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 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.
I agree with John on the point that you'll buy Mac touch instead of a MacBook, I see it replacing the MacBook for most people like I have been saying for some time. It may need a Air-like USB door in that case though, which I suppose isn't a big deal for Apple to add. I furthermore reiterate I see the price being $999 or more.
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.
John S. Article pretty much reflects what I've been saying and expect. The only thing that I disagree with is the performance of the PA Semi chip. I'm fully expecting bleeding edge performance. If that wasn't Apples goal they would never have purchased PA as there is plenty of suitable ARM hardware already on the market.
So I'm expecting a PA chip that is very focused integration wise. Keeping the pheripheral set minimal reduces wasted die space freeing it up for other uses. One of those uses might be a full video buffer memory for the GPU. That is one possibility but at 40 nm there are many possibilities. For example SMP support which would have a dramatic impact on performance.
Quote:
They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.
Yep, but I lean more to John S's view than the other. I'm very much of the opinion that the writing is already on the wall, all you need to do is look for it. However I do need to state that Apple has unlimited freedom to expand Cocoa Touch in any way they want. That would include new input methods.
Quote:
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.
Interesting your comments about ports as it is almost a given there will be less there than many of us want. In the end I would like to see Apple offer up a commercial version that supports snapping on accessory hardware like barcode readers, IR thermometer or what ever the imagination can come up with.
Given that that is unlikely I would like to see at least one USB host port using a standard connector. Of course the dock port would be there for slave access. Finally a general purpose switch to supplement the home button, that would work as a shutter release in the camera app but would otherwise be general purpose.
Quote:
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.
This I'm not so clear on. I fully expect more "stuff" than the current iPhone implementation. There will be frameworks to support books and albums for example. Apple could also surprise us with new input methods like voice or handwriting recognition. The tablet needs something more than touch screen keyboards for input of text.
Quote:
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.
I found the above perplexing. Certainly you can see the innovation in the iPhone right? Making something profoundly easier to use is innovation. I mean what are you expecting some sort of cybernetic cyborg implant to go along with each tablet to effect a new man-machine interface?
Quote:
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.
This is certainly true. App store has driven iPhone sales in a beautiful fashion. In fact I don't think iPhone would be the success it is today without app store.
Quote:
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.
True again but we really won't know until it debuts. The problem is there are millions of ways to put that tablet together. It is the combination of features and access that will make or break the unit. Personally if they make the unit to cloud centric and make it difficult for users to access the unit then there will be problems. Finally it needs to support multitasking of user apps. In any event I agree in the sense that you can't dismiss the thing until you see it and experience it.
Dave
PS
One more thing, the Johns are expecting a modestly performant unit with nothing dramatic to be said for the CPU. Right now I see this as a mistake, because I believe they (Apple) will leverage GCD and OpenCL on the unit. While I expect the ARM chip to be industry leading and SMP capable there are already plenty of competing chips on the market. Apple will likely take their small bleeding edge advantage and leverage it heavily with the software tech that GCD and OpenCL provide. So like iPhone the tablet will compete very well against similar hardware. I suspect people will be very pleased with the performance, especially for a battery powered device.
The device does seem to run Mac OS X, which Ireland really wanted, but he?s been claiming a 10.1? tablet for such a long time and has had pretty really nice mockups (sans the Mac OS X UI) that I think he deserves some accolades if his longtime vision is even half right.
I agree with John on the point that you'll buy Mac touch instead of a MacBook, I see it replacing the MacBook for most people like I have been saying for some time. It may need a Air-like USB door in that case though, which I suppose isn't a big deal for Apple to add. I furthermore reiterate I see the price being $999 or more.
I keep seeing these references to these very high prices and have to ask why? I mean do you really think people will piss away $1000 for a tablet running iPhone OS?
