The surface of a 3"x5" index card has a diagonal length of 5 3/4" and would be about 2 1/2 times the display area of the iPhone-- something like 800x480 pixels (at iPhone resolution).
We're talking screen sizes here. Anything with a 6" diagonal screen is going to be in the neighborhood of 6.5" diagonal in physical size.
And I owned a nokia n800 for 2 years. I know very well how 'pocketable' it was, at only 144mm (5.6" to your index card's 5.8). Short of cargo-style pockets, it wasn't. Not usefully or comfortably.
The resulting minor bump in screen size also wasn't any more useful or comfortable for longer computing sessions.
Conspiracy theories are for people with too much time in their hands. My thinking is watch what Apple does, not what they say. They lie constantly. When it comes to rumors, a good rule of thumb is to go with your gut and intelligence, and disregard most rumors outright.
Is that what you are doing? Honestly your tablet posts have more of a feel of wishful thinking than anything.
Quote:
When it came to phones it was obvious Apple was going to make one, they sort of had no choice. The tablet situation isn't so clear, so you need to feel the thing out a bit more, and use even more gut. Apple like to lead the way, and from the best information our there, the iPhone came from tablet prototypes and R&D.
Which can be read to say: Apple already makes tablets. That is exactly what iPhone and Touch are.
Quote:
I just get this feeling it's 100% real, and I've learned to trust such strong feelings in the past. 10.1" is the best size for this device, for many reasons, not the least of which, it clearly distinguishes it from the 3.5" iPhone, which my bet is something Apple will be desperate to do.
I'm not sure how you come up with this stuff, a 10" tablet is just about the worst size possible. Apple won't be desparate at all about distinguishing between this product and iPhone, because (this is obvious to some) iPhone is a CELL PHONE!
Quote:
They want to make this as clear as possible. This is not simply a bigger iPhone, it's a touch-screen Mac. From a marketing POV this distinction is HUGE.
I seriously doubt Apple would be so bold and stupid as to try to introduce a Touch screen Mac. There is to much history there to telll them it would be a failure. However open up the market to an entirely different product via iPhone OS and they might have a chance at success. In effect an attempt by Apple to deliver your Mac Touch OS would be a total waste when they are so far along with iPhone OS.
In any event it is very pathetic of you to bring up operating systems in this thread after jumping all over somebody else for posting about Snow Leopard. New hardware and new OSes kinda go together.
You obviously believe you have cornered the crystal ball market. Are you really Gene Munster in drag?
Quote:
Why would Apple spend all this time developing a completely separate version of OS-X that is specifically designed to be used with finger actuated, capacitive based, touch-screens and then release a new tablet product that uses that same hardware, but the old "desktop" version of the OS? Why would they confuse things by putting out some kind of hybrid "middle" variant between the two?
Because the touch OS is not enough to dominate the netbook market.
Quote:
There is nothing missing from the iPhone version of OS-X that would stand in the way of it being an excellent choice for a tablet.
You mean apart from a proper file system, Flash player and a few other inconsequentials of similar irrelevance?
Quote:
The only mystery to me is how they are going to handle the obvious desire for pen input, or if they will just leave it out.
Trust me, styli are the least of the mysteries you have failed to penetrate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
You have no idea at all do you?
Couldn't have put it better, your'e showing promise.
We're talking screen sizes here. Anything with a 6" diagonal screen is going to be in the neighborhood of 6.5" diagonal in physical size.
You can't make a blanket statement like that because you don't know what the aspect ratio is. For all you know Apple could have a square screen planned.
Quote:
And I owned a nokia n800 for 2 years. I know very well how 'pocketable' it was, at only 144mm (5.6" to your index card's 5.8). Short of cargo-style pockets, it wasn't. Not usefully or comfortably.
The N800 was also a thick btickish device. If Apple can deliver a device that is 3/8" thick with rounded edges it will be far more pocketable. In any event you are missing one important point, Apple already has pocketable tablets, this isn't to serve that market but rather those that still want portable but with a bigger screen.
Quote:
The resulting minor bump in screen size also wasn't any more useful or comfortable for longer computing sessions.
That might be the case but we are talking dramatically different screens here. More importantly the device would be targgeting a different kind of user. Such a unit would make an excellent gaming platform for example. Like it or not for many of us it would improve the E-Mail and net experience. Lastly and maybe more importantly it would allow for apps on a very portable platform that doesn't have the iPhones screen limitations.
The kiwi statement was pure sarcasm. Keep it on topic guys. The guys says "OFF TOPIC" then links to a website with a long article about Snow Leopard, when he knows full well where the Mac OS forum is. Hardly a hissy fit. Just like we can't have one simply discussion about Apple or its products for 5 minutes without someone mentioning the Zune, Microsoft or Steve Ballmer throwing a chair.
You obviously believe you have cornered the crystal ball market. Are you really Gene Munster in drag?
Because the touch OS is not enough to dominate the netbook market.
Then you don't know what Touch OS is nor how powerful it is. Frankly there isn't a more feature filled tablet OS out there at the moment.
Quote:
You mean apart from a proper file system, Flash player and a few other inconsequentials of similar irrelevance?
