Gen an Air, you'll find out that 2" doesn't matter when you get used to it, it's an excellent computer and very light and portable. Go to a store, close the lid and pick one up and get a feel for it. I was an Air-hater and I still don't like the trap door port idea, but I love form-factor of this computer. I do also have a 24" iMac though, so it makes sense for me.
I much prefer the design of the first Dell Adamo. THe back area allowed for good cooling, a rigid spine and more ports than typically offered a such a thin machine. Now, the Dell Adamo XPS is complete crap. That really is form over function. So many technological drawbacks to that design.
I much prefer the design of the first Dell Adamo. THe back area allowed for good cooling, a rigid spine and more ports than typically offered a such a thin machine.
Fair enough, but it's underpowered. I prefer the shape of the Air, and I don't just think it's about aesthetic design either, I think it's deeper.
Fair enough, but it's underpowered. I prefer the shape of the Air, and I don't just think it's about aesthetic design either, I think it's deeper.
I agree. Dell?s done some ?cool? things but they don?t have Apple?s ability to get as much performance out of the same space. Some of the prototypes of the Adamo are interesting.
"Assuming the tablet is 3x the size of the iPod touch implies a bill of materials for the tablet of around $480."
An odd assumption to make.
Yes it is very odd indeed. In fact it is odd enough that it totally discounts the credibility of the author.
Quote:
Miniaturisation adds cost. A tablet is "de-miniaturising" the iPod Touch.
This is not true at all. Generally making things smaller has lead to an explosion of very capable low costs devices. Be it an oscilloscope, computer or TV, making things smaller allows the addition of capability while at the same time lowering prices.
The problem with many of todays devices is that smallness has become something that marketing has zeroed in on as being valuable. My great fear is that Apple will come out with a really nice device and then try to maintain 60% margins on it due to its thinnest.
The other way to look at this is the difference in price between an iPhone and a Touch.
Quote:
Sure, there will probably be a gig of RAM instead of 256MB (but might be cheaper per MB because it won't be on the SoC package), the CPU (probably still an ARM SoC) can run faster due to more room for cooling (and maybe using the PA Semi design), but shouldn't cost much more.
Actually it might cost Apple less while providing substantially more performance. There are a couple of things working to Apples advantage here. One is the tailoring of the design to the devices needs instead of buying a kitchen sink version from a vendor like TI or Samsung. Second, there has been a huge amount of money sunk into low power ARM designs using a variety of processes and technologies, which are leading to with remarkably low power usage or much higher performance.
Now maybe I'm to optimistic here. The thing is so much tech is gelling all at once that we have the potential to see an extreme amount of performance out of a very low power chip. It would be easy for Apple to target 5 to 7 watts max power usage of the entire device (given an LCD). This compares very favorably with a max of 2.5 watts on a maxed out iPhone. A right sized battery might even allow for more power usage, but I think this is a good estimate. Again that is the entire power draw from the battery, when the system is maxed out.
Quote:
The battery will get bigger, and probably scale in cost though. Storage could be flash memory, but might not have more capacity than the 32GB iPod Touch. The display probably scales in cost, especially if it is high resolution.
Honestly if it only has 32GB of storage it is a no sale for me. Battery costs are interesting and frankly we have no idea how much it costs Apple to put one in an iPhone. It certainly doesn't cost anywhere near what they are charging for a repair.
As to the screen LCD or OLED it is likely the most expensive component in the device. It might cost Apple anywhere from $125 - $150 for a really tricked out PC board. A lesser board for an entry level model might go out the door for $75. Remember these are prices for a completed PC board ready to plug into the chassis.
Quote:
If it is delayed, maybe that's because PA Semi is delayed, and maybe that's because they're trying to build their SoC on TSMC's awful 40nm process.
Well I don't think it is delayed myself so I'm going off the deep end into the speculation pool. If PA Semi has delayed things it is likely due to the rapid change in technology related to the ARM industry. Especially development tools focused at the very low power design realm. Unfortunately I don't have any of my design magazines with me right now but one company just announced really good results at lowering the power profile of recent ARM designs. If this tablet is delayed, because of the ARM component, lets hope it is because they are harvesting ideas from some of the brightest people on the planet.
