The whole point of the MacBook Air was to design the thinest, lightest full size notebook for people who hate to carry a computer around.
It's conception first. Marketing comes later.
This is exactly right. IMO the MacBook Air is an example of Apple getting something dead right, with regards to what they were trying to do. It ends up being a full size laptop that feels as if it's a netbook in terms of it's size and shape. So you get a lot in a slim light package. And the SSD model is surprisingly, extremely fast for everyday tasks.
This is exactly right. IMO the MacBook Air is an example of Apple getting something dead right, with regards to what they were trying to do. It ends up being a full size laptop that feels as if it's a netbook in terms of it's size and shape. So you get a lot in a slim light package. And the SSD model is surprisingly, extremely fast for everyday tasks.
Honest question - is it really that much more portable than 13" MacBook Pro..? We are talking about one magazine difference, more or less?
Being someone used to drag 15" slim-not! laptop - and not having too many problems with that - I think I'd rather have that extra magazine but with DVD, than slim and optical-less; I do carry handful of DVD movies with me when I travel. Then again, I don't really carry laptop with me on the daily basis, especially not commuting/on foot.
I would not be shocked, I don't care at all. Most modern computers have twice as much power as the the average user needs.
From my perspective, I can easily make a lot of money with a Mac. Even our fast Windows machines are so awkwardly non-intuitive, I could probably make more money collecting aluminum cans than I could using those dinosaurs. Once in a long while I have to use a piece of Windows software to finish a job but it is really, really rare.
I'm not the average user. I build my systems to suit my needs. Dinosaur..LOL. Apple hardware specs are about two years behind everyone else. Well the fact you don't need Windows only means you are in the vast minority.
Sorry you have such a hard time understanding Windows but I am glad you found an OS thats easier for you to use.
The problem that people are having in determining how much people will pay for a tablet and what it will do is that no tablet computer has yet found a niche or a "killer app" and become widely popular. There is nothing to compare it to. (If there is, then the product is doomed already because a retread of old ideas isn't going to fly no matter how beautiful the package.)
The Kindle is, however, percieved as successful right now and it looks to some like a modified tablet. With the Apple tablet rumors, then, people with little imagination can only picture it as a fancy e-reader.
Incidentally, before the iPhone came out, people could only see it as a "iPod-phone" because there was nothing like the iPhone in existance. People will never pay hundreds for that, they said before they even knew what it would really be.
Because the iPhone is so much more than a phone with music capabilities, and because Jobs himself has apparently taken the tablet as a signature item (like he did the iPhone) one has to assume that it will do things most of us haven't thought of or even realize we want to do.
The only way I can imagine a reader-only device will make an impact is if it's subsidized by magazine and newspaper publishers, enabling it to sell for $99 or $49. That would be a real breakthrough price point.
That's just as silly, but in the other direction. The iPhone is already an e-reader, and Apple didn't have to lift a finger to make it so.
It may have "books" on it, if you want to call it them that, but it's in NO WAY an e-reader. A genuine e-reader requires one of two things: Real paper or e-ink. End of discussion, seriously. No amount of marketing or comments can change my mind on this, books are a different kettle of fish.
At $2,000 it would sell like the Newton. And then Palm, or someone similar, would come along and wipe Apple's butt with a $300 unit.
Having said that, I still own the last MessagePad Apple made and I'd still be using it every day if the touch screen hadn't worn out on it. Yes, I'll be in line for a WiFi version of the tablet (though LCD is just fine for me). Not sure I really see the need for a 3G version as my iPhone can handle most of the on-line stuff I need to do when away from WiFi.
Despite many arguments in this thread, I still think Apple with come out with an e-reader at a very "attractive" price point. Large size e-ink displays with color support is going into production. Some of these displays even support "flexible" form factors.
Steve was probably partially honest when he said nobody reads books anymore. However, the primary application for a larger size color e-reader is likely to be magazines. Magazine publishing industry is suffering because of the delay involved in printing and distribution and offering the content for free on a website does not appear to be an acceptable solution. Being able to distribute content almost instantaneously would be a big win for magazine publishers. A reader that provides a somewhat standard display format, much higher resolution than what is possible on typical LCD displays and better control over the content is exactly what magazine publishers need to transition their product from paper to electronic format.
Despite many arguments in this thread, I still think Apple with come out with an e-reader at a very "attractive" price point. Large size e-ink displays with color support is going into production. Some of these displays even support "flexible" form factors.
My gut says it would feel a bit too much me-too for Apple's liking. Like I having being saying, the next evolution in computer displays will have to be a colored e-ink display with the look and feel of something like an OLED display for Apple to consider a book reader.
