Apple isn't the only one with something cool. Touch is being implemented beautifully in the music and video markets and it's being implemented in much more sophisticated ways. I don't think Steve is necessarily the God of ideas. Similar products to the iPhone were in production or on paper at the same time or earlier. Like other great forward thinking people, he is great at making ideas better.
Do you remember in the September iPod event where they showed the image of a guy trying to put a dell netbook in his back pocket....and failing? It was a joke so as to mock the "netbook" as not being pocketable.
Yet everyone is talking about an apple "tablet". Why would apple make fun of the netbook and how unpocketable it is yet at the same time plan on coming out with a mobile product that will probably be just as unpocketable.
At the very least, I see this apple product as being a folder and perhaps that microsoft courier might not be too far off the mark.
I've been saying the same thing about the size of the device.
If it's going to be too big to fit in a pocket, or on a belt, then it's got to do more, and do it SO well, that people won't want to leave the house with it (As Karl Malden used to say in his AMEX Ads: "Don't leave the house without it!).
If it's not that required, then it might not do that well.
I was a tablet (the hypothesized Apple vision) skeptic for a long time, but I was converted when I saw my 3 year old daughter gradually learn how to use my iPhone.
If anyone has read the Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson, you would get my point. Apple's tablet, like the iPhone and iPod touch, won't be a computer in the classical sense. Like the Young Ladies Illustrated Primer interactive book in the Diamond Age, its purpose is to serve as a consumptive, entertainment and interactive device. So, yeah, it's a super iPod touch, but I would imagine certain programs would be so much easier on it such as coloring, kids applications, video, reading, education, etc.
I could very easily see a device like that and evolved versions be my daughters companions for the foreseeable future. It would be a MacBook replacement really, save for those who use computers for traditional purposes (work et al).
So, I've been converted.
The iPhone is quickly becoming the personal assistant in 'The Motie In God's Eye". Wow! That was written so far back. 1974.
It would seem like there would have to be some sort of tactile feedback so that you wouldn't have to look at the keys to avoid accidentally hitting two at once.
Otherwise, we will have a lot of pissed off high school typing teachers.
("Achtung!!! Eyes on the screen!")
I didn't understand how they want to implement the tactile feedback, which is for sure important feature of the physical keyboard...it is not clear from the information presented in this article. Anyone ?
With a tablet, there would be no need for a mouse, just like on Macbooks. What?s wrong with the idea of a tablet-Mac with a TrackPad which can sense whether the tablet is in portrait or landscape mode?
The Keyboard Viewer in Snow Leopard is no longer fixed to one size ? on my 24? monitor it can be expanded to larger than the full Aluminium Keyboard!
This sentence was typed entirely by the screen keyboard and mouse.
The tablet could be a stand alone unit with the ability to transform into a smaller second display (to perhaps play video while working?), a large TrackPad or even a graphics tablet.
The uses are only limited by our own imaginations (does Apple have an Imaginations Team?).
I for one am looking forward to a OSX/iPhoneOS-based tablet, even if it only replaces my Sony PRS-505 eBook Reader.
If not something similar to this, I see Apple making use of another of their Patents (also reported here at AI a while back), where a large iPhone-style designed iBook (I think they'll reserve and reuse this name for their tablet offering) slides into an iMac housing. The recent announcement of Light Peak even makes this a possibility, since the slide-in mechanism only has to align to one connector instead of many. NOTE: How cool would it be if Apple decided to marry the MagSafe connector style with LP?!! Any techies out there know whether this would be possible?
Regardless, I think Apple will definitely adopt Light Peak ASAP, and especially with the new iBook.
Also, we shouldn't forget all of the "under-the-hood" advances in SL, mainly Grand Central and it's ability to efficiently use multiple cores. Imagine if you have an i5 or PA-Semi processor in the iBook, and the i5 or i7 in the iMac, and you get to use ALL of the power of both devices?! Also when "LP-docked", the iBook is syncing, as well as powering up... and/or if cabled, to be used as an input device. NOTE: the iBook will definately be BT-enabled, so connecting to a BT keyboard, mouse... or better, a stand-alone trackpad (KB-TP combo?) will take care of the long-doc typing crowd.
