So, having just upgraded from original iPhone, which could get me within a block even without GPS, I wanted to check out GPS on my 3 GS. I was standing under a tree in Charlotteville, VA. Google maps not only showed me my location, it actually showed the very tree I was standing under, and also which side of the trunk.
According to this website, Clearwire is starting to offer WiMax broadband at $30/month. It would make sense for Apple to inject some money in this carrier to accelerate deployment to major population centers. The pricing pressure would force most of the telcos to drop rates, especially customers started to used VoIP, Skype with the iPod touch if it includes a built in mic and WiMax radio. A tablet PC could do the same, though data would be the primary use.
According to this website, Clearwire is starting to offer WiMax broadband at $30/month. It would make sense for Apple to inject some money in this carrier to accelerate deployment to major population centers. The pricing pressure would force most of the telcos to drop rates, especially customers started to used VoIP, Skype with the iPod touch if it includes a built in mic and WiMax radio. A tablet PC could do the same, though data would be the primary use.
The way I see it, it's all data now. The Telcos must be very afraid. I'd love to see Apple drive a stake through their parasitic hearts.
Obviously, you have not tried the GPS or you would know. +/- a quarter to a half mile is not useful at all.
Security? You have not read the analyses showing just how insecure they are and how corporate users have been snookered.
Steve promised "all the internet". Nobody forced him to make that claim. Without Flash you can not access a large part of the internet. I do not care for Flash, but it is the reality
"Not recommended for obvious reasons, eh?" It does not work well at all. You don't have the option to manage it.
Plainly, you either have little experience with the darned thing or are a very undemanding user.
If you have an iPhone, I am glad you enjoy it, but that does not make your delusions reality.
I don't think its necessary to treat people as badly as you do above.
I have a 3G and I have used the GPS and never found it to be any more inaccurate than a dedicated GPS navigator. I've walked along sidewalks in the middle of cities and had it track right along with me as I walked. 1st gen iPhones did not have GPS, and instead used cell tower triangulation. Maybe that is what you are talking about.
Regarding Flash, lets understand the difference between desire and reality. You might want flash on a mobile device, but no phones support flash completely. Instead, they embed some version of Flash 'lite', and most such devices embed Flash lite 1 or 2. However, Flash lite 3 is the first version of Flash lite to come even close to offering an experience similar to the full version of flash, and even though it was released in 2007, it still isn't on many devices. That may be because it is a significant resource hog. Here we are in the middle of 2009, and we are only now seeing serious announcements for Flash lite 3 on mobile devices that are coming later this year. Blackberry doesn't currently support Flash. Android doesn't. Palm WebOS, ditto. So, why the carping that Apple doesn't have Flash on iPhone? There has to be a reason that all of these manufacturers have waited so long to introduce support for something that was released in 2007. In any case, it seems hard to argue that Flash is a glaring omission on iPhone when no other similar device has it either. Kind of disingenuous if you ask me.
I don't see how tethering could be a service ATT could charge you for. My impression of tethering would be similar to using your cell phone to get internet access on your computer. Apple's ATT plan already included unlimited access to internet so how COULD they charge for tether? Seems to me just like USB sync.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
yes, i meant like a Broadband card or a USB card that ATT and Verizon currently carry. That way if you purchase the device you can plug in any card you like; as you would on the MacBooks.
Do you read your own posts? You complain that it?s unfair for a carrier to charge more than the $30 a month for internet access on a phone despite those additional services not being what you sign up for, then to go on to talk about a wonky setup with a nasty USB dongle that costs hundreds of dollars and has a $60 a month charge for a 5GB cap.
If you can?t see how a device that has a 600MHz ARM CPU, 256MB RAM, 3.5? display and mobile OS could possibly use significantly less data than any desktop OS or OSes without tethering then you can?t possible have even used a computer or smartphone.
I highly doubt Apple will launch a 10" multitouch device. Why?
-A 10" inch capacitive multitouch screen of 1024x600 moreless resolution in expensive.
-To last an acceptable time, it have to have a good battery so it adds weigth to the device
-Working with a tablet it's the epitome of poor ergonomy. You must to hold it with the two hands so to write (in a virtual keyboard) you have to hold with one hand (tired) and write with the other, or hold it flat and look at it vertically and write.
