It has a software keyboard and all standard apps work without a recompile.
I'd rather see that than just a big ipod touch where all desktop apps have to be redone to work properly.
I really don't see that happening. A pure touch device has different UI priorities than a keyboard/mouse driven device; there's pretty much no way Apple is going to ship something that just willy-nilly substitutes taps for mouse clicks and uses a virtual keyboard for everything else.
Apple will almost certainly exploit a large touchscreen to create new UI paradigms that enhance usability, for this particular device. Sure, it's a "third platform", but from a developer perspective probably not too far afield from either OS X or the iPhone OS.
And I think maybe it misses the mark a bit to speak of "just a big iPod." The Touch is optimized for limited memory, CPU, screen size and power, but the underlying code is a fair chunk of OS X.
On a device with less constrained hardware, I would imagine that the OS would simply scale up to take advantage, even if some of the UI is reminiscent of the Touch/iPhone. That doesn't make it a less capable device, it just means that Apple is serious about integrating the user experience across hardware and software.
I would bet that Apple's tablet will, in fact, have a Touch vibe, and that some users will therefore turn up there noses at being denied a "real" computer experience, but just because the UI doesn't look like a desktop system doesn't mean it can't be genuinely useful or powerful.
Other than maximum size, what standard is there for length? I've got PCI boards as short as 3" and up, in almost all lengths.
Try this site for standards: http://www.pcisig.com/home/. Unfortunately most of the data is members only, but there is a enough public info to see that there are a number of card standards defined for both PCI and PCI-Express. Intel has a bit of info here: http://www.intel.com/technology/pciexpress/devnet/, but again public information is sparse.
Quote:
Can you show the part where length standards are given in the PCI spec?
Unfortunately not at this time but I'm surprised you deny they exist. I'm not dismissing the idea that many manufactures do not follow the standards I'm just saying that they exist.
Notably this became an interest to me years ago when I had to support of mishmash of computer types on a production floor. We ran into all sorts of problem with cards or PC frames not fitting right. Sometimes it was hard to tell who was at fault.
Quote:
Even if there were standards, the length for the boards for the Cube were longer than the minimum socket length.
Of course there was a method of doing that. How do you think the I/O in the device could work otherwise? How do you think the graphics card got the signal out? Or the Ethernet, Firewire, or USB, etc?
Maybe my memory is wrong but I don't recall of any slot openings besides that for the video card. Its been a long time.
Quote:
Why are you even saying this?
????
Quote:
Of course there are standards for the bus and sockets. There are always standards for that. We're talking about board length.
Yes I know and that is what I'm trying to get across, every PCIxxx card format has mechanical specifications for the board. Do all boards fit with in these mechanical specs - no as we both know. That however does not invalidate the idea that there are specs.
Quote:
Dave, usually, when we disagree, I sense some knowledge in you of what you're speaking about.
But this time, I don't find any. You aren't even willing to learn something about the machine before going off and making erroneous statements.
Admittedly my knowledge of the Cube specifically is stale, but I'm not sure why you argue about standards that are known to exist.
Quote:
Surely you know that the Express bus is a fairly new bus. It hadn't yet been invented when the Cube was available. Even the PCI X, which Apple's G5 Power Macs and Servers used hadn't been around then.
Very true but what does this have ot do with my position.
Quote:
Because this machine was discontinued a fair number of years ago, much of what was available is no longer available, but a large amount still is.
Here's one company that supplies those components and upgrades:
I think it's interesting that there are still 23 different video cards or accessories for them still available, 16 cpu cards and such, an Airport card, and a bunch of other things, such as standard HDDs, memory, etc.
Nice site but I must say the pics do refresh my memory a bit and support my position that you really don't have any expansion slots. There is porting for the video card and that is it.
Quote:
Here's a review of the computer from Ars Technica:
Really, you should look this up before making any more inane remarks.
The remarks are not inane but reflect my evaluation of the unit. Ars like the machine and that is fine but I say it as another over priced Apple boondoggle. That is an evaluation based on what one got for the money and its long term value to the user.
The problem was and I suspect many will agree with me here, is that the price was way to high for what you where getting. Compare the Cube to todays Mini for example, the Mini is stiffly priced but I suspect many see it as far more worthwhile that the Cube ever was. It is one thing to pay a good price for something and another to get robbed at the check out counter.
I suspect that Apple had little choice in pricing because of the cubes design, building it could not have been cheap. The problem is the customer base apparently didn't see value in all that extra expense. In the end you didn't get low cost like with the Mini and you didn't get the coveted XMac features people have stated they want.
Hardly. It will certainly run software based on Snow Leopard but it's highly unlikely that it will simply be running the OS from the Touch. Some of that software would simply not make sense with this form factor and there would be a lot of missing functionality using merely the Touch software.
I read statements like this all the time and all I can say is that you don't understand what iPhone OS is. As to functionality that is being added to iPhone OS continuously, as it is now you don't think that iPhone OS has become a static implementation do you?
Now that doesn't mean the tablet won't take some of the DNA from Snow Leopard, just that as a base to build a product of this type on iPhone OS is a far better solution than Snow Leopard taken whole.
Quote:
My guess is that this device, if it comes as rumoured, will be running a version of Snow Leopard much closer to the full desktop/laptop version than the version of today's OS X currently running on the Touch.
Spin that around 180 and you might be right. I just can't see Snow Leopard doing Touch well at this point. Remember SL is about ready for distribution, if it was at all ready for tablet usage we would have seen a sign or two.
Quote:
Don't forget that one of the apparent advantages of Snow Leopard is that it will be much more efficient than the current version of OS X and take up a lot less space. Not only does that mean faster performance on laptops and desktops, it also means it will be much better suited to this rumoured device, requiring minimal tweaking. Don't think for a second that the decision to streamline OS X is driven strictly by a desire to make regular Macs more efficient. It's also about applying the revised software to other devices like the upcoming tablet.
Yes it will be more efficient and faster but really where did that tech come from. Much of the improvements in SL are a direct result of Apple trying to improve the OS to run well on these handheld devices. This has all but been admitted to by Apple reps.
Quote:
Also consider that if developers can put out software compatible with both the tablet and Apple's other computers, it justifies making that product happen. If, on the other hand, the software would be tablet-exclusive, third-party developers would be reluctant to do the work for such a limited installed base.
The same thing can be said about making it run iPhone apps well. In any event if this is a break through product like iPhone Apple will have tens of thousands of developers writing software for the device.
Quote:
It's also the case that by giving the tablet pretty much full compatibility with Snow Leopard software, you could do a lot more with the tablet from the beginning. On the other hand, make the tablet compatible with App Store apps and you pretty much limit the device to running software that is a long way from exploiting what I'm sure will be far more capable hardware. Why pay more than double just for more screen real estate? Few would and the tablet would be a major flop. If you sacrifice the go-anywhere portability of the Touch/iPhone form factor, there have to be gains in other areas. A bigger screen alone isn't going to cut it.
Well that is one way to evaluate the reaction people will have to the device, but here is a little clue for you. People are a long way from tapping the capability of iPhone fully so you are implying limitations that are not real. In any event two things are wrong here. First; you seem to think iPhone OS is static. Second; you seem to think that Apple will market this device like a laptop or other Mac, it won't do so.
