The point isn't that a 10" device isn't portable. The point is that a 10" device doesn't fit into your pocket so you HAVE to carry it around.
If you have to carry the thing it should be more useful than a slate...and therefore should have a keyboard. I carried around a motion computing slate for a while and it just didn't fit the bill. I have a 10" netbook now that I use now.
More useful than a slate? We have no idea how useful and Apple tablet would be, it could turn out to be far more useful than a netbook. Your argument is that past slates were not useful so an Apple tablet will never be that useful either. Since it isn't useful, it has to be VERY portable, but what if you are wrong about its usefulness?
More space allows for larger hard drive dimensions, which means lower memory density for the same hard drive size, which means lower cost per GB, which means they can pack more storage in for a similar cost. Perhaps they wont make a 10" tablet initially, perhaps the 10" screens Apple ordered were for something else, or Apple changed their mind about them, but I personally haven't seen anything that would make me think that a smaller size would be more likely. What we see as a likely screen size probably matches the screen size that we think we want, I wouldn't mind a 10" screen at all.
I wouldn't necessarily mind a 10-inch screen but if I'm paying close to a grand for a computer it better be a fully-equiped laptop, not a glorified Touch. It isn't realistic to expect that Apple could deliver a 10-inch Touch-like device and not have it cost as much as a well-equiped laptop.
On the other hand if, for instance, Apple offered a device costing a little more than a Touch with double the screen real estate, such a product is very appealing. And if I could take all that content that works so well with the Touch and use it with that device with a negligible drop in quality, even better. This is possible if you don't go all the way up to a 10-inch screen. As for not worrying about how much space is taken up by your files, you can never have enough storage and less storage costs less, no matter how you cut this. Remember that in a device like this, you pretty much have to use solid-state memory and that memory is still not dirt cheap. Even with platter hard drives, laptop-sized drives are still costlier than the units that go into desktops.
This isn't about what screen size I want. This is about how expensive it would end up being, how much battery life, etc. I have a netbook that I am very pleased with but having a battery that only lasts about two hours is a pain in the derriere.
It seems to me that those folks who conjure up rumors to keep us all amused are betraying their lack of imagination by suggesting Apple is going with a 10-inch screen. Their logic is obvious. Netbooks are settling in at that size and this device is supposedly Apple's response to netbooks, ergo Apple is going to use a 10-inch screen. What is missed, though, is that by doing so, Apple would price this device so high that it would be a marketing disaster. A marvelous product, to be sure, certainly one many of us would find appealing but at the end of the day, very few of us would buy the thing. Netbooks would win out on account of being considerably cheaper and laptops would win out on account of being considerably more useful. This thing would take away sales from neither. What would be the point?
I wouldn't necessarily mind a 10-inch screen but if I'm paying close to a grand for a computer it better be a fully-equiped laptop, not a glorified Touch. It isn't realistic to expect that Apple could deliver a 10-inch Touch-like device and not have it cost as much as a well-equiped laptop.
That's why I'm convened this will not only be a Mac, but will also probably replace the plastic MacBook. Not that it will be a laptop, but that it will be the equivalent price, 64GB SSD model $999.
That's why I'm convened this will not only be a Mac, but will also probably replace the plastic MacBook. Not that it will be a laptop, but that it will be the equivalent price, 64GB SSD model $999.
But if the device replaces a Mac, then it has to run Mac software.
And tablets are really really bad devices at running desktop software. The experience is worse than running desktop software on netbooks.
Apple have already described how poor they think the netbook experience is.
The iPhone reveals how Apple now think about this problem. To create a great experience, the interface, the input methods and the applications must all be purpose-built for the form factor.
Microsoft's Origami project was a tablet running XP and un-modified desktop applications. It had all the elegance of a dog walking on its hind legs. Apple are not going to make the same mistake.
I'd bet hard cash that this device will not be a Mac.
But if the device replaces a Mac, then it has to run Mac software.
We have been over this before. Mac OS 9 software is still Mac software, yet it won't run on my Mac. It will be sort of like that. Well it's a good example. It will run Mac OS X touch, thus it will be and will be marketed as "a Mac".
iPhone reveals how Apple now think about this problem. To create a great experience, the interface, the input methods and the applications must all be purpose-built for the form factor.
You are stating the obvious here. We all know this. Which is why Apple is working on a second variant of Mac OS X called something like Mac OS X touch. Notice Apple never said the iPhone runs "Mac OS X". Upon launch Steve said: "iPhone runs OS X". A subtle, but in the end, major difference.
