Any reason to believe iPad iOS will become similar to Android 3.0 Honeycomb?

[Eso]

iOS was redesigned to take advantage of the larger screen. Both the iPhone and the iPad are based on multitouch input, so there is no reason to change the interface for the sake of change.

Some of the apps were; iOS itself was not. With Honeycomb, you really get the feeling that Google put android on a tablet and then thought, "what needs to change to fit this form factor better?" With iOS, you really get the feeling that Apple put iOS on a tablet and thought, "Why don't we let them put 6 icons on the dock instead of 4!" Here's a few examples of what is different than Android on a phone:

1) Home screen: Search button. Honeycomb has a legitimate desktop with customizable content. Optional widgets (that actually look really handy, re: gmail/calender widget). Shortcuts to much more than just apps. Access to notifications and settings.

2) Browser: Honeycomb has actual tabbed browsing and can optionally support flash.

3) Multitasking: Honeycomb uses fast-app switching and shows a vertical list of thumbnails with the current app state.

4) Notifications: Well... you know.

These are just a few examples of functions that Google modified so they work better on a tablet. Apple didn't change anything about the UI to fit a tablet - even down to the same 4x4 grid of icons on the home screen. Where do you think the criticism that the iPad is just a giant iPod Touch stems from?

As far as the thread title goes: no. I don't think Apple will modify the layout of the UI on the iPad with iOS 5.

 

[darngooddesign]

With Honeycomb, you really get the feeling that Google put android on a tablet and then thought, "what needs to change to fit this form factor better?" With iOS, you really get the feeling that Apple put iOS on a tablet and thought, "Why don't we let them put 6 icons on the dock instead of 4!"

Apple change the OS for the iPad, but its changes are more on a detail-level, rather than the overall OS redesign. An examples being, UI elements have been created from scratch for the larger size with different spacing more appropriate to the larger screen. This extends across the OS. Otherwise all elements would be huge and dominate too much of the screen.

As far as Honeycomb being tablet only, while this is true I think you will see may of the tablet OS features apply to the next Android phone OS to where there won't be as much of a difference between the tablet and phone OSes. You will end up with two versions of Honeycomb, or Honeycomb and whatever they call the next phone OS, and the main difference will be how the UI has been reconfigured to fit the different screen sizes.

 

[Eso]

An examples being, UI elements have been created from scratch for the larger size with different spacing more appropriate to the larger screen.

Such as?

 

[Highcroft]

1) Home screen: Search button. Honeycomb has a legitimate desktop with customizable content. Optional widgets (that actually look really handy, re: gmail/calender widget). Shortcuts to much more than just apps. Access to notifications and settings.

2) Browser: Honeycomb has actual tabbed browsing and can optionally support flash.

3) Multitasking: Honeycomb uses fast-app switching and shows a vertical list of thumbnails with the current app state.

4) Notifications: Well... you know.

Also, I wish Apple will be able to scale up apps as well as Android. In fact, I think that Angry Birds looks better on the Nook Color compared to a Captivate while the iPhone version on the iPad looks dreadful.

 

[BaldiMac]

Some of the apps were; iOS itself was not.

Of course it was. New UI elements, new APIs, New core libraries to support the increased real estate. And I don't know why you wouldn't include apps that are part of the OS.

1) Home screen: Search button. Honeycomb has a legitimate desktop with customizable content. Optional widgets (that actually look really handy, re: gmail/calender widget). Shortcuts to much more than just apps. Access to notifications and settings.

How is that significantly different than Android on a phone? I guess the home screen doesn't count as an app. Even though it is.

2) Browser: Honeycomb has actual tabbed browsing and can optionally support flash.

I thought apps don't count.

3) Multitasking: Honeycomb uses fast-app switching and shows a vertical list of thumbnails with the current app state.

Super. A different app switcher.

4) Notifications: Well... you know.

How are they significantly different than Android phone at the OS level?

These are just a few examples of functions that Google modified so they work better on a tablet. Apple didn't change anything about the UI to fit a tablet - even down to the same 4x4 grid of icons on the home screen.

Seriously? Is that your best example? The home screen is the same? Well, except how it is different. Landscape mode for one. More dock items is another. And its not 4x4. Different controls in the dock.

I'll give you that notifications are the same. Everyone knows that should be up for a major overhaul.

Where do you think the criticism that the iPad is just a giant iPod Touch stems from?

People who consider "similar" to equal "same".

 

[Eso]

Of course it was. New UI elements, new APIs, New core libraries to support the increased real estate. And I don't know why you wouldn't include apps that are part of the OS.

What new UI elements?

What API's, split panes and pop-overs?

What core libraries are required to support the increased real estate?