Where does this crap come from? IPhone OS has a perfectly good file system, how else does it store all those files. It doesn't have a file system browser though, but really how hard would it be to write an app for that.
The problem with people that dis Iphone OS is that they have no imagination when it comes to the evolution of this interface for more capable tablets that iPhone. Give Apple a couple of faster cores, more RAM and that bigger screen and skys the limit.
One way to look at this is what would you be comfortable with as far as seeing features deleted from SL to fit into a tablet foot print? Going with iPhone OS allows them to grow the OS in a controlled way without the need to deal with legacy crap. IPone OS is the low baggage way to an innovative tablet.
Quote:
Trust me, styli are the least of the mysteries you have failed to penetrate.
Couldn't have put it better, your'e showing promise.
The images of potential tablet designs that I see seem to fall into two categories.
Tablets lying on a table - facing straight up and therefore useless.
Tablets propped up either on some kind of hinged A-frame or plugged into some kind of separate stand with a keyboard in front as another plug-in piece. I.e. a messy laptop not being used as a tablet.
Setting aside the specialist uses such as a doctor sitting on a patient's bed or someone in the field using it (briefly) as clipboard, how is a computer meant to be used in its tablet mode for any length of time that could justify any likely price?
The whole point of the device is that it's going to redefine what a "regular computer" is. You are making the same argument here that all the old command line geezers did when computers with GUI's started making headlines. It's also the same argument people made when laptops came out and didn't have "proper" keyboards or mice.
There already are and have been for some time tablet computers that use regular "desktop" OS's in both Windows and OS-X varieties. They are not that popular and have a lot of problems associated with their use. A tablet running regular "desktop" OS-X would likely be a failure as well.
Why would Apple spend all this time developing a completely separate version of OS-X that is specifically designed to be used with finger actuated, capacitive based, touch-screens and then release a new tablet product that uses that same hardware, but the old "desktop" version of the OS? Why would they confuse things by putting out some kind of hybrid "middle" variant between the two?
There is nothing missing from the iPhone version of OS-X that would stand in the way of it being an excellent choice for a tablet. The only mystery to me is how they are going to handle the obvious desire for pen input, or if they will just leave it out.
The only thing I can add here is that iPhone OS is the low impact way to a tablet OS. You just have to imagine it being fleshed out a bit.
I'm not sure how you come up with this stuff, a 10" tablet is just about the worst size possible. Apple won't be desparate at all about distinguishing between this product and iPhone, because (this is obvious to some) iPhone is a CELL PHONE!
You just proved my point. "this is obvious to some"
That's not good enough. It has to be clear to everyone, and not just for marketing reasons (definitely for marketing reasons though), but also for more fundamental reasons too, like why do we need this device in our lives? Why does it exist? What's it design for really etc. It has to be fundamentally different to those small touch screen devices, and not just with regards to size.
Imagination is more important than knowledge - Einstein.
We're talking screen sizes here. Anything with a 6" diagonal screen is going to be in the neighborhood of 6.5" diagonal in physical size.
And I owned a nokia n800 for 2 years. I know very well how 'pocketable' it was, at only 144mm (5.6" to your index card's 5.8). Short of cargo-style pockets, it wasn't. Not usefully or comfortably.
The resulting minor bump in screen size also wasn't any more useful or comfortable for longer computing sessions.
1) Who says 6" is the actual screen size. It's a rumor! People round these numbers to the nearest whole number! For example, the actual diagonal measure of my iMac 17" , iMac 24" and my 23" studio display are slightly less than the published sizes (approx 1/4 inch less)
2) The device could be designed so that the screen occupies the entire surface (less a 1/16 bezel)
3) the actual dimension of a 3"x5" index card is 3.00"x5.00", not the 5.8 you claim.
4) the diagonal measure of a 3"x5:" index card is 5 7/8".
So, the surface on a 3"x5" index card would contain a 5 5/8" display with a 1/16 inch bezel). A stack of about 30-40 index cards is about as thick as as iphone.
And, this pack of cards easily fits into a T-shirt, dress shirt or jeans pocket. AIR, it is smaller than a pack of long-size cigarettes (which those pockets were designed to hold).
The images of potential tablet designs that I see seem to fall into two categories.
Tablets lying on a table - facing straight up and therefore useless.
Tablets propped up either on some kind of hinged A-frame or plugged into some kind of separate stand with a keyboard in front as another plug-in piece. I.e. a messy laptop not being used as a tablet.
Setting aside the specialist uses such as a doctor sitting on a patient's bed or someone in the field using it (briefly) as clipboard, how is a computer meant to be used in its tablet mode for any length of time that could justify any likely price?
Which is exactly why I have been clear about this over and over again. This device will have "a rest" built right into the back of it. This rest could be popped in FLUSH, staying out of site, or popped out, allowing you to rest said tablet at around 20º (or less) on any flat surface. Notice I'm not referring to it as a stand, because it's not exactly what you might call a stand. Pop in the rest when fiddling with the tablet on the bus or walking, and then when at a desk or table etc. you'd pop out this rest so you could browse your files, the web, watch videos or do some typing.
