I'd like a web tablet, but I'm not sure the world is ready for such a thing- or ever will be. It isn't that much cheaper or more portable than a laptop, which is a lot more capable.
For the device to be successful it needs to be a bit more than a web pad. That means an advanced user interface that overcomes traditional tablet limitations driving a feature set users find useful.
As to what is more capable that is really a personal evaluation. Apple could easily deliver a machine that is more powerfull processing wise than most of the laptops currently finning on the planet. That simply due to Moores law.
Quote:
I would divide these devices- call them whatever you want- into two categories: those that fit in your pocket and can be with you 100% of the time, and those that you need to put in a bag and decide to take with you or not. And I see the pocketable devices (phones, basically) winning in the short and long run, for any use that doesn't require a fully-featured computer.
In a way I agree with this - to a degree. My iPhone has greatly reduced my need for a laptop to the point where the next computer just might be a desktop. IPhones short comming is that small screen. This is where I see a device with a screen much smaller than the ten incher as being really attractive. Portability is key.
Quote:
For a look at what this Apple tablet, as described here, will be competing against, look up Mike Arrington's CrunchPad. It's targeted to cost $299 before the end of this year. And on the off chance that web tablets are successful, in mid-2010 we'll have Google's ChromeOS running on a lot of them, almost all of which will cost under $300.
I'm not worried about Chrome OS. Instead I do worry about how Apple will build out the OS for this tablet. That is a key element with respect to the devices success. As to hardware cost Apple might be in a position to surprise us. I could see Apple delivering a $400 introductory machine easy. Remember this is an Intel free device.
All one needs to do is look at iPhone / Touch pricing. The cost of the electronics outside of the flash is next to nothing. I think it is a mistake to think a base model won't be affordable. After all they will in part target netbooks and other low end machines. Parity no but reasonable prices yes.
Then da killer app for da iPhone is da phone and da killer app for da ipod is da pod.
Well, the basic (non-touch) iPod is a music player. There are a few little games and you can watch videos on the tiny screen, but I doubt anyone buys it for that.
And the iPhone is, according to Apple, a phone, a web device, and an iPod. It has three functions and it does all of them pretty well. Most people who buy the iPhone, I think, probably buy it for those three functions. Then they happen to buy some games and other apps for it.
I think I see your point- there are other music players and other phones, and they play the same music and make the same phone calls, too. But how they present their content/service varies a lot. You can only vary presentation of the web so much before it breaks.
A basic web tablet from Apple could not be a phone (too big, even if it can have a cellular connection), and it can't be an iPod (again, too big, even though it will no doubt be able to play music). A web tablet does the web and the web is the same on any device in that class.
Or- does Apple emphasize media playback? That makes it more than just a web tablet, but I don't see it appealing to very much of the iPod base because they want something that goes in their pocket.
These thoughts are based on the idea that an Apple tablet would run a very restricted version of OS X like the iPhone does. That's the vibe I get from these articles, and it could be way off. All bets are off if the tablet runs "real" OS X. I'm sure I am missing some good points, too.
Well, the basic (non-touch) iPod is a music player. There are a few little games and you can watch videos on the tiny screen, but I doubt anyone buys it for that.
And the iPhone is, according to Apple, a phone, a web device, and an iPod. It has three functions and it does all of them pretty well. Most people who buy the iPhone, I think, probably buy it for those three functions. Then they happen to buy some games and other apps for it.
I think I see your point- there are other music players and other phones, and they play the same music and make the same phone calls, too. But how they present their content/service varies a lot. You can only vary presentation of the web so much before it breaks.
A basic web tablet from Apple could not be a phone (too big, even if it can have a cellular connection), and it can't be an iPod (again, too big, even though it will no doubt be able to play music). A web tablet does the web and the web is the same on any device in that class.
Or- does Apple emphasize media playback? That makes it more than just a web tablet, but I don't see it appealing to very much of the iPod base because they want something that goes in their pocket.
These thoughts are based on the idea that an Apple tablet would run a very restricted version of OS X like the iPhone does. That's the vibe I get from these articles, and it could be way off. All bets are off if the tablet runs "real" OS X. I'm sure I am missing some good points, too.
It's GOT to do more. That just doesn't seem to be enough.
It has to be a good book reader. It has to do Word and Excel editing, in a more than phone basic way. It must read PDFs. At least, it must do everything the iPhone does, but better, and more sophisticatedly.
But how does the iPhone interface translate to a device this size? I don't know. It was designed for a small screen. OS X's GUI was designed for a large screen.
