. This is a laptop replacement as far as I can see, and as such a larger screen size necessary.
I find this kind of comment comical..
A laptop replacement??? Really?? For whom???
Maybe a laptop replacement for those who use their computers for nothing more than surfing the internet, checking email and watching a movie.. But for those who use their computer for actual work as with Apple's pro apps, there is no way a 10 inch tablet running an iPhone OS is going to replace a MacBook Pro..
At this point? Seems like this type of technology didn't really help the Zune or Google's Nexus one. Sure Apple enthusiasts know the benefits, but Apple doesn't make stuff for us anymore. They make stuff for the hip crowd now and they'll buy anything with an Apple Logo on it. Well, maybe not the Apple tv......
I'll stick with ya on that bet too. Apple has to do something special with the display because it's going to be an extremely important part of this product's success.
Sure, but pricing and ready availability are pretty important as well. A $2,000 tablet with a constrained, narrow supply chain aren't big upsides compared to "gee, these blacks are somewhat blacker than on a similar LCD, if I'm remembering correctly."
At this point? Seems like this type of technology didn't really help the Zune or Google's Nexus one. Sure Apple enthusiasts know the benefits, but Apple doesn't make stuff for us anymore. They make stuff for the hip crowd now and they'll buy anything with an Apple Logo on it. Well, maybe not the Apple tv......
The trouble with "Apple enthusiasts" is that they want all this technology incorporated into the new device AND they want it to cost $150. You simply can't have both. The article already points out that an OLED screen of the size mentioned would make the cost of manufacture extremely high. Yet, when the device finally is announced, if it doesn't have the OLED screen it will be roundly criticized. If it does have the screen but is priced above the imaginary line drawn in the sand by analysts it will, you guessed it, be roundly criticized. So either way the device will not meet the expectations of the "experts". But then none of the "experts" have ever created a single product and brought it to market.
Sure, but pricing and ready availability are pretty important as well. A $2,000 tablet with a constrained, narrow supply chain aren't big upsides compared to "gee, these blacks are somewhat blacker than on a similar LCD, if I'm remembering correctly."
No, no! It has to be more than a "gee, these blacks are blacker". It has to be something else that creates the wow factor on the hardware side. And no, I'm not underestimating the software impact. Obviously the software is crucial. But I maintain that there will be something special about this device on the hardware side too!
The trouble with "Apple enthusiasts" is that they want all this technology incorporated into the new device AND they want it to cost $150. You simply can't have both. The article already points out that an OLED screen of the size mentioned would make the cost of manufacture extremely high. Yet, when the device finally is announced, if it doesn't have the OLED screen it will be roundly criticized. If it does have the screen but is priced above the imaginary line drawn in the sand by analysts it will, you guessed it, be roundly criticized. So either way the device will not meet the expectations of the "experts". But then none of the "experts" have ever created a single product and brought it to market.
That's one of the most amusing things with these new product speculation threads. Many of the predictions are completely out of touch with anything remotely resembling reality.
It's clear that most people here have zero knowledge about supply chain issues and the production of consumer electronics (or really any physical product).
Just look at all the people asking for a $99 or $199 unsubsidized smartphone when the estimated Bill Of Materials is hovers around $180. And that's not including R&D, licensing/royalties, manufacturing costs, packaging, marketing, accessories, etc.
The other funny thing is the request for completely esoteric features that have little appeal for the general marketplace or functionality that has no logical reason. Apple designs their consumer electronics for Joe Consumer, not for individuals.
I'm a big fan of OLED screens but expecting a 10" capacitive OLED screen to feature on a sensibly priced device is ridiculous. Sony's latest 11" OLED digital TV retails for £3,299 (~$5000) in the UK.
An OLED display on this year's iPhone is a realistic hope though.
An AMOLED sounds interesting, but from what i've seen and heard its not as great as one would think.
First, it is almost invisible in broad daylight. Imagine just how much of an inconvenience that could be for many customers.
Second, it has a reputation of being overly saturated (ex. Nexus One). I'm pretty sure nobody wants color mania on their screen as actor's faces suddenly turn into a sunburnt orange color. Color accuracy is definitely more important than color pop.
AMOLED does pose several problems, but maybe Apple could fix that issue with an invention of their own, or stick with the conventional LED-backlit LCD panels.
you ruled out the 10" display. One of biggest problems with the Kindle, even as an eReader, was the small display. A 10" display is about one half of the 13" dispaly used in the MB/MBP/MBA. I think that is pretty ideal for reading textbooks, periodicals, newspapers and other printed media. You go to 5-7" it becomes more suited for novels and not much more.