As always, if you do serious tying for your job there's always laptops, Apple also sells those.
We're talking screen sizes here. Anything with a 6" diagonal screen is going to be in the neighborhood of 6.5" diagonal in physical size.
And I owned a nokia n800 for 2 years. I know very well how 'pocketable' it was, at only 144mm (5.6" to your index card's 5.8). Short of cargo-style pockets, it wasn't. Not usefully or comfortably.
The resulting minor bump in screen size also wasn't any more useful or comfortable for longer computing sessions.
did that Nokia have a device with the entire front face as the display? I'm assuming Apple's 6 inch screened device might actually be smaller.
The whole point of the device is that it's going to redefine what a "regular computer" is. You are making the same argument here that all the old command line geezers did when computers with GUI's started making headlines. It's also the same argument people made when laptops came out and didn't have "proper" keyboards or mice.
There already are and have been for some time tablet computers that use regular "desktop" OS's in both Windows and OS-X varieties. They are not that popular and have a lot of problems associated with their use. A tablet running regular "desktop" OS-X would likely be a failure as well.
Why would Apple spend all this time developing a completely separate version of OS-X that is specifically designed to be used with finger actuated, capacitive based, touch-screens and then release a new tablet product that uses that same hardware, but the old "desktop" version of the OS? Why would they confuse things by putting out some kind of hybrid "middle" variant between the two?
There is nothing missing from the iPhone version of OS-X that would stand in the way of it being an excellent choice for a tablet. The only mystery to me is how they are going to handle the obvious desire for pen input, or if they will just leave it out.
I couldn't be more wrong? Then please prove me more wrong with evidence. (Personally, I don't like that tone you have with me. I may disagree with you a lot, but at least I will respect you and your opinions. I won't ever tell you that you are wrong, no matter how much I disagree with you, unless you say something contrary to well known facts.)
Anyhow, I think the mouse is going to go away soon. With multi touch, fingers directly working with the screen is definitely the way to go. We could do so much more, especially in the arts, if we used our hands ON the screen instead of manipulating a mouse.
As for a keyboard, I really don't see that going away soon. Speech to type software is good and all, but we are yet to get to the "Computer, cross reference Mozart's works with Hayden's works and find similarities" star trek stuff. I think that's the way it will go, but we aren't there yet. I can manipulate the computer using my voice some what, but it never does exactly what I tell it to do, and if there is background noise it gets very confused very quickly. Keyboards are here to stay for a while. Mice I think are on the way out.
By the way, the iPhone/iPod touch still have a keyboard technically. That part isn't revolutionary (heck, the old Newtons had on screen keyboards, and the Palms, and the Windows Mobiles, and etc...) but my personal preference would to NOT have to type on a pure touch screen keyboard. I personally like the tactile feel of a keyboard. Others do not. I would love to ditch the mouse, other's feel very comfortable with it. Personal preference.
I don't think the tablets did well was because they were priced too high, and the screen was too glitchy. Handwriting recognition wasn't that great. The pen thing was more of a gimmick than something to actually use. I do think however, people liked that it was a standard OS and so could use standard programs on the device instead of having to purchase a whole new set of programs with their new computer. The technology just wasn't' there yet. These days, I think we have it (minus handwriting recognition). Even the Palm handwriting (and Newton) had its limitations in speed. And those weren't standard OSs. Both didn't do too well. The phone coupled with the PIM feature however did take off, so that does help prove your point.
I just don't think it would be smart to release a tablet that uses the iPhone OS. Its capable, but we also have seen how limited the OS is by Apple's doing. My argument was more about that fact than about innovation. I want to see something that can use standard OS X programs, just like a netbook uses a standard OS and can run standard programs too. I feel that if Apple doesn't do this, although there will be a lot of sales due to initial Gotta-Have-Everything-Apple mentality from its die hard fans, it will quickly die out if it doesn't have OS X.
But I am not wrong, I just differ in opinion. Thank you.
The images of potential tablet designs that I see seem to fall into two categories.
Tablets lying on a table - facing straight up and therefore useless.
Well obviously tablets can lay on their backs. The question is why do you consider that position to be useless? Granted an LCD in that position would be but there are alternative display choices that would make viewing in that orientation possible.
In such a position it would be like reading a paper or magazine on the morning coffe table. Like the paper you might pick it up to parse something in detail after finishing breakfast but it would hardly be useless. As long as the screen can offfer similar legibility being on it's back is not a problem.
Quote:
Tablets propped up either on some kind of hinged A-frame or plugged into some kind of separate stand with a keyboard in front as another plug-in piece. I.e. a messy laptop not being used as a tablet.
Honestly I haven't seen many indications that that is an approach people would take. I will be the first to suggest that for many people they will be better off with a laptop. It all comes down to the idea that a tablet won't make it if people think of it as a laptop replacement. Tablets have to be seen as a new approach to personal computing and the delivery of media.
Quote:
Setting aside the specialist uses such as a doctor sitting on a patient's bed or someone in the field using it (briefly) as clipboard, how is a computer meant to be used in its tablet mode for any length of time that could justify any likely price?