You are stating the obvious here. We all know this. Which is why Apple is working on a second variant of Mac OS X called something like Mac OS X touch.
"Mac OS X touch"?
This is the first point that I have ever been tempted to use one of those annoying laughing smileys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Notice Apple never said the iPhone runs "Mac OS X". Upon launch Steve said: "iPhone runs OS X". A subtle, but in the end, major difference.
Exactly! Apple does not confuse the audience by getting product names mixed up. The messages coming out of the company are vetted for clarity and consistency. They are not casual about how things are named. They are really anal and consistent about everything. They re-named the iBook as MacBook - just to remind people they were buying a Mac.
I am certain that if a tablet appears, it will be running some form of OS X. But calling it Mac would confuse everyone.
This is how Apple (and third parties) brand products that are Mac compatible.
Why would Apple create an entirely new product line, and then confuse buyers by calling it the same thing as an existing but incompatible product line? Apple just does not do that.
The point isn't that a 10" device isn't portable. The point is that a 10" device doesn't fit into your pocket so you HAVE to carry it around.
If you have to carry the thing it should be more useful than a slate...and therefore should have a keyboard. I carried around a motion computing slate for a while and it just didn't fit the bill. I have a 10" netbook now that I use now.
Time was that I completely agreed with this perspective. Once a device gets too big to fit in your pocket, you might as well jump to laptop functionality. Compared to a laptop, intermediate sizes/form factors take huge usability hits while only modestly improving on portability.
However, that was before the iPhone. The iPhone suggests that, when done properly, a device can create its own market for new definitions of "usability."
For some users, such as yourself, there would never be any reason to sacrifice a keyboard once past pocket size. But if Apple can produce a device that has some of the "wow" factor of the iPhone, who's to say there wouldn't be a surge of tablet using consumers, enjoying new styles of portable computing that we haven't seen yet?
The iPhone has certainly embodied this idea-- there are lots of people who would have never considered a "smart phone" who now can't imagine not having various location aware, internet enabled apps at their finger tips, at all times. Yes, we can note that the iPhone didn't invent these things, but Apple made if fun and easy enough to cross over into a mass culture phenomena. Arguably, the current smart phone market in its entirety is deeply indebted to Apple for showing the way towards breaking out of the geek ghetto.
I could see an Apple designed tablet doing something similar for tablets at large. No, "serious" laptop users won't be interested, but "serious" smart phone users thought the iPhone was a toy.
More useful than a slate? We have no idea how useful and Apple tablet would be, it could turn out to be far more useful than a netbook. Your argument is that past slates were not useful so an Apple tablet will never be that useful either. Since it isn't useful, it has to be VERY portable, but what if you are wrong about its usefulness?
Then Apple has perfected either handwriting recognition or voice recognition or both. Two technologies that have been "5 years from being usable" for the last 20 years.
Recent experiences with ink/inkwell have not been too promising.
Slates used to be the form for tablets. Now most folks have moved to convertibles. The reason is that content creation using just a stylus, or touch or voice has been harder than using a keyboard and mouse.
If all you are going to be doing is consuming content then a slate is fine. But at that point 6-7" display for a personal device is just as good as 10" and far more mobile.
Then Apple has perfected either handwriting recognition or voice recognition or both. Two technologies that have been "5 years from being usable" for the last 20 years.
Recent experiences with ink/inkwell have not been too promising.
Slates used to be the form for tablets. Now most folks have moved to convertibles. The reason is that content creation using just a stylus, or touch or voice has been harder than using a keyboard and mouse.
If all you are going to be doing is consuming content then a slate is fine. But at that point 6-7" display for a personal device is just as good as 10" and far more mobile.
That may be true for text, but what about photos, sound, video and presentations?
You'll notice that the last iteration of iMovie made some changes that are pretty finger friendly, it's not hard to imagine iPhoto or Keynote getting finger friendly adjustment sliders plus drag and drop image manipulation. And something like Garage Band wouldn't have much trouble adapting to using touch for track selection, panning, time signatures, etc.
In fact, I could see direct manipulation via touch as being the better interface for some of these programs. I would have no problem working on a presentation by using my fingers to arrange, scale and manipulate slides.
Time was that I completely agreed with this perspective. Once a device gets too big to fit in your pocket, you might as well jump to laptop functionality. Compared to a laptop, intermediate sizes/form factors take huge usability hits while only modestly improving on portability.
However, that was before the iPhone. The iPhone suggests that, when done properly, a device can create its own market for new definitions of "usability."
Except that the iphone fit in your pocket...d\\so it hasn't redefined that aspect of usability.
