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.
Very good points, but you have to realize that for every application that would be awkward to use, there are others that would not be. What would likely be the best business decision: 1) Introducing the device with no access to existing applications, or releasing it with access to existing apps, some of which a user may elect not to use?
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.
[?]
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.
I agree with that, but many apps would be just as easy to use. Like more intelligent widgets found in Dashboard. Apple didn?t update any of the widgets in SL so I am thinking those are being left for dead altogether; likely because they can?t make money off of them.
PS: I had hoped that with the release of the 30-pin connecter API that D-pads and other such devices would appear, and that Apple would have made a very slick way for a device to lose it?s virtual controls if, say, a D-pad was attached. Sadly, this isn?t the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
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.
1) Healthcare seems like the biggest market for tablet, but is it big enough for Apple to make a move into that segment. After all, they?ve mainly focused on consumer devices up until this point.
2) I?m not sure that true gamers are going to want an ARM or Atom with a slow GPU as their gaming machine. They already bitch about the Mac as being bad for gaming. I can?t see anything better than Ion being used, and even that seems way to powerful for this proposed device.
3) This is the area that I think Apple could kill with. I hope the talks are true. Newspapers and magazines are suffering. This is a way to get rich content to your device with a slick interface and the companies to get subscription fees. This is the only reason I would have to buy such a device? assuming it would last at least solid 10 hours of reading on a charge.
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.
I agree that it will probably appear to be more closely related to iPhone OS than Mac OS X. I'm not so sure it won't have multitasking, or that apps won't be able to implement more traditional desktop features, like menus, so under the hood, it could, in some ways, be closer to OS X. The only thing I'd be willing to place a bet on, though, is that they won't just do the easy thing and will put in whatever features they think are necessary to make it successful, and only those features.
I agree that it will probably appear to be more closely related to iPhone OS than Mac OS X. I'm not so sure it won't have multitasking, or that apps won't be able to implement more traditional desktop features, like menus, so under the hood, it could, in some ways, be closer to OS X. The only thing I'd be willing to place a bet on, though, is that they won't just do the easy thing and will put in whatever features they think are necessary to make it successful, and only those features.
A tablet will have multitasking. The things that encourage Apple to limit multitasking on the iPhone just aren't there (high load on the cpu, short battery life etc). Personally I would go out on a limb and suggest that the next iPhone (likely a multicore arm chip) will have multitasking.
For a tablet with a faster chip and a larger battery, multitasking seems like a no brainer.
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.
This is actually a great point. Netbooks were all 7" or so when they came to market first, but they are edging up to 10" on average these days.
My argument has always being: if you want small and pocketable get an iPhone (iPod touch). Making this device 10" hits that sweet-spot I have been banging on about for over two years. For all those reasons, I don't intend reiterating again - the pocketable argument is probably the biggest one.
"We already make something pocketable, deal with it." This is how I suspect Steve is looking at it. And like Kawasaki says, you can't try to please everybody, you just have to go with the way you think you'd like it.
A tablet will have multitasking. The things that encourage Apple to limit multitasking on the iPhone just aren't there (high load on the cpu, short battery life etc). Personally I would go out on a limb and suggest that the next iPhone (likely a multicore arm chip) will have multitasking.
Multitasking on the current iPhone 3GS is possible. It now has enough RAM to handle more than one 3rd-party app running in the background, but Apple does need to engineer a good way to implement it. You can?t just have any and every app use as much RAM and CPU as it wants when in the background.
You don't want it to be just bathroom web browsing, but you also don't want it to be a swiss army knife.
A thing has to have a unifying idea to make it one thing mentally, just like it is physically. A new word ("iPod") can go a long way to doing this, but there still has to be a theme in the device. The Apple TV had no one central idea, and has not been very successful. But then it also did not have a one word name. The reason I say it "has to have" this is that people will not buy something if they can't understand what it is without a lengthy explanation.
Multitasking on the current iPhone 3GS is possible. It now has enough RAM to handle more than one 3rd-party app running in the background, but Apple does need to engineer a good way to implement it. You can’t just have any and every app use as much RAM and CPU as it wants when in the background.
For the iPhone, I think it would be nice to have an app by app setting for what happens when you press the home button (ie., run in the background or close). I guess Apple could also draft some strict guidelines on background resource use and only allow the apps that meet those guidelines to run in the background.
For the tablet, I would like to see a 4 finger swipe to activate expose and have a little x in the corner of each app to close them, like the ones in safari on the iPhone.
