None of those make solid sense in a tablet. The exception might be FireWire but even that is a stretch. The thing that blows my mind is your request for Blu-Ray. Just how do you expect to put such a disk in a tablet that is lees than a 1/2" thick?
All in all I don't think you have a chance with any of those.
I really don't believe that rumour. Do we really expect iPhone OS 3.2 to be the tablet OS?
No! Frankly nobody has said that, but the OS will be derived from it in a sense. The reality is iPhone OS as we know it came from a tablet OS project that got put on ice so that iPhone could be done.
Quote:
At most I'd expect iPhone OS 4.0. The other option is that Snow Leopard, iPhone OS 4.0, and iSlate OS 1.0 will share the same underlying foundations (and iSlate will look MUCH more like the iPhone OS than MacOSX).
This is what has really pissed me off about your post. Mac OS and iPhone OS already share or have much in common. Many of the APIs and Frameworks are exactly the same. Others are slightly trimmed for size. The only major difference is the framework for user apps and a system interface that hides much of the underlying Unix foundation. Finally many legacy APIs have been dropped on iPhone OS.
I don't wish to sound hostile but I keep hearing this refrain and frankly it is wearing. It is not like Apple hides information about the OS'es. When you talk about underlying foundation to many of us that implies that part of the OS under the user interface. In the case of iPhone it is the depth of the support that has attracked many to the platform. There really isn't another platform with such a fully featured OS in a cell phone. It is very much UNIX in the palm of your hand.
Well UNIX in the sense that the kernel and many other parts come directly from Mac OS. Currently iPhone OS is a little short on features to be officially called UNIX.
In the end I'm tired of this Mac OS / IPhone OS debate Which is a waste of time. It is a given that what ever drives the tablet will have a different visual interface. That simply due to the larger screen and more capable hardware. For Apple the bigger issue would be how you market the device and avoid consummer confusion, that requires that the device be in one family or the other. An ARM based device clearly requires something derived from iPhone OS in that case.
Nope! I'm perfectly capably of producing my own gas
Quote:
Or maybe a sound effects board? The apps are poor quality. They have maybe 10 PSP-quality games out of over 40,000 games.
I don't know about that the few games I've downloaded are pretty innovative. On the other hand I'm not a big time gamer.
Quote:
Asking that question is like asking why people still go to the Cinema or watch TV when Youtube has hundreds of millions of videos. Not all content is created equal.
I've never said all contact is created equal. The point is there is a wide variety available for iPhone and some of it is very good.
Quote:
The app store was actually noted as having a 75-90% piracy rate:
That doesn't condemn the fact that app store works very well for many developers.
It does say a lot about the state of morality in this day and age.
Quote:
The competition to drive app prices to rock bottom means little profit per app and unless a small-time developer puts out some money on advertising, the app gets lost in a sea of 120,000+ apps that are impossible to navigate using Apple's tools.
Low prices are a good thing. With something like 75 million devices out there you only need to capture a small percentage of users ever year to do very nicely.
As to advertising and marketing that is pretty much expected of any business. It certainly isn't Apples job to take on all marketing needs. There are two approaches to app store, you are either there to make money or you are not. If you want to make money you are in business and need to work on success like any other business.
Quote:
Apple needs to have a premium app store section so we can at least see what apps the big developers are making.
That is simply ignorant.
Quote:
Apple simply charges $1,000 to host in that section and the problem is solved. If an app generates enough revenue from the junk pile, the developer can pay the $1,000 and move up to the premium section.
You seem to have a misplaced sense of responsibility. Apple is a distributor of apps for developers. It is not Apples place to market, price an app nor develop customers. That is the app developers responsibility. It is great that they feature an app from time to time, provide search tools and the like but their ability is limited.
In any event this whine about the pricing of apps on app store is totally stupid. Price your app and market it accordingly. Either you find a group of users willing to invest in that app or you don't. In any event it is pretty clear that if you successfully deliver an app, that attracks a strong user base, you will be very successful even with low pricepoints.
But no one, that I know of, would limit themselves to searching Apple's site to identify software that they might be interested in running on their Mac.
No but desktop apps require more development effort and have to either be more substantial or very good at a few tasks to be viable desktop apps so the rubbish ones get weeded out pretty fast or simply don't exist. Small apps are replaced by a widget. iphone apps typically only do what a widget does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I guess we just have different shopping habits, then. I don't go onto Amazon with no particular product in mind and get frustrated because I can't figure out what's good, or because there are too many items. I generally have some idea of what I'm looking for, and use external sources to narrow it down. Then I can do a pretty specific search.
