To me that's the problem with opting for a 10" screen, i.e. it creates a device that loses most of the strengths of the Touch. Battery life takes a hit, portability takes a hit, compatibility with existing Touch software takes a hit, affordability takes a hit.
Lots of assumptions there.
Battery life takes a hit: a larger device is likely to have more internal room for batteries, and the device may be able to leverage better battery technology and the latest processor cores (perhaps from Apple's purchase). Battery life could conceivably improve.
Portability takes a hit: this is subjective and context bound. For example, someone toting a tablet around an emergency department doing patient charting might not have the same definition of portability that you do. You are assuming the use context is the same as the use context for an iPhone or iPod touch, but that may not be a safe assumption to make.
Compatibility takes a hit: Your assumption rests upon your own mental model of how Apple would implement the use of iPhone / touch apps on a device like this. There are many methods for accomplishing this; you've made an assumption about the method Apple may use, and your assessment of compatibility is driven by that assumption.
Affordability takes a hit: Again, completely subjective and contextually bound. What is affordable depends on featurization and use context. You can't assume that because this device will likely cost more than a subsidized iPhone that it is an 'affordability hit'. By that same logic, an iMac is an affordability hit over a mac mini, and a mac pro is an affordability hit over an imac. In reality, the products vary in their featurization, and appeal to different market segments.
I'm not buying this part. Meaning: "The report cited analysts who believe a tablet would have access to that library of applications." Just because the iPhone App Store might have been an inspiration, doesn't mean they have to use "it".
I like the App Store idea, but it will be a new store specifically designed for the tablet with its 10" screen. The Tablet App Store, if you will.
The apps doesn?t have expand to 10? and cover the entire screen to be usable. Have you not seen the iPhone SDK?s simulator? If a tablet does come with 3G and wireless you could run multiple iPhone OS X apps next to each other. They would just like they are in there own separate windows. Except for a button on the window border to change orientation, everything else is already built in.
You're right that the main difference between iPhone OS and Mac OS X is the UI paradigm. But, touch isn't inherently tied to that paradigm, nor necessarily impossible with other paradigms. I don't believe that the iPhone UI, unchanged, will work on larger screens without seeming limiting (It would be like running a 30" monitor at 640x480 resolution.) and would very much reduce the value of a tablet. Even running iPhone apps in little windows would be incredibly clunky.
It seems to me that the most likely possibility is in fact a 3rd OS that is intermediate between Mac OS X and iPhone OS, with perhaps UI innovations of its own. But, it's impossible to know which one it's more closely related to at this time, because none of us knows what Apple has in mind for what this would do and how it would do it.
I
You are not seriously suggesting a third OS strand? Not going to happen. The OS will be the iPhone OS with some updates. There is no reason to imagine that the UI elements will not be added to; frankly there is plenty already within the iPhone OS to create suitable interfaces for a larger screen.
I think you're wrong. Time will tell. In my view this tablet will start from scratch.
Starting from scratch (assuming you mean with a new UI, though I recall your mockups have always indicated that you want it to run Mac OS X) doesn?t mean that it can?t run the smaller apps in windows while also offering an App Store for a tablet device to take advantage of the greater power and display size.
The apps doesn?t have expand to 10? and cover the entire screen to be usable. Have you not seen the iPhone SDK?s simulator? If a tablet does come with 3G and wireless you could run multiple iPhone OS X apps next to each other. They would just like they are in there own separate windows. Except for a button on the window border to change orientation, everything else is already built in.
That might be fine as a way to allow iPhone apps to run on a tablet (If the OS is a full superset of iPhone OS.), but, again, if that's all you can do with this, it's not worth getting excited about.
I am sure they would sell but they would not change the industry as the ipod and iphone have done. The iphone/ipod touch is great for consuming information e.g browsing the web, apps replacing safari but apple should make the tablet great for creating/editing information - just like laptops & desktops are great for creating/editing information/data but overkill for consuming info.
