or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Exclusive: Apple to adopt Intel's ultra-mobile PC platform
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Exclusive: Apple to adopt Intel's ultra-mobile PC platform - Page 4

post #121 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It seems you are having a little gender confusion, which is understandable, but I'm here to help, so let me clear it up for you. See, the dykes are the GIRLS who can beat the sh*t out of you.

Wow!

I mention inconvenience, and look where it goes!
post #122 of 180
Just out of curiosity... does anybody know if this mac will be 3G compatible? There's talk about the iPhone going 3G at MacWorld, and there has been a lot of hype about the ultra portable mac; but hey 1+1=2 and we all know 2 is better than one. Does anybody know if this thing will be 3G compatible? Most 3G cards are not compatible with mac. It would be pretty cool to have an ultra portable mac with internet virtually everwhere.
post #123 of 180
3G and ultra-portable?
You must be from outside the US. #1 Wifi is faster, and everywhere. #2 I'm not sure people are willing to pay another mobile phone bill outside there existing one. #3 Is the 3G band even big enough to house every laptop computer user alongside the mobile phone community? There are a lot of phones in the US comparatively.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #124 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by gkremer View Post

Just out of curiosity... does anybody know if this mac will be 3G compatible? There's talk about the iPhone going 3G at MacWorld, and there has been a lot of hype about the ultra portable mac; but hey 1+1=2 and we all know 2 is better than one. Does anybody know if this thing will be 3G compatible? Most 3G cards are not compatible with mac. It would be pretty cool to have an ultra portable mac with internet virtually everwhere.

None of us know anything. That's why we're always arguing.
post #125 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

None of us know anything. That's why we're always arguing.

No we're not!!
post #126 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

"Rubbing sticks?"

lol I was gonna say the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #127 of 180
I want an apple eee pc but better than the asus offering! Debuted at macworld!
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #128 of 180
Well, rumor dujour:

Revealed: Details of Apples Mysterious New Portable Device

Then about a month ago, another source revealed that Apple has shown significant interest in a 5.2″ 800 x 480 pixel touch screen design by Balda, a German company and the current iPhone screen supplier, and Wintek, an Asian component supplier. This second piece of evidence reveals the real purpose of this new device, an ultra mobile device occupying a position between the 3.5″ iPhone and the much rumored 7-10 inch Apple tablet.

Assuming the 0.2" sides and 0.75" margins on the iphone, and a 16:10 aspect ratio screen, the trusty calculator tells me that the screen is 4.41 x 2.76 inches, and the device would be about 6 x 3.2 inches wide. That's pretty big. The screen could actually fit in a 5 x 3 PDA like form factor (HP iPaq 200 series or lots of various Palm devices of yore) if they are able to use some pretty thin margins. I'm not sure Apple is willing to live with OS X mobile with different aspect ratios either as imagine the UI will have to be custom designed due to multi-touch, though this isn't a big difference.

I think it is a really good idea for Apple to diversify the iPhone line to 3 versions: a nano cheap version at 4 x 2 inches in size, the current iPhone size of 4.4 x 2.4 inches, and a pro version of 4.8 x 2.8 size or so. This would allow for screens of 3.2", 3.8" and 4.2" diagonal 3:2 aspect ratio screens, if they can thin out the current iPhone margin in half or so to 1/8 inch, and carry prices in the $150-250, $300-400, $450-$550 range. With the pro version having a larger screen, a half inch wider, I imagine a soft QWERTY would be a bit easier, while the nano version will have to resort to T9.
post #129 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by gkremer View Post

Just out of curiosity... does anybody know if this mac will be 3G compatible?

The new Macs could be compatible with lots of things if they simply add in the right PCI port for the product. Be it an XMAC or a laptop with the latest mobile PCI port. In any event yeah I would like ot see Apple become more responsive to peoples mobile needs.

One thing that Apple could do, that is change the game a bit, is to offer a laptop with an iPhone port. That is right, a port for plugging in your latest iPhone to get the communications you want. This would solve many concerns right off the bat.
Quote:
There's talk about the iPhone going 3G at MacWorld, and there has been a lot of hype about the ultra portable mac; but hey 1+1=2 and we all know 2 is better than one.

I'm not sure where you are hearing all this talk. The best indication I have is late spring for a 3G iPhone. That based mostly on what is known about chipsets that could support Apples needs.
Quote:
Does anybody know if this thing will be 3G compatible? Most 3G cards are not compatible with mac. It would be pretty cool to have an ultra portable mac with internet virtually everwhere.

You got that right. One of the reasons to want a cell modem in a laptop is to be able to establish a network connection almost anywhere. WiFi simply isn't available or locked out in many places. As to 3G cards that is simply an issue of having the right drivers written for them. As Apple sell more and more hardware there iwll be incentive for the suppliers to write that software. AT&T at the very least must realize now that there is money to b made off supporting Mac / Apple users.

Dave
post #130 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

Well, rumor dujour:

Revealed: Details of Apples Mysterious New Portable Device

Then about a month ago, another source revealed that Apple has shown significant interest in a 5.2″ 800 x 480 pixel touch screen design by Balda, a German company and the current iPhone screen supplier, and Wintek, an Asian component supplier. This second piece of evidence reveals the real purpose of this new device, an ultra mobile device occupying a position between the 3.5″ iPhone and the much rumored 7-10 inch Apple tablet.

I do like your calculations and to be perfectly honest this size is just about what I'm looking for. I say just about because just very slightly larger would be nice. The size is almost perfect for on the go usage.
Quote:

Assuming the 0.2" sides and 0.75" margins on the iphone, and a 16:10 aspect ratio screen, the trusty calculator tells me that the screen is 4.41 x 2.76 inches, and the device would be about 6 x 3.2 inches wide. That's pretty big. The screen could actually fit in a 5 x 3 PDA like form factor (HP iPaq 200 series or lots of various Palm devices of yore) if they are able to use some pretty thin margins. I'm not sure Apple is willing to live with OS X mobile with different aspect ratios either as imagine the UI will have to be custom designed due to multi-touch, though this isn't a big difference.

While I'm not sure people have the same idea at hand as I do when the term PDA is used this is what the device would be. its usage would be similar to what the jail broken iPhones and Touches are being sued for. Which is as a hand held computer. Frankly I'm not sure why you thing the case needs to be all that much bigger than the screen, as long as they have room for the required I/O it should be good.