I have never understood why everyone is willing to have an iTablet.
Please, make a 10"-11" Macbook and then yes, this can be the answer to netbooks, but an iTablet is not the answer to netbooks.
- Moore's Law will be brining the price of the screen to reasonable levels. It should be 1/2 compared to 2 years ago, when the iPhone was initially sold, relative to size. Apple does have economies of scale.
- Battery consumption is an issue, but if the ARM architecture with dual core is used, good power management would make the batteries last longer.
- A 10" rectangular screen could be used like the Newton and held in the narrow mode, especially when typing or even reading a book - held with one hand. The typing would be done with one digit like with the iPhone.
As the Kindle has shown, there is market for a larger device, not just limited for books. Even for books like in Medicine, would need color display and internet connection to link the text to other texts, and web info. Another reason why SJ took 4 years to develop the product, may be the very reasons that you mention. I am hopeful of a good product. They just to not put out junk.
3) Ditto the stylus. Apple does have a patent where a MultiTouch surface can detect the position where a stylus would be, if you position your fingers as if holding a stylus-- so this could be implemented through software with a pop-up [offset] loupe for exact positioning and detail. A stylus or hockey puck could be an option, but not a requirement.
Multi-touch is nice for navigation and acceptable for input on an iPhone. For a larger device that you presumably want to actually be productive on then another input method needs to be incorporated. As a designer I want a real stylus, it is a much better input device than a "puck" or finger on a tablet type device. A stylus is more accurate and natural for text input than your fingertip as well, and had other advantages for drawing. A keyboard is still the best for text entry though, and (at least till the iPhone) made a very strong come back on portable devices.
The iPhone SDK encourages programming apps that are independent of screen size. Many developers are anticipating new devices with larger (or smaller) screen sizes. If they want to be able to run their apps on these new devices, developers take advantage of screen-independent constructs-- it only takes a few lines of code to determine the device's screen size and adjust the app's display window/view accordingly.
Code:
CGRect cgRect =[[UIScreen mainScreen] bounds];
CGSize cgSize = cgRect.size;
// device screen dimensions available as cgSize.height, cgSize.width
but of course apps designed graphically for the iPhone's aspect ratio - as so many are, including all the games - will look crummy stretched to fit a different one. the iTab could letter box or pillar box them, sure, but that just wastes screen area, so why? and Apple loves to standardize its stuff, which is smart of course.
i think these are the best concept mock ups i have ever seen,
they have completely changed my idea of what a tablet might look like, i was thinking it would just be an oversized iPodTouch, but now i see the future tablet as a real (capable) portable computer, something you would sync your iPhone or any iPod device too.
i think it would have at least 1 usb slot and cameras on the front and back,
Multi-touch is nice for navigation and acceptable for input on an iPhone. For a larger device that you presumably want to actually be productive on then another input method needs to be incorporated. As a designer I want a real stylus, it is a much better input device than a "puck" or finger on a tablet type device. A stylus is more accurate and natural for text input than your fingertip as well, and had other advantages for drawing. A keyboard is still the best for text entry though, and (at least till the iPhone) made a very strong come back on portable devices.
I regret to say that the whole multi touch deal was invented for a large newton like device.
What you seem to want was already old ten yrs ago. If a tablet does emerge it will be more multi touch than the ipodtouch is now . There will be no tricked out keyboard or stylus or coffee cup holder.
It will be a bright screen device that professions around the world can use >> doctors, lawyers on and on . It will be minimal in design and style. Apple will expect you to unlock its full potential. Movie playback/games will look fantastic. School kids around the world will love it .
10" screen? I'm in. I finally get my sub-notebook from Apple. Now just make it like the pads in Star Trek TNG and I can write entire books by just touching parts of the screen. ;-)
Seriously, if I can't have my sub-notebook, I will take the Tablet at 10".
I highly doubt Apple will launch a 10" multitouch device. Why?
-A 10" inch capacitive multitouch screen of 1024x600 moreless resolution in expensive.
-To last an acceptable time, it have to have a good battery so it adds weigth to the device
-Working with a tablet it's the epitome of poor ergonomy. You must to hold it with the two hands so to write (in a virtual keyboard) you have to hold with one hand (tired) and write with the other, or hold it flat and look at it vertically and write.