This means that new applications need to be created for the itablet - applications that run on the arm chipset. These will be applications that are non 486. Just like apps on the iphone at the moment that are used to create and edit information/data. These apps will not be the huge applications that run on the 486 chipset e.g photoshop, office but apps that suit our needs e.g like the ilife or iwork applications. This would change the balance of power away from microsoft and intel.
Because the apps aren't design for the device, and they want a second round of money. It's really simple.
That just makes no sense. First, who is the 'they' that wants a 'second round of money', and second, what is the 'second round of money' you are talking about?
Apple makes a fixed percentage on every application sale through App-Store. More devices that are compatible mean more app sales, not less. On top of that, the vast application library that currently exists is a differentiator for Apple that they constantly shove in consumer's faces. "Want to know one reason why you should buy an iPhone instead of a Pre, or a touch instead of a zune? Check out all of our applications!" I am sure you must have seen these commercials.
Your argument rests on some very questionable assertions. First, you think that allowing a device to use existing apps means that anyone buying such a device will simply use their old apps and not buy new ones. That is a very questionable thesis. More so, it assumes that the vast majority of purchasers will be people who already have an Apple device, who would then use their existing software instead of buying new apps. Again, very questionable.
... Or is everyone who disagrees with you just crazy?...
First of all, ... sorry. I didn't mean to come across like "my way or the highway" but this just seems so clear and obvious to me so perhaps I was a little strident in the way I phrased it.
It comes down to semantics a bit in that it probably won't be exactly the same as the iPhone because a tablet is not an iPhone, but it will almost certainly be the "iPhone variant" of OS-X as I said. What would help a lot is if Apple clarified their OS roadmap and actually gave these things usable informative names so we don't have to keep referring to things in a muddle.
My point is that if company A starts making a new OS for a new class of device and then after a year or two manages to produce one that is a giant success, the likely hood of their second device on this new platform using a completely new or different OS is slim to none. There is a definite strategy here that seems pretty plain. Apple is making a new generation of devices with a new OS. The OS may evolve slightly with the new device, (I'm hoping for multi-tasking and a basic file system), but going to a whole different metaphor is just really, really, unlikely.
With so many millions of people trained on the new devices, why do something different yet again? If the effort here is to get the world used to touch-screen devices and how they work, it makes no sense to substantially change the interface for the second product.
Also, the tablet, although bigger, is going to suffer from all the same design challenges that led to the "iPhone OS" in the first place. The screen is still not going to be big enough for multi-tasking, so the single focus apps of the iPhone OS still make sense. If having a "desktop" made sense, then they would just go with regular OS-X. Given the form factor and for a lot of reasons, it still makes more sense to go with iPhone OS than anything else.
Sure it might be a bit different, sure we hope it has some kind of rudimentary documents folder somewhere, but it will be the same as, (or "build on" as they say), the iPhone OS.
You are not seriously suggesting a third OS strand? Not going to happen. The OS will be the iPhone OS with some updates. There is no reason to imagine that the UI elements will not be added to; frankly there is plenty already within the iPhone OS to create suitable interfaces for a larger screen.
We already have 3 distinct variations with Mac OS, iPhone OS, and AppleTV OS. None of those work well for a tablet device. Regardless if the core OS (above the kernel space) is more iPhone or Mac, this will be a new OS X variation. There are frameworks, apps and extensions that the iPhone OS will never need and there UI changes that will be required. Trying to shoehorn a desktop OS into a tablet hasn?t work and neither will stretching a PMP OS designed for a 3.5? display and comparatively slow HW.
Nore do I believe it's necessary to move from the single window interface paradigm for this device. iPhone apps will work fine, defaulting to top left corner (though I expect some hardware zoom will probably be available) but, so what? Developers will need to do a little work and new classes of app will suggest themselves. I have a couple on paper that aren't practical on the iPhone screen but are perfect for a 10".
Battery life takes a hit: a larger device is likely to have more internal room for batteries, and the device may be able to leverage better battery technology and the latest processor cores (perhaps from Apple's purchase). Battery life could conceivably improve.