SJ is a clever cookie at creating eco-systems for his products. I'm convinced something "modular" in approach is coming. The desktop paradigm is old and I believe SJ has said publicly, dead. So now it will be about creating components that seemlessly connect together to create a "whole"... and most likely, a "hole" in our collective pockets Mine for sure.
PS: just wanted to add that LP, with a large iPhone style iBook, plus a Mac Mini, with a stackable "Connection Extender" box, plus assorted add-on stacks, like dedicated GPU, hard drives, BlueRay, etc. could be interesting.
That and the leaked Courier are the best tablet ideas out there. Because the tablet must have e-Book, "traditional" laptop/netbook functionality, and canvas-multitouch abilities.
I have been thinking that it should be a foldable with two inner touchscreens. And it can "flip out and fold the other way" to tablet form.
In fact, imagine this. Let's say the tablet on one side is your display screen, the back screen can receive your touch gestures, so "scrolling down a page" would involve you sliding your fingers down the back of the tablet while you grip it.
The thing right now that is probably bugging Steve the most about this whole tablet thing is the stylus. To stylus or not to stylus. Most importantly: imagine if you could use *any* pencil or *any* pen as a stylus... without marking the screen in any way. Of course, a special Apple Stylus/pen also provided and available for purchase online, in stores, etc. Losing the stylus and not being able to use the tablet properly is the worse thing to happen, which could happen frequently. So if you could just use any pen or pencil, that would be real cool. Seamless.
The thing right now that is probably bugging Steve the most about this whole tablet thing is the stylus. To stylus or not to stylus. Most importantly: imagine if you could use *any* pencil or *any* pen as a stylus... without marking the screen in any way. Of course, a special Apple Stylus/pen also provided and available for purchase online, in stores, etc. Losing the stylus and not being able to use the tablet properly is the worse thing to happen, which could happen frequently. So if you could just use any pen or pencil, that would be real cool. Seamless.
Or...like any other stylus device they could sell replacement stylii. Which is much more likely and cost-effective. I have about a million for my DS that came free with games, accessory packs, the DS itself etc., and they are a few pennies to replace. Using a pen or pencil sounds like a terrible idea All the crazy Mac people who keep everything in pristine condition 'just in case' they decide to sell and complain that the spacebar on the Mac keyboard 'sounds different' to the other keys would freak out about using a stylus, never mind a harmful pen or pencil.
Apple isn't the only one with something cool. Touch is being implemented beautifully in the music and video markets and it's being implemented in much more sophisticated ways. I don't think Steve is necessarily the God of ideas. Similar products to the iPhone were in production or on paper at the same time or earlier. Like other great forward thinking people, he is great at making ideas better.
Jazzmutant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac
I fail to see what's in there that isn't possible on the iPhone. Its touch points are limited by software alone, not fancy technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That's true, but that equipment is professional, and very expensive.
Yes, of course, but that shows what you could do with a 12" display. That's why it is completly absurd to compare this to the iPhone (or say I can do this or that with the iPhone too). Jazzmutant products can control Logic Pro and other DAW applications. I believe that with some work, an Apple tablet could control Garageband, iMovie, Logic Exp and Pro, FCP, Aperture,... in a much more integrated/natural way than a 3rd party product: display the REAL application interface on the multitouch tablet, for example. But the app doesn't need to run on the tablet itself.
I think that the original poster wanted to point out that they were other applications for multitouch tablets than just the regular apps that have been discussed lately (web, e-books, e-magazines, movies,...) and that some of them are already out there.
Of course, the point is not to make a product that does just that, but for that feature to be one of the many features of the tablet (the rumored one or a future version).
It's never that simple. The architectures are too different. There are no equivalents to many cpu instructions going from one chip to another.
Apple has no way in the SDK for either chipset to allow to compile for the other other. We're not talking about Universal binaries here. The ARM has nothing to do with the PPC, so Apple would have to write another cross compiler.
We're talking about taking a Mac program and running it on an iPhone OS based device, and visa versa. That's what some people are suggesting.
It won't work.
