Well we know they won't license until they are legally forced to.
Well, they won't license for desktop/notebook or phone/tablet usage, but they could license a version of iPhone OS for limited consumer electronics or ATM kiosk type usage. Things they aren't interested in making themselves, but which utilize touch interfaces.
But, yeah, a touch interface on desktop/notebook systems is just a stupid gimmick, and Apple isn't usually in the stupid gimmick business.
1) Curiously, what wasn't clear about the statement, "Plus, [Apple] advertised some unknown chip designation they invented over the Cortex A9 with multiple cores".
2) I'm not sure what you mean by can or can't do. It can do pretty much what the iPhone can do but with a faster chip and larger display, which does open it up to a lot more possibilities. Will it run Adobe Photoshop, like I've seen installed on a netbook? No, but I wouldn't want to even try to use PS on a netbook either. There are some interesting design apps coming for the iPad that do look promising, though. It really is changing the way we look at computing.
3) There will be netbook sales going to the iPad and other tablets. Netbooks have more features and options than the iPad but for what people typically need from these devices the iPad and other tablets running a mobile OS will likely suit them just fine, so I do expect a netbook drop after competing tablets hit the market.
4) Now you've shifted from netbook to notebook. The demarkation is clear and full-sized PCs have nothing to fear from a 10" tablet regardless of what it's performance is.
5) In regards to Intel ? outside of the low-volume high-end processors that Apple gets earlier than other companies as a marketing campaign for both companies ? Apple has been using the lastest chips in most releases.
Usually about a month or so after the release. Apple does have to have hundreds of thousands of these machines in their stores on launch day while Dell and HP, who do little higher-end sales only have to advertise and have BTO option. They aren't buying as many as Apple out of the gate. This boutique-style strategy doesn't scale well, but that's another topic altogether.
There are few case where Apple doesn't use the chips Intel offers and then comes out with some hybrid option that is part of the current and future design, like in an IMac from a couple years ago. I don't think those chips were ever sold to anyone else.
This is the first time since moving to Intel that I can recall Apple going so long between a Pro notebook update (their biggest selling category) without updating to a good jump in both performance and efficiency, which is why many of us longtime Mac users have been waiting for new MBPs; it's a bit unprecedented.
Actually at first there was some confusion when the A4 was reported by the media.
Apple never uses the latest offerings. They are always behind on both CPU and GPU technology. ALWAYS...
Fast chip doesn't necessarily equate to a faster system if the chip isn't optimized for it and if the OSes used are disparate. There was a reason MS had to push XP to netbooks and lost some notebook sales to Linux: Vista wouldn't run on netbooks. MS has corrected that with Win7, but I bet you that I can start up the iPad and load the WSJ in Safari before you can start up a netbook and to the WSJ in IE.
Windows is simply not ideal for a netbook's power. Nor is ideal for a 10" display. Then there are issue with display quality and the quality of other aspects which affect usability. Can a netbook do more things than a netbook? Sure. Are most of these things what the average person wants it for? No. Will the faster netbook seem faster than the slower iPad simply because it has faster HW? Absolutely not, which is the single most important fact for the consumer when it comes to speed, not some spec sheet.
Actually having to run Windows XP on netbooks had very little to do with the CPU. Other factors like GPU and 1GB of Ram were more the issue. Netbooks today can run Windows 7 rather easy.
You should be able to start an iPad faster its running a mobile OS. Has nothing to do with the chip being optimized has to do with the OS. Your running a big iPhone with an SDK on top of it.
Lets jump back into reality, you are buying this for your mom, you aren't even getting one. So your mom has about the same technical needs as Quadra.
You're running OS X optimized for the device at hand, as always. With a chip optimized for the device at hand, which means balancing power draw against performance in specific areas.
Apple doesn't design to specs, they design to the experience. If the iPad does what it's designed to do and does it well, then Apple has done their job well. Talk of whether or not the iPad is actually "powerful" or how it's only for novices is the provenance of little boys waving their tiny dicks.