Somehow, the two must meld.
The problem I see is that Apple will then have a third GUI, and possibly a third set of app specs. That's not good.
However, OS X does have a simple interface as well. Maybe that could be used. But which programs would it run? Could it run both?
Of course capacitive multitouch screens, lighter weights, stronger low power processors, better batteries, and operating systems designed from the ground up for touch wouldn't help a tablets chances at all. Also, I believe you are underestimating how much people would pay for such a device.
You also got the reason why the iPhone succeeds completely wrong. There have been pocketable touchscreens before it, none have reached anywhere near the heights of the iPhone. There is more to the picture than what you have described, and if Apple does produce a tablet, I think you will see that there is more to that picture as well.
I think this is the crux of the matter. Apple has something up it's sleeve here. I'm not sure if its in the hardware or the software. But the resulting product is not going to be exactly what we all think it's going to be.
I had a very interesting conversation with an Apple security specialist this morning.
I had my itunes account broken into, and two $50 gift certificates were bought. I got all of that straightened out through Apple's IM service a week ago, though they said a security specialist in fraud will contact me.
He did so this morning.
In the course of discussion, and checking our accounts, I mentioned that my daughter in England used a Toshiba netbook. He said that he could see that she had a Windows machine. I said that she only wanted something light for internet, Skype, IM and such, as well as being able to use iTunes for her iPhone.
Then he asked me if I knew that Apple was coming out with a small machine for primarily net use. I asked which device that was, and if he meant the rumored tablet. He said yes.
I asked if he meant that he knew that Apple was coming out with that, and again, he said yes.
I asked him how he knew, and he said that Apple had sent out a BLAST to employees. I said that it sounded odd that they would do that now. but he seemed convinced. He said that it was partly in response to some Dell tablet-like device that was supposed to be out, or coming out for about $399, but he agreed Apple's would cost more.
Honestly, I don't know what to make of that. I was in partial shock at his statements.
I have two long time friends at Apple. One is in software engineering management, and the other is in hardware engineering management. Sometimes, they will give me some hints of a product or service, but will never tell me directly, even though I promise I won't write about it, and they know I wouldn't. So this was a particular shock.
I've asked them, and have not gotten even a hint. Now I'll have to contact them again.
While on the one hand, I hope this guy knows, I'm not so sure he's gotten his information correct, though he insisted. He said that Apple sent the BLST out in the form of an RSS. He really did sound like he knew.
Why would an Apple security specialist, of all people, risk his job by telling you about the tablet? And why would Apple send out a "blast" to all employees when not even the majority of Apple employees would usually know about a major new Apple product until it is officially unveiled?
Not necessarily. A third GUI isn't a big deal for Apple to deal with. It's all the same OS anyway.
Obviously nobody here is an iPhone developer. Apple publishes a very complete iPhone emulation app that runs on any Mac. Would anybody complain if you could run iPod Touch/iPhone applications in an emulation window and have real OS X on it, along with touch features? Apple is NOT going to do another OS.
Obviously nobody here is an iPhone developer. Apple publishes a very complete iPhone emulation app that runs on any Mac.
I know a bit about iPhone development and in the case of the emulator you are building x86 binaries.
In any event if they go to a larger device you wouldn't need emulation because the apps that follow Apples guide lines should work fine on a device with a larger viewing area. Now that does not mean the app wouldn't waste pixels on the bigger screen just that it would run.
Quote:
Would anybody complain if you could run iPod Touch/iPhone applications in an emulation window and have real OS X on it, along with touch features? Apple is NOT going to do another OS.
Yeah I'd complain for sure. For one why would you mix two profoundly different user interfaces? Second there has yet to be a sound argument leveled to justify Mac OS/X on the device. Third it wouldn't be yet another OS, rather it is just an enhanced vesion of Touch. Functionally it would be like Mac OS/X and Mac OS/X Server edition, same core OS but with additional software thrown in. On an iPhone based tablet this could be additional APIs for printing, new controls or multitasking support. This additional stuff is entirely up to Apple and their desire to control the product.
In any event since iPhone OS, as we know it today, was derived from development work for a tablet type device it can be assumed that the tablets interface will look a lot like iPhone.
Well, the basic (non-touch) iPod is a music player. There are a few little games and you can watch videos on the tiny screen, but I doubt anyone buys it for that.