First let me say that you must have a very limited view of what the work world is like if you think that Doctors are the only people that work away from a desk. There are numerous applications where a tablet would allow for transient use in the "field". Not everybodies computer needs involve long sessions in front of a computer screen.
Then we have media. Such a device would be ideal for subscriptions to magazines and newspapers or for starting the morning with a free service like Yahoo. Of course other services like Video and music are a possibility.
In the end though I think it will be the Internet standbys that drive adoption. That is E-Mail, Web and social networking that drive sales. For portable connectivity this is where the 6" device comes into play, it is big enough to enhance these services over iPhone yet small enough to keep close by. I really have a hard time believing a 10" device would be useful here especially when a laptop can be had to do the same thing.
????????????????????????? ?????????
This brings us to my position and that is that I hope this 6" class device is a realty as I don't see a lot of room for success in 10" class tablet size. The large device becomes harder to handle and gives up the functionality of the clam shel laptop design. For tablets to be successful they need to be easy to handle and keep close by. Since a 10" device here offers nothing over a clam shell netbook I think Apple will have a hard time with sales. So yeah they better have a two pronged approach here other wise they may have a giant flop on their hands.
Comparatively any ways. I could see Apple selling millions of a six inch class device per quarter where as a 10" device will be lucky to hit hundreds of thousands after early adopter stupidity. Especially when portability and functionality are taken into account. It is just that a ten inch tablet actually makes some usages more difficult than on a smaller tablet or even on a netbook.
Conspiracy theories are for people with too much time in their hands.
Good points, but you guys (blokes) are incorrectly using the word "conspiracy." A single company attempting to tweak the rumor mill is not a conspiracy, unless you wish to refer to Apple employees collectively, conspiring to do so, but that's a stretch.
Then you don't know what Touch OS is nor how powerful it is. Frankly there isn't a more feature filled tablet OS out there at the moment.
Where does this crap come from? IPhone OS has a perfectly good file system, how else does it store all those files. It doesn't have a file system browser though, but really how hard would it be to write an app for that.
The problem with people that dis Iphone OS is that they have no imagination when it comes to the evolution of this interface for more capable tablets that iPhone. Give Apple a couple of faster cores, more RAM and that bigger screen and skys the limit.
One way to look at this is what would you be comfortable with as far as seeing features deleted from SL to fit into a tablet foot print? Going with iPhone OS allows them to grow the OS in a controlled way without the need to deal with legacy crap. IPone OS is the low baggage way to an innovative tablet.
Dave
+++
Say you were to JailBreak your iPhone, and access it via a Mac or PC (FTP, SSH, etc). What you would see is a file structure that mimics the Mac OS X file structure.... the apps are stored (are you ready for this?) in the Applications folder. iPhone OS X is just Mac OS X thinned down and customized to support a single-user and a Touch UI. Things not needed for the device are not included to save on overhead, Some Mac OS X frameworks and APIs have been rewritten (extended, actually) to support things like Touch, GPS, accelerometers, Compass, etc.). Many of these have been migrated back into the Mac OS X.
From a programmer's viewpoint you have almost everything necessary to exploit the device hardware and software available. But, because the iPhone is an appliance and must provide, at a minimum, phone capability, Apple has made some things off limits for reasons of performance, battery drain, security, etc.
Each time Apple has added new hardware or software features (GPS, Video Camera, Copy/Paste, etc.) they have expanded the iPhone OS X in a very standard and disciplined way, These implementations are then ported back to the Mac OS X.
I fully expect Apple to announce devices with larger screens, more RAM, faster CPUs and GPUs. When they do, if it, then, makes sense to support multiple, overlapped, resizable windows... the iPhone OS X will be enhanced to support them. Actually, most of this support is already there, It is just not practical to use it on a small screen.
Almost every iPhone app already runs on an Intel Mac (the iphone simulator). The apps that won't run, largely, use features. like GPS. that aren't (yet) supported on the Mac (or Mac OS X).
Who knows, one day we may even see "Turn By Turn Driving Instructions" on that iMac... if it makes sense
It is a mistake to dismiss the iPhone OS X because of its size... Less is More!
I don't think the tablets did well was because they were priced too high, and the screen was too glitchy. Handwriting recognition wasn't that great. The pen thing was more of a gimmick than something to actually use. I do think however, people liked that it was a standard OS and so could use standard programs on the device instead of having to purchase a whole new set of programs with their new computer. The technology just wasn't' there yet. These days, I think we have it (minus handwriting recognition). Even the Palm handwriting (and Newton) had its limitations in speed. And those weren't standard OSs. Both didn't do too well. The phone coupled with the PIM feature however did take off, so that does help prove your point.
I don't think the desktop OS is the asset you think it is, unless a non touch friendly OS and program set is an asset. It may have been alright on previous tablets because they still had a trackpad and a keyboard and could still be operated as an ordinary laptop. Take those components away and the operating system becomes a lot less user friendly.
If they're launching a big iPhone-OSX based pad it must be ready with new software. I guess they might have had time to make a mini version of the iWork suite. But since software is the most important it'd be weird to RELEASE it in September with just tiny iPhone apps on it (assuming it runs iPhone apps) For this device to take off and be competetive agains low end netbooks there really has to be a lot of software available from day one. I don't think it's enough with iWork, internet, iTunes and Cocktail... or heck what do I know.. maybe it IS enough to get the ball rolling, and the developers working.
