Former Google China president reveals details on Apple's tablet - Page 5

Originally Posted by lunga

I'm hoping for two things.

1. The thing actually exists.

2. Wimax!

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

You and me both... especially as a (full disclosure) CLWR investor.

Originally Posted by addabox

I think the general outlines of an Apple tablet are pretty clearly laid out in two articles: John Gruber at Daring Fireball and John Siracusa at Ars Technica.

Originally Posted by Ireland

You're smart, well you might prove to be

Originally Posted by addabox

I think the general outlines of an Apple tablet are pretty clearly laid out in two articles: John Gruber at Daring Fireball and John Siracusa at Ars Technica.

They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.

An Apple tablet won't have anything spectacular or surprising on the hardware side, and be a slim, small bezeled 10" (or whatever) LCD touch tablet with few physical buttons and pretty main stream innards-- 64 to 128 Gb flash storage, no optical drive, possibly a PA Semi enhanced chip set, WiFi, Bluetooth, and fewer ports than some people want. Apple will brag about how skinny and light it is, pundits will question the tradeoffs made vs. battery life.

It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side, although it will not simply be a big iPod or a keyboard-less MacBook.

What will distinguish an Apple tablet, however, is a whole bunch of very careful, very well though out optimizations arising from what Apple has decided the most common use cases will be. That, of course, will be the kind of thing that doesn't impress a certain segment, who will dismiss the tablet as old tech and me-too ism, and have a lot to say about how the Apple faithful think Apple innovates when it just markets.

What could well make the tablet a success, however, are just those optimizations, plus relentless leveraging of the iTunes and App Stores, which give Apple a huge installed based of ready and willing credit card numbers. "Ease of use", after all, includes the whole process of acquiring, paying for and using media and software.

It's funny, because as Siracusa lays out, the parts are all there in plain site and don't require magic new Apple breakthroughs. It's just that making a really well thought out, fun to use tablet that drastically reduces the friction involved with getting a lot of stuff on the thing isn't teh sexy. It's just a matter of putting the pieces together in a way that works really well. Since Apple happens to be as good or better than anybody at putting the pieces together really well, I think one would be pretty shortsighted to dismiss their tablet as being pointless.

Originally Posted by solipsism

The device does seem to run Mac OS X, which Ireland really wanted, but hes been claiming a 10.1 tablet for such a long time and has had pretty really nice mockups (sans the Mac OS X UI) that I think he deserves some accolades if his longtime vision is even half right.

Originally Posted by Ireland

I agree with John on the point that you'll buy Mac touch instead of a MacBook, I see it replacing the MacBook for most people like I have been saying for some time. It may need a Air-like USB door in that case though, which I suppose isn't a big deal for Apple to add. I furthermore reiterate I see the price being $999 or more.

Originally Posted by addabox

It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side,

That, of course, will be the kind of thing that doesn't impress a certain segment, who will dismiss the tablet as old tech and me-too ism, and have a lot to say about how the Apple faithful think Apple innovates when it just markets.

Originally Posted by Ireland

I agree with John on the point that you'll buy Mac touch instead of a MacBook,

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I'm not smart yet, but I hope to be soon. For now, I'm just an investor.

Originally Posted by wizard69

I keep seeing these references to these very high prices and have to ask why? I mean do you really think people will piss away $1000 for a tablet running iPhone OS?

Originally Posted by Ireland

I see it running Mac OS X touch...

Originally Posted by addabox

I think the general outlines of an Apple tablet are pretty clearly laid out in two articles: John Gruber at Daring Fireball and John Siracusa at Ars Technica.

Originally Posted by solipsism

So do you expect it to run any Mac OS X app since you think it will be called a Mac?

Originally Posted by solipsism

Here is another view of the Apple Tablet by Joe Wilcox stating it will be a niche product, at best.

http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...her/1262456214 Whats great is how weak his argument is claiming that MS has been trying to make a tablet a few times and hasnt succeeded so Apple cant possibly succeed.