And the iPhone is, according to Apple, a phone, a web device, and an iPod. It has three functions and it does all of them pretty well. Most people who buy the iPhone, I think, probably buy it for those three functions. Then they happen to buy some games and other apps for it.
I think I see your point- there are other music players and other phones, and they play the same music and make the same phone calls, too. But how they present their content/service varies a lot. You can only vary presentation of the web so much before it breaks.
A basic web tablet from Apple could not be a phone (too big, even if it can have a cellular connection), and it can't be an iPod (again, too big, even though it will no doubt be able to play music). A web tablet does the web and the web is the same on any device in that class.
Or- does Apple emphasize media playback? That makes it more than just a web tablet, but I don't see it appealing to very much of the iPod base because they want something that goes in their pocket.
These thoughts are based on the idea that an Apple tablet would run a very restricted version of OS X like the iPhone does. That's the vibe I get from these articles, and it could be way off. All bets are off if the tablet runs "real" OS X. I'm sure I am missing some good points, too.
I guess it will be a modified version of OS X. We'll never know. If e tablet is announced in September, it's part of the iPod family. If it is announced in January, it is part of the Mac family. I highly doubt this will be in the iPhone category.
He said that it was partly in response to some Dell tablet-like device that was supposed to be out, or coming out for about $399, but he agreed Apple's would cost more.
There is a rumor about Dell developing a tablet with Intel:
Concerning drawing ability, I don't think it has to be nor should it be a feature of the screen itself but the pen. The pen should have a spring-loaded nib that has a sensor to detect as many levels of pressure. It can have a magnetic holder on the side of the device for charging or have its own dock.
Obviously nobody here is an iPhone developer. Apple publishes a very complete iPhone emulation app that runs on any Mac. Would anybody complain if you could run iPod Touch/iPhone applications in an emulation window and have real OS X on it, along with touch features? Apple is NOT going to do another OS.
Who says? I'm personally developing a mobile AI app... Go figure
Hmm, an Apple Cintiq type tablet would be interesting. It would have to have a wider audience than "it's for artists" though. But if it was for this purpose, are you seeing it as a remote graphics tablet for your desktop Mac, or as a single device that you would install Adobe CS4 onto? The minimum system for CS4 is a G5 with 1GB RAM and 10GB of disk space, if this tablet is a low energy Atom or ARM device, is it going to be able to run CS4 (or CS5 when that comes out) well enough?
I do think a graphics tablet Mac is a good idea, maybe it would be more possible with some combination of Inkwell, Wacom drivers if they can get them as standard, and Back To My Mac remote services.
Ideally a single device although I take your point about the requirement for CS4. However CS4 is heavy for most users and I think a less sophisticated version would be suitable. Failing this it would support a simpler drawing tool made by apple.
Are their artists or designeres here that have experience using a finger-operated capacitance-based touch screens as the tool for creative work? Wacom products have had non-trivial success. But they've never really been mainstream even among artsists, mostly because of how divorced the input is from feedback. Cheap touch sensitive screens and GUIs tailored for them have the potential to revolutionize the manner in which people tend to use things like Adobe CS.
However, I'm not sure that finger based touch-screens will offer enough precision on a tablet sized screen. It seems likely that a stylus would still be more desirable in the same manner that painters tend to use brushes instead of their fingers. In other words, I see multi-touch as more useful for widget interaction and crude manipulation of onscreen objects, not so much as a precise tool for photoshop or illustrator users. That is unless the touch screen in question is huge enough that our fingers are precise in comparison to the total screen area.
Not to discount your daughter's desire for a tablet Melgross. But was she envisioning stylus or finger based interaction? If finger based, do you see this as an appropriate fit, the right tool for the job?
Comments
The killer app for a web tablet is the web, and that's going to be the same on all of them.
Then da killer app for da iPhone is da phone and da killer app for da ipod is da pod.
Why, thanks for sharing with us that info, Melgross! If there turns out to be no tablet... ..
Hey, I'm just the messenger!
Hey, I'm just the messenger!
Hahaha no problemo . . thanks for the info anyway, guess i'll bookmark this page for FUTURE reference..
I'd like a web tablet, but I'm not sure the world is ready for such a thing- or ever will be. It isn't that much cheaper or more portable than a laptop, which is a lot more capable.
For the device to be successful it needs to be a bit more than a web pad. That means an advanced user interface that overcomes traditional tablet limitations driving a feature set users find useful.
As to what is more capable that is really a personal evaluation. Apple could easily deliver a machine that is more powerfull processing wise than most of the laptops currently finning on the planet. That simply due to Moores law.