Required I/O is really more of a limitation on a device like this than anything else. Even if this is not an iPhone capable machine ( a mistake in my mind), it should have fully supported Bluetooth, hopefully a host USB port, and at least one compact flash port. Ohh and a big ass battery, I'm hoping for twelve hours on on time.
Quote:

I think it is a really good idea for Apple to diversify the iPhone line to 3 versions: a nano cheap version at 4 x 2 inches in size, the current iPhone size of 4.4 x 2.4 inches, and a pro version of 4.8 x 2.8 size or so.

You won't get an argument form me about a broader iPhone Line up but it really should be seen as a Cell phone line up. Apple needs a phone that isn't a smart phone at the rock bottom and as you have noted a larger model. The larger model simply to delvier a bigger screen for the user and a few more capabilities.
Quote:
This would allow for screens of 3.2", 3.8" and 4.2" diagonal 3:2 aspect ratio screens, if they can thin out the current iPhone margin in half or so to 1/8 inch, and carry prices in the $150-250, $300-400, $450-$550 range. With the pro version having a larger screen, a half inch wider, I imagine a soft QWERTY would be a bit easier, while the nano version will have to resort to T9.

That is the most confused paragraph I've seen today. The biggest problem is you are not applying any downward pressure on the company price wise. Without the downward price pressure the cost of these devices will soar in the future. Thus the need for competition and better exchange rates.

Dave
post #131 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Is the 3G band even big enough to house every laptop computer user alongside the mobile phone community? There are a lot of phones in the US comparatively.

Well Apple is usually quicker to advance with technology than most PCs. Bluetooth for example or even (but not so much) built-in WiFi. Apple might try to go 3G and beat the PC market to the punch. granted, i have no info to back this idea up but wouldn't it be cool! I know the mac has grown in sales but it still isn't a large portion of computer sales. So it might not be able to withstand EVERY computer but it should be able to withstand (what is apple at now?) 5-6% of the computer market. right? only speculation i know... But wouldn't it be cool.

as for info about the 3G iphone, i thought i read it on Appleinsider, but then again i might have googled it. Again, it's all rumors. i have no idea
post #132 of 180
For those who are interested:



It should be remembered that most cell phones are of the SoC variety where everything you see here is one one chip. Intel still has a ways to go before competing in the cell phone market. Menlow is really an untra-mobile type of platform while Moorestown looks like it can creep into handheld territory.
post #133 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This is the size I've been pushing for this device. for those who don't remember, the Newton was just about this size, though the old technology required that it be too thick, and too heavy.

But, it was fine on a belt. This could be slimmer, and lighter.

Of course, you could also keep it in your pocket, as you suggest, or throw it into an attache case.

Like the Newton the HPC handhelds had strong growth and good sales of well over 2.3 million per year before MS dropped the OS. If Apple modernized something like a Psion HPC handheld that would just be the perfect mobile device for business.
post #134 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You know I like your perspective on the devices physical size. Nothing you've suggested is out of line with what I expect or want. But then you really loose me with the obsession with Windows software.

This issue with software is this. It will be 2009 before there is a significant number of devices on the market and we will be moving into 2010. We can do better than to be running tired old MS applications. Especially applications that have never transfered to a pocket platform well.

Iphone has clearly demonstrated that there is a demand for fresh perspectives with respect to software and user interaction. I'm not saying that we don't want to be able to handle old file formats but rather want to point out that living in the past is a bit like tying an anchor around your neck and jumping overboard.

dave

I only use MS becuase all the business softwares are only available in their OS typically. If Apple finds a way for me to run business programs in a jacket size device with a keyboard I and millions of MS users would switch in a heartbeat and likely not go back.
post #135 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I have never understood the UMPC makers. A modern HP Journada or NEC MobilePro 900c running full windows would have done MUCH better than the UMPC that actually got made.

The NEC is a tad bigger than your Journada but the keyboard is IMHO much better. I dunno that you could get much less wide/tall than the NEC and have a QWERTY keyboard that worked well. Thinner I can see even though those things are only 3-4 years old and running real Windows.

Or real OSX with iWork or Office. Keynote presentations from a Journada or MobilePro sized device would be handy. And if it can Bootcamp...even better.


Out of all the devices in the handheld era, the best to me hardware wise was the Psion 5mx or Revo models as that small 6.9" x 3.6" x .9" device was light and when you opened up the device it had a great keyboard that actually expanded a bit wider and was a joy to type yet jacket size. I switched fromt both the Psion and NEC to the Jornada as a compromise. The HP had a decent keyboard to touch type not as good as the other two but it was jacket pocket size and had MS OS. The Psion had their proprietary OS which was a drag.

Think of jacket size modern HPC that Apple could make? That would change many MS users to adopt Apple if they could have a touch type keyboard jacket pocket device that ran business applications. I do not care about the OS, I care about mobility, ease of input, and having the right programs.
post #136 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic View Post

no offense, but this is pretty much what every naysayer says about new apple products until apple releases them.

Remember this is apple. they dont do anything the way everybody else does, and thats why they're succeeding.

I hereby predict that a tablet mac will sell at least one million units in its first year.

The problem with a tablet is that to be usable for pen input it needs to be 7" and larger that puts it in direct competition of all sub and notebooks. It would have to have great processing power, both pen input and some thing to satisfy most keyboard users that is easy, and it needs to be cheap. A better bet is make jacket size device but to me it needs to have a touch type keyboard as pen or touch screen only is not adequate when the screen is that small.
post #137 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

Apple is smart enough to understand that products are built from the user on down. There are ergonomics issues with holding a 11x8.5 device or notepad of similar size, and it gets even worse when you have to do it with a 1 lb device. A ~10" tablet will be used horizontally on a flat surface, on the lap, or resting on something as you won't be holding it up for extended periods of time. On top of this, there are still many issues about the feel of pen on touchscreen. It's just isn't fine grained enough yet. It has to be like pencil on paper.

If it is a tablet, like seen on many of Apple's patent applications, I think it'll be a limited use device, or a vertical market device (which Apple doesn't do).

Something like this, from a long long time ago, as a UMPC type device will probably prove much more useful:



A full-size laptop keyboard with a 1280x640 screen would be usable in coach class!

If that was able to fit in a jacket pocket say about 7.5" long that would be the ideal mobile device for business users. I'd buy one right now.
post #138 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleeinstein View Post

The UMPC line sunk because it was too big for pocket size but lacked any decent degree of productivity. The DialKey system was distracting and hard to use, and no one could get any kind of speed on it. If the UMPCs had been given a simple pocket touch typing keyboard, they would have been seen as a productivity tool rather than a novelty, and their sales would have been much better.

I agree.