Originally Posted by Ireland

Old versions of the Mac OS won't run today's apps, this will be similar. You're looking down a narrow path.

Originally Posted by Ireland

After reading what you say here I won't waste my time reading his crap.

Originally Posted by solipsism

But old versions are old versions, not parallel versions.

Originally Posted by Ireland

Mac touch apps won't run on non-touch Macs, and non-Mac touch apps won't run on Mac touchs.

Originally Posted by solipsism

That is why it won’t be called be a Mac in any way, shape or form.

Originally Posted by Ireland

This remains to be seen. In the end it's all marketing, and "Mac touch" is great marketing.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Here is another view of the Apple Tablet by Joe Wilcox stating it will be a niche product, at best.

http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...her/1262456214 Whats great is how weak his argument is claiming that MS has been trying to make a tablet a few times and hasnt succeeded so Apple cant possibly succeed.


PS: I really hate the use of the term niche. Its often used pejoratively yet its defined as "a specialized but profitable corner of the market. On top of that, what cant be defined as niche. Apples iPhone is niche in that it appeals to the relatively small smartphone market segment of the total cellphone market, and even within the smartphone market its at least third behind Nokia and RiM in unit sales.

Originally Posted by kcmac

This guy really enjoyed the Wilcox article....

http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/02...t-future-tech/

If Joe Wilcox ran the computer industry, wed still be using typewriters.

Originally Posted by solipsism

If Apple was planning this and if they expect you to use fingers as the primary input method then they would have had to have completely rebuilt SL to make it touch-capable from the start so that Mac apps could be rebuilt to take advantage of a potential interface optimized for fingers.

Originally Posted by iMacmatician

That or a third variant of OS X that is very similar to iPhone OS and runs iPhone apps etc.

Originally Posted by addabox

I think the general outlines of an Apple tablet are pretty clearly laid out in two articles: John Gruber at Daring Fireball and John Siracusa at Ars Technica.

They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.

An Apple tablet won't have anything spectacular or surprising on the hardware side, and be a slim, small bezeled 10" (or whatever) LCD touch tablet with few physical buttons and pretty main stream innards-- 64 to 128 Gb flash storage, no optical drive, possibly a PA Semi enhanced chip set, WiFi, Bluetooth, and fewer ports than some people want. Apple will brag about how skinny and light it is, pundits will question the tradeoffs made vs. battery life.

It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side, although it will not simply be a big iPod or a keyboard-less MacBook.

What will distinguish an Apple tablet, however, is a whole bunch of very careful, very well though out optimizations arising from what Apple has decided the most common use cases will be. That, of course, will be the kind of thing that doesn't impress a certain segment, who will dismiss the tablet as old tech and me-too ism, and have a lot to say about how the Apple faithful think Apple innovates when it just markets.

What could well make the tablet a success, however, are just those optimizations, plus relentless leveraging of the iTunes and App Stores, which give Apple a huge installed based of ready and willing credit card numbers. "Ease of use", after all, includes the whole process of acquiring, paying for and using media and software.

It's funny, because as Siracusa lays out, the parts are all there in plain site and don't require magic new Apple breakthroughs. It's just that making a really well thought out, fun to use tablet that drastically reduces the friction involved with getting a lot of stuff on the thing isn't teh sexy. It's just a matter of putting the pieces together in a way that works really well. Since Apple happens to be as good or better than anybody at putting the pieces together really well, I think one would be pretty shortsighted to dismiss their tablet as being pointless.

Originally Posted by Ireland

Mac touch apps won't run on non-touch Macs, and non-Mac touch apps won't run on Mac touch's.

"A Different kind of Mac."

Originally Posted by addabox

I think the general outlines of an Apple tablet are pretty clearly laid out in two articles: John Gruber at Daring Fireball and John Siracusa at Ars Technica.

They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.