I don't believe it one bit. My 32 GB iPhone costs $700 for cying out loud! Is that a $700 subsidized price with a needed wireless contract? Then the price would be more like $1,100- It's not making sense.
Tehcstud I'm surprised at you as if anybody here would understand it would be you. Apple is making a huge profit off every iPhone they sell. Absolutely huge!!!!
Somewhat reliable sources have estimated the HARDWARE costs of iPhone at around $179. Now that is not all costs as there is software development and multiple licensing issues to deal with, but the reality is that the iPhone represents a huge revenue machine for Apple. In effect Techstud you have put gasoline into many automobiles on the Apple campus.
In any event people need to realize that what an item costs has very little to do with the price point it is marketed at. The production costs only factor into a lower bounds. As for the rumored tablet, if it is in the line of a fat or high capability Touch, I see little reason that it can't be sold for less than $600. The only things that change is that the Tablet gets a higher performance SoC, more RAM and hopefully more flash. Well that and a bigger display. The SoC should actually be vastly higher performance and lower cost.
In any event it makes all the sense in the world, just look at the average netbook and the price tag on those machines. In effect if the Tablet is a hybrid someplace between a netbook and a Touch then obviously Apple needs to be sensitive about price. Most people don't care one way or the other about paying slightly higher prices for Apple hardware, we do however care when they get to greedy. To that end the tablet can't even approach $1000 dollars if Apple expects to earn good cheer form the buying community.
I hate to tell you this, because you seem so happy in your delusions, but George Bush was President beginning in January 2001 (until 2009), and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1994 through 2006.
That doesn't really matter as much of the impact that was wrought by the liberals was done outside the official channels of congress. In any event the original poster was correct about one thing the vast majority of the problems where created by the liberal mind set insisting that every one deserve a loan wether or not they could afford it. This could be seen at both local and national levels where manufactured complaints about racism, redlining and other supposedly bad banking practices where objected to. In hind sight those banking practices weren't all that bad. Having standards that are applied to qualify people for loans really isn't a bad idea.
In any event I don't want to discount Republican interests that had an impact on the banking issues. There is unfortunately an element that sees home owner ship as an avenue to the American dream. So in many cases they wrongly sided with the liberals.
What nobody in congress wants to admit to is the reality that there is a lot of scum out there that really shouldn't have access to the industries that finance the country. The lazy, poor and destitute really have no business owning their own home.
Quote:
Clinton economic officials certainly played their part in the late 90s, especially be going along with (Republican) Senator Phil Gramm's de-regulation bill, but the "sub-prime causing mess members of Congress who forced Freddie and Fannie in 2005 to get into the sub-prime market" were Republicans.
Not at all correct. Look at the voting record. This was pretty much a coalition effort. The motivations where different but the resulting impact to banking wasn't Republican nor Democratic. What it was is bad government trying to deal with public issues (the poor and stupid) with the mechanisms of private industry.
Quote:
You know them - they're the ones fighting against a government option in health care for the rest of us, while they happily accept the best health insurance program in the country, which is government-run.
This is an entirely different issue and frankly I'm very glad that the congress is putting a stop to this. The last thing we need is an expansion in taxes, debt and even more resources going to the poor. The problem isn't the people earning their keep but rather the expansion of the welfare state and the number of non productive people contain their in. What is need is a turn around in the mind set of the American people to deal with the poor and lazy the way they should be dealt with. The current mind set of giving them food and allowing them to breed is obviously not working.
Quote:
I don't see any of them refusing to take their government-run health insurance. They want the best program for themselves, while giving the rest of us squat.
You must be one of the poor and lazy that can't seem to take the time to go out and buy an insurance policy! Pardon me but I really have no sympathy at all for you.
That doesn't really matter as much of the impact that was wrought by the liberals was done outside the official channels of congress. In any event the original poster was correct about one thing the vast majority of the problems where created by the liberal mind set insisting that every one deserve a loan wether or not they could afford it. This could be seen at both local and national levels where manufactured complaints about racism, redlining and other supposedly bad banking practices where objected to. In hind sight those banking practices weren't all that bad. Having standards that are applied to qualify people for loans really isn't a bad idea.
