I disagree with anybody who says that the Macbook Air is a step up from the iPad. They are two completely different things.
If I'm looking for a tablet to use, then a Macbook Air would be a definite step down, since it's missing the one thing that makes tablets great, the touch screen. A Macbook Air doesn't even factor into the equation. A Macbook Air is no substitute for an iPad, and an iPad is no substitute for a Macbook Air.
Client server is always an option - in that model the tablet becomes a more convenient control mechanism to a more powerful machine. The point of a tablet isn't just that it's a portable device, it's that it has a paradigm busting control mechanism - and that's applicable in lots of ways.
Admittedly I have not used iMovie for iOS but in my experience on the desktop with much greater precision of a mouse and keyboard, I still find it difficult to work as zoomed out as I would like on the video timeline. Of course now we don't even have a timeline but nevertheless when trying to tweak a transition or scrubbing a clip, I need a lot more accuracy than I can achieve with a touch interface. Maybe my fingers are just too fat. Perhaps I could use some of Steve's sand paper to file them down. I just don't see the iPad being the appropriate tool for high precision graphic applications.
There is a market for higher end tablets amongst people who currently use high end graphics tablets. The only question is, is it a market that Apple cares about? How many photographers, graphic designers, architects, etc do they think will want this? How much buzz do they think such users will generate?
Make one that's 24" and a few good pro apps and (strong) prosumers might buy them.
For instance, they reported back in January that the iPad 2 would include the same illusive HD display, an SD Card slot and a dual GSM / CDMA chipset
Is this a commonly-used word in the land of the free? I've never seen it before, and assumed it was a misspelling of "elusive" (which also makes sense in this context). The standard adjectival form of "illusion" (at least down under) is of course "illusory", however I note that dictionaries online seem to be fine with either.
Perhaps the best argument in favour of "illusory" rather than "illusive" is that it avoids confusion when spoken with "allusive" and "elusive".
I have to agree with your logic, but it will probably not be sold on the basis of logic to reasonable people, but by emotion to certain susceptible people.
The great thing about the iPad is that there is ne keyboard. It changes your relationship with the screen in mysterious ways. When the screen resolution comes up to standards (set by the iPhone 4) it will seem like you are holding a world in your hands, not a computer screen.
I hate to use the word "magical," but . . . you get the idea.
Even so, the process that occurs when the price of an iPad is roughly the same as the Air is that the two devices are compared. There is a functionality sacrifice that happens with a tablet and if you're talking pro scenarios, that's important.
The point behind the iPad is affordable computing without a sense of compromise. Netbooks were such a compromised product. Bad keyboards, underpowered, poor build quality.
Perhaps in time a premium tablet will make sense. Perhaps. But I don't know why Apple would take such a risk at this time. All is right with their world and they are challenged to meet demand for the current iPad. A $900 tablet would be a niche product and not likely to move in much volume. Which, of course, causes a problem in that if it had a unique screen, how expensive would it be to produce said screen for a much smaller market. With millions of iPads moved every month, economies of scale kick in. That advantage disappears if instead you have thousands of HD iPads purchased. If anything, my estimate of a $200 premium might well be exceedingly low. This could mean that the iPad HD would start at around $1,000, or worse, not $900.
At that point, all the magic in the world isn't going to erase a sense that there is no value in the iPad HD proposition.
Far more likely, Apple will up the ante with the iPad 3 early next year, taking advantage of economies of scale to deliver a class-leading product for an attractive price. There is a chance that Apple could continue to sell the iPad 2 at a reduced price, a practice that the company has engaged in with other products. Yet the current iPad pricing is likely to continue with whatever happens to be the latest and greatest version of the iPad. That Apple would go the other way, namely tacking on a more expensive version of the existing device. seems highly unlikely.
Maybe not, but I'd like to see a version of FCPX for the iPad that would allow me to use all the features of FCPX in preview mode, and when I'm back at my desktop I can render the full-res.