The only problem with this is that the idea of a "pocket keyboard" is a little bit hard to work with, since the whole point of a pocket keyboard is touch typing, and you can't actually touch type on a keyboard that's less than 7" wide and 3.5" deep. And even if the screen is pillarboxed inside speakers with a clamshell design (to allow for a greater-than 16:10 aspect ratio overall), you still need some physical margins on the keyboard, which places the physical device dimensions at 8" x 4.5" x <1"; that's only barely pocketable. Additionally, you are still restricted to a notebook form factor, which means that the switch-to-slate functionality is missing.

Yes you can type on a device less than 7", the Psion was 6.9" and was actually easier to type than the 7.3" Jornada. The Psion's keyboard expanded when the device was open. Another way to make a device jacket pocket yet even greater keyboard capacity is the what the Samsung SPH P9200 has done. That device trifolds to reaveal a 5" screen and a keyboard close to desktop; problem is they are only sold in Korea. When folded it is about 4.25" which is about the max depth to fit in a jacket pocket. http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-sph...ver-097876.php



The Jornada is 5" wide - hardly pocketable. And all of Apple's patents point to a touch type tactile feedback onscreen multitouch smart keyboard.

The Jornada is not 5" wide, I own one and carry it in suit/coat pockets all the time. It is a little under 4". A jacket pocket would be the ideal parameter not a shirt pocket. A jacket pocket could handle about 4.25" x 7.5" max. You could find a way to rotate the screen 180 so that it could be a pocket touch/pen input with the option of touch type keyboard clamshell.



What do you mean "screen flipable"? And that mockup was using a high-res promo image of the iPod Touch; did you mean making the screen larger to remove the bezel or making the device itself smaller? And landscape is absolutely the way to go in physical button placement for a device of this size. The bezel won't be so large that you can't stretch your thumb over it to manipulate keys on the left edge of the screen when you are holding it in portrait "steno pad" style.



The mockup I had was a 7.63" x 4.77" screen, so at 800x500 resolution that's only 105 PPI. At 160 PPI (iPhone) that's 1220x760 resolution. Somewhere in between, perhaps.

Here's the thing: it wouldn't be hard for the Mac Touch to have an updated version of Spaces that works together with multitouch. So you could zoom in within programs just like the iPhone zooms on webpages and such (two-finger pinch), but you could also zoom in on the overall desktop (three-finger pinch). This would take care of the screen size problem. Having a virtual workspace of 15"+ in a 9" screen is priceless. Okay, not priceless, but close to it.

Pocketable would be nice, but I just don't see how Apple is going to fit any kind of workable touch typing keyboard on a pocket-sized device. Even jacket pocket size. And I am pretty sure that a virtual keyboard (more than 7" wide) will be fine for touch typing.

Virtual is not practical; people are already used to touch typing and if you just copy and modify designs in the past like the Psion Revo/5mx or Jornada 728 they proved a touch type jacket pocket device was possible and worked.

The only non-slate option that Apple might be considering for a UMPC would be the clamshell posted by TMT. Not that bad. The only trouble is that A. the screen aspect ratio is totally not Apple and B. this would require a touchscreen since you have no trackpad, which is very limited if you can only use it like a laptop. I'm sure that touchscreens will start to come standard, but even so it would only be truly useful and worthy of an Apple UMPC if the screen can be used in multiple orientations. And there is no way to use something like that as a slate.

I think Apple has the talent to either mdernize a proven design like the Psion clamshells of the past and make it a real hit or go way out of the box and build upon what Samsung did with their SPH P9200 prototype. A large version of an Iphone is not what business users would buy; they want a replacement to a laptop in their pocket.
post #139 of 180
Well, I just hope that the current iPhones will be opened for new software and that the SDK announcement is not just for future devices...I'll be really gutted otherwise!
post #140 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjjones View Post

I flunked english and spelling and french but made it through dental school anyway. Thank goodness they were tolerant.

That is so frightening. What dental school did you graduate from?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #141 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

While I'm not sure people have the same idea at hand as I do when the term PDA is used this is what the device would be. its usage would be similar to what the jail broken iPhones and Touches are being sued for. Which is as a hand held computer. Frankly I'm not sure why you thing the case needs to be all that much bigger than the screen, as long as they have room for the required I/O it should be good.

For the size of the screen versus the size of the device, well, we have to have some bit of reality. To fit a 5.2" diag, 16:10 aspect ratio, 4.41 x 2.76 inch screen onto a 5 x 3 inch PDA form factor, the sides will need to be 0.12 inches with a pretty sharp corner. The new screen sizes I laid out required this. For the top and bottom, I was keeping with the physical home buttom and cellular philisophy of the iPhone. These are iPhones, not iPods, so it needs cellular wireless tech (room for an earpiece), and the single home button is, well, one of Apple's signature features in the device.

All-in-all, the cases are about the size of the screens, especially relative to other phones and PDAs.

I know you'd like a SD card and a full USB port (let alone a mini one), but those things limit Apple's thin thin thin design philosophy. (And Iike a 100+ GB HDD version too). I don't think they'll ship a handheld device on the order of 0.75" thick anymore.

Quote:
You won't get an argument form me about a broader iPhone Line up but it really should be seen as a Cell phone line up. Apple needs a phone that isn't a smart phone at the rock bottom and as you have noted a larger model. The larger model simply to delvier a bigger screen for the user and a few more capabilities.

Yeah. Apple will need to separate functionality of a prospective iPhone lineup, and I think it will be quite simple for them to do.

The "nano" version has to be multi-touch, very similar to the current iPhone, but only smaller, and as I've written before, smaller means 3 to 3.2 inch multi-touch screens. It should just be a shrunken version of the existing iPhone. If released in 2008, it should have 8 GB. As for functionality, well, that's easy. Only EDGE, no UMTS/HSPA. No QWERTY soft keyboard due to the width of the device (1.6 inches) being too small, so T9 for text entry. No computer like functionality. 1.3 MP camera. Less applications. Lots of things can be done to eliminate cannabilization of the upper tiers.

If released in 2008, the mid-range would have 3.5 to 3.8 inch screen, UMTS/HSPA, soft QWERTY, 3.2 MP camera, 16 GB storage, faster processor, GPS, and more applications. And the high end should have everything the mid-range should have, but more: 4.2 to 4.5 inch screen, 32 GB flash or 120 MB HDD, 2 cameras, etc.

It's going to be long wait before this happens, if it happens at all.

Quote:
That is the most confused paragraph I've seen today. The biggest problem is you are not applying any downward pressure on the company price wise. Without the downward price pressure the cost of these devices will soar in the future. Thus the need for competition and better exchange rates.