Hardware is different from software though as there are pretty well-defined categories and brands as well as price brackets and the objects fulfill specific needs. The majority of the time when I browse, there's a task that only a specific product will satisfy. Say I need a toaster for example. I check the category for kitchen appliances then toasters and list the models by price. Then check the features, brands and reviews and weigh it up.
With software, there are categories but they are usually only defined for games and it's very much hit or miss and with such an overwhelming amount of poor software, good usable apps get lost in there. Suffice to say, few people are impressed with the App Store offerings so I don't see them being a big sell for the slate. I couldn't care less about running any of the App Store apps on my desktop; the same is not true in reverse.
Let's say the slate comes out at $499 and you buy it and it does the core functions very well. Then you start doing a job that requires you to upload pictures, even make adverts on eBay. All of a sudden, the slate can't do your core tasks. That can apply to any number of software functions. That uncertainty doesn't exist on a full-featured system.
No! Frankly nobody has said that, but the OS will be derived from it in a sense. The reality is iPhone OS as we know it came from a tablet OS project that got put on ice so that iPhone could be done.
I'm not sure if you're actually disagreeing with me. In fact while I have no problem understanding what you're saying in your post I don't get why you're saying it to me, it doesn't seem to respond to what I've said.
My comment was that the OS that the tablet will use, whatever it's named, is going to be a significant release. I see iPhone OS 3.2 as a much smaller jump, and can't imagine it would have code for the 'iSlate'. To me, that'll make the Slate OS named iPhone OS 4.0 or iSlate OS 1.0 or something similar, NOT iPhone OS 3.2.
There is rumor that DOES SAY iPhone OS 3.2 has been delayed because it has too many references to the iSlate within it. That (and the comment made by the poster I was replying to) was what I didn't agree with.
Then again, perhaps we are about to GET the next iPhone OS, 5 months early. That's still no reason not to have released bug fixes for the last couple of months.
Quote:
This is what has really pissed me off about your post. Mac OS and iPhone OS already share or have much in common. Many of the APIs and Frameworks are exactly the same. Others are slightly trimmed for size. The only major difference is the framework for user apps and a system interface that hides much of the underlying Unix foundation. Finally many legacy APIs have been dropped on iPhone OS.
Yep agreed totally. So what pisses you off about my post?
edit: On rereading what I wrote - I said that it's possible iPhone OS 4.0, Snow Leopard, and iSlate 1.0 will share the same foundations different interfaces. You may have misread that. Note that this was in contrast to the implication that the slate would run iPhone OS 4.0 directly (which I believed the rumour implied). It's a given that the iPhone and Snow Leopard are both based on OSX.
Quote:
I don't wish to sound hostile but I keep hearing this refrain and frankly it is wearing. It is not like Apple hides information about the OS'es. When you talk about underlying foundation to many of us that implies that part of the OS under the user interface. In the case of iPhone it is the depth of the support that has attracked many to the platform. There really isn't another platform with such a fully featured OS in a cell phone. It is very much UNIX in the palm of your hand.
Well UNIX in the sense that the kernel and many other parts come directly from Mac OS. Currently iPhone OS is a little short on features to be officially called UNIX.
Yep, agreed. Again, I didn't say anything about that. You have read something into my post that I simply didn't say (or think).
Quote:
In the end I'm tired of this Mac OS / IPhone OS debate Which is a waste of time. It is a given that what ever drives the tablet will have a different visual interface. That simply due to the larger screen and more capable hardware.
Of course. But it will have a name.
And back to my original point from which this sprang - I don't think that the lack of recent updates to the iPhone OS are evidence that we are about to see a major upgrade of the iPhone OS that has all the tablet functionality built in. And thus they delay until they've announced the slate.
However, there is a flaw to my logic. It's possible that iPhone OS 3.2 has sync functions that refer to syncing to the tablet in some way, so Apple has held off on its release. Still that seems like a bad reason to delay a minor release with some important bug fixes to reception, it implies that really stuffed up the timing of something.
Quote:
For Apple the bigger issue would be how you market the device and avoid consummer confusion, that requires that the device be in one family or the other. An ARM based device clearly requires something derived from iPhone OS in that case.
