Apple Releases New 'What's a Computer?' iPad Pro Ad

[DevNull0]

Well maybe when you get a graduate degree you'll get it?

Manipulate or to transform. There are analog computing possibilities, but baseball doesn't transform data. It just puts people to sleep.

Generally speaking a finite state machine is below the level of computer

Oh, reverting to personal insults. The first refuge of the fool.

Specifically speaking, your iPhone, MacBook, and every computer on the planet is computationally equivalent to a finite state machine.

And baseball transforms a string of input data into a winner and loser based on a sequence of state transitions each triggered by a pitch. It absolutely is a model of a computer as well.

 

[yaxomoxay]

each triggered by a pitch

Or a base runner

 

[sracer]

I considered (briefly) whether my next portable computer could possibly be an iPad Pro. I would still need a computer robust enough for Xcode, Warcraft, running Virtual machines and such but could the "computer" I bring back and forth to the office, on trips, etc. be an iPad?

I can live with the file system. There's enough cloud storage options to effectively address that concern (whether iCloud, Dropbox, or even Office 365). The peripherals would be hard to adjust to but for most day-to-day operations, I could probably adjust. Most business applications and non-game applications don't require a highly robust machine.

For me--its the lack of a mouse or trackpad. Or even 3rd party mouse or trackpad support (which, to my understanding, is blocked by Apple). Yes, you CAN run Excel, Numbers, or another spreadsheet on it, for example, and there are many shortcuts to moving around with the keyboard, but I'm sorry--nothing interrupts your concentration more than to stop typing, touch the screen which is at a great angle for VIEWING but lousing for handling touch when its near-perpendicular to your plane of eyesight.

Likewise, if I'm going to remote into a "typical" computer (Parallels remote or Remote Desktop into Windows or even TeamView-like applications) for whatever reason, that mouse/trackpad becomes essential. The virtual trackpad apps like those support is good in very short durations but you'll need a real pointing device if you're going to be logged in for more than a few minutes.

I'm currently doing "that"... using the 12.9 iPad Pro as my portable computer. (I have an iMac and 11" MBA at the home office). But it requires one to "think differently" about their workflows. Many try to replicate what they do on a desktop/notebook on a tablet and end up frustrated because they can't perform the same steps in the same way.

Many times by taking a step back and thinking about WHAT a particular tasks accomplishes and consider that there are different ways of HOW to accomplish them can result in more streamlined workflows.

Drop by the iPad section, we have a thread discussing Jump Desktop + Citrix X1 mouse (or Swiftpoint mouse). When I need to do "desktop-y" things, I can remote in to my iMac and using the X1 mouse have a full desktop user experience within Jump Desktop without compromising the tablet capabilities of an iPad.

I'd love for Apple to provide native, optional support for pointing devices but until then, being able to remote in to a desktop/notebook and have keyboard and mouse support is a very nice stop-gap.

 

[palmerc]

Well it kinda does. Score, Hits, Runs, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, AB, OBP, SLG, etc. Everything is transformed/modified by what happens according to rules.

That gets us back to the original comment I made that it is broadening the definition of a computer to include any transformation of any 'data'. If you want to call food data a blender is a computer.
[doublepost=1470322819][/doublepost]

Oh, reverting to personal insults. The first refuge of the fool.

Specifically speaking, your iPhone, MacBook, and every computer on the planet is computationally equivalent to a finite state machine.

And baseball transforms a string of input data into a winner and loser based on a sequence of state transitions each triggered by a pitch. It absolutely is a model of a computer as well.

There was no insult, just humor.

Again finite state machines are not a computer in the Turing sense. For example your baseball team would be unable to parse XML

 

[villicodelirant]

Again finite state machines are not a computer in the Turing sense. For example your baseball team would be unable to parse XML

Sir, favor me your educated opinion.

From a theoretical standpoint, is a machine that can only run a finite, however large, set of programs that do not include emulators or interpreters (or, basically, anything that can be reduced to the universal program) Turing complete?

Can it thus be called a (general purpose/programmable/Turing) computer, even if there is one sealed inside it?

Therefore, is a non-jailbroken iPad a computer in the generally accepted sense?