I would divide these devices- call them whatever you want- into two categories: those that fit in your pocket and can be with you 100% of the time, and those that you need to put in a bag and decide to take with you or not. And I see the pocketable devices (phones, basically) winning in the short and long run, for any use that doesn't require a fully-featured computer.
In a way I agree with this - to a degree. My iPhone has greatly reduced my need for a laptop to the point where the next computer just might be a desktop. IPhones short comming is that small screen. This is where I see a device with a screen much smaller than the ten incher as being really attractive. Portability is key.
For a look at what this Apple tablet, as described here, will be competing against, look up Mike Arrington's CrunchPad. It's targeted to cost $299 before the end of this year. And on the off chance that web tablets are successful, in mid-2010 we'll have Google's ChromeOS running on a lot of them, almost all of which will cost under $300.
I'm not worried about Chrome OS. Instead I do worry about how Apple will build out the OS for this tablet. That is a key element with respect to the devices success. As to hardware cost Apple might be in a position to surprise us. I could see Apple delivering a $400 introductory machine easy. Remember this is an Intel free device.
All one needs to do is look at iPhone / Touch pricing. The cost of the electronics outside of the flash is next to nothing. I think it is a mistake to think a base model won't be affordable. After all they will in part target netbooks and other low end machines. Parity no but reasonable prices yes.
Dave
Then da killer app for da iPhone is da phone and da killer app for da ipod is da pod.
Well, the basic (non-touch) iPod is a music player. There are a few little games and you can watch videos on the tiny screen, but I doubt anyone buys it for that.
And the iPhone is, according to Apple, a phone, a web device, and an iPod. It has three functions and it does all of them pretty well. Most people who buy the iPhone, I think, probably buy it for those three functions. Then they happen to buy some games and other apps for it.
I think I see your point- there are other music players and other phones, and they play the same music and make the same phone calls, too. But how they present their content/service varies a lot. You can only vary presentation of the web so much before it breaks.
A basic web tablet from Apple could not be a phone (too big, even if it can have a cellular connection), and it can't be an iPod (again, too big, even though it will no doubt be able to play music). A web tablet does the web and the web is the same on any device in that class.
Or- does Apple emphasize media playback? That makes it more than just a web tablet, but I don't see it appealing to very much of the iPod base because they want something that goes in their pocket.
These thoughts are based on the idea that an Apple tablet would run a very restricted version of OS X like the iPhone does. That's the vibe I get from these articles, and it could be way off. All bets are off if the tablet runs "real" OS X. I'm sure I am missing some good points, too.
content outsourcing
Well, the basic (non-touch) iPod is a music player. There are a few little games and you can watch videos on the tiny screen, but I doubt anyone buys it for that.
And the iPhone is, according to Apple, a phone, a web device, and an iPod. It has three functions and it does all of them pretty well. Most people who buy the iPhone, I think, probably buy it for those three functions. Then they happen to buy some games and other apps for it.
I think I see your point- there are other music players and other phones, and they play the same music and make the same phone calls, too. But how they present their content/service varies a lot. You can only vary presentation of the web so much before it breaks.
A basic web tablet from Apple could not be a phone (too big, even if it can have a cellular connection), and it can't be an iPod (again, too big, even though it will no doubt be able to play music). A web tablet does the web and the web is the same on any device in that class.
Or- does Apple emphasize media playback? That makes it more than just a web tablet, but I don't see it appealing to very much of the iPod base because they want something that goes in their pocket.
These thoughts are based on the idea that an Apple tablet would run a very restricted version of OS X like the iPhone does. That's the vibe I get from these articles, and it could be way off. All bets are off if the tablet runs "real" OS X. I'm sure I am missing some good points, too.
It's GOT to do more. That just doesn't seem to be enough.
It has to be a good book reader. It has to do Word and Excel editing, in a more than phone basic way. It must read PDFs. At least, it must do everything the iPhone does, but better, and more sophisticatedly.
But how does the iPhone interface translate to a device this size? I don't know. It was designed for a small screen. OS X's GUI was designed for a large screen.
Somehow, the two must meld.
The problem I see is that Apple will then have a third GUI, and possibly a third set of app specs. That's not good.
However, OS X does have a simple interface as well. Maybe that could be used. But which programs would it run? Could it run both?
Sigh. Too many questions.
Of course capacitive multitouch screens, lighter weights, stronger low power processors, better batteries, and operating systems designed from the ground up for touch wouldn't help a tablets chances at all. Also, I believe you are underestimating how much people would pay for such a device.