I have never understood why everyone is willing to have an iTablet.
Please, make a 10"-11" Macbook and then yes, this can be the answer to netbooks, but an iTablet is not the answer to netbooks.
I agree for the most part, but remember, this is APPLE. They would not release the device unless it is a pleasure to use. How they are going to accomplish that in a tablet form factor, I have no idea.
I would not be surprised if we learn some day that the key to allowing this type of device to finally happen was the rewrite of the last pieces of Mac OS X in Cocoa.
Exactly! Remember that Snow Leopard is not only about an Intel-only version or new core technologies. One of the main objectives was to move much of the OS to Objective C/Cocoa and leave Carbon behind as far as the OS and the Apple Apps go.
So the Tablet needed the Snow Leopard effort to move Mac OS X and Apple Apps to Cocoa, because then it gets much easier to port Mac OS X to ARM and integrate it with the iPhone OS APIs ( An Objective C/Cocoa only development environment).
Unlike Mac OS X, but like the iPhone OS, the Tablet OS will only support Cocoa based Applications.
This will allow the Tablet to run an ARM version of Mac OS X that supports all the iPhone apps, plus desktop grade apps like iWork, iLife, iChat, Mail and Safari.
This could be the best of both worlds, a very small and light touch notebook integrated with an iPod touch combined in one single device for something like $600-700.
A super iPod touch, not a crippled down Mac.
Later in the future, Apple could include a 4G version with LTE and a data-only plan, subsidized by a Telecom operator, making a Tablet duo just like the iPhone and iPod touch today.
As far as MS Office for the Mac goes, Microsoft has no Cocoa version of it, just Carbon. So they would have a long way to go before they can port it to the Tablet OS.
So when you consider that the mobile Mac OS ARM plus the iPhone OS ARM devices could soon outnumber Windows PCs, then a mobile version of iWork could become the new Office standard, and leave MS Office in the dust.
All iWork has to do is to add support for ODF, and become a better ODF Suite than OpenOffice. Plus improve support for OpenXML.
And anyone that thinks that Apple and Google are competing in the OS market with iPhone OS/Mac OS X versus Android/Chrome OS, think again.
They are in fact covering mostly very different market segments.
Apple is targeting the premium, Google the free.
Apple produces software tightly integrated with their products providing great user experience and makes money on the hardware. Software is used to add more value to the hardware, not to be a large profit center by itself.
Google gives software for free to have greater audience and make money in adds.
They are doing to Microsoft what Microsoft did to Netscape.
The problem is that Microsoft makes money from selling software.
If the market does not value software-only products, Microsoft is doomed.
If Microsoft wants to survive in the long run, they need to bring Bill Gates back.
Steve Ballmer, sorry, but Apple and Google are innovating and acting on a strategy, while you are disregarding the competition, but copying them, and shouting motivational words in desperation.
but of course apps designed graphically for the iPhone's aspect ratio - as so many are, including all the games - will look crummy stretched to fit a different one. the iTab could letter box or pillar box them, sure, but that just wastes screen area, so why? and Apple loves to standardize its stuff, which is smart of course.
Code:
CGRect cgRect =[[UIScreen mainScreen] bounds];
CGSize cgSize = cgRect.size;
// device screen dimensions available as cgSize.height, cgSize.width
Not necessarily! The above code gives both the screen size and aspect ratio. This tells the developer the largest rectangle of his content that can be displayed at one time (his content is likely larger or smaller and a different aspect ratio than the screen size). In the case of larger content, that which is not currently displayed is drawn offscreen and made visible as necessary by panning and scrolling. A canny developer will design his app, from the start, to be aware of this screen size and compensate as needed.
Even when the developer has no control over content, as in the size and aspect ratio of a movie, you have built-in adjustments. Apple's Movie Player, for example gives the user options:
1) display movie in actual size with letter box, pillar box or both
2) zoom, until one dimension fills the rectangle and letter box or pillar box the other
3) zoom until smallest dimension fits rectangle, cropping the other
Where the developer has control of the content, he has similar options (that good developers plan for in advance).
1) position the current [smaller] rectangle, as is, (usually centered) within the larger screen (rectangle)
2) zoom the current rectangle as above
3) adjust the dimensions of the current rectangle to conform to the larger screen (rectangle)
This is actually easier than you might assume. There are many powerful constructs within the Apple-supplied tools, languages and frameworks that allow these things to be done easily and efficiently.