I don't understand what you are saying. 150-250 for a nano. 300-400 for mid-range and 450 to 550 for a high end. Those are the prices points I think Apple should target, not what I as a consumer want. I'll leave it to other companies to drive the cost of the device down, but like the iPods, these are the price point for a pocketable cellular device.
post #142 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

For the size of the screen versus the size of the device, well, we have to have some bit of reality. To fit a 5.2" diag, 16:10 aspect ratio, 4.41 x 2.76 inch screen onto a 5 x 3 inch PDA form factor, the sides will need to be 0.12 inches with a pretty sharp corner. The new screen sizes I laid out required this. For the top and bottom, I was keeping with the physical home buttom and cellular philisophy of the iPhone. These are iPhones, not iPods, so it needs cellular wireless tech (room for an earpiece), and the single home button is, well, one of Apple's signature features in the device.

Don't get me wrong I like the current Iphone but I don't see that template translating well into a larger device. The problem is length, for a pocketable device length quickly becomes more of an issue that width.

The single Home button is a fine idea but there is nothing to say that it needs to be on the front of the device. The same functionality can be had with the button on the end or Rear of the device. As for sound well there is a lot happening with transducers so I will leave that one up in the air.

My only concern with the bezel size is in the overall length of the device. As long as the HD resolution can be had in a reasonably long device we will be OK. If the iPhone ends up peaking out of my pocket all the time then it is a no go.
Quote:

All-in-all, the cases are about the size of the screens, especially relative to other phones and PDAs.

I really don't have a problem with a physically larger iPhone. Frankly I've handled them a lot and find that they are almost to small. Of course I'm 6' tall with big hands so just about all cell phones are an issue. Like I said I just don't want the thing protruding out of the pocket.
Quote:

I know you'd like a SD card and a full USB port (let alone a mini one), but those things limit Apple's thin thin thin design philosophy. (And Iike a 100+ GB HDD version too). I don't think they'll ship a handheld device on the order of 0.75" thick anymore.

I've seen this response to the idea of a USB port in the iPhone a number of times. I can't help to wonder if people have not imagination, it should be perfectly easy for Apple to implement a low profile USB plug design for the iPhone. USB plugs are that thick relative to the current iPhone. Sure that is case integrated design but why not?

AS to the SD / CF slot well that I will acknowledge is a bigger challenge and to be perfectly honest I'd take the flexibility of a real USB port over the FLASH port. Especially if that frees up more space for internal storage. Still for professional usage there are cases where it makes a lot of sense to have a built in FLASH port.
Quote:
Yeah. Apple will need to separate functionality of a prospective iPhone lineup, and I think it will be quite simple for them to do.

The "nano" version has to be multi-touch, very similar to the current iPhone, but only smaller, and as I've written before, smaller means 3 to 3.2 inch multi-touch screens. It should just be a shrunken version of the existing iPhone. If released in 2008, it should have 8 GB. As for functionality, well, that's easy. Only EDGE, no UMTS/HSPA. No QWERTY soft keyboard due to the width of the device (1.6 inches) being too small, so T9 for text entry. No computer like functionality. 1.3 MP camera. Less applications. Lots of things can be done to eliminate cannabilization of the upper tiers.

The thing I disagree on is the nano has to be multi Touch as I think that misses the whole point in a low cost and alternative model. A Touch free nano simply offers up an easier to use interface for people who don't need the complexity of a multi Touch unit.
Quote:

If released in 2008, the mid-range would have 3.5 to 3.8 inch screen, UMTS/HSPA, soft QWERTY, 3.2 MP camera, 16 GB storage, faster processor, GPS, and more applications. And the high end should have everything the mid-range should have, but more: 4.2 to 4.5 inch screen, 32 GB flash or 120 MB HDD, 2 cameras, etc.

Actually I think Apple will keep the current iPhone around for some time as the mid-range device. The will simply upgrade the FLASH storage from time to time. Though this may tweak a few, I even expect a price drop or two as higher end products are introduced.
Quote:
It's going to be long wait before this happens, if it happens at all.

I don't think so. Honestly I believe Cell Phones could be as big to Apple as the Ipod is to them now. They will need many models attractive to a number of different users.
Quote:

I don't understand what you are saying. 150-250 for a nano. 300-400 for mid-range and 450 to 550 for a high end.

Shave about $75 to $100 from each of those prices.
Quote:
Those are the prices points I think Apple should target, not what I as a consumer want. I'll leave it to other companies to drive the cost of the device down, but like the iPods, these are the price point for a pocketable cellular device.

Apple needs to target phones that are competitive with the range of Cell phones available now from the competition, that means at least one device in the sub $100 dollar range.

Dave
post #143 of 180
The delusions in these threads are frightening. I'm not even going to bother.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #144 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

The delusions in these threads are frightening. I'm not even going to bother.

This IS a rumor site...

Some of it can be a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it sure makes for interesting speculation! I like seeing how others ideas differ from mine...how I see (and write about) things might be totally opposite to you, doesn't make either of us wrong. No need to call people delusional though!

Z
post #145 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillatron View Post

This IS a rumor site...

Some of it can be a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it sure makes for interesting speculation! I like seeing how others ideas differ from mine...how I see (and write about) things might be totally opposite to you, doesn't make either of us wrong. No need to call people delusional though!

Z

It depends on how serious you are. Many people throw out ideas just for the fun of it, and others are dead serious.

If it's for fun, that's ok. But when it gets very serious, the really far out ideas do become delusional.
post #146 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillatron View Post

This IS a rumor site...

Exactly!!!

BUT......... Any thing that Apple produces in the coming year will be based on chips and chipsets now being finalized by other manufactures. If one keeps up on what is happening in that world you will see that it is very possible to stuff a lot of functionality into coming hand held devices. Frankly it kinda boggles the mind.

Now that doesn't mean that Apple will produce tablets of that sort just that the possibilities in the nest year or two are really startling. Besides Apple there have been some interesting rumors as to what Nokia is up to with its Tablets. The rumors are that Nokia will have Tablets with WiMax soon and other improvements.
Quote:

Some of it can be a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it sure makes for interesting speculation! I like seeing how others ideas differ from mine...how I see (and write about) things might be totally opposite to you, doesn't make either of us wrong. No need to call people delusional though!

Pie in the sky? I'm not to sure about that. In the I86 realm both Intel and Via are targeting extremely low power SOC. It doesn't look like a single chip implementation is going to happen in 2008 for Intel but an extremely low power chip set is. IN the real of the ARM products lots is happening there. This include dual core systems on chips due to come on line in 2008.