I would think it'll share much much more with the iPhone than with the Mac.
I really don't get why you're pissed off and hostile.
Perhaps misdirected? But if it is at me, please explain a whole lot better what you think I've said.
With software, there are categories but they are usually only defined for games and it's very much hit or miss and with such an overwhelming amount of poor software, good usable apps get lost in there. Suffice to say, few people are impressed with the App Store offerings so I don't see them being a big sell for the slate. I couldn't care less about running any of the App Store apps on my desktop; the same is not true in reverse.
I agree that the App store needs to categorize better. And showcase the higher rating apps in some way. But the apps are quite functional and useful in many ways. The more expensive apps seem to be much more functional too.
Quote:
Let's say the slate comes out at $499 and you buy it and it does the core functions very well. Then you start doing a job that requires you to upload pictures, even make adverts on eBay. All of a sudden, the slate can't do your core tasks. That can apply to any number of software functions. That uncertainty doesn't exist on a full-featured system.
What happens if you don't think of the slate as a "PC" at all though?
If you think of the slate as a laptop (without a keyboard), then it'll look pretty limited. Then again, if you think of a laptop as a slate (with a keyboard) the laptop can also look pretty limited.
I assume you're criticising the app store model itself, rather than slate though. In that Apple controls what can and can't be released, AND they provide the only method of searching through apps.
Apple will have no choice (for now). They have to stop all inappropriate mouse/keyboard-centric apps - they'll be heavily criticised for doing it, but the more they force new interface paradigms on developers and users the more they'll be able to chart the course of a new type of device (and stop it falling back into the "almost a PC" (previous tablet) realm). They need total control to do that - though I don't like the fact they can deny certain apps for little reason.
Let's not fool ourselves here, folks. This "tablet" device is simply going to be a new "OOOO, AAAHH!" way for Apple to sell EVEN MORE apps and an extended array of iTunes content. The device has been designed to be nothing more than a conduit for more easy content revenue. Remember...this is all about delivering that "cheap for Apple" to produce content and producing the devices that will draw the customer in.
Let me sum it all up, the way I see it.
1) No recent updates to iPhone OS? Why? Too many references to the tablet that Apple didn't want leaked. Apple quietly holds off until the imminent "whole number" revision.
2) The tablet's OS is going to be a custom version of the iPhone OS - the OS will recognize which device it's being run on and either enable or disable features accordingly. The iPhone OS as it stands would not support all of the new gestures and capabilities of the new tablet - therefore a rewrite to support the tablet...viola...iPhone OS 4.0!
3) If you remember right, Apple just recently bought property and built a huge data center in North Carolina. Have you wondered what that is for? I guarantee it'll be tied to the content that will be offered up for this tablet as well as how it's delivered.
4) Revenue from iTunes and the App Store is just too damn easy for Apple. Let somebody else create the content, maintain control over that content, host the content on your own servers to help you maintain that control, create a new, super-hyped device to deliver the content to, take a 30% cut of everything...and then sit back and watch the money ROLL IN!!!
5) Apple knows that so far NetFlix is the dominant force in streaming video content into the home living room right now. Don't you think they want a piece of that? But we're talking Apple and Steve Jobs here. Apple doesn't want a piece of it...they want to DOMINATE in that market much like they eventually did with the music industry with the introduction of the iPod and iTunes. If anybody knows how to take complete, dominant control of an entire market in a short time frame - it's Steve Jobs. Apple will also be using their top position in digital content delivery to take advantage of the so-far mostly untapped market of interactive newspaper, magazine and "print media" subscriptions.
Huge East Coast data center + iTunes Store + App Store + LaLa acquisition + tablet = EXPANDED BUSINESS MODEL!
Older existing iPhones + brand new iPhone 4G + iPod touch + new iSlate device = LOTS OF WAYS TO CONSUME ALL OF THIS DIGITAL MEDIA!
Apple won't give the iSlate (or whatever it's going to be called) device a full blown version of OS X. No, Apple's too smart and business savvy for that. That's what they have the portable notebook products for! They're not going to eat into their own sales...they're going to CREATE new sales by expanding their portable product line with something they have more control over.
Is the picture starting to get a little clearer now?