At least as big a concern is the speed difference of new device. Will the app perform well on a faster CPU/GPU (possibly with interference from background tasks)? Again, the smart developer will anticipate this! Where necessary, the app will be written in such a way as to adjust its speed to ambient conditions.
Actually, the biggest need for change in the app may be for textual information. Consider:
1) many iPhone apps contain drill-down lists, tab bars, and navigation bars.
2) Often, their use can be seen as a poor man's table for a small screen and slow[er] CPU
With a larger screen and faster CPU, it becomes practical (necessary in some cases) to replace the above with a multi-column table, where columns are resizable, sortable, can be repositioned or displayed at the option of the user (think iTunes).
Fortunately, table constructs for this already exist in [Mac] Cocoa (large screen Cocoa). The [iPhone] Cocoa (Cocoa Touch) is a subset of the [Mac] Cocoa. Presumably, when larger touch screens become available, Apple will migrate these frameworks and APIs to Cocoa Touch.
This won't eliminate the need to recode the textual app for a larger screen, but it should make it easier.
Interestingly, one thing that migrates quite well (in both directions) is CoverFlow. This framework/API is private in both [Mac] Cocoa and [iPhone] Cocoa Touch, So developers can't [currently, legally] use it.
I hope that this will be allowed when larger touch screens (and presumably, more open architecture) become available. There are some exciting possibilities for the CoverFlow UI.
Finally, a small screen [iPhone] app, by necessity is limited to one set of content at a time. The user works on it, puts it away, then opens another.
With a larger screen, the app may need to be rewritten to handle multiple windows open at the same time, possibly overlapping and sharing the screen with the windows of other apps.
Here, [Mac] Cocoa, has already plowed this ground, and the APIs/Frameworks could be migrated to [iTablet] Cocoa Touch, to mitigate the rewrite effort.
Comments
GPS on the iPhone is a freaking joke.
So, having just upgraded from original iPhone, which could get me within a block even without GPS, I wanted to check out GPS on my 3 GS. I was standing under a tree in Charlotteville, VA. Google maps not only showed me my location, it actually showed the very tree I was standing under, and also which side of the trunk.
Hold on to your AAPL!
According to this website, Clearwire is starting to offer WiMax broadband at $30/month. It would make sense for Apple to inject some money in this carrier to accelerate deployment to major population centers. The pricing pressure would force most of the telcos to drop rates, especially customers started to used VoIP, Skype with the iPod touch if it includes a built in mic and WiMax radio. A tablet PC could do the same, though data would be the primary use.
http://www.clearwire.com/
According to this website, Clearwire is starting to offer WiMax broadband at $30/month. It would make sense for Apple to inject some money in this carrier to accelerate deployment to major population centers. The pricing pressure would force most of the telcos to drop rates, especially customers started to used VoIP, Skype with the iPod touch if it includes a built in mic and WiMax radio. A tablet PC could do the same, though data would be the primary use.
The way I see it, it's all data now. The Telcos must be very afraid. I'd love to see Apple drive a stake through their parasitic hearts.
Obviously, you have not tried the GPS or you would know. +/- a quarter to a half mile is not useful at all.
Security? You have not read the analyses showing just how insecure they are and how corporate users have been snookered.
Steve promised "all the internet". Nobody forced him to make that claim. Without Flash you can not access a large part of the internet. I do not care for Flash, but it is the reality
"Not recommended for obvious reasons, eh?" It does not work well at all. You don't have the option to manage it.
Plainly, you either have little experience with the darned thing or are a very undemanding user.
If you have an iPhone, I am glad you enjoy it, but that does not make your delusions reality.
I don't think its necessary to treat people as badly as you do above.
I have a 3G and I have used the GPS and never found it to be any more inaccurate than a dedicated GPS navigator. I've walked along sidewalks in the middle of cities and had it track right along with me as I walked. 1st gen iPhones did not have GPS, and instead used cell tower triangulation. Maybe that is what you are talking about.