Comments
I've finally figured out what Apple should call this new category/game changer:
Handy
The surface of a 3"x5" index card has a diagonal length of 5 3/4" and would be about 2 1/2 times the display area of the iPhone-- something like 800x480 pixels (at iPhone resolution).
We're talking screen sizes here. Anything with a 6" diagonal screen is going to be in the neighborhood of 6.5" diagonal in physical size.
And I owned a nokia n800 for 2 years. I know very well how 'pocketable' it was, at only 144mm (5.6" to your index card's 5.8). Short of cargo-style pockets, it wasn't. Not usefully or comfortably.
The resulting minor bump in screen size also wasn't any more useful or comfortable for longer computing sessions.
Conspiracy theories are for people with too much time in their hands. My thinking is watch what Apple does, not what they say. They lie constantly. When it comes to rumors, a good rule of thumb is to go with your gut and intelligence, and disregard most rumors outright.
Is that what you are doing? Honestly your tablet posts have more of a feel of wishful thinking than anything.
When it came to phones it was obvious Apple was going to make one, they sort of had no choice. The tablet situation isn't so clear, so you need to feel the thing out a bit more, and use even more gut. Apple like to lead the way, and from the best information our there, the iPhone came from tablet prototypes and R&D.
Which can be read to say: Apple already makes tablets. That is exactly what iPhone and Touch are.
I just get this feeling it's 100% real, and I've learned to trust such strong feelings in the past. 10.1" is the best size for this device, for many reasons, not the least of which, it clearly distinguishes it from the 3.5" iPhone, which my bet is something Apple will be desperate to do.
I'm not sure how you come up with this stuff, a 10" tablet is just about the worst size possible. Apple won't be desparate at all about distinguishing between this product and iPhone, because (this is obvious to some) iPhone is a CELL PHONE!
They want to make this as clear as possible. This is not simply a bigger iPhone, it's a touch-screen Mac. From a marketing POV this distinction is HUGE.
I seriously doubt Apple would be so bold and stupid as to try to introduce a Touch screen Mac. There is to much history there to telll them it would be a failure. However open up the market to an entirely different product via iPhone OS and they might have a chance at success. In effect an attempt by Apple to deliver your Mac Touch OS would be a total waste when they are so far along with iPhone OS.
In any event it is very pathetic of you to bring up operating systems in this thread after jumping all over somebody else for posting about Snow Leopard. New hardware and new OSes kinda go together.
Dave
You couldn't be more wrong here.
You obviously believe you have cornered the crystal ball market. Are you really Gene Munster in drag?
Why would Apple spend all this time developing a completely separate version of OS-X that is specifically designed to be used with finger actuated, capacitive based, touch-screens and then release a new tablet product that uses that same hardware, but the old "desktop" version of the OS? Why would they confuse things by putting out some kind of hybrid "middle" variant between the two?
Because the touch OS is not enough to dominate the netbook market.
There is nothing missing from the iPhone version of OS-X that would stand in the way of it being an excellent choice for a tablet.
You mean apart from a proper file system, Flash player and a few other inconsequentials of similar irrelevance?
The only mystery to me is how they are going to handle the obvious desire for pen input, or if they will just leave it out.
Trust me, styli are the least of the mysteries you have failed to penetrate.
You have no idea at all do you?
Couldn't have put it better, your'e showing promise.
We're talking screen sizes here. Anything with a 6" diagonal screen is going to be in the neighborhood of 6.5" diagonal in physical size.
You can't make a blanket statement like that because you don't know what the aspect ratio is. For all you know Apple could have a square screen planned.
And I owned a nokia n800 for 2 years. I know very well how 'pocketable' it was, at only 144mm (5.6" to your index card's 5.8). Short of cargo-style pockets, it wasn't. Not usefully or comfortably.
The N800 was also a thick btickish device. If Apple can deliver a device that is 3/8" thick with rounded edges it will be far more pocketable. In any event you are missing one important point, Apple already has pocketable tablets, this isn't to serve that market but rather those that still want portable but with a bigger screen.
The resulting minor bump in screen size also wasn't any more useful or comfortable for longer computing sessions.
That might be the case but we are talking dramatically different screens here. More importantly the device would be targgeting a different kind of user. Such a unit would make an excellent gaming platform for example. Like it or not for many of us it would improve the E-Mail and net experience. Lastly and maybe more importantly it would allow for apps on a very portable platform that doesn't have the iPhones screen limitations.
Dave
The kiwi statement was pure sarcasm. Keep it on topic guys. The guys says "OFF TOPIC" then links to a website with a long article about Snow Leopard, when he knows full well where the Mac OS forum is. Hardly a hissy fit. Just like we can't have one simply discussion about Apple or its products for 5 minutes without someone mentioning the Zune, Microsoft or Steve Ballmer throwing a chair.
i was only kidding
You obviously believe you have cornered the crystal ball market. Are you really Gene Munster in drag?
Because the touch OS is not enough to dominate the netbook market.
