If you really need to run Mac applications, then buy a Mac.
Except that for those who can't afford one, they do exactly what you did and hackintosh a netbook. Apple don't like that trend especially when that market is quite substantial. Had the slate been on sale before you opted for a netbook, would you have bought the ipod slate? I don't expect that question can be answered until we know more about what the slate does but assume it only does the same as an iphone/ipod. Can you do on an iphone what you use the netbook for?
I think people like that feeling of owning a full Mac system. If you pay the same amount as you would for a netbook but only get an ipod then it's going to feel overpriced. Some people will simply never justify to themselves spending $1000 on a portable computer so they will never experience OS X outside of a hackintosh.
Of course, Apple removed Atom support from OS X so if they went the netbook route, they'd have to put it back in again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
The tiny iPhone keyboard is accessible to two thumbs. Where would you place it on a 10" tablet so that I could type in the same way?
I type with fingers on the iphone keyboard - I hold the phone with my left hand and poke the keyboard with the index finger on my right hand. If you stand cradling a slate, that's how you'd type. I guess they could have an option to split it into the corners but it would be awkward to hold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Mac apps respond to keypresses 24-7 should the keyboard be on-screen permanently?
I think most computer use is or can be done with the mouse and replaced with touch. The only times you really need the keyboard is when typing, so it can pop-up when a text box is activated. Command keys are rarely used except for copy/paste and they all have menu equivalents.
A Gizmodo article reminded me of the Apple patent for typing on screen - note the example in the drawing is a word processor and it has a Mac window bar at the top:
The full keyboard just looks like it uses up too much screen space unnecessarily. I'd rather it be full width in portrait mode but 1/3 of the height of the screen at most and only have the same keys as the wireless Apple keyboard. In landscape, the same height but all the keys from the full Apple keyboard.
Hold up the full Apple keyboard against the bottom of a 20-22" screen and it leaves plenty of screen space. You can also get away with just 4 rows of keys not 6. Still definitely not always on-screen though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Oh and one more thing. Content needs to be stored on something. We need a storage device. Perhaps the Time Capsule could turn into a Media Vault?
I'd like to see them improve streaming content. I rented a movie from itunes recently and was disappointed to see that not only was the movie 2GB in size but I had to wait for the full download before watching it on the iphone. The movie itself was over 2 hours long and the download took about 2 hours.
When I get in from work and sit down to some entertainment while I eat, I don't want to watch a loading bar even though Apple's loading bars are more entertaining than most.
Streaming content is the one thing that would sell Apple's service above people downloading torrents as well as a subscription. If I could pay a reasonable monthly fee (or pay by the minute up to a price cap) and have instant access to my favorite TV shows and they started playing instantly, it's ideal for me. BBC iplayer has done it perfectly. That same service for films and a wide variety of shows would be a big hit.
Pay-per-minute (how streaming adult sites work) means that if I don't like a film and stop watching within 20 minutes, I don't feel nearly as ripped off as I would if I'd bought or rented the whole film.
As for personal storage, I think you're right, the Time Machine could be a media server and would allow multiple tablets in a home to connect to content., e.g shared music and purchases.
The only times you really need the keyboard is when typing, so it can pop-up when a text box is activated. Command keys are rarely used except for copy/paste and they all have menu equivalents.
I don't think this is viable at all. Think about specific apps.
Mail, Skype, iChat, Word, Pages, Final Draft, Scrivener, Excel, Numbers - all need continuous keyboard use. Even Photoshop and Final Cut require constant key presses for modifiers.
Every Mac program would need a permanent on-screen keyboard. Sharing the screen with the application.
It does not stop there. Many graphics programs use mouse movements to control parameters without relating this to an on-screen mouse cursor. Trying to re-map touch inputs to this would be un-intuitive and confusing.
There's really no possibility of un-modified Mac apps working in a satisfactory way on a tablet user interface.
If any company can create demand for a product, be it an MP3 player, smartphone or tablet computer, it's Apple. Like I posted in another thread, I wouldn't bet against Apple escpecially given its recent track record.
I don't think this is viable at all. Think about specific apps.
Mail, Skype, iChat, Word, Pages, Final Draft, Scrivener, Excel, Numbers - all need continuous keyboard use. Even Photoshop and Final Cut require constant key presses for modifiers.
Every Mac program would need a permanent on-screen keyboard. Sharing the screen with the application.
It does not stop there. Many graphics programs use mouse movements to control parameters without relating this to an on-screen mouse cursor. Trying to re-map touch inputs to this would be un-intuitive and confusing.
There's really no possibility of un-modified Mac apps working in a satisfactory way on a tablet user interface.
But that's assuming people will use the slate as a main Final Cut machine or whatever. You wouldn't even use a netbook for Final Cut because the screen is too small. If you did want to run those apps on the slate, you'd prop up the screen and plug in an external keyboard/mouse and possibly display.
Even better, the slate could turn into a gesture pad while running the apps on the external screen.
