Support NeoGAF

[sportzhead]

Was just thinking, I would love a Roller Coaster Tycoon 2 port for the iPad.

 

[mrkgoo]

I accept all these points, but it just amounts to them taking the iPod Touch and making it bigger. To be fair, I think the iPod Touch/iPhone was the single greatest gadget of the 00s so I guess this is the natural step up, just not as revolutionary as everyone seems to be making out.

Yeah it is pretty much a bigger iPod. And that was disappointing compared to the hype. We were most definitely expecting a revolution. We sort of got it in a way. No denying the touchscreen is a gamechanger. I just wish we had the answer we were all expecting.

I have to keep reminding myself of the possibilities of the ipad, or I will waver.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Sorry if old

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/30/omnigroup-commits-to-bring-five-productivity-apps-to-ipad/

OmniPlan for Mac OS X

In a blog post, Omni Group has committed to bringing five of their productivity apps to the iPad including OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, OmniPlan, OmniFocus, and OmniGraphSketcher.
Remember how Macintosh was intended to be the computer "for the rest of us"? That's what we feel Apple’s iPad is: the best computing device for most of the things people use computers for. (Or, as Apple puts it, "the best way to experience the web, email, and photos.") It’s the computer people can sit down and start using immediately, without training, whether they're 2 or 92.

We're really excited about Apple’s iPad, and we want to make all of our products available for it as soon as we can.

The Omni Group started life as NeXTStep developers back in 1989. The company made the transition to Apple when Apple acquired NeXT in 1997 and made NeXTStep the basis for Mac OS X.

Omni Group had only previously brought OmniFocus to the iPhone which won a Best of Show Award at Macworld 2008. Obviously, their iPad commitment is far more significant which includes applications which range from project management, diagrams/flowcharts, outlines, and personal task management. Their plans to aggressively move to the iPad will actually delay some future Mac versions of their software.

 

[Tobor]

Sorry if old

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/30/omnigroup-commits-to-bring-five-productivity-apps-to-ipad/

OmniPlan for Mac OS X

In a blog post, Omni Group has committed to bringing five of their productivity apps to the iPad including OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, OmniPlan, OmniFocus, and OmniGraphSketcher.
Remember how Macintosh was intended to be the computer "for the rest of us"? That's what we feel Apple’s iPad is: the best computing device for most of the things people use computers for. (Or, as Apple puts it, "the best way to experience the web, email, and photos.") It’s the computer people can sit down and start using immediately, without training, whether they're 2 or 92.

We're really excited about Apple’s iPad, and we want to make all of our products available for it as soon as we can.

The Omni Group started life as NeXTStep developers back in 1989. The company made the transition to Apple when Apple acquired NeXT in 1997 and made NeXTStep the basis for Mac OS X.

Omni Group had only previously brought OmniFocus to the iPhone which won a Best of Show Award at Macworld 2008. Obviously, their iPad commitment is far more significant which includes applications which range from project management, diagrams/flowcharts, outlines, and personal task management. Their plans to aggressively move to the iPad will actually delay some future Mac versions of their software.

It's a little stale, but I didn't realize they were delaying Mac projects. Wow.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Here's the way I see Apple's vision for this 'simple computer'.


We've been through this before it came out.

Your desktop computer is a file based computer.

On your desktop, you put your files into folders, directories within folders, directories. If you want to watch a movie, or edit a document, or open a photo, you find the file and double-click and the computer chooses the application and opens it.

This is how the operating system is organised. But is that how we actually use them? To be honest, I very seldomly go browsing through my folders. If I want to play song, I don't go looking for the file. I open iTunes and get iTunes to find it. How often do you just open Word, and click 'open recent' to get to that document you were last working on? Sure, you go looking for PDFs to view, but that's because there isn't a default application to organise those for you (actually, I have an app for that). That it's it's exactly the opposite of what the OS is designed for. You choose the app, the computer finds the file.

If this is how we use a computer, why not design one around that?