Try this site for standards: http://www.pcisig.com/home/. Unfortunately most of the data is members only, but there is a enough public info to see that there are a number of card standards defined for both PCI and PCI-Express. Intel has a bit of info here: http://www.intel.com/technology/pciexpress/devnet/, but again public information is sparse.
Unfortunately not at this time but I'm surprised you deny they exist. I'm not dismissing the idea that many manufactures do not follow the standards I'm just saying that they exist.
Notably this became an interest to me years ago when I had to support of mishmash of computer types on a production floor. We ran into all sorts of problem with cards or PC frames not fitting right. Sometimes it was hard to tell who was at fault.
Maybe my memory is wrong but I don't recall of any slot openings besides that for the video card. Its been a long time.
????
Yes I know and that is what I'm trying to get across, every PCIxxx card format has mechanical specifications for the board. Do all boards fit with in these mechanical specs - no as we both know. That however does not invalidate the idea that there are specs.
Admittedly my knowledge of the Cube specifically is stale, but I'm not sure why you argue about standards that are known to exist.
Very true but what does this have ot do with my position.
Nice site but I must say the pics do refresh my memory a bit and support my position that you really don't have any expansion slots. There is porting for the video card and that is it.
The remarks are not inane but reflect my evaluation of the unit. Ars like the machine and that is fine but I say it as another over priced Apple boondoggle. That is an evaluation based on what one got for the money and its long term value to the user.
The problem was and I suspect many will agree with me here, is that the price was way to high for what you where getting. Compare the Cube to todays Mini for example, the Mini is stiffly priced but I suspect many see it as far more worthwhile that the Cube ever was. It is one thing to pay a good price for something and another to get robbed at the check out counter.
I suspect that Apple had little choice in pricing because of the cubes design, building it could not have been cheap. The problem is the customer base apparently didn't see value in all that extra expense. In the end you didn't get low cost like with the Mini and you didn't get the coveted XMac features people have stated they want.
Dave
In all of that, you haven't shown a single thing that has anything to do with what we're talking about.
I don't know what to think about the mythical tablet and pricing and specs anymore. Since being an Apple user since the late 1970s I'm now admittedly confused.
Tired of "discussing" with colleagues the brilliant merits or utter un-usability of a large touchscreen keyboard.
Tired of trying to figure out if Apple release new iPod touches at $199/299/399 price-point, where this tablet might fall in terms of $. I have to assume much more expensive (but many of us will still buy one).
Are there two models but not academic-normal but something more along the lines of WiFi only (with tethering to your iPhone for non-WiFi Net acesss; i.e., the touch, more pricey up front) versus a subsidized carrier model for WiFi and cellular Net acess?
What is the killer app or use that sets the tablet apart from a "big" touch? A completely revamped iTunes App store, perhaps? I mean, the team that built the original store up over the first year after iPhone launch in prep for the SDK hasn't just been disbanded and doing only minor little upgrades ... what are they up to?
Is the tablet even a tablet? Why can't it be a ultra-ultra-thin, small laptop like the Air but with two screens like a thin, perfect Nintendo DS? Then $900 or $1000 makes sense.
This is one I believe, just purely based on my gut, that will have to wait until at least January of 2010 to get resolved. And I think I'll just wait patiently (for once), not stress out, and buy a new touch when they come out Sept 9 to replace my first gen touch. Hopefully with a camera, GPS and better processor.
The problem I?ve personally had with yours and others mockups is that they all had Mac OS X on a small touchscreen display. The idea of a tablet in and of itself isn?t crazy, but it needs to have an OS interface that is well adapted for that type of computing. It?s only been very recent in the tablet rumours that we?ve heard about and seen mockups that actually aren?t trying to shoehorn Mac OS X into the mythical device (or making it just an expanded display for the iPhone OS X).
The rumors back in 2007 stated something along the lines of iPhone OS. The rumored display size was much smaller though.
Just to pile on here: iPhone OS is OS X. It shares 85% of its code with Snow Leopard. It is not a toy. It is a full multitasking OS optimized for a mobile platform with a touch screen. It is the runaway obvious choice for a tablet. It would take a great deal of work and time to get applications like Office and Adobe CS to work with the touch interface, because Carbon apps don't get new system behaviors for free the way Cocoa apps often do. Whole interfaces would have to be redesigned. It would be incredibly painful.
If the tablet runs a version of iPhone OS, things are easy: The OS can easily be tweaked to support a multi-window UI when it's running on a tablet. iPhone apps can run unmodified in a little iPhone-sized window until developers add more tablet-friendly UI options. All the necessary APIs are there, and fully supported, along with all the hardware. All the apps already have touch-friendly interfaces and behaviors. There's already an App Store and iTunes. The migration is easier, the infrastructure is already there, the apps are there, and the OS is a fully capable, mobile-optimized build of OS X. Mac applications that want to run on the tablet can do the work they would have to do anyway of rebuilding the interface to work with fat fingers, and port it over. It would not be too hard, especially if the Mac app is Cocoa, because iPhone OS shares 85% of its code with Snow Leopard.
Apple is building a giant data center. Why? Think about it: What would be the perfect computer to use in a "cloud?" Why did Apple switch from the product-line-identified ".Mac" to "MobileMe" (apart from a desire to irritate me)?
Think outside the box. This could be a whole new thing.
Just to pile on here: iPhone OS is OS X. It shares 85% of its code with Snow Leopard. It is not a toy. It is a full multitasking OS optimized for a mobile platform with a touch screen. It is the runaway obvious choice for a tablet. It would take a great deal of work and time to get applications like Office and Adobe CS to work with the touch interface, because Carbon apps don't get new system behaviors for free the way Cocoa apps often do. Whole interfaces would have to be redesigned. It would be incredibly painful.
If the tablet runs a version of iPhone OS, things are easy: The OS can easily be tweaked to support a multi-window UI when it's running on a tablet. iPhone apps can run unmodified in a little iPhone-sized window until developers add more tablet-friendly UI options. All the necessary APIs are there, and fully supported, along with all the hardware. All the apps already have touch-friendly interfaces and behaviors. There's already an App Store and iTunes. The migration is easier, the infrastructure is already there, the apps are there, and the OS is a fully capable, mobile-optimized build of OS X. Mac applications that want to run on the tablet can do the work they would have to do anyway of rebuilding the interface to work with fat fingers, and port it over. It would not be too hard, especially if the Mac app is Cocoa, because iPhone OS shares 85% of its code with Snow Leopard.
Apple is building a giant data center. Why? Think about it: What would be the perfect computer to use in a "cloud?" Why did Apple switch from the product-line-identified ".Mac" to "MobileMe" (apart from a desire to irritate me)?
Think outside the box. This could be a whole new thing.
The problem we have here is that there are four combinations of hardware and OS to think about.
The iPhone OS on ARM with an iPhone GUI, however it deals with multiple windows.
The computer version of OS X with a simplified Finder (Apple has the Simple Finder now, so almost nothing would have to be done there) because of the lower Rez screen, with an x86 cpu from Intel, likely the newer version of the Atom, for OS X software compatibility.
Number two above, though also with the ability to run iPhone apps through a Virtual PC-like program. The question is how much more powerful would a new 32nm 2 core Atom running at 1.5 GHZ or so be when compared to the new Cortex 8 ARM in the 3Gs at 600 Mhz?
And four, an x86, AND ARM device that would do both without any lack of speed in either area, or even both at once.