The question is, do you compromise price, battery life, portability, etc. to accomodate a market that is not at all a sure thing? If there were an obvious, pent-up demand for an electronic magazine reader, that I could see.
In my view, the need for a touch-screen device with a larger screen than the Touch is that the Touch has outgrown its screen. The way most of us are using it these days, it begs for more screen real estate. This is a market for which there is an obvious, pent-up demand. It's a much safer bet for Apple to bring a $500 7-inch Touch to market than to try and make a go of a $750 10-inch device.
It isn't impossible that Apple might offer both but if it does, the 10-incher would likely serve a limited niche market whereas the 7-incher would likely be a sales hit. If Apple brings out just one, it will be the 7-inch device. That's where the volume and profit is and while Apple likes to market itself as a premium brand, it is not averse to pumping out high-volume products like the iPod or competing on price as it does with iTunes media.
Well, neither iPhone, nor Magic Mouse support your point. While Apple's notebook line apparently does.
Just because a company is interested doesn't mean it's possible. We all want bigger screens, more powerful cpus and gpus, more memory etc. That all consumes more power.
It's also one reason why Apple has been holding off on multitasking.
IMO, tablet should rather near notebooks in its degree of mobility. On the other hand, I won't be surprised, if Apple fails to keep energy consumption and battery life satisfactory.
What would you consider to be satisfactory? I believe the new 12" Joo Joo tablet has about 5 hours of battery life. Is that satisfactory? What would be for a full color graphics accelerated device?
Be realistic. Remember that the far less capable B&N product has only about 12 to 14 hours of battery life, and that's with a mostly "E-ink" screen.
First, it is almost invisible in broad daylight. Imagine just how much of an inconvenience that could be for many customers.
Second, it has a reputation of being overly saturated (ex. Nexus One). I'm pretty sure nobody wants color mania on their screen as actor's faces suddenly turn into a sunburnt orange color. Color accuracy is definitely more important than color pop.
Yeah the outdoor performance is quite bad with AMOLED:
Indoors they look really vibrant and have great viewing angles though.
I personally rarely use the phone outdoors beyond calling people and the screen looks usable for that so I'd be happy with AMOLED. I prefer over-saturated colors generally too.
Apple just need to find a way to get IPS-like technology into mobile screens and even laptop ones. If AMOLED tech is the only way that quality will come then we'll have to suffer the downsides.
At this point? Seems like this type of technology didn't really help the Zune or Google's Nexus one. Sure Apple enthusiasts know the benefits, but Apple doesn't make stuff for us anymore. They make stuff for the hip crowd now and they'll buy anything with an Apple Logo on it. Well, maybe not the Apple tv......
Well, we also hear that Apple's products are too expensive.
If you're an "Apple enthusiast" as your post makes you seem to be, would you pay the estimated $2,000 that a 10" AMOLED tablet is estimated to cost?
Indoors they look really vibrant and have great viewing angles though.
I personally rarely use the phone outdoors beyond calling people and the screen looks usable for that so I'd be happy with AMOLED. I prefer over-saturated colors generally too.
Apple just need to find a way to get IPS-like technology into mobile screens and even laptop ones. If AMOLED tech is the only way that quality will come then we'll have to suffer the downsides.
I'm sad about current AMOLEDs. Years ago, we were being told quite enthusiastically that OLEDs would be MUCH more readable outside, because they could (would) be SO much brighter. But so far, that hasn't panned out. They were extrapolating that from silicon and GasP LEDs, which ARE much brighter.
In order to be seen, a device must emit a higher light level than the outside light. Outdoors, that's a LOT of light.
Problems have been that more brightness dramatically lowers the useful life of the screen. Too much brightness overheats the screen, also results in sharply lowered lifetime.
Too much brightness results in too high a power draw.
Right now, AMOLED adopters are on the bleeding edge of that technology.
I would LOVE Apple to come out with an AMOLED screened device. I'm hoping that when they do, maybe later this year, that they will have a screen that has seen some of those problems solved. I know from my reading my journals that in a year or so, screens with much better energy efficiency will be available. Also, screens with a much better lifetime. While that may not seem important to those who say that current phone AMOLEDs are already at the 30,000 (field use, not lab) hour point, it is important. Those screens die rapidly if the brightness is too high, so it's limited. So very poor outside performance results.
If the lifetime is much better, the screens could be allowed to be set brighter, resulting in better outside performance. Also shorter lifetimes from heat will be less of a factor when efficiency is increased.
We're still in the infancy of these screens. In three of four years, the problems will all have been solved effectively enough.
Comments
. This is a laptop replacement as far as I can see, and as such a larger screen size necessary.
I find this kind of comment comical..