Combine this with Apples development of the TOUCH interface technology and a lot of interesting things can be imagined. Another way to look at this is to look at an ARCHOS media player and imagine what it could do with a real OS. Take something like the 605 and add a little Apple electronics and packaging engineering to the box and a Touch based OS. The throw in a cellular connection and a processor that might be 3 to 4 times faster.
Quote:

Z

So yeah we are dreaming but we have dreams base on what could happen if Apple wanted to go in the right direction.

Dave
post #147 of 180
As can be found on other websites, Intel has a presentation at the ISSCC about Silverthorne. Here's the abstract:

13.1 A Sub-1W to 2W Low-Power IA Processor for Mobile Internet Devices and
Ultra-Mobile PCs in 45nm High-К Metal-Gate CMOS


A 47M transistor, 25mm2, sub-2W IA processor designed for mobile internet devices is
presented. It features a 2-issue, in-order pipeline with 32KB iL1 and 24KB dL1 caches,
integer and floating point execution units, x86 front end, a 512KB L2 cache and a
533MT/s front-side bus. The design is manufactured in 9M 45nm High-К metal-gate
CMOS and housed in a 441-ball μFCBGA package.


This is like a Pentium I (the 586) reborn. Or the Moto PPC 750 / 7400 reborn. There will be multiple variants at "regular" voltage, "low" voltage, and "ultra low" voltage that'll span 2 Watts to 0.55 Watts. Rumored clock rates from 1 to 2 GHz (and I'm guessing a 7 to 8 stage execution pipeline). Also rumored to have 2-way SMT, Hyperthreading in Intel vernacular. The I/O chipset will likely be on the order of 1 to 2 Watts themselves. This is definitely not for pocketable - pants pockets, not sportscoat - devices.

I'm not really excited about this actually, unless the package comes in the form of a clamshell full laptop keyboard device, and $500 cheap. With the Nokia Internet Table (N800/N810) being one of the top holiday season sellers on Amazon, there may be a market for a tweener device, but it's not me. If you have to put it in a bag to carry around, you mind as well carry a ultra-mobile laptop.

There's some interesting videos floating around however:

Menlow slider from IDF Spring
BenQ Menlow device from IDF
Computex UMPC music video from jkkmobile

Much much more interesting is the Moorestown sneek peak. I have to imagine Intel learned a little something about product design from IDF Spring 2007 to IDF Fall 2007, as the Moorestown device Intel shows is an iPhone-class RDF device. Just imagine if Jobs was doing the demo. It would be classic. I am imagining that the device is fake though. It's not functional and all it was was an LCD, some pictures, and an on/off button. Very cool nonetheless with good use of UI design. They'll need to accept reality though and have room for earpieces, speakers, etc.

Moorestown device at IDF Fall 2007

Also interesting in the ISSCC abstract list was the 2 billion transistor 4-core Itanium with 30 MB of on-die cache. That'll be burning up some coal to use.
post #148 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

As can be found on other websites, Intel has a presentation at the ISSCC about Silverthorne. Here's the abstract:

13.1 A Sub-1W to 2W Low-Power IA Processor for Mobile Internet Devices and
Ultra-Mobile PCs in 45nm High-К Metal-Gate CMOS


A 47M transistor, 25mm2, sub-2W IA processor designed for mobile internet devices is
presented. It features a 2-issue, in-order pipeline with 32KB iL1 and 24KB dL1 caches,
integer and floating point execution units, x86 front end, a 512KB L2 cache and a
533MT/s front-side bus. The design is manufactured in 9M 45nm High-К metal-gate
CMOS and housed in a 441-ball μFCBGA package.


This is like a Pentium I (the 586) reborn. Or the Moto PPC 750 / 7400 reborn. There will be multiple variants at "regular" voltage, "low" voltage, and "ultra low" voltage that'll span 2 Watts to 0.55 Watts. Rumored clock rates from 1 to 2 GHz (and I'm guessing a 7 to 8 stage execution pipeline). Also rumored to have 2-way SMT, Hyperthreading in Intel vernacular. The I/O chipset will likely be on the order of 1 to 2 Watts themselves. This is definitely not for pocketable - pants pockets, not sportscoat - devices.

I'm not really excited about this actually, unless the package comes in the form of a clamshell full laptop keyboard device, and $500 cheap. With the Nokia Internet Table (N800/N810) being one of the top holiday season sellers on Amazon, there may be a market for a tweener device, but it's not me. If you have to put it in a bag to carry around, you mind as well carry a ultra-mobile laptop.

There's some interesting videos floating around however:

Menlow slider from IDF Spring
BenQ Menlow device from IDF
Computex UMPC music video from jkkmobile

Much much more interesting is the Moorestown sneek peak. I have to imagine Intel learned a little something about product design from IDF Spring 2007 to IDF Fall 2007, as the Moorestown device Intel shows is an iPhone-class RDF device. Just imagine if Jobs was doing the demo. It would be classic. I am imagining that the device is fake though. It's not functional and all it was was an LCD, some pictures, and an on/off button. Very cool nonetheless with good use of UI design. They'll need to accept reality though and have room for earpieces, speakers, etc.

Moorestown device at IDF Fall 2007

Also interesting in the ISSCC abstract list was the 2 billion transistor 4-core Itanium with 30 MB of on-die cache. That'll be burning up some coal to use.


The Menlo is ok as I saw that video and it was shown in Bejing running windows but it is more like a better OQO as it appears to be thumb input? The Moorestown is cool but the keyboard input again thumb.

I agree the type of market that needs to be filled in a pocket laptop running mainstream software; not a phone, not a pda. Thus for business users a touch type keboard is needed. I think the Moorestown device would have been great if they made that into a thin clamshell. Without good keyboard input Apple will be making the same mistake of the UMPC's. That is why price is so much an issue with UMPC's as they are not that fuctional; most people do not find pen input their ideal main input. That is whay only 350K UMPC have sold this year. The reality is touch typing may sound old school but people find it easier and for real computing use which is what needs to be done with a pocket laptop a touch or pen input will never be mainstream right now no matter whom builds it.

I think the Moorestown device would only be slightly thicker if it was clamshell designed.
post #149 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Don't get me wrong I like the current Iphone but I don't see that template translating well into a larger device. The problem is length, for a pocketable device length quickly becomes more of an issue that width.

The single Home button is a fine idea but there is nothing to say that it needs to be on the front of the device. The same functionality can be had with the button on the end or Rear of the device. As for sound well there is a lot happening with transducers so I will leave that one up in the air.

My only concern with the bezel size is in the overall length of the device. As long as the HD resolution can be had in a reasonably long device we will be OK. If the iPhone ends up peaking out of my pocket all the time then it is a no go.