Quote:
For some users, such as yourself, there would never be any reason to sacrifice a keyboard once past pocket size. But if Apple can produce a device that has some of the "wow" factor of the iPhone, who's to say there wouldn't be a surge of tablet using consumers, enjoying new styles of portable computing that we haven't seen yet?
You STILL have to explain why a 10" device is better than a more mobile 7" device and more compelling for the average consumer.
Quote:
The iPhone has certainly embodied this idea-- there are lots of people who would have never considered a "smart phone" who now can't imagine not having various location aware, internet enabled apps at their finger tips, at all times. Yes, we can note that the iPhone didn't invent these things, but Apple made if fun and easy enough to cross over into a mass culture phenomena. Arguably, the current smart phone market in its entirety is deeply indebted to Apple for showing the way towards breaking out of the geek ghetto.
I could see an Apple designed tablet doing something similar for tablets at large. No, "serious" laptop users won't be interested, but "serious" smart phone users thought the iPhone was a toy.
I didn't. The lack of an physical keyboard on a phone device isn't that big a deal given they sucked anyway. The lack of a physical keyboard on a 10" COMPUTING device does suck UNLESS apple has solved the handwriting or voice recognition problem. Seems possible but unlikely.
Unless they have content creation will be really hampered.
Given the thinness of the MBA there's no reason to forego a usable physical keyboard on a 10" computing device. It will be at enough of a disadvantage not being able to run Word unless MS ports to the ARM.
That may be true for text, but what about photos, sound, video and presentations?
You'll notice that the last iteration of iMovie made some changes that are pretty finger friendly, it's not hard to imagine iPhoto or Keynote getting finger friendly adjustment sliders plus drag and drop image manipulation. And something like Garage Band wouldn't have much trouble adapting to using touch for track selection, panning, time signatures, etc.
In fact, I could see direct manipulation via touch as being the better interface for some of these programs. I would have no problem working on a presentation by using my fingers to arrange, scale and manipulate slides.
The ability to create image/video content on an ARM device in comparison to an Atom device is how much slower? Iphoto and keynote runs on netbooks but not very snappy.
I can see rearranging slides in a keynote viewer. Building a complete presentation? Possible but not very fun. Even with a stylus the direct manipulation for fine control is difficult.
Except that the iphone fit in your pocket...d\\so it hasn't redefined that aspect of usability.
Sure, but we're talking about the relative usability of a given form factor. For a pocketable device, the iPhone vastly expanded what most people felt was possible. My point being that we shouldn't rule out Apple being able to do something similar with a larger machine.
Quote:
You STILL have to explain why a 10" device is better than a more mobile 7" device and more compelling for the average consumer.
Well, you've kind of answered that yourself. Once a device is no longer pocketable, is there any compelling reason to try to keep the size down to 7"? I guess I don't necessarily agree that a 7" device is particularly "more mobile" than a 10" device. Neither will fit in a pocket, both would have to be carried in the hand or put in a bag, and unless you're planning on buying a special little mini bag just for a 7" tablet, it's the difference of tossing a mass market or a trade paperback book in the average backpack or shoulder bag.
As far as compelling goes, bigger screens are easier and more fun to use. At 7" you're in "big iPod range-- certainly more room to breath than an iPhone, but still pretty cramped. At 10" you're creeping up on MacBook size, with enough room to actually be able to see what you're doing.
Quote:
I didn't. The lack of an physical keyboard on a phone device isn't that big a deal given they sucked anyway. The lack of a physical keyboard on a 10" COMPUTING device does suck UNLESS apple has solved the handwriting or voice recognition problem. Seems possible but unlikely.
Unless they have content creation will be really hampered.
Given the thinness of the MBA there's no reason to forego a usable physical keyboard on a 10" computing device. It will be at enough of a disadvantage not being able to run Word unless MS ports to the ARM.
I'm thinking Apple has an idea about a different way to relate to a computing device, which is why I used the iPhone example in the first place. A monolithic, ultra thin, ultra light slate thing with touch optimized apps. No, not ideal for a lot of text based work, but an entire generation has grown up doing the vast majority of their text creation on numeric keypads.
For image, video and sound acquisition and manipulation, however, such a device would provide a pretty good experience with touch optimized apps.
Sure, but we're talking about the relative usability of a given form factor. For a pocketable device, the iPhone vastly expanded what most people felt was possible. My point being that we shouldn't rule out Apple being able to do something similar with a larger machine.
Perhaps, but the iPhone is a tad small for a MID.