A laptop replacement??? Really?? For whom???
Maybe a laptop replacement for those who use their computers for nothing more than surfing the internet, checking email and watching a movie.. But for those who use their computer for actual work as with Apple's pro apps, there is no way a 10 inch tablet running an iPhone OS is going to replace a MacBook Pro..
I'll stick with ya on that bet too. Apple has to do something special with the display because it's going to be an extremely important part of this product's success.
Sure, but pricing and ready availability are pretty important as well. A $2,000 tablet with a constrained, narrow supply chain aren't big upsides compared to "gee, these blacks are somewhat blacker than on a similar LCD, if I'm remembering correctly."
At this point? Seems like this type of technology didn't really help the Zune or Google's Nexus one. Sure Apple enthusiasts know the benefits, but Apple doesn't make stuff for us anymore. They make stuff for the hip crowd now and they'll buy anything with an Apple Logo on it. Well, maybe not the Apple tv......
The trouble with "Apple enthusiasts" is that they want all this technology incorporated into the new device AND they want it to cost $150. You simply can't have both. The article already points out that an OLED screen of the size mentioned would make the cost of manufacture extremely high. Yet, when the device finally is announced, if it doesn't have the OLED screen it will be roundly criticized. If it does have the screen but is priced above the imaginary line drawn in the sand by analysts it will, you guessed it, be roundly criticized. So either way the device will not meet the expectations of the "experts". But then none of the "experts" have ever created a single product and brought it to market.
Sure, but pricing and ready availability are pretty important as well. A $2,000 tablet with a constrained, narrow supply chain aren't big upsides compared to "gee, these blacks are somewhat blacker than on a similar LCD, if I'm remembering correctly."
No, no! It has to be more than a "gee, these blacks are blacker". It has to be something else that creates the wow factor on the hardware side. And no, I'm not underestimating the software impact. Obviously the software is crucial. But I maintain that there will be something special about this device on the hardware side too!
I just can't figure out what!
The trouble with "Apple enthusiasts" is that they want all this technology incorporated into the new device AND they want it to cost $150. You simply can't have both. The article already points out that an OLED screen of the size mentioned would make the cost of manufacture extremely high. Yet, when the device finally is announced, if it doesn't have the OLED screen it will be roundly criticized. If it does have the screen but is priced above the imaginary line drawn in the sand by analysts it will, you guessed it, be roundly criticized. So either way the device will not meet the expectations of the "experts". But then none of the "experts" have ever created a single product and brought it to market.
That's one of the most amusing things with these new product speculation threads. Many of the predictions are completely out of touch with anything remotely resembling reality.
It's clear that most people here have zero knowledge about supply chain issues and the production of consumer electronics (or really any physical product).
Just look at all the people asking for a $99 or $199 unsubsidized smartphone when the estimated Bill Of Materials is hovers around $180. And that's not including R&D, licensing/royalties, manufacturing costs, packaging, marketing, accessories, etc.
The other funny thing is the request for completely esoteric features that have little appeal for the general marketplace or functionality that has no logical reason. Apple designs their consumer electronics for Joe Consumer, not for individuals.
An OLED display on this year's iPhone is a realistic hope though.
First, it is almost invisible in broad daylight. Imagine just how much of an inconvenience that could be for many customers.
Second, it has a reputation of being overly saturated (ex. Nexus One). I'm pretty sure nobody wants color mania on their screen as actor's faces suddenly turn into a sunburnt orange color. Color accuracy is definitely more important than color pop.
AMOLED does pose several problems, but maybe Apple could fix that issue with an invention of their own, or stick with the conventional LED-backlit LCD panels.
I agree with everyting you stated up until
you ruled out the 10" display. One of biggest problems with the Kindle, even as an eReader, was the small display. A 10" display is about one half of the 13" dispaly used in the MB/MBP/MBA. I think that is pretty ideal for reading textbooks, periodicals, newspapers and other printed media. You go to 5-7" it becomes more suited for novels and not much more.
The question is, do you compromise price, battery life, portability, etc. to accomodate a market that is not at all a sure thing? If there were an obvious, pent-up demand for an electronic magazine reader, that I could see.
In my view, the need for a touch-screen device with a larger screen than the Touch is that the Touch has outgrown its screen. The way most of us are using it these days, it begs for more screen real estate. This is a market for which there is an obvious, pent-up demand. It's a much safer bet for Apple to bring a $500 7-inch Touch to market than to try and make a go of a $750 10-inch device.