In any event I don't want to discount Republican interests that had an impact on the banking issues. There is unfortunately an element that sees home owner ship as an avenue to the American dream. So in many cases they wrongly sided with the liberals.
What nobody in congress wants to admit to is the reality that there is a lot of scum out there that really shouldn't have access to the industries that finance the country. The lazy, poor and destitute really have no business owning their own home.
Not at all correct. Look at the voting record. This was pretty much a coalition effort. The motivations where different but the resulting impact to banking wasn't Republican nor Democratic. What it was is bad government trying to deal with public issues (the poor and stupid) with the mechanisms of private industry.
This is an entirely different issue and frankly I'm very glad that the congress is putting a stop to this. The last thing we need is an expansion in taxes, debt and even more resources going to the poor. The problem isn't the people earning their keep but rather the expansion of the welfare state and the number of non productive people contain their in. What is need is a turn around in the mind set of the American people to deal with the poor and lazy the way they should be dealt with. The current mind set of giving them food and allowing them to breed is obviously not working.
You must be one of the poor and lazy that can't seem to take the time to go out and buy an insurance policy! Pardon me but I really have no sympathy at all for you.
Dave
WTF? I could have sworn that this was a thread about Apple building a tablet. If I wanted to hear conservative bitching I would have gone to my grandparents house.
Most of the posts have speculated that the tablet will be little more than a netbook tablet and possibly 3G.
I don't agree with either. Regardless of the exact price point, I doubt Apple will put their first tablet out on the market with a crippling lack of I/O (how's that Air been sellin' for ya, Steve?) and after talking to a couple of people who work FOR APPLE, not in an Apple Retail Store, the relationship between Apple and AT&T is not a great one at the moment. Hasn't been for a while. Did anyone else catch the fact that all of the posters/boxes/marketing for the 3GS DIDN"T HAVE AT&T's NAME IN THE CARRIER SPOT? Apple isn't going to tie themselves to AT&T any more than they absolutely have to. I think that IF this product is ever actualized, it will be more like a full featured tablet Mac that will include some awesome multi-touch stuff. If it only costs $700-$800, then bonus for me, I might actually consider buying one.
Most of the posts have speculated that the tablet will be little more than a netbook tablet and possibly 3G.
I don?t see how a device can be a netbook and a tablet unless it has a lid that flips over. I don?t think most people expect this sort of thing.
Quote:
I don't agree with either. Regardless of the exact price point, I doubt Apple will put their first tablet out on the market with a crippling lack of I/O (how's that Air been sellin' for ya, Steve?)
The MBA looks to be quite successful. I know several people who have it and love it. Obviously it?s not their primary machine. You can look at all the MBA copycats to see that this niche has a certain appeal.
An Apple tablet may not have much in the way of I/O either. If they want it to be a complement to your PC then they might go the 30-pin connector route. They may also give it a mDP connector and a USB port. I wouldn?t expect much more.
Quote:
and after talking to a couple of people who work FOR APPLE, not in an Apple Retail Store, the relationship between Apple and AT&T is not a great one at the moment. Hasn't been for a while. Did anyone else catch the fact that all of the posters/boxes/marketing for the 3GS DIDN"T HAVE AT&T's NAME IN THE CARRIER SPOT? Apple isn't going to tie themselves to AT&T any more than they absolutely have to.
The most recent iPhone commercials for the US have AT&T as the carrier. Since Apple is dealing with 80+(?) carriers having as much universal images is a smart way to save money. They haven?t pushed away from or pulled toward AT&T. It is what it is.
Quote:
I think that IF this product is ever actualized, it will be more like a full featured tablet Mac that will include some awesome multi-touch stuff. If it only costs $700-$800, then bonus for me, I might actually consider buying one.
I can?t imagine this being a success if it?s runs Mac OS X. There is so little about Mac OS X UI that would work right on a 10? whose main input device are your fingers. Adding multitouch frameworks changes this not. It needs to be a hybrid system somewhere between Mac and iPhone OSes, with a new UI designed specifically to take advantage of this size device using fingers.
This forum is for speculation and discussion about Future Apple hardware products, not politics or conspiracy theories, and especially not lunatic fringe rants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
We don't want no stinking tablet!