I'm not suggesting that any one of these would be the actual tablet, just throwing out the possibilities that could happen.
and at the same time, there is now the suggestion thats come out that Apple may have two tablets coming out.
The first could come out in September, but would be a small one, a 6" screen running the iPhone OS, and a 10" model running the computer OS X version later.
If that's true, then a 6" model could come out now. It would really be a bigger iPod Touch, and so fit into the iPod and music rollout this September.
The 10" could wait until November or even after January, and would be placed in the MacBook line, possibility.
An OLED 10" widescreeen for viewing movies horizontally and turn it vertically and the lower part turns into a touch keyboard to become a taptop. OLED would mean far less battery drain but more contrast.
Downside is OLED is $$$$ and I couldn't afford a 2K Newton child of Jobsenstein.
Having the speculation of a possible item to come is nice though.
OLED would mean far less battery drain but more contrast.
Word on the street is that "far greater battery life" is greatly exaggerated. I wish it gets OLED but my gut says not a chance. Apple like to make more money, and they can do OLED for Mac touch II then, and get us all to upgrade, cause you know they will. Why sell us one tablet, when they can drag it out and sell us two?
The iPhone is going to get OLED firstly anyway. Small screen, Zune HD and all that. The iPhone, meaning the iPod touch. This event perhaps. Why do I doubt that too?
Word on the street is that "far greater battery life" is greatly exaggerated. I wish it gets OLED but my gut says not a chance. Apple like to make more money, and they can do OLED for Mac touch II then, and get us all to upgrade, cause you know they will. Why sell us one tablet, when they can drag it out and sell us two?
The iPhone is going to get OLED firstly anyway. Small screen, Zune HD and all that. The iPhone, meaning the iPod touch. This event perhaps. Why do I doubt that too?
My two objections to a possible AMOLED screen for this right now is cost, and power draw.
With Sony's 11" Tv with about a 550 x 900 rez AMOLED screen first costing $2,500, though now down to $1,800, if you can find it, the 10" screen with about the same rez for Apple's device would seem to cost too much. If course, Sony only made a few thousand of their Tv's, more as a demonstration that they could do it and sell it rather than a serious attempt to get some real marketshare.
Apple, on the other hand, would be wanting to sell this device in the hundreds of thousands at first, and in the millions over the year. Therefor, they could get a lower price. But what that price would be is still a question. I don't know what the bad pixel rate is for these bigger screens, and that could be a problem too.
As far as energy requirements go, there was good info published on this in this recent article from Ars Technica:
Look at the huge power draw when there is a white screen! That's huge!
So we see why the new Zune HD has a black screen with thin white letters.
How would the average movie fare? What about the OS X interface from the computer version? That's almost all light grey and white.
Same thing for most all programs.
Would people really want to go back to the bad old days of light type on a black background? I don't think so. That's been shown to be much harder to read over the long term.
Everything we know would have to change in the world of interfaces. The dark backgrounds of FCP and some others would become the new colors for most everything else.
That's not good.
The same thing is true for phones that use the new AMOLEDs.
While OLEDs in general are getting more efficient, they aren't really there yet. This doesn't matter as much for a monitor or Tv that's plugged into a wall. But for battery powered devices, I think we need at least one more year, maybe two, from the research I'm seeing.
Of course, there's a slight possibility that Apple might do it anyway, but I can't see a real benefit yet, and I think it's why they didn't go that way for the phone this year. If they decided not to do it for the phone, I don't see why they would do it for the Touch. The two are in sync on the major parts.
As I've said in an earlier post, this will make it almost impossible to determine a "real" test for battery life. It will be far more dependent on what people see with their devices than ever before.
I wonder what OLED white level power draws mean for games and apps on the Zune HD? Will the SDK stipulate that you really should stick with black backgrounds and as little white as possible, or risk killing the user's battery prematurely?
And, as you say, you can't really dictate what happens in a movie. Better not try and watch THX1138, stick with Dark City.
My two objections to a possible AMOLED screen for this right now is cost, and power draw.
With Sony's 11" Tv with about a 550 x 900 rez AMOLED screen first costing $2,500, though now down to $1,800, if you can find it, the 10" screen with about the same rez for Apple's device would seem to cost too much. If course, Sony only made a few thousand of their Tv's, more as a demonstration that they could do it and sell it rather than a serious attempt to get some real marketshare.
The cost of that Sony TV really has nothing to do with the market Apple plays in. If you look around you can find all sorts of expensive Sony consumer equipment that makes you wonder why people would spend good $$$ on it.
Quote:
Apple, on the other hand, would be wanting to sell this device in the hundreds of thousands at first, and in the millions over the year. Therefor, they could get a lower price. But what that price would be is still a question. I don't know what the bad pixel rate is for these bigger screens, and that could be a problem too.
Mass production is the key, however starting up such a line is filled with unknowns. From the standpoint of the technology though, it is acknowledged in the industry that OLED screens should be cheap to produce. So if Apple can partner with somebody that is willing to go mass production and share the pain they may be getting a very good deal. Especially if they work a deal where they don't have to share the burden of the R&D costs. Considering how Apple has been doing things lately they could in effect own the production line to secure the deal and reduce exposure to the partner.
I suspect that such a screen could be sold to Apple for well under $200 dollars today.
Quote:
As far as energy requirements go, there was good info published on this in this recent article from Ars Technica:
Yeah power draw should be highly variable because in effect you have to turn on three light "bulb" for each pixel. The back light on an LCD is a more constant drain so really you have to look at average power vs a static draw.
Quote:
Look at the huge power draw when there is a white screen! That's huge!
So we see why the new Zune HD has a black screen with thin white letters.
Could be, but I'd be surprised if anybody at MS was that smart.
Quote:
How would the average movie fare? What about the OS X interface from the computer version? That's almost all light grey and white.
Depends on what you consider average. If the movie is a dark and brooding production you might save a lot of power. If on the other hand it is all surf and specular highlights of a beach epic then you may double or triple your power demand.
Quote:
Same thing for most all programs.
Would people really want to go back to the bad old days of light type on a black background? I don't think so. That's been shown to be much harder to read over the long term.
Everything we know would have to change in the world of interfaces. The dark backgrounds of FCP and some others would become the new colors for most everything else.
That's not good.
Why all the negativity? This is no different than running a laptop where dimming the screen can extend your battery time. It is really up to the user to how he manages his battery usage.
This is really the same argument for multitasking, the user should be able to manage what his device is doing to expend battery power at a suitable rate.
Quote:
The same thing is true for phones that use the new AMOLEDs.
While OLEDs in general are getting more efficient, they aren't really there yet. This doesn't matter as much for a monitor or Tv that's plugged into a wall. But for battery powered devices, I think we need at least one more year, maybe two, from the research I'm seeing.
Not at all. You are projecting an overall worst performance which the data does not indicate. Further waiting for future tech is fruitless as there is always something new coming.
Quote:
Of course, there's a slight possibility that Apple might do it anyway, but I can't see a real benefit yet, and I think it's why they didn't go that way for the phone this year. If they decided not to do it for the phone, I don't see why they would do it for the Touch. The two are in sync on the major parts.
There are huge benefits for tablets by going OLED. One of the big ones is a much wider viewing angle. This allows for positioning of the tablet face up on a surface and retaining usability. The iPhone screen is really good at odd angles but it isn't a tablet sized screen. Even then deviating even modestly from perpendicular impacts the readability of the screen.
