Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Feb 2010 23:57 UTC
Apple "Whereas the iPhone is aimed at short, focused tasks, the iPad is more likely to lend itself to longer, more general tasks that involve using multiple apps, just as we're used to on the Mac. It's easy to imagine wanting to use an iPad to read text in Mobile Safari, copy some text to a Pages document, and send that document to a colleague via Mail. That specific example may turn out to be possible with the current iPhone OS, but it points toward needing more ways for iPad apps to work together in the future."
Permalink for comment 408604
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not a huge need yet
by bousozoku on Wed 10th Feb 2010 02:47 UTC
Member since:

As I use various applications on my iPod touch, they work together in a limited way already. You can have one application launch another and apparently send some data. For most people, that should be enough.

I see no need to have an application with 40 processes that needs to spawn daemons to fulfill a handheld machine's role. It's not a Tricorder; it's a simple handheld computer.

The iWork applications as well as the MS Office-compatible applications could have some need to exchange information, but multiple clipboards and multiple clipboard types should be enough, especially working on a small screen.

Reply Score: 4