A 960x640 screen is not an oddball resolution. It's the best resolution to use if Apple were to increase the screen resolution of the iPhone and iPod touch. You guys should be dancing in the isle for it. App developers should be screaming YES! YES! YES!
There's basically no other choice. Apple has 150,000 and more applications designed to 480x320 at 3.5" diagonal. The best way to compete in the screen resolution race when you have that many applications to maintain backward compatibility with is to double the pixel density and quadruple the number of pixels to 960x640. This way, all the old apps can run at 960x640 and still look great. It should be appear no different.
If you look at the iPad, or rather, iPhone OS X 3.2, Apple has already implemented pixel "doubling" so that iPhone/iPod touch apps can run on the iPad and fill most of the screen. The "2x" button doesn't fill the screen of the 1024x768 iPad. It runs iPhone apps at 960x640 on the iPad and results in small black borders (64 pixels and 32 pixels on each side, except for the status bar). If Apple were to use 960x640, the "2x" for iPhone OS 3.1 and prior apps would be the default.
This also would signify that Apple will continue selling a "low cost" iPhone 3GS and iPod touch at 480x320. The big difference between an iPhone and an iPad is the screen area, not screen resolution. Applications have to be redesigned to take advantage of the 8x larger screen area on the iPad. If the screen resolution was increased on the iPhone, but the screen size stayed in the 3.5" range, apps wouldn't change as the screen size is the same. By doing this, Apple are giving app developers the easiest upgrade path. Developers would design at 960x640, then downscaling graphics and fonts for 480x320 for low end iPhone and iPod devices. For iPad, they have to redesign the UI, not just the graphics, but the UI! It'll basically be a different application.
Only issue is whether such a density screen, 320+ ppi, is economically viable. 720x480 would be cheaper, but at 1.5x upscaling, old applications would look ugly and would force app developers to redo the app graphics. With 150k apps, that isn't going to happen.
Who knows, Apple may stick with 480x320, or go with 720x480 because the screens would be cheaper and force developers to redevelop old applications and make users suffer 1.5x upscaling. But 960x640 would technically be best resolution to use for consumers and developers.
I could agree with you if the iPad hadn't different size. But the fact is that in this case developers will have to either ignore the benefits of the extra pixels for the iPhone and focus only on 2 sizes (1024x768, 480x320) or produce their apps for 3 res. because they can't risk ignoring the older-iPhone users.
(We all know why Apple chose the res for iPad, 'cause it's still the most common presentation resolution.)
Talk of whether or not the iPad is actually "powerful" or how it's only for novices is the provenance of little boys waving their tiny dicks.
Personally, I'm GLAD that it is not powerful and that it is designed for novices. That is what makes it the greatest thing that Steve has ever invented. It is going to change the entire computer industry.
So I'm wondering what the holdup is on rebanning iGenius? He's proceeding precisely as he was when he was banned in the first place (permanently), so even if he's using a proxy IP address I would think there shouldn't be any problem.
Well, they won't license for desktop/notebook or phone/tablet usage, but they could license a version of iPhone OS for limited consumer electronics or ATM kiosk type usage. Things they aren't interested in making themselves, but which utilize touch interfaces.
But, yeah, a touch interface on desktop/notebook systems is just a stupid gimmick, and Apple isn't usually in the stupid gimmick business.
I don't know about it being "just a stupid gimmick".
I have been teaching myself to use Apple's Motion 4 Mac app (Part of Final Cut Studio).
For those not familiar, Motion 4, it is used to animate high-quality images and video.
What is profound about Motion is that it is interactive and you can develop complex animations in real-time, without the typical:
1) add animation
2) render video
3) display the results
4) adjust as necessary
4) repeat
Instead, with Motion, you can add effects or make adjustments while the scene is playing.
This level of interaction and feedback cries out for a touch interface-- for example, what would be a more natural way to dolly/pan/zoom a camera through 3D space then to push it with your finger? Or, resize an image element (or effect) by pinching. Or, draw and reshape a bezier mask by dragging its handles.
While I don't see sustained use of a MultiTouch interface on an upright display, there are times where it is the best tool for the job. (You don't use a plunger all the time, but when you need the capability, it's priceless).