Somehow, some people think that just because the iPhone OS is the core of OS X, that with a minor stroke here and there, the programs are transportable.
Turning Objective-C code into machine code is the compiler's job, not the programmer's, and I don't think there's a whole lot of assembly language coding being done in Cocoa apps. Much of that compiler work is already done for for iPhone apps and there's probably little non-portable code at this point in the higher frameworks that aren't currently part of the iPhone OS libraries. It would work just as well, in terms of generating binaries, as the switch from PPC to Intel. There is no significant technical barrier to compiling Mac OS X apps for an ARM processor. (And, there's no technical barrier that I'm aware of to fat binaries for both platforms.)
But, I think it's unlikely that it would be straight iPhone OS or Mac OS X (as these exist today), the question ought to be which one it more closely resembles, and how intermediate it is, or whether it is simply a further evolution of one. This is entirely a UI design and usability issue, not a compilation issue.
It would likely be a superset of one (or both) of these OSs, meaning that apps built to work with the subset platform's libraries would run on the platform, although without some features being taken advantage of. It could also be that changes, transparent to the application code, would be made so that certain features or controls would behave slightly differently, adapting them to a touch interface or a larger display, as the case may be, on (call it) Tablet OS than on its ancestor platform(s). (Examples of this sort of thing on Mac OS X are Universal Access features, which can alter the behavior or appearance of applications without the developer specifically coding for them.)
However, it's all a guessing game at this point since none of us knows what the use(s) of the rumored tablet would be. Which OS it resembles most and to what extent it may have features of both will depend largely on that.
I never liked, and don't think I ever will like the dual-screen idea.
Wow, a second screen with a fake keyboard!? Just like a laptop but not as good. If you're going to do a tablet, do it right and make the whole thing one screen that's light enough to carry pretty much everywhere. And that has a software keyboard just like the iPhone, but bigger. It's only there when you need it, and it doesn't add weight, bulk or anything else. It will never replace a physical keyboard, but that's why Apple will continue to sell notebook computers. If you simply must have a physical keyboard on your portable Mac then you'll have that option. For me the only way to do this tablet right if for it to have one screen, and I'd bet money it will - you'll see.
Yes, of course, but that shows what you could do with a 12" display. That's why it is completly absurd to compare this to the iPhone (or say I can do this or that with the iPhone too). Jazzmutant products can control Logic Pro and other DAW applications. I believe that with some work, an Apple tablet could control Garageband, iMovie, Logic Exp and Pro, FCP, Aperture,... in a much more integrated/natural way than a 3rd party product: display the REAL application interface on the multitouch tablet, for example. But the app doesn't need to run on the tablet itself.
I think that the original poster wanted to point out that they were other applications for multitouch tablets than just the regular apps that have been discussed lately (web, e-books, e-magazines, movies,...) and that some of them are already out there.
Of course, the point is not to make a product that does just that, but for that feature to be one of the many features of the tablet (the rumored one or a future version).
I'm sure that if Apple wants to do this for Garageband and their other apps, they can. The equipment that was shown though, is for the most part dedicated to its function.
Turning Objective-C code into machine code is the compiler's job, not the programmer's, and I don't think there's a whole lot of assembly language coding being done in Cocoa apps. Much of that compiler work is already done for for iPhone apps and there's probably little non-portable code at this point in the higher frameworks that aren't currently part of the iPhone OS libraries. It would work just as well, in terms of generating binaries, as the switch from PPC to Intel. There is no significant technical barrier to compiling Mac OS X apps for an ARM processor. (And, there's no technical barrier that I'm aware of to fat binaries for both platforms.)
But, I think it's unlikely that it would be straight iPhone OS or Mac OS X (as these exist today), the question ought to be which one it more closely resembles, and how intermediate it is, or whether it is simply a further evolution of one. This is entirely a UI design and usability issue, not a compilation issue.
It would likely be a superset of one (or both) of these OSs, meaning that apps built to work with the subset platform's libraries would run on the platform, although without some features being taken advantage of. It could also be that changes, transparent to the application code, would be made so that certain features or controls would behave slightly differently, adapting them to a touch interface or a larger display, as the case may be, on (call it) Tablet OS than on its ancestor platform(s). (Examples of this sort of thing on Mac OS X are Universal Access features, which can alter the behavior or appearance of applications without the developer specifically coding for them.)