Regarding Flash, lets understand the difference between desire and reality. You might want flash on a mobile device, but no phones support flash completely. Instead, they embed some version of Flash 'lite', and most such devices embed Flash lite 1 or 2. However, Flash lite 3 is the first version of Flash lite to come even close to offering an experience similar to the full version of flash, and even though it was released in 2007, it still isn't on many devices. That may be because it is a significant resource hog. Here we are in the middle of 2009, and we are only now seeing serious announcements for Flash lite 3 on mobile devices that are coming later this year. Blackberry doesn't currently support Flash. Android doesn't. Palm WebOS, ditto. So, why the carping that Apple doesn't have Flash on iPhone? There has to be a reason that all of these manufacturers have waited so long to introduce support for something that was released in 2007. In any case, it seems hard to argue that Flash is a glaring omission on iPhone when no other similar device has it either. Kind of disingenuous if you ask me.
I don't see how tethering could be a service ATT could charge you for. My impression of tethering would be similar to using your cell phone to get internet access on your computer. Apple's ATT plan already included unlimited access to internet so how COULD they charge for tether? Seems to me just like USB sync.
yes, i meant like a Broadband card or a USB card that ATT and Verizon currently carry. That way if you purchase the device you can plug in any card you like; as you would on the MacBooks.
Do you read your own posts? You complain that it?s unfair for a carrier to charge more than the $30 a month for internet access on a phone despite those additional services not being what you sign up for, then to go on to talk about a wonky setup with a nasty USB dongle that costs hundreds of dollars and has a $60 a month charge for a 5GB cap.
If you can?t see how a device that has a 600MHz ARM CPU, 256MB RAM, 3.5? display and mobile OS could possibly use significantly less data than any desktop OS or OSes without tethering then you can?t possible have even used a computer or smartphone.
I highly doubt Apple will launch a 10" multitouch device. Why?
-A 10" inch capacitive multitouch screen of 1024x600 moreless resolution in expensive.
-To last an acceptable time, it have to have a good battery so it adds weigth to the device
-Working with a tablet it's the epitome of poor ergonomy. You must to hold it with the two hands so to write (in a virtual keyboard) you have to hold with one hand (tired) and write with the other, or hold it flat and look at it vertically and write.
I have never understood why everyone is willing to have an iTablet.
Please, make a 10"-11" Macbook and then yes, this can be the answer to netbooks, but an iTablet is not the answer to netbooks.
- Moore's Law will be brining the price of the screen to reasonable levels. It should be 1/2 compared to 2 years ago, when the iPhone was initially sold, relative to size. Apple does have economies of scale.
- Battery consumption is an issue, but if the ARM architecture with dual core is used, good power management would make the batteries last longer.
- A 10" rectangular screen could be used like the Newton and held in the narrow mode, especially when typing or even reading a book - held with one hand. The typing would be done with one digit like with the iPhone.
As the Kindle has shown, there is market for a larger device, not just limited for books. Even for books like in Medicine, would need color display and internet connection to link the text to other texts, and web info. Another reason why SJ took 4 years to develop the product, may be the very reasons that you mention. I am hopeful of a good product. They just to not put out junk.
-
3) Ditto the stylus. Apple does have a patent where a MultiTouch surface can detect the position where a stylus would be, if you position your fingers as if holding a stylus-- so this could be implemented through software with a pop-up [offset] loupe for exact positioning and detail. A stylus or hockey puck could be an option, but not a requirement.
Multi-touch is nice for navigation and acceptable for input on an iPhone. For a larger device that you presumably want to actually be productive on then another input method needs to be incorporated. As a designer I want a real stylus, it is a much better input device than a "puck" or finger on a tablet type device. A stylus is more accurate and natural for text input than your fingertip as well, and had other advantages for drawing. A keyboard is still the best for text entry though, and (at least till the iPhone) made a very strong come back on portable devices.
The iPhone SDK encourages programming apps that are independent of screen size. Many developers are anticipating new devices with larger (or smaller) screen sizes. If they want to be able to run their apps on these new devices, developers take advantage of screen-independent constructs-- it only takes a few lines of code to determine the device's screen size and adjust the app's display window/view accordingly.
CGRect cgRect =[[UIScreen mainScreen] bounds];
CGSize cgSize = cgRect.size;
// device screen dimensions available as cgSize.height, cgSize.width
but of course apps designed graphically for the iPhone's aspect ratio - as so many are, including all the games - will look crummy stretched to fit a different one. the iTab could letter box or pillar box them, sure, but that just wastes screen area, so why? and Apple loves to standardize its stuff, which is smart of course.
i think these are the best concept mock ups i have ever seen,
they have completely changed my idea of what a tablet might look like, i was thinking it would just be an oversized iPodTouch, but now i see the future tablet as a real (capable) portable computer, something you would sync your iPhone or any iPod device too.
i think it would have at least 1 usb slot and cameras on the front and back,
an sd slot would be a bonus
WHAT about 9X6" FITS IN A LAB COAT
size el-GRANDE TOUCH with 2 mini usb ports
and a single jack.THATS IT FOR SLOTS .
Camera front and back sounds juicy.
Multi-touch is nice for navigation and acceptable for input on an iPhone. For a larger device that you presumably want to actually be productive on then another input method needs to be incorporated. As a designer I want a real stylus, it is a much better input device than a "puck" or finger on a tablet type device. A stylus is more accurate and natural for text input than your fingertip as well, and had other advantages for drawing. A keyboard is still the best for text entry though, and (at least till the iPhone) made a very strong come back on portable devices.
I regret to say that the whole multi touch deal was invented for a large newton like device.
What you seem to want was already old ten yrs ago. If a tablet does emerge it will be more multi touch than the ipodtouch is now . There will be no tricked out keyboard or stylus or coffee cup holder.
It will be a bright screen device that professions around the world can use >> doctors, lawyers on and on . It will be minimal in design and style. Apple will expect you to unlock its full potential. Movie playback/games will look fantastic. School kids around the world will love it .
Almost all info will be wi-fied in.
i am DREAMING of course.
Seriously, if I can't have my sub-notebook, I will take the Tablet at 10".
I highly doubt Apple will launch a 10" multitouch device. Why?
-A 10" inch capacitive multitouch screen of 1024x600 moreless resolution in expensive.
-To last an acceptable time, it have to have a good battery so it adds weigth to the device
-Working with a tablet it's the epitome of poor ergonomy. You must to hold it with the two hands so to write (in a virtual keyboard) you have to hold with one hand (tired) and write with the other, or hold it flat and look at it vertically and write.
I have never understood why everyone is willing to have an iTablet.
Please, make a 10"-11" Macbook and then yes, this can be the answer to netbooks, but an iTablet is not the answer to netbooks.
I agree for the most part, but remember, this is APPLE. They would not release the device unless it is a pleasure to use. How they are going to accomplish that in a tablet form factor, I have no idea.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a52c9ec0-7...44feabdc0.html
I would not be surprised if we learn some day that the key to allowing this type of device to finally happen was the rewrite of the last pieces of Mac OS X in Cocoa.
Exactly! Remember that Snow Leopard is not only about an Intel-only version or new core technologies. One of the main objectives was to move much of the OS to Objective C/Cocoa and leave Carbon behind as far as the OS and the Apple Apps go.
So the Tablet needed the Snow Leopard effort to move Mac OS X and Apple Apps to Cocoa, because then it gets much easier to port Mac OS X to ARM and integrate it with the iPhone OS APIs ( An Objective C/Cocoa only development environment).
Unlike Mac OS X, but like the iPhone OS, the Tablet OS will only support Cocoa based Applications.
This will allow the Tablet to run an ARM version of Mac OS X that supports all the iPhone apps, plus desktop grade apps like iWork, iLife, iChat, Mail and Safari.
This could be the best of both worlds, a very small and light touch notebook integrated with an iPod touch combined in one single device for something like $600-700.
A super iPod touch, not a crippled down Mac.
Later in the future, Apple could include a 4G version with LTE and a data-only plan, subsidized by a Telecom operator, making a Tablet duo just like the iPhone and iPod touch today.
As far as MS Office for the Mac goes, Microsoft has no Cocoa version of it, just Carbon. So they would have a long way to go before they can port it to the Tablet OS.
So when you consider that the mobile Mac OS ARM plus the iPhone OS ARM devices could soon outnumber Windows PCs, then a mobile version of iWork could become the new Office standard, and leave MS Office in the dust.
All iWork has to do is to add support for ODF, and become a better ODF Suite than OpenOffice. Plus improve support for OpenXML.