On a desktop or laptop, MultiTouch Motion would be a compelling tool.
I will get my iPad on Saturday. The first app I will buy is Pages... hopefully the iPad version has most of the capabilities of the Mac version (shapes, resizing, masks, bezier curves). I think it has all those, I recall seeing everything but bezier curves in the guided tour videos and keynote.
Some day soon, I hope that Apple will publish a Motion-like app specifically for the iPad-- one that targets consumers and the things they will want to do with their iPads.
Finally, with the progression of the iPhone, iPod Touch and now the iPad, I believe that Apple has begun to migrate (nay, untether) its users from the limitations of the mouse and keyboard.
I do believe, in the not too distant future, all Apple display devices will be MultiTouch and the mouse/kb as accessories for those who want them .
I could agree with you if the iPad hadn't different size. But the fact is that in this case developers will have to either ignore the benefits of the extra pixels for the iPhone and focus only on 2 sizes (1024x768, 480x320) or produce their apps for 3 res. because they can't risk ignoring the older-iPhone users.
The pixels only matter to a point. It's the screen size. The iPad is a 9.7" 4:3 screen. The iPhone is a 3.5" screen device. The UI would have to be designed specifically for the two because the limiting factor in iPhone OS X applications is one's finger size, not screen resolution. Screen size plays directly into that. Screen resolution does not.
For iPhone/iPod touch, developers would design their apps for a 3.5" device at 960x640 at 332 dpi. For the devices which are 3.5" at 480x320, they keep the exact same UI design, but downscale graphics and fonts for 166 dpi. The work to downscale graphics and fonts to 166 dpi is going to be orders of magnitude easier than say redesigning the UI to go from iPhone to iPad or vice versa. The screen resolution is really secondary to the size of the device.
Quote:
(We all know why Apple chose the res for iPad, 'cause it's still the most common presentation resolution.)
They chose 1024x768 because it was a reasonable and affordable DPI for a 9.7" screen, and because iPhone apps that are pixel doubled would fill most of the screen. They chose 4:3 because that is the most optimal resolution for an any orientation device (portrait or landscape). They chose 9.7" because that plus bezel size represented the largest slate-like device that we as humans would feel comfortable with.
I think most common presentation resolution was pretty low on the list.
Umm, Applebaum... have you heard about this magical new device called a headset with microphone? You can actually get these wireless now, with Bluetooth. I've even heard that a wired version comes with every iPhone, free!
Quote:
Scenario One:
1) you get a call from that cute girl... her beautiful likeness is displayed on your phone (and conversely, yours on her phone).
2) you want to whisper sweet nothings to each other so you both put the phones to your ears for a private conversation.
3) through the corner of your eye, you can just barely strain to see the other's earhole in magnificent color and full closeup splendor.
Scenario Two:
1) you get a call from someone (as above) and want to hold a conversation while visually verifying that the other person is who she says she is, and that she is alone (and vice versa)
2) you each hold the phone 18 inches in front of your face and yell at it so the other person* can see and hear you.
You're running OS X optimized for the device at hand, as always. With a chip optimized for the device at hand, which means balancing power draw against performance in specific areas.
Apple doesn't design to specs, they design to the experience. If the iPad does what it's designed to do and does it well, then Apple has done their job well. Talk of whether or not the iPad is actually "powerful" or how it's only for novices is the provenance of little boys waving their tiny dicks.
LOL!
Reminds me of the TV ad where a big macho guy comes on the screen and brags: "I have a small business!"
Umm, Applebaum... have you heard about this magical new device called a headset with microphone? You can actually get these wireless now, with Bluetooth. I've even heard that a wired version comes with every iPhone, free!
Umm, yeah....
But you would still have to:
--extend your arm in front of you
--hang your head/face over the phone laying flat on the table
-- carry a nifty little stand to hold the phone upright
-- wear some really cool eyeglasses or headgear that holds the phone (or the camera) in front of your face.
None of these are practical for video calls/chats on a portable device.
