Right... "several different models". What does THAT mean?
First - Apple rarely does "several different models" to achieve economies of scale.
Second - If 'several' means 2 or 3, then perhaps. But, my guess is that much like the MacBookAir, there will be only one at first.
Third - I've been wrong once before. Ask your mom, she knows. :0)
Two hard drive sizes, a 3G and 3Gless model. That would make 4 possible configurations, which could be misconstrued as several different models. I wouldn't expect different processor speeds, screen sizes or feature lists.
At least his post didn't come off as whiny complaining about largely insignificant points. Had Apple "told the truth" about battery life, would you have made a different purchasing decision? I doubt it. I don't know anything about the case or what "lies" were told though. Apple settles cases that aren't worth their time, and being sued doesn't mean they did anything wrong, just that they are a frequent target that has money.
I would also disagree with your statement. Apple hardware is top notch. Pull apart an Apple laptop and an HP and compare, they simply don't. The iPhone is a success of hardware and software, the amount of hardware they throw into that tiny package is quite amazing.
Apple software may get most of the recognition, but that is only because the hardware is taken for granted.
At least his post didn't come off as whiny complaining about largely insignificant points. Had Apple "told the truth" about battery life, would you have made a different purchasing decision? I doubt it. I don't know anything about the case or what "lies" were told though. Apple settles cases that aren't worth their time, and being sued doesn't mean they did anything wrong, just that they are a frequent target that has money and occasionally settles out of court.
I would also disagree with your statement. Apple hardware is top notch. Pull apart an Apple laptop and an HP and compare, they simply don't. The iPhone is a success of hardware and software, the amount of hardware they throw into that tiny package is quite amazing.
Apple software may get most of the recognition, but that is only because the hardware is taken for granted.
The 3rd generation ipod came out 6.5 years ago. Apple has been using a better rating method than everyone for battery times for years now. Except for Sony, who started using that same method last year.
Their devices have been meeting or exceeding battery ratings in independent tests for so long now that complaining about Apple HW not leading the industry doesn’t make much sense when using an iPod from 2003 as a reference. On top of that, their stated usage not matching what theire spec sheets state has nothing to do with the HW itself (unless it’s a faulty battery which gets you are replacement).
I guess I misunderstood you. I read (and I don't think I'm alone) "The tablet market is dead there is no game to change" as a statement that an Apple tablet cannot succeed.
Edit: And these are some of the new wave of tablets in the pipeline that I was talking about. These things are more than ever designed to be first and foremost tablets, although the archos one does run windows 7, which is still primarily a cursor based OS (I guess that is the cost of actually having your tablet on the market right now). I would see these as hints at where the market is headed, and what an Apple tablet could really expand upon.
The first and third look pretty sweet, the first one the best. Nvidia came up on the third one and there was also an article today talking about Nvidia redoing he graphics for Nintendo DS.
DiDo may be simply repeating what others have said but that does not imply that the tech isn't available for some of the feature sets described.
First it is pretty much a given that through PA Semi Apple will have a custom SoC in the tablet. Given publically available information from the likes of ARM and Imagination we can see the potential for a huge performance boost over the current iPhone/Touch implementations. With Cortex and Imaginations new graphic cores I have little doubt that the performance would be anything less than impressive. Consider that Imaginations latest IP allows an implemented to tailor the number of cores the GPU will use and that each core is more powerful than the current iPhones. Imagin 8 of these cores on the SoC.
Now that number of cores guess above comes out of thin Air. What Apple has to do is to tailor the maximum power draw of the system board to some arrbitrary level that meets certain design goals. What ultimately makes it onto the SoC will be controlled by the maximum power allowed. The iPhone can max out at 2.5 watts running everything hard. I'm going to suggest that Apple will want to keep total power under 7 watts. That is a lot but much of that would go to back lighting a large screen. So maybe the SoC and main board are allocated five watts. That effectively doubles iPhone max power draw. Given the latest semiconductor technology that is going to be one nice tablet.
If the rumors about a ten inch tablet are true that provides a lot of room for a battery. I won't guess at run times but it won't be bad. Consider that the logic board won't be much larger than what is in the Touch or iPhone. A big battery plus an ARM SoC using a low power tech will equal long run times.