Quote:
Well, you've kind of answered that yourself. Once a device is no longer pocketable, is there any compelling reason to try to keep the size down to 7"? I guess I don't necessarily agree that a 7" device is particularly "more mobile" than a 10" device. Neither will fit in a pocket, both would have to be carried in the hand or put in a bag, and unless you're planning on buying a special little mini bag just for a 7" tablet, it's the difference of tossing a mass market or a trade paperback book in the average backpack or shoulder bag.
7" is about the limit of pocketability. If you want to argue it is too large, I'll accept a 5" display as the target. They make 1024x600 5" displays. Take your avereage 4.8"-5" MID and upsize the touch's 3.5" display up to it.
Quote:
As far as compelling goes, bigger screens are easier and more fun to use. At 7" you're in "big iPod range-- certainly more room to breath than an iPhone, but still pretty cramped. At 10" you're creeping up on MacBook size, with enough room to actually be able to see what you're doing.
And again, at 10" you're into the "I wish I could replace my MB" size. That requires a keyboard to do.
Quote:
I'm thinking Apple has an idea about a different way to relate to a computing device, which is why I used the iPhone example in the first place. A monolithic, ultra thin, ultra light slate thing with touch optimized apps.
We have that already. Other than screen size, what can you do with a 10" slate that you cannot do with an iPod touch?
Quote:
No, not ideal for a lot of text based work, but an entire generation has grown up doing the vast majority of their text creation on numeric keypads.
For image, video and sound acquisition and manipulation, however, such a device would provide a pretty good experience with touch optimized apps.
A touch optimized manipulation application requires more screen real estate than 10". You can do it on 10" but it's not "optimized" in as much as there will be an excessive amount of pinching and zooming going on.
Plus you have the disadvantage that it's a bit large to reach across with the thumb. Arguably 5" is better with 7" being a stretch (pun intended).
Well, you've kind of answered that yourself. Once a device is no longer pocketable, is there any compelling reason to try to keep the size down to 7"? I guess I don't necessarily agree that a 7" device is particularly "more mobile" than a 10" device. Neither will fit in a pocket, both would have to be carried in the hand or put in a bag, and unless you're planning on buying a special little mini bag just for a 7" tablet, it's the difference of tossing a mass market or a trade paperback book in the average backpack or shoulder bag.
As far as compelling goes, bigger screens are easier and more fun to use. At 7" you're in "big iPod range-- certainly more room to breath than an iPhone, but still pretty cramped. At 10" you're creeping up on MacBook size, with enough room to actually be able to see what you're doing.
A tablet, by its very nature is a handheld device. If you don't hold the thing in your hands what are you supposed to do, strap it to your forehead?
So here's the deal. A 7-inch device you could probably hold in one hand. A 10-inch device, not so much. Now consider the impact of doubling the iPhone's screen dimensions. The impact on the user experience would be dramatic and the cost would be that you would lose pocketablity but you would still be able to have one hand free for manipulating the device, i.e. typing etc. Go up to 10 inches and now holding the device in one hand becomes an awkward exercise.
In other words, go up to 7 inches and the gains are phenomenal, go up further still and they are minimal at best (do you really think the jump up from 7 inches to 10 inches is that big a deal?) yet you take away the ability to hold the device in one hand with relative ease.
The only way a 10-inch device would be able to provide a good experience, being used for more than a couple of minutes at a time, is if Apple has found ways to eliminate the use of any hands for input manipulation. Perhaps there's an attachment you put in your shoes that allows data input to be foot operated (two taps with your left foot for an A, three taps with your right for a W etc.). Maybe they've figured out how to wire into our brains directly. Voice is more likely but you can't always be in a setting where it's appropriate to be barking out instructions. So hands will still be in the mix and as such going from a one-hand-friendly 7-inch device to one not-so-friendly, like a 10-inch tablet, well that is significant.
Seriously, the fact that the rumor is 10 inches for the tablet, well, we should all realize just how bogus this all is. People who like to generate rumors are merely guessing and doing it rather badly. They must have figured that since netbooks are gravitating towards use of 10-inch screens and this tablet is Apple's answer to that form factor, the tablet must use a 10-inch screen. That's how the competition would do it, sure, but you can be sure that now that Jobs is back on the job, the odds of a Touch variant with a 10-inch screen coming to market any time soon are exceedingly long. Maybe some minion in Jobs' absence might have looked at ordering a boatload of 10-inch touch screens but no doubt he has since been straightened out if not shown the door.
Comments
The point isn't that a 10" device isn't portable. The point is that a 10" device doesn't fit into your pocket so you HAVE to carry it around.