That said, I do think there are uses for a front facing camera. Things such as self portraits/videos, PhotoBooth style special effects...
The forward-facing camera is to read hand motions, fellas. Go back a few patents. Yes, social networking chats will be featured, but think Tom Cruise sweeping stuff on and off the screen with gestures. Should apply to all macs, not just iPhone.
I hope this is true, I really do. A modern high-res screen (and OLED if you please) with multi-tasking would rescue the iPhone for me. Well, at least until I can see how good Win Phone turns out to be.
And I hope it's fast, really fast. My old 3G feels like a relic. So slow in every operation and crashing like there's no tomorrow. And lots of system RAM too please, don't hold back. Let me pay for an iPhone with a couple of gigs of RAM.
I don't know about it being "just a stupid gimmick".
[...]
This level of interaction and feedback cries out for a touch interface-- for example, what would be a more natural way to dolly/pan/zoom a camera through 3D space then to push it with your finger? Or, resize an image element (or effect) by pinching. Or, draw and reshape a bezier mask by dragging its handles.
[...]
Well, OK, "stupid gimmick" may have been a bit hyperbolic, and yes, there are probably a few cases where a touch interface on a desktop/notebook class device might be useful, but I think it would be something that most users in most situations would not find genuinely useful. I can't think of any case where I would personally find it useful (but I don't do graphics related work), and, if buying a MBP or iMac, I really don't want to pay for something relatively expensive (relative to, say, an extra USB port that I might never need to use but am just as happy to have in case I ever need it) that I'd never use. Even for those like you who might find it useful at times, the ergonomics would not be good. It might be useful to have OS support for touch and allow users who need it to hook up touch capable displays, perhaps mounted into their desktops at a slight angle, or something like that.
I would also note that in the few anecdotal reports I have read from people with touch enabled Windows systems, they find it a fun thing for a little while, but that quickly wears off and they are soon back to using keyboard and mouse, essentially ignoring completely that they have a touch capable system. In most cases, it seems like it's just too much physical effort, and too awkward to pick your arm up, reach out to the screen and touch something to perform an action. Although, it's not like I'm reporting on something new here, this has been discussed many times on the forum.
A bigger screen, more speed, and a sleeker design is what I'd like to see. My 3G is showing its age. If they want to keep an annual refresh cycle, the updated phone simply has to be an A+. Maybe even A++. Pull out the stops.
John Gruber's comment on the iPhone HD name makes a lot of sense.
"If they?re going to call it the HD, then perhaps the main camera will shoot HD video, too? I don?t see how a phone named ?HD? could have a camera that only shoots standard-def video."
A4 for the iPad can come in as a Quad Core. The A4 for the iPhone 4GS can come in as a Duo-Core.
Or more realistically, A4 for iPad is single-core 1GHz and the iPhone is single-core 800MHz.
Why would they put 4 ARM cores into a device they expect to get 10 hours of battery life from just so they can run the apps 16 times faster than the iPhone 3GS?
It's not going to be quad core, nor is it going to have 2GB RAM. It's a $500 iPod with a big screen. 1GHz Cortex A8 or A9 single-core with either 256MB or 512MB RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Video-calls are a gimmick.
Yeah but PhotoBooth is quite a quirky app. If you could take a photo of yourself and then manipulate it with touch, it would be fun for kids. Just smile, snap, add a funny nose, big ears, hat etc.
It's also easier for making avatars for forums, and games can incorporate it into the fun - not necessarily like eye-toy but even just mapping your face onto a character or something. Burnout does this - it takes your photo when you win a race and puts it on your game driving license.
Quote:
Apple's new handset will feature a custom A4 processor, 960x640 double-resolution display, and a second front-facing camera.