And so what? All that your points indicate is that they slightly expanded UI support for apps. To be honest, nothing that they added was something that wasn't already possible. Motion X GPS on my iPhone uses pop-up menus and iXpensit uses split panes. I have apps that don't use the standard taskbars (completely custom UI).

In any case, the user interface of an app is not relevant to the user interface of the underlying OS.

Every paradigm about iOS on the iPad is identical to that on the iPhone - lock screen, spotlight search, notifications, badges, home screens, local and push notifications, fast app switching, multitasking bar, access to settings, home button functionality.

Super. A different app switcher.

You can't praise the merits of adding functionality for more screen real estate in one instance (core libraries) and discount them in another (app switching).

 

[Zmmyt]

i personally can't wait for iOS 5.

Honeycomb looks very promising and I'm sure Apple has some good ideas to take their iOS to the next level too.

 

[BaldiMac]

What new UI elements?

What API's, split panes and pop-overs?

What core libraries are required to support the increased real estate?

And so what? All that your points indicate is that they slightly expanded UI support for apps. To be honest, nothing that they added was something that wasn't already possible. Motion X GPS on my iPhone uses pop-up menus and iXpensit uses split panes. I have apps that don't use the standard taskbars (completely custom UI).

What does the OS do besides provide UI support for apps and allow them to interact with the hardware!? Springboard is an app. The app switcher is an app. The notification manager is an app.

APIs, UI elements, and libraries are the OS that we can take notice of. I have no way of knowing what changes were made to the kernel.

In any case, the user interface of an app is not relevant to the user interface of the underlying OS.

It's the only UI you see. Your arbitrary distinction between what is the OS and what is an app is puzzling.

Every paradigm about iOS on the iPad is identical to that on the iPhone - lock screen, spotlight search, notifications, badges, home screens, local and push notifications, fast app switching, multitasking bar, access to settings, home button functionality.

And by "identical" you mean "consistent" or "similar."

You can't praise the merits of adding functionality for more screen real estate in one instance (core libraries) and discount them in another (app switching).

I didn't. You assumed sarcasm when their was none. It definitely has a new app switcher. Not exactly a big deal to me though.

 

[darngooddesign]

With Honeycomb, you really get the feeling that Google put android on a tablet and then thought, "what needs to change to fit this form factor better?" With iOS, you really get the feeling that Apple put iOS on a tablet and thought, "Why don't we let them put 6 icons on the dock instead of 4!"

An example being, UI elements have been created from scratch for the larger size with different spacing more appropriate to the larger screen.

Such as?

Well for starters, the buttons, top and bottom bars, etc. would be double the size they are on the iPhone. Secondly, Apple created UI elements like the drop-down list that's used for bookmarks. There are other things, but this just goes to show that not only is the iPad OS a scaled up version of the iPhone OS, but Apple introduced new UI elements for it.

 

[Eso]

What does the OS do besides provide UI support for apps and allow them to interact with the hardware!? Springboard is an app. The app switcher is an app. The notification manager is an app.

The distinction between apps and the springboard, multitasking bar, notifications, etc. - between an app and an operating system - is obvious. If you are going to pretend otherwise, you will just embarrass yourself.

Well for starters, the buttons, top and bottom bars, etc. would be double the size they are on the iPhone. Secondly, Apple created UI elements like the drop-down list that's used for bookmarks. There are other things, but this just goes to show that not only is the iPad OS a scaled up version of the iPhone OS, but Apple introduced new UI elements for it.

It sounds like you are thinking of pixel doubling which doesn't apply here. You are talking about iPad optimized layouts (apps designed for the iPad resolution). The UI elements that you refer to on the iPad, however, are in fact identical to the ones on the iPhone: buttons have the same dimensions (in pixels) and the toolbars have the same thickness (in pixels).

Like I have already addressed, apps on the iPhone can mimic pop-over menus that the iPad uses. So while it probably makes it more convenient, apps have always had the potential to use them since developers can create a 100% custom UI.

 

[darngooddesign]

Like I have already addressed, apps on the iPhone can mimic pop-over menus that the iPad uses. So while it probably makes it more convenient, apps have always had the potential to use them since developers can create a 100% custom UI.

That doesn't negate the fact that this was a new UI element created just for the iPad. That's like dismissing any Honeycomb UI elements just because someone wrote an app that had them.

 

[gatearray]

There's no need to spend your time with the Finder, or "desktop" on an iPad because it doesn't have a user accessible filesystem!

But Android 3.0 on a Xoom looks fresh and new, and totally awesome in pictures and canned video "trade show demos" so it's blowing everyone's mind, I get it. And for what it's worth, Andy Rubin boasted on All Things D about how Honeycomb's built-in apps (like email) scaled nicely between the tablet and the phone version, so a slightly different version will be in all new Android phones, as well. Reminds me a little of iOS, doesn't it you? So much for the "built from the ground up for a tablet" meme, er, myth.

