Thoughts on Apple super "iApp" AIO application?

[thedustin]

I think something like this would be cool. One application that can switch between the iApps. A quick PShop job for visuals. More ideas? Thoughts?

http://homepage.mac.com/thedustin/.Pictures/superiApp.jpg

_thedustin

[Mr Beardsley]

This has shades of Outlook. The bane of my existence. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! (Chris runs screaming throught the halls of his work.)

Nice photoshop work. :) I just don't like "swiss army knife" type applications.

[Luca]

Naw, it's been discussed. I see a lot of problems it causes, and nothing that it improves.

1) You can't drag and drop between iApps.
2) You have to launch one huge "iApp" monster program whenever you want to do anything from quickly syncing your phone to playing some music.
3) Who wants to lose sight of their buddy list every time they want to switch songs?
4) What about people who only use a few of the iApps? I never use iSync, iBlog or iBank (whatever that is), and I only rarely use iCal and iChat. iPhoto and iTunes are the only two listed there that really would be useful to me, and I don't see why they'd have to share the same window instead of each getting their own window.
5) Finally... what exactly is the benefit? Is there anything it improves? From what I can tell, no.

Plus, in your mockup, "Library" should be nested below "iTunes," indicating it is a part of iTunes. The way it is now makes it look as though all the iApps are part of your music library, which of course makes no sense at all.

PS. You need to clean up your iTunes MP3 tags. Are you one of those insane people who keeps the artist and the song title both in the "Title" field? And how come you have 47 genres? Maybe you don't pay attention to the genre tag, but then why do you have the option on to show genre when browsing?

PPS. I'm anal retentive about that stuff. ;)

[thedustin]

Luca,
I am the same way about my music, so I made some updates. Those unorganized songs are streams that I have incase I have no internet and can listen to random music that I'm not familiar with.

Choose applications you want shown. I just want to turn on my computer and open one app for iChat, iTunes, iCaL and maybe a few others. Check dates quickly, addresses, pictures, w/o having 7 apps open. I forgot address book in the mock-up.
again, just a quick job.



http://homepage.mac.com/thedustin/.Pictures/superiApp.jpg


_thedustin

[BuonRotto]

Not to sounds like a jerk, but to me, this is what the Dock is really for. I'm hoping that Tiger can take some of the heat off the Dock with Spotlight and leave it to use for quick access to apps and windows, and less for launching and organizing.

[murbot]

I would go Rain Man if I had to look at those MP3 titles in my library!

:lol:

[Brad]

That's a horrible idea, IMO. It goes against every software design that Apple has made in the past three years.

Apple follows the very *opposite* paradigm. "Everything and the kitchen sink" apps are in the Microsoft camp (ala Outlook). Apple separates apps into smaller, specific tools that are focused on doing a specific job well (and can be replaced for that one job) rather than doing half a dozen mediocre jobs. Mail, iChat, Address Book, and iSync; the iLife suite; the Pro suite (FCP, ST, DVDSP, Motion, Shake); and down to Mac OS X's very kernel (not being monolithic) -- they all align with the "right tool for the right job" camp.

Loading two or three small apps not only allows the user much greater flexibility in his workflow (ie. integrating 3rd party software), it is also vastly less resource intensive. A bundle app would use the same resources as running every single one of its individual components loading simultaneously. If I just want to listen to music, I don't need the memory overhead of a video editor thrown in!

How does lumping the apps together provide a better experience? How does it improve my workflow if it means making it more difficult to swap out one part with a third-party solution?

How is one window better than two or three? It would be an impossible task to design a single window UI that would "share" the various functions in a manner that would be acceptable for all users. Joe wants iTunes and iChat. Jane wants iCal and iPhoto. John wants all four to be immediately available. How are you going to share the window? Force the user to choose between one of the apps in the sidebar? The one-window design kills multitasking options from the user's end.

If you think window clutter is a problem, Exposé already offers an excellent mechanism for that. Exposé also gives users a much quicker way of executing drag and drop between documents.