Look at what the hardware is likely to cost Apple and the see if that price is justified. For example the SoC is likely to be dirt cheap probably around $30 each and that might be high. A RAM chip would be needed and a small number of external and analog parts. The biggest variable in motherboard cost will be the Flash memory of course, but in the end it would be easy for Apple to have the logic board go out the door for far less than $100. Add another $100 or so for the LCD, case and battery so maybe the whole thing costs $200 to produce, apple could the easily sell it for $400.
As for that SoC, $30 could be rather high. It all depends upon licensing costs, the area of the chip and the yields. In any event people have to realize that ARM has been serving the embedded world for years, that world does not do over priced Intel hardware. So the logic board will not be that expensive.
It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side,
I?m not so sure of this. Perhaps it won?t be obvious to many but I think the way we interact with the tablet is going to set a new standard and that takes a lot of innovation in the lower-end of the software.
Quote:
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.
Ain?t that the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I agree with John on the point that you'll buy Mac touch instead of a MacBook,
I?m not convinced of this. I think it will be an accessory device not a Mac replacement. I don?t think it will use Mac apps and I have a feeling that it will sync through iTunes.
I'm not smart yet, but I hope to be soon. For now, I'm just an investor.
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.
I keep seeing these references to these very high prices and have to ask why? I mean do you really think people will piss away $1000 for a tablet running iPhone OS?
It will not run iPhone OS. The iPhone already does that. I see it running Mac OS X touch, and redefining the computer world, therefore it will be perceived to be worth the cost. Not to mention it will have a high quality touch screen display, very expensive SSD storage and a solid unibody chassis. I think it will be aluminum, with a web cam and a decent processor (relatively speaking) etc.
So do you expect it to run any Mac OS X app since you think it will be called a Mac? I don?t see how this is possible. 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. They have done none of this and calling it a Mac will simply cause confusion for the average user.
?So my Apple Tablet runs Mac OS X, and my iMac runs Mac OS X but I can?t run any Mac app on my Apple Tablet because it?s an ARM CPU and even if it did run I?d have to use a stylus because the app is designed to be used with a precision pointer??
I hope you are wrong because that doesnt? sound like a good product to me.
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.
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.
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.
After reading what you say here I won't waste my time reading his crap.
Old versions of the Mac OS won't run today's apps, this will be similar. You're looking down a narrow path.
But old versions are old versions, not parallel versions. If you tell me that an iMac and iTablet use Mac OS X 10.6 ?Snow Leopard? I?m going to assume that they run apps that are designed for Snow Leopard. The only caveat is the app requirements could be retrofitted with a ?will not work on tablet? notification, but that is not exactly the best method for handling it.
I?m still going for syncing via iTunes and running a *new* branch of OS X that is neither Mac OS or iPhone OS but a hybrid utilizing features of both with a completely new UI, not even close to looking like Mac OS X.
I simply don?t see how this how a straight port of Mac OS X with a touchscreen interface can be useable with fingers. Just look at ModBook or any Windows-based tablet to see why running a desktop OS on a tablet is recipe for disaster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
After reading what you say here I won't waste my time reading his crap.
Fair enough. I?ll try to post some quotes next time so you can laugh without having to click.
This remains to be seen. In the end it's all marketing, and "Mac touch" is great marketing.
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.
Plus, I think when I first saw your mockup the common idea was a typical notebook chip, not an ARM chip. This was also well before the success of the App Store. I think Apple will want to make the Tablet OS SDK uses a very similar system, perhaps even having a windowed simulator so users can already have a built-in app collection from the iPhone and iPod Touch.
Comments
I'm hoping for two things.
1. The thing actually exists.
2. Wimax!
You and me both... especially as a (full disclosure) CLWR investor.
You and me both... especially as a (full disclosure) CLWR investor.
You're smart, well you might prove to be
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 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.
I agree with John on the point that you'll buy Mac touch instead of a MacBook, I see it replacing the MacBook for most people like I have been saying for some time. It may need a Air-like USB door in that case though, which I suppose isn't a big deal for Apple to add. I furthermore reiterate I see the price being $999 or more.