However, it's all a guessing game at this point since none of us knows what the use(s) of the rumored tablet would be. Which OS it resembles most and to what extent it may have features of both will depend largely on that.
The first thing I'll do is to agree with the last part of your post. After all, that's what we're really talking about - what the heck will this thing be?
Otherwise, Apple would have to provide the path for developers to port their x86 apps over. no matter how you look at it, it would be a real job. I think you're oversimplifying.
We can't look to Rosetta as an example, for help here, because that's going from PPC to x86. Why is that difference important?
Because the PPC was being depreciated. After the last G5, there would be no more. That meant that as time went on, the power of the fastest G5 would diminish when compared to the newer x86 machines Apple was producing.
That's important because just as in going to the PPC from the older 68xxxx, the original new machines only ran the older apps at about 25 to 50% of the speed of the faster older machines. We all remember the problems that caused with many apps, and why we were so impatient to get native apps to replace them. So an emulator won't work in this situation, because the best ARM will never come close in performance to even a lower end modern x86 chip and gpu. With x86, the newer chips fairly quickly outstripped the PPC's in performance, so that after a while, most programs running in Rosetta ran about as fast as they did before.
So this rules out the ideas of those who are saying that an emulator would allow a straight move over, the way we've seen earlier.
Even if these programs are re-compiled to run on the ARM, it's likely that some features won't work, and I'm not even talking about the total lack of a real GUI. The iPhone doesn't have much of a GUI at all. How will these x86 programs manage that? Well, they won't. If they will work at all, the entire front end of the program will have to be replaced, because most of the API's for the GUI aren't there.
You know very well that there's NO way that apple will allow each company to come up with its own way to display a GUI. NO way!
So that means that Apple will need to come out with a new cross compiler from x86 to ARM that somehow includes a way to get a usable x86-like GUI onto the iPhone platform.
And yes, the programs WILL need to be re-compiled.
I didn't understand how they want to implement the tactile feedback, which is for sure important feature of the physical keyboard...it is not clear from the information presented in this article. Anyone ?
You have to examine WHY people think tactile feedback is important in a keyboard. I think Microsoft's recent multi-touch/surface patent (which I'm sure Apple has addressed in their patent) comes up with an answer to the problem.
You have to examine WHY people think tactile feedback is important in a keyboard. I think Microsoft's recent multi-touch/surface patent (which I'm sure Apple has addressed in their patent) comes up with an answer to the problem.
From what I see of that, it looks pretty bad. Typists don't keep their palms in the same exact spot while typing. neither do they rest their hands or fingers on the keys.
As someone there pointed out, it would take gorilla hands to reach the backspace/delete key if you can't raise your hand totally off the display while reaching for it. Some people have big hands, but some have small hands. It doesn't look flexible, or natural.
Since typists still cannot rest their fingers on the keys and still do not receive feedback from bouncing, mechanical keys, touch-keyboards are still unacceptable for most of us as our main device.
So that means that Apple will need to come out with a new cross compiler from x86 to ARM that somehow includes a way to get a usable x86-like GUI onto the iPhone platform.
And yes, the programs WILL need to be re-compiled.
Is Apple about to do this?
Well, let's just say no.
The technical aspects of the port will be pretty straightforward and simple. If a Mac OS X application is built with Cocoa, the backend won't have to be changed much at all, and the frontend will have to be redesigned for the new GUI. Apple's Interface Builder tool is pretty much the best tool to do this with.
While it is true that it won't be a simple recompile like it is between x86 and PPC and vice versa, it won't be like a total port like say Windows to Mac, and I don't think he was suggesting that Mac OS X programs would be ported unchanged in design. It will be somewhere inbetween and I'd lean it to be more on the simpler side.
The coding won't be the problem. It's the UI design that will be pretty hard.