 

[blu]

Modern UNIX schedulers absolutely can and do handle "activity" or "workload" oriented environments. Your mythical "dumb multitasking" does not exist, and has not existed for decades. The whole point of all of the advanced priority levels in UNIX is that they are specifically designed for what you are trying to argue in your "activity" model. This is basis for how i/o systems work in UNIX.

so now io-based prioritization somehow solves the fundamental problems of activity prioritization? right. you and me must be living in fairly different universes when it comes to process management. let me tell you how it is in my universe:

in my universe the fact that some snoozing process will get a momentary boost to handle its stale io does not help me one bit with the fact i have a user process on the foreground i really care not to be interrupted at this particular moment (given no peer of higher priority was originally waiting for attention, of course).

I can be as granular as I want in UNIX. I can have attributes defined in kernel or user space for priority control as well. I can define which users, groups, processes or threads have the authority to escalate or decrease priority. I can define scenarios that can context switch to RT at any time. I can define certain i/o subsystems to have whatever priority or scheduling they need, in both kernel and user space.

great. can you escalate your lowly commoner process to RT and guarantee it will not be interrupted until an arbitrary remote moment in time? (that was a rhetorical question. if you could actually do that in your brand of unix you'd better change it now for something that had a bit better security). perhaps change the scheduling quantum per-process/per-thread? can you instruct the scheduler to not interrupt this process for this number of scheduling quanta because you really, really, need it uninterrupted, despite the fact there are other processes at the same and/or higher priority levels? oh look, you escalated to RT, guess what - you're not alone there!

pal, you can pull up whatever scheduling augmentations you fancy - those will not solve fundamental problems that can be solved only by carefully premeditated cooperation designs.

As far as true real time OS use in aerospace, that has nothing to do with what this device does.

no, but they have a lot to do with addressing fundamental scheduling problems, which according to you do not exist. the relation to the ipad is circumstantial.

Real RT OSes were/are used mainly for atomicity of time, memory limitations and legacy systems/code.

right. i'm curious how a preemptive scheduler would pose any sort of memory consumption problems. as re legacy code - you must be speaking of legacy code dating from before the age of preemptive schedulers, right? because if it's legacy from the previous similar project - why did they chose a non-preemptive RT OS for that in the first place? surely they had the option to use preemptive schedulers, unless said previous project was from the 1950's.

which leaves us with 'atomicity of time', which is another way of saying 'don't interrupt me at the wrong moment, please', or did i get that wrong?

The argument to use cooperative multitasking is not only a chronological step backwards, but also a technical step backwards. Like I mentioned before, I believe Apple is doing this by design. I would imagine for consistency with the iphone OS and respect for memory limitations.

don't worry - apple would never drop their preemptive scheduler - it's just not feasible. what they can introduce, though, is something that alleviates/promotes activity-oriented scheduling. which brings us back to square one, where foreground/background/on-weekends-only/etc questions of meta-prioritization reside.

 

[Shogmaster]

We're already past that point. You can write a 3GS only app right now. There are already a few on the app store. The Unreal Engine Demo that Epic has been showing off is 3GS only as well.

Well that goes along with my question. Now will we see yet another category? Clearly, Cortex A9 is as big jump from Cortex A8 as Cortex A8 was from ARM11.

iPad apps will be in a separate category from the others in the App Store. Scott Forstall said something like that in the keynote.

I guess we will.

 

[Buckethead]

Berry berry long Hands On video. Peep it with your peepers, now I'm going to sleepers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JPTaoDwOz4

 

[Keylime]

Have they gone into how you get files into these iWork apps from another computer?

Would you have to email yourself the files or is there a more elegant solution?

 

[Seth C]

Berry berry long Hands On video. Peep it with your peepers, now I'm going to sleepers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JPTaoDwOz4

Lots of cool stuff to watch, but the guy is...wow. "Woooo, where'd my head go? Ahahaha."

 

[Buckethead]

Holy shit, Beeker:

- Apple will deliver aggressive updates to iPhone that Android/Google won't be able to keep up with
- iPad is up there with the iPhone and Mac as the most important products Jobs has been a part of
- Regarding the Lala acquisition, Apple was interested in bringing those people into the iTunes team
- Next iPhone coming is an A+ update
- New Macs for 2010 are going to take Apple to the next level
- Blu-Ray software is a mess, and Apple will wait until sales really start to take off before implementing it.

"We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them, he says".

"Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy, he says. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, he says. The world is moving to HTML5".

Source: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/31...-google-adobe-next-iphone-2010-macs-and-more/

 

[Tobor]

Have they gone into how you get files into these iWork apps from another computer?

Would you have to email yourself the files or is there a more elegant solution?

Definitely elegant:

Additionally, iPad apps can now specify that their documents be shared wirelessly. With that configuration, the iPad will make available each apps' documents, allowing the user to wirelessly mount their iPad via WiFi and simply drag and drop files back and forth between it and their desktop computer.

On the desktop system, the iPad will show up as a share containing a documents folder for each app that enables sharing. For example, a user with iWork apps will be able to wirelessly connect to their iPad as if it were a directly connected drive, and simply drag spreadsheet, presentation, or word processing files between their local system and the mobile device as desired.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ng_file_access_wireless_sharing_for_ipad.html

 

[SnakeXs]

I wonder if one can simply work on the files on a Mac, while they're still on the iPad. That would be svelte.

Holy shit, Beeker:





Source: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/31...-google-adobe-next-iphone-2010-macs-and-more/

As I read that, O Fortuna began playing in my head.

 

[SnakeXs]

dp damnit

 

[Zaptruder]

Too big to carry in a pocket. Comparisons will be made with laptops and netbooks.

My feeling is that it'll be more successful than the Macbook Air... but it's not going to redefine the market. It'll just be filling a growing niche... but it'll still be a niche until heads up display technology matures and becomes common place.

 

[Buckethead]

As I read that, O Fortuna began playing in my head.

I've been thinking before the iPad announcement and especially afterwards, that Apple has being kinda coasting since the App Store came out.
My conclusion is that this just the cat playing with the mice until her fangs are ready.

First strike in March, followed by June, and repeated until all the mice are dead or have scurried back into their holes. :lol

Apple's year is about to get epic.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

Berry berry long Hands On video. Peep it with your peepers, now I'm going to sleepers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JPTaoDwOz4

Fuck the haters, that looks slick as hell.

 

[numble]

Steve must be mad about the Droid Does commercials.

 

[syoaran]

Have they gone into how you get files into these iWork apps from another computer?

Would you have to email yourself the files or is there a more elegant solution?

More importantly - does it store files on the ipad or are we going to have to do this all by wifi for remote saves - right now the offical software doesnt allow doc/pdf documents to be saved to the hd. I'm hoping that I'd be able to save pdf documents to the ipad and read them in iworks (or if they allow saves for it, some sort of offical adobe reader app would be nice)

 

[tfur]

so now io-based prioritization somehow solves the fundamental problems of activity prioritization? right. you and me must be living in fairly different universes when it comes to process management. let me tell you how it is in my universe:

in my universe the fact that some snoozing process will get a momentary boost to handle its stale io does not help me one bit with the fact i have a user process on the foreground i really care not to be interrupted at this particular moment (given no peer of higher priority was originally waiting for attention, of course).

I already told you what solves your "activity" problem. I was giving another example with i/o prioritization as another explanation of NOT "dumb multi tasking."

Video, network, disk etc are systems subject to whatever priority you desire. Yes, you can have that process not interrupted. We have been doing this for years now.

Can you give me some real world example where it relates to the tasks that the iPad does, and where a multitasking operating system fails at what is being done with the iPad.

great. can you escalate your lowly commoner process to RT and guarantee it will not be interrupted until an arbitrary remote moment in time? (that was a rhetorical question. if you could actually do that in your brand of unix you'd better change it now for something that had a bit better security). perhaps change the scheduling quantum per-process/per-thread? can you instruct the scheduler to not interrupt this process for this number of scheduling quanta because you really, really, need it uninterrupted, despite the fact there are other processes at the same and/or higher priority levels? oh look, you escalated to RT, guess what - you're not alone there!

Not sure why it's rhetorical... Yes, you can, but its not some "remote moment in time". It is escalating threads to RT fixed priority, with fixed time quantum.