Portability takes a hit: this is subjective and context bound. For example, someone toting a tablet around an emergency department doing patient charting might not have the same definition of portability that you do. You are assuming the use context is the same as the use context for an iPhone or iPod touch, but that may not be a safe assumption to make.
Compatibility takes a hit: Your assumption rests upon your own mental model of how Apple would implement the use of iPhone / touch apps on a device like this. There are many methods for accomplishing this; you've made an assumption about the method Apple may use, and your assessment of compatibility is driven by that assumption.
Affordability takes a hit: Again, completely subjective and contextually bound. What is affordable depends on featurization and use context. You can't assume that because this device will likely cost more than a subsidized iPhone that it is an 'affordability hit'. By that same logic, an iMac is an affordability hit over a mac mini, and a mac pro is an affordability hit over an imac. In reality, the products vary in their featurization, and appeal to different market segments.
This is largely a lucid and well written post, but I swear to God if people start habitually using "featurization" somebody's going to get hurt.
That might be fine as a way to allow iPhone apps to run on a tablet (If the OS is a full superset of iPhone OS.), but, again, if that's all you can do with this, it's not worth getting excited about.
From a business standpoint, I don?t see why Apple wouldn?t want to push there widely successful App Store to this product. Being a tablet I would think that it, too, would be synced with a main Mac, not to be used as one?s sole machine. I also think we?d get an introduction of the device with an SDK to follow so that apps can be developed for this device at or around launch. Letting you use iPhone OS apps in a windowed environment would just be a value add to entice buyers.
That said, I?ve been wondering what the market is for this device. All the mockups had it running Mac OS X, which makes no sense. I think people want it because of Star Trek. I still see no use for such a large device that isn?t as portable as my iPhone or as useful as my Mac. Still waiting for an answer.
Personally, I?d rather see Apple enter the car entertainment OS business. Use that newly bought mapping software and license the OS to car manufacturers so that iPhones and iPods can seamless sync and work with a car with a simple and efficient UI. Or more realistically, a universal remote control for the home. A solid touchscreen device that can replace all remotes but also has widgets to tell me the weather and stocks, etc. Those digital picture frames are getting more complex but they are still a pointless novelty IMO. I?d rather have the useful things at my finger tips.
To me that's the problem with opting for a 10" screen, i.e. it creates a device that loses most of the strengths of the Touch. Battery life takes a hit, portability takes a hit, compatibility with existing Touch software takes a hit, affordability takes a hit.
An evolutionary step forward for the Touch, to my mind, is the more rational approach. By this I mean, introduce a new Touch with a larger screen that distances itself somewhat from the iPhone. However, don't go all the way up to a 10" screen. Even a screen in the 5-7 inch range would be a major improvement over the current Touch while not significantly impacting on battery life, portability and the ability to work with existing App Store software. Movies configured for the current Touch would likely scale up to a 5-7 screen with minimal quality degradation. In other words, they'd still look very good.
The Touch is a marvelous device but one crying out for more screen real estate. Why not go there instead of taking on the world of hurt that opting for a 10-inch screen would introduce?
And another thing. If the Nano has grown with each new generation, would it be farfetched to imagine it growing just a little more to fill in where the Touch is now?
This sort of evolutionary change to Apple's iPod family has been happening for quite a while now so I can't imagine why it would suddenly stop. Certainly to not take the Touch to the next level in order to make room for a tablet that people might not in fact rush out to buy is a dumb way to go. Yet it seems as if this is the scenario that the rumours have thus far favoured. I believe, also, that the underwhelming update recently to the Touch, especially compared to the major overhaul of the Nano, suggests Apple may be planning to do something with the Touch before next fall. If this happens and people decide to call the new Touch a tablet, well all right then.
Look at it this way. Given a choice between let's say a 6" Touch that costs maybe $400 and can work reasonably well with existing App Store software and a 10" tablet costing maybe $700 and in need of a whole other set of apps that will need time to be developed, which would you choose? It's not, in my view, a matter of putting a substantially larger screen on the thing because more is invariably better. It's a matter of determining the biggest screen Apple can use without losing many of the advantages of the current iTouch form factor. This is a case of less is more.
