What?s great is how weak his argument is claiming that MS has been trying to make a tablet a few times and hasn?t succeeded so Apple can?t possibly succeed.
PS: I really hate the use of the term niche. It?s often used pejoratively yet it?s defined as "a specialized but profitable corner of the market?. On top of that, what can?t be defined as niche. Apple?s iPhone is niche in that it appeals to the relatively small smartphone market segment of the total cellphone market, and even within the smartphone market it?s at least third behind Nokia and RiM in unit sales.
If Apple was planning this and if they expect you to use fingers as the primary input method then they would have had to have completely rebuilt SL to make it touch-capable from the start so that Mac apps could be rebuilt to take advantage of a potential interface optimized for fingers.
And before anyone says "what about the new touch-friendly features in Snow Leopard," I'll reply, "what about all the existing features that aren't touch-friendly" as well as "touch-friendliness may only be a side effect of the feature, not the purpose."
I don't think the tablet will run Mac OS X and I doubt there will be a Mac OS X "touch." iPhone OS or iPhone OS "extended" is more likely. That or a third variant of OS X that is very similar to iPhone OS and runs iPhone apps etc.
Great rundown. Just one thing though, overall I get the feeling the "killer apps/features" are still tightly guarded secrets. We're all dancing around what is most likely to be the basics of it, but the market positioning and RDF angle, is not so clear at this stage. That is, some "genius" of the Tablet is still hidden from our speculations. Mainly, the WHY of why Apple would release the tablet. They're not doing it just because everyone expects it. I'm still asking, I guess, where's the beef?
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I think the general outlines of an Apple tablet are pretty clearly laid out in two articles: John Gruber at Daring Fireball and John Siracusa at Ars Technica.
They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.
An Apple tablet won't have anything spectacular or surprising on the hardware side, and be a slim, small bezeled 10" (or whatever) LCD touch tablet with few physical buttons and pretty main stream innards-- 64 to 128 Gb flash storage, no optical drive, possibly a PA Semi enhanced chip set, WiFi, Bluetooth, and fewer ports than some people want. Apple will brag about how skinny and light it is, pundits will question the tradeoffs made vs. battery life.
It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side, although it will not simply be a big iPod or a keyboard-less MacBook.
What will distinguish an Apple tablet, however, is a whole bunch of very careful, very well though out optimizations arising from what Apple has decided the most common use cases will be. That, of course, will be the kind of thing that doesn't impress a certain segment, who will dismiss the tablet as old tech and me-too ism, and have a lot to say about how the Apple faithful think Apple innovates when it just markets.
What could well make the tablet a success, however, are just those optimizations, plus relentless leveraging of the iTunes and App Stores, which give Apple a huge installed based of ready and willing credit card numbers. "Ease of use", after all, includes the whole process of acquiring, paying for and using media and software.
It's funny, because as Siracusa lays out, the parts are all there in plain site and don't require magic new Apple breakthroughs. It's just that making a really well thought out, fun to use tablet that drastically reduces the friction involved with getting a lot of stuff on the thing isn't teh sexy. It's just a matter of putting the pieces together in a way that works really well. Since Apple happens to be as good or better than anybody at putting the pieces together really well, I think one would be pretty shortsighted to dismiss their tablet as being pointless.
Mac touch apps won't run on non-touch Macs, and non-Mac touch apps won't run on Mac touch's.
"A Different kind of Mac."
That's why I'm thinking it won't have the name Mac in it. Because Apple IMO is definitely going to ride the success of iPod and iPhone and pitch this to both the Mac and PC crowd. iPad/ iSlate/ iGuide/ iTouch/ iTab etc, but no "Mac" in the name. This is one area where they do not want to invoke the "Mac vs PC wars". They've learnt this from the MacBook Air. Their entry into the "netbook/ ultralight" space is going to circumvent these Mac vs PC stuff. Keeping the Mac line, name and OS pristine.
I think the general outlines of an Apple tablet are pretty clearly laid out in two articles: John Gruber at Daring Fireball and John Siracusa at Ars Technica.
They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.
An Apple tablet won't have anything spectacular or surprising on the hardware side, and be a slim, small bezeled 10" (or whatever) LCD touch tablet with few physical buttons and pretty main stream innards-- 64 to 128 Gb flash storage, no optical drive, possibly a PA Semi enhanced chip set, WiFi, Bluetooth, and fewer ports than some people want. Apple will brag about how skinny and light it is, pundits will question the tradeoffs made vs. battery life.
It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side, although it will not simply be a big iPod or a keyboard-less MacBook.