Comments
Apple isn't the only one with something cool. Touch is being implemented beautifully in the music and video markets and it's being implemented in much more sophisticated ways. I don't think Steve is necessarily the God of ideas. Similar products to the iPhone were in production or on paper at the same time or earlier. Like other great forward thinking people, he is great at making ideas better.
Jazzmutant
That's true, but that equipment is professional, and very expensive.
Do you remember in the September iPod event where they showed the image of a guy trying to put a dell netbook in his back pocket....and failing? It was a joke so as to mock the "netbook" as not being pocketable.
Yet everyone is talking about an apple "tablet". Why would apple make fun of the netbook and how unpocketable it is yet at the same time plan on coming out with a mobile product that will probably be just as unpocketable.
At the very least, I see this apple product as being a folder and perhaps that microsoft courier might not be too far off the mark.
I've been saying the same thing about the size of the device.
If it's going to be too big to fit in a pocket, or on a belt, then it's got to do more, and do it SO well, that people won't want to leave the house with it (As Karl Malden used to say in his AMEX Ads: "Don't leave the house without it!).
If it's not that required, then it might not do that well.
I was a tablet (the hypothesized Apple vision) skeptic for a long time, but I was converted when I saw my 3 year old daughter gradually learn how to use my iPhone.
If anyone has read the Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson, you would get my point. Apple's tablet, like the iPhone and iPod touch, won't be a computer in the classical sense. Like the Young Ladies Illustrated Primer interactive book in the Diamond Age, its purpose is to serve as a consumptive, entertainment and interactive device. So, yeah, it's a super iPod touch, but I would imagine certain programs would be so much easier on it such as coloring, kids applications, video, reading, education, etc.
I could very easily see a device like that and evolved versions be my daughters companions for the foreseeable future. It would be a MacBook replacement really, save for those who use computers for traditional purposes (work et al).
So, I've been converted.
The iPhone is quickly becoming the personal assistant in 'The Motie In God's Eye". Wow! That was written so far back. 1974.
It would seem like there would have to be some sort of tactile feedback so that you wouldn't have to look at the keys to avoid accidentally hitting two at once.
Otherwise, we will have a lot of pissed off high school typing teachers.
("Achtung!!! Eyes on the screen!")
I didn't understand how they want to implement the tactile feedback, which is for sure important feature of the physical keyboard...it is not clear from the information presented in this article. Anyone ?
The Keyboard Viewer in Snow Leopard is no longer fixed to one size ? on my 24? monitor it can be expanded to larger than the full Aluminium Keyboard!
This sentence was typed entirely by the screen keyboard and mouse.
The tablet could be a stand alone unit with the ability to transform into a smaller second display (to perhaps play video while working?), a large TrackPad or even a graphics tablet.
The uses are only limited by our own imaginations (does Apple have an Imaginations Team?).
I for one am looking forward to a OSX/iPhoneOS-based tablet, even if it only replaces my Sony PRS-505 eBook Reader.
...Why buy a 10" netbook for $500-$600 when you can have an Apple tablet for approx. the same price?...
Because it's better?
Tommaso Gecchelin’s Design
If not something similar to this, I see Apple making use of another of their Patents (also reported here at AI a while back), where a large iPhone-style designed iBook (I think they'll reserve and reuse this name for their tablet offering) slides into an iMac housing. The recent announcement of Light Peak even makes this a possibility, since the slide-in mechanism only has to align to one connector instead of many. NOTE: How cool would it be if Apple decided to marry the MagSafe connector style with LP?!! Any techies out there know whether this would be possible?
Regardless, I think Apple will definitely adopt Light Peak ASAP, and especially with the new iBook.
Also, we shouldn't forget all of the "under-the-hood" advances in SL, mainly Grand Central and it's ability to efficiently use multiple cores. Imagine if you have an i5 or PA-Semi processor in the iBook, and the i5 or i7 in the iMac, and you get to use ALL of the power of both devices?! Also when "LP-docked", the iBook is syncing, as well as powering up... and/or if cabled, to be used as an input device. NOTE: the iBook will definately be BT-enabled, so connecting to a BT keyboard, mouse... or better, a stand-alone trackpad (KB-TP combo?) will take care of the long-doc typing crowd.
