I can't say that I agree with much of what you've said so far today (I think that the 3Gs was a significant improvement), but I LOVE that name!
The name is great, but the concept is bad-- one computer that slides in and out of another. What's the advantage of that (except for those who repair computers)? This is "mechanical failure" just waiting to happen.
No way, can I see SJ or Apple releasing such a device.
That said, there is need for a Tablet device that could act as a peripheral to another computer (including other Tablets and iPhones/Touches) and vice versa.
The computer (say, an iMac) could use the Tablet and a Stylus Tablet and MultiTouch FingerTouch peripheral.
The Tablet could use the computer (say, an iMac) as an I/O peripheral Large displays, keyboard, mouse, attached midis, scanners, etc.
Rather than connecting by plugging one into the other, they could connect by BlueTooth, WiFi, USB, FireWire* (rather than the system buss).
* remember the iPhone connector supports both USB and FireWire (though FireWire is currently used on some older iPods)
Frankly unless I see Apple becoming more agressive with new products I see them falling on hard times in the near future. The only significNt development all year has been Nano and software. That folks is a recipe for a crash.
Bahahahaha! People like you have been crapping on Apple for years, claiming this or that will be their downfall. They keep proving those of your ilk wrong, time and time again.
Apple will continue to be successful for years to come, your labored, poorly-reasoned post notwithstanding.
I could see this patent being realized but the last thing I would want is for that tablet to contain the guts of an iMac. The problem is it would be a huge regression performance wise. I'd rather the tablet was simply a storage device that maybe also provided for a few communication ports and maybe a support computer.
Macs are a hobby for me, so I'm not a super-engineer, but I guess what I was thinking was that the core would have a certain level of performance capability itself, but the... frame would also have supplemental machinery.
Therefore the two together work better than the one, but each would be usable individually.
Having ZFS would be a huge benefit here.
Grand Central and the multicore tuning would be very helpful here.
Wireless charging could be helpful here, depending.
Screensharing and Back to My Mac would be very helpful here.
In fact, having a cloud connection between your core and frame sounds ideal.
If cost and implementation can be worked out, I don't see how this cannot be blockbuster. I use the computer on the desktop all I want for hardcore work, but I pull out the core to head off to the meeting, or up to bed to read, or the table to read. I bring the core on vacation. I use the core and frame when I need to sit and type for hours on end... or the core (which should have a stand) and a bt keyboard if I'm away from the desk.
How is this not killer?
And when you imagine how it would look... isn't it exactly like an iMac? So how do you come out with this alongside normal iMacs? You just can't, I'd say. It'd be too confusing to consumers.
That's why this is the new iMac. I still think it's very very likely so.
I find it strange that more is not said about the fact that Apple is almost by itself as a computer related company which is actually making money. It begs the question what would the results be if the circumstances were closer to normal.
Comments
I can't say that I agree with much of what you've said so far today (I think that the 3Gs was a significant improvement), but I LOVE that name!
The name is great, but the concept is bad-- one computer that slides in and out of another. What's the advantage of that (except for those who repair computers)? This is "mechanical failure" just waiting to happen.
No way, can I see SJ or Apple releasing such a device.
That said, there is need for a Tablet device that could act as a peripheral to another computer (including other Tablets and iPhones/Touches) and vice versa.
The computer (say, an iMac) could use the Tablet and a Stylus Tablet and MultiTouch FingerTouch peripheral.
The Tablet could use the computer (say, an iMac) as an I/O peripheral Large displays, keyboard, mouse, attached midis, scanners, etc.
Rather than connecting by plugging one into the other, they could connect by BlueTooth, WiFi, USB, FireWire* (rather than the system buss).
* remember the iPhone connector supports both USB and FireWire (though FireWire is currently used on some older iPods)
*
Great minds think alike.
I'm hoping for 3 million Macs sold.
What is it -MacDonald's?
[big snip]
Frankly unless I see Apple becoming more agressive with new products I see them falling on hard times in the near future. The only significNt development all year has been Nano and software. That folks is a recipe for a crash.
Bahahahaha! People like you have been crapping on Apple for years, claiming this or that will be their downfall. They keep proving those of your ilk wrong, time and time again.
Apple will continue to be successful for years to come, your labored, poorly-reasoned post notwithstanding.
I could see this patent being realized but the last thing I would want is for that tablet to contain the guts of an iMac. The problem is it would be a huge regression performance wise. I'd rather the tablet was simply a storage device that maybe also provided for a few communication ports and maybe a support computer.
Macs are a hobby for me, so I'm not a super-engineer, but I guess what I was thinking was that the core would have a certain level of performance capability itself, but the... frame would also have supplemental machinery.
Therefore the two together work better than the one, but each would be usable individually.
Having ZFS would be a huge benefit here.
Grand Central and the multicore tuning would be very helpful here.
Wireless charging could be helpful here, depending.
Screensharing and Back to My Mac would be very helpful here.
In fact, having a cloud connection between your core and frame sounds ideal.
If cost and implementation can be worked out, I don't see how this cannot be blockbuster. I use the computer on the desktop all I want for hardcore work, but I pull out the core to head off to the meeting, or up to bed to read, or the table to read. I bring the core on vacation. I use the core and frame when I need to sit and type for hours on end... or the core (which should have a stand) and a bt keyboard if I'm away from the desk.
How is this not killer?
And when you imagine how it would look... isn't it exactly like an iMac? So how do you come out with this alongside normal iMacs? You just can't, I'd say. It'd be too confusing to consumers.
That's why this is the new iMac. I still think it's very very likely so.
I find it strange that more is not said about the fact that Apple is almost by itself as a computer related company which is actually making money. It begs the question what would the results be if the circumstances were closer to normal.
Just a thought.
HT Ont Canada