Naturally, I have no inside info and maybe Apple does bring out the 10-inch device as rumoured but here's something to consider. The report that Apple had acquired a ton of 10"screens came out quite some time ago. Months have passed and no device has materialized. What is the likelihood of Apple acquiring that hardware and then sitting on it for quite a long time? Odds are, the original report was bogus and all the talk of a 10-inch tablet has been misguided. Knowing Apple, maybe this misinformation was deliberately put out to confuse the competition. I'd say, if that's the case, it worked. The way things are right now, if Apple did release a new Touch maybe in March, if not sooner, with a bigger screen, it would qualify as a surprise. Be prepared to be surprised.
I would guess that Apple has done extensive prototyping with various sized screens. In fact, I seem to remember someone claiming that they had tried 7" and deemed it "too small."
Personally, I don't think 5" is sufficiently larger than the existing Touch/iPhone to warrant all the costs associated with a new device. But once you're above that size you really have left behind "pocketable", so why stop at 7"? There's sort of a no-man's land between "pocketable" and "laptop", with even netbooks gradually moving away from their earliest, tiniest incarnations.
I've said this before, but really what is the upside of a 7" over a 10" device? 6"x4" vs. 8"x6". A few ounces. Either way you're going to have to carry such device either tucked against your body like a book, or in a case. Is a few inches of case size really such a big win for "portability", in that case? Or I should say, is it really such a big win compared to the improvements in usability?
I'm not entirely persuaded by the folks that think it would be great to run iPhone apps in a native sized window on a larger screen.
Many (if not most) iPhone/Touch apps are seriously optimized for the device size, not just the screen size. That is, touch controls are placed so that they are easy to reach while the phone is cradled in the hand, often with the thumb of the hand that's doing the holding. Having to reach across "dead" screen space to access those controls would negate a lot of the hard won elegance that the iPhone/Touch achieve via the tight integration of form factor and software, and I wonder if that's something Apple would be willing to compromise on (despite the obvious upside of giving customers access to a bunch of extant apps).
Particularly in the case of games, where it is not uncommon to run things in landscape mode with touch controls positioned for access by the thumbs, a windowed version would be almost useless.
- Bathroom web surfing and communication (Already covered by iPhone)
- Magazines, news, books. (Partly covered by iPhone. Room for improvement.)
- Mobile Movie playback (Covered by iPhone and notebooks)
- Notes (Covered by notebooks, but could be sleeker.)
Not covered wide spread:
- Art sketching.
- Innovative live music apps.
- Innovative live animation apps.
- Phat input source for a main computer.
- Medical use.
- No buttons could mean weather proof... if they wanna go down that line.
...
Maybe a new multi use Mac input device IS the new tablet? That would be a spectacular move.
I can see a tablet being a good answer to all of those ponderables.
I like the idea of a bigger iPod/iPhone. You get to surf the web comfortably. Read 'book' sized pages comfortably. Play casual games without squinting. Listen to music. Control your tv? Couch potato computing is the big future. With a desktop Mac/server Mac serving the content wirelessly? A few years ago I couldn't see that. Now I do.
Whether we like it or not. Apple have moved away from the OS X 'Mac'. See touch, phone, atv. It's already happening. Simpler OS for gadjects. Modular OS X fit for purpose. I'd guess iPhone OS type for tablet. Compatible with 100, 000 apps (about), a market of 50 million and counting devices. That's more than the Macs out there. And the 'tablet' will only add to the user base of 50 million devices plus 25-30 million Macs.
You could dock the tablet and do iWork type stuff..? Kb and mouse fed into the dock. Dock with a bigger monitor. It would be quite easy to port 'tablet' class apps from the desktop...It should imagine. And if Apple doesn't, I could imagine someone, in time, creating great iTablet class word processors. If Apple can put a great version of Safari on iPhone...then with better hardware, I'm sure the tablet will have 'netbook' class apps very quickly on it.
