S... can anyone image having an iTablet? What benefit does it have over a Macbook?...
The benefit is that it syncs with your main computer and/or the cloud. A Macbook is only useful as a stand-alone computer.
This device could possibly use as a stand-alone computer, but (presumably) it's primary use is as a mobile extension of your main computer, or a mobile extension of, and means of accessing, your "cloud."
See my post. Since the iPhone was sold in multiple iterations, it must be supported as multiple iterations.
You can't ignore the original iPhone's lack of certain features in this argument.
The Great iPhone/iPod Touch/iTablet Fragmentation continues . . . .
I'm just wondering what exactly your point is here? Unless you can name a company that has come up with exactly one device with one never changing OS... then every company has to deal with this. So again, what's your point?
The differentiating factor between companies then becomes how you deal with it. I think most folks would argue that Apple has handled it quite well. That most apps work fine across all iPhone and iPod Touch iterations would seem to indicate that. Every other competitor has to deal with many, many more hardware variations than Apple, even with the addition of a tablet.
My reaction to the fragmentation debate is a yawn and a "Yeah, so?". Unless you are somehow advocating a company have one device and one OS... in which case, I say good luck ever being successful with this hypothetical company.
IOW, Mr. Source, 100% of all compatible apps will run just fine?
Wow, what an insight.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, it's going to be interesting to see what porting apps will involve, what with everything so bar being designed around 320X480....
The article was poorly worded, but what they mean is that all the apps that are properly coded in the store now are already resolution independent.
You are incorrect to assume that "... everything so (sic) bar (is) being designed around 320x480." In fact, hard coding to a specific screen size has been discouraged from the beginning and Apple specifically told developers they didn't want them to do that. That being said, a great deal of the games in the store apparently *are* hard-coded to the screen size, so those ones, will have to be "fixed."
At least I'm pretty sure that's what the article was trying to say.
If the iphone/ipod touch apps are being designed to run at larger resoulution then it bodes well for a larger gaming device (still smacks of 7"-10" ipod touch). this would be great for video as the ipod is just a fraction too small to appreciate movies (albeit my kids are find using a nano but they watch Ben 10 and Glee so there is no accounting for taste).
Now if you could wall mount the device and link it with other devices around your home then you can have a neat (and really expensive) comms system that runs tvs, music, does notes on the fridge, laundry list etc, even garage as oil wipes off pretty easy.
So we're all excited about this but can anyone image having an iTablet? What benefit does it have over a Macbook?
Form factor. A macbook is unwieldy if you are standing up roaming around. Laptops and "portable computers" are essentially portable from one seated position to another.
A tablet can be used on the go. That is the allure. True mobility. A different use case, and one could argue one with more practical applications and use cases then a traditional notebook/laptop.
Quote:
I'd rather have an iMac with a touch screen that can be removed from the base. The base would be used as a WiFi access point. This has been done before but it would be neat if Apple would do it.
It would cut off circulation to your legs from weight and screen would kill the battery. You'd get 20 minutes of use.
A tablet that docks to a base with a keyboard/mouse would makes far more sense then trying to force an iMac to be a lightweight semi-mobile computer.
I suspect it'll run iPhone OS 4 which will embody a few new UI paradigms to suit the larger screen - however I think all existing apps will run just fine. Some will look a little odd to be sure but savvy developers knew this day was coming and should have contingencies in place. Everybody will have a couple of months to catch the wave. I think something was lost in the translation of this 'rumour' and that 'fullscreen' actually means resolution independent.
Multi-tasking will be turned on I am sure since a larger battery will be possible and I can absolutely guarantee that there will be a headline feature that nobody here saw coming.
A $500 Touch could challenge netbooks, depending on what one intends the device for.
They'd have to add a lot more features to the Touch for that to be true. SD card slots, USB ports, expandable RAM, replaceable hard drive, front facing webcam, physical keyboard, video out, swappable battery, a user accessible file system, etc....
I love my iPod(s), and I make my living on my Macs, but my HP mini netbook is by far the most versatile computing device I've ever owned.
They'd have to add a lot more features to the Touch for that to be true. SD card slots, USB ports, expandable RAM, replaceable hard drive, front facing webcam, physical keyboard, video out, swappable battery, a user accessible file system, etc....