An Apple tablet won't have anything spectacular or surprising on the hardware side, and be a slim, small bezeled 10" (or whatever) LCD touch tablet with few physical buttons and pretty main stream innards-- 64 to 128 Gb flash storage, no optical drive, possibly a PA Semi enhanced chip set, WiFi, Bluetooth, and fewer ports than some people want. Apple will brag about how skinny and light it is, pundits will question the tradeoffs made vs. battery life.

It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side, although it will not simply be a big iPod or a keyboard-less MacBook.

What will distinguish an Apple tablet, however, is a whole bunch of very careful, very well though out optimizations arising from what Apple has decided the most common use cases will be. That, of course, will be the kind of thing that doesn't impress a certain segment, who will dismiss the tablet as old tech and me-too ism, and have a lot to say about how the Apple faithful think Apple innovates when it just markets.

What could well make the tablet a success, however, are just those optimizations, plus relentless leveraging of the iTunes and App Stores, which give Apple a huge installed based of ready and willing credit card numbers. "Ease of use", after all, includes the whole process of acquiring, paying for and using media and software.

It's funny, because as Siracusa lays out, the parts are all there in plain site and don't require magic new Apple breakthroughs. It's just that making a really well thought out, fun to use tablet that drastically reduces the friction involved with getting a lot of stuff on the thing isn't teh sexy. It's just a matter of putting the pieces together in a way that works really well. Since Apple happens to be as good or better than anybody at putting the pieces together really well, I think one would be pretty shortsighted to dismiss their tablet as being pointless.

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

Mainly, the WHY of why Apple would release the tablet. They're not doing it just because everyone expects it.

Originally Posted by Olternaut

I disagree partially. At the very least I see Apple having something spectacular or surprising on the software side. And there should be at least one hardware innovation related to that "surprise" interface we've been hearing about.

Originally Posted by wizard69

That is my take on Clearwire. I hate to say this but I doubt your investment will go anywhere with the current management team inplace. I've found absolutely nothing to like about how that company is managed nor how their products where marketed. Frankly they make AT&T look ethical and progressive.

However like the subject said it is a great idea. I also haven't had much contact with them after getting that bad taste in my mouth. Maybe they can overcome the obvious management greed and desire to fleece their customers.

Dave

Originally Posted by solipsism

I agree that the nomenclature is marketing but I think marketing is important to make sure there isn’t confusion. I think having two different OS X versions called Mac with a difference being one is labeled as Touch to indicate which apps will run it is confusing for the average customer.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

. It has virtual keyboard for text entry and a webcam for video conferencing."

Originally Posted by Ireland

I disagree, there could be a badge "Mac touch app" beside any Mac touch app, people would understand. Besides, it would have its own App Store, so you couldn't make this mistake even by accident. And its App Store would be so heavily marketed in presentations and videos - people would automatically assume that's where you go for Apps.

Originally Posted by nutela

I hope it has the ability to scan/photograph documents. I'm using the iSight to capture diagrams from a book which I am studying but the image resolution is poor, I'm not sure if it has focus or not. The iPhone 3G too has a crappy camera, a reason that I am selling it for a 3GS \

Originally Posted by solipsism

So my Mac Touch apps will work on my iMac?

Originally Posted by wizard69

That is my take on Clearwire. I hate to say this but I doubt your investment will go anywhere with the current management team inplace. I've found absolutely nothing to like about how that company is managed nor how their products where marketed. Frankly they make AT&T look ethical and progressive.

However like the subject said it is a great idea. I also haven't had much contact with them after getting that bad taste in my mouth. Maybe they can overcome the obvious management greed and desire to fleece their customers.