What will distinguish an Apple tablet, however, is a whole bunch of very careful, very well though out optimizations arising from what Apple has decided the most common use cases will be. That, of course, will be the kind of thing that doesn't impress a certain segment, who will dismiss the tablet as old tech and me-too ism, and have a lot to say about how the Apple faithful think Apple innovates when it just markets.
What could well make the tablet a success, however, are just those optimizations, plus relentless leveraging of the iTunes and App Stores, which give Apple a huge installed based of ready and willing credit card numbers. "Ease of use", after all, includes the whole process of acquiring, paying for and using media and software.
It's funny, because as Siracusa lays out, the parts are all there in plain site and don't require magic new Apple breakthroughs. It's just that making a really well thought out, fun to use tablet that drastically reduces the friction involved with getting a lot of stuff on the thing isn't teh sexy. It's just a matter of putting the pieces together in a way that works really well. Since Apple happens to be as good or better than anybody at putting the pieces together really well, I think one would be pretty shortsighted to dismiss their tablet as being pointless.
I disagree partially. At the very least I see Apple having something spectacular or surprising on the software side. And there should be at least one hardware innovation related to that "surprise" interface we've been hearing about.
Mainly, the WHY of why Apple would release the tablet. They're not doing it just because everyone expects it.
Looking at Apple?s history for the past decade I think the ?why? should not be taken for granted. I agree wholeheartedly that Apple isn?t simply going to release a product "just because". I wouldn?t expect the tablet to be unveiled unless Apple thinks it can make a viable market out of tablets.
I disagree partially. At the very least I see Apple having something spectacular or surprising on the software side. And there should be at least one hardware innovation related to that "surprise" interface we've been hearing about.
I suppose it depends on your definition of spectacular and surprising. It seems to me that a lot of what Apple does is about taking existing parts and making them work together much, much better than they previously have. So much better that they can seem like a whole new thing, which is where the confusion and ill-will regarding Apple's status as an innovator comes in.
I think Apple can make a beautifully engineered tablet that is not materially different than some of what has already been on the market, just better designed, better assembled and more thoughtfully worked out in its every particular. I think they can marry that to a UI that isn't startlingly different from the iPhone, just better optimized for a larger screen with some very carefully calibrated UI touches that will feel very natural and be a pleasure to use.
And I think the combination of that closely coupled hardware and software will be more than the some of its parts, and that the tablet will be a bit of a revelation. But I think it will achieve that without needing any marquee innovations or breakthroughs. When you think about it, it's actually much harder to make something that feels new and unprecedented out of existing parts than it is to just roll out entirely new tech, which is often impressive without being all that useful. That's what makes Apple bashers so crazy-- they can't understand where the appeal is, or what it is that Apple's doing that garners so much praise, because they think it's about new technology instead of new thinking.
That is my take on Clearwire. I hate to say this but I doubt your investment will go anywhere with the current management team inplace. I've found absolutely nothing to like about how that company is managed nor how their products where marketed. Frankly they make AT&T look ethical and progressive.
However like the subject said it is a great idea. I also haven't had much contact with them after getting that bad taste in my mouth. Maybe they can overcome the obvious management greed and desire to fleece their customers.
Dave
You're probably right about incompetent management, but things tend to change at companies if they neglect profitability or the customer, for that matter, for too long. Hopefully they'll stay in business long enough to fulfill their early promise.
I agree that the nomenclature is marketing but I think marketing is important to make sure there isn’t confusion. I think having two different OS X versions called Mac with a difference being one is labeled as Touch to indicate which apps will run it is confusing for the average customer.
I disagree, there could be a badge "Mac touch app" beside any Mac touch app, people would understand. Besides, it would have its own App Store, so you couldn't make this mistake even by accident. And its App Store would be so heavily marketed in presentations and videos - people would automatically assume that's where you go for Apps.
. It has virtual keyboard for text entry and a webcam for video conferencing."
I hope it has the ability to scan/photograph documents. I'm using the iSight to capture diagrams from a book which I am studying but the image resolution is poor, I'm not sure if it has focus or not. The iPhone 3G too has a crappy camera, a reason that I am selling it for a 3GS \
I disagree, there could be a badge "Mac touch app" beside any Mac touch app, people would understand. Besides, it would have its own App Store, so you couldn't make this mistake even by accident. And its App Store would be so heavily marketed in presentations and videos - people would automatically assume that's where you go for Apps.
I hope it has the ability to scan/photograph documents. I'm using the iSight to capture diagrams from a book which I am studying but the image resolution is poor, I'm not sure if it has focus or not. The iPhone 3G too has a crappy camera, a reason that I am selling it for a 3GS \
That is my take on Clearwire. I hate to say this but I doubt your investment will go anywhere with the current management team inplace. I've found absolutely nothing to like about how that company is managed nor how their products where marketed. Frankly they make AT&T look ethical and progressive.