As to the screen there is a reasonable possibility that it will support 720P. I'm not down with super high resolutions though. 1080P would be nice but extremely small pixels require aGgressive back lighting. Supper high pixel density works against long battery life, a good portion of that due to driving the back light.
Of course that is LCD screen related but new tech like OLED and TMOS are nice. Even here there are bad trade offs. For example black text on a white background is very expensive power wise. No matter which way Apple goes a large display implies high power usage. It is also where innovation is possible, it will be interesting to see if Apple moves some of the more interesting tech out of a lab onto a tablet.
As to multiple size devices it would be a very wise move on Apples part to have two different sizes at launch. Mainly because, as we all know size matters, of the dramatically different needs in the market place
The OS will be derived from or a superset of iPhone OS. It will though take on many of Mac OSes features such as the Dock. The Dock will provide access to multitasking even on a device with one app per screen. While at a low level there is little difference between iPhone OS and Mac OS a tablet needs an interface much closer to iPhones that a Mac.
Running Powerpoint or other presentation programs on this device would be a waste of time in my mind. I just don't get the point!
I actually wonder if this will be a tablet in the traditional sense. The one thing that is bad about a tablet is that big exposed screen. Fracture city if you ask me. I could see Apple addressing this in a number of different ways. One would be the holly Grail of the folding screen. Another would be via a transparent material other than glass. The cheap approach is pecan with a hardener applied. We could get something along the lines of transparent Aluminum. This is however another place for Apple to innovate and solve the problem of the breakable screen.
What is interesting isthat every body here seems to poo poo what is possible with respect to electronics and performance yet misses the far more demanding challeges. The electronics isn't the problem between ARM, PA Semi and Imagination there shouldn't be a problem at all.
Dave
Dave
Thanks, I brushed up on the technical side of things. Whew.
The 3rd generation ipod came out 6.5 years ago. Apple has been using a better rating method than everyone for battery times for years now. Except for Sony, who started using that same method last year.
A few years at best. The fifth generation iPod introduced in 2005 and in production till late 2007 also did not meet it's stated battery longevity.
Quote:
For example, the fifth generation 30 GB iPod is advertised as having up to 14 hours of music playback. An MP3.com report stated that this was virtually unachievable under real-life usage conditions, with a writer for MP3.com getting on average less than 8 hours from an iPod.
Quote:
Their devices have been meeting or exceeding battery ratings in independent tests for so long now
How many decades would that be, or are you exagerating slightly?
In the last couple of years, I will grant you, Apple's claims of battery life have been very good to the point of being understated, and I commend them for that, but let's not whitewash the past.
Quote:
complaining about Apple HW not leading the industry doesn?t make much sense when using an iPod from 2003 as a reference. On top of that, their stated usage not matching what theire spec sheets state has nothing to do with the HW itself (unless it?s a faulty battery which gets you are replacement).
Batteries which are built in are about as integral a part of the overall HW as you can get, so their stated uasge not matching the specs IS a HW fault.
You brought up Apple's batteries as a sign of their leading edge tech, not me. My point, which you seem to be working very hard not to 'get' was that false claims of battery longevity, coupled with them being designed to not be user replaceable, meant that many users experienced a cost of ownership that was far higher than they expected and which was utterly unreasonable, given Apple's original policy that users should just buy a refurbished unit - costing a significant proportion of the original purchase price - when their battery died.
A few years at best. The fifth generation iPod introduced in 2005 and in production till late 2007 also did not meet it's stated battery longevity.
How many decades would that be, or are you exagerating slightly?
In the last couple of years, I will grant you, Apple's claims of battery life have been very good to the point of being understated, and I commend them for that, but let's not whitewash the past.
Batteries which are built in are about as integral a part of the overall HW as you can get, so their stated uasge not matching the specs IS a HW fault.
You brought up Apple's batteries as a sign of their leading edge tech, not me. My point, which you seem to be working very hard not to 'get' was that false claims of battery longevity, coupled with them being designed to not be user replaceable, meant that many users experienced a cost of ownership that was far higher than they expected and which was utterly unreasonable, given Apple's original policy that users should just buy a refurbished unit - costing a significant proportion of the original purchase price - when their battery died.
In my experience, battery life is never as advertised.
Really? The one killer functionality that put the iPhone ahead of the pack prior to the App Store was it's superior Web surfing experience, hence all the hullabaloo over statistics showing what a huge proportion of mobile device internet access was being done via iPhones.