You're smart, well you might prove to be
I'm not smart yet, but I hope to be soon. For now, I'm just an investor.
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.
John S. Article pretty much reflects what I've been saying and expect. The only thing that I disagree with is the performance of the PA Semi chip. I'm fully expecting bleeding edge performance. If that wasn't Apples goal they would never have purchased PA as there is plenty of suitable ARM hardware already on the market.
So I'm expecting a PA chip that is very focused integration wise. Keeping the pheripheral set minimal reduces wasted die space freeing it up for other uses. One of those uses might be a full video buffer memory for the GPU. That is one possibility but at 40 nm there are many possibilities. For example SMP support which would have a dramatic impact on performance.
They're not entirely on the same page, but where they overlap tells the tale, IMO.
Yep, but I lean more to John S's view than the other. I'm very much of the opinion that the writing is already on the wall, all you need to do is look for it. However I do need to state that Apple has unlimited freedom to expand Cocoa Touch in any way they want. That would include new input methods.
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.
Interesting your comments about ports as it is almost a given there will be less there than many of us want. In the end I would like to see Apple offer up a commercial version that supports snapping on accessory hardware like barcode readers, IR thermometer or what ever the imagination can come up with.
Given that that is unlikely I would like to see at least one USB host port using a standard connector. Of course the dock port would be there for slave access. Finally a general purpose switch to supplement the home button, that would work as a shutter release in the camera app but would otherwise be general purpose.
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.
This I'm not so clear on. I fully expect more "stuff" than the current iPhone implementation. There will be frameworks to support books and albums for example. Apple could also surprise us with new input methods like voice or handwriting recognition. The tablet needs something more than touch screen keyboards for input of text.
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.
I found the above perplexing. Certainly you can see the innovation in the iPhone right? Making something profoundly easier to use is innovation. I mean what are you expecting some sort of cybernetic cyborg implant to go along with each tablet to effect a new man-machine interface?
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.
This is certainly true. App store has driven iPhone sales in a beautiful fashion. In fact I don't think iPhone would be the success it is today without app store.
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.
True again but we really won't know until it debuts. The problem is there are millions of ways to put that tablet together. It is the combination of features and access that will make or break the unit. Personally if they make the unit to cloud centric and make it difficult for users to access the unit then there will be problems. Finally it needs to support multitasking of user apps. In any event I agree in the sense that you can't dismiss the thing until you see it and experience it.
Dave
PS
One more thing, the Johns are expecting a modestly performant unit with nothing dramatic to be said for the CPU. Right now I see this as a mistake, because I believe they (Apple) will leverage GCD and OpenCL on the unit. While I expect the ARM chip to be industry leading and SMP capable there are already plenty of competing chips on the market. Apple will likely take their small bleeding edge advantage and leverage it heavily with the software tech that GCD and OpenCL provide. So like iPhone the tablet will compete very well against similar hardware. I suspect people will be very pleased with the performance, especially for a battery powered device.
Dave
The device does seem to run Mac OS X, which Ireland really wanted, but he?s been claiming a 10.1? tablet for such a long time and has had pretty really nice mockups (sans the Mac OS X UI) that I think he deserves some accolades if his longtime vision is even half right.
Doesn't look to be Mac OS X given the rumors.
I agree with John on the point that you'll buy Mac touch instead of a MacBook, I see it replacing the MacBook for most people like I have been saying for some time. It may need a Air-like USB door in that case though, which I suppose isn't a big deal for Apple to add. I furthermore reiterate I see the price being $999 or more.
I keep seeing these references to these very high prices and have to ask why? I mean do you really think people will piss away $1000 for a tablet running iPhone OS?