I agree that the hardware on the iPhone is fully capable of multi-tasking, but the next generation will be even better and Apple likes us to upgrade \
I agree that it will probably appear to be more closely related to iPhone OS than Mac OS X. I'm not so sure it won't have multitasking, or that apps won't be able to implement more traditional desktop features, like menus, so under the hood, it could, in some ways, be closer to OS X. The only thing I'd be willing to place a bet on, though, is that they won't just do the easy thing and will put in whatever features they think are necessary to make it successful, and only those features.
I'm just hoping that it will be useful, and as a writer I would love to be able to take it to the local park or coffee shop and use it for that. Currently I use my iPhone for that and while it works okay, it's kind of lame in other ways.
The thing that's scaring me lately is all the rumours are starting to point towards it being just a bigger iPod touch for viewing movies. I think that would be a bad move for Apple, but more importantly it would disappoint me!
So I may have a blind spot in terms of thinking it will run iWork and stuff, but I can't see why it wouldn't.
I'm just hoping that it will be useful, and as a writer I would love to be able to take it to the local park or coffee shop and use it for that. Currently I use my iPhone for that and while it works okay, it's kind of lame in other ways.
The thing that's scaring me lately is all the rumours are starting to point towards it being just a bigger iPod touch for viewing movies. I think that would be a bad move for Apple, but more importantly it would disappoint me!
So I may have a blind spot in terms of thinking it will run iWork and stuff, but I can't see why it wouldn't.
ilife and iwork are not tied to OSX by any means. Apple could release them optimized for a tablet version of iPhone OS. The tablet wont be just a big iPod touch. I think that is a safe assumption to make, because an iPod touch with no other changes except for getting bigger doesn't make much sense at all.
The most liberating computing experience I've had in the last year?
Browsing the web on an iPod touch with a 'PC Server/ADSL connection' acting as my feed. Doing that, wirelessly on the sofa? Blew me away.
The only downside, I thought...was that the iPod touch needed to be a good 5 inches or so bigger...
I mean...if it was 10 inches...(hey ladies...) then it would be ideal for reading, playing games doing light computing work...maybe some light word processing...emailing...all less clumsy than the laptop form factor which I've always disliked...more of a desktop replacement than something you can curl up on the sofa with...
It's casual computing without any real effort. Like casual games. Like playing with the remote when you're channel hopping.
Box of choc' and a tablet. And a sofa. Yes. I can see that.
This tablet...I think it will change...everything.
The most liberating computing experience I've had in the last year?
Browsing the web on an iPod touch with a 'PC Server/ADSL connection' acting as my feed. Doing that, wirelessly on the sofa? Blew me away.
The only downside, I thought...was that the iPod touch needed to be a good 5 inches or so bigger...
I mean...if it was 10 inches...(hey ladies...) then it would be ideal for reading, playing games doing light computing work...maybe some light word processing...emailing...all less clumsy than the laptop form factor which I've always disliked...more of a desktop replacement than something you can curl up on the sofa with...
It's casual computing without any real effort. Like casual games. Like playing with the remote when you're channel hopping.
Box of choc' and a tablet. And a sofa. Yes. I can see that.
This tablet...I think it will change...everything.
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.
The fact remains that the more expensive the device, the smaller the number of people
who will consider buying it. It's hard to justify spending in excess of $700 for a device that by its very nature is very limited in what it is suited to. At a particular price point you would find yourself with a niche product that would produce such limited sales as to be not worth the investment. The technology to produce a 10-inch tablet has been there for quite some time and yet this device has failed to see the light of day. Small wonder. At around $700, this tablet would in no way be a response to the netbook market. Laptops, meanwhile provide a complete computing portable solution.
From a business point of view, the 10-inch tablet just doesn't make sense. Costs would be high because it's not likely a spinoff series of devices could evolve from it. So if the sales were relatively anemic, what would be in it for Apple?
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?
The advantage is cost. A 7-inch device would mean a less expensive screen, a less expensive battery, and it would be better able to handle legacy Touch files like movies, etc. You're right that pocketability is only viable up to 5 inches and as such, in terms of transporting a 7-incher vs. a 10-incher, there is no meaningful difference. A touch-screen tablet at either size point would be amazingly light, certainly much ligher than a typical netbook.
Another point. A tablet is likely to be held closer to your face than a netbook/laptop. As a result, in terms of perspective, a 7" tablet is going to appear similar to a 10" netbook.