Using the iPad for quick edits and stuff on a project instead of working from memory is a big plus. Rendering the hires can always wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav
Professional editors were using Macs since before the PowerPC processor - e.g. 40MHz 68040 Mac Quadras. The iPad is the equivalent of a mid-range PowerMac G4 - so yes, it could be done. I wouldn't try previewing transitions on HD video in realtime, but the editing could easily be accommodated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
Not absolutely. If we could make some exchanges (producer or Director to editor for example) using proxies (it was noted by someone on this forum that iOS already supports prorez i think) then it could be a very useful tool. There is "online" collaborative software available that don't offer a whole hell of allot in terms of function, but they are useful when working remotely. Perhaps this will tie into the cloud as well.
Other than that iMovie is perfectly capable on the iPad so no question an iPad could do it. It would be reserved for simple tasks, but it could useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
iPad might have enough storage for editing a 15 sec HDTV ad as long as you didn't have too many takes. Otherwise where are your clips? In the cloud I suppose. Yeah that's pro all the way. It is probably some interface app to complement FCP X.
Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm not an editor, so had no idea how useful this could be.
Admittedly I have not used iMovie for iOS but in my experience on the desktop with much greater precision of a mouse and keyboard, I still find it difficult to work as zoomed out as I would like on the video timeline. Of course now we don't even have a timeline but nevertheless when trying to tweak a transition or scrubbing a clip, I need a lot more accuracy than I can achieve with a touch interface. Maybe my fingers are just too fat. Perhaps I could use some of Steve's sand paper to file them down. I just don't see the iPad being the appropriate tool for high precision graphic applications.
Look, there are, what, 20+ tablets out now ALL aiming for similar capabilities and price points. Yeah, the iPad is much better, but it does not address a different market from all the rest. And all the competitors are working like fiends to create second-gen tablets that might actually work and will likely even sell in quantity. Eventually this has to hurt Apple, either in price or volume or both.
But NOBODY is producing a high-end tablet. And it doesnt appear that anybody is thinking about one - all their efforts are going into making a basic tablet that works. Sounds like an opportunity to me....
Why would Apple NOT want to be the company that takes tablet technology and capabilities to another level? Seems like a no-brainer to me. There is nothing about the form factor, interface or technology that should limit a tablet to being a low-end, non-professional tool.
Apple could sell a few millions of these into the Enterprise in starting in 2011, and pioneer technologies that will trickle down to the iPad3, etc. Technologies (like retina displays) that may not be available in quantities of 50M a year, at least in 2011-2012. The halo effect of a Pro-level tablet would be huge, again. Meanwhile Apple can keep hammering the tablet commodifiers with the best tablet at the $500 price point, and also sit alone at the top (most profitable) part of the market.
"A Tablet is NOT a Toy - Introducing the iPad Pro"
So you don't think there would be demand or interest in a parallel "Pro" line? Unlike almost every other Apple "productivity" product since the Macintosh (Mac II)?
By Pro I don't mean to disparage to iPad, just to suggest there is a LOT of room for more capabilities. Why not break out of the $500 price straightjacket with some extra Magic?
Of course Jobs never wanted a pro version of the compact Mac, and perhaps that bias remains, 20+ years later. Apple is certainly becoming much more consumer-focused. Recent events (FCP X) support that scenario.
But the niche is empty....if Apple doesn't claim it someone else will. Blackberry already tried and failed catastrophically. Someone will figure it out (Microsoft?)
Such as? What would make the iPad scream "PRO" to you, more than the fact that it's already being used by pros for professional work?
I would like to see a larger device with more granular touch resolution --that, with an optional pressure-sensitive stylus could act as a display/control surface in lieu of a dedicated Wacom Tablet.
With enough CPU/GPU, RAM and SDD to function as a standalone device as well as a graphics tablet to s Mac or PC.