I don't really see the point of putting a 960x640 display on a 3.5" display. You're not going to see much more detail. I can barely make out the pixels on the current iPhone screen and text is smooth. I guess if they can do it, why not but that will be one very high density screen. I'd rather just have an IPS LED backlit display at the same resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Some day soon, I hope that Apple will publish a Motion-like app specifically for the iPad
The MALI GPU isn't anywhere near as capable as even the 9400M, which is on the low-end for Motion work. The iPad won't have enough RAM either. Motion is also meant for integrating with video and you can't do any video editing on the iPad so there wouldn't be any point. There's also the issue of the video sizes - typically animations are saved uncompressed, which would take forever to save to mobile Flash memory and use up GBs of space. What you'd really need to do this is a hackintosh netbook with the 9400M chip and 2GB RAM or more.
Comments
Well we know they won't license until they are legally forced to.
Well, they won't license for desktop/notebook or phone/tablet usage, but they could license a version of iPhone OS for limited consumer electronics or ATM kiosk type usage. Things they aren't interested in making themselves, but which utilize touch interfaces.
But, yeah, a touch interface on desktop/notebook systems is just a stupid gimmick, and Apple isn't usually in the stupid gimmick business.
1) Curiously, what wasn't clear about the statement, "Plus, [Apple] advertised some unknown chip designation they invented over the Cortex A9 with multiple cores".
2) I'm not sure what you mean by can or can't do. It can do pretty much what the iPhone can do but with a faster chip and larger display, which does open it up to a lot more possibilities. Will it run Adobe Photoshop, like I've seen installed on a netbook? No, but I wouldn't want to even try to use PS on a netbook either. There are some interesting design apps coming for the iPad that do look promising, though. It really is changing the way we look at computing.
3) There will be netbook sales going to the iPad and other tablets. Netbooks have more features and options than the iPad but for what people typically need from these devices the iPad and other tablets running a mobile OS will likely suit them just fine, so I do expect a netbook drop after competing tablets hit the market.
4) Now you've shifted from netbook to notebook. The demarkation is clear and full-sized PCs have nothing to fear from a 10" tablet regardless of what it's performance is.
5) In regards to Intel ? outside of the low-volume high-end processors that Apple gets earlier than other companies as a marketing campaign for both companies ? Apple has been using the lastest chips in most releases.
Usually about a month or so after the release. Apple does have to have hundreds of thousands of these machines in their stores on launch day while Dell and HP, who do little higher-end sales only have to advertise and have BTO option. They aren't buying as many as Apple out of the gate. This boutique-style strategy doesn't scale well, but that's another topic altogether.
There are few case where Apple doesn't use the chips Intel offers and then comes out with some hybrid option that is part of the current and future design, like in an IMac from a couple years ago. I don't think those chips were ever sold to anyone else.
This is the first time since moving to Intel that I can recall Apple going so long between a Pro notebook update (their biggest selling category) without updating to a good jump in both performance and efficiency, which is why many of us longtime Mac users have been waiting for new MBPs; it's a bit unprecedented.
Actually at first there was some confusion when the A4 was reported by the media.
Apple never uses the latest offerings. They are always behind on both CPU and GPU technology. ALWAYS...
Fast chip doesn't necessarily equate to a faster system if the chip isn't optimized for it and if the OSes used are disparate. There was a reason MS had to push XP to netbooks and lost some notebook sales to Linux: Vista wouldn't run on netbooks. MS has corrected that with Win7, but I bet you that I can start up the iPad and load the WSJ in Safari before you can start up a netbook and to the WSJ in IE.
Windows is simply not ideal for a netbook's power. Nor is ideal for a 10" display. Then there are issue with display quality and the quality of other aspects which affect usability. Can a netbook do more things than a netbook? Sure. Are most of these things what the average person wants it for? No. Will the faster netbook seem faster than the slower iPad simply because it has faster HW? Absolutely not, which is the single most important fact for the consumer when it comes to speed, not some spec sheet.
Actually having to run Windows XP on netbooks had very little to do with the CPU. Other factors like GPU and 1GB of Ram were more the issue. Netbooks today can run Windows 7 rather easy.
You should be able to start an iPad faster its running a mobile OS. Has nothing to do with the chip being optimized has to do with the OS. Your running a big iPhone with an SDK on top of it.
Lets jump back into reality, you are buying this for your mom, you aren't even getting one. So your mom has about the same technical needs as Quadra.
Apple doesn't design to specs, they design to the experience. If the iPad does what it's designed to do and does it well, then Apple has done their job well. Talk of whether or not the iPad is actually "powerful" or how it's only for novices is the provenance of little boys waving their tiny dicks.
A 960x640 screen is not an oddball resolution. It's the best resolution to use if Apple were to increase the screen resolution of the iPhone and iPod touch. You guys should be dancing in the isle for it. App developers should be screaming YES! YES! YES!
There's basically no other choice. Apple has 150,000 and more applications designed to 480x320 at 3.5" diagonal. The best way to compete in the screen resolution race when you have that many applications to maintain backward compatibility with is to double the pixel density and quadruple the number of pixels to 960x640. This way, all the old apps can run at 960x640 and still look great. It should be appear no different.
If you look at the iPad, or rather, iPhone OS X 3.2, Apple has already implemented pixel "doubling" so that iPhone/iPod touch apps can run on the iPad and fill most of the screen. The "2x" button doesn't fill the screen of the 1024x768 iPad. It runs iPhone apps at 960x640 on the iPad and results in small black borders (64 pixels and 32 pixels on each side, except for the status bar). If Apple were to use 960x640, the "2x" for iPhone OS 3.1 and prior apps would be the default.
This also would signify that Apple will continue selling a "low cost" iPhone 3GS and iPod touch at 480x320. The big difference between an iPhone and an iPad is the screen area, not screen resolution. Applications have to be redesigned to take advantage of the 8x larger screen area on the iPad. If the screen resolution was increased on the iPhone, but the screen size stayed in the 3.5" range, apps wouldn't change as the screen size is the same. By doing this, Apple are giving app developers the easiest upgrade path. Developers would design at 960x640, then downscaling graphics and fonts for 480x320 for low end iPhone and iPod devices. For iPad, they have to redesign the UI, not just the graphics, but the UI! It'll basically be a different application.
Only issue is whether such a density screen, 320+ ppi, is economically viable. 720x480 would be cheaper, but at 1.5x upscaling, old applications would look ugly and would force app developers to redo the app graphics. With 150k apps, that isn't going to happen.
Who knows, Apple may stick with 480x320, or go with 720x480 because the screens would be cheaper and force developers to redevelop old applications and make users suffer 1.5x upscaling. But 960x640 would technically be best resolution to use for consumers and developers.
I could agree with you if the iPad hadn't different size. But the fact is that in this case developers will have to either ignore the benefits of the extra pixels for the iPhone and focus only on 2 sizes (1024x768, 480x320) or produce their apps for 3 res. because they can't risk ignoring the older-iPhone users.
(We all know why Apple chose the res for iPad, 'cause it's still the most common presentation resolution.)
Talk of whether or not the iPad is actually "powerful" or how it's only for novices is the provenance of little boys waving their tiny dicks.
Personally, I'm GLAD that it is not powerful and that it is designed for novices. That is what makes it the greatest thing that Steve has ever invented. It is going to change the entire computer industry.
Video-calls are a gimmick.
True, but but gimmicks sell. What percentage do you think have actually actually used the isight webcam in their macs?
Well, they won't license for desktop/notebook or phone/tablet usage, but they could license a version of iPhone OS for limited consumer electronics or ATM kiosk type usage. Things they aren't interested in making themselves, but which utilize touch interfaces.
But, yeah, a touch interface on desktop/notebook systems is just a stupid gimmick, and Apple isn't usually in the stupid gimmick business.
I don't know about it being "just a stupid gimmick".
I have been teaching myself to use Apple's Motion 4 Mac app (Part of Final Cut Studio).
For those not familiar, Motion 4, it is used to animate high-quality images and video.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/motion/
What is profound about Motion is that it is interactive and you can develop complex animations in real-time, without the typical:
1) add animation
2) render video
3) display the results
4) adjust as necessary
4) repeat
Instead, with Motion, you can add effects or make adjustments while the scene is playing.