I think you may be underestimating the extent to which going with a larger screen impacts on the cost of the resulting product. You need to factor in roughly about an additional $175, if not more, to take a comparable product from 7 inches to 10 inches. That's not pocket change.
In addition, I think I missed the part where Apple issued a press release in which they concluded that after checking out assorted form factors, they concluded 7 inches is too small. You are basically assuming that an unsubstantiated rumour about a product that itself has in no way shape or form been confirmed, is a verified fact.
Apple is one of the most secretive corporations in the world. They are the leaders in this space and hence want to ensure the competition remains in the dark. Remarkably, people who have no inside knowledge appear to be assuming that they know exactly what Apple is up to, what decisions have been made about unreleased products, etc. If at some point Apple releases a 10-inch tablet, I'm sure they would have sound reasons for doing so. But it's not a confirmed fact that the 10-inch tablet is on its way. That reports that this form factor is imminent have been circulating for years really should be a red flag. Jobs is picky but he's not that picky. Most of the stuff Apple unleashes rumor sites and the like never see coming until maybe it's so close to the release date that it's too late for the competition to respond quickly. I find it unlikely that the competition would be given years worth of advance notice on a brand new product.
Myself, I think the next rational move is for Apple to take the Touch to the next level, remaining ballpark in terms of price point. That next level is not a 10-inch tablet. Frankly that's the sort of obvious overkill that is typical of the competition, not Apple.
I believe cost is a huge issue. No other manufacturer has been able to deliver anything close to a 10-inch tablet form factor for a reasonable price and Apple traditionally has offered products that are more expensive to buy initially. Why not just buy a laptop and be done with it? Maybe a handful of professionals would like to have something like a large touchscreen device but custom orders are not what Apple is about.
Right now lots of people are getting all excited about a 10-inch tablet but how many would be prepared to spend close to a grand to buy one. A very small percentage, I think. These days especially financial news is a little scary and most people are not going to be in a hurry to buy a big-ticket item with very limited usability.
The good news is that this will all be over in a few months. If we approach summer and this 10-incher still hasn't materialized, I doubt there will be anyone left who genuinely thinks the thing is really coming. I do see Apple continuing to innovate with touchscreen technology but my gut feeling is that the rumours we're getting now are largely off the mark. If anything, Apple is letting misinformation find its way into the hands of rumour dispensers to throw off the competition.
Rather than expect a major break from the Touch, an evolutionary next step is more in line with what I think Apple will do next. I'm sure it will disappoint quite a few folks and I also believe that whatever Apple does, it will be well executed. I especially am thinking along those lines in light of Apple now marketing the Touch as a small computer, as opposed to just a glorified media player. This could be where they wanted to take the Touch all along. Next stop, a 5" touch at a similar price point to the current model coming to market before next fall, probably this spring. Such a device would be a sales success and offer an easier transition up to an even bigger unit a few years down the road. By that I mean if you introduce files designed for the bigger screen, those files would be useable with a bigger device later on. In the meantime, the 5" Touch would be compatible with existing App Store apps. A seamless transition that would not cause an awkward transition period during which there would be very limited software available for a bigger form factor. This is exactly how Apple has evolved the iPod to date and I have to ask, if it has worked out brilliantly for them, why would they suddenly opt to operate more like the competition by releasing a product that looks impressive on paper but in the hands of consumers would prove less than satisfying.
Comments
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.
Very good points, but you have to realize that for every application that would be awkward to use, there are others that would not be. What would likely be the best business decision: 1) Introducing the device with no access to existing applications, or releasing it with access to existing apps, some of which a user may elect not to use?
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.
[?]
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.
I agree with that, but many apps would be just as easy to use. Like more intelligent widgets found in Dashboard. Apple didn?t update any of the widgets in SL so I am thinking those are being left for dead altogether; likely because they can?t make money off of them.
PS: I had hoped that with the release of the 30-pin connecter API that D-pads and other such devices would appear, and that Apple would have made a very slick way for a device to lose it?s virtual controls if, say, a D-pad was attached. Sadly, this isn?t the case.
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.
1) Healthcare seems like the biggest market for tablet, but is it big enough for Apple to make a move into that segment. After all, they?ve mainly focused on consumer devices up until this point.
2) I?m not sure that true gamers are going to want an ARM or Atom with a slow GPU as their gaming machine. They already bitch about the Mac as being bad for gaming. I can?t see anything better than Ion being used, and even that seems way to powerful for this proposed device.