Then you don't know what Touch OS is nor how powerful it is. Frankly there isn't a more feature filled tablet OS out there at the moment.
You mean apart from a proper file system, Flash player and a few other inconsequentials of similar irrelevance?
Where does this crap come from? IPhone OS has a perfectly good file system, how else does it store all those files. It doesn't have a file system browser though, but really how hard would it be to write an app for that.
The problem with people that dis Iphone OS is that they have no imagination when it comes to the evolution of this interface for more capable tablets that iPhone. Give Apple a couple of faster cores, more RAM and that bigger screen and skys the limit.
One way to look at this is what would you be comfortable with as far as seeing features deleted from SL to fit into a tablet foot print? Going with iPhone OS allows them to grow the OS in a controlled way without the need to deal with legacy crap. IPone OS is the low baggage way to an innovative tablet.
Trust me, styli are the least of the mysteries you have failed to penetrate.
Couldn't have put it better, your'e showing promise.
Dave
Tablets lying on a table - facing straight up and therefore useless.
Tablets propped up either on some kind of hinged A-frame or plugged into some kind of separate stand with a keyboard in front as another plug-in piece. I.e. a messy laptop not being used as a tablet.
Setting aside the specialist uses such as a doctor sitting on a patient's bed or someone in the field using it (briefly) as clipboard, how is a computer meant to be used in its tablet mode for any length of time that could justify any likely price?
You couldn't be more wrong here.
The whole point of the device is that it's going to redefine what a "regular computer" is. You are making the same argument here that all the old command line geezers did when computers with GUI's started making headlines. It's also the same argument people made when laptops came out and didn't have "proper" keyboards or mice.
There already are and have been for some time tablet computers that use regular "desktop" OS's in both Windows and OS-X varieties. They are not that popular and have a lot of problems associated with their use. A tablet running regular "desktop" OS-X would likely be a failure as well.
Why would Apple spend all this time developing a completely separate version of OS-X that is specifically designed to be used with finger actuated, capacitive based, touch-screens and then release a new tablet product that uses that same hardware, but the old "desktop" version of the OS? Why would they confuse things by putting out some kind of hybrid "middle" variant between the two?
There is nothing missing from the iPhone version of OS-X that would stand in the way of it being an excellent choice for a tablet. The only mystery to me is how they are going to handle the obvious desire for pen input, or if they will just leave it out.
The only thing I can add here is that iPhone OS is the low impact way to a tablet OS. You just have to imagine it being fleshed out a bit.
Dave
I'm not sure how you come up with this stuff, a 10" tablet is just about the worst size possible. Apple won't be desparate at all about distinguishing between this product and iPhone, because (this is obvious to some) iPhone is a CELL PHONE!
You just proved my point. "this is obvious to some"
That's not good enough. It has to be clear to everyone, and not just for marketing reasons (definitely for marketing reasons though), but also for more fundamental reasons too, like why do we need this device in our lives? Why does it exist? What's it design for really etc. It has to be fundamentally different to those small touch screen devices, and not just with regards to size.
Imagination is more important than knowledge - Einstein.
i was only kidding
I'm cool, sunglasses.
We're talking screen sizes here. Anything with a 6" diagonal screen is going to be in the neighborhood of 6.5" diagonal in physical size.
And I owned a nokia n800 for 2 years. I know very well how 'pocketable' it was, at only 144mm (5.6" to your index card's 5.8). Short of cargo-style pockets, it wasn't. Not usefully or comfortably.
The resulting minor bump in screen size also wasn't any more useful or comfortable for longer computing sessions.
1) Who says 6" is the actual screen size. It's a rumor! People round these numbers to the nearest whole number! For example, the actual diagonal measure of my iMac 17" , iMac 24" and my 23" studio display are slightly less than the published sizes (approx 1/4 inch less)
2) The device could be designed so that the screen occupies the entire surface (less a 1/16 bezel)
3) the actual dimension of a 3"x5" index card is 3.00"x5.00", not the 5.8 you claim.
4) the diagonal measure of a 3"x5:" index card is 5 7/8".
So, the surface on a 3"x5" index card would contain a 5 5/8" display with a 1/16 inch bezel). A stack of about 30-40 index cards is about as thick as as iphone.
And, this pack of cards easily fits into a T-shirt, dress shirt or jeans pocket. AIR, it is smaller than a pack of long-size cigarettes (which those pockets were designed to hold).
The images of potential tablet designs that I see seem to fall into two categories.
Tablets lying on a table - facing straight up and therefore useless.
Tablets propped up either on some kind of hinged A-frame or plugged into some kind of separate stand with a keyboard in front as another plug-in piece. I.e. a messy laptop not being used as a tablet.
Setting aside the specialist uses such as a doctor sitting on a patient's bed or someone in the field using it (briefly) as clipboard, how is a computer meant to be used in its tablet mode for any length of time that could justify any likely price?
Which is exactly why I have been clear about this over and over again. This device will have "a rest" built right into the back of it. This rest could be popped in FLUSH, staying out of site, or popped out, allowing you to rest said tablet at around 20º (or less) on any flat surface. Notice I'm not referring to it as a stand, because it's not exactly what you might call a stand. Pop in the rest when fiddling with the tablet on the bus or walking, and then when at a desk or table etc. you'd pop out this rest so you could browse your files, the web, watch videos or do some typing.