I can image that the only way to have a second kind of iPad is to have another OS. So if Apple can create a version of Lion on the A5/A6 chip - this could work. Also the patent of a stylus makes sense. But I dont know how this new device could work between the classic iPad and the Macbook Air!?
What you'd get is a laptop that falls apart into 2 pieces....needs the keyboard to be turned on and off separately, charged separately, and deal with the bluetooth connection.....with a hobbled web browser (iOS Safari is lame compared to real browsers on a Mac/PC).
And the cobbled-together thing would cost $120 more than a Chromebook. The Chromebook even comes with a matte screen -- something that many of us wish Apple hadn't abandoned. Can't even get that on an Air or 13" MBP.
I'm just sayin'......there's room in the market for an iOS-style laptop with a real keyboard and web browser. That's what I'm using right now -- on this site on my 2008 MBP running Firefox. 90+% of what I do is exactly what the Chromebook does. An Apple equivalent would be awesome.
I think that it is possible you don't think that this is impossible. It is possible that I think I agree. While I think I agree it is possible, I think it would be possibly a very impressive engineering feat to manufacture such a relatively large LCD screen at the resolution 2048 by 1536 - ~ same # of pixels as the Cinema display but at more than twice the PPI. Possibly, the feat would be more than very impressive because the manufacturing yield would be much lower than that of the iPhone. Let's not even consider the video RAM (shared with main RAM in iOS devices), the graphics power needed, the battery ...
After considering the possibility of this, I think it is possible that I no longer think this is possible. But if I am wrong - this would not be a very impressive engineering feat; it would be stunning.
Comments
J.
If I'm looking for a tablet to use, then a Macbook Air would be a definite step down, since it's missing the one thing that makes tablets great, the touch screen. A Macbook Air doesn't even factor into the equation. A Macbook Air is no substitute for an iPad, and an iPad is no substitute for a Macbook Air.
Client server is always an option - in that model the tablet becomes a more convenient control mechanism to a more powerful machine. The point of a tablet isn't just that it's a portable device, it's that it has a paradigm busting control mechanism - and that's applicable in lots of ways.
Admittedly I have not used iMovie for iOS but in my experience on the desktop with much greater precision of a mouse and keyboard, I still find it difficult to work as zoomed out as I would like on the video timeline. Of course now we don't even have a timeline but nevertheless when trying to tweak a transition or scrubbing a clip, I need a lot more accuracy than I can achieve with a touch interface. Maybe my fingers are just too fat. Perhaps I could use some of Steve's sand paper to file them down. I just don't see the iPad being the appropriate tool for high precision graphic applications.
The people who paid full retail for http://www.amazon.com/Wacom-Cintiq-1...0070697&sr=8-8
There is a market for higher end tablets amongst people who currently use high end graphics tablets. The only question is, is it a market that Apple cares about? How many photographers, graphic designers, architects, etc do they think will want this? How much buzz do they think such users will generate?
Make one that's 24" and a few good pro apps and (strong) prosumers might buy them.
Unless you went with Sherman to the future and back in your time machine ...
Mr. Peabody:
Prof. Peabody:
You just have to be a reasonably intelligent person to see how dumb this rumour is though, not an actual professor.
You just have to be a reasonably intelligent person to see how dumb this rumour is though, not an actual professor.
Heck, even P-Body knows this rumor sucks.
For instance, they reported back in January that the iPad 2 would include the same illusive HD display, an SD Card slot and a dual GSM / CDMA chipset
Is this a commonly-used word in the land of the free? I've never seen it before, and assumed it was a misspelling of "elusive" (which also makes sense in this context). The standard adjectival form of "illusion" (at least down under) is of course "illusory", however I note that dictionaries online seem to be fine with either.
Perhaps the best argument in favour of "illusory" rather than "illusive" is that it avoids confusion when spoken with "allusive" and "elusive".
That is all.
I have to agree with your logic, but it will probably not be sold on the basis of logic to reasonable people, but by emotion to certain susceptible people.