Well there isn't enough people who have a need for such a device at this time.
What Apple is trying to find, is a need for the tablet and trying to get cooperation of others that will make a the iTablet a success.
A tablet is just a tablet without content or purpose.
Apple tends to complicate things as well. Any device they seem to make always require attention, a learning curve, backups or updates or something else to focus your attention. It's like a low grade version of Windows.
People just want a device that solves their problem and requires little or no attention.
Also people are looking for things to do that makes them or saves them money, not much into things that cost them money.
Although the recent jobs number is flat, this just means employers are keeping their staff for the holiday buying season where almost 50% of a years sales occurs, after that, come the new year, expect the unemployment rate to skyrocket.
It's going to be bad, real bad.
And it's going to stay that way until we vote out the liberal socialist sub-prime causing mess members of Congress who forced Freddie and Fannie in 2005 to get into the sub-prime market.
I'm sorry, you just can't give a house to people who can't afford it on the backs of everyone else.
The sub-prime mess started with California liberal companies and banks and reached into the Congress when it switched parties.
Sorry about the rant, but if people are paying too much or underwater on their mortgages, they certainly don't have as much to spend on luxuries or new computer toys like a iTablet.
When the government starts raising the property taxes, expect the rents to go up and tent cities to pop up like it is already happening in California.
This forum is for speculation and discussion about Future Apple hardware products, not politics or conspiracy theories, and especially not lunatic fringe rants.
Unfortunately, these particular lunatics live in a self-regarding dream world (aided and abetted by a compliant media that values "controversy" over "information"), and imagine that their extremist rhetoric and fact-free propaganda is somehow the voice of "real Americans" (as defined by Sarah Palin).
In a less pandering journalistic environment, these folks would reside where they belong, on the fringes of American discourse. Unfortunately, the 24 hour cable circus means they see themselves on camera a lot and think they're onto something (and which is why such folks feel comfortable launching into their schtick anywhere and everywhere-- in their minds we're all pumping our fists and shouting "Wolverines!").
Whether Apple's tablet launches in early or late 2010 is irrelevant, but a sale price of more than $700 could significantly reduce its potential sales, a new report has predicted.
In a note issued to investors Thursday morning, analyst Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray said in a new report that Apple's long-rumored tablet was delayed until the second half of 2010 is "irrelevant" to the company's stock, as current Wall Street models do not reflect sales of the device.
"Expectations for actual units in 2010 are low," Munster wrote, "and investors' focus is more on whether the tablet is real and less on timing."
Piper Jaffray analysts met with component suppliers this summer, who suggested that the tablet would be launched in early 2010. That corresponds with AppleInsider's own sources, who said the hardware will arrive in the first quarter of 2010.
Munster, however, does not buy the claims also reported Thursday that a high-end tablet with an OLED screen would retail for $2,000. He believes that the strategy is to have the device fit between the $199 iPod touch and the $999 MacBook. Piper Jaffray has forecast that the tablet device will cost between $500 and $700.
"As a point of perspective, iSuppli has reported the bill of materials on the iPhone 3GS is $179," the report said. "Backing out the phone functionality, we believe the bill of materials is about $160. Assuming the tablet is 3x the size of the iPod touch implies a bill of materials for the tablet of around $480."
If the hardware were to launch on Sept. 1, 2010, the report projects about 650,000 sales in the calendar year. At an average price of $600, it would equate to about 1 percent of the company's total revenue.
Munster said that though Apple's expected margins for the device are unknown, he believes the hardware will be priced to compete with the growing netbook market, even if it means less revenue for the Mac maker.
The report reiterated the belief that the device will be akin to a larger iPod touch that will run a new version of the iPhone OS. Munster believes the hardware will run iPhone apps, as well as a "new category of larger apps."
Piper Jaffray has a price target of $277 for AAPL stock, with a model that does not include the potential introduction of the tablet. However, Munster has previously predicted that the device would debut in early 2010 and sell about 2 million units in its first year. At an estimated average price of $600, that would net the company an additional $1.2 billion in revenue.
Nothing smells like BS more than Wall Street giving a materials cost break down on actual products they never sell. They should stick to lying about corporate valuations.