And before you turn that around and say that was all done without Flash too, I think the crucial difference would be that people will forgive the lack with a tiny device that is limited by a small screen, whereas they wouldn't for something bigger, where full functionality would be expected, as it is with an iMac or Macbook.
you said it yourself. THX
I understand the point, so fine let's say we can use flash. I hear ya, but I can think of a many other reasons other than surfing the web that the tablet will be better used for.
A tablet with pen, a touch interface for pro software like Protools, Color or Final Cut or a game controller for the Apple TV or your computers, "Cloud Computing" (where we might see online versions of I work etc) , an e-reader or plug in a microphone or camera and record sound or picture, download and sort photos, a medical tablet for either doctors or patients and of course traditional uses like consuming media, email, word processing and including web surfing.
All of which the iphone OS can already do, so why the tablet has to be "desktop or laptop" class I don't know. It's just like in any audio mix, every instrument has it's place and when they overlap everywhere it sounds like poo.
Do you think hospitals will say... "oh no way, our nurses can't live without flash? Do you think NASA cares? Do you think schools will be heart broken because kids can't play flash games in class? How much research is ever done on flash sites? As far as multimedia goes, I think Apple is pretty confident they've got that taken care of, what with all of the Music, Movies, TV and soon possibly "Print" you could ever want. (ok the movies need help but you get my point)
I'll be the first to say I am always wrong especially when I say something stupid like "Never", but I would be surprised if all Apple thought of the tablet, is that it's a web browser for the couch, bed and toilet.
Despite what you you've said, my point is that it doesn't NEED (capitals) NEED flash to be a success. I already use click to flash on my computers but I guess that's just me. Someone already made that decision for the iphone (oh yeah that was pretty much SJ wasn't it? )
Batteries which are built in are about as integral a part of the overall HW as you can get, so their stated uasge not matching the specs IS a HW fault.
You really don?t see how the measuring method is the issue, not the HW itself.
I say this again: Apple?s stated battery times for their products are because of the method they use to measure them. Nothing else.
I brought up Apple not requiring the user to continually replace their PMP with AA batteries and I brought up their new notebooks with having a 1000 charge cycle. The first was not common and the second still isn?t common. So yes, they have pushed the envelope with HW even with batteries. You may not like what they?ve done because you still want to use a 6 year old iPod that is well past it?s battery life expectancy and don?t want to get a new battery, but that is your personal issue, not an issue with Apple doing the things I stated in regards to HW. If you think they are following leader with all their HW choices, then so be it, but you are wrong.
Funny thing. I was thinking, "Um, maybe I'll head over to the Appleinsider site. They're due to post another Apple Tablet piece." Sure enough, there it was.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Apple is working on developing products based around their cool touch-screen technology. Something released in the first quarter of 2010 would not be a big stretch.
Who knows, maybe it will be exactly a tablet with a 10-inch screen.
But this is getting very repetitive and very pointless. What's left to say, really. I mean you pretty much hit rock bottom when you make a big fuss over the notion of a portable device with screen resolution far in advance of the Touch or iPhone. It's not like anyone has ever tried that before in a portable unit. Right?
Oh well, not much longer to wait now. Christmas is fast approaching and before you know it'll be 2010. Then instead of pointless, if not inane speculation, we'll have an actual product to discuss.
-smart way to sync with a new portable apple product physical keyboard
-no plastic backings. (CF is ok)
yah.
Carbon Fiber won’t work. It absorbs RF. There are some nice plastics out there if they want to make the back completely plastic. It does have some inherent durability properties to it.
Personally, I’d like to see an aluminum backing with a small area—say, top left in landscape mode, top right in portrait mode—that has a plastic covering for the radios. It could be a very discreet area near the edge of this assumed 10” device.
There is no guarantee this device is even going to exist. Why are there "lofty exectations" at all? And since when has apple been the company to offer "high end graphics cards"?
I believe it will be high end relative to mobile phones. Whole story sounds more like Apple's PR statement than real stuff.
I bought my wife a Kindel DX early this year and she tried it for a couple of weeks. She was very dissapointed in how it worked and how limited it's feature set was. While the E Ink is easy to read, it is very slow to update and not having a touch screen made it diffifult to operate. She returned it within the 30 day grace period for a refund.