However like the subject said it is a great idea. I also haven't had much contact with them after getting that bad taste in my mouth. Maybe they can overcome the obvious management greed and desire to fleece their customers.
Dave
Something interesting happened today and Clearwire was singled out. Here's the article:
Quote:
(Updated to add comment from a trade association and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.) By Brent Kendall and Amy Schatz WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Justice Department on Monday urged the Federal Communications Commission to promote competition for broadband services by reallocating available spectrum to wireless providers and auctioning it in a way that would favor new competitors over incumbents that now dominate the market for high-speed Internet. The department's comments, signed by its antitrust chief, Christine Varney, came in a 30-page written filing to the FCC, which is developing a national broadband plan due to Congress by Feb. 17. The scarcity of available airwaves is an obstacle to broadband competition, the Justice Department said in the filing. It argued that companies like Clearwire Corp. (CLWR), Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) and T-Mobile, which are trying to develop next-generation wireless broadband services, need more airwaves to compete with cable modem, DSL or fiber optic-based services. "Stated simply, without access to sufficient spectrum, a firm cannot provide state-of-the-art wireless broadband services," the department said. "Reallocating spectrum that is being underutilized would encourage the deployment of wireless services and could help to make such services more competitive with wireline offerings." Notably, the department's antitrust regulators argued that if the FCC auctions off more airwaves, it should question whether selling them to incumbent carriers like AT&T Inc. (T) or Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) is the wisest choice. They said the reallocated spectrum should be auctioned in a manner that puts incumbents' bids at a disadvantage because they could seek to buy up the additional space as a way to cut off potential rivals. "There are substantial advantages to deploying newly available spectrum in order to enable additional providers to mount stronger challenges to broadband incumbents," the department said. In separate comments Monday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency of the Commerce Department, said it agreed with the Justice Department's position. Wireless carriers have generally supported the idea of devoting more airwaves for wireless broadband services. The largest wireless phone companies--AT&T and Verizon Wireless--would likely oppose any government effort to ensure they can't bid for more airwaves. An AT&T spokesman had no immediate comment, while a Verizon spokesman did not return a call for comment. Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at CTIA, the wireless industry's trade group, said there were "a lot of positives" in the Justice Department's comments. "We're excited that they see the primary tool for promoting competition as spectrum, and there's no time to spare in getting more on the market," he said. The department didn't specifically say incumbent wireless carriers should be barred from leasing more airwaves but instead presented several different options, he said. When a phone company like AT&T offers both wired and wireless Internet service in an area, it doesn't have much incentive to compete with itself, said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer advocacy group. "If you have a view that says you need four or more competitors in this space. spectrum is the area that gives you the necessary competition," he said. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and other agency officials say the popularity of Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) iPhone--and the problems AT&T has experienced coping with increased demand--demonstrates why the U.S. needs to devote more airwaves for wireless broadband services. The need to identify and reallocate airwaves for wireless broadband will be a major conclusion of the FCC's coming national broadband plan, a blueprint for what the government can do to ensure all Americans have access to high-speed, affordable Internet service. In the fall, FCC officials floated an idea of reallocating some airwaves now held by TV stations. Most TV stations don't use all of the airwaves they've been given by the government, although some are considering using a portion of those airwaves to offer mobile TV signals for cellphones and other wireless gadgets. Some broadcasters have objected to the idea of losing some of their airwaves--even if they're compensated for those airwaves by the government--and have been lobbying against the plan. FCC officials say they're also looking at other airwaves--both private and government-held--which could be used for wireless broadband instead. FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield said, "We agree with the Justice Department about the need for more spectrum for mobile broadband and look forward to reviewing their comments about the best way to accommodate that growing demand." -By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; [email protected] Click here to go to Dow Jones NewsPlus, a web front page of today's most important business and market news, analysis and commentary: http://www.djnewsplus.com/nae/al?rnd...%2Fs6D0w%3D%3D. You can use this link on the day this article is published and the following day. (END) Dow Jones Newswires 01-04-10 1613ET Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Hopefully this will add another positive bit of momentum to the stock tomorrow. Today was a barnburner.
I disagree, there could be a badge "Mac touch app" beside any Mac touch app, people would understand. Besides, it would have its own App Store, so you couldn't make this mistake even by accident. And its App Store would be so heavily marketed in presentations and videos - people would automatically assume that's where you go for Apps.
iSlate apps will not run on anything other than iSlate. However iPod touch and iPhone apps will run on iSlate.