Fannying about with a mouse is a 1980s metaphor. iPhone and itab are 21st Century metaphors. All about teh finger. Ergo, Apple is giving the traditional Mac desktop teh finger. At least on portable devices.
That said, I’ve been wondering what the market is for this device. All the mockups had it running Mac OS X, which makes no sense. I think people want it because of Star Trek. I still see no use for such a large device that isn’t as portable as my iPhone or as useful as my Mac. Still waiting for an answer.
I can think of a few off the top of my head, and although I don't think these would make for a successful device, they point at the notion that there are likely more of these.
1) Healthcare - the move in healthcare is for electronic documentation and tracking systems. I happen to work in this space so I have some understanding of it. Right now, the biggest failure point for the adoption of portable and ubiquitous computing in healthcare settings revolves around the cost, capability, durability, and usefulness of the hardware / software systems that are available. A new device could make significant inroads in this space.
2) Gamers - gamers will lug around a playstation portable even though it is not exactly what one might consider 'portable'. A series of killer games for the device will sell many many devices.
3) Books and periodicals - the kindle crowd.
These are just a few - I am sure there are many others.
What's interesting is that M$ are nowhere..M$, who stole their way to prominence with the very lucky Windows 95. Lucky that Apple was sleeping at the wheel...and hadn't licensed their OS years sooner than M$.
Comments
To me that's the problem with opting for a 10" screen, i.e. it creates a device that loses most of the strengths of the Touch. Battery life takes a hit, portability takes a hit, compatibility with existing Touch software takes a hit, affordability takes a hit.
Lots of assumptions there.
I'm not buying this part. Meaning: "The report cited analysts who believe a tablet would have access to that library of applications." Just because the iPhone App Store might have been an inspiration, doesn't mean they have to use "it".
I like the App Store idea, but it will be a new store specifically designed for the tablet with its 10" screen. The Tablet App Store, if you will.
The apps doesn?t have expand to 10? and cover the entire screen to be usable. Have you not seen the iPhone SDK?s simulator? If a tablet does come with 3G and wireless you could run multiple iPhone OS X apps next to each other. They would just like they are in there own separate windows. Except for a button on the window border to change orientation, everything else is already built in.
I
You're right that the main difference between iPhone OS and Mac OS X is the UI paradigm. But, touch isn't inherently tied to that paradigm, nor necessarily impossible with other paradigms. I don't believe that the iPhone UI, unchanged, will work on larger screens without seeming limiting (It would be like running a 30" monitor at 640x480 resolution.) and would very much reduce the value of a tablet. Even running iPhone apps in little windows would be incredibly clunky.
It seems to me that the most likely possibility is in fact a 3rd OS that is intermediate between Mac OS X and iPhone OS, with perhaps UI innovations of its own. But, it's impossible to know which one it's more closely related to at this time, because none of us knows what Apple has in mind for what this would do and how it would do it.
I
You are not seriously suggesting a third OS strand? Not going to happen. The OS will be the iPhone OS with some updates. There is no reason to imagine that the UI elements will not be added to; frankly there is plenty already within the iPhone OS to create suitable interfaces for a larger screen.
I think you're wrong. Time will tell. In my view this tablet will start from scratch.
Starting from scratch (assuming you mean with a new UI, though I recall your mockups have always indicated that you want it to run Mac OS X) doesn?t mean that it can?t run the smaller apps in windows while also offering an App Store for a tablet device to take advantage of the greater power and display size.
The apps doesn?t have expand to 10? and cover the entire screen to be usable. Have you not seen the iPhone SDK?s simulator? If a tablet does come with 3G and wireless you could run multiple iPhone OS X apps next to each other. They would just like they are in there own separate windows. Except for a button on the window border to change orientation, everything else is already built in.
That might be fine as a way to allow iPhone apps to run on a tablet (If the OS is a full superset of iPhone OS.), but, again, if that's all you can do with this, it's not worth getting excited about.