Or do you just not like having many icons running in your Dock? :confused:

Aside from showing a proof of concept that it *can* be done, I don't really see the purpose of this. There are far more drawbacks and limitations imposed by such an app than the advantages it offers.

[thedustin]

Never used Outlook. When I think about it, the Tiger Konafabulator (style widgets and dashboard are what I'm looking for. I do LOVE expose though! Thaks guys.

_thedustin

[thedustin]

Okay, stupid idea. Tiger Solves it all. Move along.

http://homepage.mac.com/thedustin/.Pictures/Dboard.jpg


_thedustin

[Mr Beardsley]

No worries man, someone at Microsoft thought the kitchen sink idea was great, and they have embraced it full on. Hence you can surf the web from your email client. And, if that wasn't bad enough I had a user who would do just that. I knew she was beyond help after I saw that.

[Moogs]

I could see iMovie and iDVD being integrated (since they have similar interface needs and are highly entwined purpose-wise). But I wouldn't want iPhoto or iTunes to lose their individual app status.

iCal, iSync and Address Book could and should be integrated into Mail yesterday AFAIC. Then it would be real competition for Entourage.

[Frank777]

iCal, iSync and Address Book could and should be integrated into Mail yesterday AFAIC. Then it would be real competition for Entourage.

Amen.

[SledgeHammer]

It is real competition for Entourage. I know that there are some things people complain that Mail etc. don't do that Entourage does, but what of those does lumping Mail, iCal, Address Book, and iSync together fix? They are already integrated at the system level (type a name from your address book into Mail and voila, up pop all of the email address associated with that name). Bunching them together adds nothing (as mentioned above). Also, the way I understand it, Tiger is going to do away with iSync altogether, implementing syncing at the system level.

[BarracksSi]

iCal, iSync and Address Book could and should be integrated into Mail yesterday AFAIC. Then it would be real competition for Entourage.

Nah. I haven't touched Entourage in ages because iCal, iSync, Address Book, and Mail all work together so well without having to load up a big pile of bloat in one shot.

Why should they be lumped together into one gargantuan application just to receive the label of "Entourage Competitor" anyway? They DO compete already, and as a team of apps, too.

[psgamer0921]

I think it'd be a cool idea, but the biggest problem would be a huge launch time to do ONE thing in a certain program. Maybe, an option to launch only one at a time?

[SledgeHammer]

I think it'd be a cool idea, but the biggest problem would be a huge launch time to do ONE thing in a certain program. Maybe, an option to launch only one at a time? In other words, exactly like it is now, with separate apps that work well together.

[Brad]

In other words, exactly like it is now, with separate apps that work well together.Ding ding ding ding ding ding!!

We HAVE a WINNER!!

[hmurchison]

This is the whole concept of Core Data. Your data will sit in persistent stores and rather than have that data only in one format that say iPhoto or mail.app can read it will be avaliable to the "Core" OS and with the appropriate permission other applications.

Sooooooo

In Tiger I expect to see the relative stores of

Addressbook
Mail
iCal iPhoto etc

Now to be available to each other. We have some of that now but I don't think Apple let 3rd parties in as much as they will with Tiger.

So I expect that we'll thankfully stick with the small applications but enterprising developers will be able to tie these persistent stores together and wrap them in a gui. Just like CRM4MAC does now but even on a grander level. There has to be a reason why iCal 2.0 is taking so long or that Keynote 2 is taking so long. I think both will be vital spokes in the nice wheel apple is creating.

So why I don't think we'll see a Uber iapp we'll see functional apps aimed at certain tasks that meld multiple small seperate apps together and it'll all be transparent and powerful.

[ccsccs7]

Just a thought: Mozilla/Netscape is an integrated program with browser, mail, address book, web page layout, and IRC or AOL client all in one app. The current direction is to break it up…

Having everything integrated makes a program more complicated and difficult to develop (possibly resulting in more bugs, no?).