A great post that goes very much in line with my thinking. Most of the people here concentrate on the wrong reasons for not having a proper OS on the Tablet, such as 'horrible user experience" etc. As if Apple were really thinking about the User as their uber-priority. The real reason for having an iPhone-like OS on the Tablet is going to be business-based.
Most of the people here concentrate on the wrong reasons for not having a proper OS on the Tablet, such as 'horrible user experience" etc. As if Apple were really thinking about the User as their uber-priority. The real reason for having an iPhone-like OS on the Tablet is going to be business-based.
Absolutely Apple's main priority is to make things good for their business. At the moment introducing innovative and different takes on devices are the things that make Apple stand out.
But making the user the focus of design is a very large part of the success of their business. Other companies simply do not take the extra time to make things right for the user, or decide they've done that far earlier than Apple does.
Apple knows that making this thing entirely focussed on a new user experience, one that matches what a tablet can do well (instead of matching what people do on laptops) is necessary to be a success and will make them money. They also know they have huge amounts of content they want us to buy - and it seems these 2 goals fit well together ... and thus a product is born.
Apple is not a noble company doing only the right thing. Like I'd like to see them let devices like Palm Pilot sync to iTunes (and even sell content to them!) but they don't. It's one reason I'm glad there's a big ecosystem of competition who can help drive things forward in different ways to Apple.
A great post that goes very much in line with my thinking. Most of the people here concentrate on the wrong reasons for not having a proper OS on the Tablet, such as 'horrible user experience" etc. As if Apple were really thinking about the User as their uber-priority. The real reason for having an iPhone-like OS on the Tablet is going to be business-based.
I?m not following your logic. Besides the fact that Apple?s products have always first focused on the consumer side of things, businesses have ?users?. If Apple is going to make a tablet that people want (ie: try to sell a whole lot and make barrels of money) they need to make it work the way they made the iPod and iPhone interfaces work, by making it easy for the consumer to use. This means catering to the input and output of the device, not shoehorning Windows or shmearing a mobile OS designed for a screen 1/9th the size and 1/4 th the performance into a tablet device.
Yeah, I'm not really grasping the distinction between "making a product that people really like because it's easy and fun to use so they'll buy it" and "making a product based on business criteria."
Is it possible that you think that Apple is going to design a Slate around some notion of profiting from media sales, while remaining indifferent to the quality of the user experience? Because I assure you, those to things are not even different, much less mutually exclusive.
TUAW guys got it right (1) (2). It's rather hybrid OS (most probably compiled for ARM platform; although, a couple of other options isn't unpossible), which yields the maximum revenue on the target market.
Let's not fool ourselves here, folks. This "tablet" device is simply going to be a new "OOOO, AAAHH!" way for Apple to sell EVEN MORE apps and an extended array of iTunes content.
Apple makes the most of its money from hardware sales, pretty much weakens your argument right off.
Well. As soon as we're set right up in figuring out the anticipated image of future Tablet OS, basing upon its target use case, we can predict where the distinction between Tablet and iPhone OS may actually lay:
Obvious native system-wide PDF and printing support,
Unrestricted multitasking,
Light productivity applications (design-related ones as a must) with backing frameworks,
Absolutely Apple's main priority is to make things good for their business. At the moment introducing innovative and different takes on devices are the things that make Apple stand out.
But making the user the focus of design is a very large part of the success of their business. Other companies simply do not take the extra time to make things right for the user, or decide they've done that far earlier than Apple does.
Apple knows that making this thing entirely focussed on a new user experience, one that matches what a tablet can do well (instead of matching what people do on laptops) is necessary to be a success and will make them money. They also know they have huge amounts of content they want us to buy - and it seems these 2 goals fit well together ... and thus a product is born.
Apple is not a noble company doing only the right thing. Like I'd like to see them let devices like Palm Pilot sync to iTunes (and even sell content to them!) but they don't. It's one reason I'm glad there's a big ecosystem of competition who can help drive things forward in different ways to Apple.
Of course, they have to make a profit and do so at the best cost possible. True is also that they care about the user experience more, on average, than many other gadget companies. My preoccupation was precisely with the people on these boards that sometimes seem to forget that Apple owes their success to their business thinking, first and foremost.