At one time I owned a company that built industrial computers with near field effect touch screens. We built a model ( about 12 years ago ) that had a 10.4" 800x600 LCD active matrix screen a early wireless card and a built in bar code scanner. It worked great for inventory control. A user could scan a bin and it would show them a document ( with pics ) of what should be there. We sold a small number to large warehouses and they loved them. My wife even commented that the old clunker I built years ago was easier to use than the Kindel. ( Although it was significantly larger and quite heavy ) I did think the compact design of the Kindel was impressive.
At the time, wet NiCads were about the only battery technology that would hold up to industrial use They would only last about 1-2 hours, but it seemed to get the job done. We did not sell enough to call the product a success. The components, at the time, were way too expensive ( The units sold for over $10,000 ) and consumed too much power. However, having designed and built this old relic, I can see why people might like a product like the rumored Apple Tablet. A well designed touch screen interface makes a computer interface quite intutive....
I think it would have a real chance in the market today.... It will be fun to see what, if anything, Apple releases next year....
At the time, wet NiCads were about the only battery technology that would hold up to industrial use They would only last about 1-2 hours, but it seemed to get the job done. We did not sell enough to call the product a success. The components, at the time, were way too expensive ( The units sold for over $10,000 ) and consumed too much power.
Using your post as a segue, I wonder if Silver-zinc batteries will be viable for CE soon?
Quote:
The ZPowerTM battery offers up to 40 percent more run time than traditional lithium-ion batteries. **
Quote:
Intel's venture arm, Intel Capital, has provided [ZPower] with financial backing. ZPower claimed in 2008 that an undisclosed "major manufacturer" of laptop computers will introduce its silver-zinc battery in a new line of laptops in 2009. †
I’m under the impression that the number of charge cycles is still very low, making them unfeasible regardless of price.
I really don't see why anyone continues to compare the "Apple Tablet" to netbooks... there really is no crossover.
The Tablet is sounding more and more like a media device (iPod/iPhone) and less and less like a computing device (MacBook). No one out there is buying netbooks to read the paper, or look at recipes in the kitchen, or read eBooks. Netbooks are computing devices, they have keyboards for a reason. Granted some are glorified DVD players for certain frequent flyers, but they are also email writers/readers for those same people, where as I don't see the Tablet being a highly functional email device.
Yes, the tablet will likely impact the Kindle/eBook market, although I suspect less than many believe because the content for the Tablet will be purchased through iTunes and have Apple premium pricing. Many will choose a platform with lower content cost (Kindle/Sony) elsewhere.
The iTablet must run Mac OS X applications (full Mac OS X inside - Tablet version). Must be as light and small as possible. Must have video-out and USB 2 ports for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations.
If the iTablet runs MacOSX applications, it will certainly FAIL.
The main reason is a simple one, but to many people a strange one....
.... if it can do it, then people will actually run MacOSX applications on it.
As such... they'll find that the apps are built to expect fine control with a mouse as well as keyboard entry as a standard. So the tablet will feel clunky and the apps will be harder to use. AND if a regular Mac app works on the tablet, then developers won't bother retooling their app to work well on the touch interface and within any other restrictions of the device.
It would require all the power of a current MacBook (plus touch screen, lighter, etc), and thus would have to be a similar price to a MacBook (or cost more if they try to make it thinner etc, closer to a MacBook Air).
If the iTablet runs MacOSX applications, it will certainly FAIL.
The main reason is a simple one, but to many people a strange one....
.... if it can do it, then people will actually run MacOSX applications on it.
As such... they'll find that the apps are built to expect fine control with a mouse as well as keyboard entry as a standard. So the tablet will feel clunky and the apps will be harder to use. AND if a regular Mac app works on the tablet, then developers won't bother retooling their app to work well on the touch interface and within any other restrictions of the device.
It would require all the power of a current MacBook (plus touch screen, lighter, etc), and thus would have to be a similar price to a MacBook (or cost more if they try to make it thinner etc, closer to a MacBook Air).
You make an excellent point.
Then at least it should be more open than the iPhone. I should be able to get apps for it from nearly anywhere.
Comments
Right... "several different models". What does THAT mean?
First - Apple rarely does "several different models" to achieve economies of scale.