I really don't have a problem with a physically larger iPhone. Frankly I've handled them a lot and find that they are almost to small. Of course I'm 6' tall with big hands so just about all cell phones are an issue. Like I said I just don't want the thing protruding out of the pocket.

I really think a 3 x 5 inch device is the limit for a mass-market handheld device. It's almost too big - it is too big - but I'm leaving room for the "pro" device. I'm thinking that these are cell phone devices, and anything more than 2.6 or 2.8 inches is too wide for comfortable use next to your ear. The idea of it being a cell phone also forces some kind of visual orientation cues to be on there so we can tell which end is up on the device as well. It's very easy on the iPhone to tell which end is the ear piece and which end is the microphone.

You can do this with a good bezel design I suppose, but I don't think it'll be as distinguishing.

Quote:
I've seen this response to the idea of a USB port in the iPhone a number of times. I can't help to wonder if people have not imagination, it should be perfectly easy for Apple to implement a low profile USB plug design for the iPhone. USB plugs are that thick relative to the current iPhone. Sure that is case integrated design but why not?

I don't have problem with. I'm saying Apple will have a problem with it. If this supposed Macbook thin is going to come out at 0.75" thick, that'll probably leave about 0.5/0.6 inches of thickness to work with. It'll barely fit a USB port. A Firewire port, probably. An Ethernet port, probably not (unless that collapsable port patent is real!). On an iPhone that is 0.45" thick, a USB port is probably a non-starter. An iPod-port to USB dongle could do the trick though. Apple will just need to add USB host functionality, something that currently seems pretty remote.

Quote:
The thing I disagree on is the nano has to be multi Touch as I think that misses the whole point in a low cost and alternative model. A Touch free nano simply offers up an easier to use interface for people who don't need the complexity of a multi Touch unit.
...
Apple needs to target phones that are competitive with the range of Cell phones available now from the competition, that means at least one device in the sub $100 dollar range.

I don't think what I'm describing is low cost. In a range of 150 to 250 dollars, one can get (from ATT) Samsung Blackjacks, Moto Q's, Palm Treos, LG Shines, RIM Blackberrys, and Sony Walkman phones. It's a low-end iPhone, not a low end cell phone, and will need to compete against these types of phones. Since these are essentially smartphones, a low end iPhone will have to have at least the functionality of the current iPhone.

A regular Apple cell phone, like an iPhone version of the Moto ROKR, one which will be given away free or for <$50, will dilute the brand, and I don't think they are ready for that yet. Maybe in 2H 2009, but definitely not now. iTunes.app and iTMS has to be stronger to really do that I think.
post #150 of 180
Apple makes its products to secure a decent profit. I don't see them coming out with products that don't meet that need.
post #151 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

[i]13.1 A Sub-1W to 2W Low-Power IA Processor for Mobile Internet Devices and
Ultra-Mobile PCs in 45nm High-К Metal-Gate CMOS

The thing that is not clear is if this is a power rating for the chip set or just the processor. It also doesn't take into account power management, under clocking and other techniques to lower power consumption. If the total power draw can be kept under three watts it might be a very doable solution.
Quote:
This is like a Pentium I (the 586) reborn. Or the Moto PPC 750 / 7400 reborn. ....... Also rumored to have 2-way SMT, Hyperthreading in Intel vernacular.

Actually this sounds a lot like the PPC section in PS3's chip. Except of the power usage, which in the CELL is hard to nail down. In any event this should be more than enough for the devices I imagine.
Quote:

I'm not really excited about this actually, unless the package comes in the form of a clamshell full laptop keyboard device, and $500 cheap. With the Nokia Internet Table (N800/N810) being one of the top holiday season sellers on Amazon, there may be a market for a tweener device, but it's not me. If you have to put it in a bag to carry around, you mind as well carry a ultra-mobile laptop.

See this is where i have huge problems as I simply don't see the clam shell laptop as being the right form factor for devices this small. A tablet is the way to go. If you have to have a keyboard the N810 isn't a bad way to go at all. In fact I would have one now if it wasn't for Nokia pulling a big boner with the design of the machine. The N810's biggest short coming is that it lacks a reasonable amount of Flash storage. I trust Apple not to make this mistake. Even ASUS with the Eee Pc could have tried a little harder but at least they have a pretty good software install to start with.
Quote:

Also interesting in the ISSCC abstract list was the 2 billion transistor 4-core Itanium with 30 MB of on-die cache. That'll be burning up some coal to use.

Yep is people want a clue as to what the near future looks like computing wise this is one forum to attend. Or at least take note of what is presented there. This is why I have a fair amount of confidence that the technology is coming to do these sorts of devices right in 2008 or early 2009. Even the stuff that is not for public discussion has enough info available publicly to indicate that the ARM world is all so going to be very interesting.

The trade offs are interesting such as what makes more sense for a Maxi iPhone, an i86 processors as discussed or a DUAL core ARM with either running at 1GHz? Same thing for a larger tablet, though as you get up in size the scales balance heavily toward i86 even if it isn't the best over all performer.

***Note with hand held devices performance doesn't always mean how fast it runs code.


Dave
post #152 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

I really think a 3 x 5 inch device is the limit for a mass-market handheld device. It's almost too big - it is too big - but I'm leaving room for the "pro" device. I'm thinking that these are cell phone devices, and anything more than 2.6 or 2.8 inches is too wide for comfortable use next to your ear.

Well I guess that depends on the person. Most Cell phones are way to small for me to handle comfortably. But that is my hand I'm not sure what size has to do with holding it next to your head.

Besides about 99% of the people I see using a smart phone have some sort of head set. OK maybe not 99 but you get the idea.
Quote:
The idea of it being a cell phone also forces some kind of visual orientation cues to be on there so we can tell which end is up on the device as well. It's very easy on the iPhone to tell which end is the ear piece and which end is the microphone.

See now you have hit on something that I didn't even think about. Great feature of these forums.
Quote:
You can do this with a good bezel design I suppose, but I don't think it'll be as distinguishing.

I'm sure it can be worked out.
Quote:
I don't have problem with. I'm saying Apple will have a problem with it.

If any body could get it right it would be Apple. I hope they realize there is a demand for such features. The way I figure it the USB male connector needs about 5mm of opening, something that is not totally impossible in a hand held.
Quote:
If this supposed Macbook thin is going to come out at 0.75" thick, that'll probably leave about 0.5/0.6 inches of thickness to work with. It'll barely fit a USB port. A Firewire port, probably. An Ethernet port, probably not (unless that collapsable port patent is real!). On an iPhone that is 0.45" thick, a USB port is probably a non-starter. An iPod-port to USB dongle could do the trick though. Apple will just need to add USB host functionality, something that currently seems pretty remote.

