers can then present the iPhone interface.
> It's frustrating beyond belief knowing that this device could be so much more useful with that tiny basic functionality that has existed in GUIs for decades
Other systems have differently-designed interfaces designed for different kinds of interaction.
If the iPad interface allowed tiling apps top-and-bottom, the iPhone interface wouldn't be usable because the aspect ratio would be wrong and the iPad interface wouldn't be usable because navigation chrome would take up just about all the screen.
I could only see this working if Apple had developers using their iPhone landscape interface on that view, but so many iPhone apps don't have a landscape interface so barely any iPad apps would inherit this.
Depends on what work you're doing. I do it all the time. It's especially useful when you're writing something in Notes in one pane and referencing e-mail in another.
The bottom half of the screen is the keyboard space.
* Pull up a little to go home.
* Pull up more to get task list.
* Pull down from top to get notifications, date and clock.
* Pull down from right top corner to get quick controls.
* Pull down from middle of the screen to get siri suggestions.
* Pull right to see widgets.
Pretty much the attitude of people learning Windows or MacOS in the late 90's. ("literacy") It's gone from having to win an audience in the early iOS days, to firmly having the audience in the company's grasp.
I'd rather have those capabilities? My drawing apps on iOS all have tons of multi-touch gestures. I appreciate they are there.
Didn’t microsoft try to do this in Windows 8 with little icons in the corners? The problem is that little icons provide only marginally more information, if at all, than the existence of the corner of the screen.
It’s a very hard problem and Apple works on it. They have abandoned previous standards on discoverability because of the inherent limitations of a touch interface on a small screen.
Sacrificing discoverability for usability is the right choice.
I think one issue is that some UI conventions have not been settled on, so I often have to look up how to do something on iOS.
The most recent example of this was “shake to undo.” After looking this up, not only did I learn how to undo typing, I also learned why I would occasionally get these inexplicable warning windows asking if I wanted to undo!
Who says the situation needs solving? I'm just providing perspective.
That's the same attitude people had about Ctrl and Alt key shortcuts and power user features and function keys.
Of course it needs to be solved. You have finite screen real estate. Lack of physical buttons. Multi-touch gestures is a natural space for user input.
For development work, I don't see my MacBook Pro going away any time soon. But I do see the iPad becoming more incorporated into my professional workflow. It sits on my desk while I'm working and I use it to run things like iTunes, email, slack, and personal reminders - where they feel like less of a distraction than when I run those things on my desktop. Integration between my macbook and ipad is already pretty great when it comes to handoff, airdrop, messages, notes, etc - and Apple seems committed to continued improvement as I think they realize that seamless integration is one of the things that makes people stick within their ecosystem.
Don’t listen to all the whining podcasters that claim that ipad doesn’t have a file system. The files app and its integration into many apps works amazingly well, especially in conjunction with icloud drive. And you can access the local directories, so you can put a video file in the VLC folder or a PDF in the Acrobat folder. You can of course also AirDrop to the ipad already into these apps, but if you want complete control.
It's been my most dependable device ever. No battery replacement, daily use, LTE still works great.
Rather, prefer to trust the horse's mouth and its history. Apple has always said they wouldn't merge macOS and iOS, but they have a history of bringing iOS frameworks to macOS for consistency (AVFoundation was a big one).
Rumours are the fodder of those who cannot be bothered to learn about something but want the air of clairvoyance to impress friends; they are the life blood of those kids at school whose uncle definitely works at Nintendo and he has definitely played Pokémon Rainbow but you'll never get to see it because his uncle said it's classified.
And the period of time was not "very short" by my definition at least.
According to :
> Apple announced iPhone OS 1 at the iPhone keynote on January 9, 2007, and it was released to the public alongside the original iPhone on June 29, 2007.
> Apple announced iPhone OS 2 at the iPhone software roadmap keynote in March 2008, and it was released to the public on July 11, 2008 alongside the iPhone 3G.
> Apple announced iPhone OS 3 in March 2009, and it was released to the public on June 17, 2009 alongside the iPhone 3GS.
> Apple announced iOS 4 in March 2010 and it was released to the public on June 21, 2010 alongside the iPhone 4.
It was called iPhone OS for roughly 3 years. About 25% of the time since the OS was released it was called iPhone OS.
iPhone OS existed until iPhone OS 3.2.2 when it was renamed to iOS in iOS 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history
Unbelievable sneaky 2004 Apple story: Engineers would come to our offices at midnight and practically slip machines under the door. One said, "Officially, this machine doesn't exist, you didn't get it from me, and I don't know you. Make sure it doesn't leave the building."
Just avoiding the confusion and disappointment of customers should be enough for them to do it but they haven’t done it after all these years.
Also baffling: People who will spend $600 on an iPad, but not 99¢ on a calculator app.