Second - If 'several' means 2 or 3, then perhaps. But, my guess is that much like the MacBookAir, there will be only one at first.
Third - I've been wrong once before. Ask your mom, she knows. :0)
Two hard drive sizes, a 3G and 3Gless model. That would make 4 possible configurations, which could be misconstrued as several different models. I wouldn't expect different processor speeds, screen sizes or feature lists.
You seem to be over reacting to what I said.
At least his post didn't come off as whiny complaining about largely insignificant points. Had Apple "told the truth" about battery life, would you have made a different purchasing decision? I doubt it. I don't know anything about the case or what "lies" were told though. Apple settles cases that aren't worth their time, and being sued doesn't mean they did anything wrong, just that they are a frequent target that has money.
I would also disagree with your statement. Apple hardware is top notch. Pull apart an Apple laptop and an HP and compare, they simply don't. The iPhone is a success of hardware and software, the amount of hardware they throw into that tiny package is quite amazing.
Apple software may get most of the recognition, but that is only because the hardware is taken for granted.
... If 'several' means 2 or 3, then perhaps. ...
I think there will only be one also, but for the record, "several" means three or more. It never means two.
At least his post didn't come off as whiny complaining about largely insignificant points. Had Apple "told the truth" about battery life, would you have made a different purchasing decision? I doubt it. I don't know anything about the case or what "lies" were told though. Apple settles cases that aren't worth their time, and being sued doesn't mean they did anything wrong, just that they are a frequent target that has money and occasionally settles out of court.
I would also disagree with your statement. Apple hardware is top notch. Pull apart an Apple laptop and an HP and compare, they simply don't. The iPhone is a success of hardware and software, the amount of hardware they throw into that tiny package is quite amazing.
Apple software may get most of the recognition, but that is only because the hardware is taken for granted.
The 3rd generation ipod came out 6.5 years ago. Apple has been using a better rating method than everyone for battery times for years now. Except for Sony, who started using that same method last year.
Their devices have been meeting or exceeding battery ratings in independent tests for so long now that complaining about Apple HW not leading the industry doesn’t make much sense when using an iPod from 2003 as a reference. On top of that, their stated usage not matching what theire spec sheets state has nothing to do with the HW itself (unless it’s a faulty battery which gets you are replacement).
I guess I misunderstood you. I read (and I don't think I'm alone) "The tablet market is dead there is no game to change" as a statement that an Apple tablet cannot succeed.
Edit: And these are some of the new wave of tablets in the pipeline that I was talking about. These things are more than ever designed to be first and foremost tablets, although the archos one does run windows 7, which is still primarily a cursor based OS (I guess that is the cost of actually having your tablet on the market right now). I would see these as hints at where the market is headed, and what an Apple tablet could really expand upon.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/15/c...een-300-and-4/
http://www.archos.com/products/nb/ar...try=ca&lang=en
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/10/n...gra-prototype/
The first and third look pretty sweet, the first one the best. Nvidia came up on the third one and there was also an article today talking about Nvidia redoing he graphics for Nintendo DS.
DiDo may be simply repeating what others have said but that does not imply that the tech isn't available for some of the feature sets described.
First it is pretty much a given that through PA Semi Apple will have a custom SoC in the tablet. Given publically available information from the likes of ARM and Imagination we can see the potential for a huge performance boost over the current iPhone/Touch implementations. With Cortex and Imaginations new graphic cores I have little doubt that the performance would be anything less than impressive. Consider that Imaginations latest IP allows an implemented to tailor the number of cores the GPU will use and that each core is more powerful than the current iPhones. Imagin 8 of these cores on the SoC.
Now that number of cores guess above comes out of thin Air. What Apple has to do is to tailor the maximum power draw of the system board to some arrbitrary level that meets certain design goals. What ultimately makes it onto the SoC will be controlled by the maximum power allowed. The iPhone can max out at 2.5 watts running everything hard. I'm going to suggest that Apple will want to keep total power under 7 watts. That is a lot but much of that would go to back lighting a large screen. So maybe the SoC and main board are allocated five watts. That effectively doubles iPhone max power draw. Given the latest semiconductor technology that is going to be one nice tablet.
If the rumors about a ten inch tablet are true that provides a lot of room for a battery. I won't guess at run times but it won't be bad. Consider that the logic board won't be much larger than what is in the Touch or iPhone. A big battery plus an ARM SoC using a low power tech will equal long run times.