How would this be a security problem? Server crash? No... User privileged escalation? No. These are process/threads that run with fixed real time priority. This is not a security issue as it would be in a cooperative multi-tasking environment, where I can simply bring down a whole os with a single program.

pal, you can pull up whatever scheduling augmentations you fancy - those will not solve fundamental problems that can be solved only by carefully premeditated cooperation designs.

no, but they have a lot to do with addressing fundamental scheduling problems, which according to you do not exist. the relation to the ipad is circumstantial.

You seem to have a hard on for true real time OS systems. Something that has no bearing or relation to what the iPad does, and something that is not required for such a device. It seems like you are trying to correlate the desire to have an application run without performance issues, with two different things: cooperative multitasking and real time operating systems. Neither of those are needed to do what the iPad does.

right. i'm curious how a preemptive scheduler would pose any sort of memory consumption problems. as re legacy code - you must be speaking of legacy code dating from before the age of preemptive schedulers, right? because if it's legacy from the previous similar project - why did they chose a non-preemptive RT OS for that in the first place? surely they had the option to use preemptive schedulers, unless said previous project was from the 1950's.

which leaves us with 'atomicity of time', which is another way of saying 'don't interrupt me at the wrong moment, please', or did i get that wrong?

Memory? For the same reason non preemption was used. To context switch you need memory space to hold the process tables. Further, advanced schedulers data structures in themselves take up space.

don't worry - apple would never drop their preemptive scheduler - it's just not feasible. what they can introduce, though, is something that alleviates/promotes activity-oriented scheduling. which brings us back to square one, where foreground/background/on-weekends-only/etc questions of meta-prioritization reside.

Oh I am not worried, I know that cooperative multitasking isn't coming back.

 

[xnipx]

So since html5 is the future can the iPhone/ipad support animations/sites using it as is?

 

[Tobor]

More importantly - does it store files on the ipad or are we going to have to do this all by wifi for remote saves - right now the offical software doesnt allow doc/pdf documents to be saved to the hd. I'm hoping that I'd be able to save pdf documents to the ipad and read them in iworks (or if they allow saves for it, some sort of offical adobe reader app would be nice)

Yes it does, you just need a third party app that supports it. Any PDF reader on the App Store should be able to do that.

 

[maharg]

I really don't see what the RTOS tangent has to do with anything.

 

[nemesun]

I've been thinking of getting an E-reader but backed out each time I weighed the pros and cons of getting one. Ipad seems like a nifty device, If its library turn out to be on the same quality as amazon's then I might make the plunge.

 

[tfur]

I really don't see what the RTOS tangent has to do with anything.

I'm sorry and I also agree. I do not see what it has to do with this as well, I was just trying to rebut a few statements.

 

[Juice]

So I've spent ~20 hours so far this weekend programming on the iPad. I started out without a clue what I'd want to develop, and now I'm about a full iteration in headlong into something that'll probably take the full two months to finish in time for launch

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Fuck the haters, that looks slick as hell.

i totally agree. wow.

 

[Juice]

Have they gone into how you get files into these iWork apps from another computer?

Would you have to email yourself the files or is there a more elegant solution?

VERY elegant solution exists. And not just for Apple's apps.

 

[Tobor]

VERY elegant solution exists. And not just for Apple's apps.

This was going to be my question for you. Can third party apps use the new sharing feature? Sounds like yes.

 

[Sean]

Holy shit, Beeker:

Source: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/31...-google-adobe-next-iphone-2010-macs-and-more/

As I read that, O Fortuna began playing in my head.

Damn I love how Steve is so blunt. He had to know this was gonna leak out, it's almost like he's publicly declaring war on Google. Gets me hyped for what they've got planned for the iPhone this year.

 

[mrklaw]

Yeah it is pretty much a bigger iPod. And that was disappointing compared to the hype. We were most definitely expecting a revolution. We sort of got it in a way. No denying the touchscreen is a gamechanger. I just wish we had the answer we were all expecting.

I have to keep reminding myself of the possibilities of the ipad, or I will waver.

What was the answer we were all expecting? The rumor thread was full of questions and anticipation but not many concrete expectations

 

[SnakeXs]

So I've spent ~20 hours so far this weekend programming on the iPad. I started out without a clue what I'd want to develop, and now I'm about a full iteration in headlong into something that'll probably take the full two months to finish in time for launch

Gold rush 2 confirmed. Never doubt the power of the App Store and developers.