The Apple apps iChat, Mail, Pages, Numbers etc can be reworked and people will see them as the most efficient apps for regular use but the added flexibility is there when necessary.
Apple can come up with various additions like shortcut panels for each app to save having a full keyboard visible.
Going beyond the imagining how OS X would work with touch - here it is:
It seems to work pretty well. Tweak the UI a bit for scale and it's a great way to interact with OS X.
The idea of an iphone-like UI is fine but the slate could easily serve a dual purpose and sway people away from the hackintosh netbooks. I have a feeling the device will be expensive - if the ipod touch 64GB is $400 then I'd expect the slate to be at least that and netbooks are already cheaper.
Option A: 10" netbook, hackintosh OS X, all the full-featured apps, manage itunes content, productivity, Flash online, wide support for video formats, import pictures from a camera, browse them and upload to flickr. $299
Option B: 10" ipod slate, basic apps (even though there's a lot), no productivity or control over content as it's a slave device. $499?
Touch interaction isn't enough and $499 is a lot for magazine content and books.
Why would anyone want to run resource-intensive applications like Final Cut on a tablet computer? I think we can just forget about that being anything like the purpose of the device, and that even assumes we know almost nothing else about it. I think we can also know that Apple's competition is not going to be the cheapest dreck netbook made running hacked OSX (which at that price, is also pirated OSX). How big is the market for this? Miniscule, at best.
Apple isn't going to release a product that they don't believe is a game changer. I think we should all be prepared to accept at least that much about it in advance.
But that's assuming people will use the slate as a main Final Cut machine or whatever. You wouldn't even use a netbook for Final Cut because the screen is too small. If you did want to run those apps on the slate, you'd prop up the screen and plug in an external keyboard/mouse and possibly display.
Even better, the slate could turn into a gesture pad while running the apps on the external screen.
Marvin, I think the device you want is a netbook running OS X!
I have one, and I really recommend it. I also think Apple would be nuts to sell such a machine, because it would cannibalise sales of full-price notebooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The Apple apps iChat, Mail, Pages, Numbers etc can be reworked and people will see them as the most efficient apps for regular use but the added flexibility is there when necessary.
Apple can come up with various additions like shortcut panels for each app to save having a full keyboard visible.
Which is sort of my point. Un-modified Mac apps will be lousy on a tablet. Which is why I am totally certain that this device will not support them. But there may well be tablet apps which have direct Mac equivalents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Option A: 10" netbook, hackintosh OS X, all the full-featured apps, manage itunes content, productivity, Flash online, wide support for video formats, import pictures from a camera, browse them and upload to flickr. $299
Option B: 10" ipod slate, basic apps (even though there's a lot), no productivity or control over content as it's a slave device. $499?
Touch interaction isn't enough and $499 is a lot for magazine content and books.
Option A is not an option. At least as a product sold by Apple. But it is something hackers can do. The experience is far from perfect. The small track pads are a real-weak point. But Snow Leopard runs exceptionally well. The Atom machines can not play 720p video. They are weak at media. But great for email and light writing tasks.
I love my MacbookWind. And you are totally correct. People wanting productivity are not going to be happy with option B. But in my opinion, the world is full of people who want to avoid doing productive tasks. Apple likes to add little taglines to each product. I think the one for the slate is going to be something like "Screw Productivity!"
Option B needs to be compared against other entertainment devices. Not against Netbooks but against the (dreadful) Kindle, against PMPs, in-car DVD players, games consoles, portable TVs, digital photo frames, even against BluRay players. It is a completely new class of general purpose device. It does all of the above and then follows up with web browsing, email, social networking tool to boot. $499 is starting to look like a steal.
A self-contained slab-of-a-device is deployable in a way that fold-open netbooks simply are not. No one would try to read a netbook on a bus. No one would give flimsy netbooks to school pupils.
It's worth remembering what Tim Cook said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimCook
"When I look at what is being sold in the netbook space today, I see cramped keyboards, terrible software, junky hardware, very small screens, and just not a consumer experience, and not something that we would put the Mac brand on, quite frankly. And so, it's not a space as it exists today that we are interested in, nor do we believe that customers in the long term would be interested in. It's a segment we would choose not to play in."
"That said, we do look at the space and are interested to see our customers' response to it...Of course, if we find a way where we can deliver an innovative product that really makes a contribution, then we will do that and we have some interesting ideas in the space."
I read that as. "We don't see this as Mac territory. We will not take the Mac into netbook land. But people do things with netbooks which we *are* good at. And we might try to create a new product for that sector."
Why would anyone want to run resource-intensive applications like Final Cut on a tablet computer?
That came from my post I am afraid. The point I was making was that *ALL* Mac OS X programs require constant keyboard access. Word-processors, spreadsheets, and even programs which are ostensibly 100% graphical.
Therefore any attempt to run a Mac app on a touch-based tablet would need to have a full-time onscreen keyboard.
That came from my post I am afraid. The point I was making was that *ALL* Mac OS X programs require constant keyboard access. Word-processors, spreadsheets, and even programs which are ostensibly 100% graphical.