I sometimes wonder if Apple intentionally leaves these gaps in the ecosystem (Weather, Stocks, etc...), hoping that the market will bring forth solutions. It doesn't seem to work all the time.
Calculator (infinity-symbol) and Calc HD Pro do it the right way.
(Check '(0.1x1024-102)x10-4' on a physical calculator and on PCalc/others, it should return '0' if the math is done using bcd (almost all physical calculators) or ~5.68e-14 on broken floating point math)
If an erroneous calculator app using floating point can have success, this gives me hope to have success as well. I mean no disrespect towards the app, it just gave me a bit of extra motivation.
Because you want a quality product with some thought put in to it.
The difference in hardware (processing and screen) between e.g. a solar-polared four-function calculator and a TI-89 are representative of a difference in potential functionality and manifest with a difference in price (driven by real-world production costs).
However, one app doesn't have any less resources than another and/or doesn't have any hardware differences that would e.g. add cost if you want to visualize a graph versus compute a number -- outside of the software costs. I guess I just assume all apps are a race to the bottom here, then, because I find it mind-boggling that there aren't free apps with functionality that mimics any and all paid apps (especially in a calculator app specifically, where the dev-work is generally just _making it_ rather than inventing something new).
That all is to say: thanks -- I guess it's just a difference in features and quality comparing paid apps to free apps here. I don't really understand how that is the case (why don't people continually make cheaper/free calculators of equal quality?), but at least I understand the how. :)
It was $10 which feels like a fair and sustainable price for something like this. It's nice to understand the business model.
That said, there are lots of free calculators available.
We are absolutely spoiled by low software prices, and they’re literally spoiling the market.
An iPad pro costs 1000 bucks and your time is probably worth around 100 bucks an hour, so if an app is good and costs less than 25 bucks you shouldn’t even stop to think before buying it.
A person with a well paid job that thinks twice about paying 5 bucks for anything he could potentially use for work even once is doing it wrong.
There are lots of reasons one might spend money on a paid calculator app instead of a free one, and I'm sure this list doesn't even cover all the reasons.
A very bold claim - there are many paid-for calc apps that just use plain floating point math and don't attempt to mimic a proper calculator at all.
There are also free calc apps that DO put the work in to be a proper useful calculator.
Does much more than basic calculator stuff. Not sure how much of it requires network.
> Not sure how much of it requires network.
The downside is that literally everything it does requires an internet connection. Even `3+7=`.
Even the scientific calculator would look pretty silly blown up that large though.
If I'm going to buy a calculator app, I might as well get a good one.
Bonus if it can do time calculators. (I used to have a physical time calculator that could do 15 hours + 3 hours, 21 minutes = x minutes, and it was surprisingly useful=.)
(I requested > 4 vertical lines a while back and he added it)
I mean I get it, they're maturing the platform. But window snapping and home screen widgets seem very "Windows Vista". That combined with the new swipe keyboard and finally adding storage support... it really just seems like playing catch up for things that have existed for over a decade now.
I would personally never use a device for professional work unless I had full control over the software on that device. Being locked in by the app store is still a non-starter for me.
At the surface level, it does. However, at the implementation level, I think Apple is slowly reimagining all of these things for a new paradigm — and the new paradigm has needed time to evolve slowly, for Apple to see what directions its users and developers wanted to go in, and to take the time to decide how to do things.
For example: the sidebar on Vista was next to useless because (A) its widgets didn't tap into any data people wanted, (B) the widgets weren't the right size to show any useful information, and (C) didn't fare any better on Windows 7 because they were buried under windows. iOS widgets, on the other hand, directly tap into applications, can come in variable sizes, have a somewhat uniform presentation style, and one visits the Home screen many more times than one clicks the Show Desktop button on Windows.
Windows Vista gadgets and OS X Dashboard widgets seemed to be little toys, the styling to look like a little desktop accessory being more important than their actual utility. The way that iPadOS integrates Today Widgets with the home screen is more like putting useful information directly at users' disposal. Pair this with widgets like Shortcuts, Launch Center Pro, or Pythonista, and you also have a means for quickly starting workflows.
iPad's multiple windows isn't really window snapping in the same sense as on Windows. That's just an implementation detail. The actual concept, at least as of iPadOS (as opposed to iOS 11 and 12), is more like macOS' Spaces or Mission Control.
All in all, to appreciate something, you have to appreciate all the little details. To me, Today Widgets on the Home screen have the potential to offer productivity improvements similar to Alfred. I'm sure there'll be apps with widgets specifically crafted to take advantage of this.
I think the only useful one I've really found is weather. Maybe that's because I don't use my calendar. Just going through the list of the ones I have available, I don't see any that really bring any value to what I'm doing.
What's replaced what I've used widgets for in the past is more context-aware tasks. I've got tasks in tasker for doing things like when I plug into the headphone jack, either my podcasts app or music app pops up (depending on which was accessed last).