Comments
Gen an Air, you'll find out that 2" doesn't matter when you get used to it, it's an excellent computer and very light and portable. Go to a store, close the lid and pick one up and get a feel for it. I was an Air-hater and I still don't like the trap door port idea, but I love form-factor of this computer. I do also have a 24" iMac though, so it makes sense for me.
I much prefer the design of the first Dell Adamo. THe back area allowed for good cooling, a rigid spine and more ports than typically offered a such a thin machine. Now, the Dell Adamo XPS is complete crap. That really is form over function. So many technological drawbacks to that design.
I much prefer the design of the first Dell Adamo. THe back area allowed for good cooling, a rigid spine and more ports than typically offered a such a thin machine.
Fair enough, but it's underpowered. I prefer the shape of the Air, and I don't just think it's about aesthetic design either, I think it's deeper.
Fair enough, but it's underpowered. I prefer the shape of the Air, and I don't just think it's about aesthetic design either, I think it's deeper.
I agree. Dell?s done some ?cool? things but they don?t have Apple?s ability to get as much performance out of the same space. Some of the prototypes of the Adamo are interesting.
"Assuming the tablet is 3x the size of the iPod touch implies a bill of materials for the tablet of around $480."
An odd assumption to make.
Yes it is very odd indeed. In fact it is odd enough that it totally discounts the credibility of the author.
Miniaturisation adds cost. A tablet is "de-miniaturising" the iPod Touch.
This is not true at all. Generally making things smaller has lead to an explosion of very capable low costs devices. Be it an oscilloscope, computer or TV, making things smaller allows the addition of capability while at the same time lowering prices.
The problem with many of todays devices is that smallness has become something that marketing has zeroed in on as being valuable. My great fear is that Apple will come out with a really nice device and then try to maintain 60% margins on it due to its thinnest.
The other way to look at this is the difference in price between an iPhone and a Touch.
Sure, there will probably be a gig of RAM instead of 256MB (but might be cheaper per MB because it won't be on the SoC package), the CPU (probably still an ARM SoC) can run faster due to more room for cooling (and maybe using the PA Semi design), but shouldn't cost much more.
Actually it might cost Apple less while providing substantially more performance. There are a couple of things working to Apples advantage here. One is the tailoring of the design to the devices needs instead of buying a kitchen sink version from a vendor like TI or Samsung. Second, there has been a huge amount of money sunk into low power ARM designs using a variety of processes and technologies, which are leading to with remarkably low power usage or much higher performance.
Now maybe I'm to optimistic here. The thing is so much tech is gelling all at once that we have the potential to see an extreme amount of performance out of a very low power chip. It would be easy for Apple to target 5 to 7 watts max power usage of the entire device (given an LCD). This compares very favorably with a max of 2.5 watts on a maxed out iPhone. A right sized battery might even allow for more power usage, but I think this is a good estimate. Again that is the entire power draw from the battery, when the system is maxed out.
The battery will get bigger, and probably scale in cost though. Storage could be flash memory, but might not have more capacity than the 32GB iPod Touch. The display probably scales in cost, especially if it is high resolution.
Honestly if it only has 32GB of storage it is a no sale for me. Battery costs are interesting and frankly we have no idea how much it costs Apple to put one in an iPhone. It certainly doesn't cost anywhere near what they are charging for a repair.
As to the screen LCD or OLED it is likely the most expensive component in the device. It might cost Apple anywhere from $125 - $150 for a really tricked out PC board. A lesser board for an entry level model might go out the door for $75. Remember these are prices for a completed PC board ready to plug into the chassis.
If it is delayed, maybe that's because PA Semi is delayed, and maybe that's because they're trying to build their SoC on TSMC's awful 40nm process.
Well I don't think it is delayed myself so I'm going off the deep end into the speculation pool. If PA Semi has delayed things it is likely due to the rapid change in technology related to the ARM industry. Especially development tools focused at the very low power design realm. Unfortunately I don't have any of my design magazines with me right now but one company just announced really good results at lowering the power profile of recent ARM designs. If this tablet is delayed, because of the ARM component, lets hope it is because they are harvesting ideas from some of the brightest people on the planet.