This level of interaction and feedback cries out for a touch interface-- for example, what would be a more natural way to dolly/pan/zoom a camera through 3D space then to push it with your finger? Or, resize an image element (or effect) by pinching. Or, draw and reshape a bezier mask by dragging its handles.
While I don't see sustained use of a MultiTouch interface on an upright display, there are times where it is the best tool for the job. (You don't use a plunger all the time, but when you need the capability, it's priceless).
On a desktop or laptop, MultiTouch Motion would be a compelling tool.
I will get my iPad on Saturday. The first app I will buy is Pages... hopefully the iPad version has most of the capabilities of the Mac version (shapes, resizing, masks, bezier curves). I think it has all those, I recall seeing everything but bezier curves in the guided tour videos and keynote.
http://www.apple.com/ipad/guided-tours/
Some day soon, I hope that Apple will publish a Motion-like app specifically for the iPad-- one that targets consumers and the things they will want to do with their iPads.
Finally, with the progression of the iPhone, iPod Touch and now the iPad, I believe that Apple has begun to migrate (nay, untether) its users from the limitations of the mouse and keyboard.
I do believe, in the not too distant future, all Apple display devices will be MultiTouch and the mouse/kb as accessories for those who want them .
*
I could agree with you if the iPad hadn't different size. But the fact is that in this case developers will have to either ignore the benefits of the extra pixels for the iPhone and focus only on 2 sizes (1024x768, 480x320) or produce their apps for 3 res. because they can't risk ignoring the older-iPhone users.
The pixels only matter to a point. It's the screen size. The iPad is a 9.7" 4:3 screen. The iPhone is a 3.5" screen device. The UI would have to be designed specifically for the two because the limiting factor in iPhone OS X applications is one's finger size, not screen resolution. Screen size plays directly into that. Screen resolution does not.
For iPhone/iPod touch, developers would design their apps for a 3.5" device at 960x640 at 332 dpi. For the devices which are 3.5" at 480x320, they keep the exact same UI design, but downscale graphics and fonts for 166 dpi. The work to downscale graphics and fonts to 166 dpi is going to be orders of magnitude easier than say redesigning the UI to go from iPhone to iPad or vice versa. The screen resolution is really secondary to the size of the device.
(We all know why Apple chose the res for iPad, 'cause it's still the most common presentation resolution.)
They chose 1024x768 because it was a reasonable and affordable DPI for a 9.7" screen, and because iPhone apps that are pixel doubled would fill most of the screen. They chose 4:3 because that is the most optimal resolution for an any orientation device (portrait or landscape). They chose 9.7" because that plus bezel size represented the largest slate-like device that we as humans would feel comfortable with.
I think most common presentation resolution was pretty low on the list.
Scenario One:
1) you get a call from that cute girl... her beautiful likeness is displayed on your phone (and conversely, yours on her phone).
2) you want to whisper sweet nothings to each other so you both put the phones to your ears for a private conversation.
3) through the corner of your eye, you can just barely strain to see the other's earhole in magnificent color and full closeup splendor.
Scenario Two:
1) you get a call from someone (as above) and want to hold a conversation while visually verifying that the other person is who she says she is, and that she is alone (and vice versa)
2) you each hold the phone 18 inches in front of your face and yell at it so the other person* can see and hear you.
You're running OS X optimized for the device at hand, as always. With a chip optimized for the device at hand, which means balancing power draw against performance in specific areas.
Apple doesn't design to specs, they design to the experience. If the iPad does what it's designed to do and does it well, then Apple has done their job well. Talk of whether or not the iPad is actually "powerful" or how it's only for novices is the provenance of little boys waving their tiny dicks.
LOL!
Reminds me of the TV ad where a big macho guy comes on the screen and brags: "I have a small business!"
*
Umm, Applebaum... have you heard about this magical new device called a headset with microphone? You can actually get these wireless now, with Bluetooth. I've even heard that a wired version comes with every iPhone, free!
Umm, yeah....
But you would still have to:
--extend your arm in front of you
--hang your head/face over the phone laying flat on the table
-- carry a nifty little stand to hold the phone upright
-- wear some really cool eyeglasses or headgear that holds the phone (or the camera) in front of your face.