Frankly I can't see a tablet with an LCD screen being all that attractive. It would be nice to have color digital ink but that is tech that is way off. The only remaining low power solution is OLED tech.
Quote:
As I've said in an earlier post, this will make it almost impossible to determine a "real" test for battery life. It will be far more dependent on what people see with their devices than ever before.
Yep in ways that are hard to define. Interestingly I look at iPhone and see a lot of black background on the thing now. Maybe this is a sign that Apple has taken the power issue into consideration. In any event I see OLED tech as the way to a more paper like color display. That is something with a wide viewing angle.
The cost of that Sony TV really has nothing to do with the market Apple plays in. If you look around you can find all sorts of expensive Sony consumer equipment that makes you wonder why people would spend good $$$ on it.
Every manufacturer that has an interest in making OLED Tv's has given cost as the number one reason why they haven't done so yet. We may finally see one from Toshiba this fall, and possibly one from Samsung. Both companies have warned that the cost would be high.
The high cost of larger OLEDs, which means everything bigger than a phone size screen is expensive.
Find for us an article talking about the low cost of larger OLED screens that are out now, and I'll sy you're right.
Quote:
Mass production is the key, however starting up such a line is filled with unknowns. From the standpoint of the technology though, it is acknowledged in the industry that OLED screens should be cheap to produce. So if Apple can partner with somebody that is willing to go mass production and share the pain they may be getting a very good deal. Especially if they work a deal where they don't have to share the burden of the R&D costs. Considering how Apple has been doing things lately they could in effect own the production line to secure the deal and reduce exposure to the partner.
I suspect that such a screen could be sold to Apple for well under $200 dollars today.
I did say that because of the large number of units Apple would want to sell, the price of the screen would be lower for them. But it will still be higher than an LCD of the same size and rez.
What you suspect is irrelevant. Unless you can show us that you have some knowledge of pricing, it doesn't matter, when every manufacturer speaks of their high prices.
Quote:
Yeah power draw should be highly variable because in effect you have to turn on three light "bulb" for each pixel. The back light on an LCD is a more constant drain so really you have to look at average power vs a static draw.
It's too variable to predict what any individual user would do. With LCD screens, the only variable is the amount of time the screen is on.
Quote:
Could be, but I'd be surprised if anybody at MS was that smart.
Their engineers are as smart as those anywhere else. Their problem is in understanding what makes a desirable product.
Quote:
Depends on what you consider average. If the movie is a dark and brooding production you might save a lot of power. If on the other hand it is all surf and specular highlights of a beach epic then you may double or triple your power demand.
That's why someone will have to make up some tests that take some known average into account. That will be tough to do. In my lab business, the Minilab manufacturers used to take an entire years worth of photos in their own labs as the average, making each season a different bias. We're talking about many thousands of rolls of film. Even so, we had to do our own specialized averaging. I don't know how some small company that comes up with tests for computer equipment and software will have the resources to do that. Eventually someone will come up with something
Quote:
Why all the negativity? This is no different than running a laptop where dimming the screen can extend your battery time. It is really up to the user to how he manages his battery usage.
This is really the same argument for multitasking, the user should be able to manage what his device is doing to expend battery power at a suitable rate.
I'm not negative. I'm realistic. I follow the work being done in these areas. That's what I'm going by. It's not my opinion. It's from the information published, which you can find if you want to look for it.
Quote:
Not at all. You are projecting an overall worst performance which the data does not indicate. Further waiting for future tech is fruitless as there is always something new coming.
You accuse me of being to pessimistic, but I think you are too optimistic. It's like LED bulbs. They're much better than they were last year, but they're still too expensive and cost too much. I but some every year to test. Another year or two will make all the difference. Why is this hard to believe?
Quote:
There are huge benefits for tablets by going OLED. One of the big ones is a much wider viewing angle. This allows for positioning of the tablet face up on a surface and retaining usability. The iPhone screen is really good at odd angles but it isn't a tablet sized screen. Even then deviating even modestly from perpendicular impacts the readability of the screen.
I agree that there will be. but screen manufacturers think that they will be able to achieve greater efficiency in another year or two. The more the better. Advances in both standard and OLEDS are rapidly improving. Just like batteries. Next year, we'll see a big improvement there as well, that may make the difference as well.
Quote:
Frankly I can't see a tablet with an LCD screen being all that attractive. It would be nice to have color digital ink but that is tech that is way off. The only remaining low power solution is OLED tech.
When AMOLEDs are low power, that will b right. but this is like SSDs. People kept talking about all the power savings from their use in laptops?until they tested them, and found out that their was not only little power savings from most of them, but the faster ones actually used MORE power than standard HDDs.
We don't know what the average power usage will be fro this generation of OLEDS. That's what we were talking earlier in the post, and in the article from ARs Technica.
Quote:
Yep in ways that are hard to define. Interestingly I look at iPhone and see a lot of black background on the thing now. Maybe this is a sign that Apple has taken the power issue into consideration. In any event I see OLED tech as the way to a more paper like color display. That is something with a wide viewing angle.
Dave
Personally, I'd LOVE to get an AMOLED display. I'm all in favor of it. All we're disagreeing about is the cost and the efficiency, not the concept.
But the figures that are out, and as I said, you can look them up, both are not leading edge right now.
The problem we have here is that there are four combinations of hardware and OS to think about.
Do you know how many UNIX, Windows and Linux developers would kill to have only four combinations to think about?
Quote:
The iPhone OS on ARM with an iPhone GUI, however it deals with multiple windows.
iPhone apps wouldn't have to worry about that, because the easy thing to do is to just give them an iPhone-sized window and let them do their thing. The API ingeniously includes high-level system calls so that many behaviors, such as popped dialogs and the appearance of the keyboard, are things that the app really isn't aware of. So Apple has the freedom to make an iPhone app pop a (relatively) giant keyboard on the tablet that doesn't overlap the apps' window at all, and the app will be none the wiser. It can happily believe that it's running on an iPhone.
Mac apps would need to adopt the iPhone APIs as relevant (easy, if they're Cocoa), and their UIs would have to be updated for the touch interface (not easy, but inevitable because of the nature of the hardware, regardless of what flavor of OS X is running).
In fact, I don't think that tablet OS X will be much if any different from an iPhone to an iPhone application. There's no need for new high-level APIs, and the tweaking that Apple will need to do can just as easily take place under the hood. Some apps might need little point releases for variously obscure reasons, but I think it will be in effect one platform. The great thing about preemptive multitasking is that 99.99% of applications think they have the whole machine to themselves. They don't need to know that there are actually 6 other apps running and 10 other windows open.
So really, I think you will have two platforms: mobile and desktop. The differences between the tiny-mobile and the midsize-mobile will be small enough for most developers to either ignore or dispatch with 5 lines of code. The difference between mobile and desktop will be greater simply because of the different needs of touchscreen and WIMP interfaces. There will be some convergence, but it will be slow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Number two above, though also with the ability to run iPhone apps through a Virtual PC-like program. The question is how much more powerful would a new 32nm 2 core Atom running at 1.5 GHZ or so be when compared to the new Cortex 8 ARM in the 3Gs at 600 Mhz?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't honestly see the point of Atom. It's like they put this pretty little obstacle in front of the ARM steamroller and hoped it would... I don't know... leave a pretty corpse?
I guess the netbooks use them.