Dave
I don't believe it one bit. My 32 GB iPhone costs $700 for cying out loud! Is that a $700 subsidized price with a needed wireless contract? Then the price would be more like $1,100- It's not making sense.
Tehcstud I'm surprised at you as if anybody here would understand it would be you. Apple is making a huge profit off every iPhone they sell. Absolutely huge!!!!
Somewhat reliable sources have estimated the HARDWARE costs of iPhone at around $179. Now that is not all costs as there is software development and multiple licensing issues to deal with, but the reality is that the iPhone represents a huge revenue machine for Apple. In effect Techstud you have put gasoline into many automobiles on the Apple campus.
In any event people need to realize that what an item costs has very little to do with the price point it is marketed at. The production costs only factor into a lower bounds. As for the rumored tablet, if it is in the line of a fat or high capability Touch, I see little reason that it can't be sold for less than $600. The only things that change is that the Tablet gets a higher performance SoC, more RAM and hopefully more flash. Well that and a bigger display. The SoC should actually be vastly higher performance and lower cost.
In any event it makes all the sense in the world, just look at the average netbook and the price tag on those machines. In effect if the Tablet is a hybrid someplace between a netbook and a Touch then obviously Apple needs to be sensitive about price. Most people don't care one way or the other about paying slightly higher prices for Apple hardware, we do however care when they get to greedy. To that end the tablet can't even approach $1000 dollars if Apple expects to earn good cheer form the buying community.
Dave
Since the inclusion of a 3G radio is entirely speculative, why is the iPhone being tossed around as a pricing reference, instead of the Touch?
I don't understand why. Probably to inflate the speculated price and claim the tablet will cost too much?
Apple makes and sells a very small touch based "tablet" with 64GB of memory, for $399.
Looking at it this way, $700 for (one model of) the rumored tablet seems quite reasonable.
I hate to tell you this, because you seem so happy in your delusions, but George Bush was President beginning in January 2001 (until 2009), and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1994 through 2006.
That doesn't really matter as much of the impact that was wrought by the liberals was done outside the official channels of congress. In any event the original poster was correct about one thing the vast majority of the problems where created by the liberal mind set insisting that every one deserve a loan wether or not they could afford it. This could be seen at both local and national levels where manufactured complaints about racism, redlining and other supposedly bad banking practices where objected to. In hind sight those banking practices weren't all that bad. Having standards that are applied to qualify people for loans really isn't a bad idea.
In any event I don't want to discount Republican interests that had an impact on the banking issues. There is unfortunately an element that sees home owner ship as an avenue to the American dream. So in many cases they wrongly sided with the liberals.
What nobody in congress wants to admit to is the reality that there is a lot of scum out there that really shouldn't have access to the industries that finance the country. The lazy, poor and destitute really have no business owning their own home.
Clinton economic officials certainly played their part in the late 90s, especially be going along with (Republican) Senator Phil Gramm's de-regulation bill, but the "sub-prime causing mess members of Congress who forced Freddie and Fannie in 2005 to get into the sub-prime market" were Republicans.
Not at all correct. Look at the voting record. This was pretty much a coalition effort. The motivations where different but the resulting impact to banking wasn't Republican nor Democratic. What it was is bad government trying to deal with public issues (the poor and stupid) with the mechanisms of private industry.
You know them - they're the ones fighting against a government option in health care for the rest of us, while they happily accept the best health insurance program in the country, which is government-run.
This is an entirely different issue and frankly I'm very glad that the congress is putting a stop to this. The last thing we need is an expansion in taxes, debt and even more resources going to the poor. The problem isn't the people earning their keep but rather the expansion of the welfare state and the number of non productive people contain their in. What is need is a turn around in the mind set of the American people to deal with the poor and lazy the way they should be dealt with. The current mind set of giving them food and allowing them to breed is obviously not working.
I don't see any of them refusing to take their government-run health insurance. They want the best program for themselves, while giving the rest of us squat.
You must be one of the poor and lazy that can't seem to take the time to go out and buy an insurance policy! Pardon me but I really have no sympathy at all for you.