This means that new applications need to be created for the itablet - applications that run on the arm chipset. These will be applications that are non 486. Just like apps on the iphone at the moment that are used to create and edit information/data. These apps will not be the huge applications that run on the 486 chipset e.g photoshop, office but apps that suit our needs e.g like the ilife or iwork applications. This would change the balance of power away from microsoft and intel.
Because the apps aren't design for the device, and they want a second round of money. It's really simple.
That just makes no sense. First, who is the 'they' that wants a 'second round of money', and second, what is the 'second round of money' you are talking about?
Apple makes a fixed percentage on every application sale through App-Store. More devices that are compatible mean more app sales, not less. On top of that, the vast application library that currently exists is a differentiator for Apple that they constantly shove in consumer's faces. "Want to know one reason why you should buy an iPhone instead of a Pre, or a touch instead of a zune? Check out all of our applications!" I am sure you must have seen these commercials.
Your argument rests on some very questionable assertions. First, you think that allowing a device to use existing apps means that anyone buying such a device will simply use their old apps and not buy new ones. That is a very questionable thesis. More so, it assumes that the vast majority of purchasers will be people who already have an Apple device, who would then use their existing software instead of buying new apps. Again, very questionable.
... Or is everyone who disagrees with you just crazy?...
First of all, ... sorry. I didn't mean to come across like "my way or the highway" but this just seems so clear and obvious to me so perhaps I was a little strident in the way I phrased it.
It comes down to semantics a bit in that it probably won't be exactly the same as the iPhone because a tablet is not an iPhone, but it will almost certainly be the "iPhone variant" of OS-X as I said. What would help a lot is if Apple clarified their OS roadmap and actually gave these things usable informative names so we don't have to keep referring to things in a muddle.
My point is that if company A starts making a new OS for a new class of device and then after a year or two manages to produce one that is a giant success, the likely hood of their second device on this new platform using a completely new or different OS is slim to none. There is a definite strategy here that seems pretty plain. Apple is making a new generation of devices with a new OS. The OS may evolve slightly with the new device, (I'm hoping for multi-tasking and a basic file system), but going to a whole different metaphor is just really, really, unlikely.
With so many millions of people trained on the new devices, why do something different yet again? If the effort here is to get the world used to touch-screen devices and how they work, it makes no sense to substantially change the interface for the second product.
Also, the tablet, although bigger, is going to suffer from all the same design challenges that led to the "iPhone OS" in the first place. The screen is still not going to be big enough for multi-tasking, so the single focus apps of the iPhone OS still make sense. If having a "desktop" made sense, then they would just go with regular OS-X. Given the form factor and for a lot of reasons, it still makes more sense to go with iPhone OS than anything else.
Sure it might be a bit different, sure we hope it has some kind of rudimentary documents folder somewhere, but it will be the same as, (or "build on" as they say), the iPhone OS.
(at least IMO)
You are not seriously suggesting a third OS strand? Not going to happen. The OS will be the iPhone OS with some updates. There is no reason to imagine that the UI elements will not be added to; frankly there is plenty already within the iPhone OS to create suitable interfaces for a larger screen.
We already have 3 distinct variations with Mac OS, iPhone OS, and AppleTV OS. None of those work well for a tablet device. Regardless if the core OS (above the kernel space) is more iPhone or Mac, this will be a new OS X variation. There are frameworks, apps and extensions that the iPhone OS will never need and there UI changes that will be required. Trying to shoehorn a desktop OS into a tablet hasn?t work and neither will stretching a PMP OS designed for a 3.5? display and comparatively slow HW.
Lots of assumptions there.
This is largely a lucid and well written post, but I swear to God if people start habitually using "featurization" somebody's going to get hurt.
One more thing: I'd rather it not have a glass screen, it'll be heavy, easy to break and costly to repair!
I agree not bloody glass screen please, it is tablet so make it light and durable!
I'm sure Otterbox will make an indestructible case for it.
If not glass, then what? A Palm Pre-like, easily scratchable (with really BIG scratches, mind you)?
