or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Former Google China president reveals details on Apple's tablet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #161 of 227
I'm hoping for two things.

1. The thing actually exists.

2. Wimax!
post #162 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunga View Post

I'm hoping for two things.

1. The thing actually exists.

2. Wimax!

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #163 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

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

You're smart, well you might prove to be
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #164 of 227
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.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #165 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.

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.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #166 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

You're smart, well you might prove to be

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #167 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.

John S. Article pretty much reflects what I've been saying and expect. The only thing that I disagree with is the performance of the PA Semi chip. I'm fully expecting bleeding edge performance. If that wasn't Apples goal they would never have purchased PA as there is plenty of suitable ARM hardware already on the market.

So I'm expecting a PA chip that is very focused integration wise. Keeping the pheripheral set minimal reduces wasted die space freeing it up for other uses. One of those uses might be a full video buffer memory for the GPU. That is one possibility but at 40 nm there are many possibilities. For example SMP support which would have a dramatic impact on performance.
Quote:
They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.

Yep, but I lean more to John S's view than the other. I'm very much of the opinion that the writing is already on the wall, all you need to do is look for it. However I do need to state that Apple has unlimited freedom to expand Cocoa Touch in any way they want. That would include new input methods.
Quote:
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.

Interesting your comments about ports as it is almost a given there will be less there than many of us want. In the end I would like to see Apple offer up a commercial version that supports snapping on accessory hardware like barcode readers, IR thermometer or what ever the imagination can come up with.

Given that that is unlikely I would like to see at least one USB host port using a standard connector. Of course the dock port would be there for slave access. Finally a general purpose switch to supplement the home button, that would work as a shutter release in the camera app but would otherwise be general purpose.
Quote:
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.

This I'm not so clear on. I fully expect more "stuff" than the current iPhone implementation. There will be frameworks to support books and albums for example. Apple could also surprise us with new input methods like voice or handwriting recognition. The tablet needs something more than touch screen keyboards for input of text.
Quote:
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.

I found the above perplexing. Certainly you can see the innovation in the iPhone right? Making something profoundly easier to use is innovation. I mean what are you expecting some sort of cybernetic cyborg implant to go along with each tablet to effect a new man-machine interface?
Quote:
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.

This is certainly true. App store has driven iPhone sales in a beautiful fashion. In fact I don't think iPhone would be the success it is today without app store.
Quote:
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.

True again but we really won't know until it debuts. The problem is there are millions of ways to put that tablet together. It is the combination of features and access that will make or break the unit. Personally if they make the unit to cloud centric and make it difficult for users to access the unit then there will be problems. Finally it needs to support multitasking of user apps. In any event I agree in the sense that you can't dismiss the thing until you see it and experience it.

Dave

PS

One more thing, the Johns are expecting a modestly performant unit with nothing dramatic to be said for the CPU. Right now I see this as a mistake, because I believe they (Apple) will leverage GCD and OpenCL on the unit. While I expect the ARM chip to be industry leading and SMP capable there are already plenty of competing chips on the market. Apple will likely take their small bleeding edge advantage and leverage it heavily with the software tech that GCD and OpenCL provide. So like iPhone the tablet will compete very well against similar hardware. I suspect people will be very pleased with the performance, especially for a battery powered device.


Dave
post #168 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

Doesn't look to be Mac OS X given the rumors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage

Putting Mac OS X on a tablet is like putting a steering wheel on a motorcycle.
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage

Putting Mac OS X on a tablet is like putting a steering wheel on a motorcycle.
Reply
post #169 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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.

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?

Look at what the hardware is likely to cost Apple and the see if that price is justified. For example the SoC is likely to be dirt cheap probably around $30 each and that might be high. A RAM chip would be needed and a small number of external and analog parts. The biggest variable in motherboard cost will be the Flash memory of course, but in the end it would be easy for Apple to have the logic board go out the door for far less than $100. Add another $100 or so for the LCD, case and battery so maybe the whole thing costs $200 to produce, apple could the easily sell it for $400.

As for that SoC, $30 could be rather high. It all depends upon licensing costs, the area of the chip and the yields. In any event people have to realize that ARM has been serving the embedded world for years, that world does not do over priced Intel hardware. So the logic board will not be that expensive.


Dave
post #170 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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

Im not so sure of this. Perhaps it wont be obvious to many but I think the way we interact with the tablet is going to set a new standard and that takes a lot of innovation in the lower-end of the software.

Quote:
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.

Aint that the truth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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

Im not convinced of this. I think it will be an accessory device not a Mac replacement. I dont think it will use Mac apps and I have a feeling that it will sync through iTunes.


PS: Which ports do you think it will have?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #171 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

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

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
post #172 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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?

It will not run iPhone OS. The iPhone already does that. I see it running Mac OS X touch, and redefining the computer world, therefore it will be perceived to be worth the cost. Not to mention it will have a high quality touch screen display, very expensive SSD storage and a solid unibody chassis. I think it will be aluminum, with a web cam and a decent processor (relatively speaking) etc.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #173 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I see it running Mac OS X touch...

