or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Wiggin

It actually makes perfect sense. One of the biggest issues people raise about a tablet is, "what would I do with one". I larger iPod touch isn't enough reason to pay $1000 for such a device. Think back to why Apple created iLife for the Mac in the first place. They created it so you could do useful things with a Mac right out of the box and differentiate it from Windows PCs. The iPhone/touch are fine for displaying photos, but not good for editing. If I can import photos...
With the creative theme of the invite, I'm hoping for a new release of Aperture with a companion mobile version for the tablet. Aperture is long overdue for an update, and a tablet would be the perfect field device for photographers to preview their images on. And there are already iPhone apps that can control your camera. A tablet version would be even better. No more taking my MBP along on trips just to back up and organize my photos. Ok, maybe asking for an upgrade...
Those three words pretty much sum up how ignorant Psystar and their lawyers truly are. Actually, I'm sure their lawyers already know how stupid and fruitless their argument is, but they must have some reason for agreeing to continue representing them... money (from where), fame (infamy)?
Not directly related to this story, but it would be interesting to use a small mobile device (oh, I don't know, maybe if Apple made a tablet or something) and use screen sharing to my Mac at home. Imagine having the power of a Mac Pro while sitting at Starbucks.I use the Mac's built-in screen sharing all the time to control my HTPC Mac mini. It's useful, but has its limitation. First, it's horribly slow. Unless you are on a LAN/WAN it's far to slow to be really useful. And...
Come on people, this is Apple we are talking about. They will give us just enough to get us to buy it while leaving us wanting more. The first version won't have a camera. And a year later they will release gen 2 with a camera. Thus keeping the upgrade cycle going strong.
The part about it being both LCD and OLED screens is odd. There isn't enough difference between the two to justify two models with the same screen size. Especially given the price difference cited in the story. I think very few people would pay that much extra just to get an OLED screen.
And the rocks, oil, and sand are just a bunch of protons, neutrons, and electrons. My $1 bottle of water probably has enough of those to make a couple of iPhones. Who cares that it would take several billion dollars and many years to rearrange the the particles into an iPhone. That's just manufacturing costs, which we don't count.
I'm just going to "+1" everyone else's reply to this faulty math. Design, assembly, shipping, inventory management, sales expenses, support costs, etc, etc, etc.
I think it has to be milled aluminum. Given the size of the screen, any amount of flex would risk cracking the glass. So rigidity is paramount. You could do it with plastic, but it would have to be thicker, and I don't think Apple would go for that.My preference would be for a pair of devices. Sometimes I want the full mobile internet. And sometimes I want the bare minimum, ie, just a small phone. But I also don't want to deal with two service contracts. So I'd like a...
Actually, 5" would be about the biggest "pocketable" size you could make. I'd prefer that to the tiny iPod touch's 3.5" screen.
New Posts  All Forums: