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!
It might make more sense in that case to write an emulator for ARM. I never liked the idea of fat binaries, better to just execute iPhone apps as is. Actually a good place to do this would be within Dashboard.
Quote:
Except, now many of those iPhone developers have a whole new sales territory: Intel Macs...
...hmmmm Or an Intel Tablet.
Yep.
Quote:
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:
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...
You can implement an emulation for just about anything. Frankly on the tablet I don't want to see emulation but rather I want to see native apps. This is another reason why I see ARM in this tablet.
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.
That really makes sense! iPhone OS X for just iPhone and the iPod Touch!
There's been a lot of discussion of the different size touch screens for a tablet; the necessity (or lack of) a full QWERTY kb; and the OS (iPhone OS X vs Mac OS X).
Previously I posted that a pack of 3x5" index cards was about the right size for a device with a 6" diagonal (approx) display that would slip into a shirt or pants pocket. This size would give a 800x480 pixel display if it used the iPhone resolution of 163 ppi.
But it would still have a smallish touch screen kb.
Now look at what Nokia is doing with this [display] size:
By enclosing the 800x480 display in an expanded case they have allowed room for a slide-out QWERTY kb. Whether this is full-sized or somewhat under-sized is difficult to tell. And while you may be able to stuff it into a pocket, it appears very bulky.
*
Then there were discussions about a larger, say, 10" diagonal screen size. Someone posted that folding an 8.5x11" sheet of paper in half yielded a surface that would support a screen with an (approx) 10" diagonal.
For comparison, I have a hard-copy of Grisham's book "Bleachers" which is just slightly larger and about 5/8' thick... a very comfortable size. It is a nice size display for reading (books) and easily supports 16:9 or 16:10 video. While it wouldn't fit into a standard pocket, it would nicely handle a full-sized QWERTY kb on the display (move a few keys).
So, maybe, this size solves a lot of user needs/complaints for a full-sized kb.
There's been a lot of discussion of the different size touch screens for a tablet; the necessity (or lack of) a full QWERTY kb; and the OS (iPhone OS X vs Mac OS X).
A lot of that discussion revolves around people that think the know how they will use a device. They may not have practicle experience though so their demands are wanting.
Quote:
Previously I posted that a pack of 3x5" index cards was about the right size for a device with a 6" diagonal (approx) display that would slip into a shirt or pants pocket. This size would give a 800x480 pixel display if it used the iPhone resolution of 163 ppi.
Yes an interesting size but not significantly larger than the iPod Touch. I've favored a larger format around the dimensions of a paperback book. This gives you a larger screen in a size people are familiar with and are willing to carry arround with them. The screen would be closer to 7" in diagonal depending on the aspect ratio choosen.
There are a couple of reasons for this size. One; the screen would present about as much info as a paperback book, thus ideal for a huge catalog to be converted to ebooks. Second; the size allows for more PC board space for an additional flash chip while at the same time offering up a lot of space for a battery. Third; as has been alluded to the size is accepted by people for portability. People carry paperbacks everywhere, yeah it is a tight fit in some pockets but that has never stopped people if there was something they wanted to read. Finally; the size is big enough that gives people a choice over the current Touch size.
Think of it as iPod Touch Trashy Novel size.
Quote:
But it would still have a smallish touch screen kb.
Freting about the keyboard makes little sense, especially if the device is targgeted at the consummer market. It just isn't that important on a device designed to consume media.
Quote:
Now look at what Nokia is doing with this [display] size:
By enclosing the 800x480 display in an expanded case they have allowed room for a slide-out QWERTY kb. Whether this is full-sized or somewhat under-sized is difficult to tell. And while you may be able to stuff it into a pocket, it appears very bulky.
oh come on if you can't tell that that keyboard is substandard you aren't looking objectively. As to bulk what did you expect from something with two housings? Slide out keyboards are stupid on devices you want to carry in a pocket. Apple is on the right pathe here but they do need to get down to 3/8" thickness. It is a constant battle between thickness and battery life but a larger device should allow for a thinner but high capacity battery.
What is interesting here though is Nokia and their N800 series which I seriously considered buying befor going the iPhone route. Unfortunately it was like Nokia had a good idea in a tablet but no sense at all about what should go into the electronics. The thing was ham strung with far to little flash memory and honestly RAM could have been better too. Video performance kinda sucked also. The key to these devices is to have as much inboard flash memory as possible, it is a key element in making the devices useful.
It looks like on the N900 they are trying to learn from their mistakes. The problem is by the time the N900 comes out 32GB of flash won't be enough. Nokia needs to debut with bleeding edge features to regain interest, especially in a bulky device like the N900. That is hardware then they have all sorts of software issues to address. In the end Nokias N series devices seem to be like Apples AppleTV with far to little effort put into the product.
Quote:
*
Then there were discussions about a larger, say, 10" diagonal screen size. Someone posted that folding an 8.5x11" sheet of paper in half yielded a surface that would support a screen with an (approx) 10" diagonal.
Honestly I think the two sizes in common discussion serve two different needs and two different users.
Quote:
For comparison, I have a hard-copy of Grisham's book "Bleachers" which is just slightly larger and about 5/8' thick... a very comfortable size. It is a nice size display for reading (books) and easily supports 16:9 or 16:10 video. While it wouldn't fit into a standard pocket, it would nicely handle a full-sized QWERTY kb on the display (move a few keys).
So we are back to the keyboard now! Let me just say there is no such thing as a full sized on screen keyboard. What you say, to which I reply full size keyboards are three dimensional. Anybody that talks about an on screen keyboard as a full size replacement hasn't thought about it in depth.
It is apparrent that Apple has from their patent fillings but I'm not convinced there is a two dimensional solution that replaces a real keyboard. Some of this feeling comes from experience with on screen keyboards in industrial apps. In the end people punt and screw a real keyboard inplace on the machine.
Quote:
So, maybe, this size solves a lot of user needs/complaints for a full-sized kb.
Nope it will just generate more complaints especially if people get the dumb idea that the platform can replace a laptop. As to the ten inch model Apple might be able to actually produce this with a viable slide out keyboard if they can concentrate the electronics and battery into a third of the housing. With unibody tech they have the potential to do this ruggedly and keep the device thin.
If I understand this correctly, it may offer the best of both worlds for a tablet:
1) front surface, full-screen touch display with capability to type or draw with fingers or stylus
2) back surface, full surface touch area with pressure sensitivity and haptic feedback.
I wonder how feasible it would be to hold the device, by the edges, with 2 your palms and touch type with your thumbs and fingers, on the back.
While I would be willing to try I'm pretty confident the experience would suck. Especially for a guy with big hands.
Quote:
Grab a copy of Grisham's book and try it!
*
Oh, and you could have something approximating a full-size QWERTY kb on the back of that 6" tablet... or even the current-size iPhone.
*
Again your entire post seems to be focused on the keyboards. The on screen keyboards seem to be the best tech going for the smaller devices. So I don't expect much change there. A larger tablet offers more opportunity for alternative keyboards. All that being considered people have to accept that these devices are not there to be laptop replacements nor are they for the production of large documents.
This pull I see from the crowd that thinks these tablets are a replacement for desktop or laptop computers is going to lead to a lot of disappointment. Tablets can't really fill those roles. At least not without adding the keyboards and other attachments to turn them into a kludge of a laptop or desktop.
Yeah I would go along with that. All perfectly logical. The kicker however; the 'Appleness' of it will likely be some new twist on services/connectivity.
How's this for a new connectivity option: instead of conventional wifi networking Apple could promote mesh wifi. MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc NETworking) is one of the most significant technologies promoted by the OLPC initiative. Every wifi node already has a radio receiver and transmitter but it is always treated as an end node. With software changes it can route packets to other mesh wifi nodes.
The prospect for portability and ubiquity of such a device could provide a test bed for these mesh networking ideas. Like other P2P concepts it might scale successfully because adding more 'clients' also directly adds more 'servers'. It would be a radical move but in its own way so was wifi.
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).
...
Dick
I failed to suppress the pedantic impulse. The apps you get from the App Store have binaries compiled for the ARM architecture cpu. During development the source code is compiled to x86 binaries in order to run in the iPhone simulator on the Mac. You can't actually run your ARM apps in the simulator (there are also issues of cryptographic signing but that is secondary).
Your point remains essentially correct that iPhone apps could easily be recompiled for running on x86 machines like the Mac or Apple could reintroduce fat binaries that include binaries for multiple processor types like the 680x0 and PowerPC apps from about a decade ago.
However, I doubt that an Apple tablet would use an x86 processor. They bought all that processor design expertise for some reason and a processor for this device is a logical place to play that card.
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.
Which is why iPhone OS is so compelling: It's OS X, optimized for mobile use. It's not stripped down in any significant way in terms of its native capabilities. There are certain design decisions that Apple made about the way the UI behaves that are specific to the needs of the iPhone, but they're superficial and easy to turn off for a tablet.
Repeat "iPhone OS is OS X optimized for mobile devices" until you understand. It's not "lite." It's not "stripped down." It's OS X optimized for mobile devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
I know it has a file system, but the user is kept from it, which was my point.
The Newton didn't have a conventional filesystem interface either. It had a "soup," a database-like system, and that did not stop it from being 10 years ahead of its time in terms of flexibility and capability. As people have been trying to tell you, the full filesystem is there, and so whether and how Apple decides to present it is an implementation detail, not a serious issue. If they wanted to port Finder to iPhone OS, the hardest part would be reimagining the UI for a touch screen--something they have plenty of experience with. Or they could elaborate on the iPhone's implicit presentation of the filesystem. They have nothing but options here, because iPhone OS is OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
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.
Unless you have your email in GMail and your documents in Google Docs, to pick one implementation out of the air. Apple is building a gigantic server farm in North Carolina. Why? Maybe if you have a cellular connection, a wifi connection, a giant server farm and a Mac that you sync with, you don't need mass storage in significant quantities. If you do, get a notebook or an external drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
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.
They already have: It's called iPhone OS. Finder is Cocoa now, so it could probably be ported over without too much effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
OSX is legacy crap?
Carbon is legacy, and while I wouldn't say it's crap, precisely, it's poorly suited to the touch-screen machines. Carbon apps would need to be totally and painstakingly reworked in order to run on a tablet, and given the size of the average Carbon app, that's not likely to happen soon, if it happens at all. But if you take out Carbon and add a touch-screen API to Mac OS X, you have... iPhone OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
You obviously don't have any computational needs beyond what's capable on an iPhone.
What does any of this have to do with computational needs, and why would a tablet address them any better than the iPhone does? I will tell you right now that no matter which OS X the tablet ends up running, and no matter what its filesystem interface looks like, I will still do all of my graphics and programming work on a Mac. There is no reason whatsoever to give the tablet theoretical capabilities that are not practically accessible through a fingertip touch interface to a light device with a small screen.
Again your entire post seems to be focused on the keyboards. The on screen keyboards seem to be the best tech going for the smaller devices. So I don't expect much change there. A larger tablet offers more opportunity for alternative keyboards. All that being considered people have to accept that these devices are not there to be laptop replacements nor are they for the production of large documents.
This pull I see from the crowd that thinks these tablets are a replacement for desktop or laptop computers is going to lead to a lot of disappointment. Tablets can't really fill those roles. At least not without adding the keyboards and other attachments to turn them into a kludge of a laptop or desktop.
Dave
The things I would use a tablet for would be acceptable with a slightly larger version of the iPhone's on-screen keyboard-- haptic feedback would be nice (there is a JailBroken app for that).
But, I hear the voices of others, like "must have full QWERTY kb". Philosophically, I disagree; the QWERTY kb, is archaic Civil War era technology. Like Windows, it is an accepted standard because it is everywhere. I think we can do much better with today's technology, and am looking for ways to provide "a better solution", without abandoning the QWERTY advocates.
There just has to be a solution between the "Thumb Tango" of the text-messagers and the "Flamenco Rasgueado" of the QWERTies.
I don't believe that I would use a tablet for heavy: text entry; programming; video compositing or rotoscoping-- there are better, more precise, devices for that. But, If it's handy, and I need to make some quick changes, or generate some ad hoc content-- I think the Tablet would be great!
And, I look forward to the day that the mouse and keyboard get out of the way and no longer come between me and my content.
I failed to suppress the pedantic impulse. The apps you get from the App Store have binaries compiled for the ARM architecture cpu. During development the source code is compiled to x86 binaries in order to run in the iPhone simulator on the Mac. You can't actually run your ARM apps in the simulator (there are also issues of cryptographic signing but that is secondary).
Your point remains essentially correct that iPhone apps could easily be recompiled for running on x86 machines like the Mac or Apple could reintroduce fat binaries that include binaries for multiple processor types like the 680x0 and PowerPC apps from about a decade ago.
However, I doubt that an Apple tablet would use an x86 processor. They bought all that processor design expertise for some reason and a processor for this device is a logical place to play that card.
I agree that an Apple tablet (or any Apple mobile) will, likely, not use an 2009-2010 era Intel CPU. The PASC chips should give Apple a significant advantage in mobiles, for the next few years (at least).
What I was trying to get across was that there are ways to allow apps developed for the iPhone to run on the Mac, too. Say you bought one of those $100 GPS turn by turn apps. Wouldn't be nice if you had a MacBook (with GPS) to be able to run it on a larger screen?
The things I would use a tablet for would be acceptable with a slightly larger version of the iPhone's on-screen keyboard-- haptic feedback would be nice (there is a JailBroken app for that).
This is the feeling I get, that is an iPhone keyboard is suitable for my needs on a tablet. What I have a problem with is the idea that an on screen keyboard will be suitable for mass text entry like one does with a laptop. I see lots of entries here from people thinking the can do note taking on a tablet or other forms of document creation. I just don't see that happening with an iPhone style keyboard. Apple has some interesting patents that might lead to a bit of keyboard feel but that has yet to debut in a product.
Not to sound like a broken record but I just think expectatins are way to high and over extend what is possible on a tablet.
Quote:
But, I hear the voices of others, like "must have full QWERTY kb". Philosophically, I disagree; the QWERTY kb, is archaic Civil War era technology. Like Windows, it is an accepted standard because it is everywhere. I think we can do much better with today's technology, and am looking for ways to provide "a better solution", without abandoning the QWERTY advocates.
That about sums it up. I certainly want a standard onscreen keyboard available to me but wouldn't object to new input methods.
Quote:
There just has to be a solution between the "Thumb Tango" of the text-messagers and the "Flamenco Rasgueado" of the QWERTies.
Well this is a throw back to Newton but handwriting recognition would be nice. Obviously the IPhone is to small for that to be practicle but a larger tablet it might work nicely. I'm still a believer that voice recognition for some things would work really well.
In the end I believe the goal should be flexibility, that is a qwerty keyboard should always be available but the user should have options to choose from.
Quote:
I don't believe that I would use a tablet for heavy: text entry; programming; video compositing or rotoscoping-- there are better, more precise, devices for that. But, If it's handy, and I need to make some quick changes, or generate some ad hoc content-- I think the Tablet would be great!
Precisely. I'm using my iPhone for this entry right now, works great for modest amounts of text but would be terrible for writiing the next iPhone app on. It is also great for quick notes on the plant floor or other places away from a normal computer.
Quote:
And, I look forward to the day that the mouse and keyboard get out of the way and no longer come between me and my content.
.02
unfortunately I think that day is a bit farther off than many of us want. For example voice input of data isn't that hard anymore, it is common on directory systems. The difficulty comes when trying to parse natural language in realtime. Time for more AI research
Then of course we are a ways from putting the CPU power required into an iPhone or tablet. Which brings up one other thing; all the parameters being tossed about for this devices size leave out it's thickness. I suspect Apple will go real thin with at least one of these devices. So if the rumored ten incher is 1/2" thick just how much horse power can Apple put in there today? I'm going to answer that by saying not enough. Of course they could go for broke and go quad core ARM which might be a good start.
By the way I do think it will be ARM and not Atom. That is in a way disappointing as Atom is the way to 64 bits on a tablet platform.
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.
Dave
If hackers for cydia can come up with a relatively stable version of finder for the iPhone OS, i'm sure apple could work one into the system if they wanted to.
BTW, in case its not clear, im supporting you here
If hackers for cydia can come up with a relatively stable version of finder for the iPhone OS, i'm sure apple could work one into the system if they wanted to.
BTW, in case its not clear, im supporting you here
Again I have to thank you and the others that have offered supporting statements.
You bring up an interesting point, which is the hacker community, they know full well what iPhone OS is capable of outside the jailed environment. I've yet to jail break my phone but follow the community closely so I've got a good idea of what is possible outside of the Apple SDK. So for the doubting Thomases out there look into the world of the jail broken devices if you don't believe us.
Of course how all of this extends to a much larger tablet is an issue but that is really only an issue of extending the API. For the 6 to 7 inch device many of us are looking for all Apple would need to do is to add multitasking and a lot more RAM to make me happy. Well that and quad cores .
Again I have to thank you and the others that have offered supporting statements.
You bring up an interesting point, which is the hacker community, they know full well what iPhone OS is capable of outside the jailed environment. I've yet to jail break my phone but follow the community closely so I've got a good idea of what is possible outside of the Apple SDK. So for the doubting Thomases out there look into the world of the jail broken devices if you don't believe us.
Of course how all of this extends to a much larger tablet is an issue but that is really only an issue of extending the API. For the 6 to 7 inch device many of us are looking for all Apple would need to do is to add multitasking and a lot more RAM to make me happy. Well that and quad cores .
Dave
In the early days I JailBroke one of my 1G iPhones (bought for that purpose) and my AppleTV. Both devices OSs are Mac OS X with unnecessary things left out... but you can add most of them back in.
As to [user-participant] multitasking, that's one thing that I think that the Palm Pre has done well, at least from a UI perspective (I am not convinced that it is anything more than the "switcher" written by Andy Hertzfeld for early Macs). But I do like the way the user flips through these tasks on the Pre.
The iPhone has a facility that could provide an equivalent (or superior) UI for flipping through tasks, CoverFlow. Currently, the CoverFlow API is off-limits to developers, but it can be implemented by other means. I've been doing some experimentation with a CoverFlow implementation, and it would be excellent as a multitasking UI.
RAM... what can I say: More is better; A lot more is a lot better. Though, one of the nice things about iPhone programming is the way you focus on what is important and discard what is not, reducing bloat and cruft. It is amazing what you can do within the limited RAM of an iPhone, It was not too long ago that the big Maimframe [sp] computers had 64K (yes that's K as in thousand) RAM (actually non-solid-state magnetic cores).
CPUs/Cores: Today, multiple CPUs & GPUs are practical... real soon now Multi-Core CPUs will be practical.
So, a tablet is practical & I hope we see at least 1 version this year!
Comments
@wizard69
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!
It might make more sense in that case to write an emulator for ARM. I never liked the idea of fat binaries, better to just execute iPhone apps as is. Actually a good place to do this would be within Dashboard.
Except, now many of those iPhone developers have a whole new sales territory: Intel Macs...
...hmmmm Or an Intel Tablet.
Yep.
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:
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...
You can implement an emulation for just about anything. Frankly on the tablet I don't want to see emulation but rather I want to see native apps. This is another reason why I see ARM in this tablet.
Dave
Huh!? Snow Leopard certainly seems more on-topic than kiwi fruit.
Talk about irony.....
Lol.. How about leopard skin..
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.
That really makes sense! iPhone OS X for just iPhone and the iPod Touch!
Previously I posted that a pack of 3x5" index cards was about the right size for a device with a 6" diagonal (approx) display that would slip into a shirt or pants pocket. This size would give a 800x480 pixel display if it used the iPhone resolution of 163 ppi.
But it would still have a smallish touch screen kb.
Now look at what Nokia is doing with this [display] size:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/08/19/nokia.n900.reviewed/
By enclosing the 800x480 display in an expanded case they have allowed room for a slide-out QWERTY kb. Whether this is full-sized or somewhat under-sized is difficult to tell. And while you may be able to stuff it into a pocket, it appears very bulky.
*
Then there were discussions about a larger, say, 10" diagonal screen size. Someone posted that folding an 8.5x11" sheet of paper in half yielded a surface that would support a screen with an (approx) 10" diagonal.
For comparison, I have a hard-copy of Grisham's book "Bleachers" which is just slightly larger and about 5/8' thick... a very comfortable size. It is a nice size display for reading (books) and easily supports 16:9 or 16:10 video. While it wouldn't fit into a standard pocket, it would nicely handle a full-sized QWERTY kb on the display (move a few keys).
So, maybe, this size solves a lot of user needs/complaints for a full-sized kb.
*
Then there is this:
http://www.macnn.com/blogs/2009/07/2...in-patent.html
If I understand this correctly, it may offer the best of both worlds for a tablet:
1) front surface, full-screen touch display with capability to type or draw with fingers or stylus
2) back surface, full surface touch area with pressure sensitivity and haptic feedback.
I wonder how feasible it would be to hold the device, by the edges, with 2 your palms and touch type with your thumbs and fingers, on the back.
Grab a copy of Grisham's book and try it!
*
Oh, and you could have something approximating a full-size QWERTY kb on the back of that 6" tablet... or even the current-size iPhone.
*
There's been a lot of discussion of the different size touch screens for a tablet; the necessity (or lack of) a full QWERTY kb; and the OS (iPhone OS X vs Mac OS X).
A lot of that discussion revolves around people that think the know how they will use a device. They may not have practicle experience though so their demands are wanting.
Previously I posted that a pack of 3x5" index cards was about the right size for a device with a 6" diagonal (approx) display that would slip into a shirt or pants pocket. This size would give a 800x480 pixel display if it used the iPhone resolution of 163 ppi.
Yes an interesting size but not significantly larger than the iPod Touch. I've favored a larger format around the dimensions of a paperback book. This gives you a larger screen in a size people are familiar with and are willing to carry arround with them. The screen would be closer to 7" in diagonal depending on the aspect ratio choosen.
There are a couple of reasons for this size. One; the screen would present about as much info as a paperback book, thus ideal for a huge catalog to be converted to ebooks. Second; the size allows for more PC board space for an additional flash chip while at the same time offering up a lot of space for a battery. Third; as has been alluded to the size is accepted by people for portability. People carry paperbacks everywhere, yeah it is a tight fit in some pockets but that has never stopped people if there was something they wanted to read. Finally; the size is big enough that gives people a choice over the current Touch size.
Think of it as iPod Touch Trashy Novel size.
But it would still have a smallish touch screen kb.
Freting about the keyboard makes little sense, especially if the device is targgeted at the consummer market. It just isn't that important on a device designed to consume media.
Now look at what Nokia is doing with this [display] size:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/08/19/nokia.n900.reviewed/
By enclosing the 800x480 display in an expanded case they have allowed room for a slide-out QWERTY kb. Whether this is full-sized or somewhat under-sized is difficult to tell. And while you may be able to stuff it into a pocket, it appears very bulky.
oh come on if you can't tell that that keyboard is substandard you aren't looking objectively. As to bulk what did you expect from something with two housings? Slide out keyboards are stupid on devices you want to carry in a pocket. Apple is on the right pathe here but they do need to get down to 3/8" thickness. It is a constant battle between thickness and battery life but a larger device should allow for a thinner but high capacity battery.
What is interesting here though is Nokia and their N800 series which I seriously considered buying befor going the iPhone route. Unfortunately it was like Nokia had a good idea in a tablet but no sense at all about what should go into the electronics. The thing was ham strung with far to little flash memory and honestly RAM could have been better too. Video performance kinda sucked also. The key to these devices is to have as much inboard flash memory as possible, it is a key element in making the devices useful.
It looks like on the N900 they are trying to learn from their mistakes. The problem is by the time the N900 comes out 32GB of flash won't be enough. Nokia needs to debut with bleeding edge features to regain interest, especially in a bulky device like the N900. That is hardware then they have all sorts of software issues to address. In the end Nokias N series devices seem to be like Apples AppleTV with far to little effort put into the product.
*
Then there were discussions about a larger, say, 10" diagonal screen size. Someone posted that folding an 8.5x11" sheet of paper in half yielded a surface that would support a screen with an (approx) 10" diagonal.
Honestly I think the two sizes in common discussion serve two different needs and two different users.
For comparison, I have a hard-copy of Grisham's book "Bleachers" which is just slightly larger and about 5/8' thick... a very comfortable size. It is a nice size display for reading (books) and easily supports 16:9 or 16:10 video. While it wouldn't fit into a standard pocket, it would nicely handle a full-sized QWERTY kb on the display (move a few keys).
So we are back to the keyboard now! Let me just say there is no such thing as a full sized on screen keyboard. What you say, to which I reply full size keyboards are three dimensional. Anybody that talks about an on screen keyboard as a full size replacement hasn't thought about it in depth.
It is apparrent that Apple has from their patent fillings but I'm not convinced there is a two dimensional solution that replaces a real keyboard. Some of this feeling comes from experience with on screen keyboards in industrial apps. In the end people punt and screw a real keyboard inplace on the machine.
So, maybe, this size solves a lot of user needs/complaints for a full-sized kb.
Nope it will just generate more complaints especially if people get the dumb idea that the platform can replace a laptop. As to the ten inch model Apple might be able to actually produce this with a viable slide out keyboard if they can concentrate the electronics and battery into a third of the housing. With unibody tech they have the potential to do this ruggedly and keep the device thin.
*
Then there is this:
http://www.macnn.com/blogs/2009/07/2...in-patent.html
If I understand this correctly, it may offer the best of both worlds for a tablet:
1) front surface, full-screen touch display with capability to type or draw with fingers or stylus
2) back surface, full surface touch area with pressure sensitivity and haptic feedback.
I wonder how feasible it would be to hold the device, by the edges, with 2 your palms and touch type with your thumbs and fingers, on the back.
While I would be willing to try I'm pretty confident the experience would suck. Especially for a guy with big hands.
Grab a copy of Grisham's book and try it!
*
Oh, and you could have something approximating a full-size QWERTY kb on the back of that 6" tablet... or even the current-size iPhone.
*
Again your entire post seems to be focused on the keyboards. The on screen keyboards seem to be the best tech going for the smaller devices. So I don't expect much change there. A larger tablet offers more opportunity for alternative keyboards. All that being considered people have to accept that these devices are not there to be laptop replacements nor are they for the production of large documents.
This pull I see from the crowd that thinks these tablets are a replacement for desktop or laptop computers is going to lead to a lot of disappointment. Tablets can't really fill those roles. At least not without adding the keyboards and other attachments to turn them into a kludge of a laptop or desktop.
Dave
Yeah I would go along with that. All perfectly logical. The kicker however; the 'Appleness' of it will likely be some new twist on services/connectivity.
How's this for a new connectivity option: instead of conventional wifi networking Apple could promote mesh wifi. MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc NETworking) is one of the most significant technologies promoted by the OLPC initiative. Every wifi node already has a radio receiver and transmitter but it is always treated as an end node. With software changes it can route packets to other mesh wifi nodes.
The prospect for portability and ubiquity of such a device could provide a test bed for these mesh networking ideas. Like other P2P concepts it might scale successfully because adding more 'clients' also directly adds more 'servers'. It would be a radical move but in its own way so was wifi.
+++
...
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).
...
Dick
I failed to suppress the pedantic impulse. The apps you get from the App Store have binaries compiled for the ARM architecture cpu. During development the source code is compiled to x86 binaries in order to run in the iPhone simulator on the Mac. You can't actually run your ARM apps in the simulator (there are also issues of cryptographic signing but that is secondary).
Your point remains essentially correct that iPhone apps could easily be recompiled for running on x86 machines like the Mac or Apple could reintroduce fat binaries that include binaries for multiple processor types like the 680x0 and PowerPC apps from about a decade ago.
However, I doubt that an Apple tablet would use an x86 processor. They bought all that processor design expertise for some reason and a processor for this device is a logical place to play that card.
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.
Which is why iPhone OS is so compelling: It's OS X, optimized for mobile use. It's not stripped down in any significant way in terms of its native capabilities. There are certain design decisions that Apple made about the way the UI behaves that are specific to the needs of the iPhone, but they're superficial and easy to turn off for a tablet.
Repeat "iPhone OS is OS X optimized for mobile devices" until you understand. It's not "lite." It's not "stripped down." It's OS X optimized for mobile devices.
I know it has a file system, but the user is kept from it, which was my point.
The Newton didn't have a conventional filesystem interface either. It had a "soup," a database-like system, and that did not stop it from being 10 years ahead of its time in terms of flexibility and capability. As people have been trying to tell you, the full filesystem is there, and so whether and how Apple decides to present it is an implementation detail, not a serious issue. If they wanted to port Finder to iPhone OS, the hardest part would be reimagining the UI for a touch screen--something they have plenty of experience with. Or they could elaborate on the iPhone's implicit presentation of the filesystem. They have nothing but options here, because iPhone OS is OS X.
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.
Unless you have your email in GMail and your documents in Google Docs, to pick one implementation out of the air. Apple is building a gigantic server farm in North Carolina. Why? Maybe if you have a cellular connection, a wifi connection, a giant server farm and a Mac that you sync with, you don't need mass storage in significant quantities. If you do, get a notebook or an external drive.
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.
They already have: It's called iPhone OS. Finder is Cocoa now, so it could probably be ported over without too much effort.
OSX is legacy crap?
Carbon is legacy, and while I wouldn't say it's crap, precisely, it's poorly suited to the touch-screen machines. Carbon apps would need to be totally and painstakingly reworked in order to run on a tablet, and given the size of the average Carbon app, that's not likely to happen soon, if it happens at all. But if you take out Carbon and add a touch-screen API to Mac OS X, you have... iPhone OS.
You obviously don't have any computational needs beyond what's capable on an iPhone.
What does any of this have to do with computational needs, and why would a tablet address them any better than the iPhone does? I will tell you right now that no matter which OS X the tablet ends up running, and no matter what its filesystem interface looks like, I will still do all of my graphics and programming work on a Mac. There is no reason whatsoever to give the tablet theoretical capabilities that are not practically accessible through a fingertip touch interface to a light device with a small screen.
Again your entire post seems to be focused on the keyboards. The on screen keyboards seem to be the best tech going for the smaller devices. So I don't expect much change there. A larger tablet offers more opportunity for alternative keyboards. All that being considered people have to accept that these devices are not there to be laptop replacements nor are they for the production of large documents.
This pull I see from the crowd that thinks these tablets are a replacement for desktop or laptop computers is going to lead to a lot of disappointment. Tablets can't really fill those roles. At least not without adding the keyboards and other attachments to turn them into a kludge of a laptop or desktop.
Dave
The things I would use a tablet for would be acceptable with a slightly larger version of the iPhone's on-screen keyboard-- haptic feedback would be nice (there is a JailBroken app for that).
But, I hear the voices of others, like "must have full QWERTY kb". Philosophically, I disagree; the QWERTY kb, is archaic Civil War era technology. Like Windows, it is an accepted standard because it is everywhere. I think we can do much better with today's technology, and am looking for ways to provide "a better solution", without abandoning the QWERTY advocates.
There just has to be a solution between the "Thumb Tango" of the text-messagers and the "Flamenco Rasgueado" of the QWERTies.
I don't believe that I would use a tablet for heavy: text entry; programming; video compositing or rotoscoping-- there are better, more precise, devices for that. But, If it's handy, and I need to make some quick changes, or generate some ad hoc content-- I think the Tablet would be great!
And, I look forward to the day that the mouse and keyboard get out of the way and no longer come between me and my content.
.02
I failed to suppress the pedantic impulse. The apps you get from the App Store have binaries compiled for the ARM architecture cpu. During development the source code is compiled to x86 binaries in order to run in the iPhone simulator on the Mac. You can't actually run your ARM apps in the simulator (there are also issues of cryptographic signing but that is secondary).
Your point remains essentially correct that iPhone apps could easily be recompiled for running on x86 machines like the Mac or Apple could reintroduce fat binaries that include binaries for multiple processor types like the 680x0 and PowerPC apps from about a decade ago.
However, I doubt that an Apple tablet would use an x86 processor. They bought all that processor design expertise for some reason and a processor for this device is a logical place to play that card.
I agree that an Apple tablet (or any Apple mobile) will, likely, not use an 2009-2010 era Intel CPU. The PASC chips should give Apple a significant advantage in mobiles, for the next few years (at least).
What I was trying to get across was that there are ways to allow apps developed for the iPhone to run on the Mac, too. Say you bought one of those $100 GPS turn by turn apps. Wouldn't be nice if you had a MacBook (with GPS) to be able to run it on a larger screen?
The things I would use a tablet for would be acceptable with a slightly larger version of the iPhone's on-screen keyboard-- haptic feedback would be nice (there is a JailBroken app for that).
This is the feeling I get, that is an iPhone keyboard is suitable for my needs on a tablet. What I have a problem with is the idea that an on screen keyboard will be suitable for mass text entry like one does with a laptop. I see lots of entries here from people thinking the can do note taking on a tablet or other forms of document creation. I just don't see that happening with an iPhone style keyboard. Apple has some interesting patents that might lead to a bit of keyboard feel but that has yet to debut in a product.
Not to sound like a broken record but I just think expectatins are way to high and over extend what is possible on a tablet.
But, I hear the voices of others, like "must have full QWERTY kb". Philosophically, I disagree; the QWERTY kb, is archaic Civil War era technology. Like Windows, it is an accepted standard because it is everywhere. I think we can do much better with today's technology, and am looking for ways to provide "a better solution", without abandoning the QWERTY advocates.
That about sums it up. I certainly want a standard onscreen keyboard available to me but wouldn't object to new input methods.
There just has to be a solution between the "Thumb Tango" of the text-messagers and the "Flamenco Rasgueado" of the QWERTies.
Well this is a throw back to Newton but handwriting recognition would be nice. Obviously the IPhone is to small for that to be practicle but a larger tablet it might work nicely. I'm still a believer that voice recognition for some things would work really well.
In the end I believe the goal should be flexibility, that is a qwerty keyboard should always be available but the user should have options to choose from.
I don't believe that I would use a tablet for heavy: text entry; programming; video compositing or rotoscoping-- there are better, more precise, devices for that. But, If it's handy, and I need to make some quick changes, or generate some ad hoc content-- I think the Tablet would be great!
Precisely. I'm using my iPhone for this entry right now, works great for modest amounts of text but would be terrible for writiing the next iPhone app on. It is also great for quick notes on the plant floor or other places away from a normal computer.
And, I look forward to the day that the mouse and keyboard get out of the way and no longer come between me and my content.
.02
unfortunately I think that day is a bit farther off than many of us want. For example voice input of data isn't that hard anymore, it is common on directory systems. The difficulty comes when trying to parse natural language in realtime. Time for more AI research
Then of course we are a ways from putting the CPU power required into an iPhone or tablet. Which brings up one other thing; all the parameters being tossed about for this devices size leave out it's thickness. I suspect Apple will go real thin with at least one of these devices. So if the rumored ten incher is 1/2" thick just how much horse power can Apple put in there today? I'm going to answer that by saying not enough. Of course they could go for broke and go quad core ARM which might be a good start.
By the way I do think it will be ARM and not Atom. That is in a way disappointing as Atom is the way to 64 bits on a tablet platform.
Dave
$100 on two tablets by march. Who will bet with me?
I'm not going to bet. But I have to disagree and say January is the debut.
$100 on two tablets by march. Who will bet with me?
I won't bet. But I guess that only one will be announced in January, released by Febuary for public sales.
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.
Dave
If hackers for cydia can come up with a relatively stable version of finder for the iPhone OS, i'm sure apple could work one into the system if they wanted to.
BTW, in case its not clear, im supporting you here
If hackers for cydia can come up with a relatively stable version of finder for the iPhone OS, i'm sure apple could work one into the system if they wanted to.
BTW, in case its not clear, im supporting you here
Again I have to thank you and the others that have offered supporting statements.
You bring up an interesting point, which is the hacker community, they know full well what iPhone OS is capable of outside the jailed environment. I've yet to jail break my phone but follow the community closely so I've got a good idea of what is possible outside of the Apple SDK. So for the doubting Thomases out there look into the world of the jail broken devices if you don't believe us.
Of course how all of this extends to a much larger tablet is an issue but that is really only an issue of extending the API. For the 6 to 7 inch device many of us are looking for all Apple would need to do is to add multitasking and a lot more RAM to make me happy. Well that and quad cores
Dave
Again I have to thank you and the others that have offered supporting statements.
You bring up an interesting point, which is the hacker community, they know full well what iPhone OS is capable of outside the jailed environment. I've yet to jail break my phone but follow the community closely so I've got a good idea of what is possible outside of the Apple SDK. So for the doubting Thomases out there look into the world of the jail broken devices if you don't believe us.
Of course how all of this extends to a much larger tablet is an issue but that is really only an issue of extending the API. For the 6 to 7 inch device many of us are looking for all Apple would need to do is to add multitasking and a lot more RAM to make me happy. Well that and quad cores
Dave
In the early days I JailBroke one of my 1G iPhones (bought for that purpose) and my AppleTV. Both devices OSs are Mac OS X with unnecessary things left out... but you can add most of them back in.
As to [user-participant] multitasking, that's one thing that I think that the Palm Pre has done well, at least from a UI perspective (I am not convinced that it is anything more than the "switcher" written by Andy Hertzfeld for early Macs). But I do like the way the user flips through these tasks on the Pre.
The iPhone has a facility that could provide an equivalent (or superior) UI for flipping through tasks, CoverFlow. Currently, the CoverFlow API is off-limits to developers, but it can be implemented by other means. I've been doing some experimentation with a CoverFlow implementation, and it would be excellent as a multitasking UI.
RAM... what can I say: More is better; A lot more is a lot better. Though, one of the nice things about iPhone programming is the way you focus on what is important and discard what is not, reducing bloat and cruft. It is amazing what you can do within the limited RAM of an iPhone, It was not too long ago that the big Maimframe [sp] computers had 64K (yes that's K as in thousand) RAM (actually non-solid-state magnetic cores).
CPUs/Cores: Today, multiple CPUs & GPUs are practical... real soon now Multi-Core CPUs will be practical.
So, a tablet is practical & I hope we see at least 1 version this year!