I disagree partially. At the very least I see Apple having something spectacular or surprising on the software side. And there should be at least one hardware innovation related to that "surprise" interface we've been hearing about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Looking at Apple?s history for the past decade I think the ?why? should not be taken for granted. I agree wholeheartedly that Apple isn?t simply going to release a product "just because". I wouldn?t expect the tablet to be unveiled unless Apple thinks it can make a viable market out of tablets.
The funny thing is that everyone else will be going all-bananas-out on doing tablets at CES. Actual number that will be sold, is anyone's guess. Those are all probably random pokes in the dark.
Apple will give tablets a significant reason to exist, then, the copying will begin, those tablets released at CES will be modified or thrown out entirely.
Because to this date no one has demonstrated why I, an average IT consumer, would need or desire a tablet. I wonder if CES will change that. But Apple most likely will, should it release a tablet.
I have been trying to work out what the justification of an iSlate is. Where is the market? After all, all previous tablet computers have been dismal failures.
Sorry, it's a long post, but here's my guess....
Computers, desktops and laptops are not really consumer products and never have been. Their origins date back to professional computer uses like Word Processing and Spreadsheets.
Despite attempts to make them easier to use. Personal Computers remain tools for professionals, which have only made a handful of concessions for non-professional usage.
The "professional tool" PC is not bad thing. We professionals like to create content. We want keyboards, and we want an exposed file system, and we want to plug stuff in. These are essential aspects to the personal computer and can never be dropped.
But these requirements come with three unavoidable problems.
1) The form factor. Physical bulk. Professional computers simply must have keyboards. They are useless without them. And even the slimmest computers are bulky when opened.
2) Power. You need a desktop-like CPU to run desktop apps. This means a low batter life.
3) Complexity. The desktop experience demands a windowing WIMP interface. With file systems, and settings and all.
For us technophiles, a full OS and GUI is something we hardly think of. It is a given. But such systems requires a lengthy boot process, and a level of technical expertise which is not universal. Some basic tasks are ridiculously difficult.
The flexible nature of software also brings with it the risk of viruses or configuration nightmares, which non-technical people just cannot solve. Your Granny can still not use your Mac. Your uncle can use a PC, but he has to trade it in every 18 months because it is "broken".
So can the computer be "re-thunk" for a non-professional market? Can you design a device for a market that cares more about consuming media than creating media? If you see kids with laptops, they watch movies, send text-like messages on facebook - they never open a file-system. They don't want to.
Perhaps there is a demand for a consumer-oriented computer appliance? It would offer all those computer benefits we get on the notebook, but without these problems.
So the a CE computer would
1) Have a form factor which lends itself to media-consumption, reading, portability, bagability. A robust, slim, screen format which would take-up less space than a magazine. This means dumping the rarely needed keyboard. This means a chamfered edge. This means a scratch-proof screen. A round-edged slab that can take abuse.
2) Switch to a processor and GPU designed for portable hardware. Offering long battery life. Good performance, and offload heavy lifting to the GPU where possible. 8 hours use would be good. A couple of days stand-by would be handy too.
3) Create a user experience around media consumption and not media creation. This means a brain-dead easy UI. We are talking chimpanzee-level intelligence to operate. Want to Facebook. Poke Facebook. Want to watch a movie. Poke the movie. Want to videochat with the grandkids. Poke the grandkids pic, or the camera pic. Either will get you there. And it should not only be simple, it should be fun. Every action would be rewarded with clear visual feedback.
The market is full of people who already want to do this stuff, but currently are compelled to buy a pro device that offers too much. Too much complexity. Too much bulk. They buy notebooks but secretly they are confused why the screens are blank, and the useful stuff is hidden in a menu. They don't know why sometimes it does not work. Or what some of those settings do.
A consumer-targetted device has the potential to split the computer market in two. With professional media-creation computers on one side, and consumer media consumption computers on the other.
Done well, and priced like a netbook, such a device could get to consumers who previously would never consider buying a computer. It could sell into schools to replace textbooks. It would make the Kindle look dull. It would make netbooks look like something from a previous century. Granny would have one as a photoframe that lets her Skype the grandkids.
And for us professionals who love our notebooks. We will keep on buying them. We demand the flexibility. But when we are on the commute, we might look enviously at all those dullards reading the newspaper on their tablets.
So can the computer be "re-thunk" for a non-professional market? Can you design a device for a market that cares more about consuming media than creating media. If you see kids with laptops, they watch movies, send text-like messages on facebook - they never open a file-system. They don't want to.
Perhaps there is a demand for a consumer-oriented computer appliance?
Very nice thoughts Carniphage, well done.
I still wonder if it'd be capable of running a full (redesigned) iPhoto, iMovie, Pages....