As always, if you do serious tying for your job there's always laptops, Apple also sells those.
We're talking screen sizes here. Anything with a 6" diagonal screen is going to be in the neighborhood of 6.5" diagonal in physical size.
And I owned a nokia n800 for 2 years. I know very well how 'pocketable' it was, at only 144mm (5.6" to your index card's 5.8). Short of cargo-style pockets, it wasn't. Not usefully or comfortably.
The resulting minor bump in screen size also wasn't any more useful or comfortable for longer computing sessions.
did that Nokia have a device with the entire front face as the display? I'm assuming Apple's 6 inch screened device might actually be smaller.
You couldn't be more wrong here.
The whole point of the device is that it's going to redefine what a "regular computer" is. You are making the same argument here that all the old command line geezers did when computers with GUI's started making headlines. It's also the same argument people made when laptops came out and didn't have "proper" keyboards or mice.
There already are and have been for some time tablet computers that use regular "desktop" OS's in both Windows and OS-X varieties. They are not that popular and have a lot of problems associated with their use. A tablet running regular "desktop" OS-X would likely be a failure as well.
Why would Apple spend all this time developing a completely separate version of OS-X that is specifically designed to be used with finger actuated, capacitive based, touch-screens and then release a new tablet product that uses that same hardware, but the old "desktop" version of the OS? Why would they confuse things by putting out some kind of hybrid "middle" variant between the two?
There is nothing missing from the iPhone version of OS-X that would stand in the way of it being an excellent choice for a tablet. The only mystery to me is how they are going to handle the obvious desire for pen input, or if they will just leave it out.
I couldn't be more wrong? Then please prove me more wrong with evidence. (Personally, I don't like that tone you have with me. I may disagree with you a lot, but at least I will respect you and your opinions. I won't ever tell you that you are wrong, no matter how much I disagree with you, unless you say something contrary to well known facts.)
Anyhow, I think the mouse is going to go away soon. With multi touch, fingers directly working with the screen is definitely the way to go. We could do so much more, especially in the arts, if we used our hands ON the screen instead of manipulating a mouse.
As for a keyboard, I really don't see that going away soon. Speech to type software is good and all, but we are yet to get to the "Computer, cross reference Mozart's works with Hayden's works and find similarities" star trek stuff. I think that's the way it will go, but we aren't there yet. I can manipulate the computer using my voice some what, but it never does exactly what I tell it to do, and if there is background noise it gets very confused very quickly. Keyboards are here to stay for a while. Mice I think are on the way out.
By the way, the iPhone/iPod touch still have a keyboard technically. That part isn't revolutionary (heck, the old Newtons had on screen keyboards, and the Palms, and the Windows Mobiles, and etc...) but my personal preference would to NOT have to type on a pure touch screen keyboard. I personally like the tactile feel of a keyboard. Others do not. I would love to ditch the mouse, other's feel very comfortable with it. Personal preference.
I don't think the tablets did well was because they were priced too high, and the screen was too glitchy. Handwriting recognition wasn't that great. The pen thing was more of a gimmick than something to actually use. I do think however, people liked that it was a standard OS and so could use standard programs on the device instead of having to purchase a whole new set of programs with their new computer. The technology just wasn't' there yet. These days, I think we have it (minus handwriting recognition). Even the Palm handwriting (and Newton) had its limitations in speed. And those weren't standard OSs. Both didn't do too well. The phone coupled with the PIM feature however did take off, so that does help prove your point.
I just don't think it would be smart to release a tablet that uses the iPhone OS. Its capable, but we also have seen how limited the OS is by Apple's doing. My argument was more about that fact than about innovation. I want to see something that can use standard OS X programs, just like a netbook uses a standard OS and can run standard programs too. I feel that if Apple doesn't do this, although there will be a lot of sales due to initial Gotta-Have-Everything-Apple mentality from its die hard fans, it will quickly die out if it doesn't have OS X.
But I am not wrong, I just differ in opinion. Thank you.
The images of potential tablet designs that I see seem to fall into two categories.
Tablets lying on a table - facing straight up and therefore useless.
Well obviously tablets can lay on their backs. The question is why do you consider that position to be useless? Granted an LCD in that position would be but there are alternative display choices that would make viewing in that orientation possible.
In such a position it would be like reading a paper or magazine on the morning coffe table. Like the paper you might pick it up to parse something in detail after finishing breakfast but it would hardly be useless. As long as the screen can offfer similar legibility being on it's back is not a problem.
Tablets propped up either on some kind of hinged A-frame or plugged into some kind of separate stand with a keyboard in front as another plug-in piece. I.e. a messy laptop not being used as a tablet.
Honestly I haven't seen many indications that that is an approach people would take. I will be the first to suggest that for many people they will be better off with a laptop. It all comes down to the idea that a tablet won't make it if people think of it as a laptop replacement. Tablets have to be seen as a new approach to personal computing and the delivery of media.