 

[mrklaw]

Apple generally are incredibly smart, but regarding flash and bluray they kist come across as having their heads in the sand, or being incredibly arrogant

say flash is a resource hog and you don't want to support it, but don't just ignore it's popularity on the Internet ('full browser' indeed)

and bluray is a mess? It's going great guns. I don't expect them to build in bluray drives, but ideally a BTO option and at least support in the OS. the world is HD and they have iMovie and final cut - they need bluray support to stop those becoming out of date of nothing else. You sell movies we get it. But iTunes still rips CDs.

 

[Kal]

"- Next iPhone coming is an A+ update"

This is the only thing I care about. ALL OVER MY FACE!!!


Love the iPad but it's just not for me.

 

[mrkgoo]

What was the answer we were all expecting? The rumor thread was full of questions and anticipation but not many concrete expectations

That's just it - we didn't know. We expected Apple to give us the answer to the question about what ultimately makes a tablet, or otherwise a third device in-between a computer and a phone, the thing to get. It has been tried dozens of times, but others didn't have the secret ingredient - we expected Apple to have the answer to what that secret ingredient was (after all, they had it for the iPod and iPhone).

As it turns out, the answer was the same thing that it was for iPhone. I guess people weren't expecting that. That Apple had already solved it. The answer was a multitouch interface simplified application based computer.

 

[mrklaw]

Yep

btw, any info on hoe the book store will work? They made a point on how it was a separate store from iTunes and directly accessed from the iPad. But will it sync with iTunes on your computer, and will you be able to import other epub books?

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Just posted this thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=386289

Seems to bring up a lot of topics regarding digital bookstores in general, Amazon, Kindle, specifically.

 

[mrkgoo]

Yep

btw, any info on hoe the book store will work? They made a point on how it was a separate store from iTunes and directly accessed from the iPad. But will it sync with iTunes on your computer, and will you be able to import other epub books?

No information yet.

It looks like iTunes, so I wouldn't be surprised if you can go to iTunes and there are books there. UNLESS iBooks is ONLY available on the iPad. They really should make a viewer on the Mac as well, that syncs your place. They can then open the market to people who don't have an iPad. The Publishers have got to want that. That said, I doubt they will undermine the iPad itself, at least initially.

No info on other pub, but let's hope so.


SOmething I noticed was that when you rotate the device, even the home screen rotates. 4x5 icon arrangement goes to 5x4. Now I knew this from earlier, but I didn't stop to think about how those icons rearrange.

Seeing it will throw off my OCD for app organising, because where I place the icon on the screen is how I organise. Oh well, I guess I live with it.

Anyway, the slasher video is one of the best hands on demo, simply because the demonstrator knows her stuff (unlike the guy engadget got who was randomly trying gestures to see what would work). It really does look sleek. I think people will change their tune a little when they get their hands on one. The device looks so solid in execution. Smooth, very few flaws.

Whenever new products are announced, the device and usage of it is described and people are left to imagine. Often it turns out to be a much more janky affair than they had envisioned. Like the touch screen doesn't operate under their finger like they thought, or scrolling wasn't as smooth, there are delays in the UI etc.

This is not the case with the iPad. It's amazingly smooth and robust. It works probably even better than you imagine. Man, 54 more days.

 

[mrkgoo]

SOmething I'd like to point out is that the iPad is unequivocally tied in with the iPhone. In development of software, and likely to parallel hardware developments too.

This means the iPhone is not going anywhere in a hurry, and this means the iPad is not going anywhere. All the money and revenue begin poured into developing the iPhone platform is the same thing as developing the iPad as a platform.

On top of that, this project is too important to Steve. He will keep at it out of stubbornness if anything.

Obviously, I'd like to see the platforms diverge to cater for the strengths of each (and apps will most definitely show this), particularly in the OS. But in the mean time, I think the iPad has a lot backing behind it.

 

[mrklaw]

watching that slashgear video makes me really want one. What a difference to have someone demo it that knows what they're doing.

Also, is it me, or is the ibook app identical to Delicious Library's bookshelf view?