3) This is the area that I think Apple could kill with. I hope the talks are true. Newspapers and magazines are suffering. This is a way to get rich content to your device with a slick interface and the companies to get subscription fees. This is the only reason I would have to buy such a device? assuming it would last at least solid 10 hours of reading on a charge.
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.
I agree that it will probably appear to be more closely related to iPhone OS than Mac OS X. I'm not so sure it won't have multitasking, or that apps won't be able to implement more traditional desktop features, like menus, so under the hood, it could, in some ways, be closer to OS X. The only thing I'd be willing to place a bet on, though, is that they won't just do the easy thing and will put in whatever features they think are necessary to make it successful, and only those features.
I agree that it will probably appear to be more closely related to iPhone OS than Mac OS X. I'm not so sure it won't have multitasking, or that apps won't be able to implement more traditional desktop features, like menus, so under the hood, it could, in some ways, be closer to OS X. The only thing I'd be willing to place a bet on, though, is that they won't just do the easy thing and will put in whatever features they think are necessary to make it successful, and only those features.
A tablet will have multitasking. The things that encourage Apple to limit multitasking on the iPhone just aren't there (high load on the cpu, short battery life etc). Personally I would go out on a limb and suggest that the next iPhone (likely a multicore arm chip) will have multitasking.
For a tablet with a faster chip and a larger battery, multitasking seems like a no brainer.
Couch potato computing is the big future.
LOL, true. But LOL!
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.
This is actually a great point. Netbooks were all 7" or so when they came to market first, but they are edging up to 10" on average these days.
My argument has always being: if you want small and pocketable get an iPhone (iPod touch). Making this device 10" hits that sweet-spot I have been banging on about for over two years. For all those reasons, I don't intend reiterating again - the pocketable argument is probably the biggest one.
"We already make something pocketable, deal with it." This is how I suspect Steve is looking at it. And like Kawasaki says, you can't try to please everybody, you just have to go with the way you think you'd like it.
A tablet will have multitasking. The things that encourage Apple to limit multitasking on the iPhone just aren't there (high load on the cpu, short battery life etc). Personally I would go out on a limb and suggest that the next iPhone (likely a multicore arm chip) will have multitasking.
Multitasking on the current iPhone 3GS is possible. It now has enough RAM to handle more than one 3rd-party app running in the background, but Apple does need to engineer a good way to implement it. You can?t just have any and every app use as much RAM and CPU as it wants when in the background.
A thing has to have a unifying idea to make it one thing mentally, just like it is physically. A new word ("iPod") can go a long way to doing this, but there still has to be a theme in the device. The Apple TV had no one central idea, and has not been very successful. But then it also did not have a one word name. The reason I say it "has to have" this is that people will not buy something if they can't understand what it is without a lengthy explanation.
Multitasking on the current iPhone 3GS is possible. It now has enough RAM to handle more than one 3rd-party app running in the background, but Apple does need to engineer a good way to implement it. You can’t just have any and every app use as much RAM and CPU as it wants when in the background.
For the iPhone, I think it would be nice to have an app by app setting for what happens when you press the home button (ie., run in the background or close). I guess Apple could also draft some strict guidelines on background resource use and only allow the apps that meet those guidelines to run in the background.
For the tablet, I would like to see a 4 finger swipe to activate expose and have a little x in the corner of each app to close them, like the ones in safari on the iPhone.
I agree that the hardware on the iPhone is fully capable of multi-tasking, but the next generation will be even better and Apple likes us to upgrade
I agree that it will probably appear to be more closely related to iPhone OS than Mac OS X. I'm not so sure it won't have multitasking, or that apps won't be able to implement more traditional desktop features, like menus, so under the hood, it could, in some ways, be closer to OS X. The only thing I'd be willing to place a bet on, though, is that they won't just do the easy thing and will put in whatever features they think are necessary to make it successful, and only those features.
I'm just hoping that it will be useful, and as a writer I would love to be able to take it to the local park or coffee shop and use it for that. Currently I use my iPhone for that and while it works okay, it's kind of lame in other ways.
The thing that's scaring me lately is all the rumours are starting to point towards it being just a bigger iPod touch for viewing movies. I think that would be a bad move for Apple, but more importantly it would disappoint me!
So I may have a blind spot in terms of thinking it will run iWork and stuff, but I can't see why it wouldn't.