SJ is a clever cookie at creating eco-systems for his products. I'm convinced something "modular" in approach is coming. The desktop paradigm is old and I believe SJ has said publicly, dead. So now it will be about creating components that seemlessly connect together to create a "whole"... and most likely, a "hole" in our collective pockets
PS: just wanted to add that LP, with a large iPhone style iBook, plus a Mac Mini, with a stackable "Connection Extender" box, plus assorted add-on stacks, like dedicated GPU, hard drives, BlueRay, etc. could be interesting.
I personally still like this design as a possibility. This link has been posted here before:
Tommaso Gecchelin’s Design
That and the leaked Courier are the best tablet ideas out there. Because the tablet must have e-Book, "traditional" laptop/netbook functionality, and canvas-multitouch abilities.
I have been thinking that it should be a foldable with two inner touchscreens. And it can "flip out and fold the other way" to tablet form.
In fact, imagine this. Let's say the tablet on one side is your display screen, the back screen can receive your touch gestures, so "scrolling down a page" would involve you sliding your fingers down the back of the tablet while you grip it.
The thing right now that is probably bugging Steve the most about this whole tablet thing is the stylus. To stylus or not to stylus. Most importantly: imagine if you could use *any* pencil or *any* pen as a stylus... without marking the screen in any way. Of course, a special Apple Stylus/pen also provided and available for purchase online, in stores, etc. Losing the stylus and not being able to use the tablet properly is the worse thing to happen, which could happen frequently. So if you could just use any pen or pencil, that would be real cool. Seamless.
The thing right now that is probably bugging Steve the most about this whole tablet thing is the stylus. To stylus or not to stylus. Most importantly: imagine if you could use *any* pencil or *any* pen as a stylus... without marking the screen in any way. Of course, a special Apple Stylus/pen also provided and available for purchase online, in stores, etc. Losing the stylus and not being able to use the tablet properly is the worse thing to happen, which could happen frequently. So if you could just use any pen or pencil, that would be real cool. Seamless.
Or...like any other stylus device they could sell replacement stylii. Which is much more likely and cost-effective. I have about a million for my DS that came free with games, accessory packs, the DS itself etc., and they are a few pennies to replace. Using a pen or pencil sounds like a terrible idea
Originally Posted by success
Apple isn't the only one with something cool. Touch is being implemented beautifully in the music and video markets and it's being implemented in much more sophisticated ways. I don't think Steve is necessarily the God of ideas. Similar products to the iPhone were in production or on paper at the same time or earlier. Like other great forward thinking people, he is great at making ideas better.
Jazzmutant
I fail to see what's in there that isn't possible on the iPhone. Its touch points are limited by software alone, not fancy technologies.
That's true, but that equipment is professional, and very expensive.
Yes, of course, but that shows what you could do with a 12" display. That's why it is completly absurd to compare this to the iPhone (or say I can do this or that with the iPhone too). Jazzmutant products can control Logic Pro and other DAW applications. I believe that with some work, an Apple tablet could control Garageband, iMovie, Logic Exp and Pro, FCP, Aperture,... in a much more integrated/natural way than a 3rd party product: display the REAL application interface on the multitouch tablet, for example. But the app doesn't need to run on the tablet itself.
I think that the original poster wanted to point out that they were other applications for multitouch tablets than just the regular apps that have been discussed lately (web, e-books, e-magazines, movies,...) and that some of them are already out there.
Of course, the point is not to make a product that does just that, but for that feature to be one of the many features of the tablet (the rumored one or a future version).
It's never that simple. The architectures are too different. There are no equivalents to many cpu instructions going from one chip to another.
Apple has no way in the SDK for either chipset to allow to compile for the other other. We're not talking about Universal binaries here. The ARM has nothing to do with the PPC, so Apple would have to write another cross compiler.
We're talking about taking a Mac program and running it on an iPhone OS based device, and visa versa. That's what some people are suggesting.
It won't work.
Somehow, some people think that just because the iPhone OS is the core of OS X, that with a minor stroke here and there, the programs are transportable.