The nice thing about the platform Apple has taken pains to design is that it does not depend absolutely on the CPU. Apple has followed IBM's design strategy in the mobile space, not Intel's. With the right supporting chipset, the CPU's main tasks are delegation and crunching through any code that none of the supporting chips can crunch more effectively. It spreads the work and the heat profile around nicely and keeps the overall power consumption down.
Whatever it is, Mac OS X inside, video-out and USB2 ports for the ultimate light and pocketable ultramobile device for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations!
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6h-hpNZDFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jQsOqT8bw
It has a software keyboard and all standard apps work without a recompile.
I'd rather see that than just a big ipod touch where all desktop apps have to be redone to work properly.
Troll Touch's display mods for standard Macs are a good example of what the tablet could be like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6h-hpNZDFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jQsOqT8bw
It has a software keyboard and all standard apps work without a recompile.
I'd rather see that than just a big ipod touch where all desktop apps have to be redone to work properly.
I really don't see that happening. A pure touch device has different UI priorities than a keyboard/mouse driven device; there's pretty much no way Apple is going to ship something that just willy-nilly substitutes taps for mouse clicks and uses a virtual keyboard for everything else.
Apple will almost certainly exploit a large touchscreen to create new UI paradigms that enhance usability, for this particular device. Sure, it's a "third platform", but from a developer perspective probably not too far afield from either OS X or the iPhone OS.
And I think maybe it misses the mark a bit to speak of "just a big iPod." The Touch is optimized for limited memory, CPU, screen size and power, but the underlying code is a fair chunk of OS X.
On a device with less constrained hardware, I would imagine that the OS would simply scale up to take advantage, even if some of the UI is reminiscent of the Touch/iPhone. That doesn't make it a less capable device, it just means that Apple is serious about integrating the user experience across hardware and software.
I would bet that Apple's tablet will, in fact, have a Touch vibe, and that some users will therefore turn up there noses at being denied a "real" computer experience, but just because the UI doesn't look like a desktop system doesn't mean it can't be genuinely useful or powerful.
Other than maximum size, what standard is there for length? I've got PCI boards as short as 3" and up, in almost all lengths.
Try this site for standards: http://www.pcisig.com/home/. Unfortunately most of the data is members only, but there is a enough public info to see that there are a number of card standards defined for both PCI and PCI-Express. Intel has a bit of info here: http://www.intel.com/technology/pciexpress/devnet/, but again public information is sparse.
Can you show the part where length standards are given in the PCI spec?
Unfortunately not at this time but I'm surprised you deny they exist. I'm not dismissing the idea that many manufactures do not follow the standards I'm just saying that they exist.
Notably this became an interest to me years ago when I had to support of mishmash of computer types on a production floor. We ran into all sorts of problem with cards or PC frames not fitting right. Sometimes it was hard to tell who was at fault.
Even if there were standards, the length for the boards for the Cube were longer than the minimum socket length.
Of course there was a method of doing that. How do you think the I/O in the device could work otherwise? How do you think the graphics card got the signal out? Or the Ethernet, Firewire, or USB, etc?
Maybe my memory is wrong but I don't recall of any slot openings besides that for the video card. Its been a long time.
Why are you even saying this?
????
Of course there are standards for the bus and sockets. There are always standards for that. We're talking about board length.
Yes I know and that is what I'm trying to get across, every PCIxxx card format has mechanical specifications for the board. Do all boards fit with in these mechanical specs - no as we both know. That however does not invalidate the idea that there are specs.
Dave, usually, when we disagree, I sense some knowledge in you of what you're speaking about.
But this time, I don't find any. You aren't even willing to learn something about the machine before going off and making erroneous statements.
Admittedly my knowledge of the Cube specifically is stale, but I'm not sure why you argue about standards that are known to exist.
Surely you know that the Express bus is a fairly new bus. It hadn't yet been invented when the Cube was available. Even the PCI X, which Apple's G5 Power Macs and Servers used hadn't been around then.
Very true but what does this have ot do with my position.
Because this machine was discontinued a fair number of years ago, much of what was available is no longer available, but a large amount still is.
Here's one company that supplies those components and upgrades:
http://www.yourmacstore.com/shop/sho...=G4+Cube+Parts
I think it's interesting that there are still 23 different video cards or accessories for them still available, 16 cpu cards and such, an Airport card, and a bunch of other things, such as standard HDDs, memory, etc.
Nice site but I must say the pics do refresh my memory a bit and support my position that you really don't have any expansion slots. There is porting for the video card and that is it.
Here's a review of the computer from Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/4q00/...g4-cube-4.html
Really, you should look this up before making any more inane remarks.
The remarks are not inane but reflect my evaluation of the unit. Ars like the machine and that is fine but I say it as another over priced Apple boondoggle. That is an evaluation based on what one got for the money and its long term value to the user.
The problem was and I suspect many will agree with me here, is that the price was way to high for what you where getting. Compare the Cube to todays Mini for example, the Mini is stiffly priced but I suspect many see it as far more worthwhile that the Cube ever was. It is one thing to pay a good price for something and another to get robbed at the check out counter.
I suspect that Apple had little choice in pricing because of the cubes design, building it could not have been cheap. The problem is the customer base apparently didn't see value in all that extra expense. In the end you didn't get low cost like with the Mini and you didn't get the coveted XMac features people have stated they want.
Dave
Hardly. It will certainly run software based on Snow Leopard but it's highly unlikely that it will simply be running the OS from the Touch. Some of that software would simply not make sense with this form factor and there would be a lot of missing functionality using merely the Touch software.
I read statements like this all the time and all I can say is that you don't understand what iPhone OS is. As to functionality that is being added to iPhone OS continuously, as it is now you don't think that iPhone OS has become a static implementation do you?
Now that doesn't mean the tablet won't take some of the DNA from Snow Leopard, just that as a base to build a product of this type on iPhone OS is a far better solution than Snow Leopard taken whole.
My guess is that this device, if it comes as rumoured, will be running a version of Snow Leopard much closer to the full desktop/laptop version than the version of today's OS X currently running on the Touch.
Spin that around 180 and you might be right. I just can't see Snow Leopard doing Touch well at this point. Remember SL is about ready for distribution, if it was at all ready for tablet usage we would have seen a sign or two.
Don't forget that one of the apparent advantages of Snow Leopard is that it will be much more efficient than the current version of OS X and take up a lot less space. Not only does that mean faster performance on laptops and desktops, it also means it will be much better suited to this rumoured device, requiring minimal tweaking. Don't think for a second that the decision to streamline OS X is driven strictly by a desire to make regular Macs more efficient. It's also about applying the revised software to other devices like the upcoming tablet.
Yes it will be more efficient and faster but really where did that tech come from. Much of the improvements in SL are a direct result of Apple trying to improve the OS to run well on these handheld devices. This has all but been admitted to by Apple reps.
Also consider that if developers can put out software compatible with both the tablet and Apple's other computers, it justifies making that product happen. If, on the other hand, the software would be tablet-exclusive, third-party developers would be reluctant to do the work for such a limited installed base.
The same thing can be said about making it run iPhone apps well. In any event if this is a break through product like iPhone Apple will have tens of thousands of developers writing software for the device.