Therefore any attempt to run a Mac app on a touch-based tablet would need to have a full-time onscreen keyboard.
I see. I have been skimming some. I think if Apple does create a tablet-based version of iWork, as is presently rumored, that they won't do so without solving this problem in some more elegant fashion than what you seem to be anticipating.
Why would anyone want to run resource-intensive applications like Final Cut on a tablet computer?
Not many but that wasn't really the original point. The point is simply that people do like to have the ability to run full-featured apps. If I sold you a Mac and said you could only use Dashboard, you'd feel the machine was underused. A netbook is around the same speed as an old powerbook and people did actually run Final Cut on those.
Value comes from different areas: the amount of things you can do, the efficiency they get done and the importance of the tasks. OS X x86 with a tweaked UI offers more value IMO than ARM iphone OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I think we can also know that Apple's competition is not going to be the cheapest dreck netbook made running hacked OSX (which at that price, is also pirated OSX). How big is the market for this? Miniscule, at best.
The netbook market is huge - equal to the iphone/ipod market and triple the size of the Mac market. If Apple hit 1/3 of them, they double their Mac marketshare.
Now, as for the more specific Hackintosh netbook market, no one can say. There are figures here that suggest hackintoshes are about 15% of the Mac market and not all netbooks:
You can't really say that it's not a big market from that though as it's not officially supported and more technical to setup than most people can manage.
and it's a good market to gain wider adoption of OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carniphage
I have one, and I really recommend it. I also think Apple would be nuts to sell such a machine, because it would cannibalise sales of full-price notebooks.
Maybe but Core 2 Duo machines are at least 3 times faster than Atom and have bigger displays. Macbooks don't cannibalize Macbook Pros to the point where it's an issue for Apple. You can't even play 720p without Ion as you mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carniphage
I think the one for the slate is going to be something like "Screw Productivity!"
But what will you spend so much time using it for? Around the house, you will watch movies on a big screen. Browsing is an option but I kinda like a big screen for that too. I'd personally like to be able to sort out my photos and music collection on it but it can't do that if it's a slave device. I can't sort photos efficiently on a netbook because I can't put it in portrait mode nor can I swipe/pinch-zoom/rotate etc.
"Kindle, PMPs, in-car DVD players, games consoles, portable TVs, digital photo frames, even against BluRay players"
Those are all for tasks you expect to pay very little for though. Given that the 64GB ipod touch is $400, can we assume a 10" touch slate with similar but newer innards will be less? That's already $100 more than a netbook.
Also, it won't be e-ink so not quite as suited for reading as Kindle (though I personally don't mind), it's too big to compete as a PMP, it's too expensive to let the kids use for an in-car movie player, gaming yes but there's still not enough in that area.
I see it as being a much more functional Kindle but ebook readers have only sold 3 million units and if it comes in at twice the price, it doesn't seem like a compelling purchase. It will be the PS3 of the ebook readers. Better design, faster, more features bundled but the PS3 still sells half as many units as the XBox in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carniphage
I read that as. "We don't see this as Mac territory. We will not take the Mac into netbook land. But people do things with netbooks which we *are* good at. And we might try to create a new product for that sector."
I think you will probably be correct but I don't think the device will be as useful nor as popular unless it does more - I think as an iphone OS device, it will sell like the ATV. I love the iphone because even though the apps are poor and the cost is high, it's a pocket music player, a decent phone, good for texting, has internet everywhere I go, has maps and GPS, has a camera (a rubbish one but it works with enough light), has email, calendars synced up at work and some books for light reading and a handful of decent apps. It does more or less all you describe the slate should do, it just needs a big screen dock.
Apple just needs to ship the 4G iphone with the ARM Cortex A9 and the latest PowerVR GPU and ship some 10" screens with a dock. Buy a 32GB ipod + screen for $399, maybe $499 and you get two devices in one.
Otherwise, the slate should become the main companion to an ipod/iphone that lets people on low incomes manage their content and do light productivity without having to deal with the cheap PC. It removes the dependence on the Windows PC for these families. This requires it to be Atom-based.
Not many but that wasn't really the original point. The point is simply that people do like to have the ability to run full-featured apps. If I sold you a Mac and said you could only use Dashboard, you'd feel the machine was underused. A netbook is around the same speed as an old powerbook and people did actually run Final Cut on those.
Value comes from different areas: the amount of things you can do, the efficiency they get done and the importance of the tasks. OS X x86 with a tweaked UI offers more value IMO than ARM iphone OS.
I realize, but again I think we need to wrap our minds around the concept that the tablet is not going to be a Mac, it's not going to be sold as a Mac, nor is it going to be marketed as a direct answer to netbooks.
Quote:
The netbook market is huge - equal to the iphone/ipod market and triple the size of the Mac market. If Apple hit 1/3 of them, they double their Mac marketshare.