And anyone that thinks that Apple and Google are competing in the OS market with iPhone OS/Mac OS X versus Android/Chrome OS, think again.
They are in fact covering mostly very different market segments.
Apple is targeting the premium, Google the free.
Apple produces software tightly integrated with their products providing great user experience and makes money on the hardware. Software is used to add more value to the hardware, not to be a large profit center by itself.
Google gives software for free to have greater audience and make money in adds.
They are doing to Microsoft what Microsoft did to Netscape.
The problem is that Microsoft makes money from selling software.
If the market does not value software-only products, Microsoft is doomed.
If Microsoft wants to survive in the long run, they need to bring Bill Gates back.
Steve Ballmer, sorry, but Apple and Google are innovating and acting on a strategy, while you are disregarding the competition, but copying them, and shouting motivational words in desperation.
I know I will buy lots of 'em, and this is what will happen...
They will make you go bald?
but of course apps designed graphically for the iPhone's aspect ratio - as so many are, including all the games - will look crummy stretched to fit a different one. the iTab could letter box or pillar box them, sure, but that just wastes screen area, so why? and Apple loves to standardize its stuff, which is smart of course.
CGRect cgRect =[[UIScreen mainScreen] bounds];
CGSize cgSize = cgRect.size;
// device screen dimensions available as cgSize.height, cgSize.width
Not necessarily! The above code gives both the screen size and aspect ratio. This tells the developer the largest rectangle of his content that can be displayed at one time (his content is likely larger or smaller and a different aspect ratio than the screen size). In the case of larger content, that which is not currently displayed is drawn offscreen and made visible as necessary by panning and scrolling. A canny developer will design his app, from the start, to be aware of this screen size and compensate as needed.
Even when the developer has no control over content, as in the size and aspect ratio of a movie, you have built-in adjustments. Apple's Movie Player, for example gives the user options:
1) display movie in actual size with letter box, pillar box or both
2) zoom, until one dimension fills the rectangle and letter box or pillar box the other
3) zoom until smallest dimension fits rectangle, cropping the other
Where the developer has control of the content, he has similar options (that good developers plan for in advance).
1) position the current [smaller] rectangle, as is, (usually centered) within the larger screen (rectangle)
2) zoom the current rectangle as above
3) adjust the dimensions of the current rectangle to conform to the larger screen (rectangle)
This is actually easier than you might assume. There are many powerful constructs within the Apple-supplied tools, languages and frameworks that allow these things to be done easily and efficiently.
At least as big a concern is the speed difference of new device. Will the app perform well on a faster CPU/GPU (possibly with interference from background tasks)? Again, the smart developer will anticipate this! Where necessary, the app will be written in such a way as to adjust its speed to ambient conditions.
Actually, the biggest need for change in the app may be for textual information. Consider:
1) many iPhone apps contain drill-down lists, tab bars, and navigation bars.
2) Often, their use can be seen as a poor man's table for a small screen and slow[er] CPU
With a larger screen and faster CPU, it becomes practical (necessary in some cases) to replace the above with a multi-column table, where columns are resizable, sortable, can be repositioned or displayed at the option of the user (think iTunes).
Fortunately, table constructs for this already exist in [Mac] Cocoa (large screen Cocoa). The [iPhone] Cocoa (Cocoa Touch) is a subset of the [Mac] Cocoa. Presumably, when larger touch screens become available, Apple will migrate these frameworks and APIs to Cocoa Touch.
This won't eliminate the need to recode the textual app for a larger screen, but it should make it easier.
Interestingly, one thing that migrates quite well (in both directions) is CoverFlow. This framework/API is private in both [Mac] Cocoa and [iPhone] Cocoa Touch, So developers can't [currently, legally] use it.
I hope that this will be allowed when larger touch screens (and presumably, more open architecture) become available. There are some exciting possibilities for the CoverFlow UI.
Finally, a small screen [iPhone] app, by necessity is limited to one set of content at a time. The user works on it, puts it away, then opens another.
With a larger screen, the app may need to be rewritten to handle multiple windows open at the same time, possibly overlapping and sharing the screen with the windows of other apps.
Here, [Mac] Cocoa, has already plowed this ground, and the APIs/Frameworks could be migrated to [iTablet] Cocoa Touch, to mitigate the rewrite effort.