It's also the case that by giving the tablet pretty much full compatibility with Snow Leopard software, you could do a lot more with the tablet from the beginning. On the other hand, make the tablet compatible with App Store apps and you pretty much limit the device to running software that is a long way from exploiting what I'm sure will be far more capable hardware. Why pay more than double just for more screen real estate? Few would and the tablet would be a major flop. If you sacrifice the go-anywhere portability of the Touch/iPhone form factor, there have to be gains in other areas. A bigger screen alone isn't going to cut it.
Well that is one way to evaluate the reaction people will have to the device, but here is a little clue for you. People are a long way from tapping the capability of iPhone fully so you are implying limitations that are not real. In any event two things are wrong here. First; you seem to think iPhone OS is static. Second; you seem to think that Apple will market this device like a laptop or other Mac, it won't do so.
Dave
Try this site for standards: http://www.pcisig.com/home/. Unfortunately most of the data is members only, but there is a enough public info to see that there are a number of card standards defined for both PCI and PCI-Express. Intel has a bit of info here: http://www.intel.com/technology/pciexpress/devnet/, but again public information is sparse.
Unfortunately not at this time but I'm surprised you deny they exist. I'm not dismissing the idea that many manufactures do not follow the standards I'm just saying that they exist.
Notably this became an interest to me years ago when I had to support of mishmash of computer types on a production floor. We ran into all sorts of problem with cards or PC frames not fitting right. Sometimes it was hard to tell who was at fault.
Maybe my memory is wrong but I don't recall of any slot openings besides that for the video card. Its been a long time.
????
Yes I know and that is what I'm trying to get across, every PCIxxx card format has mechanical specifications for the board. Do all boards fit with in these mechanical specs - no as we both know. That however does not invalidate the idea that there are specs.
Admittedly my knowledge of the Cube specifically is stale, but I'm not sure why you argue about standards that are known to exist.
Very true but what does this have ot do with my position.
Nice site but I must say the pics do refresh my memory a bit and support my position that you really don't have any expansion slots. There is porting for the video card and that is it.
The remarks are not inane but reflect my evaluation of the unit. Ars like the machine and that is fine but I say it as another over priced Apple boondoggle. That is an evaluation based on what one got for the money and its long term value to the user.
The problem was and I suspect many will agree with me here, is that the price was way to high for what you where getting. Compare the Cube to todays Mini for example, the Mini is stiffly priced but I suspect many see it as far more worthwhile that the Cube ever was. It is one thing to pay a good price for something and another to get robbed at the check out counter.
I suspect that Apple had little choice in pricing because of the cubes design, building it could not have been cheap. The problem is the customer base apparently didn't see value in all that extra expense. In the end you didn't get low cost like with the Mini and you didn't get the coveted XMac features people have stated they want.
Dave
In all of that, you haven't shown a single thing that has anything to do with what we're talking about.
Tired of "discussing" with colleagues the brilliant merits or utter un-usability of a large touchscreen keyboard.
Tired of trying to figure out if Apple release new iPod touches at $199/299/399 price-point, where this tablet might fall in terms of $. I have to assume much more expensive (but many of us will still buy one).
Are there two models but not academic-normal but something more along the lines of WiFi only (with tethering to your iPhone for non-WiFi Net acesss; i.e., the touch, more pricey up front) versus a subsidized carrier model for WiFi and cellular Net acess?
What is the killer app or use that sets the tablet apart from a "big" touch? A completely revamped iTunes App store, perhaps? I mean, the team that built the original store up over the first year after iPhone launch in prep for the SDK hasn't just been disbanded and doing only minor little upgrades ... what are they up to?
Is the tablet even a tablet? Why can't it be a ultra-ultra-thin, small laptop like the Air but with two screens like a thin, perfect Nintendo DS? Then $900 or $1000 makes sense.
This is one I believe, just purely based on my gut, that will have to wait until at least January of 2010 to get resolved. And I think I'll just wait patiently (for once), not stress out, and buy a new touch when they come out Sept 9 to replace my first gen touch. Hopefully with a camera, GPS and better processor.
The problem I?ve personally had with yours and others mockups is that they all had Mac OS X on a small touchscreen display. The idea of a tablet in and of itself isn?t crazy, but it needs to have an OS interface that is well adapted for that type of computing. It?s only been very recent in the tablet rumours that we?ve heard about and seen mockups that actually aren?t trying to shoehorn Mac OS X into the mythical device (or making it just an expanded display for the iPhone OS X).
The rumors back in 2007 stated something along the lines of iPhone OS. The rumored display size was much smaller though.
If the tablet runs a version of iPhone OS, things are easy: The OS can easily be tweaked to support a multi-window UI when it's running on a tablet. iPhone apps can run unmodified in a little iPhone-sized window until developers add more tablet-friendly UI options. All the necessary APIs are there, and fully supported, along with all the hardware. All the apps already have touch-friendly interfaces and behaviors. There's already an App Store and iTunes. The migration is easier, the infrastructure is already there, the apps are there, and the OS is a fully capable, mobile-optimized build of OS X. Mac applications that want to run on the tablet can do the work they would have to do anyway of rebuilding the interface to work with fat fingers, and port it over. It would not be too hard, especially if the Mac app is Cocoa, because iPhone OS shares 85% of its code with Snow Leopard.
Apple is building a giant data center. Why? Think about it: What would be the perfect computer to use in a "cloud?" Why did Apple switch from the product-line-identified ".Mac" to "MobileMe" (apart from a desire to irritate me)?
Think outside the box. This could be a whole new thing.
Just to pile on here: iPhone OS is OS X. It shares 85% of its code with Snow Leopard. It is not a toy. It is a full multitasking OS optimized for a mobile platform with a touch screen. It is the runaway obvious choice for a tablet. It would take a great deal of work and time to get applications like Office and Adobe CS to work with the touch interface, because Carbon apps don't get new system behaviors for free the way Cocoa apps often do. Whole interfaces would have to be redesigned. It would be incredibly painful.
If the tablet runs a version of iPhone OS, things are easy: The OS can easily be tweaked to support a multi-window UI when it's running on a tablet. iPhone apps can run unmodified in a little iPhone-sized window until developers add more tablet-friendly UI options. All the necessary APIs are there, and fully supported, along with all the hardware. All the apps already have touch-friendly interfaces and behaviors. There's already an App Store and iTunes. The migration is easier, the infrastructure is already there, the apps are there, and the OS is a fully capable, mobile-optimized build of OS X. Mac applications that want to run on the tablet can do the work they would have to do anyway of rebuilding the interface to work with fat fingers, and port it over. It would not be too hard, especially if the Mac app is Cocoa, because iPhone OS shares 85% of its code with Snow Leopard.
Apple is building a giant data center. Why? Think about it: What would be the perfect computer to use in a "cloud?" Why did Apple switch from the product-line-identified ".Mac" to "MobileMe" (apart from a desire to irritate me)?
Think outside the box. This could be a whole new thing.
The problem we have here is that there are four combinations of hardware and OS to think about.
The iPhone OS on ARM with an iPhone GUI, however it deals with multiple windows.
The computer version of OS X with a simplified Finder (Apple has the Simple Finder now, so almost nothing would have to be done there) because of the lower Rez screen, with an x86 cpu from Intel, likely the newer version of the Atom, for OS X software compatibility.
Number two above, though also with the ability to run iPhone apps through a Virtual PC-like program. The question is how much more powerful would a new 32nm 2 core Atom running at 1.5 GHZ or so be when compared to the new Cortex 8 ARM in the 3Gs at 600 Mhz?