 

[DevNull0]

Or a base runner

I was thinking about that as i typed it, but I didn't want to over-complicate it .
[doublepost=1470332518][/doublepost]

Again finite state machines are not a computer in the Turing sense. For example your baseball team would be unable to parse XML

No physical computer is Turing complete. Every physical computer is computationally equivalent to a FSM.

Let N be the number of bits of memory in the computer (ram, hdd, ssd, cache, bios storage, space it can use from the cloud, everything the computer that can store data).

Now, create a program that will tell me if a binary string 2N+1 bits long and read in sequentially in order is a palindrome. This is trivial to do on a single-tape Turing machine, yet it's impossible on your computer. Therefore, by your definition, there is no such thing as a computer.

The computer with N bits of memory storage can be simulated as an FSM with at most 2^N states.
[doublepost=1470332960][/doublepost]

That gets us back to the original comment I made that it is broadening the definition of a computer to include any transformation of any 'data'. If you want to call food data a blender is a computer.

The computer (and baseball game) give controlled, repeatable results from the data. The blender is something that blends up physical objects to a puree.

 

[palmerc]

I was thinking about that as i typed it, but I didn't want to over-complicate it .
[doublepost=1470332518][/doublepost]

No physical computer is Turing complete. Every physical computer is computationally equivalent to a FSM.

Let N be the number of bits of memory in the computer (ram, hdd, ssd, cache, bios storage, space it can use from the cloud, everything the computer that can store data).

Now, create a program that will tell me if a binary string 2N+1 bits long and read in sequentially in order is a palindrome. This is trivial to do on a single-tape Turing machine, yet it's impossible on your computer. Therefore, by your definition, there is no such thing as a computer.

The computer with N bits of memory storage can be simulated as an FSM with at most 2^N states.
[doublepost=1470332960][/doublepost]

The computer (and baseball game) give controlled, repeatable results from the data. The blender is something that blends up physical objects to a puree.

Well there is some definitional problems here, Turing complete really has more to do with programming languages. Basically most modern programming languages (C, C++ and the like) are considered to be Turing complete.

Here is wikipedias coverage on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

As for Turing machines, it is true a Turing machine as a concept has an infinite tape, that doesn't really disqualify most devices since an infinite tape is really unnecessary. You'll also notice a Turing machine and pushdown automata are both more powerful than a limited FSM.

This might help match up your definition of Turing machine with real machines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Comparison_with_real_machines

My point was about the capabilities/requirements of a 'computer' or what it is to be a computer as opposed to a baseball team. An FSM, is some sense is a component of a computing system in the RASP model, for example the CPU functions as an FSM. You can see that in the Comp Org book by Patterson and Hennessy. However, the FSM isn't the computer nor is the FSM the CPU.
[doublepost=1470340464][/doublepost]

Sir, favor me your educated opinion.

From a theoretical standpoint, is a machine that can only run a finite, however large, set of programs that do not include emulators or interpreters (or, basically, anything that can be reduced to the universal program) Turing complete?

Can it thus be called a (general purpose/programmable/Turing) computer, even if there is one sealed inside it?

Therefore, is a non-jailbroken iPad a computer in the generally accepted sense?

The straight answer is yes. A computer that is limited by software is still a computer.

iOS 10 has Swift Playgrounds. If you wrote an emulator in it for the NES or Atari 2600 I think you have it through Turing equivalence.

 

[villicodelirant]

The straight answer is yes. A computer that is limited by software is still a computer.

This opens for interesting possibilities, though.

Meet the Korg Kronos synthesizer keyboard.

Basically, besides packing more raw power and feature, it is the same thing as its predecessors - Korg Triton, Korg Trinity, etc. - with one notable difference: inside the Kronos is an Intel Atom processor and all sound generation is done in software, whereas Triton and Trinity used custom discrete non-programmable chips.

You wouldn't know without opening either one up, though.

And so, is it a computer or there's just a computer inside it, governing its functions?

Of course this can get absurd very fast, but hey, Apple started it

iOS 10 has Swift Playgrounds. If you wrote an emulator in it for the NES or Atari 2600 I think you have it through Turing equivalence.

Oh, right, I forgot there's that now.
I don't think you need a NES emulator, though - among the features found in Swift there is Turing completeness

 

[palmerc]

This opens for interesting possibilities, though.

Meet the Korg Kronos synthesizer keyboard.