Dave

(Updated to add comment from a trade association and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.) By Brent Kendall and Amy Schatz WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Justice Department on Monday urged the Federal Communications Commission to promote competition for broadband services by reallocating available spectrum to wireless providers and auctioning it in a way that would favor new competitors over incumbents that now dominate the market for high-speed Internet. The department's comments, signed by its antitrust chief, Christine Varney, came in a 30-page written filing to the FCC, which is developing a national broadband plan due to Congress by Feb. 17. The scarcity of available airwaves is an obstacle to broadband competition, the Justice Department said in the filing. It argued that companies like Clearwire Corp. (CLWR), Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) and T-Mobile, which are trying to develop next-generation wireless broadband services, need more airwaves to compete with cable modem, DSL or fiber optic-based services. "Stated simply, without access to sufficient spectrum, a firm cannot provide state-of-the-art wireless broadband services," the department said. "Reallocating spectrum that is being underutilized would encourage the deployment of wireless services and could help to make such services more competitive with wireline offerings." Notably, the department's antitrust regulators argued that if the FCC auctions off more airwaves, it should question whether selling them to incumbent carriers like AT&T Inc. (T) or Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) is the wisest choice. They said the reallocated spectrum should be auctioned in a manner that puts incumbents' bids at a disadvantage because they could seek to buy up the additional space as a way to cut off potential rivals. "There are substantial advantages to deploying newly available spectrum in order to enable additional providers to mount stronger challenges to broadband incumbents," the department said. In separate comments Monday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency of the Commerce Department, said it agreed with the Justice Department's position. Wireless carriers have generally supported the idea of devoting more airwaves for wireless broadband services. The largest wireless phone companies--AT&T and Verizon Wireless--would likely oppose any government effort to ensure they can't bid for more airwaves. An AT&T spokesman had no immediate comment, while a Verizon spokesman did not return a call for comment. Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at CTIA, the wireless industry's trade group, said there were "a lot of positives" in the Justice Department's comments. "We're excited that they see the primary tool for promoting competition as spectrum, and there's no time to spare in getting more on the market," he said. The department didn't specifically say incumbent wireless carriers should be barred from leasing more airwaves but instead presented several different options, he said. When a phone company like AT&T offers both wired and wireless Internet service in an area, it doesn't have much incentive to compete with itself, said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer advocacy group. "If you have a view that says you need four or more competitors in this space. spectrum is the area that gives you the necessary competition," he said. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and other agency officials say the popularity of Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) iPhone--and the problems AT&T has experienced coping with increased demand--demonstrates why the U.S. needs to devote more airwaves for wireless broadband services. The need to identify and reallocate airwaves for wireless broadband will be a major conclusion of the FCC's coming national broadband plan, a blueprint for what the government can do to ensure all Americans have access to high-speed, affordable Internet service. In the fall, FCC officials floated an idea of reallocating some airwaves now held by TV stations. Most TV stations don't use all of the airwaves they've been given by the government, although some are considering using a portion of those airwaves to offer mobile TV signals for cellphones and other wireless gadgets. Some broadcasters have objected to the idea of losing some of their airwaves--even if they're compensated for those airwaves by the government--and have been lobbying against the plan. FCC officials say they're also looking at other airwaves--both private and government-held--which could be used for wireless broadband instead. FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield said, "We agree with the Justice Department about the need for more spectrum for mobile broadband and look forward to reviewing their comments about the best way to accommodate that growing demand." -By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com Click here to go to Dow Jones NewsPlus, a web front page of today's most important business and market news, analysis and commentary: http://www.djnewsplus.com/nae/al?rnd...%2Fs6D0w%3D%3D. You can use this link on the day this article is published and the following day. (END) Dow Jones Newswires 01-04-10 1613ET Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Originally Posted by Ireland

I disagree, there could be a badge "Mac touch app" beside any Mac touch app, people would understand. Besides, it would have its own App Store, so you couldn't make this mistake even by accident. And its App Store would be so heavily marketed in presentations and videos - people would automatically assume that's where you go for Apps.

Originally Posted by Olternaut

I disagree partially. At the very least I see Apple having something spectacular or surprising on the software side. And there should be at least one hardware innovation related to that "surprise" interface we've been hearing about.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Looking at Apples history for the past decade I think the why should not be taken for granted. I agree wholeheartedly that Apple isnt simply going to release a product "just because". I wouldnt expect the tablet to be unveiled unless Apple thinks it can make a viable market out of tablets.