Setting aside the specialist uses such as a doctor sitting on a patient's bed or someone in the field using it (briefly) as clipboard, how is a computer meant to be used in its tablet mode for any length of time that could justify any likely price?
First let me say that you must have a very limited view of what the work world is like if you think that Doctors are the only people that work away from a desk. There are numerous applications where a tablet would allow for transient use in the "field". Not everybodies computer needs involve long sessions in front of a computer screen.
Then we have media. Such a device would be ideal for subscriptions to magazines and newspapers or for starting the morning with a free service like Yahoo. Of course other services like Video and music are a possibility.
In the end though I think it will be the Internet standbys that drive adoption. That is E-Mail, Web and social networking that drive sales. For portable connectivity this is where the 6" device comes into play, it is big enough to enhance these services over iPhone yet small enough to keep close by. I really have a hard time believing a 10" device would be useful here especially when a laptop can be had to do the same thing.
????????????????????????? ?????????
This brings us to my position and that is that I hope this 6" class device is a realty as I don't see a lot of room for success in 10" class tablet size. The large device becomes harder to handle and gives up the functionality of the clam shel laptop design. For tablets to be successful they need to be easy to handle and keep close by. Since a 10" device here offers nothing over a clam shell netbook I think Apple will have a hard time with sales. So yeah they better have a two pronged approach here other wise they may have a giant flop on their hands.
Comparatively any ways. I could see Apple selling millions of a six inch class device per quarter where as a 10" device will be lucky to hit hundreds of thousands after early adopter stupidity. Especially when portability and functionality are taken into account. It is just that a ten inch tablet actually makes some usages more difficult than on a smaller tablet or even on a netbook.
Dave
Conspiracy theories are for people with too much time in their hands.
Good points, but you guys (blokes) are incorrectly using the word "conspiracy." A single company attempting to tweak the rumor mill is not a conspiracy, unless you wish to refer to Apple employees collectively, conspiring to do so, but that's a stretch.
Then you don't know what Touch OS is nor how powerful it is. Frankly there isn't a more feature filled tablet OS out there at the moment.
Where does this crap come from? IPhone OS has a perfectly good file system, how else does it store all those files. It doesn't have a file system browser though, but really how hard would it be to write an app for that.
The problem with people that dis Iphone OS is that they have no imagination when it comes to the evolution of this interface for more capable tablets that iPhone. Give Apple a couple of faster cores, more RAM and that bigger screen and skys the limit.
One way to look at this is what would you be comfortable with as far as seeing features deleted from SL to fit into a tablet foot print? Going with iPhone OS allows them to grow the OS in a controlled way without the need to deal with legacy crap. IPone OS is the low baggage way to an innovative tablet.
Dave
+++
Say you were to JailBreak your iPhone, and access it via a Mac or PC (FTP, SSH, etc). What you would see is a file structure that mimics the Mac OS X file structure.... the apps are stored (are you ready for this?) in the Applications folder. iPhone OS X is just Mac OS X thinned down and customized to support a single-user and a Touch UI. Things not needed for the device are not included to save on overhead, Some Mac OS X frameworks and APIs have been rewritten (extended, actually) to support things like Touch, GPS, accelerometers, Compass, etc.). Many of these have been migrated back into the Mac OS X.
From a programmer's viewpoint you have almost everything necessary to exploit the device hardware and software available. But, because the iPhone is an appliance and must provide, at a minimum, phone capability, Apple has made some things off limits for reasons of performance, battery drain, security, etc.
Each time Apple has added new hardware or software features (GPS, Video Camera, Copy/Paste, etc.) they have expanded the iPhone OS X in a very standard and disciplined way, These implementations are then ported back to the Mac OS X.
I fully expect Apple to announce devices with larger screens, more RAM, faster CPUs and GPUs. When they do, if it, then, makes sense to support multiple, overlapped, resizable windows... the iPhone OS X will be enhanced to support them. Actually, most of this support is already there, It is just not practical to use it on a small screen.
Almost every iPhone app already runs on an Intel Mac (the iphone simulator). The apps that won't run, largely, use features. like GPS. that aren't (yet) supported on the Mac (or Mac OS X).
Who knows, one day we may even see "Turn By Turn Driving Instructions" on that iMac... if it makes sense
It is a mistake to dismiss the iPhone OS X because of its size... Less is More!
Dick
I don't think the tablets did well was because they were priced too high, and the screen was too glitchy. Handwriting recognition wasn't that great. The pen thing was more of a gimmick than something to actually use. I do think however, people liked that it was a standard OS and so could use standard programs on the device instead of having to purchase a whole new set of programs with their new computer. The technology just wasn't' there yet. These days, I think we have it (minus handwriting recognition). Even the Palm handwriting (and Newton) had its limitations in speed. And those weren't standard OSs. Both didn't do too well. The phone coupled with the PIM feature however did take off, so that does help prove your point.
I don't think the desktop OS is the asset you think it is, unless a non touch friendly OS and program set is an asset. It may have been alright on previous tablets because they still had a trackpad and a keyboard and could still be operated as an ordinary laptop. Take those components away and the operating system becomes a lot less user friendly.