None of these are practical for video calls/chats on a portable device.
That said, I do think there are uses for a front facing camera. Things such as self portraits/videos, PhotoBooth style special effects...
*
.....
--hang your head/face over the phone laying flat on the table
Yikes! I would NOT recommend this for anyone over 30. Not pretty for the other party.
And I hope it's fast, really fast. My old 3G feels like a relic. So slow in every operation and crashing like there's no tomorrow. And lots of system RAM too please, don't hold back. Let me pay for an iPhone with a couple of gigs of RAM.
I don't know about it being "just a stupid gimmick".
[...]
This level of interaction and feedback cries out for a touch interface-- for example, what would be a more natural way to dolly/pan/zoom a camera through 3D space then to push it with your finger? Or, resize an image element (or effect) by pinching. Or, draw and reshape a bezier mask by dragging its handles.
[...]
Well, OK, "stupid gimmick" may have been a bit hyperbolic, and yes, there are probably a few cases where a touch interface on a desktop/notebook class device might be useful, but I think it would be something that most users in most situations would not find genuinely useful. I can't think of any case where I would personally find it useful (but I don't do graphics related work), and, if buying a MBP or iMac, I really don't want to pay for something relatively expensive (relative to, say, an extra USB port that I might never need to use but am just as happy to have in case I ever need it) that I'd never use. Even for those like you who might find it useful at times, the ergonomics would not be good. It might be useful to have OS support for touch and allow users who need it to hook up touch capable displays, perhaps mounted into their desktops at a slight angle, or something like that.
I would also note that in the few anecdotal reports I have read from people with touch enabled Windows systems, they find it a fun thing for a little while, but that quickly wears off and they are soon back to using keyboard and mouse, essentially ignoring completely that they have a touch capable system. In most cases, it seems like it's just too much physical effort, and too awkward to pick your arm up, reach out to the screen and touch something to perform an action. Although, it's not like I'm reporting on something new here, this has been discussed many times on the forum.
"If they?re going to call it the HD, then perhaps the main camera will shoot HD video, too? I don?t see how a phone named ?HD? could have a camera that only shoots standard-def video."
A4 for the iPad can come in as a Quad Core. The A4 for the iPhone 4GS can come in as a Duo-Core.
Or more realistically, A4 for iPad is single-core 1GHz and the iPhone is single-core 800MHz.
Why would they put 4 ARM cores into a device they expect to get 10 hours of battery life from just so they can run the apps 16 times faster than the iPhone 3GS?
It's not going to be quad core, nor is it going to have 2GB RAM. It's a $500 iPod with a big screen. 1GHz Cortex A8 or A9 single-core with either 256MB or 512MB RAM.
Video-calls are a gimmick.
Yeah but PhotoBooth is quite a quirky app. If you could take a photo of yourself and then manipulate it with touch, it would be fun for kids. Just smile, snap, add a funny nose, big ears, hat etc.
It's also easier for making avatars for forums, and games can incorporate it into the fun - not necessarily like eye-toy but even just mapping your face onto a character or something. Burnout does this - it takes your photo when you win a race and puts it on your game driving license.
Apple's new handset will feature a custom A4 processor, 960x640 double-resolution display, and a second front-facing camera.
I don't really see the point of putting a 960x640 display on a 3.5" display. You're not going to see much more detail. I can barely make out the pixels on the current iPhone screen and text is smooth. I guess if they can do it, why not but that will be one very high density screen. I'd rather just have an IPS LED backlit display at the same resolution.
Some day soon, I hope that Apple will publish a Motion-like app specifically for the iPad
The MALI GPU isn't anywhere near as capable as even the 9400M, which is on the low-end for Motion work. The iPad won't have enough RAM either. Motion is also meant for integrating with video and you can't do any video editing on the iPad so there wouldn't be any point. There's also the issue of the video sizes - typically animations are saved uncompressed, which would take forever to save to mobile Flash memory and use up GBs of space. What you'd really need to do this is a hackintosh netbook with the 9400M chip and 2GB RAM or more.