I love my iPod(s), and I make my living on my Macs, but my HP mini netbook is by far the most versatile computing device I've ever owned.
Yup. My wife absolutely LOVES her Acer Aspire One and it only cost me about $250 if I recall correctly. She does school lesson plans, report cards, Excel spreadsheets, Word documents, email, browsing, and her favorite -- looking at all of her friend's pictures on Facebook
I wish Apple had something in that price range (a small computer that can run a fully-fledged operating system) to appease her, but they don't.
They mean with bigger screen not the size of a tablet but television size, so that they can compete with consoles. Furthermore, they will provide a multitouch interface to interact with the new designed apple tv, including subscription plans,...
Quite frankly, THIS seems more likely than an Apple tablet. But I just assume everyone will ignore this post and go straight to the tablet fights.
Full screen means flexible based on the arbitrary window size, whether it be 640x480 to HD 1080p and beyond.
OS X application developers deal with this all the time as they don't know what the output resolution is going to be on the end user's device.
This is a nice bit of speculation, but if you've ever dipped your toes into iPhone/touch development, you will quickly realize what you are saying is absurd.
Not to be pedantic, but my iPhone with a 3.5? 320x480 display runs all apps ?full screen?. Without quantifying it with a size, resolution or type (even saying using SVG) this article really is puzzling to me.
Images created for use on the iPhone are not even SVG... you cannot arbitrarily re-scale graphics created for Apps. They must be created for the scale they are meant to appear.
It'll have Wifi but it won't be a phone. It may have VOIP but it won't be a phone.
I tend to agree. That is, unlike the original iPhone which required wireless connectivity to suffice, the onslaught of iPhone apps has lessened that need significantly.
I think it's primary purpose will be as a media player. Much like the iPhone, it will set a new paradigm in how we entertain ourselves and to a great extent how we conduct/support our businesses on the move. For many, we will still need a 'full' computer. For most, 'full' is overkill.
IMO, virtually every app currently available can for the most part be prepared to run "fullscreen" rather easily, as evidenced by Apple's request to some developers to demo in 4 weeks; and knowing Apple, to provide an updated SDK to ensure that tens of thousands of apps will be ready for a 'March' launch.
Obviously, a lot of apps will look absolutely astonishing if they are just updated to satisfy screen resolution. The GPS navigation apps definitely come to mind, a well as e'readers, web browsers, video games/players for example.
Others will appear downright ugly. But ducklings can be turned into swans with a little more insight, enhanced functionality and addressing some of their critiques' concerns.
More important, a whole new 'pricing' paradigm will evolve, particularly i.e., to now charge which before were free.
And, I do know many who have hungered for a broader canvas; and some I may add with confidence have already started.
Not to be pedantic, but my iPhone with a 3.5? 320x480 display runs all apps ?full screen?. Without quantifying it with a size, resolution or type (even saying using SVG) this article really is puzzling to me.
Yea I was sarcastic on the full screen stuff being clear, hence the quotes around it. but yea I have no idea what full screen is.
Imagine if you can call someone from your tablet. Speakerphone functionality. Screen Sharing with other (Apple) Tablets. Conferencing. For some reason I see this making it into the enterprise.
What will be the aspect ratio?? 3:2 like the iPhone/touch, or 16:9 to tightly integrate the iTab with HDTV's, AppleTV, etc? everyone seems to be overlooking this.
of course with letter/pillar boxing you can always display one format within the other. but this choice by Apple will tell you what is the real strategic target for Apple now. either film/television in all its digital versions and monetization options, or just sucking everything into an iPhone format to maximize its installed base as the portable gold standard.
Sounds like a horrible idea. Tablet owners would have to put up with horribly upscaled, blurry looking apps for years to come.
Really? You don't think some apps will be written to support two resolutions? Or that there won't be specific iPhone and ??????? (iTablet?) versions of some apps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
And Apple better add Flash support to the iPhone OS browser, or the tablet really will be (even more) pointless.
My one hope is that Apple doesn't add Flash support. Not until Adobe gets it to perform right on OSX and the iPhone OS. Better to get the studios to support a real standard for video which benefits everyone (or at least everyone who's not Adobe).
