My previous article about the iPad, Yes to everything, was difficult to write because, as I was drafting it, one observation led to another couple of thoughts, which in turn begot other thoughts… It was getting hard to provide a cohesive discourse. What I did was to gather as many thoughts as possible in a coherent whole, and leave additional stray observations as a coda. But that ultimately resulted in a very long piece. So, before hitting the Publish button, I decided to leave those stray observations out and write a standalone ‘addendum’ piece — the one you’re reading now. 

Meanwhile, I received the most varied feedback and remarks about Yes to everything, and so in this piece I’ve also added my responses to a few remarks worth of consideration.

1. The feedback

It went pretty much as expected: 1) The article was largely ignored by the higher circles of Apple and tech punditry. 2) I received positive feedback and praise by some people, a few of them exactly catching what I meant to say. 3) I received a considerable amount of private communications, the sheer majority from incensed iPad fans, many completely misunderstanding every word I wrote. (How do you manage to do that, by the way?)

When I write something, I want to express my thoughts and observations as clearly as I possibly can. For me, it’s never a matter of ‘being right at all costs’. If I get some facts wrongly, I have no problems in admitting my mistake. Constructive feedback is always very welcome. What I do not tolerate are personal attacks, people who put words I haven’t said in my mouth, and people who write me emails nerdsplaining me things as if I haven’t used all kinds of computing devices since the early 1980s or seen a goddamn user interface for the past 35 years or so. 

What I do not tolerate is the utter toxicity some people display the second your views start differing from theirs even in the slightest. What’s even more tragicomic is the underlying misunderstanding and point-missing: writing me a message in all caps ‘shouting’, You don’t get it! You don’t know what you’re talking about! The iPad is awesome and I use it to do all the things I need — when in my piece I literally wrote:

Others mistake my criticism for the iPad at the conceptual level for criticism aimed at the device itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do think the iPad is an impressive device. I don’t deny it’s an engineering feat. I absolutely think you can do all kinds of serious work on it. And I’m happy for all those who are able to make the most of it. 

So hey, keyboard warriors, how about you re-read my articles more slowly before jumping at my throat with your nonsense? 

2. So, what kind of innovation would I like?

A few people asked me more or less the same question: Then what kind of technological innovation are you craving for? Well, apparently one I haven’t seen in a while: ideas, projects, designs, plans. One of the things that struck me most about computer scientists of decades past — one thing I was reminded of as I transcribed the interviews I’ve recently published here, especially the one with Alan Kay — is that their approach seemed to be something like ‘ideas first, technology later’. 

Some of them had complete visions of what they wanted computing to become, and then they started working on them to do everything they could to make those visions become true. Sometimes there were no detailed plans, but intuitions, insights, that were enough to point towards a direction. When a technological advancement was achieved, such as the microprocessor, it made previously-theorised designs and applications happen for real. 

What I’m seeing today is more like the opposite approach: a laser focus on technological advancements to hopefully extract some good ideas and use cases from. Where there are some ideas, or sparks, they seem hopelessly limited in scope or unimaginatively iterative, anchored to the previous incarnation or design — like, How can we make this better, sleeker, more polished? Whereas there seems to be a dearth of questions like, What’s next? Where do we go from here? How can we circumvent these interface limitations? How can we meaningfully change the way X is done? and so forth. General questions, larger in scope, not tied to a single product. Heck, not tied to the previous iteration of a product, even.

Today, both manufacturers and users have this fascination for the product, the gadget, the tool. People want the faster horse, tech companies give them faster horses and focus almost exclusively on how to make the next horses even faster. Perhaps I’m being hopelessly idealistic here, but I would like to see more fascination for the purpose, for the exploration of different ways to do things and achieve goals, for the end more than the mere means to an end. When Project Courier first emerged back in 2009, I remember Microsoft being harshly criticised for making concept videos instead of releasing an actual product. I still think that a ‘concept video’, when thoughtful, may have some value, in that it presents an idea, or even a complete design, of a possible alternative path or solution. And while it may still be unfeasible in the here and now (for lack of essential technologies, or simply because it breaks a lot of conventions), it remains an inspiration, a concept that is now out there and may turn out to be the decisive spark towards something truly innovative.

3. User interface comparisons: ‘But the Mac UI isn’t great either…’

A lot of people keep turning this matter into a Mac vs iPad shoot-out. It is not. Think about it this way: if one criticised the user interface of an MP3 player, would you respond by saying “But the user interface of a Hi-Fi stereo system isn’t great either”? Well, you could, but that would be missing the point, because the MP3 player’s whole reason of being is that it’s supposed to be an easier-to-use device than the stationary Hi-Fi stereo system you have at home. The way it is designed, the use cases it’s been designed for, demand more immediacy, simplicity, and friendliness. 