I?m not following your logic. Besides the fact that Apple?s products have always first focused on the consumer side of things, businesses have ?users?. If Apple is going to make a tablet that people want (ie: try to sell a whole lot and make barrels of money) they need to make it work the way they made the iPod and iPhone interfaces work, by making it easy for the consumer to use. This means catering to the input and output of the device, not shoehorning Windows or shmearing a mobile OS designed for a screen 1/9th the size and 1/4 th the performance into a tablet device.
These are just dumb.
I absolutely prefer the bottom photo to the top one
Comments
plus:
blu-ray
firewire
matte screen
None of those make solid sense in a tablet. The exception might be FireWire but even that is a stretch. The thing that blows my mind is your request for Blu-Ray. Just how do you expect to put such a disk in a tablet that is lees than a 1/2" thick?
All in all I don't think you have a chance with any of those.
Dave
I really don't believe that rumour. Do we really expect iPhone OS 3.2 to be the tablet OS?
No! Frankly nobody has said that, but the OS will be derived from it in a sense. The reality is iPhone OS as we know it came from a tablet OS project that got put on ice so that iPhone could be done.
At most I'd expect iPhone OS 4.0. The other option is that Snow Leopard, iPhone OS 4.0, and iSlate OS 1.0 will share the same underlying foundations (and iSlate will look MUCH more like the iPhone OS than MacOSX).
This is what has really pissed me off about your post. Mac OS and iPhone OS already share or have much in common. Many of the APIs and Frameworks are exactly the same. Others are slightly trimmed for size. The only major difference is the framework for user apps and a system interface that hides much of the underlying Unix foundation. Finally many legacy APIs have been dropped on iPhone OS.
I don't wish to sound hostile but I keep hearing this refrain and frankly it is wearing. It is not like Apple hides information about the OS'es. When you talk about underlying foundation to many of us that implies that part of the OS under the user interface. In the case of iPhone it is the depth of the support that has attracked many to the platform. There really isn't another platform with such a fully featured OS in a cell phone. It is very much UNIX in the palm of your hand.
Well UNIX in the sense that the kernel and many other parts come directly from Mac OS. Currently iPhone OS is a little short on features to be officially called UNIX.
In the end I'm tired of this Mac OS / IPhone OS debate Which is a waste of time. It is a given that what ever drives the tablet will have a different visual interface. That simply due to the larger screen and more capable hardware. For Apple the bigger issue would be how you market the device and avoid consummer confusion, that requires that the device be in one family or the other. An ARM based device clearly requires something derived from iPhone OS in that case.
Dave
Have you ever used a fart app on the desktop?
Nope! I'm perfectly capably of producing my own gas
Or maybe a sound effects board? The apps are poor quality. They have maybe 10 PSP-quality games out of over 40,000 games.
I don't know about that the few games I've downloaded are pretty innovative. On the other hand I'm not a big time gamer.
Asking that question is like asking why people still go to the Cinema or watch TV when Youtube has hundreds of millions of videos. Not all content is created equal.
I've never said all contact is created equal. The point is there is a wide variety available for iPhone and some of it is very good.
The app store was actually noted as having a 75-90% piracy rate:
That doesn't condemn the fact that app store works very well for many developers.
It does say a lot about the state of morality in this day and age.
The competition to drive app prices to rock bottom means little profit per app and unless a small-time developer puts out some money on advertising, the app gets lost in a sea of 120,000+ apps that are impossible to navigate using Apple's tools.
Low prices are a good thing. With something like 75 million devices out there you only need to capture a small percentage of users ever year to do very nicely.
As to advertising and marketing that is pretty much expected of any business. It certainly isn't Apples job to take on all marketing needs. There are two approaches to app store, you are either there to make money or you are not. If you want to make money you are in business and need to work on success like any other business.
Apple needs to have a premium app store section so we can at least see what apps the big developers are making.
That is simply ignorant.
Apple simply charges $1,000 to host in that section and the problem is solved. If an app generates enough revenue from the junk pile, the developer can pay the $1,000 and move up to the premium section.
You seem to have a misplaced sense of responsibility. Apple is a distributor of apps for developers. It is not Apples place to market, price an app nor develop customers. That is the app developers responsibility. It is great that they feature an app from time to time, provide search tools and the like but their ability is limited.
In any event this whine about the pricing of apps on app store is totally stupid. Price your app and market it accordingly. Either you find a group of users willing to invest in that app or you don't. In any event it is pretty clear that if you successfully deliver an app, that attracks a strong user base, you will be very successful even with low pricepoints.