What will be the aspect ratio?? 3:2 like the iPhone/touch, or 16:9 to tightly integrate the iTab with HDTV's, AppleTV, etc? everyone seems to be overlooking this.
I think the fold-out dual screen idea is quite nice as long as there is an invisible seam down the middle and in another thread someone posted a link to a video of an old Apple mockup of the Knowledge Navigator:
If they had dual 10" (8" x 6" screens = 4:3 aspect), they would fold out to a 3:2 14" screen at 1280 x 853, which can do 720p. Plus you get two screens for running apps side by side.
If they can't do the invisible seam idea, I'd expect a 16:9 or 16:10 12" slate. Hopefully they'll offer a way to protect the screen though.
I will be disappointed to see the iphone OS running on it because the apps available for it just aren't anywhere near the level of functionality of desktop apps. It may encourage developers to make iphone apps more fully fledged but I doubt it.
If it's extremely cheap, it won't matter so much what it runs as long as it covers the basics - word processing etc can be done online using services like Google Docs and maybe Apple will make some cloud apps.
3 years and 150,000 apps later, Apple has finally decided it's time to move on.
The iPod/iPhone platform is firmly entrenched.
One of the reasons apple waited this long is to avoid fragmentation.
Mission accomplished. Now it is time to extend the platform in new directons.
Does that mean that plenty of developers would get pissed now as they have to redo their application for the bigger screen ? Your point makes no sense. If they released info about new devices earlier (at least announced multiple screen sizes), developers would have more time to prepare.
The secretiveness of Apple shows as negative factor here. This is a royal treatment really : hint the developers by obscure "rumors" that they should prepare their apps for resolution independence by supporting very ambiguous "full-screen". One word : ridiculous.
The benefit is that it syncs with your main computer and/or the cloud. A Macbook is only useful as a stand-alone computer.
This device could possibly use as a stand-alone computer, but (presumably) it's primary use is as a mobile extension of your main computer, or a mobile extension of, and means of accessing, your "cloud."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobby
...Now if you could wall mount the device and link it with other devices around your home then you can have a neat (and really expensive) comms system that runs tvs, music, does notes on the fridge, laundry list etc, even garage as oil wipes off pretty easy.
Dobby.
Absolutely agree here. You will want 2,3 or Steve's magic number, 5 of these devices. All synced from your main Mac, iTunes and/or MobilMe account. The reason for the big investment in Lala and in N.Carolina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
...A tablet can be used on the go. That is the allure. True mobility. A different use case, and one could argue one with more practical applications and use cases then a traditional notebook/laptop.
A tablet that docks to a base with a keyboard/mouse would makes far more sense then trying to force an iMac to be a lightweight semi-mobile computer.
Don't forget that Apple has a Patent on the idea of sliding a tablet-like device into a base station, or iMac-like dock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
They'd have to add a lot more features to the Touch for that to be true. SD card slots, USB ports, expandable RAM, replaceable hard drive, front facing webcam, physical keyboard, video out, swappable battery, a user accessible file system, etc....
I love my iPod(s), and I make my living on my Macs, but my HP mini netbook is by far the most versatile computing device I've ever owned.
I think Apple is pretty aware of this... and really doesn't want to compete at all in the netbook market. Versatility is not the key word in Apple's philosophy, ever. Tackling a core set of functions and uses, is: internet (web, mail, social), entertainment (music, video, & lately games), and personal creativity (iLife and possibly with this new device iWork). Core functions. Everything else they leave to the web and cloud-services, and/or developers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
...I think it's primary purpose will be as a media player. Much like the iPhone, it will set a new paradigm in how we entertain ourselves and to a great extent how we conduct/support our businesses on the move. For many, we will still need a 'full' computer. For most, 'full' is overkill.
IMO, virtually every app currently available can for the most part be prepared to run "fullscreen" rather easily, as evidenced by Apple's request to some developers to demo in 4 weeks; and knowing Apple, to provide an updated SDK to ensure that tens of thousands of apps will be ready for a 'March' launch.
...The GPS navigation apps definitely come to mind, a well as e'readers, web browsers, video games/players for example.