Now, as for the more specific Hackintosh netbook market, no one can say. There are figures here that suggest hackintoshes are about 15% of the Mac market and not all netbooks:
You can't really say that it's not a big market from that though as it's not officially supported and more technical to setup than most people can manage.
I think these numbers are extremely dubious and are based on at least two unsupported suppositions. I would be extremely surprised if hacked Macs are anywhere close to 15% of the Mac "market" since they really appeal only to tinkerers who like to do this sort of thing. And to repeat, my point was, I don't think Apple's real competition is $299 netbooks.
The netbook market is huge - equal to the iphone/ipod market and triple the size of the Mac market. If Apple hit 1/3 of them, they double their Mac marketshare.
That is not right.
Or at least that sort of thinking requires a bit of critical analysis.
The amount of profit on a typical netbook sale is around $15 per unit. Sometimes less.
If you compare this to an iPhone the profit is around $250-$300.
In terms of profits, 1 x iPhone = 15-20 x netbooks.
This is why Apple don't care about marketshare by units.
If you compare this to an iPhone the profit is around $250-$300.
In terms of profits, 1 x iPhone = 15-20 x netbooks.
That's assuming Apple prices the slate the same as a netbook. I don't think they will.
A netbook can be bought for $299. For $499-599, Apple make $200-300 profit per device on the same/similar hardware. The question there would be how cheap they can get some nice screens but they must have gotten a good deal on those 27" LED IPS screens. Dell's latest 27" IPS is $1,049 and Apple's 27" iMac is $1,699.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I realize, but again I think we need to wrap our minds around the concept that the tablet is not going to be a Mac, it's not going to be sold as a Mac, nor is it going to be marketed as a direct answer to netbooks.
Let's assume that's the case for a second. Imagine yourself sitting at home with a 10" screen on the sofa with the TV on. You browse the web a bit for reviews, maybe the TV guide, post on some forums. The experience was better than doing so on your iphone due to the screen.
How much is that experience worth to you that you would buy one as well as an iphone? Will you spend $499 on one?
It's fine describing a basic consumption-only device but the important part is how much would you actually pay for that? You still need a computer to upload images to eBay, you still need a phone to make calls and take with you. The slate is the redundant non-essential purchase unless it takes over from the expensive computer and becomes the master device for poorer families.
Will you be able to import photos from an iphone onto the slate? Via USB?
Will it have display output?
Will you be able to sync the slate with the iphone or will both have to sync with the desktop?
If they sync to the desktop, you still have to use your main machine regularly to control your content.
Let's assume that's the case for a second. Imagine yourself sitting at home with a 10" screen on the sofa with the TV on. You browse the web a bit for reviews, maybe the TV guide, post on some forums. The experience was better than doing so on your iphone due to the screen.
How much is that experience worth to you that you would buy one as well as an iphone? Will you spend $499 on one?
It's fine describing a basic consumption-only device but the important part is how much would you actually pay for that? You still need a computer to upload images to eBay, you still need a phone to make calls and take with you. The slate is the redundant non-essential purchase unless it takes over from the expensive computer and becomes the master device for poorer families.
Will you be able to import photos from an iphone onto the slate? Via USB?
Will it have display output?
Will you be able to sync the slate with the iphone or will both have to sync with the desktop?
If they sync to the desktop, you still have to use your main machine regularly to control your content.
All reasonable questions, which I take it we will have answered in less than two weeks. My tentative answer is that I don't expect this to be nothing or little more than an overgrown iPod or iPhone, if only because Apple could have released that product two years ago, and didn't. I'd also expect this device to be a companion to a desktop computer rather than a replacement, but with some unique functionality that will make it neither a desktop nor an iPhone. We'll see.
I'm mostly wondering what is this exactly for if you have a laptop and an iphone? Does it replace a laptop? I would guess that Jobs has come up with an answer for the question "What else is it good for other than reading in the bathroom?"
I'm mostly wondering what is this exactly for if you have a laptop and an iphone?
So you have a car, but why do they continue making them. Or you have a laptop, but why do they continue making them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
Does it replace a laptop?
If it's like the tablet I imagine Apple are ambitious enough to attempt this computer can absolutely replace a laptop. Every complex program you use can be on this tablet, but they would need to rewritten for the tablet. But like I say, this would be ambitious.
So you have a car, but why do they continue making them. Or you have a laptop, but why do they continue making them.
Many people have cars but most don't have specific cars for specific situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
If it's like the tablet I imagine Apple are ambitious enough to attempt this computer can absolutely replace a laptop. Every complex program you use can be on this tablet, but they would need to rewritten for the tablet. But like I say, this would be ambitious.
Hopefully this is the situation. I will be first in line if this is the case but I'm sure there will be questions about the flexibility of this product compared to Mac OSX.
Comments
The iPod was already a resounding success while it was still Mac-only. Expanding to Windows only made it more so.
You demand "proof" for every one of my arguments, but never seem to supply any evidence at all for yours. Then you accuse me of being silly?
Nice work, if you can get it.
If you really need to run Mac applications, then buy a Mac.