Rubin also described Android's new style of UI as "futuristic" and he equated it to Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica, I forget which. Surely that's some real razzle-dazzle and certainly plays to the 14 year-old boy in all of us, but where will the apps be once I'm done marveling at all it's dark future-retro cool Minority Report beauty? What exactly will I do with this UI?

To my eyes, Honeycomb's UI looks a little busy for busy' sake, immature, and starved for attention.

 

[josephw]

The main difference between the two, I feel, is that, upon first glance the Ipad looks like a big Ipod whereas Honeycomb doesn't mimic an upscaled version of android. While they may be minor changes, the action bar and the task bar definitely give it more desktop function and appearance. The notifications are unobtrusive and don't take up the whole screen when viewed. And the app switcher functions in a different way that utilizes more of the screen real estate of a tablet. The browser also offers a better desktop experience as well, with tabbed browsing, incognito mode and the ability to sync with chrome.

I see apple as viewing the iPad as extremely mobile/phone like and Microsoft seeing slates in the past as exact copies of desktops. For my personal tastes, neither one is correct. A phone is a phone and a computer is a computer. I'm glad that android is taking a different, more hybrid approach.

 

[Eso]

That doesn't negate the fact that this was a new UI element created just for the iPad. That's like dismissing any Honeycomb UI elements just because someone wrote an app that had them.

This thread is not about apps. This thread is about the UI schemes of the OS that apps run on. Any UI that apps use is completely irrelevant to the topic because it is arbitrary. In other words, it doesn't matter how a developer designs their app, it's not going to change how the user interacts with the operating system.

 

[hayesk]

I see apple as viewing the iPad as extremely mobile/phone like.

Are you serious? Have you compared, say, the calendar app between the iPhone and iPad? It's clear apps on the iPad are supposed to mimic their real-world counterparts (where real world counterparts exist) and iPhone apps are pocket sized proxies. This is why the iPad is so intuitive and nice to use.

While Honeycomb may have a cool high-tech looking home screen, it doesn't make the device nice or intuitive to use. Well designed interfaces will. I see nothing about Honeycomb that makes it designed "from the ground up" for tablet use - it looks more like making it look cool on a bigger screen was their priority.

 

[blackNBUK]

This thread is not about apps. This thread is about the UI schemes of the OS that apps run on. Any UI that apps use is completely irrelevant to the topic because it is arbitrary. In other words, it doesn't matter how a developer designs their app, it's not going to change how the user interacts with the operating system.

Of course it's about Apps, if we're going to compare the UI of Honeycomb and the iPad then we can't exclude the Apps that run on top of them. One of the most important jobs of a platform owner is to define how applications should run on their platform. They can do this by example, which is I think is part of the reason that Apple released Pages, Numbers and Keynote for the iPad. However the platform owner can also define the UI of Apps by the way that they write the API and what components they provide. So Apple will have a pop-over component in their API while Google will have an Action bar component.

Of course an App developer can choose to ignore this guidance and assistance and create their own interaction concepts. However not many developers choose to do this and I think this is mostly because they understand the benefit of UI consistency between Apps.

 

[josephw]

Are you serious? Have you compared, say, the calendar app between the iPhone and iPad? It's clear apps on the iPad are supposed to mimic their real-world counterparts (where real world counterparts exist) and iPhone apps are pocket sized proxies. This is why the iPad is so intuitive and nice to use.

While Honeycomb may have a cool high-tech looking home screen, it doesn't make the device nice or intuitive to use. Well designed interfaces will. I see nothing about Honeycomb that makes it designed "from the ground up" for tablet use - it looks more like making it look cool on a bigger screen was their priority.

I was mainly talking about from an ideological standpoint. Apple even sold the iPad on the fact that it's nearly the exact same experience as the iPhone in its ads. Yes they scaled some core aps up, but the overall OS is virtually identical. They obviously did it for a reason. With millions of iOS devices sold, upscaling a near replica for the iPhone would make it feel familiar.

Google took a different aproach. They redesigned the UI, instead of upscaling android's homescreen. It may bite them in the butt for not keeping it the same, but based on small teasers so far, people seem to be liking the hypbrid approach.

 

[Eso]

if we're going to compare the UI of Honeycomb and the iPad then we can't exclude the Apps that run on top of them.

If the app is running on top of the operating system (to be clear, apps that users launch and exit), it's not part of the operating system.

So, when you say we can't compare the UI of the operating system without including the UI of the apps (which are not part of the operating system), it's contradictory. Written simply, you are saying, "If we are going to compare the UI of two operating systems, then we can't exclude things that are not part of the operating system."