More important, a whole new 'pricing' paradigm will evolve, particularly i.e., to now charge which before were free. .
I'm also thinking, almost "free", as in subsidized... or around $500 without.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Imagine if you can call someone from your tablet. Speakerphone functionality. Screen Sharing with other (Apple) Tablets. Conferencing. For some reason I see this making it into the enterprise.
Absolutely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I think the fold-out dual screen idea is quite nice as long as there is an invisible seam down the middle and in another thread someone posted a link to a video of an old Apple mockup of the Knowledge Navigator:
If they had dual 10" (8" x 6" screens = 4:3 aspect), they would fold out to a 3:2 14" screen at 1280 x 853, which can do 720p. Plus you get two screens for running apps side by side.
If they can't do the invisible seam idea, I'd expect a 16:9 or 16:10 12" slate. Hopefully they'll offer a way to protect the screen though.
I will be disappointed to see the iphone OS running on it because the apps available for it just aren't anywhere near the level of functionality of desktop apps. It may encourage developers to make iphone apps more fully fledged but I doubt it.
If it's extremely cheap, it won't matter so much what it runs as long as it covers the basics - word processing etc can be done online using services like Google Docs and maybe Apple will make some cloud apps.
Along this thought of the Knowledge Nav., I've always liked this idea.
Actually, foldable screen tech has been around for quite awhile. It does beg to question though, how long it could hold up to constant opening and closing.
If not 2-sided, I think it will have a closing front cover of some sort for protection, but also allowing it to stand alone on a table or desk. The inside of the cover will have mounting clips or holes for mounting brackets, sold separately, to be installed as you say, in the kitchen, bathroom, car, etc. I do trust that Jonathon Ives has come up with something elegant, cool, unobtrusive, and useful at the same time.
The trickiest part of this device is it's price-point. It really needs to be positioned similar to the iPod, in that many people have 2 or more of them. Any room in your home where you might be, where you go, "oops, where's my phone" or "I forgot my Mac in the den", you will purchase one of these to be always there.
Don't dismiss in-house bonjour, chat, and screen-sharing either. All underutilized Apple-tech.
Re: screen-size and resolution debate: as far as I know, screen-res independence is built into SL, but just not turned on. I would assume Apple has been working on adding this core-functionality into the iPhone OS as well. Thus making the debate moot once it works.
This device will NOT be a netbook-killer, because it doesn't need to be to be successful. Because once again, Apple is thinking (completely!) different.
Comments
S... can anyone image having an iTablet? What benefit does it have over a Macbook?...
The benefit is that it syncs with your main computer and/or the cloud. A Macbook is only useful as a stand-alone computer.
This device could possibly use as a stand-alone computer, but (presumably) it's primary use is as a mobile extension of your main computer, or a mobile extension of, and means of accessing, your "cloud."
See my post. Since the iPhone was sold in multiple iterations, it must be supported as multiple iterations.
You can't ignore the original iPhone's lack of certain features in this argument.
The Great iPhone/iPod Touch/iTablet Fragmentation continues . . . .
I'm just wondering what exactly your point is here? Unless you can name a company that has come up with exactly one device with one never changing OS... then every company has to deal with this. So again, what's your point?
The differentiating factor between companies then becomes how you deal with it. I think most folks would argue that Apple has handled it quite well. That most apps work fine across all iPhone and iPod Touch iterations would seem to indicate that. Every other competitor has to deal with many, many more hardware variations than Apple, even with the addition of a tablet.
My reaction to the fragmentation debate is a yawn and a "Yeah, so?". Unless you are somehow advocating a company have one device and one OS... in which case, I say good luck ever being successful with this hypothetical company.
IOW, Mr. Source, 100% of all compatible apps will run just fine?
Wow, what an insight.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, it's going to be interesting to see what porting apps will involve, what with everything so bar being designed around 320X480....
The article was poorly worded, but what they mean is that all the apps that are properly coded in the store now are already resolution independent.
You are incorrect to assume that "... everything so (sic) bar (is) being designed around 320x480." In fact, hard coding to a specific screen size has been discouraged from the beginning and Apple specifically told developers they didn't want them to do that. That being said, a great deal of the games in the store apparently *are* hard-coded to the screen size, so those ones, will have to be "fixed."