Comments
Here is another view of the Apple Tablet by Joe Wilcox stating it will be a niche product, at best.What?s great is how weak his argument is claiming that MS has been trying to make a tablet a few times and hasn?t succeeded so Apple can?t possibly succeed.
PS: I really hate the use of the term niche. It?s often used pejoratively yet it?s defined as "a specialized but profitable corner of the market?. On top of that, what can?t be defined as niche. Apple?s iPhone is niche in that it appeals to the relatively small smartphone market segment of the total cellphone market, and even within the smartphone market it?s at least third behind Nokia and RiM in unit sales.
This guy really enjoyed the Wilcox article....
http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/02...t-future-tech/
This guy really enjoyed the Wilcox article....
http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/02...t-future-tech/
MC Siegler?s first sentence?
If Joe Wilcox ran the computer industry, we?d still be using typewriters.
If Apple was planning this and if they expect you to use fingers as the primary input method then they would have had to have completely rebuilt SL to make it touch-capable from the start so that Mac apps could be rebuilt to take advantage of a potential interface optimized for fingers.
And before anyone says "what about the new touch-friendly features in Snow Leopard," I'll reply, "what about all the existing features that aren't touch-friendly" as well as "touch-friendliness may only be a side effect of the feature, not the purpose."
I don't think the tablet will run Mac OS X and I doubt there will be a Mac OS X "touch." iPhone OS or iPhone OS "extended" is more likely. That or a third variant of OS X that is very similar to iPhone OS and runs iPhone apps etc.
That or a third variant of OS X that is very similar to iPhone OS and runs iPhone apps etc.
That would a 4th variant of OS X after Mac OS, AppleTV OS (though publicly unnamed), and iPhone OS.
I think the general outlines of an Apple tablet are pretty clearly laid out in two articles: John Gruber at Daring Fireball and John Siracusa at Ars Technica.
They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.
An Apple tablet won't have anything spectacular or surprising on the hardware side, and be a slim, small bezeled 10" (or whatever) LCD touch tablet with few physical buttons and pretty main stream innards-- 64 to 128 Gb flash storage, no optical drive, possibly a PA Semi enhanced chip set, WiFi, Bluetooth, and fewer ports than some people want. Apple will brag about how skinny and light it is, pundits will question the tradeoffs made vs. battery life.
It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side, although it will not simply be a big iPod or a keyboard-less MacBook.
What will distinguish an Apple tablet, however, is a whole bunch of very careful, very well though out optimizations arising from what Apple has decided the most common use cases will be. That, of course, will be the kind of thing that doesn't impress a certain segment, who will dismiss the tablet as old tech and me-too ism, and have a lot to say about how the Apple faithful think Apple innovates when it just markets.
What could well make the tablet a success, however, are just those optimizations, plus relentless leveraging of the iTunes and App Stores, which give Apple a huge installed based of ready and willing credit card numbers. "Ease of use", after all, includes the whole process of acquiring, paying for and using media and software.
It's funny, because as Siracusa lays out, the parts are all there in plain site and don't require magic new Apple breakthroughs. It's just that making a really well thought out, fun to use tablet that drastically reduces the friction involved with getting a lot of stuff on the thing isn't teh sexy. It's just a matter of putting the pieces together in a way that works really well. Since Apple happens to be as good or better than anybody at putting the pieces together really well, I think one would be pretty shortsighted to dismiss their tablet as being pointless.
Mac touch apps won't run on non-touch Macs, and non-Mac touch apps won't run on Mac touch's.
"A Different kind of Mac."
That's why I'm thinking it won't have the name Mac in it. Because Apple IMO is definitely going to ride the success of iPod and iPhone and pitch this to both the Mac and PC crowd. iPad/ iSlate/ iGuide/ iTouch/ iTab etc, but no "Mac" in the name. This is one area where they do not want to invoke the "Mac vs PC wars". They've learnt this from the MacBook Air. Their entry into the "netbook/ ultralight" space is going to circumvent these Mac vs PC stuff. Keeping the Mac line, name and OS pristine.
I think the general outlines of an Apple tablet are pretty clearly laid out in two articles: John Gruber at Daring Fireball and John Siracusa at Ars Technica.
They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.
An Apple tablet won't have anything spectacular or surprising on the hardware side, and be a slim, small bezeled 10" (or whatever) LCD touch tablet with few physical buttons and pretty main stream innards-- 64 to 128 Gb flash storage, no optical drive, possibly a PA Semi enhanced chip set, WiFi, Bluetooth, and fewer ports than some people want. Apple will brag about how skinny and light it is, pundits will question the tradeoffs made vs. battery life.
It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side, although it will not simply be a big iPod or a keyboard-less MacBook.
