Apple contacted print publications about tablet - report - Page 3

Really I think this is just irrational, just because it will run an OS derived from iPhone doesn't imply anything about it's final capabilities. On top of that I've yet to see anybody explain to me how one would get Mac OS/X software to work usefully on a tablet. If the screen is a Touch input device Apple doesn't have any options other than iPhone OS.

The fact is the tablet will need a reason for it's existance beyound running a desktop OS because history here is starkly clear. Running a desktop user interface on a tablet has always been a huge failure. The reason is pretty clear too, you can't input data 8 hours a day on them. For that matter 15 minutes at a time is a joke.

The fact is apps need to be refactored for use on a tablet. Going to a new API forces that. Fresh apps are guarranteed with iPhone s as the programming API.

It is notable I'm talking about APIs here. Underneath iPhone OS still runs the same basic kernel. IPhone OS is extremely capable even with the acknowledged limitations in the recent distributions. We don't know though how those limitations will reveal themselves in an iPhone release on a tablet. I would imagine though the limitation on multitasking would go away in some way. Multitasking would be a huge improvement and is just one limitation that a more powerful tablet could enable.

The key here is that we don't know what Apples goals are here at all. They could just throw 256Meg of ram in the thing to barely get by doing movies and magazines. This to keep the tablet dirt cheap. Apple could deliver a serverly constrained tablet for under $400 to meet the needs of this target use. Now I'd rather see 2GB of RAM, physical interfaces to the world, advanced GPU and display tech, dual CPUs and a host of other goodies. That won't be a $400 dollar machine though. Either way the only rational OS is something derived from iPhone OS.


Dave

Well, the kindle got panned by the Princeton students and profs...so thus far not much danger of that.

Just wait until Apple releases it's brand new tablet with glossy screen. Aiiiiieeeeee!

Let's all raise our Kool-Aid in a toast!

Question from left field. I answered a question about a rumored device, not an actual device.

This is untrue. Ink has been part of Mac OSX and works for single touch. The touchpad is multitouch and can do gestures. There's nothing that OSX can't do on a tablet that the iPhone OSX can.


The fact also has been that slates have been far less successful than convertibles because they have keyboards and can effectively run legacy desktop apps.

Besides, to be any kind of useful replacement the multi-touch APIs matter far less than apps.

Not even Apple is going to be able to port iLife and iWork to a tablet easily...much less coddle MS to port Office to a touch interface. The iPhone doesn't need iLife or MS Office. A real tablet does.

Unless all you want is a largish MID/eBook reader. That market sure as heck hasn't blossomed yet.


iPhone already multitasks.

If it acts like a newspaper+magazine+web browser (it doesn't need to be able to bake me cookies) and if it's reasonably priced, there's a good chance I'd buy one.

We are talking about Apple here, so subscription school books is highly unlikely. Subscription newspapers may be a different story though.

Read: Mac OS X touch.

I second that motion, hear hear!!

Mmm! Apple flavored!

The iPhone OS is OS X, just like the MacOS. You can be 100% guaranteed it will run OS X. There are different applications (iPhone doesn't have the finder) and some different frameworks (cocoa touch vs cocoa), but it's still OS X.

Since most people prefer glossy screens, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Apple would have.

But a small hand holdable device is much more easily positioned, so it's less of a problem.

All the goodness of app store will come with it. Apple is right though to assure initial success it will need to have a draw. To be honest I thought movies and the web would be enough but who am I. The e-books and E-magazines market though is very compelling and wide open to innovation.

So I could see why Apple might focus in on the publishing businesses. They are in ways like the American auto industry, they got very greedy & myoptic and are now paying the price. Hopefully Apple can show them the light here and significantly impact pricing of content. Ideally we would get magazines and newspapers at one third the going rate for the dead tree versions. Maybe even less. If there are not significant discounts the obviously these businesses are learning the required lessons.

As many have noted books are even worst, especially text books for college. This is a bigger problem and requires a broader effort to combat. I'm actually surprised that there haven't been more student protests at the extortion going on here. It is one thing when it comes to extremely limited distribution texts, but the widely distributed texts have no justification for their costs.

As to novels & paperbacks well PDFs are fine for those. However we don't see much demand yet for such works in this format. In part you have the reality that reading for pleasure is different than other activities involving reading. I'm not sure how well the electronic format will adapt to this. It would be interesting to see Kindles book sales broken down by type. That is, what is the portion of the book sales going to pleasure reading.



Dave


Dave

The iPhone is whatever Steve tells you it is. Look into my eyes!!

I wouldn't say that. Apple is big in education. If that's proposed to them, or they see it themselves, I see no reason why they wouldn't do it.

It also could be downloaded as one unit, much like a music album is composed of a number of separate songs.