Turning Objective-C code into machine code is the compiler's job, not the programmer's, and I don't think there's a whole lot of assembly language coding being done in Cocoa apps. Much of that compiler work is already done for for iPhone apps and there's probably little non-portable code at this point in the higher frameworks that aren't currently part of the iPhone OS libraries. It would work just as well, in terms of generating binaries, as the switch from PPC to Intel. There is no significant technical barrier to compiling Mac OS X apps for an ARM processor. (And, there's no technical barrier that I'm aware of to fat binaries for both platforms.)
But, I think it's unlikely that it would be straight iPhone OS or Mac OS X (as these exist today), the question ought to be which one it more closely resembles, and how intermediate it is, or whether it is simply a further evolution of one. This is entirely a UI design and usability issue, not a compilation issue.
It would likely be a superset of one (or both) of these OSs, meaning that apps built to work with the subset platform's libraries would run on the platform, although without some features being taken advantage of. It could also be that changes, transparent to the application code, would be made so that certain features or controls would behave slightly differently, adapting them to a touch interface or a larger display, as the case may be, on (call it) Tablet OS than on its ancestor platform(s). (Examples of this sort of thing on Mac OS X are Universal Access features, which can alter the behavior or appearance of applications without the developer specifically coding for them.)
However, it's all a guessing game at this point since none of us knows what the use(s) of the rumored tablet would be. Which OS it resembles most and to what extent it may have features of both will depend largely on that.
Wow, a second screen with a fake keyboard!? Just like a laptop but not as good. If you're going to do a tablet, do it right and make the whole thing one screen that's light enough to carry pretty much everywhere. And that has a software keyboard just like the iPhone, but bigger. It's only there when you need it, and it doesn't add weight, bulk or anything else. It will never replace a physical keyboard, but that's why Apple will continue to sell notebook computers. If you simply must have a physical keyboard on your portable Mac then you'll have that option. For me the only way to do this tablet right if for it to have one screen, and I'd bet money it will - you'll see.
LOL One might say Borgesque. Btw, Orphic doesn't need a capital 'O' since you are not referring the the works of Orpheus.
I dithered on that. I think both 'O' and 'o' are right.
By the same token, shouldn't it be 'borgesque'?
Yes, of course, but that shows what you could do with a 12" display. That's why it is completly absurd to compare this to the iPhone (or say I can do this or that with the iPhone too). Jazzmutant products can control Logic Pro and other DAW applications. I believe that with some work, an Apple tablet could control Garageband, iMovie, Logic Exp and Pro, FCP, Aperture,... in a much more integrated/natural way than a 3rd party product: display the REAL application interface on the multitouch tablet, for example. But the app doesn't need to run on the tablet itself.
I think that the original poster wanted to point out that they were other applications for multitouch tablets than just the regular apps that have been discussed lately (web, e-books, e-magazines, movies,...) and that some of them are already out there.
Of course, the point is not to make a product that does just that, but for that feature to be one of the many features of the tablet (the rumored one or a future version).
I'm sure that if Apple wants to do this for Garageband and their other apps, they can. The equipment that was shown though, is for the most part dedicated to its function.
Turning Objective-C code into machine code is the compiler's job, not the programmer's, and I don't think there's a whole lot of assembly language coding being done in Cocoa apps. Much of that compiler work is already done for for iPhone apps and there's probably little non-portable code at this point in the higher frameworks that aren't currently part of the iPhone OS libraries. It would work just as well, in terms of generating binaries, as the switch from PPC to Intel. There is no significant technical barrier to compiling Mac OS X apps for an ARM processor. (And, there's no technical barrier that I'm aware of to fat binaries for both platforms.)
But, I think it's unlikely that it would be straight iPhone OS or Mac OS X (as these exist today), the question ought to be which one it more closely resembles, and how intermediate it is, or whether it is simply a further evolution of one. This is entirely a UI design and usability issue, not a compilation issue.
It would likely be a superset of one (or both) of these OSs, meaning that apps built to work with the subset platform's libraries would run on the platform, although without some features being taken advantage of. It could also be that changes, transparent to the application code, would be made so that certain features or controls would behave slightly differently, adapting them to a touch interface or a larger display, as the case may be, on (call it) Tablet OS than on its ancestor platform(s). (Examples of this sort of thing on Mac OS X are Universal Access features, which can alter the behavior or appearance of applications without the developer specifically coding for them.)