The great thing about the iPad is that there is ne keyboard. It changes your relationship with the screen in mysterious ways. When the screen resolution comes up to standards (set by the iPhone 4) it will seem like you are holding a world in your hands, not a computer screen.
I hate to use the word "magical," but . . . you get the idea.
Even so, the process that occurs when the price of an iPad is roughly the same as the Air is that the two devices are compared. There is a functionality sacrifice that happens with a tablet and if you're talking pro scenarios, that's important.
The point behind the iPad is affordable computing without a sense of compromise. Netbooks were such a compromised product. Bad keyboards, underpowered, poor build quality.
Perhaps in time a premium tablet will make sense. Perhaps. But I don't know why Apple would take such a risk at this time. All is right with their world and they are challenged to meet demand for the current iPad. A $900 tablet would be a niche product and not likely to move in much volume. Which, of course, causes a problem in that if it had a unique screen, how expensive would it be to produce said screen for a much smaller market. With millions of iPads moved every month, economies of scale kick in. That advantage disappears if instead you have thousands of HD iPads purchased. If anything, my estimate of a $200 premium might well be exceedingly low. This could mean that the iPad HD would start at around $1,000, or worse, not $900.
At that point, all the magic in the world isn't going to erase a sense that there is no value in the iPad HD proposition.
Far more likely, Apple will up the ante with the iPad 3 early next year, taking advantage of economies of scale to deliver a class-leading product for an attractive price. There is a chance that Apple could continue to sell the iPad 2 at a reduced price, a practice that the company has engaged in with other products. Yet the current iPad pricing is likely to continue with whatever happens to be the latest and greatest version of the iPad. That Apple would go the other way, namely tacking on a more expensive version of the existing device. seems highly unlikely.
Maybe not, but I'd like to see a version of FCPX for the iPad that would allow me to use all the features of FCPX in preview mode, and when I'm back at my desktop I can render the full-res.
Using the iPad for quick edits and stuff on a project instead of working from memory is a big plus. Rendering the hires can always wait.
Professional editors were using Macs since before the PowerPC processor - e.g. 40MHz 68040 Mac Quadras. The iPad is the equivalent of a mid-range PowerMac G4 - so yes, it could be done. I wouldn't try previewing transitions on HD video in realtime, but the editing could easily be accommodated.
Not absolutely. If we could make some exchanges (producer or Director to editor for example) using proxies (it was noted by someone on this forum that iOS already supports prorez i think) then it could be a very useful tool. There is "online" collaborative software available that don't offer a whole hell of allot in terms of function, but they are useful when working remotely. Perhaps this will tie into the cloud as well.
Other than that iMovie is perfectly capable on the iPad so no question an iPad could do it. It would be reserved for simple tasks, but it could useful.
iPad might have enough storage for editing a 15 sec HDTV ad as long as you didn't have too many takes. Otherwise where are your clips? In the cloud I suppose. Yeah that's pro all the way. It is probably some interface app to complement FCP X.
Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm not an editor, so had no idea how useful this could be.
Admittedly I have not used iMovie for iOS but in my experience on the desktop with much greater precision of a mouse and keyboard, I still find it difficult to work as zoomed out as I would like on the video timeline. Of course now we don't even have a timeline but nevertheless when trying to tweak a transition or scrubbing a clip, I need a lot more accuracy than I can achieve with a touch interface. Maybe my fingers are just too fat. Perhaps I could use some of Steve's sand paper to file them down. I just don't see the iPad being the appropriate tool for high precision graphic applications.
Unless it is a lot bigger ...
But NOBODY is producing a high-end tablet. And it doesnt appear that anybody is thinking about one - all their efforts are going into making a basic tablet that works. Sounds like an opportunity to me....
Why would Apple NOT want to be the company that takes tablet technology and capabilities to another level? Seems like a no-brainer to me. There is nothing about the form factor, interface or technology that should limit a tablet to being a low-end, non-professional tool.