At least I'm pretty sure that's what the article was trying to say.
Now if you could wall mount the device and link it with other devices around your home then you can have a neat (and really expensive) comms system that runs tvs, music, does notes on the fridge, laundry list etc, even garage as oil wipes off pretty easy.
Dobby.
So we're all excited about this but can anyone image having an iTablet? What benefit does it have over a Macbook?
Form factor. A macbook is unwieldy if you are standing up roaming around. Laptops and "portable computers" are essentially portable from one seated position to another.
A tablet can be used on the go. That is the allure. True mobility. A different use case, and one could argue one with more practical applications and use cases then a traditional notebook/laptop.
I'd rather have an iMac with a touch screen that can be removed from the base. The base would be used as a WiFi access point. This has been done before but it would be neat if Apple would do it.
It would cut off circulation to your legs from weight and screen would kill the battery. You'd get 20 minutes of use.
A tablet that docks to a base with a keyboard/mouse would makes far more sense then trying to force an iMac to be a lightweight semi-mobile computer.
Multi-tasking will be turned on I am sure since a larger battery will be possible and I can absolutely guarantee that there will be a headline feature that nobody here saw coming.
A $500 Touch could challenge netbooks, depending on what one intends the device for.
They'd have to add a lot more features to the Touch for that to be true. SD card slots, USB ports, expandable RAM, replaceable hard drive, front facing webcam, physical keyboard, video out, swappable battery, a user accessible file system, etc....
I love my iPod(s), and I make my living on my Macs, but my HP mini netbook is by far the most versatile computing device I've ever owned.
They'd have to add a lot more features to the Touch for that to be true. SD card slots, USB ports, expandable RAM, replaceable hard drive, front facing webcam, physical keyboard, video out, swappable battery, a user accessible file system, etc....
I love my iPod(s), and I make my living on my Macs, but my HP mini netbook is by far the most versatile computing device I've ever owned.
Yup. My wife absolutely LOVES her Acer Aspire One and it only cost me about $250 if I recall correctly. She does school lesson plans, report cards, Excel spreadsheets, Word documents, email, browsing, and her favorite -- looking at all of her friend's pictures on Facebook
I wish Apple had something in that price range (a small computer that can run a fully-fledged operating system) to appease her, but they don't.
No more notebooks by 2015. All tablet. You read it here first.
They mean with bigger screen not the size of a tablet but television size, so that they can compete with consoles. Furthermore, they will provide a multitouch interface to interact with the new designed apple tv, including subscription plans,...
Quite frankly, THIS seems more likely than an Apple tablet. But I just assume everyone will ignore this post and go straight to the tablet fights.
Full screen means flexible based on the arbitrary window size, whether it be 640x480 to HD 1080p and beyond.
OS X application developers deal with this all the time as they don't know what the output resolution is going to be on the end user's device.
This is a nice bit of speculation, but if you've ever dipped your toes into iPhone/touch development, you will quickly realize what you are saying is absurd.
Not to be pedantic, but my iPhone with a 3.5? 320x480 display runs all apps ?full screen?. Without quantifying it with a size, resolution or type (even saying using SVG) this article really is puzzling to me.
Images created for use on the iPhone are not even SVG... you cannot arbitrarily re-scale graphics created for Apps. They must be created for the scale they are meant to appear.
iTablet won't be a phone.
It'll have Wifi but it won't be a phone. It may have VOIP but it won't be a phone.
I tend to agree. That is, unlike the original iPhone which required wireless connectivity to suffice, the onslaught of iPhone apps has lessened that need significantly.
I think it's primary purpose will be as a media player. Much like the iPhone, it will set a new paradigm in how we entertain ourselves and to a great extent how we conduct/support our businesses on the move. For many, we will still need a 'full' computer. For most, 'full' is overkill.
IMO, virtually every app currently available can for the most part be prepared to run "fullscreen" rather easily, as evidenced by Apple's request to some developers to demo in 4 weeks; and knowing Apple, to provide an updated SDK to ensure that tens of thousands of apps will be ready for a 'March' launch.
