Slashdot Mirror
How Star Trek Artists Imagined the iPad... 23 Years Later
MorderVonAllem submitted an incredibly cool article about the computers and set design of Star Trek. If you are into that sort of thing, you're going to really like this one. It says "There are a lot of similarities between Apple's iPad and the mobile computing devices—known as PADDs—used in the Star Trek universe. Ars spoke to designers Michael Okuda, Denise Okuda, and Doug Drexler to find out the thinking and inspiration behind the PADD and how closely the iPad represents a real-life incarnation of that dream."
I thought this was Slashdot: Source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues
Not Apple HQ.
The PADDs similar tablets in general, not just Apples iPad.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Prior Art!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I dunno, it seems to me the iPad and the PADD aren't particularly analogous. iPads are interactive application frameworks; PADDs were usually only used exactly the same way paper is - "look at this data from Omicron Persei 8!" *hands it over. *Reads. "My god. The borometric field is fluctuating!" You rarely saw data uploaded to a PADD and you never saw it running complex applications or interacting with the world; that's what Tricorders were for.
A PADD was a clipboard, just future-visioned. It served exactly the same purpose, plot-wise, as all the paper in the new Battlestar Galactica being octagonal - it show you you were in a different world.
When I can casually toss it onto my desk like Picard without worrying about the thing shattering, it will have officially replaced books.
I always just took it as a given that the PADD was a large part of the inspiration behind the iPad. I mean, even the name pays homage. I can easily envision someone like Steve Jobs sitting down with a designer and some episodes of ST:TNG and saying "Now make me on of those".
It's pretty apparent that the set designers on ST:TNG were visionaries. It's pretty difficult to accurately envision the future, even if it's only 20 years ahead of time. Credit needs to be given to those guys. I just hope that Apple had the decency to give them free iPads when they were released.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
The iPad is EXACTLY what the PADD would have been had the Ferengi designed it instead of someone in the Federation.
I can't predict the future, but I'm quite sure Steve's Job's brain, submerged in a nutrient-rich emulsion, will be wheeled out at the 2200 WWDC to announce the new iPad.
Perhaps it depends on the level at which you judge things. For me, for something to "resemble an iPad," it needs to have a third party inserted between the developer and the user.
Geordi: "Hey, what if we reroute The Borg's root command through the subspace neutrino beam? Their ship will collapse like a house of balloons!"
Riker: "Checkmate!"
Picard: "Mr. Data, make it so."
Data: "Aye aye, captain." [fingers blur on PADD, then stop. Data just sits there.]
Picard: "Mr. Data?"
Data: "Yes, captain?"
Picard: "Are you ready?!"
Data: "Waiting for software approval by the Ferengi, sir."
Picard: *sigh* "Initiate auto-destruct sequence."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It's amazing how much you can 'predict' given nearly a quarter century of hindsight. Not to mention that much of this technology is older than Okuda & Co. would have you believe.
I saw my first flat screen display with software configurable buttons in 1982, as this was the interface used to operate the simulation computers that drove the trainers for the MK88/2 and MK98/0 (Trident Backfit and Trident-I respectively) missile fire and launch control systems. (Though the screens were activated via a stylus rather than true touch screens.) The systems weren't new even then, they were at least six years old. (And thus designed even earlier.) For that matter, the many of the 'buttons' on the fire control console themselves (whose design dates to the early/mid 1970's) were actually miniaturized slide projectors that could display different messages under software control. Heck, the MK88/1 Poseidon system could (under software control) display different colors on a single button (though not different message text as the 88/2 and 98 could) as far back as the late 60's.
There's also sonar and torpedo fire control equipment from the same (early 70's) era with software configurable interfaces.
For that matter, as early as my VIC-20, the buttons on the keyboard could do various things depending on the software that was running at the time.
There are terrain and weather apps right now. Two out of three!
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
"Make it look more like the Mac."
The PADD is just the display portion of the iPad.
It would have come as a very great surprise to people in the 80s how microelectronics have changed the face what is actually possible.
The limitations of the iPad are ones of the physical limitations of human being holding them.
Your arms are only so strong, so long and so jointed.
The electronics and computing power we can cram into those dimensions may grow as Moore's Law continues apace but our arms and our eyes aren't going to change.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Note the early appearance of an iPad concept in Demolition Man
Maybe Al wouldn't have needed to beat on Ziggy all the time on Quantum Leap if he wouldn't cover up the antenna with his cigar hand.
Good catch. It's from the episode Babel.
http://www.chakoteya.net/DS9/405.htm
nah, the drm just didnt allow it to be downloaded anywhere else but astrometrics.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Twenty Three years later than what? Maybe you mean 23 years *after* Stanley Kubrick envisioned the iPad in 1968 for the movie 2001?
