Ok you're all wrong. Yes Steve hates the Stylus as sole input device but the new hybrid device will let you choose your finger or a stylus but the big innovation will be a cross platform Newtonian tablet type device that will allow you to run either Snow Leopard natively and also Windows seamlessly. A bilingual tablet. Microsoft will fall.
You just proved my point. "this is obvious to some"
Thanks for pointing out that this didn't come through clearly. I should have been more explicit instead of sugar coating it. The phrase should have been "this is obvious to the intelligent".
Quote:
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?
if you can't see that a 6" or 10" devices is different from an iPhone the do you really belong in an Apple store? Seriously I don't think you think about what you are saying.
As to marketing and the catch as to why we need the device in our lives you have a point. One thing that I constantly hear in this thread is that the device needs to run Mac OS and Powerpoint / office like applications, this is a huge conceptual disconnect if you ask me. No matter the size a tablet isn't going to cut it as a laptop replacement. So what will the draw be.
For a smaller tablet it will do fine as an enhanced iPod Touch. For the rumored 10" device I actually don't see a good way to market the device right now. As a Mac OS laptop replacement it is dead in the water, at best it might fly as an Apple TV / iPod Touch hybrid.
So while you are right that that 10" device needs a marketing plan and a reason for us to need it you are wrong to think Mac OS will effectively drive sales. It won't based on past history and likely would lead to high dissatisfaction due to poorly running software and people trying to use it as a laptop replacement.
So what will be the draw. Well an evolved iPhone OS will be a big help here as you need to make operation of the device as fluid as possible. Beyond that I believe the answer is services. Since the platform isn't going to cut it for document production it needs to consume media and data real well.
Dave
Quote:
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.
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'm liking your posts in this thread, they tend to be very informative. It seems like many people think "big iphone" when they think of a tablet running iPhone OS, which then leads to the thought "that would suck". Which is true, but as you explained it doesn't have to be that at all. The iPhone and the iPod touch just happen to be the only devices running iPhone OS at the moment, and a lot of the limitations placed on those devices are due to hardware concerns. Hardware concerns that a tablet may not have.
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.
I think what will be the determining factor for the OS is whether the device is designed to be an appliance (like the iPhone) or a hybrid, i.e. a mobile device with phone capability.
If it were the latter, Apple could open up iPhone OS X to support things like multitasking on that particular device type. (You can do multitasking, today. Apple just won't approve the app for app store distribution).
I have no knowledge of this, but I suspect that Snow Leopard (and most Apple apps) already run on ARM as well as Intel.
So the choice, for Apple, is which OS better meets the needs of the tablet device and its projected users.
Maybe it makes sense to use iPhone OS X on tablets smaller than, say, 7", and Mac OSX on larger screens.
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.
Thanks again for the support. I'm not sure why people have such a limited view of iPhone OS, but to repeat it is very powerful and feature filled.
Quote:
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.
Yep, it is there except for what Apple consciously limits. There is no reason why Apple can't selectivly address those limits for other devices.
What people need to realize is that iPhone OS is as close as the world has come to running UNIX on a cell Phone. It isn't quite UNIX due to some missing elements but no other embedded production OS has come closer.
Quote:
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.
Well what can be ported back. What people need to realize though is that the kernels are very similar. Apple has all but stated to that many improvements made to the kernel to enhance performance on iPhone are making their way back to Snow Leopard. So next month when everybody is all excited about Snow Leopard I do hope they thank the iPhone team.
In any event folks there is a lot of cross polination going on here. Apple has really benefitted from the iPhone effort.
Quote:
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.
This stuff will come I'm sure. Memory is a big issue especially on older iPhones. The only thing I wonder about is the overlapping windows/apps. We are still talking small screens here and I wonder if Apple might do a dock/expose implementation that allows for on app on screen at a time with the dock being the switch to pop up other apps/screens. This would allow for useful multitasking even on iPhone sized screens.
Quote:
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).
The catch is they are built as Intel binaries for debug and are not shipped with that code.
Quote:
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
Less is more! In this case less leads to more opportunities.
Some of the posts here do amaze me though. It is like people are expecting their iPhones to look and behave the same as they do today five years from now. The only way that will happen is if you never update. Apple has actually been moving iPhone OS ahead at a rapid rate.
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.
So? The Tablet is being touted as a netbook / laptop alternative, ergo, it needs features more akin to a full blown OS than a stripped down subset.
Quote:
Where does this crap come from?
There may be very little difference between what emerges from your anus and your mouth (1), hence your understandable confusion, but please consider that not everyone necessarily suffers from your own affliction, so it would bode you well in life not to mistake other peoples considered opinions for excrement, equivalent though your own may be.
(1) that includes what you type with your fingers, since you obviously need things to be spelt out (vis a vis file system)
Quote:
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.
I know it has a file system, but the user is kept from it, which was my point. While everyone these days seems all gooey eyed over flash memory, it is still not affordable in useful quantities, so HD mass storage is a must. So as well as the file system interface you need the HD support stuff and... in half the time it would take Apple to write 1.5 of these necessary add-ons, they could have just written a touch interface for OSX.
Quote:
The problem with people that dis Iphone OS
You need a 'the' between 'dis' and 'Iphone'.
Quote:
is that they have no imagination when it comes to the evolution of this interface for more capable tablets that iPhone.
I think you meant 'than the iPhone'. The problem with people who think the touch OS is enough to take on the full spectrum of possible tablet applications in the real world, is that they are so preoccupied trying to extract their tongue from their iPhones dock connector, they haven't had time to give the matter much thought.
Quote:
Going with iPhone OS allows them to grow the OS in a controlled way without the need to deal with legacy crap.
OSX is legacy crap?
You obviously don't have any computational needs beyond what's capable on an iPhone.
Quote:
IPone OS is the low baggage way to an innovative tablet.
What in an Ipone?
Full OSX with a touch interface would provide a more flexible and useful device with less expenditure of unnecessary effort on Apple's part, than the reinventing of the wheel bloating the touch OS would require.
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.
I really don't think so. A built in "rest" or whatever you choose to call it goes against Apple's design mantra. If anything, I wager they'd include/sell an add on. Anyway, other rumors have these things being very thin and light and although I dislike speculation, if true, it would seem that holding these things might not be the pain that it would initially appear.
I really don't think so. A built in "rest" or whatever you choose to call it goes against Apple's design mantra. If anything, I wager they'd include/sell an add on. Anyway, other rumors have these things being very thin and light and although I dislike speculation, if true, it would seem that holding these things might not be the pain that it would initially appear.
Like a clip on an iPod eh? Never happen. It happened cause it made sense where it was needed, just as this rest would make sense. You'll need both hands free to do some proper typing on this device, so you can place the tablet on the desk and pop out the rest.
No doubt Apple would do it in the most aesthetically pleasing manner too, with durable, hidden hinges and seamless lines. The very design I said it could be first is like those "touch bins". The ones with a divot the size and shape of the iPhone's home button, you press it and the rest pops out, and you can press it back in to close it. It was stretch across most of the width of the device, be around an 1 1/4" tall also, and when pushed in would be practically invisible, and be of the same material as the rear of the tablet, likely aluminum. I couldn't see a more Apple way to do this. This tablet needs to be practical to gain global adoption. If Apple expects to create a whole new category here, and I suspect they do, this thing needs to be practical, and to be that it needs a stand/rest of some sort. And what's more practical, and cool, then one you cannot possibly forget, that has a mechanically sweet action to it, and that's basically hidden when in the closed position. If you think about this predicament enough you'll find I'm right on this one. At least if I'm not totally right you can see I'm looking at the real world use of this tablet/slate computer in a logical manner.
you create rumors and then monitor the internet for what people say about it to see the interest level and opinion. Technorati and others have been doing it for years.
OMG then they could be trying to sell aliens in area 51?
Hmmm... I've been thinking about this 10" screen thing.
Do any of you know how thick the actual screen (display) unit is on a MacBook Air, or iPhone for that matter? I imagine they're different, but it has me speculating wildly that...
This new tablet could have a double-screen. OK, don't laugh. It could basically be fold-out, so that when a traditional computer interface is desired, screen #2 folds out from the back and is propped up by some sort of latch. And screen #1 (on your lap) is the keyboard.
I realize there are just a FEW problems with this, but it'd be damned cool, and might solve a few problems w/ practical use that we've been discussing.
You responded to my post stating that most iPhone apps already run on Intel through the simulator. You said:
"The catch is they are built as Intel binaries for debug and are not shipped with that code."
That is true... but got me thinking:
Apple could allow (additional) Intel binaries of iPhone apps to be distro'd through the app store to run on the simulator (Maybe Fat Binaries and Thin Installs)... no big deal!
Except, now many of those iPhone developers have a whole new sales territory: Intel Macs...
...hmmmm Or an Intel Tablet.
Then there is this thing that has been swirling around my subconscious, percolating up, every now-and-again, to bother me.
Snow Leopard is reported to have an optional install of Rosetta:
Hmmm... I've been thinking about this 10" screen thing.
Do any of you know how thick the actual screen (display) unit is on a MacBook Air, or iPhone for that matter? I imagine they're different, but it has me speculating wildly that...
This new tablet could have a double-screen. OK, don't laugh. It could basically be fold-out, so that when a traditional computer interface is desired, screen #2 folds out from the back and is propped up by some sort of latch. And screen #1 (on your lap) is the keyboard.
I realize there are just a FEW problems with this, but it'd be damned cool, and might solve a few problems w/ practical use that we've been discussing.
To argue why I think you are missing the point here. Nintendo warned that they would lose sales of the DS to the iPod touch next quarter. Why touch the other screen when you can touch the actual data you want to interact with. Having two screens is like avoiding what you really want to do, touch the actual stuff you want to interact with. It's like having a mouse to move another mouse. Wouldn't you just rather grab the mouse you want to move. Also there's the additional aspect of cost, weight, thickness. Having one screen reduces all these, probably greatly.
Like a clip on an iPod eh? Never happen. It happened cause it made sense where it was needed, just as this rest would make sense. You'll need both hands free to do some proper typing on this device, so you can place the tablet on the desk and pop out the rest.
No doubt Apple would do it in the most aesthetically pleasing manner too, with durable, hidden hinges and seamless lines. The very design I said it could be first is like those "touch bins". The ones with a divot the size and shape of the iPhone's home button, you press it and the rest pops out, and you can press it back in to close it. It was stretch across most of the width of the device, be around an 1 1/4" tall also, and when pushed in would be practically invisible, and be of the same material as the rear of the tablet, likely aluminum. I couldn't see a more Apple way to do this. This tablet needs to be practical to gain global adoption. If Apple expects to create a whole new category here, and I suspect they do, this thing needs to be practical, and to be that it needs a stand/rest of some sort. And what's more practical, and cool, then one you cannot possibly forget, that has a mechanically sweet action to it, and that's basically hidden when in the closed position. If you think about this predicament enough you'll find I'm right on this one. At least if I'm not totally right you can see I'm looking at the real world use of this tablet/slate computer in a logical manner.
$10 it's a add on Anyway with luck we'll find out in September.
Will Snow Leopard/Rosetta support running apps compiled for the PPC CPU?
Yeah, it's a last resort. If you have only Intel Mac(s), but desperately need that one app that hasn't been ported over to the Intel platform. I think you are confusing two different things. It's "now" the OS itself that won't run on Power PC computers, not Power PC made apps that won't run on a Snow Leopard Intel Mac. It's like a riddle LOL.
there is no sin to compare with missing Christmas and fall sales with a new consumer electronics product with the potential of the tablet.. they must present it in September or they have missed an entire year of free press.. admittedly, there is no competition for what is coming - but still, the fall season is not to be missed. Apple is a CE company. A delay is for a very very important reason .. that is what should be speculated on and not the delivery itself.. what could delay the intro specifically.. it has to be the processor ... screens, hardware package.. etc etc are all in possible at any time..
Totally agree. Holiday sales account for 75% of big ticket items, especially electronics. Back to school is not even close. If Apple can't deliver the tablet by this holiday season, they will lose a year's jump on the competition, and they know this.
Having two screens is like avoiding what you really want to do, touch the actual stuff you want to interact with. It's like having a mouse to move another mouse. Wouldn't you just rather grab the mouse you want to move.
Sure, unless the thing I want to interact with is a keyboard. I'm actually in full support of a bluetooth external board, but for those who don't want to futz with that, they'll rely on the onscreen keyboard - which sounds sketchy to me in context of a 10" display. That's been one of the bigger issues with this tablet concept, to me -- if it's a full-on computing device that can be used for more than touch-driven apps, it needs a keyboard, and I can't figure out how that's going to be implemented in a usable fashion.
Of course you're right on the cost factor, but I don't know how to break out the cost of a second display, so I'm not sure how much that jacks up the price. As for weight... eh, I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem like that would be too much bother. How thin are these things anyway, these days?
So? The Tablet is being touted as a netbook / laptop alternative, ergo, it needs features more akin to a full blown OS than a stripped down subset.
Who has said anything about a laptop alternative? If I were Apple my goal would be to supplement your computer, not replace it. Netbooks, despite running a full blown desktop OS do not replace laptops due to their hardware restrictions. A tablet would have similar hardware restrictions and even could perform any task a netbook is capable of while running iPhone OS. In fact it could perform the same tasks quicker because the operating system was tailored to the devices restraints.
Quote:
I know it has a file system, but the user is kept from it, which was my point. While everyone these days seems all gooey eyed over flash memory, it is still not affordable in useful quantities, so HD mass storage is a must. So as well as the file system interface you need the HD support stuff and... in half the time it would take Apple to write 1.5 of these necessary add-ons, they could have just written a touch interface for OSX.
But the third party applications still wouldn't have a touch interface. Also, do you really think that writing a finder application for iPhone OS would take as much time as making a touch interface for OSX? Although, I don't believe they will even make a finder app for iPhone OS. Like it or not, I think the file system will remain behind the scenes with applications "knowing" where to find files of a certain type. Visible file systems will probably die a slow and painfull death on all platforms, with tags taking their place.
Quote:
I think you meant 'than the iPhone'. The problem with people who think the touch OS is enough to take on the full spectrum of possible tablet applications in the real world, is that they are so preoccupied trying to extract their tongue from their iPhones dock connector, they haven't had time to give the matter much thought.
On the contrary. I used to believe that a tablet had to run OSX, then I put some thought into it and it became obvious that iPhone OS would be the better choice.
Quote:
Full OSX with a touch interface would provide a more flexible and useful device with less expenditure of unnecessary effort on Apple's part, than the reinventing of the wheel bloating the touch OS would require.
Sadly you haven't justified that in any way shape or form. Apple is about user experience, what you describe just doen't bring that positive experience. Nor would I believe that it would save any effort. Sorry if you feel ganged up on, it just seems like a lot of people disagree with you. Sometimes that's a hint.
Comments
You just proved my point. "this is obvious to some"
Thanks for pointing out that this didn't come through clearly. I should have been more explicit instead of sugar coating it. The phrase should have been "this is obvious to the intelligent".
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?
if you can't see that a 6" or 10" devices is different from an iPhone the do you really belong in an Apple store? Seriously I don't think you think about what you are saying.
As to marketing and the catch as to why we need the device in our lives you have a point. One thing that I constantly hear in this thread is that the device needs to run Mac OS and Powerpoint / office like applications, this is a huge conceptual disconnect if you ask me. No matter the size a tablet isn't going to cut it as a laptop replacement. So what will the draw be.
For a smaller tablet it will do fine as an enhanced iPod Touch. For the rumored 10" device I actually don't see a good way to market the device right now. As a Mac OS laptop replacement it is dead in the water, at best it might fly as an Apple TV / iPod Touch hybrid.
So while you are right that that 10" device needs a marketing plan and a reason for us to need it you are wrong to think Mac OS will effectively drive sales. It won't based on past history and likely would lead to high dissatisfaction due to poorly running software and people trying to use it as a laptop replacement.
So what will be the draw. Well an evolved iPhone OS will be a big help here as you need to make operation of the device as fluid as possible. Beyond that I believe the answer is services. Since the platform isn't going to cut it for document production it needs to consume media and data real well.
Dave
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.
+++
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'm liking your posts in this thread, they tend to be very informative. It seems like many people think "big iphone" when they think of a tablet running iPhone OS, which then leads to the thought "that would suck". Which is true, but as you explained it doesn't have to be that at all. The iPhone and the iPod touch just happen to be the only devices running iPhone OS at the moment, and a lot of the limitations placed on those devices are due to hardware concerns. Hardware concerns that a tablet may not have.
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.
I think what will be the determining factor for the OS is whether the device is designed to be an appliance (like the iPhone) or a hybrid, i.e. a mobile device with phone capability.
If it were the latter, Apple could open up iPhone OS X to support things like multitasking on that particular device type. (You can do multitasking, today. Apple just won't approve the app for app store distribution).
I have no knowledge of this, but I suspect that Snow Leopard (and most Apple apps) already run on ARM as well as Intel.
So the choice, for Apple, is which OS better meets the needs of the tablet device and its projected users.
Maybe it makes sense to use iPhone OS X on tablets smaller than, say, 7", and Mac OSX on larger screens.
+++
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.
Thanks again for the support. I'm not sure why people have such a limited view of iPhone OS, but to repeat it is very powerful and feature filled.
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.
Yep, it is there except for what Apple consciously limits. There is no reason why Apple can't selectivly address those limits for other devices.
What people need to realize is that iPhone OS is as close as the world has come to running UNIX on a cell Phone. It isn't quite UNIX due to some missing elements but no other embedded production OS has come closer.
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.
Well what can be ported back. What people need to realize though is that the kernels are very similar. Apple has all but stated to that many improvements made to the kernel to enhance performance on iPhone are making their way back to Snow Leopard. So next month when everybody is all excited about Snow Leopard I do hope they thank the iPhone team.
In any event folks there is a lot of cross polination going on here. Apple has really benefitted from the iPhone effort.
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.
This stuff will come I'm sure. Memory is a big issue especially on older iPhones. The only thing I wonder about is the overlapping windows/apps. We are still talking small screens here and I wonder if Apple might do a dock/expose implementation that allows for on app on screen at a time with the dock being the switch to pop up other apps/screens. This would allow for useful multitasking even on iPhone sized screens.
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).
The catch is they are built as Intel binaries for debug and are not shipped with that code.
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
Less is more! In this case less leads to more opportunities.
Some of the posts here do amaze me though. It is like people are expecting their iPhones to look and behave the same as they do today five years from now. The only way that will happen is if you never update. Apple has actually been moving iPhone OS ahead at a rapid rate.
Dave
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.
So? The Tablet is being touted as a netbook / laptop alternative, ergo, it needs features more akin to a full blown OS than a stripped down subset.
Where does this crap come from?
There may be very little difference between what emerges from your anus and your mouth (1), hence your understandable confusion, but please consider that not everyone necessarily suffers from your own affliction, so it would bode you well in life not to mistake other peoples considered opinions for excrement, equivalent though your own may be.
(1) that includes what you type with your fingers, since you obviously need things to be spelt out (vis a vis file system)
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.
I know it has a file system, but the user is kept from it, which was my point. While everyone these days seems all gooey eyed over flash memory, it is still not affordable in useful quantities, so HD mass storage is a must. So as well as the file system interface you need the HD support stuff and... in half the time it would take Apple to write 1.5 of these necessary add-ons, they could have just written a touch interface for OSX.
The problem with people that dis Iphone OS
You need a 'the' between 'dis' and 'Iphone'.
is that they have no imagination when it comes to the evolution of this interface for more capable tablets that iPhone.
I think you meant 'than the iPhone'. The problem with people who think the touch OS is enough to take on the full spectrum of possible tablet applications in the real world, is that they are so preoccupied trying to extract their tongue from their iPhones dock connector, they haven't had time to give the matter much thought.
Going with iPhone OS allows them to grow the OS in a controlled way without the need to deal with legacy crap.
OSX is legacy crap?
You obviously don't have any computational needs beyond what's capable on an iPhone.
IPone OS is the low baggage way to an innovative tablet.
What in an Ipone?
Full OSX with a touch interface would provide a more flexible and useful device with less expenditure of unnecessary effort on Apple's part, than the reinventing of the wheel bloating the touch OS would require.
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.
I really don't think so. A built in "rest" or whatever you choose to call it goes against Apple's design mantra. If anything, I wager they'd include/sell an add on. Anyway, other rumors have these things being very thin and light and although I dislike speculation, if true, it would seem that holding these things might not be the pain that it would initially appear.
I really don't think so. A built in "rest" or whatever you choose to call it goes against Apple's design mantra. If anything, I wager they'd include/sell an add on. Anyway, other rumors have these things being very thin and light and although I dislike speculation, if true, it would seem that holding these things might not be the pain that it would initially appear.
Like a clip on an iPod eh? Never happen. It happened cause it made sense where it was needed, just as this rest would make sense. You'll need both hands free to do some proper typing on this device, so you can place the tablet on the desk and pop out the rest.