Apple could sell a few millions of these into the Enterprise in starting in 2011, and pioneer technologies that will trickle down to the iPad3, etc. Technologies (like retina displays) that may not be available in quantities of 50M a year, at least in 2011-2012. The halo effect of a Pro-level tablet would be huge, again. Meanwhile Apple can keep hammering the tablet commodifiers with the best tablet at the $500 price point, and also sit alone at the top (most profitable) part of the market.
"A Tablet is NOT a Toy - Introducing the iPad Pro"
Yeah, the iPad is much better, but it does not address a different market from all the rest.
It addresses the same problem, but actually solves it.
But NOBODY is producing a high-end tablet.
Your definition being?
Sounds like an opportunity to me....
So make one.
Why would Apple NOT want to be the company that takes tablet technology and capabilities to another level?
Probably because they already have.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Seems like you don't remember what "tablets" were like before the iPad.
There is nothing about the form factor, interface or technology that should limit a tablet to being a low-end, non-professional tool.
Exactly. Which is why professionals all over the world in every field are buying the iPad for their professional work. Because it already does that.
A Tablet is NOT a Toy - Introducing the iPad Pro"
Immediately implying the existing iPad is a "toy". Since it isn't, this is nonsense. Not abject, just nonsense.
So you don't think there would be demand or interest in a parallel "Pro" line? Unlike almost every other Apple "productivity" product since the Macintosh (Mac II)?
By Pro I don't mean to disparage to iPad, just to suggest there is a LOT of room for more capabilities. Why not break out of the $500 price straightjacket with some extra Magic?
Of course Jobs never wanted a pro version of the compact Mac, and perhaps that bias remains, 20+ years later. Apple is certainly becoming much more consumer-focused. Recent events (FCP X) support that scenario.
But the niche is empty....if Apple doesn't claim it someone else will. Blackberry already tried and failed catastrophically. Someone will figure it out (Microsoft?)
...capabilities.
Such as? What would make the iPad scream "PRO" to you, more than the fact that it's already being used by pros for professional work?
Such as? What would make the iPad scream "PRO" to you, more than the fact that it's already being used by pros for professional work?
I would like to see a larger device with more granular touch resolution --that, with an optional pressure-sensitive stylus could act as a display/control surface in lieu of a dedicated Wacom Tablet.
With enough CPU/GPU, RAM and SDD to function as a standalone device as well as a graphics tablet to s Mac or PC.
I won't comment on iOS fragmentation, but things do seem to be getting a bit crowded.
only my crazy idea...
Buy an iPad, this $50 keyboard, and only use Safari.
Done.
What you'd get is a laptop that falls apart into 2 pieces....needs the keyboard to be turned on and off separately, charged separately, and deal with the bluetooth connection.....with a hobbled web browser (iOS Safari is lame compared to real browsers on a Mac/PC).
And the cobbled-together thing would cost $120 more than a Chromebook. The Chromebook even comes with a matte screen -- something that many of us wish Apple hadn't abandoned. Can't even get that on an Air or 13" MBP.
I'm just sayin'......there's room in the market for an iOS-style laptop with a real keyboard and web browser. That's what I'm using right now -- on this site on my 2008 MBP running Firefox. 90+% of what I do is exactly what the Chromebook does. An Apple equivalent would be awesome.
I don't think this rumor is impossible.
I think that it is possible you don't think that this is impossible. It is possible that I think I agree. While I think I agree it is possible, I think it would be possibly a very impressive engineering feat to manufacture such a relatively large LCD screen at the resolution 2048 by 1536 - ~ same # of pixels as the Cinema display but at more than twice the PPI. Possibly, the feat would be more than very impressive because the manufacturing yield would be much lower than that of the iPhone. Let's not even consider the video RAM (shared with main RAM in iOS devices), the graphics power needed, the battery ...
After considering the possibility of this, I think it is possible that I no longer think this is possible. But if I am wrong - this would not be a very impressive engineering feat; it would be stunning.