If you have to carry the thing it should be more useful than a slate...and therefore should have a keyboard. I carried around a motion computing slate for a while and it just didn't fit the bill. I have a 10" netbook now that I use now.
More useful than a slate? We have no idea how useful and Apple tablet would be, it could turn out to be far more useful than a netbook. Your argument is that past slates were not useful so an Apple tablet will never be that useful either. Since it isn't useful, it has to be VERY portable, but what if you are wrong about its usefulness?
More space allows for larger hard drive dimensions, which means lower memory density for the same hard drive size, which means lower cost per GB, which means they can pack more storage in for a similar cost. Perhaps they wont make a 10" tablet initially, perhaps the 10" screens Apple ordered were for something else, or Apple changed their mind about them, but I personally haven't seen anything that would make me think that a smaller size would be more likely. What we see as a likely screen size probably matches the screen size that we think we want, I wouldn't mind a 10" screen at all.
I wouldn't necessarily mind a 10-inch screen but if I'm paying close to a grand for a computer it better be a fully-equiped laptop, not a glorified Touch. It isn't realistic to expect that Apple could deliver a 10-inch Touch-like device and not have it cost as much as a well-equiped laptop.
On the other hand if, for instance, Apple offered a device costing a little more than a Touch with double the screen real estate, such a product is very appealing. And if I could take all that content that works so well with the Touch and use it with that device with a negligible drop in quality, even better. This is possible if you don't go all the way up to a 10-inch screen. As for not worrying about how much space is taken up by your files, you can never have enough storage and less storage costs less, no matter how you cut this. Remember that in a device like this, you pretty much have to use solid-state memory and that memory is still not dirt cheap. Even with platter hard drives, laptop-sized drives are still costlier than the units that go into desktops.
This isn't about what screen size I want. This is about how expensive it would end up being, how much battery life, etc. I have a netbook that I am very pleased with but having a battery that only lasts about two hours is a pain in the derriere.
It seems to me that those folks who conjure up rumors to keep us all amused are betraying their lack of imagination by suggesting Apple is going with a 10-inch screen. Their logic is obvious. Netbooks are settling in at that size and this device is supposedly Apple's response to netbooks, ergo Apple is going to use a 10-inch screen. What is missed, though, is that by doing so, Apple would price this device so high that it would be a marketing disaster. A marvelous product, to be sure, certainly one many of us would find appealing but at the end of the day, very few of us would buy the thing. Netbooks would win out on account of being considerably cheaper and laptops would win out on account of being considerably more useful. This thing would take away sales from neither. What would be the point?
I wouldn't necessarily mind a 10-inch screen but if I'm paying close to a grand for a computer it better be a fully-equiped laptop, not a glorified Touch. It isn't realistic to expect that Apple could deliver a 10-inch Touch-like device and not have it cost as much as a well-equiped laptop.
That's why I'm convened this will not only be a Mac, but will also probably replace the plastic MacBook. Not that it will be a laptop, but that it will be the equivalent price, 64GB SSD model $999.
That's why I'm convened this will not only be a Mac, but will also probably replace the plastic MacBook. Not that it will be a laptop, but that it will be the equivalent price, 64GB SSD model $999.
But if the device replaces a Mac, then it has to run Mac software.
And tablets are really really bad devices at running desktop software. The experience is worse than running desktop software on netbooks.
Apple have already described how poor they think the netbook experience is.
The iPhone reveals how Apple now think about this problem. To create a great experience, the interface, the input methods and the applications must all be purpose-built for the form factor.
Microsoft's Origami project was a tablet running XP and un-modified desktop applications. It had all the elegance of a dog walking on its hind legs. Apple are not going to make the same mistake.
I'd bet hard cash that this device will not be a Mac.
C.
But if the device replaces a Mac, then it has to run Mac software.
We have been over this before. Mac OS 9 software is still Mac software, yet it won't run on my Mac. It will be sort of like that. Well it's a good example. It will run Mac OS X touch, thus it will be and will be marketed as "a Mac".
I'd bet my hard cash that it won't fit easily into any category, and won't be what most people expected.
I'll take that bet.
iPhone reveals how Apple now think about this problem. To create a great experience, the interface, the input methods and the applications must all be purpose-built for the form factor.
You are stating the obvious here. We all know this. Which is why Apple is working on a second variant of Mac OS X called something like Mac OS X touch. Notice Apple never said the iPhone runs "Mac OS X". Upon launch Steve said: "iPhone runs OS X". A subtle, but in the end, major difference.