Obviously, a lot of apps will look absolutely astonishing if they are just updated to satisfy screen resolution. The GPS navigation apps definitely come to mind, a well as e'readers, web browsers, video games/players for example.
Others will appear downright ugly. But ducklings can be turned into swans with a little more insight, enhanced functionality and addressing some of their critiques' concerns.
More important, a whole new 'pricing' paradigm will evolve, particularly i.e., to now charge which before were free.
And, I do know many who have hungered for a broader canvas; and some I may add with confidence have already started.
Not to be pedantic, but my iPhone with a 3.5? 320x480 display runs all apps ?full screen?. Without quantifying it with a size, resolution or type (even saying using SVG) this article really is puzzling to me.
Yea I was sarcastic on the full screen stuff being clear, hence the quotes around it. but yea I have no idea what full screen is.
of course with letter/pillar boxing you can always display one format within the other. but this choice by Apple will tell you what is the real strategic target for Apple now. either film/television in all its digital versions and monetization options, or just sucking everything into an iPhone format to maximize its installed base as the portable gold standard.
Sounds like a horrible idea. Tablet owners would have to put up with horribly upscaled, blurry looking apps for years to come.
Really? You don't think some apps will be written to support two resolutions? Or that there won't be specific iPhone and ??????? (iTablet?) versions of some apps?
And Apple better add Flash support to the iPhone OS browser, or the tablet really will be (even more) pointless.
My one hope is that Apple doesn't add Flash support. Not until Adobe gets it to perform right on OSX and the iPhone OS. Better to get the studios to support a real standard for video which benefits everyone (or at least everyone who's not Adobe).
What will be the aspect ratio?? 3:2 like the iPhone/touch, or 16:9 to tightly integrate the iTab with HDTV's, AppleTV, etc? everyone seems to be overlooking this.
I think the fold-out dual screen idea is quite nice as long as there is an invisible seam down the middle and in another thread someone posted a link to a video of an old Apple mockup of the Knowledge Navigator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGYFEI6uLy0
If they had dual 10" (8" x 6" screens = 4:3 aspect), they would fold out to a 3:2 14" screen at 1280 x 853, which can do 720p. Plus you get two screens for running apps side by side.
If they can't do the invisible seam idea, I'd expect a 16:9 or 16:10 12" slate. Hopefully they'll offer a way to protect the screen though.
I will be disappointed to see the iphone OS running on it because the apps available for it just aren't anywhere near the level of functionality of desktop apps. It may encourage developers to make iphone apps more fully fledged but I doubt it.
If it's extremely cheap, it won't matter so much what it runs as long as it covers the basics - word processing etc can be done online using services like Google Docs and maybe Apple will make some cloud apps.
3 years and 150,000 apps later, Apple has finally decided it's time to move on.
The iPod/iPhone platform is firmly entrenched.
One of the reasons apple waited this long is to avoid fragmentation.
Mission accomplished. Now it is time to extend the platform in new directons.
Does that mean that plenty of developers would get pissed now as they have to redo their application for the bigger screen ? Your point makes no sense. If they released info about new devices earlier (at least announced multiple screen sizes), developers would have more time to prepare.
The secretiveness of Apple shows as negative factor here. This is a royal treatment really : hint the developers by obscure "rumors" that they should prepare their apps for resolution independence by supporting very ambiguous "full-screen". One word : ridiculous.
The benefit is that it syncs with your main computer and/or the cloud. A Macbook is only useful as a stand-alone computer.
This device could possibly use as a stand-alone computer, but (presumably) it's primary use is as a mobile extension of your main computer, or a mobile extension of, and means of accessing, your "cloud."
...Now if you could wall mount the device and link it with other devices around your home then you can have a neat (and really expensive) comms system that runs tvs, music, does notes on the fridge, laundry list etc, even garage as oil wipes off pretty easy.
Dobby.
Absolutely agree here. You will want 2,3 or Steve's magic number, 5 of these devices. All synced from your main Mac, iTunes and/or MobilMe account. The reason for the big investment in Lala and in N.Carolina.