Obviously I'm more of a power user, but I really think iOS/iPad OS could benefit from a workflow subsystem. Things like activities in Android and the AppleScript system in macOS are insanely powerful for professional users. Unfortunately, it seems like most Apple apps in macOS seem to be doing away with AppleScript API's.
With iOS 13 it gets added as a default app and the shortcuts can be run automatically by triggers, so it's like a more user friendly and natively integrated version of Tasker.
It seems like the triggers in iOS 13b1 are Time of Day - Alarm (Stopped or started) - Apple Watch workout - Arrive/Leave Location - Connect to CarPlay - Airplane Mode - WiFi - BlueTooth - Do Not Disturb - Low Power Mode - NFC Tag - Open App (ex. “When I Open Reddit”)
Android has supported exactly this since 1.5 (2009).
> The actual concept, at least as of iPadOS (as opposed to iOS 11 and 12), is more like macOS' Spaces or Mission Control.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. Multiple workspaces aren't exactly a new innovation, and Mission Control just seems to be a fancier but less usable variant of alt+tab.
But I think those widgets are still so Vista/Dashboard-like in nature; they're made to look good and present simple information, but rare are the widgets that are generally more useful than the features built directly into the launcher (of which my favourite Android launcher remains Nova).
> I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. Multiple workspaces aren't exactly a new innovation
I didn't say the iPadOS implementation was a new innovation. You might be trying to read something into what I said that isn't there.
> Mission Control just seems to be a fancier but less usable variant of alt+tab
The difference is that Mission Control doesn't just handle open windows or apps, it also handles groups of windows (Spaces). It's also far from being less usable, especially if you are accustomed to using multitouch gestures — and with things like MacBook or Magic Trackpads, the crowd of people who're allergic to taking their hands of the keyboard no longer have the monopoly on productivity.
Basically, they took that productivity and brought it to a touch-first system, making it work for touch.
Not a new innovation, no. But the best kind of innovation: taking something that exists and improving upon it.
(And iOS already has Cmd-Tab support)
Words hurt, friend ;)
Edit: wary not weary lol
Garner attributes the error—among pros, anyway—to closeness to "leery". I'd guess it's more often just bad phonemic awareness when committed by the general public, though.
I have a 30$ 8BitDo Bluetooth controller (that works on PS4, Xbox, Switch, Windows, MacOs) that I'd love to just throw in my travel bag with my iPad when I'm on the road.
- SMB fileshare and SD card access in Files on iOS.
- PS4 and Xbox One gamepad support for the HomePod & iOS.
2 - Type in your math problem.
Similar to google search in capability as far as I've seen.
This is because iPadOS is just a marketing name for iOS 13. iPadOS still runs the same Springboard as iOS and is referred as iOS internally.
Pixel 3A comes with a USB C to A (female) adapter in the box which makes it seem like this kind of thing is going mainstream.
Seriously, am I being gaslighted here? The Files app is already available on iOS 12, I think it was introduced in 11, and it's definitely on iPhones.
Everybody talking about it like a hypothetical iPad-only app is seriously confusing me.
It has both lightning and USB connections.
That sounds useful. Reaching NeXTSTEP functionality soon enough.
> desktop sites are now the default in Safari
Surely it's not some kind of meddling with the device width to make responsive web design even more confusing. That would be very odd.
My hope is that it's some kind of user agent manipulation that thwarts device sniffing so you don't see a mobile phone stylesheet or get redirected to a mobile site while using your iPad.
I don't have the betas, but I expect Apple is applying this automatically based on viewport size. Full screen Safari instance? Desktop page. Narrow viewport in split or slide-over multitasking? Mobile page.
Wow. I've somehow missed this little gem. I usually requested the desktop site via the share sheet option but this is far nicer. Ditto for a quick way to disable content blockers. Thanks!
(Hopefully I can remember this tip next time I suddenly realize I have 200+ tabs.)
To your point about request desktop site being in the share sheet, that's true. But recently closed tabs are not.
Advanced iOS features are definitely less discoverable. But it's a trade-off for how easy the essentials are.
On the desktop-only site side, it looks like Apple has also done some interaction refinements for problems touch-based users can hit on these sites, especially around distinct hover vs. click interactions, the need to "tap-twice" to essentially "focus then click", etc.
All of the "evergreen" browsers have a mobile design view built into their dev tools these days. You can enable that, switch between specific device screen profiles, and continuously drag the "screen size" handles to watch your site's behavior at different sizes. This is great for development, since your web inspector view stays at full size.
Combining CSS media queries with CSS flexbox is a hugely powerful way customize the end-user experience for different devices. Flexbox not only makes basic layout adaptations straightforward (or free!), it lets you handle some otherwise tricky cases using tools like reordering support.
It's probably also worth searching for "mobile first web design" for further resources.
But go to icab mobile, set user agent to desktop, and the sites load and work perfectly.