What will distinguish an Apple tablet, however, is a whole bunch of very careful, very well though out optimizations arising from what Apple has decided the most common use cases will be. That, of course, will be the kind of thing that doesn't impress a certain segment, who will dismiss the tablet as old tech and me-too ism, and have a lot to say about how the Apple faithful think Apple innovates when it just markets.
What could well make the tablet a success, however, are just those optimizations, plus relentless leveraging of the iTunes and App Stores, which give Apple a huge installed based of ready and willing credit card numbers. "Ease of use", after all, includes the whole process of acquiring, paying for and using media and software.
It's funny, because as Siracusa lays out, the parts are all there in plain site and don't require magic new Apple breakthroughs. It's just that making a really well thought out, fun to use tablet that drastically reduces the friction involved with getting a lot of stuff on the thing isn't teh sexy. It's just a matter of putting the pieces together in a way that works really well. Since Apple happens to be as good or better than anybody at putting the pieces together really well, I think one would be pretty shortsighted to dismiss their tablet as being pointless.
I disagree partially. At the very least I see Apple having something spectacular or surprising on the software side. And there should be at least one hardware innovation related to that "surprise" interface we've been hearing about.
Mainly, the WHY of why Apple would release the tablet. They're not doing it just because everyone expects it.
Looking at Apple?s history for the past decade I think the ?why? should not be taken for granted. I agree wholeheartedly that Apple isn?t simply going to release a product "just because". I wouldn?t expect the tablet to be unveiled unless Apple thinks it can make a viable market out of tablets.
I disagree partially. At the very least I see Apple having something spectacular or surprising on the software side. And there should be at least one hardware innovation related to that "surprise" interface we've been hearing about.
I suppose it depends on your definition of spectacular and surprising. It seems to me that a lot of what Apple does is about taking existing parts and making them work together much, much better than they previously have. So much better that they can seem like a whole new thing, which is where the confusion and ill-will regarding Apple's status as an innovator comes in.
I think Apple can make a beautifully engineered tablet that is not materially different than some of what has already been on the market, just better designed, better assembled and more thoughtfully worked out in its every particular. I think they can marry that to a UI that isn't startlingly different from the iPhone, just better optimized for a larger screen with some very carefully calibrated UI touches that will feel very natural and be a pleasure to use.
And I think the combination of that closely coupled hardware and software will be more than the some of its parts, and that the tablet will be a bit of a revelation. But I think it will achieve that without needing any marquee innovations or breakthroughs. When you think about it, it's actually much harder to make something that feels new and unprecedented out of existing parts than it is to just roll out entirely new tech, which is often impressive without being all that useful. That's what makes Apple bashers so crazy-- they can't understand where the appeal is, or what it is that Apple's doing that garners so much praise, because they think it's about new technology instead of new thinking.
That is my take on Clearwire. I hate to say this but I doubt your investment will go anywhere with the current management team inplace. I've found absolutely nothing to like about how that company is managed nor how their products where marketed. Frankly they make AT&T look ethical and progressive.
However like the subject said it is a great idea. I also haven't had much contact with them after getting that bad taste in my mouth. Maybe they can overcome the obvious management greed and desire to fleece their customers.
Dave
You're probably right about incompetent management, but things tend to change at companies if they neglect profitability or the customer, for that matter, for too long. Hopefully they'll stay in business long enough to fulfill their early promise.
I agree that the nomenclature is marketing but I think marketing is important to make sure there isn’t confusion. I think having two different OS X versions called Mac with a difference being one is labeled as Touch to indicate which apps will run it is confusing for the average customer.
I disagree, there could be a badge "Mac touch app" beside any Mac touch app, people would understand. Besides, it would have its own App Store, so you couldn't make this mistake even by accident. And its App Store would be so heavily marketed in presentations and videos - people would automatically assume that's where you go for Apps.
. It has virtual keyboard for text entry and a webcam for video conferencing."
I hope it has the ability to scan/photograph documents. I'm using the iSight to capture diagrams from a book which I am studying but the image resolution is poor, I'm not sure if it has focus or not. The iPhone 3G too has a crappy camera, a reason that I am selling it for a 3GS
I disagree, there could be a badge "Mac touch app" beside any Mac touch app, people would understand. Besides, it would have its own App Store, so you couldn't make this mistake even by accident. And its App Store would be so heavily marketed in presentations and videos - people would automatically assume that's where you go for Apps.
So my Mac Touch apps will work on my iMac?
I hope it has the ability to scan/photograph documents. I'm using the iSight to capture diagrams from a book which I am studying but the image resolution is poor, I'm not sure if it has focus or not. The iPhone 3G too has a crappy camera, a reason that I am selling it for a 3GS
That's an interesting request.
So my Mac Touch apps will work on my iMac?