I'll take that bet.
So you think you know what it will be?
You are stating the obvious here. We all know this. Which is why Apple is working on a second variant of Mac OS X called something like Mac OS X touch.
"Mac OS X touch"?
This is the first point that I have ever been tempted to use one of those annoying laughing smileys.
Notice Apple never said the iPhone runs "Mac OS X". Upon launch Steve said: "iPhone runs OS X". A subtle, but in the end, major difference.
Exactly! Apple does not confuse the audience by getting product names mixed up. The messages coming out of the company are vetted for clarity and consistency. They are not casual about how things are named. They are really anal and consistent about everything. They re-named the iBook as MacBook - just to remind people they were buying a Mac.
I am certain that if a tablet appears, it will be running some form of OS X. But calling it Mac would confuse everyone.
This is how Apple (and third parties)
Why would Apple create an entirely new product line, and then confuse buyers by calling it the same thing as an existing but incompatible product line? Apple just does not do that.
C.
The point isn't that a 10" device isn't portable. The point is that a 10" device doesn't fit into your pocket so you HAVE to carry it around.
If you have to carry the thing it should be more useful than a slate...and therefore should have a keyboard. I carried around a motion computing slate for a while and it just didn't fit the bill. I have a 10" netbook now that I use now.
Time was that I completely agreed with this perspective. Once a device gets too big to fit in your pocket, you might as well jump to laptop functionality. Compared to a laptop, intermediate sizes/form factors take huge usability hits while only modestly improving on portability.
However, that was before the iPhone. The iPhone suggests that, when done properly, a device can create its own market for new definitions of "usability."
For some users, such as yourself, there would never be any reason to sacrifice a keyboard once past pocket size. But if Apple can produce a device that has some of the "wow" factor of the iPhone, who's to say there wouldn't be a surge of tablet using consumers, enjoying new styles of portable computing that we haven't seen yet?
The iPhone has certainly embodied this idea-- there are lots of people who would have never considered a "smart phone" who now can't imagine not having various location aware, internet enabled apps at their finger tips, at all times. Yes, we can note that the iPhone didn't invent these things, but Apple made if fun and easy enough to cross over into a mass culture phenomena. Arguably, the current smart phone market in its entirety is deeply indebted to Apple for showing the way towards breaking out of the geek ghetto.
I could see an Apple designed tablet doing something similar for tablets at large. No, "serious" laptop users won't be interested, but "serious" smart phone users thought the iPhone was a toy.
More useful than a slate? We have no idea how useful and Apple tablet would be, it could turn out to be far more useful than a netbook. Your argument is that past slates were not useful so an Apple tablet will never be that useful either. Since it isn't useful, it has to be VERY portable, but what if you are wrong about its usefulness?
Then Apple has perfected either handwriting recognition or voice recognition or both. Two technologies that have been "5 years from being usable" for the last 20 years.
Recent experiences with ink/inkwell have not been too promising.
Slates used to be the form for tablets. Now most folks have moved to convertibles. The reason is that content creation using just a stylus, or touch or voice has been harder than using a keyboard and mouse.
If all you are going to be doing is consuming content then a slate is fine. But at that point 6-7" display for a personal device is just as good as 10" and far more mobile.
Then Apple has perfected either handwriting recognition or voice recognition or both. Two technologies that have been "5 years from being usable" for the last 20 years.
Recent experiences with ink/inkwell have not been too promising.
Slates used to be the form for tablets. Now most folks have moved to convertibles. The reason is that content creation using just a stylus, or touch or voice has been harder than using a keyboard and mouse.
If all you are going to be doing is consuming content then a slate is fine. But at that point 6-7" display for a personal device is just as good as 10" and far more mobile.
That may be true for text, but what about photos, sound, video and presentations?
You'll notice that the last iteration of iMovie made some changes that are pretty finger friendly, it's not hard to imagine iPhoto or Keynote getting finger friendly adjustment sliders plus drag and drop image manipulation. And something like Garage Band wouldn't have much trouble adapting to using touch for track selection, panning, time signatures, etc.
In fact, I could see direct manipulation via touch as being the better interface for some of these programs. I would have no problem working on a presentation by using my fingers to arrange, scale and manipulate slides.
Time was that I completely agreed with this perspective. Once a device gets too big to fit in your pocket, you might as well jump to laptop functionality. Compared to a laptop, intermediate sizes/form factors take huge usability hits while only modestly improving on portability.
However, that was before the iPhone. The iPhone suggests that, when done properly, a device can create its own market for new definitions of "usability."