As to the screen there is a reasonable possibility that it will support 720P. I'm not down with super high resolutions though. 1080P would be nice but extremely small pixels require aGgressive back lighting. Supper high pixel density works against long battery life, a good portion of that due to driving the back light.
Of course that is LCD screen related but new tech like OLED and TMOS are nice. Even here there are bad trade offs. For example black text on a white background is very expensive power wise. No matter which way Apple goes a large display implies high power usage. It is also where innovation is possible, it will be interesting to see if Apple moves some of the more interesting tech out of a lab onto a tablet.
As to multiple size devices it would be a very wise move on Apples part to have two different sizes at launch. Mainly because, as we all know size matters, of the dramatically different needs in the market place
The OS will be derived from or a superset of iPhone OS. It will though take on many of Mac OSes features such as the Dock. The Dock will provide access to multitasking even on a device with one app per screen. While at a low level there is little difference between iPhone OS and Mac OS a tablet needs an interface much closer to iPhones that a Mac.
Running Powerpoint or other presentation programs on this device would be a waste of time in my mind. I just don't get the point!
I actually wonder if this will be a tablet in the traditional sense. The one thing that is bad about a tablet is that big exposed screen. Fracture city if you ask me. I could see Apple addressing this in a number of different ways. One would be the holly Grail of the folding screen. Another would be via a transparent material other than glass. The cheap approach is pecan with a hardener applied. We could get something along the lines of transparent Aluminum. This is however another place for Apple to innovate and solve the problem of the breakable screen.
What is interesting isthat every body here seems to poo poo what is possible with respect to electronics and performance yet misses the far more demanding challeges. The electronics isn't the problem between ARM, PA Semi and Imagination there shouldn't be a problem at all.
Dave
Dave
Thanks, I brushed up on the technical side of things. Whew.
The 3rd generation ipod came out 6.5 years ago. Apple has been using a better rating method than everyone for battery times for years now. Except for Sony, who started using that same method last year.
A few years at best. The fifth generation iPod introduced in 2005 and in production till late 2007 also did not meet it's stated battery longevity.
For example, the fifth generation 30 GB iPod is advertised as having up to 14 hours of music playback. An MP3.com report stated that this was virtually unachievable under real-life usage conditions, with a writer for MP3.com getting on average less than 8 hours from an iPod.
Their devices have been meeting or exceeding battery ratings in independent tests for so long now
How many decades would that be, or are you exagerating slightly?
In the last couple of years, I will grant you, Apple's claims of battery life have been very good to the point of being understated, and I commend them for that, but let's not whitewash the past.
complaining about Apple HW not leading the industry doesn?t make much sense when using an iPod from 2003 as a reference. On top of that, their stated usage not matching what theire spec sheets state has nothing to do with the HW itself (unless it?s a faulty battery which gets you are replacement).
Batteries which are built in are about as integral a part of the overall HW as you can get, so their stated uasge not matching the specs IS a HW fault.
You brought up Apple's batteries as a sign of their leading edge tech, not me. My point, which you seem to be working very hard not to 'get' was that false claims of battery longevity, coupled with them being designed to not be user replaceable, meant that many users experienced a cost of ownership that was far higher than they expected and which was utterly unreasonable, given Apple's original policy that users should just buy a refurbished unit - costing a significant proportion of the original purchase price - when their battery died.
A few years at best. The fifth generation iPod introduced in 2005 and in production till late 2007 also did not meet it's stated battery longevity.
How many decades would that be, or are you exagerating slightly?
In the last couple of years, I will grant you, Apple's claims of battery life have been very good to the point of being understated, and I commend them for that, but let's not whitewash the past.
Batteries which are built in are about as integral a part of the overall HW as you can get, so their stated uasge not matching the specs IS a HW fault.
You brought up Apple's batteries as a sign of their leading edge tech, not me. My point, which you seem to be working very hard not to 'get' was that false claims of battery longevity, coupled with them being designed to not be user replaceable, meant that many users experienced a cost of ownership that was far higher than they expected and which was utterly unreasonable, given Apple's original policy that users should just buy a refurbished unit - costing a significant proportion of the original purchase price - when their battery died.
In my experience, battery life is never as advertised.