Except that for those who can't afford one, they do exactly what you did and hackintosh a netbook. Apple don't like that trend especially when that market is quite substantial. Had the slate been on sale before you opted for a netbook, would you have bought the ipod slate? I don't expect that question can be answered until we know more about what the slate does but assume it only does the same as an iphone/ipod. Can you do on an iphone what you use the netbook for?
I think people like that feeling of owning a full Mac system. If you pay the same amount as you would for a netbook but only get an ipod then it's going to feel overpriced. Some people will simply never justify to themselves spending $1000 on a portable computer so they will never experience OS X outside of a hackintosh.
Of course, Apple removed Atom support from OS X so if they went the netbook route, they'd have to put it back in again.
The tiny iPhone keyboard is accessible to two thumbs. Where would you place it on a 10" tablet so that I could type in the same way?
I type with fingers on the iphone keyboard - I hold the phone with my left hand and poke the keyboard with the index finger on my right hand. If you stand cradling a slate, that's how you'd type. I guess they could have an option to split it into the corners but it would be awkward to hold.
Mac apps respond to keypresses 24-7 should the keyboard be on-screen permanently?
I think most computer use is or can be done with the mouse and replaced with touch. The only times you really need the keyboard is when typing, so it can pop-up when a text box is activated. Command keys are rarely used except for copy/paste and they all have menu equivalents.
A Gizmodo article reminded me of the Apple patent for typing on screen - note the example in the drawing is a word processor and it has a Mac window bar at the top:
http://gizmodo.com/5446652/how-will-...yline=true&s=x
The full keyboard just looks like it uses up too much screen space unnecessarily. I'd rather it be full width in portrait mode but 1/3 of the height of the screen at most and only have the same keys as the wireless Apple keyboard. In landscape, the same height but all the keys from the full Apple keyboard.
Hold up the full Apple keyboard against the bottom of a 20-22" screen and it leaves plenty of screen space. You can also get away with just 4 rows of keys not 6. Still definitely not always on-screen though.
Oh and one more thing. Content needs to be stored on something. We need a storage device. Perhaps the Time Capsule could turn into a Media Vault?
I'd like to see them improve streaming content. I rented a movie from itunes recently and was disappointed to see that not only was the movie 2GB in size but I had to wait for the full download before watching it on the iphone. The movie itself was over 2 hours long and the download took about 2 hours.
When I get in from work and sit down to some entertainment while I eat, I don't want to watch a loading bar even though Apple's loading bars are more entertaining than most.
Streaming content is the one thing that would sell Apple's service above people downloading torrents as well as a subscription. If I could pay a reasonable monthly fee (or pay by the minute up to a price cap) and have instant access to my favorite TV shows and they started playing instantly, it's ideal for me. BBC iplayer has done it perfectly. That same service for films and a wide variety of shows would be a big hit.
Pay-per-minute (how streaming adult sites work) means that if I don't like a film and stop watching within 20 minutes, I don't feel nearly as ripped off as I would if I'd bought or rented the whole film.
As for personal storage, I think you're right, the Time Machine could be a media server and would allow multiple tablets in a home to connect to content., e.g shared music and purchases.
The only times you really need the keyboard is when typing, so it can pop-up when a text box is activated. Command keys are rarely used except for copy/paste and they all have menu equivalents.
I don't think this is viable at all. Think about specific apps.
Mail, Skype, iChat, Word, Pages, Final Draft, Scrivener, Excel, Numbers - all need continuous keyboard use. Even Photoshop and Final Cut require constant key presses for modifiers.
Every Mac program would need a permanent on-screen keyboard. Sharing the screen with the application.
It does not stop there. Many graphics programs use mouse movements to control parameters without relating this to an on-screen mouse cursor. Trying to re-map touch inputs to this would be un-intuitive and confusing.
There's really no possibility of un-modified Mac apps working in a satisfactory way on a tablet user interface.
C.
There's not a problem in my opinion.
I don't think this is viable at all. Think about specific apps.
Mail, Skype, iChat, Word, Pages, Final Draft, Scrivener, Excel, Numbers - all need continuous keyboard use. Even Photoshop and Final Cut require constant key presses for modifiers.
Every Mac program would need a permanent on-screen keyboard. Sharing the screen with the application.
It does not stop there. Many graphics programs use mouse movements to control parameters without relating this to an on-screen mouse cursor. Trying to re-map touch inputs to this would be un-intuitive and confusing.
There's really no possibility of un-modified Mac apps working in a satisfactory way on a tablet user interface.
But that's assuming people will use the slate as a main Final Cut machine or whatever. You wouldn't even use a netbook for Final Cut because the screen is too small. If you did want to run those apps on the slate, you'd prop up the screen and plug in an external keyboard/mouse and possibly display.
Even better, the slate could turn into a gesture pad while running the apps on the external screen.
The Apple apps iChat, Mail, Pages, Numbers etc can be reworked and people will see them as the most efficient apps for regular use but the added flexibility is there when necessary.