YOU know I was just over at the CompUSA store closing looking at laptops and one of SONY's little guys and I have to say that it might be possible to go to thin. The device was way to flexible for my liking.

Note also that they where only allowing a 5% discount on iPods and laptops. Considering that was 5% off an already over priced device then you can understand my walking out of the store empty handed.
Quote:
I don't think what I'm describing is low cost. In a range of 150 to 250 dollars, one can get (from ATT) Samsung Blackjacks, Moto Q's, Palm Treos, LG Shines, RIM Blackberrys, and Sony Walkman phones. It's a low-end iPhone, not a low end cell phone, and will need to compete against these types of phones. Since these are essentially smartphones, a low end iPhone will have to have at least the functionality of the current iPhone.

See that is where I see the world a bit differently. Apple needs a low end Cell Phone one that isn't a Smart phone in the normal sense. As to a low end smart Phone Apple isn't in to bad of a position. They can simply move the current iPhone down a notch as the more advanced models come on line.
Quote:

A regular Apple cell phone, like an iPhone version of the Moto ROKR, one which will be given away free or for <$50, will dilute the brand, and I don't think they are ready for that yet.

I think it is a mistake to believe that the manufactures of these lower end phones aren't making a profit. Apple doesn't need to go extremely low end either as they do have the value that the iPod feature adds. I believe it will be very possible for them to deliver a phone that costs $100 and be profitable through the sale itself. Sure there is the question of would they really want to do that when they are getting pretty good buck for their other Flash based players.

It all comes down to dropping component prices and competition.
Quote:
Maybe in 2H 2009, but definitely not now. iTunes.app and iTMS has to be stronger to really do that I think.

Well it is obvious that we have different hardware in mind. While I think Apple needs a low end devcie as described, what I want is really the high end device. That is an iPhone that is souped up to be a really excellent internet device. But also a device that can really exploit third party apps.

Dave
post #153 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple makes its products to secure a decent profit. I don't see them coming out with products that don't meet that need.

True; but it all depends if Apple wants to remain a one horse circus act or try to take significant market share from the other manufactures. Some times I believe Apple likes to be a niche product manufacture but I'm not sure that is a good way to handle such a huge market as is the Cell industry. Lets face it PC sales are dwarfed by the unit sales that the Cell industry has.

If Apple want to have a significant portion of those sales, they need product to cover a wide array of customers. Some of those customers don't need or want a smart phone. They want simple and easy to use.

Dave
post #154 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

True; but it all depends if Apple wants to remain a one horse circus act or try to take significant market share from the other manufactures. Some times I believe Apple likes to be a niche product manufacture but I'm not sure that is a good way to handle such a huge market as is the Cell industry. Lets face it PC sales are dwarfed by the unit sales that the Cell industry has.

If Apple want to have a significant portion of those sales, they need product to cover a wide array of customers. Some of those customers don't need or want a smart phone. They want simple and easy to use.

Dave

Don't confuse marketshare with profit. The low end of the market is struggling. PCs are being sold with little to no profit on the hardware and loaded with all sorts of crap software to supplement the cutthroat costs of those antiquated machines. Apple isn't in that business and it doesn't seem like that will be if it means selling machines with old hat tech and pay-for-play software.

As for your "one horse circus" statement, Apple has iPods, the iPhone, Macs, Xserves, OS X, consumer software, professional software, a media extender, and an online media store. That sounds like a lot for just one tent, much less one ring.

Because the cell market is so large Apple's profits will sore if they are lucky to get the same marketshare they have with the Mac platform. (I was going to insert automotive example--not analogy--but I know how people feel about that despite its relevancy)
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 #155 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

True; but it all depends if Apple wants to remain a one horse circus act or try to take significant market share from the other manufactures. Some times I believe Apple likes to be a niche product manufacture but I'm not sure that is a good way to handle such a huge market as is the Cell industry. Lets face it PC sales are dwarfed by the unit sales that the Cell industry has.

If Apple want to have a significant portion of those sales, they need product to cover a wide array of customers. Some of those customers don't need or want a smart phone. They want simple and easy to use.

Dave

Apple doesn't seem to be interested in taking marketshare away from other manufacturers.

If they were, they would have released the phone to any and sundry who wanted them, rather than sucking money monthly from the few carriers it has deals with. This also makes the monthly fees the customers pay, more expensive, as the cell providers must raise those fees in order to pay Apple its cut.

Apple, as always, is going after profit. I do think that this is to their long term detriment.

Just think of how sales might have gone if Apple instead sold the phone to all carriers, and unlocked as well, perhaps even having a CDMA version.

I don't see a cheap model as being in the cards. At some point, we will likely see $199 as a bottom price.
post #156 of 180
And read this for an possible interesting new service from Apple through the iPhone/iTouch:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/26/app...partner=alerts
post #157 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobilesalesman View Post

The Menlo is ok as I saw that video and it was shown in Bejing running windows but it is more like a better OQO as it appears to be thumb input?

Yes. It's like an OQO, a [larger] Nokia N810, and many such devices. It's really too big to be considered a handheld.

Quote:
I think the Moorestown device would have been great if they made that into a thin clamshell. Without good keyboard input Apple will be making the same mistake of the UMPC's. That is why price is so much an issue with UMPC's as they are not that fuctional; most people do not find pen input their ideal main input.

The Moorestown mockup - I'm more convinced it's a fake the more I see it btw - is fine with a soft QWERTY. It's too big to be a handheld or a pants-pocket device, but as something very very close to a handheld, it looks beautiful. Make it about 25% smaller, it'll make a very nice handheld, but then it'd be running on an ARM platform. As it is, I think it is a brilliant idea for a UMPC. Like I side before, it's not just a really small device running Windows, but it has a multi-touch UI designed for it. As long as it has the right price ($500 to $700), wireless broadband be it cellular or WiFi / WiMAX, I think a lot of people will buy it.

Apple can probably do this device today using a 600+ MHz ARM. It could fill the space between the iPhone and the MacBook, but I still have doubts on the usage model. It's still a tweener device, it'll still need a bag / case to carry around. It may fit in the front pocket of your pants or your jacket pcokets, but when I say pants pocket, it should always mean the back pants pocket. So, it has the same traps that current UMPCs do.

The reason I think this may work is because it's trading the inconvenience of a keyboard mechanism (slider, clamshell) for making it smaller while maintaining rigidity and using a big screen. It's the same iPhone multi-touch / big screen / thinness trade over thumb board & small screen / mechanism, but for the UMPC space. And they mocked it up with the right UI concepts. This could really push it to being usable.