Similarly, if one of the iPad’s core reasons for being is to be a more immediate, friendlier, easier to use device than a traditional computer, its user interface must take all this into account. User interface complexities are expected and somewhat more forgivable on traditional computers — because of the very nature of the computer and the ways you use it. Despite some superficial interface similarities, these are different systems with different approaches and expectations. 

If in becoming the perfect laptop replacement, the iPad becomes effectively a laptop, with a user interface that is just as complex, then what’s the point? Having a touch interface as a differentiator? Other laptops have it. Having pen input? Other laptops have it.

So, I’m not criticising the user interface of the iPad by saying it’s ‘worse’ than the Mac’s. I’m criticising it because I think that a device like the iPad ought to have a better one, period. A device that is aimed at being the better alternative to a traditional computer ought to have the better user interface it can have for such a role.

From what I’m seeing, though, iteration after iteration iOS on the iPad is incorporating an increasing number of features and concepts that come straight from traditional computing. Not a bad thing, per se, but it adds weight to an otherwise sleek user interface. And since familiarity is the easiest shortcut, these features are added in such a way that makes the iPad’s user interface become more similar to a traditional computer’s interface. The conceptual challenge would be: how to incorporate the functionality without adding the same look and paradigm? How to incorporate the feature without adding weight and friction?

Soon you’ll be able to use Photoshop (or a similar app) on the iPad in laptop configuration, moving around the app’s interface with a mouse or trackpad, using it to draw and select stuff. And the experience would be strikingly similar to the one you had in the 1990s, using Photoshop on a PowerBook with System 7 or Mac OS 8. That’s why I keep wondering if maybe there’s another way to do things, one that’s not so riddled of old paradigms and déjà vu.

4. The ‘obsession’ with Jobs

Of course my mentioning Steve Jobs yet again caused controversy and triggered exasperated responses. I’m not ‘obsessed’ with Steve Jobs, as some of you wrote me. I know he’s not around anymore. I know that wondering what he would do if he were still around has no practical value. I was simply speculating on ‘the road not taken’. It may be useless at the pragmatic level, but I find it to be an important thought experiment. A way to zoom out of the specificity of the device and make more general observations. Using a well worn metaphor, we’re so mesmerised by the trees today, that we can’t seem to wonder about the forest anymore. 

Despite what you may think, I don’t idolise Jobs. He had his flaws and his blind spots, but he was a better thinker than many others in this industry. On the one hand, he had that ‘ideas first, technology later’ approach I was talking about in point №2 above; on the other, he had the ability to turn his vision into something commercially feasible (and often successful). Wondering what Jobs would do, ultimately, means wondering what someone with his perspective and mindset would do, not always and necessarily Steve the man. I miss figures who can think like him today. Today we have a lot of business strategists in tech, but so very few ‘practical visionaries’. 

(By the way, I also wonder what Nikola Tesla would do if he were still alive. The use of clean energy would probably be more widespread. I want another Nikola Tesla, more than someone producing vehicles in his name.)

5. The nerve I struck

It seems that, in all this, the nerve I managed to hit can be summarised as follows: that while I consider the iPad a great device, I don’t think of it as being ‘special’. Or as special as a lot of iPad users seem to consider it.

I respect the fact that the iPad may be a revolutionary device for them personally. I very much agree that the iPad has been an important device in making a lot of people less averse to technology by being less intimidating than a computer. But as iPadOS develops, I’m wondering for how long the iPad can be used as best example of an intuitive, non-intimidating device.

I was in one of the stores in Spain the day when the iPad became first available in 2010. I saw all kinds of people — small children, older folks, non-technical people — immediately knowing their way around it. In 2020, I’ve seen more first-timers struggle with it. Maybe they just tap on an app and fiddle with it. Or they swipe a bit around the interface, but there’s more hesitation. Some, once they’re in an app, find difficult to get out of it. I know, for us geeks it’s hard to put ourselves in such inexperienced shoes. But not everyone shares our interest or involvement in these matters. 

6. Nothing personal

Understand this: I’m not against the iPad, nor am I against iPad users. I’ve been told that in my criticism towards the iPad I have also sounded judgemental and dismissive of those who have chosen it as their preferred solution. I’m not. But I certainly am judgemental and dismissive of more toxic iPad users whose attitude comes across as very smug, as if to say, We’re the enlightened, we’re living the future, and you don’t get it.

I certainly don’t think less of a person who has chosen the iPad as their main or sole environment. That would be quite immature on my part. But I’ve received some unpublishable feedback from people who made very clear they do think less of me because I have not chosen the iPad way. This is what happens when people get religious about their preferences.

And finally, speaking of preferences, if I’m staying on the Mac there’s nothing religious about it. In recent times I have been quite critical of Mac OS as well, in case you’ve missed it. It’s simply the environment in which I work best. I am waiting for the next best thing, and at the moment the iPad is just not it for me.