Apple can come up with various additions like shortcut panels for each app to save having a full keyboard visible.
Going beyond the imagining how OS X would work with touch - here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jQsOqT8bw
It seems to work pretty well. Tweak the UI a bit for scale and it's a great way to interact with OS X.
The idea of an iphone-like UI is fine but the slate could easily serve a dual purpose and sway people away from the hackintosh netbooks. I have a feeling the device will be expensive - if the ipod touch 64GB is $400 then I'd expect the slate to be at least that and netbooks are already cheaper.
Option A: 10" netbook, hackintosh OS X, all the full-featured apps, manage itunes content, productivity, Flash online, wide support for video formats, import pictures from a camera, browse them and upload to flickr. $299
Option B: 10" ipod slate, basic apps (even though there's a lot), no productivity or control over content as it's a slave device. $499?
Touch interaction isn't enough and $499 is a lot for magazine content and books.
Why would anyone want to run resource-intensive applications like Final Cut on a tablet computer? I think we can just forget about that being anything like the purpose of the device, and that even assumes we know almost nothing else about it. I think we can also know that Apple's competition is not going to be the cheapest dreck netbook made running hacked OSX (which at that price, is also pirated OSX). How big is the market for this? Miniscule, at best.
Apple isn't going to release a product that they don't believe is a game changer. I think we should all be prepared to accept at least that much about it in advance.
But that's assuming people will use the slate as a main Final Cut machine or whatever. You wouldn't even use a netbook for Final Cut because the screen is too small. If you did want to run those apps on the slate, you'd prop up the screen and plug in an external keyboard/mouse and possibly display.
Even better, the slate could turn into a gesture pad while running the apps on the external screen.
Marvin, I think the device you want is a netbook running OS X!
I have one, and I really recommend it. I also think Apple would be nuts to sell such a machine, because it would cannibalise sales of full-price notebooks.
The Apple apps iChat, Mail, Pages, Numbers etc can be reworked and people will see them as the most efficient apps for regular use but the added flexibility is there when necessary.
Apple can come up with various additions like shortcut panels for each app to save having a full keyboard visible.
Which is sort of my point. Un-modified Mac apps will be lousy on a tablet. Which is why I am totally certain that this device will not support them. But there may well be tablet apps which have direct Mac equivalents.
Option A: 10" netbook, hackintosh OS X, all the full-featured apps, manage itunes content, productivity, Flash online, wide support for video formats, import pictures from a camera, browse them and upload to flickr. $299
Option B: 10" ipod slate, basic apps (even though there's a lot), no productivity or control over content as it's a slave device. $499?
Touch interaction isn't enough and $499 is a lot for magazine content and books.
Option A is not an option. At least as a product sold by Apple. But it is something hackers can do. The experience is far from perfect. The small track pads are a real-weak point. But Snow Leopard runs exceptionally well. The Atom machines can not play 720p video. They are weak at media. But great for email and light writing tasks.
I love my MacbookWind. And you are totally correct. People wanting productivity are not going to be happy with option B. But in my opinion, the world is full of people who want to avoid doing productive tasks. Apple likes to add little taglines to each product. I think the one for the slate is going to be something like "Screw Productivity!"
Option B needs to be compared against other entertainment devices. Not against Netbooks but against the (dreadful) Kindle, against PMPs, in-car DVD players, games consoles, portable TVs, digital photo frames, even against BluRay players. It is a completely new class of general purpose device. It does all of the above and then follows up with web browsing, email, social networking tool to boot. $499 is starting to look like a steal.
A self-contained slab-of-a-device is deployable in a way that fold-open netbooks simply are not. No one would try to read a netbook on a bus. No one would give flimsy netbooks to school pupils.
It's worth remembering what Tim Cook said.
"When I look at what is being sold in the netbook space today, I see cramped keyboards, terrible software, junky hardware, very small screens, and just not a consumer experience, and not something that we would put the Mac brand on, quite frankly. And so, it's not a space as it exists today that we are interested in, nor do we believe that customers in the long term would be interested in. It's a segment we would choose not to play in."
"That said, we do look at the space and are interested to see our customers' response to it...Of course, if we find a way where we can deliver an innovative product that really makes a contribution, then we will do that and we have some interesting ideas in the space."
I read that as. "We don't see this as Mac territory. We will not take the Mac into netbook land. But people do things with netbooks which we *are* good at. And we might try to create a new product for that sector."
C.
Why would anyone want to run resource-intensive applications like Final Cut on a tablet computer?
That came from my post I am afraid. The point I was making was that *ALL* Mac OS X programs require constant keyboard access. Word-processors, spreadsheets, and even programs which are ostensibly 100% graphical.
Therefore any attempt to run a Mac app on a touch-based tablet would need to have a full-time onscreen keyboard.
C.
That came from my post I am afraid. The point I was making was that *ALL* Mac OS X programs require constant keyboard access. Word-processors, spreadsheets, and even programs which are ostensibly 100% graphical.