I feel like this is a fundamental concept of computing that people are not grasping or simply ignoring. I don't understand the difficulty. You can discuss the differences of Windows and OS X without talking about applications... it's the same thing in this case with Honeycomb and iOS.

 

[darngooddesign]

This thread is not about apps. This thread is about the UI schemes of the OS that apps run on. Any UI that apps use is completely irrelevant to the topic because it is arbitrary. In other words, it doesn't matter how a developer designs their app, it's not going to change how the user interacts with the operating system.

My but you're a narrow minded lad.

So I'll give you what you want. Yes Honeycomb has a new app launcher and task manager. iOS5 will probably modify their system as well.

 

[Eso]

My but you're a narrow minded lad.

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between apps and an operating system.

Here's Engadget's review of the iPad when it was launched. Under the Operating System/User interface section they write:

By now you should know that the iPad's interface is nearly identical in every way to the iPhone or iPod touch UI. The reason for that is obvious: it's built on the same operating system, a derivation of OS X for mobile devices. As far as actual navigation on the device goes, it really is exactly like the iPhone. You have pages and pages made up of grids of icons, a dock for your favorite apps (up to six, mind you), and a persistent status bar which displays the time and other information. In our opinion Apple has missed a huge opportunity to open up the "desktop" space on the iPad and allow for micro-apps or widgets on these screens. On the iPad there isn't really a single glanceable piece of information you can get at beyond the time and WiFi status -- and using all of that gorgeous screen real estate just to display a widely spaced grid of icons is not only a waste, but just kind of looks silly.

They go on to detail the few of UI elements that can be used within apps. Outside of apps (i.e. the UI of the operating system), however, there's nothing new.

 

[hcho3]

Since you like Honey comb so much, then why don't you just jump to Android? But, apple can leave the iOS as it is. I am fine with iOS. If you want android OS, go to Android.

 

[darngooddesign]

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between apps and an operating system.

And you don't understand that the OS applies to the apps as well.

So to answer your initial question. Yes Honeycomb has good and bad things. Widgets yuck. And iOS5 will have new things as well.

 

[blackNBUK]

If the app is running on top of the operating system (to be clear, apps that users launch and exit), it's not part of the operating system.

So, when you say we can't compare the UI of the operating system without including the UI of the apps (which are not part of the operating system), it's contradictory. Written simply, you are saying, "If we are going to compare the UI of two operating systems, then we can't exclude things that are not part of the operating system."

I feel like this is a fundamental concept of computing that people are not grasping or simply ignoring. I don't understand the difficulty. You can discuss the differences of Windows and OS X without talking about applications... it's the same thing in this case with Honeycomb and iOS.

I understand the difference between the OS and an application; however I didn't see how you can deny that the underlying OS has an influence on the applications that run on top of it. If the design of an application really was entirely separate from the OS why do most Windows applications work similarly to each other? Why do most iOS Apps work similarly to each other? The design of an application is a combination of the API that the OS provides, the leadership that the platform owner provides and the creativity of the application's developers.

I would also say that comparing OSs without comparing the Apps that run on them is rather missing the point. I spend 95%+ of my time on the iPad in one App or another and therefore I care much more about what happens inside of Apps. The small amount of time I spend on the Springboard is relatively unimportant.

 

[Eso]

I understand the difference between the OS and an application; however I didn't see how you can deny that the underlying OS has an influence on the applications that run on top of it.

I'm not denying that; I'm saying it doesn't matter because this thread isn't about the design of apps.

When you are using an app, you are interacting with the app. Of course the underlying OS is going to influence that UI.

When you are not using any apps, you are interacting with the OS (at least it's user interface). This thread is about the elements of that OS - things like notifications, multitasking, the home screen layout, etc.

A user interacts with the OS on the iPad exactly the same way as they do on the iPhone.
A user interacts with the OS on a Honeycomb tablet differently then they do on a phone.

Obviously users interact with apps on the iPad differently than they do on the iPhone. The same will be true for interacting with apps on Honeycomb on a tablet versus apps on a phone. Great! - that's not the topic of this thread.

 

[darngooddesign]

A user interacts with the OS on the iPad exactly the same way as they do on the iPhone.

So I went back and looked at that lifehacker article you linked to. What I see is icons, or widgets, on a grid, a 3D launcher and the notification bar on the bottom with the previously dedicated buttons integrated into it. Widgets don't count because they are applications. That action bar is interesting but it doesn't count because its in the applications. So there isn't a lot new in the UI, but some of it has a new 3D look.

A user interacts with the OS on a Honeycomb tablet differently then they do on a phone.

Until the features in Honeycomb are ported over the next phone OS.

Honestly, the WebOS and Blackberry tablets are way more interesting than Honeycomb.