And four, an x86, AND ARM device that would do both without any lack of speed in either area, or even both at once.
I'm not suggesting that any one of these would be the actual tablet, just throwing out the possibilities that could happen.
and at the same time, there is now the suggestion thats come out that Apple may have two tablets coming out.
The first could come out in September, but would be a small one, a 6" screen running the iPhone OS, and a 10" model running the computer OS X version later.
If that's true, then a 6" model could come out now. It would really be a bigger iPod Touch, and so fit into the iPod and music rollout this September.
The 10" could wait until November or even after January, and would be placed in the MacBook line, possibility.
This tablet will replace the MacBook.
Ah, your long term, cross my fingers and hope to die if it doesn't come true, hope.
Downside is OLED is $$$$ and I couldn't afford a 2K Newton child of Jobsenstein.
Having the speculation of a possible item to come is nice though.
Dobby.
OLED would mean far less battery drain but more contrast.
Word on the street is that "far greater battery life" is greatly exaggerated. I wish it gets OLED but my gut says not a chance. Apple like to make more money, and they can do OLED for Mac touch II then, and get us all to upgrade, cause you know they will. Why sell us one tablet, when they can drag it out and sell us two?
The iPhone is going to get OLED firstly anyway. Small screen, Zune HD and all that. The iPhone, meaning the iPod touch. This event perhaps. Why do I doubt that too?
Word on the street is that "far greater battery life" is greatly exaggerated. I wish it gets OLED but my gut says not a chance. Apple like to make more money, and they can do OLED for Mac touch II then, and get us all to upgrade, cause you know they will. Why sell us one tablet, when they can drag it out and sell us two?
The iPhone is going to get OLED firstly anyway. Small screen, Zune HD and all that. The iPhone, meaning the iPod touch. This event perhaps. Why do I doubt that too?
My two objections to a possible AMOLED screen for this right now is cost, and power draw.
With Sony's 11" Tv with about a 550 x 900 rez AMOLED screen first costing $2,500, though now down to $1,800, if you can find it, the 10" screen with about the same rez for Apple's device would seem to cost too much. If course, Sony only made a few thousand of their Tv's, more as a demonstration that they could do it and sell it rather than a serious attempt to get some real marketshare.
Apple, on the other hand, would be wanting to sell this device in the hundreds of thousands at first, and in the millions over the year. Therefor, they could get a lower price. But what that price would be is still a question. I don't know what the bad pixel rate is for these bigger screens, and that could be a problem too.
As far as energy requirements go, there was good info published on this in this recent article from Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...years-away.ars
Look at the huge power draw when there is a white screen! That's huge!
So we see why the new Zune HD has a black screen with thin white letters.
How would the average movie fare? What about the OS X interface from the computer version? That's almost all light grey and white.
Same thing for most all programs.
Would people really want to go back to the bad old days of light type on a black background? I don't think so. That's been shown to be much harder to read over the long term.
Everything we know would have to change in the world of interfaces. The dark backgrounds of FCP and some others would become the new colors for most everything else.
That's not good.
The same thing is true for phones that use the new AMOLEDs.
While OLEDs in general are getting more efficient, they aren't really there yet. This doesn't matter as much for a monitor or Tv that's plugged into a wall. But for battery powered devices, I think we need at least one more year, maybe two, from the research I'm seeing.
Of course, there's a slight possibility that Apple might do it anyway, but I can't see a real benefit yet, and I think it's why they didn't go that way for the phone this year. If they decided not to do it for the phone, I don't see why they would do it for the Touch. The two are in sync on the major parts.
As I've said in an earlier post, this will make it almost impossible to determine a "real" test for battery life. It will be far more dependent on what people see with their devices than ever before.
And, as you say, you can't really dictate what happens in a movie. Better not try and watch THX1138, stick with Dark City.
My two objections to a possible AMOLED screen for this right now is cost, and power draw.
With Sony's 11" Tv with about a 550 x 900 rez AMOLED screen first costing $2,500, though now down to $1,800, if you can find it, the 10" screen with about the same rez for Apple's device would seem to cost too much. If course, Sony only made a few thousand of their Tv's, more as a demonstration that they could do it and sell it rather than a serious attempt to get some real marketshare.
The cost of that Sony TV really has nothing to do with the market Apple plays in. If you look around you can find all sorts of expensive Sony consumer equipment that makes you wonder why people would spend good $$$ on it.
Apple, on the other hand, would be wanting to sell this device in the hundreds of thousands at first, and in the millions over the year. Therefor, they could get a lower price. But what that price would be is still a question. I don't know what the bad pixel rate is for these bigger screens, and that could be a problem too.
Mass production is the key, however starting up such a line is filled with unknowns. From the standpoint of the technology though, it is acknowledged in the industry that OLED screens should be cheap to produce. So if Apple can partner with somebody that is willing to go mass production and share the pain they may be getting a very good deal. Especially if they work a deal where they don't have to share the burden of the R&D costs. Considering how Apple has been doing things lately they could in effect own the production line to secure the deal and reduce exposure to the partner.
I suspect that such a screen could be sold to Apple for well under $200 dollars today.
As far as energy requirements go, there was good info published on this in this recent article from Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...years-away.ars
Yeah power draw should be highly variable because in effect you have to turn on three light "bulb" for each pixel. The back light on an LCD is a more constant drain so really you have to look at average power vs a static draw.
Look at the huge power draw when there is a white screen! That's huge!
So we see why the new Zune HD has a black screen with thin white letters.
Could be, but I'd be surprised if anybody at MS was that smart.
How would the average movie fare? What about the OS X interface from the computer version? That's almost all light grey and white.
Depends on what you consider average. If the movie is a dark and brooding production you might save a lot of power. If on the other hand it is all surf and specular highlights of a beach epic then you may double or triple your power demand.
Same thing for most all programs.
Would people really want to go back to the bad old days of light type on a black background? I don't think so. That's been shown to be much harder to read over the long term.
Everything we know would have to change in the world of interfaces. The dark backgrounds of FCP and some others would become the new colors for most everything else.
That's not good.
Why all the negativity? This is no different than running a laptop where dimming the screen can extend your battery time. It is really up to the user to how he manages his battery usage.
This is really the same argument for multitasking, the user should be able to manage what his device is doing to expend battery power at a suitable rate.
The same thing is true for phones that use the new AMOLEDs.
While OLEDs in general are getting more efficient, they aren't really there yet. This doesn't matter as much for a monitor or Tv that's plugged into a wall. But for battery powered devices, I think we need at least one more year, maybe two, from the research I'm seeing.
Not at all. You are projecting an overall worst performance which the data does not indicate. Further waiting for future tech is fruitless as there is always something new coming.
Of course, there's a slight possibility that Apple might do it anyway, but I can't see a real benefit yet, and I think it's why they didn't go that way for the phone this year. If they decided not to do it for the phone, I don't see why they would do it for the Touch. The two are in sync on the major parts.
There are huge benefits for tablets by going OLED. One of the big ones is a much wider viewing angle. This allows for positioning of the tablet face up on a surface and retaining usability. The iPhone screen is really good at odd angles but it isn't a tablet sized screen. Even then deviating even modestly from perpendicular impacts the readability of the screen.
Frankly I can't see a tablet with an LCD screen being all that attractive. It would be nice to have color digital ink but that is tech that is way off. The only remaining low power solution is OLED tech.