No doubt Apple would do it in the most aesthetically pleasing manner too, with durable, hidden hinges and seamless lines. The very design I said it could be first is like those "touch bins". The ones with a divot the size and shape of the iPhone's home button, you press it and the rest pops out, and you can press it back in to close it. It was stretch across most of the width of the device, be around an 1 1/4" tall also, and when pushed in would be practically invisible, and be of the same material as the rear of the tablet, likely aluminum. I couldn't see a more Apple way to do this. This tablet needs to be practical to gain global adoption. If Apple expects to create a whole new category here, and I suspect they do, this thing needs to be practical, and to be that it needs a stand/rest of some sort. And what's more practical, and cool, then one you cannot possibly forget, that has a mechanically sweet action to it, and that's basically hidden when in the closed position. If you think about this predicament enough you'll find I'm right on this one. At least if I'm not totally right you can see I'm looking at the real world use of this tablet/slate computer in a logical manner.
it's part of modern marketing
you create rumors and then monitor the internet for what people say about it to see the interest level and opinion. Technorati and others have been doing it for years.
OMG then they could be trying to sell aliens in area 51?
Do any of you know how thick the actual screen (display) unit is on a MacBook Air, or iPhone for that matter? I imagine they're different, but it has me speculating wildly that...
This new tablet could have a double-screen. OK, don't laugh. It could basically be fold-out, so that when a traditional computer interface is desired, screen #2 folds out from the back and is propped up by some sort of latch. And screen #1 (on your lap) is the keyboard.
I realize there are just a FEW problems with this, but it'd be damned cool, and might solve a few problems w/ practical use that we've been discussing.
You responded to my post stating that most iPhone apps already run on Intel through the simulator. You said:
"The catch is they are built as Intel binaries for debug and are not shipped with that code."
That is true... but got me thinking:
Apple could allow (additional) Intel binaries of iPhone apps to be distro'd through the app store to run on the simulator (Maybe Fat Binaries and Thin Installs)... no big deal!
Except, now many of those iPhone developers have a whole new sales territory: Intel Macs...
...hmmmm Or an Intel Tablet.
Then there is this thing that has been swirling around my subconscious, percolating up, every now-and-again, to bother me.
Snow Leopard is reported to have an optional install of Rosetta:
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/08/17/mac-2...-snow-leopard/
If Snow Leopard runs on Intel Only, why does it need Rosetta?
Will Snow Leopard/Rosetta support running apps compiled for the PPC CPU?
Are there any other non-Intel CPUs supported by Snow Leopard/Rosetta/
Which ones?
Why?
...hmmm...
Hmmm... I've been thinking about this 10" screen thing.
Do any of you know how thick the actual screen (display) unit is on a MacBook Air, or iPhone for that matter? I imagine they're different, but it has me speculating wildly that...
This new tablet could have a double-screen. OK, don't laugh. It could basically be fold-out, so that when a traditional computer interface is desired, screen #2 folds out from the back and is propped up by some sort of latch. And screen #1 (on your lap) is the keyboard.
I realize there are just a FEW problems with this, but it'd be damned cool, and might solve a few problems w/ practical use that we've been discussing.
To argue why I think you are missing the point here. Nintendo warned that they would lose sales of the DS to the iPod touch next quarter. Why touch the other screen when you can touch the actual data you want to interact with. Having two screens is like avoiding what you really want to do, touch the actual stuff you want to interact with. It's like having a mouse to move another mouse. Wouldn't you just rather grab the mouse you want to move. Also there's the additional aspect of cost, weight, thickness. Having one screen reduces all these, probably greatly.
Like a clip on an iPod eh? Never happen. It happened cause it made sense where it was needed, just as this rest would make sense. You'll need both hands free to do some proper typing on this device, so you can place the tablet on the desk and pop out the rest.
No doubt Apple would do it in the most aesthetically pleasing manner too, with durable, hidden hinges and seamless lines. The very design I said it could be first is like those "touch bins". The ones with a divot the size and shape of the iPhone's home button, you press it and the rest pops out, and you can press it back in to close it. It was stretch across most of the width of the device, be around an 1 1/4" tall also, and when pushed in would be practically invisible, and be of the same material as the rear of the tablet, likely aluminum. I couldn't see a more Apple way to do this. This tablet needs to be practical to gain global adoption. If Apple expects to create a whole new category here, and I suspect they do, this thing needs to be practical, and to be that it needs a stand/rest of some sort. And what's more practical, and cool, then one you cannot possibly forget, that has a mechanically sweet action to it, and that's basically hidden when in the closed position. If you think about this predicament enough you'll find I'm right on this one. At least if I'm not totally right you can see I'm looking at the real world use of this tablet/slate computer in a logical manner.
