This is hardly surprising, but I (and, I’m sure, many others) would be curious to hear your thoughts on this. Most of the reactions so far are… well, the same as always. It’s amazing/it’s terrible/it’s meh. But, since I’m terribly good at looking past metaphorical horizons, I’m eager for some classic Snarkmarket: that refusal to imagine a future that is simply a slightly changed repetition of the present but, rather, something that’s often full of hope. That’s a silly to place on an electronic device — but it’s the model and the paradigm that I’m always interested in, and that’s what always fascinates me about Apple launches (and Balk’s comment about the iPad being Obama nailed at least part of that desire).
But you’re sick, Tim’s busy etc., I know. Just thinking out loud here.
The gauntlet has been laid! Or, no, that’s not quite right. The signal fires of Gondor have been lit! It will take a day or two of hard riding, but know that we shall aid you in this time of need.
See — when challenges are phrased in terms of Gondorian fires being lit, how can I *not* turn to you guys for inspiration? :)
But, clunky comment aside, what I think I’m a bit tired of is responses that think of something like the iPad in terms of how particular business models will change or, similarly, how particular organisations or industries will be saved. It’s important, certainly, but not my primary concern.
What I’m more interested in is (as always) the interrelation between form and content particularly when that form is, in some sense, the ineffable new — the form waiting to find its shape. What I’ve always found fascinating about touch screen interfaces is their malleability, the way they invoke the familiar by mimicking materiality — motion, touch etc. — while superseding their constraints, so that, for example, that photograph you just ‘touched’ (but didn’t) becomes a video. So, to what extent might touch-based tablets in general form a cohesive, logical and historical form?- perhaps because of the way they rely on the metaphors of a kind of physical relationship that they aren’t limited by.
Anyway, I know it wasn’t in response to the fires of Gondor being lit, but if at some point you ride down a mountainside on a white horse bathed in light… bonus points. :)
Youse guys — always ahead of the curve you are.
This is hardly surprising, but I (and, I’m sure, many others) would be curious to hear your thoughts on this. Most of the reactions so far are… well, the same as always. It’s amazing/it’s terrible/it’s meh. But, since I’m terribly good at looking past metaphorical horizons, I’m eager for some classic Snarkmarket: that refusal to imagine a future that is simply a slightly changed repetition of the present but, rather, something that’s often full of hope. That’s a silly to place on an electronic device — but it’s the model and the paradigm that I’m always interested in, and that’s what always fascinates me about Apple launches (and Balk’s comment about the iPad being Obama nailed at least part of that desire).
But you’re sick, Tim’s busy etc., I know. Just thinking out loud here.
Goddamit. “NOT terribly good at looking past horizons”.
The gauntlet has been laid! Or, no, that’s not quite right. The signal fires of Gondor have been lit! It will take a day or two of hard riding, but know that we shall aid you in this time of need.
See — when challenges are phrased in terms of Gondorian fires being lit, how can I *not* turn to you guys for inspiration? :)
But, clunky comment aside, what I think I’m a bit tired of is responses that think of something like the iPad in terms of how particular business models will change or, similarly, how particular organisations or industries will be saved. It’s important, certainly, but not my primary concern.
What I’m more interested in is (as always) the interrelation between form and content particularly when that form is, in some sense, the ineffable new — the form waiting to find its shape. What I’ve always found fascinating about touch screen interfaces is their malleability, the way they invoke the familiar by mimicking materiality — motion, touch etc. — while superseding their constraints, so that, for example, that photograph you just ‘touched’ (but didn’t) becomes a video. So, to what extent might touch-based tablets in general form a cohesive, logical and historical form?- perhaps because of the way they rely on the metaphors of a kind of physical relationship that they aren’t limited by.
Anyway, I know it wasn’t in response to the fires of Gondor being lit, but if at some point you ride down a mountainside on a white horse bathed in light… bonus points. :)