Look at what the hardware is likely to cost Apple and the see if that price is justified. For example the SoC is likely to be dirt cheap probably around $30 each and that might be high. A RAM chip would be needed and a small number of external and analog parts. The biggest variable in motherboard cost will be the Flash memory of course, but in the end it would be easy for Apple to have the logic board go out the door for far less than $100. Add another $100 or so for the LCD, case and battery so maybe the whole thing costs $200 to produce, apple could the easily sell it for $400.
As for that SoC, $30 could be rather high. It all depends upon licensing costs, the area of the chip and the yields. In any event people have to realize that ARM has been serving the embedded world for years, that world does not do over priced Intel hardware. So the logic board will not be that expensive.
Dave
It also won't feature any jaw dropping innovations on the software side,
I?m not so sure of this. Perhaps it won?t be obvious to many but I think the way we interact with the tablet is going to set a new standard and that takes a lot of innovation in the lower-end of the software.
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.
I agree with John on the point that you'll buy Mac touch instead of a MacBook,
I?m not convinced of this. I think it will be an accessory device not a Mac replacement. I don?t think it will use Mac apps and I have a feeling that it will sync through iTunes.
PS: Which ports do you think it will have?
I'm not smart yet, but I hope to be soon. For now, I'm just an investor.
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
I keep seeing these references to these very high prices and have to ask why? I mean do you really think people will piss away $1000 for a tablet running iPhone OS?
It will not run iPhone OS. The iPhone already does that. I see it running Mac OS X touch, and redefining the computer world, therefore it will be perceived to be worth the cost. Not to mention it will have a high quality touch screen display, very expensive SSD storage and a solid unibody chassis. I think it will be aluminum, with a web cam and a decent processor (relatively speaking) etc.
I see it running Mac OS X touch...
So do you expect it to run any Mac OS X app since you think it will be called a Mac? I don?t see how this is possible. 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. They have done none of this and calling it a Mac will simply cause confusion for the average user.I hope you are wrong because that doesnt? sound like a good product to me.
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.
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.
So do you expect it to run any Mac OS X app since you think it will be called a Mac?
Old versions of the Mac OS won't run today's apps, this will be similar. You're looking down a narrow path.
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.
After reading what you say here I won't waste my time reading his crap.
Old versions of the Mac OS won't run today's apps, this will be similar. You're looking down a narrow path.
But old versions are old versions, not parallel versions. If you tell me that an iMac and iTablet use Mac OS X 10.6 ?Snow Leopard? I?m going to assume that they run apps that are designed for Snow Leopard. The only caveat is the app requirements could be retrofitted with a ?will not work on tablet? notification, but that is not exactly the best method for handling it.
I?m still going for syncing via iTunes and running a *new* branch of OS X that is neither Mac OS or iPhone OS but a hybrid utilizing features of both with a completely new UI, not even close to looking like Mac OS X.
I simply don?t see how this how a straight port of Mac OS X with a touchscreen interface can be useable with fingers. Just look at ModBook or any Windows-based tablet to see why running a desktop OS on a tablet is recipe for disaster.
After reading what you say here I won't waste my time reading his crap.
Fair enough. I?ll try to post some quotes next time so you can laugh without having to click.
But old versions are old versions, not parallel versions.
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."
Mac touch apps won't run on non-touch Macs, and non-Mac touch apps won't run on Mac touch?s.
That is why it won?t be called be a Mac in any way, shape or form.
That is why it won’t be called be a Mac in any way, shape or form.
This remains to be seen. In the end it's all marketing, and "Mac touch" is great marketing.
This remains to be seen. In the end it's all marketing, and "Mac touch" is great marketing.
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.
Plus, I think when I first saw your mockup the common idea was a typical notebook chip, not an ARM chip. This was also well before the success of the App Store. I think Apple will want to make the Tablet OS SDK uses a very similar system, perhaps even having a windowed simulator so users can already have a built-in app collection from the iPhone and iPod Touch.
A little over 3 weeks and we may find out.