So do you expect it to run any Mac OS X app since you think it will be called a Mac? I dont see how this is possible. 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. They have done none of this and calling it a Mac will simply cause confusion for the average user.

So my Apple Tablet runs Mac OS X, and my iMac runs Mac OS X but I cant run any Mac app on my Apple Tablet because its an ARM CPU and even if it did run Id have to use a stylus because the app is designed to be used with a precision pointer?

I hope you are wrong because that doesnt sound like a good product to me.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #174 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.

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.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #175 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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

Old versions of the Mac OS won't run today's apps, this will be similar. You're looking down a narrow path.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #176 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

After reading what you say here I won't waste my time reading his crap.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #177 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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

But old versions are old versions, not parallel versions. If you tell me that an iMac and iTablet use Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard Im going to assume that they run apps that are designed for Snow Leopard. The only caveat is the app requirements could be retrofitted with a will not work on tablet notification, but that is not exactly the best method for handling it.

Im still going for syncing via iTunes and running a *new* branch of OS X that is neither Mac OS or iPhone OS but a hybrid utilizing features of both with a completely new UI, not even close to looking like Mac OS X.

I simply dont see how this how a straight port of Mac OS X with a touchscreen interface can be useable with fingers. Just look at ModBook or any Windows-based tablet to see why running a desktop OS on a tablet is recipe for disaster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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

Fair enough. Ill try to post some quotes next time so you can laugh without having to click.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #178 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

But old versions are old versions, not parallel versions.

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."
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #179 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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

That is why it wont be called be a Mac in any way, shape or form.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #180 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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

This remains to be seen. In the end it's all marketing, and "Mac touch" is great marketing.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #181 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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

I agree that the nomenclature is marketing but I think marketing is important to make sure there isnt 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.

Plus, I think when I first saw your mockup the common idea was a typical notebook chip, not an ARM chip. This was also well before the success of the App Store. I think Apple will want to make the Tablet OS SDK uses a very similar system, perhaps even having a windowed simulator so users can already have a built-in app collection from the iPhone and iPod Touch.

A little over 3 weeks and we may find out.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #182 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

This guy really enjoyed the Wilcox article....

http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/02...t-future-tech/
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
post #183 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmac View Post

This guy really enjoyed the Wilcox article....

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

MC Sieglers first sentence
Quote:
If Joe Wilcox ran the computer industry, wed still be using typewriters.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #184 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

And before anyone says "what about the new touch-friendly features in Snow Leopard," I'll reply, "what about all the existing features that aren't touch-friendly" as well as "touch-friendliness may only be a side effect of the feature, not the purpose."

I don't think the tablet will run Mac OS X and I doubt there will be a Mac OS X "touch." iPhone OS or iPhone OS "extended" is more likely. That or a third variant of OS X that is very similar to iPhone OS and runs iPhone apps etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage

Putting Mac OS X on a tablet is like putting a steering wheel on a motorcycle.
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage

Putting Mac OS X on a tablet is like putting a steering wheel on a motorcycle.
Reply
post #185 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacmatician View Post

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

That would a 4th variant of OS X after Mac OS, AppleTV OS (though publicly unnamed), and iPhone OS.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #186 of 227
Great rundown. Just one thing though, overall I get the feeling the "killer apps/features" are still tightly guarded secrets. We're all dancing around what is most likely to be the basics of it, but the market positioning and RDF angle, is not so clear at this stage. That is, some "genius" of the Tablet is still hidden from our speculations. Mainly, the WHY of why Apple would release the tablet. They're not doing it just because everyone expects it. I'm still asking, I guess, where's the beef?

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.
post #187 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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."

That's why I'm thinking it won't have the name Mac in it. Because Apple IMO is definitely going to ride the success of iPod and iPhone and pitch this to both the Mac and PC crowd. iPad/ iSlate/ iGuide/ iTouch/ iTab etc, but no "Mac" in the name. This is one area where they do not want to invoke the "Mac vs PC wars". They've learnt this from the MacBook Air. Their entry into the "netbook/ ultralight" space is going to circumvent these Mac vs PC stuff. Keeping the Mac line, name and OS pristine.
post #188 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.

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.
post #189 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

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

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.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #190 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olternaut View Post

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.

I suppose it depends on your definition of spectacular and surprising. It seems to me that a lot of what Apple does is about taking existing parts and making them work together much, much better than they previously have. So much better that they can seem like a whole new thing, which is where the confusion and ill-will regarding Apple's status as an innovator comes in.

I think Apple can make a beautifully engineered tablet that is not materially different than some of what has already been on the market, just better designed, better assembled and more thoughtfully worked out in its every particular. I think they can marry that to a UI that isn't startlingly different from the iPhone, just better optimized for a larger screen with some very carefully calibrated UI touches that will feel very natural and be a pleasure to use.