Basically, besides packing more raw power and feature, it is the same thing as its predecessors - Korg Triton, Korg Trinity, etc. - with one notable difference: inside the Kronos is an Intel Atom processor and all sound generation is done in software, whereas Triton and Trinity used custom discrete non-programmable chips.

You wouldn't know without opening either one up, though.

And so, is it a computer or there's just a computer inside it, governing its functions?

Of course this can get absurd very fast, but hey, Apple started it



Oh, right, I forgot there's that now.
I don't think you need a NES emulator, though - among the features found in Swift there is Turing completeness

I got from your complaint that you didn't like that the user couldn't reprogram the iPad and playgrounds are definitely sandboxed

 

[driceman]

...Well, for me a computer would be a device that I can develop software on, or even do simple stuff like job searches on without the web browser constantly running into things it can't do.

So, not the iPad I guess.

I find it strange that Apple, a tech company, promotes the iPad as a computer-killer when it can't kill computers for the work they themselves do. No Xcode on iPad, no installing programming languages on iPad, certainly no Terminal on iPad... Heck, Cloud9 (a great platform for developing software online in case you haven't heard of it, check it out) barely works in Safari on iPad. If the web browser had a little more muscle it might offset some of the major drawbacks of trying to use an iPad for anything except content consumption and online shopping.

I mean, it's a nice device if you have a SUPER lightweight workload, or don't really use your computer to work at all. But I feel like there's still a very large portion of the world that needs more than what the iPad currently offers, so it's still a much better choice to shell out a little more for an infinitely better experience on a MacBook. I know Apple's all about a very lightweight experience with technology, and that's nice and all, but there's a point where function needs to outweigh form if you want to actually convince people to go buy a new iPad instead of a new laptop, whether it's a Mac or PC.

Do they really not understand why iPad sales have been dropping off for so long? It's one thing to have a phone running iOS, it's quite another to try and replace macOS or Windows with iOS (I'm no Windows fan, but a Surface Pro would do a much better job of replacing my MacBook than my iPad does). I like watching movies, browsing the web, playing games, and generally doing more content consumption than creation on my iPad Air 2, but it's by no means possible for it to replace my laptop.

Just seems like a giant contradiction between what marketing wants and what the product can actually accomplish. Not that this is an Apple-only phenomenon; my dad has had a work laptop for years and, while he loved when he got hooked up with a MacBook Air at his job, he couldn't stand either the iPad one company gave him or the Surface Pro another company gave him (he's job-hopped a couple times recently). The iPad has no mouse interface and the Surface Pro's trackpad is awful, and it's simply not as productive navigating work-related things via touchscreen, so I don't buy the ultrabook ads touting a touchscreen as an essential feature for a productivity-focused device (unless you're a graphic artist or what have you).

In short, unless you do a lot of artwork or something, a laptop or desktop is still a better device to get than a tablet. Don't let the marketing fool you.

 

[phrehdd]

What's a computer? It is something Apple is no longer in the business of meeting customer needs but rather, tells them they want thin, leaves them a bit short with yesterday's technology and then seals it up like an iPhone so no one can get in and upgrade. The iPad Pro is not a desktop by any means. Until such time, it is a great device for those that have use but for the rest of us, we are holding out for Apple to get its head out of its...

 

[bighype]

How long does Mac have? I'm giving it maybe 5 years before Apple kills it.

I absolutely LOATHE Tim Cook! He's destroyed Apple!

 

[villicodelirant]

I got from your complaint that you didn't like that the user couldn't reprogram the iPad and playgrounds are definitely sandboxed

Nah, I think the iPad is a nice little machine. The ad just got me wondering whether it really qualifies as a "computer" the way we people brought up in the age of machines that booted to a BASIC interpreter mean.

 

[D-Dave]

This Apple strategy leaked a few years ago, and Microsoft stole with the Surface pro form factor. Or Apple is just copying Microsoft in 2016.

Sorry, but hence the surface is using a full featured OS, the surface pro 4 is much more like a macbook pro with a detachable keyboard then an ipad pro.

 

[palmerc]

Nah, I think the iPad is a nice little machine. The ad just got me wondering whether it really qualifies as a "computer" the way we people brought up in the age of machines that booted to a BASIC interpreter mean.

I definitely fall into the IBM PC generation. Before that we had a computer my dad built that booted from audio cassette tapes and had an unshielded power supply that would dim the lights.

 

[DevNull0]

Well there is some definitional problems here, Turing complete really has more to do with programming languages. Basically most modern programming languages (C, C++ and the like) are considered to be Turing complete.

Here is wikipedias coverage on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

The first paragraph of your Linked article:

In computability theory, a system of data-manipulation rules (such as a computer's instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton) is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any single-taped Turing machine. The concept is named after English mathematician Alan Turing. A classic example is lambda calculus.

For the reason I gave in my previous post, no physical computer can be used to simulate a single-taped Turing machine. Therefore no physical computer is Turing complete.

An instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton can all be Turing complete. No physical computer can be.

As for Turing machines, it is true a Turing machine as a concept has an infinite tape, that doesn't really disqualify most devices since an infinite tape is really unnecessary. You'll also notice a Turing machine and pushdown automata are both more powerful than a limited FSM.

A Turing machine with a finite tape or an PDA with a finite stack is absolutely equivalent to an FSM. The next paragraph of the Wikipedia article you've link describes Turing equivalence. You can use a finite set of states to simulate a finite stack or a finite tape, so it is actually trivially simple to show that that FSM is Turing equivalent to a PDA or Turing machine with finite memory just by simulating the finite memory in the finite states of the FSM.

This might help match up your definition of Turing machine with real machines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Comparison_with_real_machines

That more-or-less explains why Turing machines are not like real world machines. Turing machines model computation, not computers. From your link, you can pretend your computer has infinite memory by adding more as needed, but that will always have a limit and when you reach it, the comparison with a turing machine ends. A Turing machine is the statement of an algorithm and is much more general than an algorithm on a physical computer.

Plus that link is poorly written. For example

The difference lies only with the ability of a Turing machine to manipulate an unbounded amount of data. However, given a finite amount of time, a Turing machine (like a real machine) can only manipulate a finite amount of data.

"Time" in terms of a Turing machine is measured in instructions. There is no such concept as "seconds", or "years" in the concept of a Turing machine. A Turing machine has no time-bound on the number of instructions it can run. You can think of it as all Turing machines run infinite steps per second. A better way of looking at it is time (in the hours and minutes sense) doesn't pass while the machine is running.

My point was about the capabilities/requirements of a 'computer' or what it is to be a computer as opposed to a baseball team. An FSM, is some sense is a component of a computing system in the RASP model, for example the CPU functions as an FSM. You can see that in the Comp Org book by Patterson and Hennessy. However, the FSM isn't the computer nor is the FSM the CPU.

You seem very confused trying to equate abstract models of computation to real computers. A RASP (and I admit I had to google that), is Turing equivalent to a Turing machine because you can effectively have random access to the tape by burning instructions to navigate the tape. We actually did that example in school. And a multi-tape turing machine or 2-way infinite tape turing machine is also turing equivalent to a single tape turing machine. As long as you have a finite number of tapes.

A finite set of states would be part of a RASP, just like it is part of a Turing machine. I really don't understand what that has to do with comparing the models of computation you've already discussed to real computers.

 

[mi7chy]

Nah, I think the iPad is a nice little machine. The ad just got me wondering whether it really qualifies as a "computer" the way we people brought up in the age of machines that booted to a BASIC interpreter mean.

iPad hardware is passable but the OS and ecosystem are too limited that's why mine mostly collects dust. I also started on the Apple II series with Applesoft BASIC. Coincidentally, the author of Applesoft BASIC, Paul Laughton, went on to create a better RFO BASIC! for the Android platform.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rfo.basic

http://laughton.com/Apple/Apple.html

There's also a powerful local C++/C compiler:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.n0n3m4.droidc

 

[sputnikv]

If that's suits your needs, great. The problem is Apple think everyone has the same requirements and nobody could possibly need anything more powerful. I bet my house that their engineering departments could not do their day jobs on an iPad Pro. You'd think they would at least listen to their internal users? I challenge Tim Cook to run VM's on an iPad Pro - I typically use around 40GB RAM for my lab, around 600GB of storage and often max out 6 cores of Xeon.

well obviously the ipad isn't for you. it's not rocket science, you wouldn't do your work on a watch or a phone either if it demanded more hardware than a standard high end computer now would you?

