I’d even say pipe dream of just Apple commentators and pundits. I’ve yet to hear from a normal, real-life Mac user who legitimately wishes for a touchscreen MacBook.
Sorry to break your streak but I'm a "real-life Mac user who legitimately wishes for a touchscreen MacBook", but maybe you may argue that I'm holding it wrong and my wish is illegitimate :)
Nope, no bad faith here, I’d genuinely like to hear your use cases for the touchscreen.
I just hope you could exclude speculative new interfaces and gestures in future macOS that straight-up cannot be done with a mouse. In which case, yeah, the TouchBook would be degrading the experience for me and a huge portion of Mac users, thus making me sad.
I just don't want to switch to an ipad when I want to sketch something. Also some tagging interfaces for photo review work exceptionally well with a touch screen. So I don't want to carry a macbook pro and and ipad, long story short.
> I just hope you could exclude speculative new interfaces and gestures in future macOS that straight-up cannot be done with a mouse
I agree 100%. I'm already annoyed about how some stuff that's easy to do with a touchpad are straight-up broken with a normal mouse.
A kid raised on an animal sounds toy keyboard might also expect the computer to go “moo” when pressing the “M” key, but that doesn’t mean Apple should build that in. Expectations from previous platforms sometimes don’t fit others, and can be unlearned.
Not to start an internet argument -- I don't think it is appropriate in this context. A/B testing the features of a web app is not unexpected or unethical. So invoking the memory of cambridge analytica (etc) is disproportionate. It's far more legitimate to just discuss how much A/B testing should negatively affect a user. I don't have an answer and it's an interesting and relevant question.
> A/B testing the features of a web app is not unexpected or unethical.
It's not "unexpected" but it is still unethical. In ye olde days, you had something like "release notes" with software, and you could inform yourself what changed instead of having to question your memory "didn't there exist a button just yesterday?" all the time. Or you could simply refuse to install the update, or you could run acceptance tests and raise flags with the vendor if your acceptance tests caused issues with your workflow.
Now with everything and their dog turning SaaS for that sweet sweet recurring revenue and people jerking themselves off over "rapid deployment", with the one doing the most deployments a day winning the contest? Dozens if not hundreds of "releases" a day, and in the worst case, you learn the new workflow only for it to be reverted without notice again. Or half your users get the A bucket, the other half gets the B bucket, and a few users get the C bucket, so no one can answer issues that users in the other bucket have. Gaslighting on a million people scale.
It sucks and I wish everyone doing this only debilitating pain in their life. Just a bit of revenge for all the pain you caused to your users in the endless pursuit for 0.0001% more growth.
> It's far more legitimate to just discuss how much A/B testing should negatively affect a user. I don't have an answer and it's an interesting and relevant question.
You don't have an answer on "how much should A/B testing negatively affect a user"? So "a lot" would be on the table?
reply