Or like a book reader, where you download a book as you need it. If they charge for the service up front, but then allow you to download the content as required, what's the problem? You're paying for a certain amount of content, and that's what you're getting. Apple allows this now. With the ver 3 OS, you can buy new content from within a program as well.

Well, since everyone, including all the sources, seem to agree that this will be an iPhone OS based product, and you just said that you won't buy it if it is an iPhone based product, then you said that you won't buy it.

If Apple comes out with a different product from what's being expected, that's a different question.

It sure is.

Responding to the part in bold above: Books are expensive because the market is tolerable of it, not because the authors are getting rich. These are required readings. Students have to buy them. Thus the high prices and the extremely wealthy publishers.

For what it's worth, I did a detailed analysis of what it would mean for Apple to "re-invent" print media in digital form, concluding that Apple has three key things going for it that make it a natural:

1. A pre-existing 50M device footprint with the iPhone + iPod Touch that provides leverage for a new device;
2. A proven dynamic platform (read: integrated hardware-software-services-tools) for end-to-end content creation, application development, distribution, and global reach, supported by deep application and media libraries, and a robust runtime space;
3. A durable billing relationship with consumers to the tune of 100M credit cards on file (iTunes + App Store, Mobile Me).

Plus, the history of Steve Jobs dating back to Next suggests that this is strategic to him (and thus, Apple), something the post covers:

Rebooting the Book (One Apple iPad Tablet at a Time)
http://bit.ly/zOoEu

Check it out if interested.

Mark

I don't know if that is the plan for DRM, but I'm positive that the business model is not yet out there. We are guessing and analogizing with current models, and I think they don't work.

I think as with iTunes U, the universities will get in on things with perhaps licensing options in which they may have some control over DRM such that as a student or alumn, you might have perpetual permissions.

The iTunes model of rental and ownership will have to be worked out and perhaps the iApp ability to have updates sent to you automatically (that would be great for quickly changing subjects like science, etc.), free or with a fee, and would give a much better functionality to textbooks.

I prefer reading Thoreau and Shakespeare with books, but I'd be fine reading Immunology on an interactive tablet that is easy to update and has multimedia capability.

Well then show me the UIKit for Mac OS/X? Look at it this way Apple can add to Mac OS/Xs APIs in anyway it wants, we all know that, but there is no way right now to run IPhone apps on the Mac as native apps.

Exactly! Apple won't be successful targetting a tablet at that portion of the market that requires keyboard input. For many Mac OS apps this input device is required. People aren't likely to have a good experience typing data into a data base or writing a long composition in a word processor on a tablet with a virtual keyboard. Such input is tolerable for transient input but is a non starter for serious use. This doesn't even get into controls designed for a mouse.

Now this is garbage, you can't easily write apps without an API. Multi Touch is what Aplles tablets are all about.

Actually they don't and probably shouldn't have such apps. It is looking like Apple has recognized this reality. It is better to avoid publishing apps that would likely lead to bad user experiences than to satisfy fringe elements with their desire to run office of all things on a tablet. IWork is a nice suite, I have it on my Mac right now, but translating those apps directly into Touch based apps would be a mistake. In fact it would be suicidal of Apple to release apps like those at the time this tablet is released as the user experience would be terrible. Now take some of the concepts and filefirmats and craft Multi Touch refactored replacements and we are ready to go. Keynote and Numbers ought to refactor well, but pages may require voice input or handwriting recognition. On the face though I don't expect that you would recognize the apps next to their Mac OS sisters.

No MIDs fail for many of the same reasons tablets do. People try to use them as PC replacements and almost immediately end up frustrated. This is why the tablet needs to come from the iPod/Touch gene pool. It changes peoples expectations, so that they see the device as a video iPod or E-Book reader and make buying decisions based on that. Like iPhone and Touch the device can certainly have functionality beyound it's cell phone function but it has a clear reason for being and is very usable in that regard.

It becomes a question of marketing more than anything and being careful not to oversell a device until it sells itself with a large selection of apps. It is better to have the customer believing he is getting more than he bargained for rather than less.

[/quote]


iPhone already multitasks.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know this but apparently you missed the whole point of my posting. The use of iPhone OS is all about creating a better environment for the user. Something Apple can't do with Mac OS on a tablet.



Dave

I know from experience that you are an angry guy and that you often post things that are more about how irritated you are in the moment than what you actually believe or will possibly even do, but this is a ridiculous statement. Especially since in the sentence previous you make an entirely sensible comment about having to see the device before making any such decisions.

Look at it this way. It's 100% certain that the "desktop" metaphor for a tablet is not only not a bonus but that it might actually hinder adoption (based on reviews of previous tablets). It's also obvious that if the way people use the device is substantially "new" that the applications used on it might need to be re-designed for the device rather than operating the same way their desktop counterparts do. All new "mobile" versions of your favourite apps are likely to be preferred.