Dave
But no one, that I know of, would limit themselves to searching Apple's site to identify software that they might be interested in running on their Mac.
No but desktop apps require more development effort and have to either be more substantial or very good at a few tasks to be viable desktop apps so the rubbish ones get weeded out pretty fast or simply don't exist. Small apps are replaced by a widget. iphone apps typically only do what a widget does.
I guess we just have different shopping habits, then. I don't go onto Amazon with no particular product in mind and get frustrated because I can't figure out what's good, or because there are too many items. I generally have some idea of what I'm looking for, and use external sources to narrow it down. Then I can do a pretty specific search.
Hardware is different from software though as there are pretty well-defined categories and brands as well as price brackets and the objects fulfill specific needs. The majority of the time when I browse, there's a task that only a specific product will satisfy. Say I need a toaster for example. I check the category for kitchen appliances then toasters and list the models by price. Then check the features, brands and reviews and weigh it up.
With software, there are categories but they are usually only defined for games and it's very much hit or miss and with such an overwhelming amount of poor software, good usable apps get lost in there. Suffice to say, few people are impressed with the App Store offerings so I don't see them being a big sell for the slate. I couldn't care less about running any of the App Store apps on my desktop; the same is not true in reverse.
Let's say the slate comes out at $499 and you buy it and it does the core functions very well. Then you start doing a job that requires you to upload pictures, even make adverts on eBay. All of a sudden, the slate can't do your core tasks. That can apply to any number of software functions. That uncertainty doesn't exist on a full-featured system.
No! Frankly nobody has said that, but the OS will be derived from it in a sense. The reality is iPhone OS as we know it came from a tablet OS project that got put on ice so that iPhone could be done.
I'm not sure if you're actually disagreeing with me. In fact while I have no problem understanding what you're saying in your post I don't get why you're saying it to me, it doesn't seem to respond to what I've said.
My comment was that the OS that the tablet will use, whatever it's named, is going to be a significant release. I see iPhone OS 3.2 as a much smaller jump, and can't imagine it would have code for the 'iSlate'. To me, that'll make the Slate OS named iPhone OS 4.0 or iSlate OS 1.0 or something similar, NOT iPhone OS 3.2.
There is rumor that DOES SAY iPhone OS 3.2 has been delayed because it has too many references to the iSlate within it. That (and the comment made by the poster I was replying to) was what I didn't agree with.
Then again, perhaps we are about to GET the next iPhone OS, 5 months early. That's still no reason not to have released bug fixes for the last couple of months.
This is what has really pissed me off about your post. Mac OS and iPhone OS already share or have much in common. Many of the APIs and Frameworks are exactly the same. Others are slightly trimmed for size. The only major difference is the framework for user apps and a system interface that hides much of the underlying Unix foundation. Finally many legacy APIs have been dropped on iPhone OS.
Yep agreed totally. So what pisses you off about my post?
edit: On rereading what I wrote - I said that it's possible iPhone OS 4.0, Snow Leopard, and iSlate 1.0 will share the same foundations different interfaces. You may have misread that. Note that this was in contrast to the implication that the slate would run iPhone OS 4.0 directly (which I believed the rumour implied). It's a given that the iPhone and Snow Leopard are both based on OSX.
I don't wish to sound hostile but I keep hearing this refrain and frankly it is wearing. It is not like Apple hides information about the OS'es. When you talk about underlying foundation to many of us that implies that part of the OS under the user interface. In the case of iPhone it is the depth of the support that has attracked many to the platform. There really isn't another platform with such a fully featured OS in a cell phone. It is very much UNIX in the palm of your hand.
Well UNIX in the sense that the kernel and many other parts come directly from Mac OS. Currently iPhone OS is a little short on features to be officially called UNIX.
Yep, agreed. Again, I didn't say anything about that. You have read something into my post that I simply didn't say (or think).
In the end I'm tired of this Mac OS / IPhone OS debate Which is a waste of time. It is a given that what ever drives the tablet will have a different visual interface. That simply due to the larger screen and more capable hardware.
Of course. But it will have a name.
And back to my original point from which this sprang - I don't think that the lack of recent updates to the iPhone OS are evidence that we are about to see a major upgrade of the iPhone OS that has all the tablet functionality built in. And thus they delay until they've announced the slate.