And I think the combination of that closely coupled hardware and software will be more than the some of its parts, and that the tablet will be a bit of a revelation. But I think it will achieve that without needing any marquee innovations or breakthroughs. When you think about it, it's actually much harder to make something that feels new and unprecedented out of existing parts than it is to just roll out entirely new tech, which is often impressive without being all that useful. That's what makes Apple bashers so crazy-- they can't understand where the appeal is, or what it is that Apple's doing that garners so much praise, because they think it's about new technology instead of new thinking.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #191 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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

You're probably right about incompetent management, but things tend to change at companies if they neglect profitability or the customer, for that matter, for too long. Hopefully they'll stay in business long enough to fulfill their early promise.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #192 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

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.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #193 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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

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 \
post #194 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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.

So my Mac Touch apps will work on my iMac?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #195 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutela View Post

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 \

That's an interesting request.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #196 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So my Mac Touch apps will work on my iMac?

Stop it.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #197 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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

Something interesting happened today and Clearwire was singled out. Here's the article:

Quote:
(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.

Hopefully this will add another positive bit of momentum to the stock tomorrow. Today was a barnburner.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #198 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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.

iSlate apps will not run on anything other than iSlate. However iPod touch and iPhone apps will run on iSlate.

Mac apps will run only on the Mac.

post #199 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olternaut View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

The funny thing is that everyone else will be going all-bananas-out on doing tablets at CES. Actual number that will be sold, is anyone's guess. Those are all probably random pokes in the dark.

Apple will give tablets a significant reason to exist, then, the copying will begin, those tablets released at CES will be modified or thrown out entirely.

Because to this date no one has demonstrated why I, an average IT consumer, would need or desire a tablet. I wonder if CES will change that. But Apple most likely will, should it release a tablet.
post #200 of 227
I have been trying to work out what the justification of an iSlate is. Where is the market? After all, all previous tablet computers have been dismal failures.

Sorry, it's a long post, but here's my guess....

Computers, desktops and laptops are not really consumer products and never have been. Their origins date back to professional computer uses like Word Processing and Spreadsheets.

Despite attempts to make them easier to use. Personal Computers remain tools for professionals, which have only made a handful of concessions for non-professional usage.

The "professional tool" PC is not bad thing. We professionals like to create content. We want keyboards, and we want an exposed file system, and we want to plug stuff in. These are essential aspects to the personal computer and can never be dropped.

But these requirements come with three unavoidable problems.

1) The form factor. Physical bulk. Professional computers simply must have keyboards. They are useless without them. And even the slimmest computers are bulky when opened.

2) Power. You need a desktop-like CPU to run desktop apps. This means a low batter life.

3) Complexity. The desktop experience demands a windowing WIMP interface. With file systems, and settings and all.

For us technophiles, a full OS and GUI is something we hardly think of. It is a given. But such systems requires a lengthy boot process, and a level of technical expertise which is not universal. Some basic tasks are ridiculously difficult.

The flexible nature of software also brings with it the risk of viruses or configuration nightmares, which non-technical people just cannot solve. Your Granny can still not use your Mac. Your uncle can use a PC, but he has to trade it in every 18 months because it is "broken".

So can the computer be "re-thunk" for a non-professional market? Can you design a device for a market that cares more about consuming media than creating media? If you see kids with laptops, they watch movies, send text-like messages on facebook - they never open a file-system. They don't want to.

Perhaps there is a demand for a consumer-oriented computer appliance? It would offer all those computer benefits we get on the notebook, but without these problems.

So the a CE computer would
1) Have a form factor which lends itself to media-consumption, reading, portability, bagability. A robust, slim, screen format which would take-up less space than a magazine. This means dumping the rarely needed keyboard. This means a chamfered edge. This means a scratch-proof screen. A round-edged slab that can take abuse.

2) Switch to a processor and GPU designed for portable hardware. Offering long battery life. Good performance, and offload heavy lifting to the GPU where possible. 8 hours use would be good. A couple of days stand-by would be handy too.

3) Create a user experience around media consumption and not media creation. This means a brain-dead easy UI. We are talking chimpanzee-level intelligence to operate. Want to Facebook. Poke Facebook. Want to watch a movie. Poke the movie. Want to videochat with the grandkids. Poke the grandkids pic, or the camera pic. Either will get you there. And it should not only be simple, it should be fun. Every action would be rewarded with clear visual feedback.

The market is full of people who already want to do this stuff, but currently are compelled to buy a pro device that offers too much. Too much complexity. Too much bulk. They buy notebooks but secretly they are confused why the screens are blank, and the useful stuff is hidden in a menu. They don't know why sometimes it does not work. Or what some of those settings do.

A consumer-targetted device has the potential to split the computer market in two. With professional media-creation computers on one side, and consumer media consumption computers on the other.

Done well, and priced like a netbook, such a device could get to consumers who previously would never consider buying a computer. It could sell into schools to replace textbooks. It would make the Kindle look dull. It would make netbooks look like something from a previous century. Granny would have one as a photoframe that lets her Skype the grandkids.

And for us professionals who love our notebooks. We will keep on buying them. We demand the flexibility. But when we are on the commute, we might look enviously at all those dullards reading the newspaper on their tablets.

C.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Former Google China president reveals details on Apple's tablet