$10 it's a add on
Will Snow Leopard/Rosetta support running apps compiled for the PPC CPU?
Yeah, it's a last resort. If you have only Intel Mac(s), but desperately need that one app that hasn't been ported over to the Intel platform. I think you are confusing two different things. It's "now" the OS itself that won't run on Power PC computers, not Power PC made apps that won't run on a Snow Leopard Intel Mac. It's like a riddle LOL.
\\\\
there is no sin to compare with missing Christmas and fall sales with a new consumer electronics product with the potential of the tablet.. they must present it in September or they have missed an entire year of free press.. admittedly, there is no competition for what is coming - but still, the fall season is not to be missed. Apple is a CE company. A delay is for a very very important reason .. that is what should be speculated on and not the delivery itself.. what could delay the intro specifically.. it has to be the processor ... screens, hardware package.. etc etc are all in possible at any time..
Totally agree. Holiday sales account for 75% of big ticket items, especially electronics. Back to school is not even close. If Apple can't deliver the tablet by this holiday season, they will lose a year's jump on the competition, and they know this.
$10 it's a add on
With luck we'll find out in 2010. With a miracle we'll find out in September.
Having two screens is like avoiding what you really want to do, touch the actual stuff you want to interact with. It's like having a mouse to move another mouse. Wouldn't you just rather grab the mouse you want to move.
Sure, unless the thing I want to interact with is a keyboard. I'm actually in full support of a bluetooth external board, but for those who don't want to futz with that, they'll rely on the onscreen keyboard - which sounds sketchy to me in context of a 10" display. That's been one of the bigger issues with this tablet concept, to me -- if it's a full-on computing device that can be used for more than touch-driven apps, it needs a keyboard, and I can't figure out how that's going to be implemented in a usable fashion.
Of course you're right on the cost factor, but I don't know how to break out the cost of a second display, so I'm not sure how much that jacks up the price. As for weight... eh, I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem like that would be too much bother. How thin are these things anyway, these days?
So? The Tablet is being touted as a netbook / laptop alternative, ergo, it needs features more akin to a full blown OS than a stripped down subset.
Who has said anything about a laptop alternative? If I were Apple my goal would be to supplement your computer, not replace it. Netbooks, despite running a full blown desktop OS do not replace laptops due to their hardware restrictions. A tablet would have similar hardware restrictions and even could perform any task a netbook is capable of while running iPhone OS. In fact it could perform the same tasks quicker because the operating system was tailored to the devices restraints.
I know it has a file system, but the user is kept from it, which was my point. While everyone these days seems all gooey eyed over flash memory, it is still not affordable in useful quantities, so HD mass storage is a must. So as well as the file system interface you need the HD support stuff and... in half the time it would take Apple to write 1.5 of these necessary add-ons, they could have just written a touch interface for OSX.
But the third party applications still wouldn't have a touch interface. Also, do you really think that writing a finder application for iPhone OS would take as much time as making a touch interface for OSX? Although, I don't believe they will even make a finder app for iPhone OS. Like it or not, I think the file system will remain behind the scenes with applications "knowing" where to find files of a certain type. Visible file systems will probably die a slow and painfull death on all platforms, with tags taking their place.
I think you meant 'than the iPhone'. The problem with people who think the touch OS is enough to take on the full spectrum of possible tablet applications in the real world, is that they are so preoccupied trying to extract their tongue from their iPhones dock connector, they haven't had time to give the matter much thought.
On the contrary. I used to believe that a tablet had to run OSX, then I put some thought into it and it became obvious that iPhone OS would be the better choice.
Full OSX with a touch interface would provide a more flexible and useful device with less expenditure of unnecessary effort on Apple's part, than the reinventing of the wheel bloating the touch OS would require.
Sadly you haven't justified that in any way shape or form. Apple is about user experience, what you describe just doen't bring that positive experience. Nor would I believe that it would save any effort. Sorry if you feel ganged up on, it just seems like a lot of people disagree with you. Sometimes that's a hint.
This information, however, is far from accurate...
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
That means any of the forum posts can be AI homepage material, too. Our member's speculations are just as credible.