I'm just hoping that it will be useful, and as a writer I would love to be able to take it to the local park or coffee shop and use it for that. Currently I use my iPhone for that and while it works okay, it's kind of lame in other ways.
The thing that's scaring me lately is all the rumours are starting to point towards it being just a bigger iPod touch for viewing movies. I think that would be a bad move for Apple, but more importantly it would disappoint me!
So I may have a blind spot in terms of thinking it will run iWork and stuff, but I can't see why it wouldn't.
ilife and iwork are not tied to OSX by any means. Apple could release them optimized for a tablet version of iPhone OS. The tablet wont be just a big iPod touch. I think that is a safe assumption to make, because an iPod touch with no other changes except for getting bigger doesn't make much sense at all.
LOL, true. But LOL!
The most liberating computing experience I've had in the last year?
Browsing the web on an iPod touch with a 'PC Server/ADSL connection' acting as my feed. Doing that, wirelessly on the sofa? Blew me away.
The only downside, I thought...was that the iPod touch needed to be a good 5 inches or so bigger...
I mean...if it was 10 inches...(hey ladies...) then it would be ideal
It's casual computing without any real effort. Like casual games. Like playing with the remote when you're channel hopping.
Box of choc' and a tablet. And a sofa. Yes. I can see that.
This tablet...I think it will change...everything.
Lemon Bon Bon.
This tablet...I think it will change...everything.
Yeah, including out weight and posture. I prefer the term couch surfing.
One more thing: I'd rather it not have a glass screen, it'll be heavy, easy to break and costly to repair!
IT WIlll be glass for green reasons among others
9 x 6 in
fit in a lab coat ☤
The most liberating computing experience I've had in the last year?
Browsing the web on an iPod touch with a 'PC Server/ADSL connection' acting as my feed. Doing that, wirelessly on the sofa? Blew me away.
The only downside, I thought...was that the iPod touch needed to be a good 5 inches or so bigger...
I mean...if it was 10 inches...(hey ladies...) then it would be ideal
It's casual computing without any real effort. Like casual games. Like playing with the remote when you're channel hopping.
Box of choc' and a tablet. And a sofa. Yes. I can see that.
This tablet...I think it will change...everything.
Lemon Bon Bon.
perfect post
IT WIlll be glass for green reasons among others
9 x 6 in
fit in a lab coat ☤
I don't think I've ever seen anyone summon up a caduceus from the character palette to thematically ornament a post.
Kudos.
Lots of assumptions there.
The fact remains that the more expensive the device, the smaller the number of people
who will consider buying it. It's hard to justify spending in excess of $700 for a device that by its very nature is very limited in what it is suited to. At a particular price point you would find yourself with a niche product that would produce such limited sales as to be not worth the investment. The technology to produce a 10-inch tablet has been there for quite some time and yet this device has failed to see the light of day. Small wonder. At around $700, this tablet would in no way be a response to the netbook market. Laptops, meanwhile provide a complete computing portable solution.
From a business point of view, the 10-inch tablet just doesn't make sense. Costs would be high because it's not likely a spinoff series of devices could evolve from it. So if the sales were relatively anemic, what would be in it for Apple?
I don't think I've ever seen anyone summon up a caduceus from the character palette to thematically ornament a post.
Kudos.
thank you ✌
thank you ✌
************* _,,,_
*********** .'**** `'.
********** /**** ____ \\
********* |*** .'_* _\\/
********* /*** ) @* @|******** .----.
******** /*** (*** > |******* /|**** '--.
******* (***** ) ._* /******* ||*** ]|** `-.
******* )*** _/-.__.'`\\****** ||*** ]|*** ::|
****** (* .-'`-.** \\__ )***** ||*** ]|*** ::|
******* `/***** `-./* `.***** ||*** ]|*** ::|
****** _ |*** \\***** \\* \\**** \\|*** ]|** .-'
***** / \\|**** \\** \\* \\* \\**** l.__* .--'(
**** |** |\\**** `. /* /** \\* ,---|_***** \\---------,
**** |** `\\'.**** '. /`\\** \\/ .--._|=-*** |_***** /|
**** |**** \\ '.**** '._ './`\\/ .-'********* '.** / |
**** |**** |** `'.**** `;-:-;`)|************ |-./* |
**** |*** /_***** `'--./_* ` )/'-------------')/)* |
**** \\** | `""""----"`\\//`""`/,===..'`````````/ (* |
***** |* |*********** / `---` `==='********* /** ) |
***** /* \\********** /********************* /** (* |
**** |*** '------.* |'--------------------'|**** ) |
***** \\********** `-|********************* |*** /* |
****** `--...,______|********************* |** (** |
************* | |** |********************* |*** ) ,|
************* | |** |********************* |** ( /||
************* | |** |********************* |** )/ `"
************ /** \\* |********************* |* (/
****** --- .' /i\\ '.|********************* |* /)
******* .-'_.'/ \\'. |********************* | /
******* ```* `"""` `| .-------------------.||
******************* `"`****************** `"`
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?
