Why does anyone care about the App store?

[J515OP]

I do remember a few short yrs ago there were hardly any apps and the software was buggy as hell, slow- lagged all the time, wifi issues etc. All you heard than was Apple have so many apps etc.

It is also worth remembering that the only way to do things in Android or iOS is through apps or via limited mobile browsers. Even buggy and limited apps were better than nothing (unless you were content having just the basics phone/music/video/email/internet/maps). Therefor it was critical for Android and iOS to have app stores supplying apps. Obviously this is not the case with full blown computers where apps through an app store are a supplemental benefit and not an absolute requirement.

iPhone at launch in 2007


Windows in 2007 (Vista)


Edit: Just for the heck of it Surface RT

 

[Tom T]

Thanks.

My question then is only appropriate the the Pro.

I suppose my question for you is why bother with a tablet designed completely around the touch interface. Legacy Windows apps aren't optimized for the touch interface, and you can, for the price, get a more powerful Ultrabook with longer battery life and better connectivity. I guess my point is why pay the premium for the Metro oriented device if you don't see any use for it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I suppose my question for you is why bother with a tablet designed completely around the touch interface. Legacy Windows apps aren't optimized for the touch interface, and you can, for the price, get a more powerful Ultrabook with longer battery life and better connectivity. I guess my point is why pay the premium for the Metro oriented device if you don't see any use for it?

I see a lot of use for it.

I've been using tablets for years and they are vital for me. They allow me to wander around the shop and check job status in real time. In the past, tablets fell short for several reasons;

1. Lack of SSL VPN support
2. Lack of real office apps
3. Lack of support for ERP systems

The Surface pro takes care of all three issues, in a tablet format. Touch is a novelty, but the Surface has a full function keyboard and mouse pad, which with that I5 makes it a serious computing platform.

Touch on a tablet has some use, but on the desktop it has more disadvantages than advantages. That doesn't mean that the Surface isn't a good device, just the opposite. Fast, powerful, excellent connectivity, excellent display, and reasonable battery life.

I didn't spend nearly $1,200 to play Angry Birds, the Android did that fine. I bought a Surface to take advantage of 30 years of serious productivity software in a mobility package.

 

[J515OP]

I suppose my question for you is why bother with a tablet designed completely around the touch interface. Legacy Windows apps aren't optimized for the touch interface, and you can, for the price, get a more powerful Ultrabook with longer battery life and better connectivity. I guess my point is why pay the premium for the Metro oriented device if you don't see any use for it?

Ah, but one doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. "Legacy Windows apps" simply means traditional computer programs not downloaded through the MS store. There is no reason these "legacy apps" can't be touch oriented/update enabled and have nothing to do with the app store. For example take a web browser. Firefox or Chrome could push an update making them touch friendly if they wanted to without having anything to do with the app store.

Edit: I see you meant this in response to the mouse point not the general topic. That makes sense

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ah, but one doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. "Legacy Windows apps" simply means traditional computer programs not downloaded through the MS store. There is no reason these "legacy apps" can't be touch oriented/update enabled and have nothing to do with the app store. For example take a web browser. Firefox or Chrome could push an update making them touch friendly if they wanted to without having anything to do with the app store.

Edit: I see you meant this in response to the mouse point not the general topic. That makes sense

I agree that the mouse will fade, just not that touch will replace it. Motion sensing technology such as Kinect simply makes a lot more sense.

 

[kristalsoldier]

I agree that the mouse will fade, just not that touch will replace it. Motion sensing technology such as Kinect simply makes a lot more sense.

...and eventually via neural control!

 

[J515OP]

I agree that the mouse will fade, just not that touch will replace it. Motion sensing technology such as Kinect simply makes a lot more sense.

https://www.leapmotion.com/

[video=youtube;3b4w749Tud8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b4w749Tud8&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[bryanhayn]

This too: http://getmyo.com/

 

[J515OP]

This too: http://getmyo.com/

Hadn't seen that one before looks pretty cool.

[video=youtube;CprHRsa1OTo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CprHRsa1OTo[/video]

 

[R0bR]

The misconception of touch screens for use while on the desktop, whether it be with laptops or full desktop workstations, is that you would use touch only making your arm tired hanging in air all the time. In reality touch just becomes another method to add to mouse and keyboard use and you use all three depending on what is appropriate or more productive. I have the Dell XPS 12 hybrid ultra book and I use all three because there are times when touch is faster. Also, many complain about touch makes a mess of your screen. Well for years I didn't have touch and my screen was often a mess just from dust alone, so I wipe my screen just as much with touch as I did prior to touch.

 

[Uncensored2008]

...and eventually via neural control!

That's a long way off, motion sensing is proven technology.

 

[kristalsoldier]

That's a long way off, motion sensing is proven technology.

For sure...that was more meant in a tongue-in-cheek way!