The best option for a successful tablet device is clearly a custom UI, with custom apps designed specifically for it, not just sticking Snow Leopard (desktop version), on a tablet. The fact that the tactic you are arguing for (full desktop OS), has failed, and failed so often in the past supports this view.

The only thing iPhone OS is missing that would make it a "full" OS capable of running programs that create and edit data, is a file system and if you imagine a "stack" on the iPhone toolbar that leads to a dedicated "documents" folder you can see how easily that problem could be solved.

There is just no reason to bring desktop metaphors, hard drives and all that other old-fashioned crud along for the ride with the new platform. The average user doesn't *want* to look into their hard drive, install programs, configure their mobiles or know anything about that sort of crap. They want to start a program, do a task, and get on with their lives.

That is exactly what iPhone OS is. I'm not sure why you are so stubborn in this regard and can't digest the facts. So again if you don't believe us down load the SDK and see for yourself. Some of the APIs are exactly the same and others are simply trimmed for sanity or to work better on the smaller platform.

I really wish you would explain why your panties get twisted in a knot over iPhone OS. It can do everything that needs to be done on this tablet without the carry over of the garbage and depricated APIs of Mac OS. Really add to the discussion or stop the whining. Maybe you will change my mind, it's highly doubtful though as nobody here yet has come up with a good explaination for Mac OS on such a device.





Dave

Very good article. I bookmarked it.

I'd also like to say something about bookstores, and Borders in particular, since it was mentioned there that they were on "life support".

When I went to London in the beginning of July, we went to Borders on, I believe Oxford Street. It was a big store, and on the first floor, in the back, was a large section for magazines and periodicals.

We bought a couple of books, and I bought every British high end audio publication I could find, to take them back.

When I went back at the end of August, I went to the store on a Sunday afternoon, to find it closed. But closed in a way that meant *Closed*. I hope it was for renovations, but I doubt it.

What amazed me was that in all my walking around london, I didn't find a single bookstore that wouldn't be called small. Not one! Londoners can correct me on this if I missed something in a place I didn't get to. But I found it strange. In fact, there were few bookstores at all. And no real large magazine shops. Not one! There was one small one that was closed on Sunday before I found it, but that was it.

In NYC, you can't go more than a couple of blocks without banging into a large bookstore, or large magazine store.

I was both surprised and disappointed at that.

I doubt very much Apple would take this step. First, it completely violates the spirit of developing advanced devices that truly innovate. Second, it just doesn't make sense to build a device that plays to a single niche market. The reason the iPhone is so successful with respect to other such devices is (in part) that it has hardware and software robust enough to allow the device to serve many purposes beyond just being a phone, and the App store's 75,000 titles reflect this. Kindle, while interesting, simply proves the point: niche devices like Kindle appeal to niche markets; there is little upside in them. To make the point clearer, realize this: Amazon may provide a decent ebook in kindle, but Amazon won't get rich selling them nor will they revolutionize their market.

For a tablet device to be successful, that device is going to need to fulfill multiple roles. I think articles like this, which suggest that Apple is positioning their device to a specific niche, are misguided from the start, because they miss the economic fundamentals of developing products like this. Is it probable that Apple might be pursuing publishers to get content into iTunes? Maybe. Is it likely that Apple thinks people will buy a $600 + device so they can read their newspapers and magazines electronically? Not very. If and when this device comes to market, it will offer a suite of capabilities that far exceed being a glorified e-book reader, with the primary reason being that doing more than that is the only way Apple will sell enough of them for the effort to be worthwhile.

Interesting note.

Mac OS X has Spaces. Perhaps some people use it quite often; I don't use it that much. It's a neat feature, and can occasionally be helpful, but it's generally not that useful.

But if Apple's tablet (running scaled-up iPhone OS with expanded App Store or running Mac OS X Touch) was purposed greatly for students to use in place of textbooks and notebooks....

Then Spaces has suddenly become very useful. Especially the "pop-out-and-rearrange-windows" function. You can have an Apple-designed note-taking app that stays open, and have different textbooks (or even sets of textbooks) open in different spaces. You can move the textbooks around based on what you're studying or what you're taking notes on. Current iPhone OS has Spaces in a way - the few apps that multitask stay open in different spaces, and you switch between them (like, between Safari and Messages) by pressing the home button, etc. It never has more than one "window" open, but the tablet has enough screen real estate to have multiple windows that can be moved around between spaces. For convenience, the windows would probably grow to fit the space you were focusing on.

I'd see their note-taking app as more than merely notes - it would be an organizational tool too. It would work with Calendar automatically...arrange by class, graphically....

Thoughts?

Mel,

Thanks for checking out. One of the "AHA" moments for me in writing the piece is how lost print media is without a ready supply of physical book stores to push and market their latest releases.