You also got the reason why the iPhone succeeds completely wrong. There have been pocketable touchscreens before it, none have reached anywhere near the heights of the iPhone. There is more to the picture than what you have described, and if Apple does produce a tablet, I think you will see that there is more to that picture as well.
I think this is the crux of the matter. Apple has something up it's sleeve here. I'm not sure if its in the hardware or the software. But the resulting product is not going to be exactly what we all think it's going to be.
Wow. It's like 2007 all over again.
I had a very interesting conversation with an Apple security specialist this morning.
I had my itunes account broken into, and two $50 gift certificates were bought. I got all of that straightened out through Apple's IM service a week ago, though they said a security specialist in fraud will contact me.
He did so this morning.
In the course of discussion, and checking our accounts, I mentioned that my daughter in England used a Toshiba netbook. He said that he could see that she had a Windows machine. I said that she only wanted something light for internet, Skype, IM and such, as well as being able to use iTunes for her iPhone.
Then he asked me if I knew that Apple was coming out with a small machine for primarily net use. I asked which device that was, and if he meant the rumored tablet. He said yes.
I asked if he meant that he knew that Apple was coming out with that, and again, he said yes.
I asked him how he knew, and he said that Apple had sent out a BLAST to employees. I said that it sounded odd that they would do that now. but he seemed convinced. He said that it was partly in response to some Dell tablet-like device that was supposed to be out, or coming out for about $399, but he agreed Apple's would cost more.
Honestly, I don't know what to make of that. I was in partial shock at his statements.
I have two long time friends at Apple. One is in software engineering management, and the other is in hardware engineering management. Sometimes, they will give me some hints of a product or service, but will never tell me directly, even though I promise I won't write about it, and they know I wouldn't. So this was a particular shock.
I've asked them, and have not gotten even a hint. Now I'll have to contact them again.
While on the one hand, I hope this guy knows, I'm not so sure he's gotten his information correct, though he insisted. He said that Apple sent the BLST out in the form of an RSS. He really did sound like he knew.
Why would an Apple security specialist, of all people, risk his job by telling you about the tablet? And why would Apple send out a "blast" to all employees when not even the majority of Apple employees would usually know about a major new Apple product until it is officially unveiled?
The problem I see is that Apple will then have a third GUI, and possibly a third set of app specs. That's not good.
Not necessarily. A third GUI isn't a big deal for Apple to deal with. It's all the same OS anyway.
Not necessarily. A third GUI isn't a big deal for Apple to deal with. It's all the same OS anyway.
Obviously nobody here is an iPhone developer. Apple publishes a very complete iPhone emulation app that runs on any Mac. Would anybody complain if you could run iPod Touch/iPhone applications in an emulation window and have real OS X on it, along with touch features? Apple is NOT going to do another OS.
Obviously nobody here is an iPhone developer. Apple publishes a very complete iPhone emulation app that runs on any Mac.
I know a bit about iPhone development and in the case of the emulator you are building x86 binaries.
In any event if they go to a larger device you wouldn't need emulation because the apps that follow Apples guide lines should work fine on a device with a larger viewing area. Now that does not mean the app wouldn't waste pixels on the bigger screen just that it would run.
Would anybody complain if you could run iPod Touch/iPhone applications in an emulation window and have real OS X on it, along with touch features? Apple is NOT going to do another OS.
Yeah I'd complain for sure. For one why would you mix two profoundly different user interfaces? Second there has yet to be a sound argument leveled to justify Mac OS/X on the device. Third it wouldn't be yet another OS, rather it is just an enhanced vesion of Touch. Functionally it would be like Mac OS/X and Mac OS/X Server edition, same core OS but with additional software thrown in. On an iPhone based tablet this could be additional APIs for printing, new controls or multitasking support. This additional stuff is entirely up to Apple and their desire to control the product.
In any event since iPhone OS, as we know it today, was derived from development work for a tablet type device it can be assumed that the tablets interface will look a lot like iPhone.
Dave
Well, the basic (non-touch) iPod is a music player. There are a few little games and you can watch videos on the tiny screen, but I doubt anyone buys it for that.
And the iPhone is, according to Apple, a phone, a web device, and an iPod. It has three functions and it does all of them pretty well. Most people who buy the iPhone, I think, probably buy it for those three functions. Then they happen to buy some games and other apps for it.