Except that the iphone fit in your pocket...d\\so it hasn't redefined that aspect of usability.
For some users, such as yourself, there would never be any reason to sacrifice a keyboard once past pocket size. But if Apple can produce a device that has some of the "wow" factor of the iPhone, who's to say there wouldn't be a surge of tablet using consumers, enjoying new styles of portable computing that we haven't seen yet?
You STILL have to explain why a 10" device is better than a more mobile 7" device and more compelling for the average consumer.
The iPhone has certainly embodied this idea-- there are lots of people who would have never considered a "smart phone" who now can't imagine not having various location aware, internet enabled apps at their finger tips, at all times. Yes, we can note that the iPhone didn't invent these things, but Apple made if fun and easy enough to cross over into a mass culture phenomena. Arguably, the current smart phone market in its entirety is deeply indebted to Apple for showing the way towards breaking out of the geek ghetto.
I could see an Apple designed tablet doing something similar for tablets at large. No, "serious" laptop users won't be interested, but "serious" smart phone users thought the iPhone was a toy.
I didn't. The lack of an physical keyboard on a phone device isn't that big a deal given they sucked anyway. The lack of a physical keyboard on a 10" COMPUTING device does suck UNLESS apple has solved the handwriting or voice recognition problem. Seems possible but unlikely.
Unless they have content creation will be really hampered.
Given the thinness of the MBA there's no reason to forego a usable physical keyboard on a 10" computing device. It will be at enough of a disadvantage not being able to run Word unless MS ports to the ARM.
That may be true for text, but what about photos, sound, video and presentations?
You'll notice that the last iteration of iMovie made some changes that are pretty finger friendly, it's not hard to imagine iPhoto or Keynote getting finger friendly adjustment sliders plus drag and drop image manipulation. And something like Garage Band wouldn't have much trouble adapting to using touch for track selection, panning, time signatures, etc.
In fact, I could see direct manipulation via touch as being the better interface for some of these programs. I would have no problem working on a presentation by using my fingers to arrange, scale and manipulate slides.
The ability to create image/video content on an ARM device in comparison to an Atom device is how much slower? Iphoto and keynote runs on netbooks but not very snappy.
I can see rearranging slides in a keynote viewer. Building a complete presentation? Possible but not very fun. Even with a stylus the direct manipulation for fine control is difficult.
Except that the iphone fit in your pocket...d\\so it hasn't redefined that aspect of usability.
Sure, but we're talking about the relative usability of a given form factor. For a pocketable device, the iPhone vastly expanded what most people felt was possible. My point being that we shouldn't rule out Apple being able to do something similar with a larger machine.
You STILL have to explain why a 10" device is better than a more mobile 7" device and more compelling for the average consumer.
Well, you've kind of answered that yourself. Once a device is no longer pocketable, is there any compelling reason to try to keep the size down to 7"? I guess I don't necessarily agree that a 7" device is particularly "more mobile" than a 10" device. Neither will fit in a pocket, both would have to be carried in the hand or put in a bag, and unless you're planning on buying a special little mini bag just for a 7" tablet, it's the difference of tossing a mass market or a trade paperback book in the average backpack or shoulder bag.
As far as compelling goes, bigger screens are easier and more fun to use. At 7" you're in "big iPod range-- certainly more room to breath than an iPhone, but still pretty cramped. At 10" you're creeping up on MacBook size, with enough room to actually be able to see what you're doing.
I didn't. The lack of an physical keyboard on a phone device isn't that big a deal given they sucked anyway. The lack of a physical keyboard on a 10" COMPUTING device does suck UNLESS apple has solved the handwriting or voice recognition problem. Seems possible but unlikely.
Unless they have content creation will be really hampered.
Given the thinness of the MBA there's no reason to forego a usable physical keyboard on a 10" computing device. It will be at enough of a disadvantage not being able to run Word unless MS ports to the ARM.
I'm thinking Apple has an idea about a different way to relate to a computing device, which is why I used the iPhone example in the first place. A monolithic, ultra thin, ultra light slate thing with touch optimized apps. No, not ideal for a lot of text based work, but an entire generation has grown up doing the vast majority of their text creation on numeric keypads.
For image, video and sound acquisition and manipulation, however, such a device would provide a pretty good experience with touch optimized apps.
Sure, but we're talking about the relative usability of a given form factor. For a pocketable device, the iPhone vastly expanded what most people felt was possible. My point being that we shouldn't rule out Apple being able to do something similar with a larger machine.
Perhaps, but the iPhone is a tad small for a MID.