I wouldn't put it past Apple trying to say this tablet is also great for reading books on, and that's all you'll get for a long time. If that display I describe is ever invented, and has a backlight, they could add it to this tablet, but I have a lot of doubts.
It may have "books" on it, if you want to call it them that, but it's in NO WAY an e-reader. A genuine e-reader requires one of two things: Real paper or e-ink. End of discussion, seriously. No amount of marketing or comments can change my mind on this, books are a different kettle of fish.
I would like to see your reasoning behind that. I agree that books are a different kettle of fish; that was the basis of my argument. I can understand arguing for paper, because the feel of a book is part of the experience. But what is the advantage of e-ink over, say, OLED? Those are just different ways to paint a surface.
Anyway, there is no reason to limit the discussion to books. The major parties interested in this venture by Apple seem to be newspapers and magazines.
I would like to see your reasoning behind that. I agree that books are a different kettle of fish; that was the basis of my argument. I can understand arguing for paper, because the feel of a book is part of the experience. But what is the advantage of e-ink over, say, OLED? Those are just different ways to paint a surface.
It's all about your eyesight. If you care about your eyesight then books or e-ink are for you. OLED is not e-ink, and it's not just about painting the surface a different way, it's about the fact that books do not have back-lights.
It's all about your eyesight. If you care about your eyesight then books or e-ink are for you. OLED is not e-ink, and it's not just about painting the surface a different way, it's about the fact that books do not have back-lights.
Funny, because I was just driving back from New York with two passengers, both of whom were reading their books with flashlights after the sun went down.
Lots of reading gets done after dark. Ink and e-ink are better when you're reading in direct sunlight, but OLED is better when you aren't. I would say that high resolution is more important for preserving eyesight. Low resolution text, whether aliased or obviously anti-aliased, is at least as much of a problem.
Based on my own owlish reading habits, I'd prefer OLED.
Funny, because I was just driving back from New York with two passengers, both of whom were reading their books with flashlights after the sun went down.
There's nothing funny about your inability to grasp the concept of backlighting. Directly looking into lights damages your eyes, and can be tiring for extended periods, like when reading a book of text. Reading off paper is a "completely" different thing. E-Ink is the next best option. If your friends want to read in the back of a car or bus or whatever while traveling in the dark that's their choice. But still they aren't directly looking into a light, like when staring at a computer screen. Not to mention most people feel sick after reading while traveling, even after 1 chapter.
Comments
The whole point of the MacBook Air was to design the thinest, lightest full size notebook for people who hate to carry a computer around.
It's conception first. Marketing comes later.
This is exactly right. IMO the MacBook Air is an example of Apple getting something dead right, with regards to what they were trying to do. It ends up being a full size laptop that feels as if it's a netbook in terms of it's size and shape. So you get a lot in a slim light package. And the SSD model is surprisingly, extremely fast for everyday tasks.
If you hold your breath for too long I here you can die
... and that is exactly why I'm not going to hold it over this
This is exactly right. IMO the MacBook Air is an example of Apple getting something dead right, with regards to what they were trying to do. It ends up being a full size laptop that feels as if it's a netbook in terms of it's size and shape. So you get a lot in a slim light package. And the SSD model is surprisingly, extremely fast for everyday tasks.
Honest question - is it really that much more portable than 13" MacBook Pro..? We are talking about one magazine difference, more or less?
Being someone used to drag 15" slim-not! laptop - and not having too many problems with that - I think I'd rather have that extra magazine but with DVD, than slim and optical-less; I do carry handful of DVD movies with me when I travel. Then again, I don't really carry laptop with me on the daily basis, especially not commuting/on foot.
I would not be shocked, I don't care at all. Most modern computers have twice as much power as the the average user needs.
From my perspective, I can easily make a lot of money with a Mac. Even our fast Windows machines are so awkwardly non-intuitive, I could probably make more money collecting aluminum cans than I could using those dinosaurs. Once in a long while I have to use a piece of Windows software to finish a job but it is really, really rare.
I'm not the average user. I build my systems to suit my needs. Dinosaur..LOL. Apple hardware specs are about two years behind everyone else. Well the fact you don't need Windows only means you are in the vast minority.
Sorry you have such a hard time understanding Windows but I am glad you found an OS thats easier for you to use.
Absolutely.
The problem that people are having in determining how much people will pay for a tablet and what it will do is that no tablet computer has yet found a niche or a "killer app" and become widely popular. There is nothing to compare it to. (If there is, then the product is doomed already because a retread of old ideas isn't going to fly no matter how beautiful the package.)