I think I see your point- there are other music players and other phones, and they play the same music and make the same phone calls, too. But how they present their content/service varies a lot. You can only vary presentation of the web so much before it breaks.
A basic web tablet from Apple could not be a phone (too big, even if it can have a cellular connection), and it can't be an iPod (again, too big, even though it will no doubt be able to play music). A web tablet does the web and the web is the same on any device in that class.
Or- does Apple emphasize media playback? That makes it more than just a web tablet, but I don't see it appealing to very much of the iPod base because they want something that goes in their pocket.
These thoughts are based on the idea that an Apple tablet would run a very restricted version of OS X like the iPhone does. That's the vibe I get from these articles, and it could be way off. All bets are off if the tablet runs "real" OS X. I'm sure I am missing some good points, too.
I guess it will be a modified version of OS X. We'll never know. If e tablet is announced in September, it's part of the iPod family. If it is announced in January, it is part of the Mac family. I highly doubt this will be in the iPhone category.
He said that it was partly in response to some Dell tablet-like device that was supposed to be out, or coming out for about $399, but he agreed Apple's would cost more.
There is a rumor about Dell developing a tablet with Intel:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/...-intel-tablet/
If Intel are involved, you can bet it will use Atom. Interestingly, they said it would be about 5 inches and compete with Amazon's Kindle.
I hope Apple will target the higher end tablet market where you get products like the XT2:
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...=MLB1484&s=biz
1.4GHz Core 2 Duo for $2,340 starting price.
Concerning drawing ability, I don't think it has to be nor should it be a feature of the screen itself but the pen. The pen should have a spring-loaded nib that has a sensor to detect as many levels of pressure. It can have a magnetic holder on the side of the device for charging or have its own dock.
Obviously nobody here is an iPhone developer. Apple publishes a very complete iPhone emulation app that runs on any Mac. Would anybody complain if you could run iPod Touch/iPhone applications in an emulation window and have real OS X on it, along with touch features? Apple is NOT going to do another OS.
Who says? I'm personally developing a mobile AI app... Go figure
The Tablet will be aimed for use in cars (but not only) as a center of additional units digit integration
and screen+touch+voice interaction for control and GSM/EDGE/3G (via iPhone) + WiMax (4G, in tablet) communication during the car driving.
Using in a car - that is the "killing" idea of Aplle's tablet usage.
Multitasking, short OS, Apple's software, new SDK for mutual apps (tablet+iPhone), touchscreen+voice interaction software.
Tablet will use 4G (WiMax) for network communication via Verizon (starting 2010).
May be, first attempt of Apple OS licensing if tablet in car integration.
One can use only iPhone, add tablet to iPhone, bye iPhone & tablet.
For Apple - no risk of its MacBooks and iPhones substitution by the tablet.
Again Apple (thinking different) will open new market and new business on the base of previous success and technologies to be the first and No 1.
http://www.deepapple.com/articles/25345.html , and http://www.deepapple.com/news/34814.html , in russian
Hmm, an Apple Cintiq type tablet would be interesting. It would have to have a wider audience than "it's for artists" though. But if it was for this purpose, are you seeing it as a remote graphics tablet for your desktop Mac, or as a single device that you would install Adobe CS4 onto? The minimum system for CS4 is a G5 with 1GB RAM and 10GB of disk space, if this tablet is a low energy Atom or ARM device, is it going to be able to run CS4 (or CS5 when that comes out) well enough?
I do think a graphics tablet Mac is a good idea, maybe it would be more possible with some combination of Inkwell, Wacom drivers if they can get them as standard, and Back To My Mac remote services.
Ideally a single device although I take your point about the requirement for CS4. However CS4 is heavy for most users and I think a less sophisticated version would be suitable. Failing this it would support a simpler drawing tool made by apple.
However, I'm not sure that finger based touch-screens will offer enough precision on a tablet sized screen. It seems likely that a stylus would still be more desirable in the same manner that painters tend to use brushes instead of their fingers. In other words, I see multi-touch as more useful for widget interaction and crude manipulation of onscreen objects, not so much as a precise tool for photoshop or illustrator users. That is unless the touch screen in question is huge enough that our fingers are precise in comparison to the total screen area.
Not to discount your daughter's desire for a tablet Melgross. But was she envisioning stylus or finger based interaction? If finger based, do you see this as an appropriate fit, the right tool for the job?
It's GOT to do more. That just doesn't seem to be enough.
You're right. Just depends on how Apple wants to market/position the thing, really. We won't know until they make an announcement.