 

[mrkgoo]

watching that slashgear video makes me really want one. What a difference to have someone demo it that knows what they're doing.

Also, is it me, or is the ibook app identical to Delicious Library's bookshelf view?

Yup, looks pretty similar to me I don;t have much exposure to Delicilous Library, so my first reaction was that they were ripping off 'Classics' for the iPhone (which has dropped to free at the moment).

 

[Marty Chinn]

watching that slashgear video makes me really want one. What a difference to have someone demo it that knows what they're doing.

Umm, I thought the whole point was the thing was intuitive and that this is aimed at people who aren't comfortable with computers. If it looks so cumbersome when someone doesn't know what they're doing, isn't that a problem for the target market that ths is aiming at?

 

[Sobriquet]

No information yet.

It looks like iTunes, so I wouldn't be surprised if you can go to iTunes and there are books there. UNLESS iBooks is ONLY available on the iPad. They really should make a viewer on the Mac as well, that syncs your place. They can then open the market to people who don't have an iPad. The Publishers have got to want that. That said, I doubt they will undermine the iPad itself, at least initially.

I really hope iBooks will be available for Macs as well. Hell, Windows too.

Also, is it me, or is the ibook app identical to Delicious Library's bookshelf view?

That's the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the app.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

its kinda sad two of my favorite companies are fighting

Google why did you have to start a fight with Apple?

 

[Marty Chinn]

its kinda sad two of my favorite companies are fighting

Google why did you have to start a fight with Apple?

Isn't it because Apple blocked Google apps? Wouldn't that be Apple's fault?

 

[mrklaw]

Umm, I thought the whole point was the thing was intuitive and that this is aimed at people who aren't comfortable with computers. If it looks so cumbersome when someone doesn't know what they're doing, isn't that a problem for the target market that ths is aiming at?

of course. I mean more like when you see people demoing a simple driving game and they're bouncing off the walls all the time. For new products its good to have someone just messing about with it, but also good to get a decent guided tour.

There were a few clunky bits with the iwork apps, and I'm surprised they seem to have double tap for opening things? Hopefully the UI won't get too complicated with more fully featured apps

and playing Devil's Advocate back at you Whats the target market they're aiming at? I want one, and I'm not a granny (or grandad) just yet.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Isn't it because Apple blocked Google apps? Wouldn't that be Apple's fault?

they did?

 

[Timbuktu]

Isn't it because Apple blocked Google apps? Wouldn't that be Apple's fault?

I doubt Google moved into their market because Apple blocked a couple of their apps, and that was probably AT&T's idea anyway. It was alway inevitable that Google would move into every market sooner or latter.

 

[mrkgoo]

Umm, I thought the whole point was the thing was intuitive and that this is aimed at people who aren't comfortable with computers. If it looks so cumbersome when someone doesn't know what they're doing, isn't that a problem for the target market that ths is aiming at?

An incompetent demonstrator can make a rubber bouncy ball look more difficult or cumbersome.

The guy demonstrating to the engadget guy is in a different league to the woman demonstrating to slashgear. It's just about being informed. Slashgear was asking questions about the applications, and the woman was quick to respond with correct answers. Just a smooth demo. She misfired some gestures and taps too, but the demonstration was convincing.

The guy with engadget wasn't sure what the apps were capable of, wasn't sure how to navigate, didn't know answers to questions and so on. In one example he keep clicking on a function that supposedly wasn't implemented yet (search in an iBook). Josh had to let him off the hook and say on his behalf, "Oh, maybe it's not implemented yet." (that said Josh was also trying to do stuff that wasn't available, and insisted on trying, mostly for humour's sake).

You can argue a little about intuitiveness, but it wasn't just about that.

 

[Marty Chinn]

they did?

Ya, go check out the history of Google Voice being blocked from the iPhone.

I doubt Google moved into their market because Apple blocked a couple of their apps, and that was probably AT&T's idea anyway. It was alway inevitable that Google would move into every market sooner or latter.

I don't think that Google wouldn't have moved in, but I think their disputes with Apple over some of their apps made Google sort of set their targets on Apple rather than just entering to get a piece of the pie. Clearly Android was out and starting to spread, but I really think Apple pissing off Google certainly had an effect on their focus now.