As I've said in an earlier post, this will make it almost impossible to determine a "real" test for battery life. It will be far more dependent on what people see with their devices than ever before.
Yep in ways that are hard to define. Interestingly I look at iPhone and see a lot of black background on the thing now. Maybe this is a sign that Apple has taken the power issue into consideration. In any event I see OLED tech as the way to a more paper like color display. That is something with a wide viewing angle.
Dave
The cost of that Sony TV really has nothing to do with the market Apple plays in. If you look around you can find all sorts of expensive Sony consumer equipment that makes you wonder why people would spend good $$$ on it.
Every manufacturer that has an interest in making OLED Tv's has given cost as the number one reason why they haven't done so yet. We may finally see one from Toshiba this fall, and possibly one from Samsung. Both companies have warned that the cost would be high.
The high cost of larger OLEDs, which means everything bigger than a phone size screen is expensive.
Find for us an article talking about the low cost of larger OLED screens that are out now, and I'll sy you're right.
Mass production is the key, however starting up such a line is filled with unknowns. From the standpoint of the technology though, it is acknowledged in the industry that OLED screens should be cheap to produce. So if Apple can partner with somebody that is willing to go mass production and share the pain they may be getting a very good deal. Especially if they work a deal where they don't have to share the burden of the R&D costs. Considering how Apple has been doing things lately they could in effect own the production line to secure the deal and reduce exposure to the partner.
I suspect that such a screen could be sold to Apple for well under $200 dollars today.
I did say that because of the large number of units Apple would want to sell, the price of the screen would be lower for them. But it will still be higher than an LCD of the same size and rez.
What you suspect is irrelevant. Unless you can show us that you have some knowledge of pricing, it doesn't matter, when every manufacturer speaks of their high prices.
Yeah power draw should be highly variable because in effect you have to turn on three light "bulb" for each pixel. The back light on an LCD is a more constant drain so really you have to look at average power vs a static draw.
It's too variable to predict what any individual user would do. With LCD screens, the only variable is the amount of time the screen is on.
Could be, but I'd be surprised if anybody at MS was that smart.
Their engineers are as smart as those anywhere else. Their problem is in understanding what makes a desirable product.
Depends on what you consider average. If the movie is a dark and brooding production you might save a lot of power. If on the other hand it is all surf and specular highlights of a beach epic then you may double or triple your power demand.
That's why someone will have to make up some tests that take some known average into account. That will be tough to do. In my lab business, the Minilab manufacturers used to take an entire years worth of photos in their own labs as the average, making each season a different bias. We're talking about many thousands of rolls of film. Even so, we had to do our own specialized averaging. I don't know how some small company that comes up with tests for computer equipment and software will have the resources to do that. Eventually someone will come up with something
Why all the negativity? This is no different than running a laptop where dimming the screen can extend your battery time. It is really up to the user to how he manages his battery usage.
This is really the same argument for multitasking, the user should be able to manage what his device is doing to expend battery power at a suitable rate.
I'm not negative. I'm realistic. I follow the work being done in these areas. That's what I'm going by. It's not my opinion. It's from the information published, which you can find if you want to look for it.
Not at all. You are projecting an overall worst performance which the data does not indicate. Further waiting for future tech is fruitless as there is always something new coming.
You accuse me of being to pessimistic, but I think you are too optimistic. It's like LED bulbs. They're much better than they were last year, but they're still too expensive and cost too much. I but some every year to test. Another year or two will make all the difference. Why is this hard to believe?
There are huge benefits for tablets by going OLED. One of the big ones is a much wider viewing angle. This allows for positioning of the tablet face up on a surface and retaining usability. The iPhone screen is really good at odd angles but it isn't a tablet sized screen. Even then deviating even modestly from perpendicular impacts the readability of the screen.
I agree that there will be. but screen manufacturers think that they will be able to achieve greater efficiency in another year or two. The more the better. Advances in both standard and OLEDS are rapidly improving. Just like batteries. Next year, we'll see a big improvement there as well, that may make the difference as well.
Frankly I can't see a tablet with an LCD screen being all that attractive. It would be nice to have color digital ink but that is tech that is way off. The only remaining low power solution is OLED tech.
When AMOLEDs are low power, that will b right. but this is like SSDs. People kept talking about all the power savings from their use in laptops?until they tested them, and found out that their was not only little power savings from most of them, but the faster ones actually used MORE power than standard HDDs.
We don't know what the average power usage will be fro this generation of OLEDS. That's what we were talking earlier in the post, and in the article from ARs Technica.
Yep in ways that are hard to define. Interestingly I look at iPhone and see a lot of black background on the thing now. Maybe this is a sign that Apple has taken the power issue into consideration. In any event I see OLED tech as the way to a more paper like color display. That is something with a wide viewing angle.
Dave
Personally, I'd LOVE to get an AMOLED display. I'm all in favor of it. All we're disagreeing about is the cost and the efficiency, not the concept.
But the figures that are out, and as I said, you can look them up, both are not leading edge right now.
You're making assumptions.
The problem we have here is that there are four combinations of hardware and OS to think about.
Do you know how many UNIX, Windows and Linux developers would kill to have only four combinations to think about?
The iPhone OS on ARM with an iPhone GUI, however it deals with multiple windows.
iPhone apps wouldn't have to worry about that, because the easy thing to do is to just give them an iPhone-sized window and let them do their thing. The API ingeniously includes high-level system calls so that many behaviors, such as popped dialogs and the appearance of the keyboard, are things that the app really isn't aware of. So Apple has the freedom to make an iPhone app pop a (relatively) giant keyboard on the tablet that doesn't overlap the apps' window at all, and the app will be none the wiser. It can happily believe that it's running on an iPhone.
Mac apps would need to adopt the iPhone APIs as relevant (easy, if they're Cocoa), and their UIs would have to be updated for the touch interface (not easy, but inevitable because of the nature of the hardware, regardless of what flavor of OS X is running).
In fact, I don't think that tablet OS X will be much if any different from an iPhone to an iPhone application. There's no need for new high-level APIs, and the tweaking that Apple will need to do can just as easily take place under the hood. Some apps might need little point releases for variously obscure reasons, but I think it will be in effect one platform. The great thing about preemptive multitasking is that 99.99% of applications think they have the whole machine to themselves. They don't need to know that there are actually 6 other apps running and 10 other windows open.
So really, I think you will have two platforms: mobile and desktop. The differences between the tiny-mobile and the midsize-mobile will be small enough for most developers to either ignore or dispatch with 5 lines of code. The difference between mobile and desktop will be greater simply because of the different needs of touchscreen and WIMP interfaces. There will be some convergence, but it will be slow.
Number two above, though also with the ability to run iPhone apps through a Virtual PC-like program. The question is how much more powerful would a new 32nm 2 core Atom running at 1.5 GHZ or so be when compared to the new Cortex 8 ARM in the 3Gs at 600 Mhz?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't honestly see the point of Atom. It's like they put this pretty little obstacle in front of the ARM steamroller and hoped it would... I don't know... leave a pretty corpse?
I guess the netbooks use them.
The nice thing about the platform Apple has taken pains to design is that it does not depend absolutely on the CPU. Apple has followed IBM's design strategy in the mobile space, not Intel's. With the right supporting chipset, the CPU's main tasks are delegation and crunching through any code that none of the supporting chips can crunch more effectively. It spreads the work and the heat profile around nicely and keeps the overall power consumption down.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42107