Dave
That doesn't really matter as much of the impact that was wrought by the liberals was done outside the official channels of congress. In any event the original poster was correct about one thing the vast majority of the problems where created by the liberal mind set insisting that every one deserve a loan wether or not they could afford it. This could be seen at both local and national levels where manufactured complaints about racism, redlining and other supposedly bad banking practices where objected to. In hind sight those banking practices weren't all that bad. Having standards that are applied to qualify people for loans really isn't a bad idea.
In any event I don't want to discount Republican interests that had an impact on the banking issues. There is unfortunately an element that sees home owner ship as an avenue to the American dream. So in many cases they wrongly sided with the liberals.
What nobody in congress wants to admit to is the reality that there is a lot of scum out there that really shouldn't have access to the industries that finance the country. The lazy, poor and destitute really have no business owning their own home.
Not at all correct. Look at the voting record. This was pretty much a coalition effort. The motivations where different but the resulting impact to banking wasn't Republican nor Democratic. What it was is bad government trying to deal with public issues (the poor and stupid) with the mechanisms of private industry.
This is an entirely different issue and frankly I'm very glad that the congress is putting a stop to this. The last thing we need is an expansion in taxes, debt and even more resources going to the poor. The problem isn't the people earning their keep but rather the expansion of the welfare state and the number of non productive people contain their in. What is need is a turn around in the mind set of the American people to deal with the poor and lazy the way they should be dealt with. The current mind set of giving them food and allowing them to breed is obviously not working.
You must be one of the poor and lazy that can't seem to take the time to go out and buy an insurance policy! Pardon me but I really have no sympathy at all for you.
Dave
WTF?
I don't agree with either. Regardless of the exact price point, I doubt Apple will put their first tablet out on the market with a crippling lack of I/O (how's that Air been sellin' for ya, Steve?) and after talking to a couple of people who work FOR APPLE, not in an Apple Retail Store, the relationship between Apple and AT&T is not a great one at the moment. Hasn't been for a while. Did anyone else catch the fact that all of the posters/boxes/marketing for the 3GS DIDN"T HAVE AT&T's NAME IN THE CARRIER SPOT? Apple isn't going to tie themselves to AT&T any more than they absolutely have to. I think that IF this product is ever actualized, it will be more like a full featured tablet Mac that will include some awesome multi-touch stuff. If it only costs $700-$800, then bonus for me, I might actually consider buying one.
Most of the posts have speculated that the tablet will be little more than a netbook tablet and possibly 3G.
I don?t see how a device can be a netbook and a tablet unless it has a lid that flips over. I don?t think most people expect this sort of thing.
I don't agree with either. Regardless of the exact price point, I doubt Apple will put their first tablet out on the market with a crippling lack of I/O (how's that Air been sellin' for ya, Steve?)
The MBA looks to be quite successful. I know several people who have it and love it. Obviously it?s not their primary machine. You can look at all the MBA copycats to see that this niche has a certain appeal.
An Apple tablet may not have much in the way of I/O either. If they want it to be a complement to your PC then they might go the 30-pin connector route. They may also give it a mDP connector and a USB port. I wouldn?t expect much more.
and after talking to a couple of people who work FOR APPLE, not in an Apple Retail Store, the relationship between Apple and AT&T is not a great one at the moment. Hasn't been for a while. Did anyone else catch the fact that all of the posters/boxes/marketing for the 3GS DIDN"T HAVE AT&T's NAME IN THE CARRIER SPOT? Apple isn't going to tie themselves to AT&T any more than they absolutely have to.
The most recent iPhone commercials for the US have AT&T as the carrier. Since Apple is dealing with 80+(?) carriers having as much universal images is a smart way to save money. They haven?t pushed away from or pulled toward AT&T. It is what it is.
I think that IF this product is ever actualized, it will be more like a full featured tablet Mac that will include some awesome multi-touch stuff. If it only costs $700-$800, then bonus for me, I might actually consider buying one.
I can?t imagine this being a success if it?s runs Mac OS X. There is so little about Mac OS X UI that would work right on a 10? whose main input device are your fingers. Adding multitouch frameworks changes this not. It needs to be a hybrid system somewhere between Mac and iPhone OSes, with a new UI designed specifically to take advantage of this size device using fingers.