Stanley was off by only 9 years, a pretty good prediction, and unlike Star Trek, which almost never showed anything on the PADD, in 2001, the characters are shown watching full-screen, wirelessly streamed video to the tablet.
Frankly, the PADD was a easy device to envision, especially since you see Kirk dealing with essentially the same device in almost every TOS episode (It's a clipboard with lights).
And for some reason, the best part about TOS was gone from every Rick Berman Star Trek that followed: the background jibber-jabber on the bridge, that stuff about "gravity is down to point-eight" that is heard to make the bridge sound like there's A LOT going on... All the other bridges are dead-quiet, even the "earlier" NX-01 Enterprise.
Anyhow; Point is: Nothing new under the sun, and, to anyone who keeps his eyes open, this stuff has been around since long before ST:TNG, it's just that the internet kiddies only remember TNG because that's what *they* grew up with.
Now Get Off My Lawn.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I think the really interesting thing here is that some big and well funded companies have been trying to sell tablet computers for over a decade, yet never made the same decision concerning the form factor that was obvious to a art director for a TV show twenty years ago. Basically that a computing device accessed via a touchscreen should have an interface specifically designed to be operated via a touchscreen. That is the big difference between the iPad and the tablets that came before it. And also one of the big differences between the PADD and most of the tablets we've seen in the real world.
And I'd argue that it's not necessarily the job of computer scientists to make computing more friendly. They should be working on making software more efficient and powerful. Interface designers should be the ones worrying about making it more friendly. There is of course overlap and cross-communication between the two disciplines, but interface design is important enough that people should dedicate their work specifically to it.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Trek also predicted g0atse when Spock looked into that secret glowing box and went nuts.
Table-ized A.I.
Same reason I keep a note pad next to the keyboard when programming: I'm faster when I can glance at something instead of switching windows.
I do hope in the next 500 years though they come-up with something better though. Pinch and move a-la iPad is neat, but I still can't fit everything I need into one spot.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
The only things an iPad (or iPhone/iPod touch) has more in common with PADD's are ... touch sensitive screens
The ONLY thing?
That turns out to be EVERYTHING.
As for the article, one of the reasons a lot of people like the iPad is that it's Stark Trek UI brought to life. I can't help be repeat the quote from Penny Arcade here:
I have been waiting for the ability to manipulate technology by pressing dynamic symbols for basically ever. If you find such things unpleasant, then I suggest you develop a taste for forced labor because by the year twenty-twenty all that sneer is going to get you is a slot in the underclass boiling corpses. Get with the fucking program. Come and touch the neon glyphs.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...Data: "Aye aye, captain." [fingers blur on PADD, then stop. Data just sits there.]
Picard: "Mr. Data?"
Data: "Yes, captain?"
Picard: "Are you ready?!"
Data: "Custom software deployed sir. Enemy ship collapsing"
How is this possible?
Because of course they are members of the iPhone Enterprise development program and can thus enjoy in-ship distribution... :-)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Now, on topic, I actually can't help but wonder how much (not if) they copied from ST
As was pointed out, the very name was from Star Trek... actually I'm amazed that connection was not made more commercially, but perhaps that would have meant a large battle with the Star Trek lawyers.
The actual elements though, I think that it follows someone seriously thinking about use of the thing and logical layouts as set designers did years ago, would hit on similar conventions to someone building the device in practice.
But, many of those that have "all that sneer" are still going to be creating the actual tech that everyone else uses.
It seems that way now but long term I'm not sure how true that will be.
I mean, I'm not doing assembly anymore...
However the death of textual interfaces has long been predicted and I still use a bash shell heavily every day, so I'm not willing to commit 100% to that as THE future.
The thing of it is, that those sneering aren't the ones who are going to be creating for the new tech because they have no respect for it. Most developers have embraced touch screen interfaces a this point, I would not claim they are "sneering" any longer. They just see it as one aspect of computing but (as you do) the other aspects will remain. I think they will remain but it is question of degree to which that is true. The future may be more like the past, where once only geeks really had "computers" (like Sun workstations and CAD stations and the like) and the rest of the world has computing devices.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm not claiming Emacs is perfect
Now just stop right there, I'll say in fact it is. :-)
One idea I've had for a terminal application on a touch screen device is something where the auto-completion is context sensitive to the commands - so it would complete commands, then arguments within commands and so on. Like you say, kind of like emacs (or even shell) completion but going further down to every possible item you could type.
One other thing I think could be done is a virtual keyboard specifically designed to enter regular expressions. I have not thought it through much but it just seems like some sort of augmented regular expression builder could be very, very powerful...
I think there's good potential there that's been left largely untapped.
That's really true, there's still a ton of optimization to be had around touch screen entry of very context specific textual data. I totally agree with what you are saying that textual interfaces for specific contexts is not given as much respect as it should be.
That's why I so like virtual keyboards, because they offer the ability to fully customize text entry (even dynamically) for specific tasks.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley