or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › PowerBook to gain iSight, iBook to go widescreen in 2006
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PowerBook to gain iSight, iBook to go widescreen in 2006 - Page 5

post #161 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by Bmaier
All this "I wonder if a Camera will be included in the powerbook" is kind of funny. Weren't people, just a few weeks ago, speculating that the new iPod Video would sport a miniature click wheel, positioned below a widescreen lcd panel? And weren't people complaining about how strange it would be to have to turn the device sideways to use it? And weren't we all like "oh, that was nothing like the 289 responses on AI about how the new iPod would look" when it was finally unveiled?

Just a thought

Not really, I said that the new iPod would look like this before it came out. My post is somewhere on the site. I'm sure some people remember.

Some things are logical, and some are not.

A camera is possible. But if Apple wants an even thinner lid, it isn't.

And moving the latch to the side the way Sony did it is not the strongest way to make it. Sony's top lid is also at least .375" thick.
post #162 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by Gustav
Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.

There is absolutely *no* increased risk here.

X-actly!!
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #163 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub
I sorry melgross, I meant when the MacIntels show up with the all new VPC everyone is hoping for. I hope it is decently fast then and usable.


I actually run AutoCad '05 on my iBook (1.2 GHz) when I am in a pinch out of town. It is for emergencies when I travel. It is not something I would want to do for more than an hour but is good enough to get out a drawing if I have too.

But not TOO fast or there will be no reason for anyone to port a CAD program to the Mac ever again.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #164 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by MacGregor
But not TOO fast or there will be no reason for anyone to port a CAD program to the Mac ever again.

That's the problem we face.

I would hate to think that Adobe and others will stop upgrading their Mac software figuring that we'll just buy the Windows versions.
post #165 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That's the problem we face.

I would hate to think that Adobe and others will stop upgrading their Mac software figuring that we'll just buy the Windows versions.

No, no, no and no.

This is *not* a problem we face. Big companies will *never* do this. Apple's Macs will come with OS X...not Windows. Why would any sane company tell you to get Windows and risk not getting your business if you don't feel like buying Windows?

People won't be buying Macs to run Windows (well...some may but they represent a very tiny percentage)...as result, you simply cannot expect them to buy Windows because you want them to.

And I don't want to embark in your never-ending debates, melgross. You're wrong and/or haven't thought this through.
post #166 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
No, no, no and no.

This is *not* a problem we face. Big companies will *never* do this. Apple's Macs will come with OS X...not Windows. Why would any sane company tell you to get Windows and risk not getting your business if you don't feel like buying Windows?

People won't be buying Macs to run Windows (well...some may but they represent a very tiny percentage)...as result, you simply cannot expect them to buy Windows because you want them to.

And I don't want to embark in your never-ending debates, melgross. You're wrong and/or haven't thought this through.

Kim, why don't you just go away?

Until you arrive, we have pretty good discussions. As soon as you get here, everything deteriorates.

You think I was the first, or only one to bring this up? Why don't you actually read the thread?
post #167 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
People won't be buying Macs to run Windows (well...some may but they represent a very tiny percentage)...as result, you simply cannot expect them to buy Windows because you want them to.

There are ways to run Windows apps within OS X right now, I expect that to get easier with an Intel system. I don't think any developer can expect a person to run Windows, but I would not be surprised if a lot of users happen to buy such a system and might just buy a Windows app if that's the better app. I don't think any developer will claim that it is OS X software, I would expect that developers would say that running their software under such an environment is unsupported.

As it is, it is cheaper to buy Virtual PC or whatever than it is to re-buy or replace the one major Windows program I need to use, and I have no qualms with going that route.
post #168 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Kim, why don't you just go away?

Until you arrive, we have pretty good discussions. As soon as you get here, everything deteriorates.

You think I was the first, or only one to bring this up? Why don't you actually read the thread?

I like picking on your because you're often wrong. The others are less fun to pick on.
post #169 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I like picking on your because you're often wrong. The others are less fun to pick on.

Very amusing I am sure.

But before you make statements, learn something. There has to be a first time.
post #170 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
There are ways to run Windows apps within OS X right now, I expect that to get easier with an Intel system. I don't think any developer can expect a person to run Windows, but I would not be surprised if a lot of users happen to buy such a system and might just buy a Windows app if that's the better app.

As it is, it is cheaper to buy Virtual PC or whatever than it is to re-buy or replace the one major Windows program I need to use, and I have no qualms with going that route.

I'm sure most of us here don't have qualms with "going that route." But I doubt very much the 'average user' would want to go that route. Dual-booting, emulation, and virtualization are all very inelegant solutions that will get the 'average user' wondering why he ever bought a Mac at all. It's simply won't happen...as the number of Macs and Mac market share rises why would companies abandon making a Mac version or not consider it?

90% of users want to run apps natively...not futz around with emulation or dual-booting.
post #171 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by ZO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I love my 12incher!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its perfect size for travelling!!!!

Because, you know, they'll be taking it from you when the 13"ers are released.

Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #172 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by MacGregor
I can certainly understand their fears, but with cameras in everything already, any agency or company that is worried about the camera in the bezel is being stupid or lazy about security.

Most agencies have a very simple answer, they strip you of anything with a camera. When I've walked on to certain sites I've just handed in my phone and credit cards (giant magnetic field can wipe them). I don't think you appreciate just how massive a loss they could suffer by one photo in some of these instances. Being lazy is to say, oh well they're in everything now so we'll just allow it. It won't happen. If you're in a lab where they are working on something secret it is simple to turn a laptop around, or get access, and you can pass documents in front of a static camera. Anywhere that is seriously security conscious won't allow cameras inside certain zones.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #173 of 239
Here is my point :

1) Going to intel is nothing like going to a "all new processor". Intel processors are widly used and tested, and I'm sure that a macintel is much easier to build than a PPC Mac... And will be very reliable when they will be launched. Moreover, apple doesn't "need time" to build a powerbook intel, and prototypes are available for nothing on dell.com

2) Apple claims that OSX is running under intel since the beginning. So OSX must be pretty reliable under the present intel architecture, and it makes sence that apple wants to switch before intel introduce its new technology next year. The powerbook really need a power boost, so it may be introduced earlier than june. I expected that mac mini will move in january with a SC yonah, then the ibook and the powerbook with single and dual core yonah in march.

3) concerning the built in camera, i don't see any problem with that. if you really want to spy, you need a better lens, and something easier to move than a powerbook screen. If the built in microphone is not a problem, the built in isight will definitely not be one either. So please stop complaining about that, it's really stupid!
post #174 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by belzebuth
Here is my point :

1) Going to intel is nothing like going to a "all new processor". Intel processors are widly used and tested, and I'm sure that a macintel is much easier to build than a PPC Mac... And will be very reliable when they will be launched. Moreover, apple doesn't "need time" to build a powerbook intel, and prototypes are available for nothing on dell.com

2) Apple claims that OSX is running under intel since the beginning. So OSX must be pretty reliable under the present intel architecture, and it makes sence that apple wants to switch before intel introduce its new technology next year. The powerbook really need a power boost, so it may be introduced earlier than june. I expected that mac mini will move in january with a SC yonah, then the ibook and the powerbook with single and dual core yonah in march.

3) concerning the built in camera, i don't see any problem with that. if you really want to spy, you need a better lens, and something easier to move than a powerbook screen. If the built in microphone is not a problem, the built in isight will definitely not be one either. So please stop complaining about that, it's really stupid!

I think that it was just meant that Apple was going to a new processor FOR THEM.

What we don't know is what level of compatibility Apple maintained. They had it running but it might not have been in a sellable state. They just brought it up to the PPC version. I'm told that this was a milestone.

It's the principal of having the camera. I agree with Telomar. Anything with a camera won't be allowed in at all. If you're going into court here in NYC, they look at everything you have before letting you in. Anything with a camera is taken. They don't check lawyers or court officers - yet. There is talk that they might start doing that.
post #175 of 239
Quote:
A camera is possible. But if Apple wants an even thinner lid, it isn't.

You keep saying this, but that isn't necessarily true. The lids on Aluminum PBs aren't a uniform thickness right now. Not if you look at the hinge, which is nearly the full thickness of the laptop. How do you know Apple won't have a thickened housing for the camera that either fits into a matching recess in the lower section or overhangs the front edge of the lower section? That's assuming as you do that Apple can't possibly make the camera thin enough in the first place.
post #176 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
You keep saying this, but that isn't necessarily true. The lids on Aluminum PBs aren't a uniform thickness right now. Not if you look at the hinge, which is nearly the full thickness of the laptop. How do you know Apple won't have a thickened housing for the camera that either fits into a matching recess in the lower section or overhangs the front edge of the lower section? That's assuming as you do that Apple can't possibly make the camera thin enough in the first place.

Then they should have put the camera in the bottom of the iMac case. That would give a great chin view. It would make everyone look like that cartoon mountie Dudley Do-Right. There's a reason why they put it in the top.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that to do this in a very thin lid would be very expensive, or not very good. That's a tough choice.

Also if you look at the Sony, you will see that the camera has a glass (I assume it's glass) cover over the lens. More thickness.

I'd like to know the size of chip Apple is using now. The quality is very good, with little noise.
post #177 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by Gustav
Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.

There is absolutely *no* increased risk here.

I also agree with you 100%. Even if you managed to turn the PB without anyone noticing, there will probably be a status light, so people know when you're recording.
post #178 of 239
I think we all can agree it would be stupid to try and photo with a powerbook, but you have to understand businesses that think like this.

For a real life example in a city near me: Company A hands out cell phones to high ranking company officials. The cell phones have cameras. Company A officials cannot bring their company cell phones into the office past the lobby. This includes the president of the company. Nutz!

It is insane, because someone could just write down on paper or sketch drawings good enough to steal. However, companies are this freeked out about the tight competition and cut-throat attitudes.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #179 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub
I think we all can agree it would be stupid to try and photo with a powerbook, but you have to understand businesses that think like this.

For a real life example in a city near me: Company A hands out cell phones to high ranking company officials. The cell phones have cameras. Company A officials cannot bring their company cell phones into the office past the lobby. This includes the president of the company. Nutz!

It is insane, because someone could just write down on paper or sketch drawings good enough to steal. However, companies are this freeked out about the tight competition and cut-throat attitudes.

Exactly, why not just write it down, stuff it in your tighty-wighties and off you go??? Or do they inspect your notes AND your underwear at the end of the day/meeting when you walk out?

If they don't even allow company-issued cell phones in the company, then there is no way they will allow something not company-issued...hmmm

If someone really really wanted to steal/record some company data, they would do something like take a Dell and have someone install a camera in it... that's if they REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted to walk out with the info.

And someone mentioned that they don't let you take cameras into court rooms... I don't think a security guard would even know/assume/think that there is a camera in a computer (NOT DEFINING OCCUPATIONAL ROLES HERE). Even if he asked you to open up your mac and start it and notice the camera, I'm sure it can be disguised/covered up somehow...

But maybe the ones who think it's a big deal are correct... in that case, maybe Apple needs to offer a camera-less machine...perhaps named POWER BOOK FOR TOP SECRET AGENTS???
Founder, TechNest Report - a tech blog, podcast, and TV channel that covers the tech industry from head to toe.
Podcast is recorded LIVE M-S at 5:30p EST. Please subscribe. Follow me on Twitter
Reply
Founder, TechNest Report - a tech blog, podcast, and TV channel that covers the tech industry from head to toe.
Podcast is recorded LIVE M-S at 5:30p EST. Please subscribe. Follow me on Twitter
Reply
post #180 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by alexluft
And someone mentioned that they don't let you take cameras into court rooms... I don't think a security guard would even know/assume/think that there is a camera in a computer (NOT DEFINING OCCUPATIONAL ROLES HERE). Even if he asked you to open up your mac and start it and notice the camera, I'm sure it can be disguised/covered up somehow...

They do tell them what to look for. And they really aren't that stupid.
post #181 of 239
come on, and what about the microphone??? recording a conversation is much easier than recording sth visual! what can you do with a camera that can only record your face, if you are closer than 3feet from your screen!!! Are they really checking computer to see if they have a built in camera? it's nothing like a camera-phone, and it's really no big deal.
man, 75% of the comments on this news are about this stupid thing, i think we really got the point of everyone and can move on some more interesting thoughts...
post #182 of 239
To all who are saying this wouldn't be a problem because it won't have a zoom lens, remember that cell phone cameras also don't typically have zoom lenses, and they are banned in many businesses.

Of course, this is a moot point if Apple provides an option to leave out the camera. In that case, this is a great move. Let's just wait and see, since we can't really know what's going to happen from here.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #183 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by belzebuth
come on, and what about the microphone???

Google Furby and national security and you'll get an idea on what they think about microphones. Where security matters they strip you of everything. Ok I can recount some things, I could draw or write it down but nowhere near the accuracy or speed a microphone or camera allows.

National security agencies aren't the only places going to these extremes either anymore. Intellectual property theft is becoming a very big deal and very big business.

Ironically I've seen a very strict business then send employees home to work with millions in unencrypted IP. If you're going to do security do it across the board
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #184 of 239


First, the obligatory "Apple are you listening?"

So, as EYE see it there are 3 main arguments against a built in iSight lappy;

1) Security restrictions,
1a) Can't give presentation (essentially related to (1)),
2) Poor optics shouldn't be used on a "professional" lappy,
2a) Poor optics WRT external camera (essentially related to (2)),
3) WE (i. e. Emo Kids) don't want one.

Basically, YOU don't like it, and YOU try to rationalize why it's a bad idea. Each of YOUR rationalizations have quite easily been SHOT DOWN in previous posts (except perhaps for YOUR presentation argument (YOUR presentation isn't portable? YOUR presentation HAS to be given only on a Mac with Mac exclusive SW? YOU aren't sensitive to YOUR client's needs? YOU don't want to compete for 96% of available marketshare? Maybe YOU want to collect welfare?)).

BTW, when's Apple giving the next PE Exam for this "PRO" lappy?

IMHO, as DL would say, "Who gives a rat's ass?"

So MY Emo Kid appeal to Apple is, please, Please, PLEASE put a really, Really, REALLY crappy iSight into the PB lappy!

Boy, EYE sure hope Apple was listening!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #185 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Then they should have put the camera in the bottom of the iMac case. That would give a great chin view. It would make everyone look like that cartoon mountie Dudley Do-Right. There's a reason why they put it in the top.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that to do this in a very thin lid would be very expensive, or not very good. That's a tough choice.

Hellooo!?! You're supposed to be intelligent? I didn't write that they should put the camera at the hinge. I wrote that the hinge already represents a departure from the uniformly thin lid you claim Apple absolutely must have. If they could include one thick section at the bottom, why can't they include another at the top? How could a camera at the hinge "overhang the front edge of the lower section" as I wrote?

So much for Mel "I am never wrong" Gross.
post #186 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
Google Furby and national security and you'll get an idea on what they think about microphones. Where security matters they strip you of everything. Ok I can recount some things, I could draw or write it down but nowhere near the accuracy or speed a microphone or camera allows.

In which case, you're already screwed anyway. Since all laptops from Apple (and most from other companies) include a microphone, you won't be allowed to bring it in in the first place, so a built-in camera makes not one bit of difference in a top secret, hush-hush, eyes only environment. Camera or no camera, the PB's not getting in. So why not include it?
post #187 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
Hellooo!?! You're supposed to be intelligent? I didn't write that they should put the camera at the hinge. I wrote that the hinge already represents a departure from the uniformly thin lid you claim Apple absolutely must have. If they could include one thick section at the bottom, why can't they include another at the top? How could a camera at the hinge "overhang the front edge of the lower section" as I wrote?

So much for Mel "I am never wrong" Gross.

Smart guy. It's been said numerous times that Apple wants to make these things thinner. From Apple. That leaves no where else to put any thickness in the lids BUT the bottom, where the strength might still be needed.

I suppose you don't think that you are right? If not, then why are you posting?

You don't have to be a wiseass. Most people aren't agreeing with you.
post #188 of 239
The security issue is bogus, guys. I've seen digital cameras in pens that are really tiny. I doubt any security officer would notice them.

Sure, some places may not allow laptops with cameras in. So what? Apple will offer laptops without cameras too, just as the Treo is available with and without a camera.

The funny thing is, few companies are more concerned about security than Apple Computer - and here they are going to make these things!
post #189 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
Most agencies have a very simple answer, they strip you of anything with a camera. When I've walked on to certain sites I've just handed in my phone and credit cards (giant magnetic field can wipe them). I don't think you appreciate just how massive a loss they could suffer by one photo in some of these instances. Being lazy is to say, oh well they're in everything now so we'll just allow it. It won't happen. If you're in a lab where they are working on something secret it is simple to turn a laptop around, or get access, and you can pass documents in front of a static camera. Anywhere that is seriously security conscious won't allow cameras inside certain zones.

Okay, but I would also assume if a place had massive magnets and all of that sensitive material, they could afford a PowerMac w/o iSight and maybe have a software fire wall that wouldn't let jpegs or pdf's leave the system to the outside.

I personally don't think iSights are going to be built in to everything, but in the iMac the benefits far outweigh the possible loss of business to those companies. Besides what CEO is more paranoid than Jobs and he'll have to build Macs for all of the Apple office workers!!!
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #190 of 239
Actually, this issue isn't such a big deal. If Apple somehow does make these things, they will either sell or not sell. That's all that matters.

Apple is no stranger to being banned in government offices.
post #191 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
In which case, you're already screwed anyway. Since all laptops from Apple (and most from other companies) include a microphone, you won't be allowed to bring it in in the first place, so a built-in camera makes not one bit of difference in a top secret, hush-hush, eyes only environment. Camera or no camera, the PB's not getting in. So why not include it?

I'm just generally opposed to the increasing integration of cameras into everything. More and more I am asked to dump my phone simply because it has a camera built in, that I wouldn't use anyway. I see the reasons behind putting them in to computers for consumers, although again is it really not just adding cost for little value to a lot of consumers? Everything does not need a camera, especially not an iPod.

If Apple made OS X's sound preferences lockable this would help.

Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
The security issue is bogus, guys. I've seen digital cameras in pens that are really tiny. I doubt any security officer would notice them.

This comes down to the argument of well people will develop other better ways to subvert security so why should we bother at all with the basics? They bother because it stops the idiots that would try otherwise and it doesn't make it easy for them. If a professional has really set out to steal your secrets then he will if he gets access to them but why make it easy?

I'd actually be interested to know what security is like on Apple's campus.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #192 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Smart guy. It's been said numerous times that Apple wants to make these things thinner. From Apple. That leaves no where else to put any thickness in the lids BUT the bottom, where the strength might still be needed.

Im pretty sure Steve wont make a SteveNote where he has to talk to a person's neck.

The lid wont mind a small bump on the top im sure.
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #193 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Im pretty sure Steve wont make a SteveNote where he has to talk to a person's neck.

The lid wont mind a small bump on the top im sure.

I doubt if the lid would mind anything. Look, I'm not really against it myself.

It just doesn't seem as though Apple's designs are going in the direction that would allow this. I don't know why some people can get so twisted about it.
post #194 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It's been said numerous times that Apple wants to make these things thinner. From Apple. That leaves no where else to put any thickness in the lids BUT the bottom, where the strength might still be needed.

Look at the RAZR phone. The microphone end of it is the full thickness of the phone. You're saying Apple couldn't do something similar at the edge of the lid?
post #195 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
Look at the RAZR phone. The microphone end of it is the full thickness of the phone. You're saying Apple couldn't do something similar at the edge of the lid?

No. I'm not saying they can't.

I'm saying that Apple is interested in presenting the highest quality images and video. We know that. Would you agree? It wouldn't be to their benefit if it came out poorly, and the reviews said that the quality stunk.

The problem for Apple here is to try to find a way to fit a very tiny system in the edge of a lid that is most likely going to get thinner in the next model. Also, it's been commented upon by those same analysts that Apple's designs for the screen come to the edge of the lid much more so than anyone else's laptops do, and that it seems to be deliberate. It's true. We can see that from looking at them. They do that with their monitors as well. They are obsessed with thin. Look at what they did to the iMac. To make it LOOK thinner, they destroyed all of that lovely user friendly accessibility.

Look at how narrow the latch is., and then look at Sony's design. Very different.

If Apple wants to change that design, then all bets are off. They might do anything!. But I just don't think that they will.

If they can squeeze something into that space, and remember that the screen ducks behind the bezel around it, it's either going to be expensive, or not very good. Don't forget that camera phones are really bad. The Sony cameras that are very thin are also expensive compared to thicker ones.

So what will Apple do?

Appleinsider said that the ones that just came out would have cameras as well. They didn't.

I think that some think that because they built them into the iMac - good move, by the way, that they will build them into everything.

One of the Mac sites was even saying that they would be in the new PM's. Remember?

When I gave my reasons as to why I didn't think that would be a good idea, I got stoned. Like now.

But this is just a bunch of opinions. No one should get upset about them.
post #196 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross

When I gave my reasons as to why I didn't think that would be a good idea, I got stoned. Like now.

Drugs are never a solution.
post #197 of 239
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Drugs are never a solution.

I agree. You should stop using them.
post #198 of 239
What if the keyboard & trackpad opened away from the screen, and the rest of the computer? Then the "lid" could be as thin as would be needed to support the screen & computer, and incorporate a keyboard. Picture a thinner/smaller iMac with a keyboard hinged at the bottom, closing over the screen.

When I look at an iSight camera, I'd be surprised if the camera in the iMac is as good a product. Even more so, I can't imagine the one in the screen, or hypothetical portable computer/screen, would be either. At least the additional .5" would give them some room. Even a PB with it's current size would have almost no room in the screen.

Please excuse me if the possibility of this concept has already been discussed.
post #199 of 239
Everybody agrees that decent optics cannot exist in a super-thin housing.
Everybody agrees that Apple doesn't want to use bad optics.

This leaves two ways to go:
- Protrusion on the lid, made as small as possible while trying to preserve decent optics quality. If you look at the megapixel cameraphones, this really doesn't need to be very big. Apple can fit it on the lid easily.
- Detachable iSight. It could have a slot on the chassis for transport, and a combined power/Firewire port on the top for use. No wires, under five seconds to prepare for use or transport.
post #200 of 239
Hi,

I don't think that an iSight in the PowerBook would need that much space, it should fit without a bump. Just look at the pictures of the iSight in the new iMac.

iMac iSight picture
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › PowerBook to gain iSight, iBook to go widescreen in 2006