We don't want no stinking tablet!
Well there isn't enough people who have a need for such a device at this time.
What Apple is trying to find, is a need for the tablet and trying to get cooperation of others that will make a the iTablet a success.
A tablet is just a tablet without content or purpose.
Apple tends to complicate things as well. Any device they seem to make always require attention, a learning curve, backups or updates or something else to focus your attention. It's like a low grade version of Windows.
People just want a device that solves their problem and requires little or no attention.
Also people are looking for things to do that makes them or saves them money, not much into things that cost them money.
Although the recent jobs number is flat, this just means employers are keeping their staff for the holiday buying season where almost 50% of a years sales occurs, after that, come the new year, expect the unemployment rate to skyrocket.
It's going to be bad, real bad.
And it's going to stay that way until we vote out the liberal socialist sub-prime causing mess members of Congress who forced Freddie and Fannie in 2005 to get into the sub-prime market.
I'm sorry, you just can't give a house to people who can't afford it on the backs of everyone else.
The sub-prime mess started with California liberal companies and banks and reached into the Congress when it switched parties.
Sorry about the rant, but if people are paying too much or underwater on their mortgages, they certainly don't have as much to spend on luxuries or new computer toys like a iTablet.
When the government starts raising the property taxes, expect the rents to go up and tent cities to pop up like it is already happening in California.
This forum is for speculation and discussion about Future Apple hardware products, not politics or conspiracy theories, and especially not lunatic fringe rants.
Unfortunately, these particular lunatics live in a self-regarding dream world (aided and abetted by a compliant media that values "controversy" over "information"), and imagine that their extremist rhetoric and fact-free propaganda is somehow the voice of "real Americans" (as defined by Sarah Palin).
In a less pandering journalistic environment, these folks would reside where they belong, on the fringes of American discourse. Unfortunately, the 24 hour cable circus means they see themselves on camera a lot and think they're onto something (and which is why such folks feel comfortable launching into their schtick anywhere and everywhere-- in their minds we're all pumping our fists and shouting "Wolverines!").
Whether Apple's tablet launches in early or late 2010 is irrelevant, but a sale price of more than $700 could significantly reduce its potential sales, a new report has predicted.
In a note issued to investors Thursday morning, analyst Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray said in a new report that Apple's long-rumored tablet was delayed until the second half of 2010 is "irrelevant" to the company's stock, as current Wall Street models do not reflect sales of the device.
"Expectations for actual units in 2010 are low," Munster wrote, "and investors' focus is more on whether the tablet is real and less on timing."
Piper Jaffray analysts met with component suppliers this summer, who suggested that the tablet would be launched in early 2010. That corresponds with AppleInsider's own sources, who said the hardware will arrive in the first quarter of 2010.
Munster, however, does not buy the claims also reported Thursday that a high-end tablet with an OLED screen would retail for $2,000. He believes that the strategy is to have the device fit between the $199 iPod touch and the $999 MacBook. Piper Jaffray has forecast that the tablet device will cost between $500 and $700.
"As a point of perspective, iSuppli has reported the bill of materials on the iPhone 3GS is $179," the report said. "Backing out the phone functionality, we believe the bill of materials is about $160. Assuming the tablet is 3x the size of the iPod touch implies a bill of materials for the tablet of around $480."
If the hardware were to launch on Sept. 1, 2010, the report projects about 650,000 sales in the calendar year. At an average price of $600, it would equate to about 1 percent of the company's total revenue.
Munster said that though Apple's expected margins for the device are unknown, he believes the hardware will be priced to compete with the growing netbook market, even if it means less revenue for the Mac maker.
The report reiterated the belief that the device will be akin to a larger iPod touch that will run a new version of the iPhone OS. Munster believes the hardware will run iPhone apps, as well as a "new category of larger apps."
Piper Jaffray has a price target of $277 for AAPL stock, with a model that does not include the potential introduction of the tablet. However, Munster has previously predicted that the device would debut in early 2010 and sell about 2 million units in its first year. At an estimated average price of $600, that would net the company an additional $1.2 billion in revenue.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Nothing smells like BS more than Wall Street giving a materials cost break down on actual products they never sell. They should stick to lying about corporate valuations.