Therefore any attempt to run a Mac app on a touch-based tablet would need to have a full-time onscreen keyboard.
I see. I have been skimming some. I think if Apple does create a tablet-based version of iWork, as is presently rumored, that they won't do so without solving this problem in some more elegant fashion than what you seem to be anticipating.
Why would anyone want to run resource-intensive applications like Final Cut on a tablet computer?
Not many but that wasn't really the original point. The point is simply that people do like to have the ability to run full-featured apps. If I sold you a Mac and said you could only use Dashboard, you'd feel the machine was underused. A netbook is around the same speed as an old powerbook and people did actually run Final Cut on those.
Value comes from different areas: the amount of things you can do, the efficiency they get done and the importance of the tasks. OS X x86 with a tweaked UI offers more value IMO than ARM iphone OS.
I think we can also know that Apple's competition is not going to be the cheapest dreck netbook made running hacked OSX (which at that price, is also pirated OSX). How big is the market for this? Miniscule, at best.
The netbook market is huge - equal to the iphone/ipod market and triple the size of the Mac market. If Apple hit 1/3 of them, they double their Mac marketshare.
Now, as for the more specific Hackintosh netbook market, no one can say. There are figures here that suggest hackintoshes are about 15% of the Mac market and not all netbooks:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...ken-hackintosh
You can't really say that it's not a big market from that though as it's not officially supported and more technical to setup than most people can manage.
But I think this:
http://www.gadgetlite.com/wp-content...9-mac-os-x.jpg
looks way better than this:
http://iamrajendra.files.wordpress.c.../dell-mini.jpg
and it's a good market to gain wider adoption of OS X.
I have one, and I really recommend it. I also think Apple would be nuts to sell such a machine, because it would cannibalise sales of full-price notebooks.
Maybe but Core 2 Duo machines are at least 3 times faster than Atom and have bigger displays. Macbooks don't cannibalize Macbook Pros to the point where it's an issue for Apple. You can't even play 720p without Ion as you mentioned.
I think the one for the slate is going to be something like "Screw Productivity!"
But what will you spend so much time using it for? Around the house, you will watch movies on a big screen. Browsing is an option but I kinda like a big screen for that too. I'd personally like to be able to sort out my photos and music collection on it but it can't do that if it's a slave device. I can't sort photos efficiently on a netbook because I can't put it in portrait mode nor can I swipe/pinch-zoom/rotate etc.
"Kindle, PMPs, in-car DVD players, games consoles, portable TVs, digital photo frames, even against BluRay players"
Those are all for tasks you expect to pay very little for though. Given that the 64GB ipod touch is $400, can we assume a 10" touch slate with similar but newer innards will be less? That's already $100 more than a netbook.
Also, it won't be e-ink so not quite as suited for reading as Kindle (though I personally don't mind), it's too big to compete as a PMP, it's too expensive to let the kids use for an in-car movie player, gaming yes but there's still not enough in that area.
I see it as being a much more functional Kindle but ebook readers have only sold 3 million units and if it comes in at twice the price, it doesn't seem like a compelling purchase. It will be the PS3 of the ebook readers. Better design, faster, more features bundled but the PS3 still sells half as many units as the XBox in the US.
I read that as. "We don't see this as Mac territory. We will not take the Mac into netbook land. But people do things with netbooks which we *are* good at. And we might try to create a new product for that sector."
I think you will probably be correct but I don't think the device will be as useful nor as popular unless it does more - I think as an iphone OS device, it will sell like the ATV. I love the iphone because even though the apps are poor and the cost is high, it's a pocket music player, a decent phone, good for texting, has internet everywhere I go, has maps and GPS, has a camera (a rubbish one but it works with enough light), has email, calendars synced up at work and some books for light reading and a handful of decent apps. It does more or less all you describe the slate should do, it just needs a big screen dock.
Apple just needs to ship the 4G iphone with the ARM Cortex A9 and the latest PowerVR GPU and ship some 10" screens with a dock. Buy a 32GB ipod + screen for $399, maybe $499 and you get two devices in one.
Otherwise, the slate should become the main companion to an ipod/iphone that lets people on low incomes manage their content and do light productivity without having to deal with the cheap PC. It removes the dependence on the Windows PC for these families. This requires it to be Atom-based.
Not many but that wasn't really the original point. The point is simply that people do like to have the ability to run full-featured apps. If I sold you a Mac and said you could only use Dashboard, you'd feel the machine was underused. A netbook is around the same speed as an old powerbook and people did actually run Final Cut on those.
Value comes from different areas: the amount of things you can do, the efficiency they get done and the importance of the tasks. OS X x86 with a tweaked UI offers more value IMO than ARM iphone OS.
I realize, but again I think we need to wrap our minds around the concept that the tablet is not going to be a Mac, it's not going to be sold as a Mac, nor is it going to be marketed as a direct answer to netbooks.
The netbook market is huge - equal to the iphone/ipod market and triple the size of the Mac market. If Apple hit 1/3 of them, they double their Mac marketshare.