The Kindle is, however, percieved as successful right now and it looks to some like a modified tablet. With the Apple tablet rumors, then, people with little imagination can only picture it as a fancy e-reader.
Incidentally, before the iPhone came out, people could only see it as a "iPod-phone" because there was nothing like the iPhone in existance. People will never pay hundreds for that, they said before they even knew what it would really be.
Because the iPhone is so much more than a phone with music capabilities, and because Jobs himself has apparently taken the tablet as a signature item (like he did the iPhone) one has to assume that it will do things most of us haven't thought of or even realize we want to do.
The only way I can imagine a reader-only device will make an impact is if it's subsidized by magazine and newspaper publishers, enabling it to sell for $99 or $49. That would be a real breakthrough price point.
That's just as silly, but in the other direction. The iPhone is already an e-reader, and Apple didn't have to lift a finger to make it so.
It may have "books" on it, if you want to call it them that, but it's in NO WAY an e-reader. A genuine e-reader requires one of two things: Real paper or e-ink. End of discussion, seriously. No amount of marketing or comments can change my mind on this, books are a different kettle of fish.
Having said that, I still own the last MessagePad Apple made and I'd still be using it every day if the touch screen hadn't worn out on it. Yes, I'll be in line for a WiFi version of the tablet (though LCD is just fine for me). Not sure I really see the need for a 3G version as my iPhone can handle most of the on-line stuff I need to do when away from WiFi.
Steve was probably partially honest when he said nobody reads books anymore. However, the primary application for a larger size color e-reader is likely to be magazines. Magazine publishing industry is suffering because of the delay involved in printing and distribution and offering the content for free on a website does not appear to be an acceptable solution. Being able to distribute content almost instantaneously would be a big win for magazine publishers. A reader that provides a somewhat standard display format, much higher resolution than what is possible on typical LCD displays and better control over the content is exactly what magazine publishers need to transition their product from paper to electronic format.
Despite many arguments in this thread, I still think Apple with come out with an e-reader at a very "attractive" price point. Large size e-ink displays with color support is going into production. Some of these displays even support "flexible" form factors.
My gut says it would feel a bit too much me-too for Apple's liking. Like I having being saying, the next evolution in computer displays will have to be a colored e-ink display with the look and feel of something like an OLED display for Apple to consider a book reader.
I wouldn't put it past Apple trying to say this tablet is also great for reading books on, and that's all you'll get for a long time. If that display I describe is ever invented, and has a backlight, they could add it to this tablet, but I have a lot of doubts.
It may have "books" on it, if you want to call it them that, but it's in NO WAY an e-reader. A genuine e-reader requires one of two things: Real paper or e-ink. End of discussion, seriously. No amount of marketing or comments can change my mind on this, books are a different kettle of fish.
I would like to see your reasoning behind that. I agree that books are a different kettle of fish; that was the basis of my argument. I can understand arguing for paper, because the feel of a book is part of the experience. But what is the advantage of e-ink over, say, OLED? Those are just different ways to paint a surface.
Anyway, there is no reason to limit the discussion to books. The major parties interested in this venture by Apple seem to be newspapers and magazines.
I would like to see your reasoning behind that. I agree that books are a different kettle of fish; that was the basis of my argument. I can understand arguing for paper, because the feel of a book is part of the experience. But what is the advantage of e-ink over, say, OLED? Those are just different ways to paint a surface.
It's all about your eyesight. If you care about your eyesight then books or e-ink are for you. OLED is not e-ink, and it's not just about painting the surface a different way, it's about the fact that books do not have back-lights.
It's all about your eyesight. If you care about your eyesight then books or e-ink are for you. OLED is not e-ink, and it's not just about painting the surface a different way, it's about the fact that books do not have back-lights.
Funny, because I was just driving back from New York with two passengers, both of whom were reading their books with flashlights after the sun went down.
Lots of reading gets done after dark. Ink and e-ink are better when you're reading in direct sunlight, but OLED is better when you aren't. I would say that high resolution is more important for preserving eyesight. Low resolution text, whether aliased or obviously anti-aliased, is at least as much of a problem.
Based on my own owlish reading habits, I'd prefer OLED.
Funny, because I was just driving back from New York with two passengers, both of whom were reading their books with flashlights after the sun went down.
There's nothing funny about your inability to grasp the concept of backlighting. Directly looking into lights damages your eyes, and can be tiring for extended periods, like when reading a book of text. Reading off paper is a "completely" different thing. E-Ink is the next best option. If your friends want to read in the back of a car or bus or whatever while traveling in the dark that's their choice. But still they aren't directly looking into a light, like when staring at a computer screen. Not to mention most people feel sick after reading while traveling, even after 1 chapter.