However, there is a flaw to my logic. It's possible that iPhone OS 3.2 has sync functions that refer to syncing to the tablet in some way, so Apple has held off on its release. Still that seems like a bad reason to delay a minor release with some important bug fixes to reception, it implies that really stuffed up the timing of something.
For Apple the bigger issue would be how you market the device and avoid consummer confusion, that requires that the device be in one family or the other. An ARM based device clearly requires something derived from iPhone OS in that case.
I would think it'll share much much more with the iPhone than with the Mac.
I really don't get why you're pissed off and hostile.
Perhaps misdirected? But if it is at me, please explain a whole lot better what you think I've said.
With software, there are categories but they are usually only defined for games and it's very much hit or miss and with such an overwhelming amount of poor software, good usable apps get lost in there. Suffice to say, few people are impressed with the App Store offerings so I don't see them being a big sell for the slate. I couldn't care less about running any of the App Store apps on my desktop; the same is not true in reverse.
I agree that the App store needs to categorize better. And showcase the higher rating apps in some way. But the apps are quite functional and useful in many ways. The more expensive apps seem to be much more functional too.
Let's say the slate comes out at $499 and you buy it and it does the core functions very well. Then you start doing a job that requires you to upload pictures, even make adverts on eBay. All of a sudden, the slate can't do your core tasks. That can apply to any number of software functions. That uncertainty doesn't exist on a full-featured system.
What happens if you don't think of the slate as a "PC" at all though?
If you think of the slate as a laptop (without a keyboard), then it'll look pretty limited. Then again, if you think of a laptop as a slate (with a keyboard) the laptop can also look pretty limited.
I assume you're criticising the app store model itself, rather than slate though. In that Apple controls what can and can't be released, AND they provide the only method of searching through apps.
Apple will have no choice (for now). They have to stop all inappropriate mouse/keyboard-centric apps - they'll be heavily criticised for doing it, but the more they force new interface paradigms on developers and users the more they'll be able to chart the course of a new type of device (and stop it falling back into the "almost a PC" (previous tablet) realm). They need total control to do that - though I don't like the fact they can deny certain apps for little reason.
Let's not fool ourselves here, folks. This "tablet" device is simply going to be a new "OOOO, AAAHH!" way for Apple to sell EVEN MORE apps and an extended array of iTunes content. The device has been designed to be nothing more than a conduit for more easy content revenue. Remember...this is all about delivering that "cheap for Apple" to produce content and producing the devices that will draw the customer in.
Let me sum it all up, the way I see it.
1) No recent updates to iPhone OS? Why? Too many references to the tablet that Apple didn't want leaked. Apple quietly holds off until the imminent "whole number" revision.
2) The tablet's OS is going to be a custom version of the iPhone OS - the OS will recognize which device it's being run on and either enable or disable features accordingly. The iPhone OS as it stands would not support all of the new gestures and capabilities of the new tablet - therefore a rewrite to support the tablet...viola...iPhone OS 4.0!
3) If you remember right, Apple just recently bought property and built a huge data center in North Carolina. Have you wondered what that is for? I guarantee it'll be tied to the content that will be offered up for this tablet as well as how it's delivered.
4) Revenue from iTunes and the App Store is just too damn easy for Apple. Let somebody else create the content, maintain control over that content, host the content on your own servers to help you maintain that control, create a new, super-hyped device to deliver the content to, take a 30% cut of everything...and then sit back and watch the money ROLL IN!!!
5) Apple knows that so far NetFlix is the dominant force in streaming video content into the home living room right now. Don't you think they want a piece of that? But we're talking Apple and Steve Jobs here. Apple doesn't want a piece of it...they want to DOMINATE in that market much like they eventually did with the music industry with the introduction of the iPod and iTunes. If anybody knows how to take complete, dominant control of an entire market in a short time frame - it's Steve Jobs. Apple will also be using their top position in digital content delivery to take advantage of the so-far mostly untapped market of interactive newspaper, magazine and "print media" subscriptions.
Huge East Coast data center + iTunes Store + App Store + LaLa acquisition + tablet = EXPANDED BUSINESS MODEL!
Older existing iPhones + brand new iPhone 4G + iPod touch + new iSlate device = LOTS OF WAYS TO CONSUME ALL OF THIS DIGITAL MEDIA!