...A tablet can be used on the go. That is the allure. True mobility. A different use case, and one could argue one with more practical applications and use cases then a traditional notebook/laptop.
A tablet that docks to a base with a keyboard/mouse would makes far more sense then trying to force an iMac to be a lightweight semi-mobile computer.
Don't forget that Apple has a Patent on the idea of sliding a tablet-like device into a base station, or iMac-like dock.
They'd have to add a lot more features to the Touch for that to be true. SD card slots, USB ports, expandable RAM, replaceable hard drive, front facing webcam, physical keyboard, video out, swappable battery, a user accessible file system, etc....
I love my iPod(s), and I make my living on my Macs, but my HP mini netbook is by far the most versatile computing device I've ever owned.
I think Apple is pretty aware of this... and really doesn't want to compete at all in the netbook market. Versatility is not the key word in Apple's philosophy, ever. Tackling a core set of functions and uses, is: internet (web, mail, social), entertainment (music, video, & lately games), and personal creativity (iLife and possibly with this new device iWork). Core functions. Everything else they leave to the web and cloud-services, and/or developers.
...I think it's primary purpose will be as a media player. Much like the iPhone, it will set a new paradigm in how we entertain ourselves and to a great extent how we conduct/support our businesses on the move. For many, we will still need a 'full' computer. For most, 'full' is overkill.
IMO, virtually every app currently available can for the most part be prepared to run "fullscreen" rather easily, as evidenced by Apple's request to some developers to demo in 4 weeks; and knowing Apple, to provide an updated SDK to ensure that tens of thousands of apps will be ready for a 'March' launch.
...The GPS navigation apps definitely come to mind, a well as e'readers, web browsers, video games/players for example.
More important, a whole new 'pricing' paradigm will evolve, particularly i.e., to now charge which before were free. .
I'm also thinking, almost "free", as in subsidized... or around $500 without.
Imagine if you can call someone from your tablet. Speakerphone functionality. Screen Sharing with other (Apple) Tablets. Conferencing. For some reason I see this making it into the enterprise.
Absolutely!
I think the fold-out dual screen idea is quite nice as long as there is an invisible seam down the middle and in another thread someone posted a link to a video of an old Apple mockup of the Knowledge Navigator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGYFEI6uLy0
If they had dual 10" (8" x 6" screens = 4:3 aspect), they would fold out to a 3:2 14" screen at 1280 x 853, which can do 720p. Plus you get two screens for running apps side by side.
If they can't do the invisible seam idea, I'd expect a 16:9 or 16:10 12" slate. Hopefully they'll offer a way to protect the screen though.
I will be disappointed to see the iphone OS running on it because the apps available for it just aren't anywhere near the level of functionality of desktop apps. It may encourage developers to make iphone apps more fully fledged but I doubt it.
If it's extremely cheap, it won't matter so much what it runs as long as it covers the basics - word processing etc can be done online using services like Google Docs and maybe Apple will make some cloud apps.
Along this thought of the Knowledge Nav., I've always liked this idea.
http://tommasogecchelin.wordpress.co...touch-beta-20/
Actually, foldable screen tech has been around for quite awhile. It does beg to question though, how long it could hold up to constant opening and closing.
If not 2-sided, I think it will have a closing front cover of some sort for protection, but also allowing it to stand alone on a table or desk. The inside of the cover will have mounting clips or holes for mounting brackets, sold separately, to be installed as you say, in the kitchen, bathroom, car, etc. I do trust that Jonathon Ives has come up with something elegant, cool, unobtrusive, and useful at the same time.
The trickiest part of this device is it's price-point. It really needs to be positioned similar to the iPod, in that many people have 2 or more of them. Any room in your home where you might be, where you go, "oops, where's my phone" or "I forgot my Mac in the den", you will purchase one of these to be always there.
Don't dismiss in-house bonjour, chat, and screen-sharing either. All underutilized Apple-tech.
Re: screen-size and resolution debate: as far as I know, screen-res independence is built into SL, but just not turned on. I would assume Apple has been working on adding this core-functionality into the iPhone OS as well. Thus making the debate moot once it works.
This device will NOT be a netbook-killer, because it doesn't need to be to be successful. Because once again, Apple is thinking (completely!) different.