Really? The one killer functionality that put the iPhone ahead of the pack prior to the App Store was it's superior Web surfing experience, hence all the hullabaloo over statistics showing what a huge proportion of mobile device internet access was being done via iPhones.
And before you turn that around and say that was all done without Flash too, I think the crucial difference would be that people will forgive the lack with a tiny device that is limited by a small screen, whereas they wouldn't for something bigger, where full functionality would be expected, as it is with an iMac or Macbook.
you said it yourself. THX
I understand the point, so fine let's say we can use flash. I hear ya, but I can think of a many other reasons other than surfing the web that the tablet will be better used for.
A tablet with pen, a touch interface for pro software like Protools, Color or Final Cut or a game controller for the Apple TV or your computers, "Cloud Computing" (where we might see online versions of I work etc) , an e-reader or plug in a microphone or camera and record sound or picture, download and sort photos, a medical tablet for either doctors or patients and of course traditional uses like consuming media, email, word processing and including web surfing.
All of which the iphone OS can already do, so why the tablet has to be "desktop or laptop" class I don't know. It's just like in any audio mix, every instrument has it's place and when they overlap everywhere it sounds like poo.
Do you think hospitals will say... "oh no way, our nurses can't live without flash? Do you think NASA cares? Do you think schools will be heart broken because kids can't play flash games in class? How much research is ever done on flash sites? As far as multimedia goes, I think Apple is pretty confident they've got that taken care of, what with all of the Music, Movies, TV and soon possibly "Print" you could ever want. (ok the movies need help but you get my point)
I'll be the first to say I am always wrong especially when I say something stupid like "Never", but I would be surprised if all Apple thought of the tablet, is that it's a web browser for the couch, bed and toilet.
Despite what you you've said, my point is that it doesn't NEED (capitals) NEED flash to be a success. I already use click to flash on my computers but I guess that's just me. Someone already made that decision for the iphone (oh yeah that was pretty much SJ wasn't it? )
Batteries which are built in are about as integral a part of the overall HW as you can get, so their stated uasge not matching the specs IS a HW fault.
You really don?t see how the measuring method is the issue, not the HW itself.
I say this again: Apple?s stated battery times for their products are because of the method they use to measure them. Nothing else.
I brought up Apple not requiring the user to continually replace their PMP with AA batteries and I brought up their new notebooks with having a 1000 charge cycle. The first was not common and the second still isn?t common. So yes, they have pushed the envelope with HW even with batteries. You may not like what they?ve done because you still want to use a 6 year old iPod that is well past it?s battery life expectancy and don?t want to get a new battery, but that is your personal issue, not an issue with Apple doing the things I stated in regards to HW. If you think they are following leader with all their HW choices, then so be it, but you are wrong.
I do not see why that is so far off the mark.
I guarantee everyone I know (within reason) will be buying one. Thats half way to the target already.
Got 1 million friends do you?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Apple is working on developing products based around their cool touch-screen technology. Something released in the first quarter of 2010 would not be a big stretch.
Who knows, maybe it will be exactly a tablet with a 10-inch screen.
But this is getting very repetitive and very pointless. What's left to say, really. I mean you pretty much hit rock bottom when you make a big fuss over the notion of a portable device with screen resolution far in advance of the Touch or iPhone. It's not like anyone has ever tried that before in a portable unit. Right?
Oh well, not much longer to wait now. Christmas is fast approaching and before you know it'll be 2010. Then instead of pointless, if not inane speculation, we'll have an actual product to discuss.
-smart way to sync with a new portable apple product physical keyboard
-no plastic backings. (CF is ok)
yah.
my only humple requirements,
-smart way to sync with a new portable apple product physical keyboard
-no plastic backings. (CF is ok)
yah.
Carbon Fiber won’t work. It absorbs RF. There are some nice plastics out there if they want to make the back completely plastic. It does have some inherent durability properties to it.
Personally, I’d like to see an aluminum backing with a small area—say, top left in landscape mode, top right in portrait mode—that has a plastic covering for the radios. It could be a very discreet area near the edge of this assumed 10” device.
There is no guarantee this device is even going to exist. Why are there "lofty exectations" at all? And since when has apple been the company to offer "high end graphics cards"?
I believe it will be high end relative to mobile phones. Whole story sounds more like Apple's PR statement than real stuff.