Apple won't give the iSlate (or whatever it's going to be called) device a full blown version of OS X. No, Apple's too smart and business savvy for that. That's what they have the portable notebook products for! They're not going to eat into their own sales...they're going to CREATE new sales by expanding their portable product line with something they have more control over.
Is the picture starting to get a little clearer now?
A great post that goes very much in line with my thinking. Most of the people here concentrate on the wrong reasons for not having a proper OS on the Tablet, such as 'horrible user experience" etc. As if Apple were really thinking about the User as their uber-priority. The real reason for having an iPhone-like OS on the Tablet is going to be business-based.
Most of the people here concentrate on the wrong reasons for not having a proper OS on the Tablet, such as 'horrible user experience" etc. As if Apple were really thinking about the User as their uber-priority. The real reason for having an iPhone-like OS on the Tablet is going to be business-based.
Absolutely Apple's main priority is to make things good for their business. At the moment introducing innovative and different takes on devices are the things that make Apple stand out.
But making the user the focus of design is a very large part of the success of their business. Other companies simply do not take the extra time to make things right for the user, or decide they've done that far earlier than Apple does.
Apple knows that making this thing entirely focussed on a new user experience, one that matches what a tablet can do well (instead of matching what people do on laptops) is necessary to be a success and will make them money. They also know they have huge amounts of content they want us to buy - and it seems these 2 goals fit well together ... and thus a product is born.
Apple is not a noble company doing only the right thing. Like I'd like to see them let devices like Palm Pilot sync to iTunes (and even sell content to them!) but they don't. It's one reason I'm glad there's a big ecosystem of competition who can help drive things forward in different ways to Apple.
A great post that goes very much in line with my thinking. Most of the people here concentrate on the wrong reasons for not having a proper OS on the Tablet, such as 'horrible user experience" etc. As if Apple were really thinking about the User as their uber-priority. The real reason for having an iPhone-like OS on the Tablet is going to be business-based.
I?m not following your logic. Besides the fact that Apple?s products have always first focused on the consumer side of things, businesses have ?users?. If Apple is going to make a tablet that people want (ie: try to sell a whole lot and make barrels of money) they need to make it work the way they made the iPod and iPhone interfaces work, by making it easy for the consumer to use. This means catering to the input and output of the device, not shoehorning Windows or shmearing a mobile OS designed for a screen 1/9th the size and 1/4 th the performance into a tablet device.
These are just dumb.
Is it possible that you think that Apple is going to design a Slate around some notion of profiting from media sales, while remaining indifferent to the quality of the user experience? Because I assure you, those to things are not even different, much less mutually exclusive.
Let's not fool ourselves here, folks. This "tablet" device is simply going to be a new "OOOO, AAAHH!" way for Apple to sell EVEN MORE apps and an extended array of iTunes content.
Apple makes the most of its money from hardware sales, pretty much weakens your argument right off.
Absolutely Apple's main priority is to make things good for their business. At the moment introducing innovative and different takes on devices are the things that make Apple stand out.
But making the user the focus of design is a very large part of the success of their business. Other companies simply do not take the extra time to make things right for the user, or decide they've done that far earlier than Apple does.
Apple knows that making this thing entirely focussed on a new user experience, one that matches what a tablet can do well (instead of matching what people do on laptops) is necessary to be a success and will make them money. They also know they have huge amounts of content they want us to buy - and it seems these 2 goals fit well together ... and thus a product is born.
Apple is not a noble company doing only the right thing. Like I'd like to see them let devices like Palm Pilot sync to iTunes (and even sell content to them!) but they don't. It's one reason I'm glad there's a big ecosystem of competition who can help drive things forward in different ways to Apple.
Of course, they have to make a profit and do so at the best cost possible. True is also that they care about the user experience more, on average, than many other gadget companies. My preoccupation was precisely with the people on these boards that sometimes seem to forget that Apple owes their success to their business thinking, first and foremost.
I?m not following your logic. Besides the fact that Apple?s products have always first focused on the consumer side of things, businesses have ?users?. If Apple is going to make a tablet that people want (ie: try to sell a whole lot and make barrels of money) they need to make it work the way they made the iPod and iPhone interfaces work, by making it easy for the consumer to use. This means catering to the input and output of the device, not shoehorning Windows or shmearing a mobile OS designed for a screen 1/9th the size and 1/4 th the performance into a tablet device.
These are just dumb.
I absolutely prefer the bottom photo to the top one