Well, you've kind of answered that yourself. Once a device is no longer pocketable, is there any compelling reason to try to keep the size down to 7"? I guess I don't necessarily agree that a 7" device is particularly "more mobile" than a 10" device. Neither will fit in a pocket, both would have to be carried in the hand or put in a bag, and unless you're planning on buying a special little mini bag just for a 7" tablet, it's the difference of tossing a mass market or a trade paperback book in the average backpack or shoulder bag.
7" is about the limit of pocketability. If you want to argue it is too large, I'll accept a 5" display as the target. They make 1024x600 5" displays. Take your avereage 4.8"-5" MID and upsize the touch's 3.5" display up to it.
As far as compelling goes, bigger screens are easier and more fun to use. At 7" you're in "big iPod range-- certainly more room to breath than an iPhone, but still pretty cramped. At 10" you're creeping up on MacBook size, with enough room to actually be able to see what you're doing.
And again, at 10" you're into the "I wish I could replace my MB" size. That requires a keyboard to do.
I'm thinking Apple has an idea about a different way to relate to a computing device, which is why I used the iPhone example in the first place. A monolithic, ultra thin, ultra light slate thing with touch optimized apps.
We have that already. Other than screen size, what can you do with a 10" slate that you cannot do with an iPod touch?
No, not ideal for a lot of text based work, but an entire generation has grown up doing the vast majority of their text creation on numeric keypads.
For image, video and sound acquisition and manipulation, however, such a device would provide a pretty good experience with touch optimized apps.
A touch optimized manipulation application requires more screen real estate than 10". You can do it on 10" but it's not "optimized" in as much as there will be an excessive amount of pinching and zooming going on.
Plus you have the disadvantage that it's a bit large to reach across with the thumb. Arguably 5" is better with 7" being a stretch (pun intended).
Well, you've kind of answered that yourself. Once a device is no longer pocketable, is there any compelling reason to try to keep the size down to 7"? I guess I don't necessarily agree that a 7" device is particularly "more mobile" than a 10" device. Neither will fit in a pocket, both would have to be carried in the hand or put in a bag, and unless you're planning on buying a special little mini bag just for a 7" tablet, it's the difference of tossing a mass market or a trade paperback book in the average backpack or shoulder bag.
As far as compelling goes, bigger screens are easier and more fun to use. At 7" you're in "big iPod range-- certainly more room to breath than an iPhone, but still pretty cramped. At 10" you're creeping up on MacBook size, with enough room to actually be able to see what you're doing.
A tablet, by its very nature is a handheld device. If you don't hold the thing in your hands what are you supposed to do, strap it to your forehead?
So here's the deal. A 7-inch device you could probably hold in one hand. A 10-inch device, not so much. Now consider the impact of doubling the iPhone's screen dimensions. The impact on the user experience would be dramatic and the cost would be that you would lose pocketablity but you would still be able to have one hand free for manipulating the device, i.e. typing etc. Go up to 10 inches and now holding the device in one hand becomes an awkward exercise.
In other words, go up to 7 inches and the gains are phenomenal, go up further still and they are minimal at best (do you really think the jump up from 7 inches to 10 inches is that big a deal?) yet you take away the ability to hold the device in one hand with relative ease.
The only way a 10-inch device would be able to provide a good experience, being used for more than a couple of minutes at a time, is if Apple has found ways to eliminate the use of any hands for input manipulation. Perhaps there's an attachment you put in your shoes that allows data input to be foot operated (two taps with your left foot for an A, three taps with your right for a W etc.). Maybe they've figured out how to wire into our brains directly. Voice is more likely but you can't always be in a setting where it's appropriate to be barking out instructions. So hands will still be in the mix and as such going from a one-hand-friendly 7-inch device to one not-so-friendly, like a 10-inch tablet, well that is significant.
Seriously, the fact that the rumor is 10 inches for the tablet, well, we should all realize just how bogus this all is. People who like to generate rumors are merely guessing and doing it rather badly. They must have figured that since netbooks are gravitating towards use of 10-inch screens and this tablet is Apple's answer to that form factor, the tablet must use a 10-inch screen. That's how the competition would do it, sure, but you can be sure that now that Jobs is back on the job, the odds of a Touch variant with a 10-inch screen coming to market any time soon are exceedingly long. Maybe some minion in Jobs' absence might have looked at ordering a boatload of 10-inch touch screens but no doubt he has since been straightened out if not shown the door.
So here's the deal. A 7-inch device you could probably hold in one hand. A 10-inch device, not so much.
You hold it like a baby.