That might be fine as a way to allow iPhone apps to run on a tablet (If the OS is a full superset of iPhone OS.), but, again, if that's all you can do with this, it's not worth getting excited about.
From a business standpoint, I don?t see why Apple wouldn?t want to push there widely successful App Store to this product. Being a tablet I would think that it, too, would be synced with a main Mac, not to be used as one?s sole machine. I also think we?d get an introduction of the device with an SDK to follow so that apps can be developed for this device at or around launch. Letting you use iPhone OS apps in a windowed environment would just be a value add to entice buyers.
That said, I?ve been wondering what the market is for this device. All the mockups had it running Mac OS X, which makes no sense. I think people want it because of Star Trek. I still see no use for such a large device that isn?t as portable as my iPhone or as useful as my Mac. Still waiting for an answer.
Personally, I?d rather see Apple enter the car entertainment OS business. Use that newly bought mapping software and license the OS to car manufacturers so that iPhones and iPods can seamless sync and work with a car with a simple and efficient UI. Or more realistically, a universal remote control for the home. A solid touchscreen device that can replace all remotes but also has widgets to tell me the weather and stocks, etc. Those digital picture frames are getting more complex but they are still a pointless novelty IMO. I?d rather have the useful things at my finger tips.
To me that's the problem with opting for a 10" screen, i.e. it creates a device that loses most of the strengths of the Touch. Battery life takes a hit, portability takes a hit, compatibility with existing Touch software takes a hit, affordability takes a hit.
An evolutionary step forward for the Touch, to my mind, is the more rational approach. By this I mean, introduce a new Touch with a larger screen that distances itself somewhat from the iPhone. However, don't go all the way up to a 10" screen. Even a screen in the 5-7 inch range would be a major improvement over the current Touch while not significantly impacting on battery life, portability and the ability to work with existing App Store software. Movies configured for the current Touch would likely scale up to a 5-7 screen with minimal quality degradation. In other words, they'd still look very good.
The Touch is a marvelous device but one crying out for more screen real estate. Why not go there instead of taking on the world of hurt that opting for a 10-inch screen would introduce?
And another thing. If the Nano has grown with each new generation, would it be farfetched to imagine it growing just a little more to fill in where the Touch is now?
This sort of evolutionary change to Apple's iPod family has been happening for quite a while now so I can't imagine why it would suddenly stop. Certainly to not take the Touch to the next level in order to make room for a tablet that people might not in fact rush out to buy is a dumb way to go. Yet it seems as if this is the scenario that the rumours have thus far favoured. I believe, also, that the underwhelming update recently to the Touch, especially compared to the major overhaul of the Nano, suggests Apple may be planning to do something with the Touch before next fall. If this happens and people decide to call the new Touch a tablet, well all right then.
Look at it this way. Given a choice between let's say a 6" Touch that costs maybe $400 and can work reasonably well with existing App Store software and a 10" tablet costing maybe $700 and in need of a whole other set of apps that will need time to be developed, which would you choose? It's not, in my view, a matter of putting a substantially larger screen on the thing because more is invariably better. It's a matter of determining the biggest screen Apple can use without losing many of the advantages of the current iTouch form factor. This is a case of less is more.
Naturally, I have no inside info and maybe Apple does bring out the 10-inch device as rumoured but here's something to consider. The report that Apple had acquired a ton of 10"screens came out quite some time ago. Months have passed and no device has materialized. What is the likelihood of Apple acquiring that hardware and then sitting on it for quite a long time? Odds are, the original report was bogus and all the talk of a 10-inch tablet has been misguided. Knowing Apple, maybe this misinformation was deliberately put out to confuse the competition. I'd say, if that's the case, it worked. The way things are right now, if Apple did release a new Touch maybe in March, if not sooner, with a bigger screen, it would qualify as a surprise. Be prepared to be surprised.
I would guess that Apple has done extensive prototyping with various sized screens. In fact, I seem to remember someone claiming that they had tried 7" and deemed it "too small."