I agree with you that a touch-type keyboard is needed for real productivity, but if so, it has to be as big as the existing MB/MBP keyboards which will result in a sub-notebook, not a UMPC. Menlow would be interesting for it though, because 8 to 10 hour battery life is a good thing.
post #158 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The thing that is not clear is if this is a power rating for the chip set or just the processor. It also doesn't take into account power management, under clocking and other techniques to lower power consumption. If the total power draw can be kept under three watts it might be a very doable solution.

It's very clear that Silverthorne, the CPU, depending on voltage variant, will have TDPs in the 0.55, 1, or 2 Watt range. If you add the I/O chipset and other supporting chips, Menlow will be a 2 to 5 Watt platform. Idle and sleep states are obviously less.

Quote:
See this is where i have huge problems as I simply don't see the clam shell laptop as being the right form factor for devices this small. A tablet is the way to go. If you have to have a keyboard the N810 isn't a bad way to go at all. In fact I would have one now if it wasn't for Nokia pulling a big boner with the design of the machine. The N810's biggest short coming is that it lacks a reasonable amount of Flash storage. I trust Apple not to make this mistake. Even ASUS with the Eee Pc could have tried a little harder but at least they have a pretty good software install to start with.

When I said clamshell, the one I think would work, it means one with a full laptop keyboard. My trusty ruler tells me that this could as small as 10 x 5.5 x <1 inches.

On the storage, I agree with you. I'm not sure why flash is used or considered so much for devices these sizes. They can use 60, 80, 100, 120, 160 GB 1.8" HDDs and wouldn't pay much penalty in weight or battery life...

Quote:
Yep is people want a clue as to what the near future looks like computing wise this is one forum to attend. Or at least take note of what is presented there. This is why I have a fair amount of confidence that the technology is coming to do these sorts of devices right in 2008 or early 2009. Even the stuff that is not for public discussion has enough info available publicly to indicate that the ARM world is all so going to be very interesting.

Yeah. The ARM SoC chips to be presented are very very interesting.
post #159 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

Yes. It's like an OQO, a [larger] Nokia N810, and many such devices. It's really too big to be considered a handheld.



The Moorestown mockup - I'm more convinced it's a fake the more I see it btw - is fine with a soft QWERTY. It's too big to be a handheld or a pants-pocket device, but as something very very close to a handheld, it looks beautiful. Make it about 25% smaller, it'll make a very nice handheld, but then it'd be running on an ARM platform. As it is, I think it is a brilliant idea for a UMPC. Like I side before, it's not just a really small device running Windows, but it has a multi-touch UI designed for it. As long as it has the right price ($500 to $700), wireless broadband be it cellular or WiFi / WiMAX, I think a lot of people will buy it.

Apple can probably do this device today using a 600+ MHz ARM. It could fill the space between the iPhone and the MacBook, but I still have doubts on the usage model. It's still a tweener device, it'll still need a bag / case to carry around. It may fit in the front pocket of your pants or your jacket pcokets, but when I say pants pocket, it should always mean the back pants pocket. So, it has the same traps that current UMPCs do.

The reason I think this may work is because it's trading the inconvenience of a keyboard mechanism (slider, clamshell) for making it smaller while maintaining rigidity and using a big screen. It's the same iPhone multi-touch / big screen / thinness trade over thumb board & small screen / mechanism, but for the UMPC space. And they mocked it up with the right UI concepts. This could really push it to being usable.

I agree with you that a touch-type keyboard is needed for real productivity, but if so, it has to be as big as the existing MB/MBP keyboards which will result in a sub-notebook, not a UMPC. Menlow would be interesting for it though, because 8 to 10 hour battery life is a good thing.

If Apple used a keyboard like the old Psion's that would easily enable it to be jacket pocket size. The Psion was only 6.9" x 3.6" x .9". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psion_5

An even more creative device that provides almost a desktop keyboard yet is just barely jacket pocket size is the Samsung SPH P9200 only available in Korea http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9795471-1.html

From reading other postings here I believe it would be McCaslin Intel chips? that could enable a more true laptop type jacket pocket computer? Either way I think the market is ripe for Apple to capitalize and be the first to fill the jacket pocket laptop market. For business users that type of device would be a steal at $500-700. I would pay double that but right now there is nothing to buy that provides a touch type keyboard and fits into your jacket pocket.
post #160 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

It's very clear that Silverthorne, the CPU, depending on voltage variant, will have TDPs in the 0.55, 1, or 2 Watt range. If you add the I/O chipset and other supporting chips, Menlow will be a 2 to 5 Watt platform. Idle and sleep states are obviously less.

I suppose what will really make or break the platform is how well the platform manages power. I'm looking for a device that can be available 12 hours a day, minimal. That doesn't mean powered up and running demanding applications but intermittent use including RF networking. The ability of Menlow to deliver such performance is still a question in my mind.

Of course with battery technology improving at 8 percent a year it might not be an issue.
Quote:
When I said clamshell, the one I think would work, it means one with a full laptop keyboard. My trusty ruler tells me that this could as small as 10 x 5.5 x <1 inches.

No way in hell, way to big, that would leave a bulge in your jacket bigger than a 1911! Remember we are looking for something to carry on our person. The other problem is that clam shell or laptop emulating machines suck in the hand held on the go arena. These aren't devices for writing war and peace on, it is a different user and a different problem set then the heavy laptop user.
Quote:

On the storage, I agree with you. I'm not sure why flash is used or considered so much for devices these sizes. They can use 60, 80, 100, 120, 160 GB 1.8" HDDs and wouldn't pay much penalty in weight or battery life...

Actually I believe that Flash will be a requirement. There is the issue of performance from the small HDD and there is also an issue with Power. Sure Flash has mixed performance issues but it can be shown to be more power efficient.

Now are we going to get 160GB of flash from Apple? I doubt it. The question is how much do we need and how economical is it for Apple to reach that value. But like I've said I trust Apple not to screw up like Nokia did. 32GB would be to low in my estimation.
Quote:

Yeah. The ARM SoC chips to be presented are very very interesting.

Yep some interesting approaches. Some that stand out include dual core SoC's. What I really find interesting though is that many of the devices are slated to hit 1GHz or so.

What that means is that we will have hand held devices in the near future that are significantly faster than more that half the computers I've ever owned. Since I'm +45 that is a lot of computing hardware. Plus they will be able to do that for a long time on a recharge. Now with all of this hardware coming we just need somebody to package it up in a nice tidy enclosure with a nice OS.

Dave
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Exclusive: Apple to adopt Intel's ultra-mobile PC platform