It isn't impossible that Apple might offer both but if it does, the 10-incher would likely serve a limited niche market whereas the 7-incher would likely be a sales hit. If Apple brings out just one, it will be the 7-inch device. That's where the volume and profit is and while Apple likes to market itself as a premium brand, it is not averse to pumping out high-volume products like the iPod or competing on price as it does with iTunes media.
Oh, we should have heard something about that for sure....
P.S. The only evident OLED advantage is energy efficiency. Since when is Apple concerned for energy efficiency?
The one out now aren't that energy efficient. Only when most of the display is black.
Well, neither iPhone, nor Magic Mouse support your point. While Apple's notebook line apparently does.
Just because a company is interested doesn't mean it's possible. We all want bigger screens, more powerful cpus and gpus, more memory etc. That all consumes more power.
It's also one reason why Apple has been holding off on multitasking.
IMO, tablet should rather near notebooks in its degree of mobility. On the other hand, I won't be surprised, if Apple fails to keep energy consumption and battery life satisfactory.
What would you consider to be satisfactory? I believe the new 12" Joo Joo tablet has about 5 hours of battery life. Is that satisfactory? What would be for a full color graphics accelerated device?
Be realistic. Remember that the far less capable B&N product has only about 12 to 14 hours of battery life, and that's with a mostly "E-ink" screen.
First, it is almost invisible in broad daylight. Imagine just how much of an inconvenience that could be for many customers.
Second, it has a reputation of being overly saturated (ex. Nexus One). I'm pretty sure nobody wants color mania on their screen as actor's faces suddenly turn into a sunburnt orange color. Color accuracy is definitely more important than color pop.
Yeah the outdoor performance is quite bad with AMOLED:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVYI4ko6_E0
Indoors they look really vibrant and have great viewing angles though.
I personally rarely use the phone outdoors beyond calling people and the screen looks usable for that so I'd be happy with AMOLED. I prefer over-saturated colors generally too.
Apple just need to find a way to get IPS-like technology into mobile screens and even laptop ones. If AMOLED tech is the only way that quality will come then we'll have to suffer the downsides.
At this point? Seems like this type of technology didn't really help the Zune or Google's Nexus one. Sure Apple enthusiasts know the benefits, but Apple doesn't make stuff for us anymore. They make stuff for the hip crowd now and they'll buy anything with an Apple Logo on it. Well, maybe not the Apple tv......
Well, we also hear that Apple's products are too expensive.
If you're an "Apple enthusiast" as your post makes you seem to be, would you pay the estimated $2,000 that a 10" AMOLED tablet is estimated to cost?
Yeah the outdoor performance is quite bad with AMOLED:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVYI4ko6_E0
Indoors they look really vibrant and have great viewing angles though.
I personally rarely use the phone outdoors beyond calling people and the screen looks usable for that so I'd be happy with AMOLED. I prefer over-saturated colors generally too.
Apple just need to find a way to get IPS-like technology into mobile screens and even laptop ones. If AMOLED tech is the only way that quality will come then we'll have to suffer the downsides.
I'm sad about current AMOLEDs. Years ago, we were being told quite enthusiastically that OLEDs would be MUCH more readable outside, because they could (would) be SO much brighter. But so far, that hasn't panned out. They were extrapolating that from silicon and GasP LEDs, which ARE much brighter.
In order to be seen, a device must emit a higher light level than the outside light. Outdoors, that's a LOT of light.
Problems have been that more brightness dramatically lowers the useful life of the screen. Too much brightness overheats the screen, also results in sharply lowered lifetime.
Too much brightness results in too high a power draw.
Right now, AMOLED adopters are on the bleeding edge of that technology.
I would LOVE Apple to come out with an AMOLED screened device. I'm hoping that when they do, maybe later this year, that they will have a screen that has seen some of those problems solved. I know from my reading my journals that in a year or so, screens with much better energy efficiency will be available. Also, screens with a much better lifetime. While that may not seem important to those who say that current phone AMOLEDs are already at the 30,000 (field use, not lab) hour point, it is important. Those screens die rapidly if the brightness is too high, so it's limited. So very poor outside performance results.
If the lifetime is much better, the screens could be allowed to be set brighter, resulting in better outside performance. Also shorter lifetimes from heat will be less of a factor when efficiency is increased.
We're still in the infancy of these screens. In three of four years, the problems will all have been solved effectively enough.
No, no, no. I believe your original post on this topic assured us that if it wasn't OLED
you'd be eating your hat . . .
No, eating my hate was for the name.
I'm a big fan of OLED screens but expecting a 10" capacitive OLED screen to feature on a sensibly priced device is ridiculous.
Who at Apple said it was going to be sensibly priced?
If I had to choose between fancy-pants screen options, I'd much rather have a PixelQi screen instead of an OLED screen.
No way.