I would probably get one....
I bought my wife a Kindel DX early this year and she tried it for a couple of weeks. She was very dissapointed in how it worked and how limited it's feature set was. While the E Ink is easy to read, it is very slow to update and not having a touch screen made it diffifult to operate. She returned it within the 30 day grace period for a refund.
At one time I owned a company that built industrial computers with near field effect touch screens. We built a model ( about 12 years ago ) that had a 10.4" 800x600 LCD active matrix screen a early wireless card and a built in bar code scanner. It worked great for inventory control. A user could scan a bin and it would show them a document ( with pics ) of what should be there. We sold a small number to large warehouses and they loved them. My wife even commented that the old clunker I built years ago was easier to use than the Kindel. ( Although it was significantly larger and quite heavy ) I did think the compact design of the Kindel was impressive.
At the time, wet NiCads were about the only battery technology that would hold up to industrial use They would only last about 1-2 hours, but it seemed to get the job done. We did not sell enough to call the product a success. The components, at the time, were way too expensive ( The units sold for over $10,000 ) and consumed too much power. However, having designed and built this old relic, I can see why people might like a product like the rumored Apple Tablet. A well designed touch screen interface makes a computer interface quite intutive....
I think it would have a real chance in the market today.... It will be fun to see what, if anything, Apple releases next year....
At the time, wet NiCads were about the only battery technology that would hold up to industrial use They would only last about 1-2 hours, but it seemed to get the job done. We did not sell enough to call the product a success. The components, at the time, were way too expensive ( The units sold for over $10,000 ) and consumed too much power.
Using your post as a segue, I wonder if Silver-zinc batteries will be viable for CE soon?
The ZPowerTM battery offers up to 40 percent more run time than traditional lithium-ion batteries. **
Intel's venture arm, Intel Capital, has provided [ZPower] with financial backing. ZPower claimed in 2008 that an undisclosed "major manufacturer" of laptop computers will introduce its silver-zinc battery in a new line of laptops in 2009. †
I’m under the impression that the number of charge cycles is still very low, making them unfeasible regardless of price.
The Tablet is sounding more and more like a media device (iPod/iPhone) and less and less like a computing device (MacBook). No one out there is buying netbooks to read the paper, or look at recipes in the kitchen, or read eBooks. Netbooks are computing devices, they have keyboards for a reason. Granted some are glorified DVD players for certain frequent flyers, but they are also email writers/readers for those same people, where as I don't see the Tablet being a highly functional email device.
Yes, the tablet will likely impact the Kindle/eBook market, although I suspect less than many believe because the content for the Tablet will be purchased through iTunes and have Apple premium pricing. Many will choose a platform with lower content cost (Kindle/Sony) elsewhere.
The iTablet must run Mac OS X applications (full Mac OS X inside - Tablet version). Must be as light and small as possible. Must have video-out and USB 2 ports for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations.
If the iTablet runs MacOSX applications, it will certainly FAIL.
The main reason is a simple one, but to many people a strange one....
.... if it can do it, then people will actually run MacOSX applications on it.
As such... they'll find that the apps are built to expect fine control with a mouse as well as keyboard entry as a standard. So the tablet will feel clunky and the apps will be harder to use. AND if a regular Mac app works on the tablet, then developers won't bother retooling their app to work well on the touch interface and within any other restrictions of the device.
It would require all the power of a current MacBook (plus touch screen, lighter, etc), and thus would have to be a similar price to a MacBook (or cost more if they try to make it thinner etc, closer to a MacBook Air).
If the iTablet runs MacOSX applications, it will certainly FAIL.
The main reason is a simple one, but to many people a strange one....
.... if it can do it, then people will actually run MacOSX applications on it.
As such... they'll find that the apps are built to expect fine control with a mouse as well as keyboard entry as a standard. So the tablet will feel clunky and the apps will be harder to use. AND if a regular Mac app works on the tablet, then developers won't bother retooling their app to work well on the touch interface and within any other restrictions of the device.
It would require all the power of a current MacBook (plus touch screen, lighter, etc), and thus would have to be a similar price to a MacBook (or cost more if they try to make it thinner etc, closer to a MacBook Air).
You make an excellent point.
Then at least it should be more open than the iPhone. I should be able to get apps for it from nearly anywhere.