The advantage is cost. A 7-inch device would mean a less expensive screen, a less expensive battery, and it would be better able to handle legacy Touch files like movies, etc. You're right that pocketability is only viable up to 5 inches and as such, in terms of transporting a 7-incher vs. a 10-incher, there is no meaningful difference. A touch-screen tablet at either size point would be amazingly light, certainly much ligher than a typical netbook.
Another point. A tablet is likely to be held closer to your face than a netbook/laptop. As a result, in terms of perspective, a 7" tablet is going to appear similar to a 10" netbook.
I think you may be underestimating the extent to which going with a larger screen impacts on the cost of the resulting product. You need to factor in roughly about an additional $175, if not more, to take a comparable product from 7 inches to 10 inches. That's not pocket change.
In addition, I think I missed the part where Apple issued a press release in which they concluded that after checking out assorted form factors, they concluded 7 inches is too small. You are basically assuming that an unsubstantiated rumour about a product that itself has in no way shape or form been confirmed, is a verified fact.
Apple is one of the most secretive corporations in the world. They are the leaders in this space and hence want to ensure the competition remains in the dark. Remarkably, people who have no inside knowledge appear to be assuming that they know exactly what Apple is up to, what decisions have been made about unreleased products, etc. If at some point Apple releases a 10-inch tablet, I'm sure they would have sound reasons for doing so. But it's not a confirmed fact that the 10-inch tablet is on its way. That reports that this form factor is imminent have been circulating for years really should be a red flag. Jobs is picky but he's not that picky. Most of the stuff Apple unleashes rumor sites and the like never see coming until maybe it's so close to the release date that it's too late for the competition to respond quickly. I find it unlikely that the competition would be given years worth of advance notice on a brand new product.
Myself, I think the next rational move is for Apple to take the Touch to the next level, remaining ballpark in terms of price point. That next level is not a 10-inch tablet. Frankly that's the sort of obvious overkill that is typical of the competition, not Apple.
I believe cost is a huge issue. No other manufacturer has been able to deliver anything close to a 10-inch tablet form factor for a reasonable price and Apple traditionally has offered products that are more expensive to buy initially. Why not just buy a laptop and be done with it? Maybe a handful of professionals would like to have something like a large touchscreen device but custom orders are not what Apple is about.
Right now lots of people are getting all excited about a 10-inch tablet but how many would be prepared to spend close to a grand to buy one. A very small percentage, I think. These days especially financial news is a little scary and most people are not going to be in a hurry to buy a big-ticket item with very limited usability.
The good news is that this will all be over in a few months. If we approach summer and this 10-incher still hasn't materialized, I doubt there will be anyone left who genuinely thinks the thing is really coming. I do see Apple continuing to innovate with touchscreen technology but my gut feeling is that the rumours we're getting now are largely off the mark. If anything, Apple is letting misinformation find its way into the hands of rumour dispensers to throw off the competition.
Rather than expect a major break from the Touch, an evolutionary next step is more in line with what I think Apple will do next. I'm sure it will disappoint quite a few folks and I also believe that whatever Apple does, it will be well executed. I especially am thinking along those lines in light of Apple now marketing the Touch as a small computer, as opposed to just a glorified media player. This could be where they wanted to take the Touch all along. Next stop, a 5" touch at a similar price point to the current model coming to market before next fall, probably this spring. Such a device would be a sales success and offer an easier transition up to an even bigger unit a few years down the road. By that I mean if you introduce files designed for the bigger screen, those files would be useable with a bigger device later on. In the meantime, the 5" Touch would be compatible with existing App Store apps. A seamless transition that would not cause an awkward transition period during which there would be very limited software available for a bigger form factor. This is exactly how Apple has evolved the iPod to date and I have to ask, if it has worked out brilliantly for them, why would they suddenly opt to operate more like the competition by releasing a product that looks impressive on paper but in the hands of consumers would prove less than satisfying.