Stop it.
That is my take on Clearwire. I hate to say this but I doubt your investment will go anywhere with the current management team inplace. I've found absolutely nothing to like about how that company is managed nor how their products where marketed. Frankly they make AT&T look ethical and progressive.
However like the subject said it is a great idea. I also haven't had much contact with them after getting that bad taste in my mouth. Maybe they can overcome the obvious management greed and desire to fleece their customers.
Dave
Something interesting happened today and Clearwire was singled out. Here's the article:
(Updated to add comment from a trade association and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.) By Brent Kendall and Amy Schatz WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Justice Department on Monday urged the Federal Communications Commission to promote competition for broadband services by reallocating available spectrum to wireless providers and auctioning it in a way that would favor new competitors over incumbents that now dominate the market for high-speed Internet. The department's comments, signed by its antitrust chief, Christine Varney, came in a 30-page written filing to the FCC, which is developing a national broadband plan due to Congress by Feb. 17. The scarcity of available airwaves is an obstacle to broadband competition, the Justice Department said in the filing. It argued that companies like Clearwire Corp. (CLWR), Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) and T-Mobile, which are trying to develop next-generation wireless broadband services, need more airwaves to compete with cable modem, DSL or fiber optic-based services. "Stated simply, without access to sufficient spectrum, a firm cannot provide state-of-the-art wireless broadband services," the department said. "Reallocating spectrum that is being underutilized would encourage the deployment of wireless services and could help to make such services more competitive with wireline offerings." Notably, the department's antitrust regulators argued that if the FCC auctions off more airwaves, it should question whether selling them to incumbent carriers like AT&T Inc. (T) or Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) is the wisest choice. They said the reallocated spectrum should be auctioned in a manner that puts incumbents' bids at a disadvantage because they could seek to buy up the additional space as a way to cut off potential rivals. "There are substantial advantages to deploying newly available spectrum in order to enable additional providers to mount stronger challenges to broadband incumbents," the department said. In separate comments Monday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency of the Commerce Department, said it agreed with the Justice Department's position. Wireless carriers have generally supported the idea of devoting more airwaves for wireless broadband services. The largest wireless phone companies--AT&T and Verizon Wireless--would likely oppose any government effort to ensure they can't bid for more airwaves. An AT&T spokesman had no immediate comment, while a Verizon spokesman did not return a call for comment. Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at CTIA, the wireless industry's trade group, said there were "a lot of positives" in the Justice Department's comments. "We're excited that they see the primary tool for promoting competition as spectrum, and there's no time to spare in getting more on the market," he said. The department didn't specifically say incumbent wireless carriers should be barred from leasing more airwaves but instead presented several different options, he said. When a phone company like AT&T offers both wired and wireless Internet service in an area, it doesn't have much incentive to compete with itself, said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer advocacy group. "If you have a view that says you need four or more competitors in this space. spectrum is the area that gives you the necessary competition," he said. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and other agency officials say the popularity of Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) iPhone--and the problems AT&T has experienced coping with increased demand--demonstrates why the U.S. needs to devote more airwaves for wireless broadband services. The need to identify and reallocate airwaves for wireless broadband will be a major conclusion of the FCC's coming national broadband plan, a blueprint for what the government can do to ensure all Americans have access to high-speed, affordable Internet service. In the fall, FCC officials floated an idea of reallocating some airwaves now held by TV stations. Most TV stations don't use all of the airwaves they've been given by the government, although some are considering using a portion of those airwaves to offer mobile TV signals for cellphones and other wireless gadgets. Some broadcasters have objected to the idea of losing some of their airwaves--even if they're compensated for those airwaves by the government--and have been lobbying against the plan. FCC officials say they're also looking at other airwaves--both private and government-held--which could be used for wireless broadband instead. FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield said, "We agree with the Justice Department about the need for more spectrum for mobile broadband and look forward to reviewing their comments about the best way to accommodate that growing demand." -By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; [email protected] Click here to go to Dow Jones NewsPlus, a web front page of today's most important business and market news, analysis and commentary: http://www.djnewsplus.com/nae/al?rnd...%2Fs6D0w%3D%3D. You can use this link on the day this article is published and the following day. (END) Dow Jones Newswires 01-04-10 1613ET Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Hopefully this will add another positive bit of momentum to the stock tomorrow. Today was a barnburner.
I disagree, there could be a badge "Mac touch app" beside any Mac touch app, people would understand. Besides, it would have its own App Store, so you couldn't make this mistake even by accident. And its App Store would be so heavily marketed in presentations and videos - people would automatically assume that's where you go for Apps.
iSlate apps will not run on anything other than iSlate. However iPod touch and iPhone apps will run on iSlate.