Personally, I don't think 5" is sufficiently larger than the existing Touch/iPhone to warrant all the costs associated with a new device. But once you're above that size you really have left behind "pocketable", so why stop at 7"? There's sort of a no-man's land between "pocketable" and "laptop", with even netbooks gradually moving away from their earliest, tiniest incarnations.
I've said this before, but really what is the upside of a 7" over a 10" device? 6"x4" vs. 8"x6". A few ounces. Either way you're going to have to carry such device either tucked against your body like a book, or in a case. Is a few inches of case size really such a big win for "portability", in that case? Or I should say, is it really such a big win compared to the improvements in usability?
This is largely a lucid and well written post, but I swear to God if people start habitually using "featurization" somebody's going to get hurt.
Lol - if Steve can think "differently", I can engage in "featurization".
Many (if not most) iPhone/Touch apps are seriously optimized for the device size, not just the screen size. That is, touch controls are placed so that they are easy to reach while the phone is cradled in the hand, often with the thumb of the hand that's doing the holding. Having to reach across "dead" screen space to access those controls would negate a lot of the hard won elegance that the iPhone/Touch achieve via the tight integration of form factor and software, and I wonder if that's something Apple would be willing to compromise on (despite the obvious upside of giving customers access to a bunch of extant apps).
Particularly in the case of games, where it is not uncommon to run things in landscape mode with touch controls positioned for access by the thumbs, a windowed version would be almost useless.
Low battery consuming touch tablet.
What it could be used for:
Somewhat covered:
- Bathroom web surfing and communication (Already covered by iPhone)
- Magazines, news, books. (Partly covered by iPhone. Room for improvement.)
- Mobile Movie playback (Covered by iPhone and notebooks)
- Notes (Covered by notebooks, but could be sleeker.)
Not covered wide spread:
- Art sketching.
- Innovative live music apps.
- Innovative live animation apps.
- Phat input source for a main computer.
- Medical use.
- No buttons could mean weather proof... if they wanna go down that line.
...
Maybe a new multi use Mac input device IS the new tablet? That would be a spectacular move.
I can see a tablet being a good answer to all of those ponderables.
I like the idea of a bigger iPod/iPhone. You get to surf the web comfortably. Read 'book' sized pages comfortably. Play casual games without squinting. Listen to music. Control your tv? Couch potato computing is the big future. With a desktop Mac/server Mac serving the content wirelessly? A few years ago I couldn't see that. Now I do.
Whether we like it or not. Apple have moved away from the OS X 'Mac'. See touch, phone, atv. It's already happening. Simpler OS for gadjects. Modular OS X fit for purpose. I'd guess iPhone OS type for tablet. Compatible with 100, 000 apps (about), a market of 50 million and counting devices. That's more than the Macs out there. And the 'tablet' will only add to the user base of 50 million devices plus 25-30 million Macs.
You could dock the tablet and do iWork type stuff..? Kb and mouse fed into the dock. Dock with a bigger monitor. It would be quite easy to port 'tablet' class apps from the desktop...It should imagine. And if Apple doesn't, I could imagine someone, in time, creating great iTablet class word processors. If Apple can put a great version of Safari on iPhone...then with better hardware, I'm sure the tablet will have 'netbook' class apps very quickly on it.
Fannying about with a mouse is a 1980s metaphor. iPhone and itab are 21st Century metaphors. All about teh finger. Ergo, Apple is giving the traditional Mac desktop teh finger. At least on portable devices.
Makes sense to me.
And. It's all built on OS X as a foundation.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That said, I’ve been wondering what the market is for this device. All the mockups had it running Mac OS X, which makes no sense. I think people want it because of Star Trek. I still see no use for such a large device that isn’t as portable as my iPhone or as useful as my Mac. Still waiting for an answer.
I can think of a few off the top of my head, and although I don't think these would make for a successful device, they point at the notion that there are likely more of these. These are just a few - I am sure there are many others.
See couch potato computing? See iTab. I think it's the one 'ring' to rule them all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon Bon Bon.