However, it's all a guessing game at this point since none of us knows what the use(s) of the rumored tablet would be. Which OS it resembles most and to what extent it may have features of both will depend largely on that.
The first thing I'll do is to agree with the last part of your post. After all, that's what we're really talking about - what the heck will this thing be?
Otherwise, Apple would have to provide the path for developers to port their x86 apps over. no matter how you look at it, it would be a real job. I think you're oversimplifying.
We can't look to Rosetta as an example, for help here, because that's going from PPC to x86. Why is that difference important?
Because the PPC was being depreciated. After the last G5, there would be no more. That meant that as time went on, the power of the fastest G5 would diminish when compared to the newer x86 machines Apple was producing.
That's important because just as in going to the PPC from the older 68xxxx, the original new machines only ran the older apps at about 25 to 50% of the speed of the faster older machines. We all remember the problems that caused with many apps, and why we were so impatient to get native apps to replace them. So an emulator won't work in this situation, because the best ARM will never come close in performance to even a lower end modern x86 chip and gpu. With x86, the newer chips fairly quickly outstripped the PPC's in performance, so that after a while, most programs running in Rosetta ran about as fast as they did before.
So this rules out the ideas of those who are saying that an emulator would allow a straight move over, the way we've seen earlier.
Even if these programs are re-compiled to run on the ARM, it's likely that some features won't work, and I'm not even talking about the total lack of a real GUI. The iPhone doesn't have much of a GUI at all. How will these x86 programs manage that? Well, they won't. If they will work at all, the entire front end of the program will have to be replaced, because most of the API's for the GUI aren't there.
You know very well that there's NO way that apple will allow each company to come up with its own way to display a GUI. NO way!
So that means that Apple will need to come out with a new cross compiler from x86 to ARM that somehow includes a way to get a usable x86-like GUI onto the iPhone platform.
And yes, the programs WILL need to be re-compiled.
Is Apple about to do this?
Well, let's just say no.
I dithered on that. I think both 'O' and 'o' are right.
By the same token, shouldn't it be 'borgesque'?
Ah, where is Mr. H when we need him?
I didn't understand how they want to implement the tactile feedback, which is for sure important feature of the physical keyboard...it is not clear from the information presented in this article. Anyone ?
You have to examine WHY people think tactile feedback is important in a keyboard. I think Microsoft's recent multi-touch/surface patent (which I'm sure Apple has addressed in their patent) comes up with an answer to the problem.
http://gizmodo.com/5368149/microsoft...creen-keyboard
You have to examine WHY people think tactile feedback is important in a keyboard. I think Microsoft's recent multi-touch/surface patent (which I'm sure Apple has addressed in their patent) comes up with an answer to the problem.
http://gizmodo.com/5368149/microsoft...creen-keyboard
From what I see of that, it looks pretty bad. Typists don't keep their palms in the same exact spot while typing. neither do they rest their hands or fingers on the keys.
As someone there pointed out, it would take gorilla hands to reach the backspace/delete key if you can't raise your hand totally off the display while reaching for it. Some people have big hands, but some have small hands. It doesn't look flexible, or natural.
So that means that Apple will need to come out with a new cross compiler from x86 to ARM that somehow includes a way to get a usable x86-like GUI onto the iPhone platform.
And yes, the programs WILL need to be re-compiled.
Is Apple about to do this?
Well, let's just say no.
The technical aspects of the port will be pretty straightforward and simple. If a Mac OS X application is built with Cocoa, the backend won't have to be changed much at all, and the frontend will have to be redesigned for the new GUI. Apple's Interface Builder tool is pretty much the best tool to do this with.
While it is true that it won't be a simple recompile like it is between x86 and PPC and vice versa, it won't be like a total port like say Windows to Mac, and I don't think he was suggesting that Mac OS X programs would be ported unchanged in design. It will be somewhere inbetween and I'd lean it to be more on the simpler side.
The coding won't be the problem. It's the UI design that will be pretty hard.