Mac apps will run only on the Mac.
I disagree partially. At the very least I see Apple having something spectacular or surprising on the software side. And there should be at least one hardware innovation related to that "surprise" interface we've been hearing about.
Looking at Apple?s history for the past decade I think the ?why? should not be taken for granted. I agree wholeheartedly that Apple isn?t simply going to release a product "just because". I wouldn?t expect the tablet to be unveiled unless Apple thinks it can make a viable market out of tablets.
The funny thing is that everyone else will be going all-bananas-out on doing tablets at CES. Actual number that will be sold, is anyone's guess. Those are all probably random pokes in the dark.
Apple will give tablets a significant reason to exist, then, the copying will begin, those tablets released at CES will be modified or thrown out entirely.
Because to this date no one has demonstrated why I, an average IT consumer, would need or desire a tablet. I wonder if CES will change that. But Apple most likely will, should it release a tablet.
Sorry, it's a long post, but here's my guess....
Computers, desktops and laptops are not really consumer products and never have been. Their origins date back to professional computer uses like Word Processing and Spreadsheets.
Despite attempts to make them easier to use. Personal Computers remain tools for professionals, which have only made a handful of concessions for non-professional usage.
The "professional tool" PC is not bad thing. We professionals like to create content. We want keyboards, and we want an exposed file system, and we want to plug stuff in. These are essential aspects to the personal computer and can never be dropped.
But these requirements come with three unavoidable problems.
1) The form factor. Physical bulk. Professional computers simply must have keyboards. They are useless without them. And even the slimmest computers are bulky when opened.
2) Power. You need a desktop-like CPU to run desktop apps. This means a low batter life.
3) Complexity. The desktop experience demands a windowing WIMP interface. With file systems, and settings and all.
For us technophiles, a full OS and GUI is something we hardly think of. It is a given. But such systems requires a lengthy boot process, and a level of technical expertise which is not universal. Some basic tasks are ridiculously difficult.
The flexible nature of software also brings with it the risk of viruses or configuration nightmares, which non-technical people just cannot solve. Your Granny can still not use your Mac. Your uncle can use a PC, but he has to trade it in every 18 months because it is "broken".
So can the computer be "re-thunk" for a non-professional market? Can you design a device for a market that cares more about consuming media than creating media? If you see kids with laptops, they watch movies, send text-like messages on facebook - they never open a file-system. They don't want to.
Perhaps there is a demand for a consumer-oriented computer appliance? It would offer all those computer benefits we get on the notebook, but without these problems.
So the a CE computer would
1) Have a form factor which lends itself to media-consumption, reading, portability, bagability. A robust, slim, screen format which would take-up less space than a magazine. This means dumping the rarely needed keyboard. This means a chamfered edge. This means a scratch-proof screen. A round-edged slab that can take abuse.
2) Switch to a processor and GPU designed for portable hardware. Offering long battery life. Good performance, and offload heavy lifting to the GPU where possible. 8 hours use would be good. A couple of days stand-by would be handy too.
3) Create a user experience around media consumption and not media creation. This means a brain-dead easy UI. We are talking chimpanzee-level intelligence to operate. Want to Facebook. Poke Facebook. Want to watch a movie. Poke the movie. Want to videochat with the grandkids. Poke the grandkids pic, or the camera pic. Either will get you there. And it should not only be simple, it should be fun. Every action would be rewarded with clear visual feedback.
The market is full of people who already want to do this stuff, but currently are compelled to buy a pro device that offers too much. Too much complexity. Too much bulk. They buy notebooks but secretly they are confused why the screens are blank, and the useful stuff is hidden in a menu. They don't know why sometimes it does not work. Or what some of those settings do.
A consumer-targetted device has the potential to split the computer market in two. With professional media-creation computers on one side, and consumer media consumption computers on the other.
Done well, and priced like a netbook, such a device could get to consumers who previously would never consider buying a computer. It could sell into schools to replace textbooks. It would make the Kindle look dull. It would make netbooks look like something from a previous century. Granny would have one as a photoframe that lets her Skype the grandkids.
And for us professionals who love our notebooks. We will keep on buying them. We demand the flexibility. But when we are on the commute, we might look enviously at all those dullards reading the newspaper on their tablets.
C.
So can the computer be "re-thunk" for a non-professional market? Can you design a device for a market that cares more about consuming media than creating media. If you see kids with laptops, they watch movies, send text-like messages on facebook - they never open a file-system. They don't want to.
Perhaps there is a demand for a consumer-oriented computer appliance?
Very nice thoughts Carniphage, well done.
I still wonder if it'd be capable of running a full (redesigned) iPhoto, iMovie, Pages....