That, on top of all of the numbers about hemorrhaging of losses in the business, tells me that Apple is well-positioned here, especially since Amazon is seen as the boogeyman in this sector.

Who said "let's stick Snow Leopard on it"? Not me. You clearly are a very make-e-up-e guy. With great experience!

I disagree. I use it all the time. I normally keep Safari and Mail open in space one. I reserve CS4 and related apps for space 2. Three is usually reserved for installations and looking though windows on my drives, and for searching my desktop. 4 is for my newsgroup readers.

I use other spaces for other specific things.

This is great for having a bunch of differing apps and windows open all the time, or almost all the time. It's much easier to tap F19 to move things from one space to another than it is to do so on a overly crowded screen. And it's much easier to hit Control # to move between things than to use Exposé to find things, as it's best reserved when looking within A space.

This is really the best of both worlds.

Production costs are often not thought of when people complain about the cost of textbooks. I designed K-12 textbooks for over 10 years, and there are a lot of people involved in creating them. It also can take a good two years of planning and production to get it done. You don't just have a writer put words on a page, run it through a "black box" program and get a book. In addition to the author or authors there is a team of editors, designers, production artists, art researchers, fact checkers proof-readers, and copy editors involved. Then there is an art budget to purchase stock photography or commission photography for the book, create tech art and illustrations. Then it all needs to be fact checked and aligned to state standards.

In the K-12 market there are also a lot of "freebees" that the schools get with the books as well which could include workbooks, teachers editions, transparencies, web content, CD-Roms, and in some cases even state specific books (there was one book that was being produced by my company for a major publisher that almost canceled a math book for the state of NY because they were used to getting it for free and the publisher wanted to charge for the new book). All the costs of this is wrapped up into the cost of the textbooks.

Another thing to think about, the quest for lower priced books is sending the work of producing these products to India and the printing to Mexico and China, which means more of your tax dollars supporting the economy of another country and good paying jobs disappearing here in the U.S.

This is an excellent point: that a newspaper is not synonymous with news itself. Newspapers are just a medium and that medium, unlike 100 years ago, is today only one of many available. What was IN the newspaper was distinct from the newspaper itself and had no relation to or was defined by the medium (up to a point-- audio and video are not available in newspapers). I suppose in a way you could say reading news on one of these devices is still just reading a 'newspaper', but that's like the original autos being called 'horseless carriages'... seeing the future through a rear view mirror. But like a car is so much more than a horse, the Internet is much more than a hand held newspaper. I don't just mean it has audio and video...it can access information instantaneously and directly...no filters...unadulterated by a biased rendering or perspective. Or perhaps we get to select our own editors. This is in contrast to an editor-in-chief for a newspaper or TV/Radio program. Editors are middlemen second guessing public interest with economics in mind. My only legitimate concern is that people lose their common denominator by withdrawing into their own select spheres of interest, never knowing what their next door neighbors are reading.

no, it's OS X - with the same programming tools and many, but not all, of the same frameworks. It's pretty straightforward to write code that runs on both machines because the core of both is the same OS.

The knowledge may not be protected by copyright law, but the wording of the original author is and it would be plagiarism to copy it word for word. Textbook companies spend a lot of money to permission photographs, illustrations, and text to be used in their products. Even "public domain" images can be protected by copyright, say like that photograph of the painting of George Washington or the Declaration of Independence. The painting is no longer protected, but that photograph is and if you use it without permission then you are subject to a lawsuit. And while you may be able to find an image that is in the public domain with some research it may take more time (and thus money) to find it than purchasing the rights to an image that is readily available.

What I want is a touch-based version of Mac OS X. Not a giggly-iconed iPhone OS on a 10" screen that's great at selling me books. Yes, I'm aware the same tech in used, same language, same kernel etc. But I want the full Mac OS X with all the apps I get on my Mac, with a finger sized touch-based OS. They could slap the iPhone OS on a tablet tomorrow, what I want is to do the tablet from scratch, with one thing in mind: This tablet will be a Mac. There's a reason why Apple doesn't refer to the iPhone and iPod touch as Macs, and it's not just marketing or screen size.

Did I hear a but in there?

You got to admit my look into my eyes comment was classic!

Editors do a lot more than that.

Newspapers also have fact checkers, at least all the bigger and better ones do.

By the times when fact checking fails, we can see what would happen if there wasn't a newspaper controlling the writers.

All we would have is the undisciplined bloggers we have today, claiming to be reporters and news media, but actually no better than biased paid for shills of certain creeds. There's too much of that now.

Heh heh, not to worry. Apple will be in the eyewear business soon!

Yeah, but you still have to deal with the smell of paper, ink, and glue.

How amusing...you're trading in one set of gatekeepers for a bunch of unknowns...namely blog writers and other "unfiltered" sources of information. Who are anything BUT unbiased.

Even Wikipedia is biased. You just don't know which way on any particular article.