Now, as for the more specific Hackintosh netbook market, no one can say. There are figures here that suggest hackintoshes are about 15% of the Mac market and not all netbooks:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...ken-hackintosh
You can't really say that it's not a big market from that though as it's not officially supported and more technical to setup than most people can manage.
I think these numbers are extremely dubious and are based on at least two unsupported suppositions. I would be extremely surprised if hacked Macs are anywhere close to 15% of the Mac "market" since they really appeal only to tinkerers who like to do this sort of thing. And to repeat, my point was, I don't think Apple's real competition is $299 netbooks.
The netbook market is huge - equal to the iphone/ipod market and triple the size of the Mac market. If Apple hit 1/3 of them, they double their Mac marketshare.
That is not right.
Or at least that sort of thinking requires a bit of critical analysis.
The amount of profit on a typical netbook sale is around $15 per unit. Sometimes less.
If you compare this to an iPhone the profit is around $250-$300.
In terms of profits, 1 x iPhone = 15-20 x netbooks.
This is why Apple don't care about marketshare by units.
C.
If you compare this to an iPhone the profit is around $250-$300.
In terms of profits, 1 x iPhone = 15-20 x netbooks.
That's assuming Apple prices the slate the same as a netbook. I don't think they will.
A netbook can be bought for $299. For $499-599, Apple make $200-300 profit per device on the same/similar hardware. The question there would be how cheap they can get some nice screens but they must have gotten a good deal on those 27" LED IPS screens. Dell's latest 27" IPS is $1,049 and Apple's 27" iMac is $1,699.
I realize, but again I think we need to wrap our minds around the concept that the tablet is not going to be a Mac, it's not going to be sold as a Mac, nor is it going to be marketed as a direct answer to netbooks.
Let's assume that's the case for a second. Imagine yourself sitting at home with a 10" screen on the sofa with the TV on. You browse the web a bit for reviews, maybe the TV guide, post on some forums. The experience was better than doing so on your iphone due to the screen.
How much is that experience worth to you that you would buy one as well as an iphone? Will you spend $499 on one?
It's fine describing a basic consumption-only device but the important part is how much would you actually pay for that? You still need a computer to upload images to eBay, you still need a phone to make calls and take with you. The slate is the redundant non-essential purchase unless it takes over from the expensive computer and becomes the master device for poorer families.
Will you be able to import photos from an iphone onto the slate? Via USB?
Will it have display output?
Will you be able to sync the slate with the iphone or will both have to sync with the desktop?
If they sync to the desktop, you still have to use your main machine regularly to control your content.
Let's assume that's the case for a second. Imagine yourself sitting at home with a 10" screen on the sofa with the TV on. You browse the web a bit for reviews, maybe the TV guide, post on some forums. The experience was better than doing so on your iphone due to the screen.
How much is that experience worth to you that you would buy one as well as an iphone? Will you spend $499 on one?
It's fine describing a basic consumption-only device but the important part is how much would you actually pay for that? You still need a computer to upload images to eBay, you still need a phone to make calls and take with you. The slate is the redundant non-essential purchase unless it takes over from the expensive computer and becomes the master device for poorer families.
Will you be able to import photos from an iphone onto the slate? Via USB?
Will it have display output?
Will you be able to sync the slate with the iphone or will both have to sync with the desktop?
If they sync to the desktop, you still have to use your main machine regularly to control your content.
All reasonable questions, which I take it we will have answered in less than two weeks. My tentative answer is that I don't expect this to be nothing or little more than an overgrown iPod or iPhone, if only because Apple could have released that product two years ago, and didn't. I'd also expect this device to be a companion to a desktop computer rather than a replacement, but with some unique functionality that will make it neither a desktop nor an iPhone. We'll see.
That's assuming Apple prices the slate the same as a netbook. I don't think they will.
I don't think they will either.
My point was that the commercial significance of netbooks is not really commercial significance.
PC vendors have sold a great many netbooks. Slashing prices to give away levels does create sales.
But the profitability has been so poor that they are commercially irrelevant.
Apart, of course, from the amount of damage they have done to the market.
C.
I'm mostly wondering what is this exactly for if you have a laptop and an iphone?
So you have a car, but why do they continue making them. Or you have a laptop, but why do they continue making them.
Does it replace a laptop?
If it's like the tablet I imagine Apple are ambitious enough to attempt this computer can absolutely replace a laptop. Every complex program you use can be on this tablet, but they would need to rewritten for the tablet. But like I say, this would be ambitious.
So you have a car, but why do they continue making them. Or you have a laptop, but why do they continue making them.
Many people have cars but most don't have specific cars for specific situations.
If it's like the tablet I imagine Apple are ambitious enough to attempt this computer can absolutely replace a laptop. Every complex program you use can be on this tablet, but they would need to rewritten for the tablet. But like I say, this would be ambitious.
Hopefully this is the situation. I will be first in line if this is the case but I'm sure there will be questions about the flexibility of this product compared to Mac OSX.