 

[shaunp]

well obviously the ipad isn't for you. it's not rocket science, you wouldn't do your work on a watch or a phone either if it demanded more hardware than a standard high end computer now would you?

It's obviously not. Problem is Apple no longer make ANYTHING for me, where they used to. They just aren't updating the Mac.

 

[villicodelirant]

It's obviously not. Problem is Apple no longer make ANYTHING for me, where they used to. They just aren't updating the Mac.

You know, it's not a sin to buy non-Apple computers
It's not the 90s anymore and the hardware business has diversified.

There's such an array of manufacturers that fit specific niches very well - the gamer brands (Alienware), the business brands, the performance brands (Boxx, etc)...

For better or for worse, Apple is focusing on what HiFi manufacturers in the '90 used to call the "lifestyle" segment - "good enough" general purpose systems with an eye on design and the new hip features.

And there probably is a cautionary tale: remember when Sony marketed those silver-faced, expensive Minidisc players that went the way of the dodo very soon?

I hear you: you don't like Windows.
Who does, right?
Good news again: the Gnome 3 desktop and, more importantly, the ecosystem of Gnome3 apps is finally turning into something usable.

Not exactly OS X, but not your father's Linux desktop either.

 

[NobodyOwens]

it can do this

The world's most expensive lolipop?

 

[sputnikv]

It's obviously not. Problem is Apple no longer make ANYTHING for me, where they used to. They just aren't updating the Mac.

You don't have an obligation to buy their computers.

 

[shaunp]

You know, it's not a sin to buy non-Apple computers
It's not the 90s anymore and the hardware business has diversified.

There's such an array of manufacturers that fit specific niches very well - the gamer brands (Alienware), the business brands, the performance brands (Boxx, etc)...

For better or for worse, Apple is focusing on what HiFi manufacturers in the '90 used to call the "lifestyle" segment - "good enough" general purpose systems with an eye on design and the new hip features.

And there probably is a cautionary tale: remember when Sony marketed those silver-faced, expensive Minidisc players that went the way of the dodo very soon?

I hear you: you don't like Windows.
Who does, right?
Good news again: the Gnome 3 desktop and, more importantly, the ecosystem of Gnome3 apps is finally turning into something usable.

Not exactly OS X, but not your father's Linux desktop either.

I know, I bought an XPS15, but I prefer OS X. I would prefer Apple made a Mac that fit my requirements. I do like Windows 10, but prefer OS X (or MacOS). It's about not being able to buy what I want. Apple used to make kit that met my requirements. I'm just disappointed that is no longer the case and they have given up, it's a pain in the ass to move to another platform, especially as that move is only required because lack of hardware. The software is great.
[doublepost=1471452323][/doublepost]

You don't have an obligation to buy their computers.

No, but I would like the choice rather than the choice being removed through lack of development.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You don't have an obligation to buy their computers.

You don't have an obligation to point out the obvious either.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

You don't have an obligation to point out the obvious either.

Basically.

For some its just they like the setup. I do. It be nice to stay brand loyal and have that brand put the effort in.

Some users can also have specialized software needs. Me for example. I may grumble and groan about FCP but it is a liked application (just needs some TLC beyond the may as well be put in basic maintenance mode its in now).

Yes I can switch over to another brand. And there I am buying an avid license (hate adobe, novels I can write about why lol). Working in some way to convert FCP projects, learning the avid setup, etc. In short its a pita, and with the avid license...its pain I pay a lot for. Did this when they killed aperture and it sucked to go to a new picture PP setup. Video apps more complicated imo.

Can I do it...yes. barring no appreciable change in my eyes (FCP and/or MBP) probably will.

People like us vent here in the vain hopes apple gets a pulse of the a variety of user bases from these places. I'd like to avoid a switch if I can. Its a legit means I have found. Even on reddit I have seen people post a gripe about an application and as if summoned by magic there is a post from the develop(s) saying lets talk. And you see the back and forth and open communication happening.

based solely on this open and honest communication in a public forum and the care to see what the world was saying about their stuff in different ways, take my money was said. Why we do this, in this realm some companies realize they can spend big bucks on a marketing...they also realize forums can be yet another outlet to reach the people.