From The future with love
PART I - What it is
It is the ultimate legacy-free concept...Just as we have moved from Serial to USB, Modem to ethernet, floppy to CD, etc, so too are these technologies no longer the best mix of performance/convenience in the face of Airport, Bluetooth, and a good subdivision of computers.
The key idea here is the lack of ports and drives and other fixins, which serves a 4-fold purpose:
¤ To keep the price down
¤ To keep size, weight, and power consumption down
¤ To eliminate waste and streamline the design
¤ To reinforce the "Digital Hub" concept
"Digital Hub", you'll remember, refers to the use of accessorial electronic devices to increase the value of the central computer. This is a perfect example of one such device. Another Apple will be almost necessary between having a base station (for internet), a central connection for some devices, and the all important CD-installation.
At the same time, having this basically eliminates the need for a laptop for the daily excursion. While a laptop is important for being away from your computer, going to class or work for a few hours does not require all the bells and whistles. Therefore, for the majority of users (home and school), a good iMac + this (what truly is an "iBook") is a great combination.
Thus, the extracted features are not only not a loss to this machine, they are actually a benefit to Apple.
Remember, this is not the computer itself, but an accessory which is best used in conjunction with one, like a camera or an mp3 player.
That, and I really want a small, light computer I can take with me everywhere and do everything I do (web, words, music), everything I want to do (take notes electronically), without all the crap ("firewire so I can edit video! YAY! not.")
PART II - How to sell it
Of course, it'll almost sell itself.
A few killer apps will help a bunch though. They are not afterthoughts; they are apps that of course are missing from the library because they do not fit in with our current designs, yet are the true completion of the goals of this type of computer.
One is a well-done note-taking app. This is obvious.
The other is what will make this priceless to every college student in America: low-cost PDFs of their textbooks, with an app wherein one can highlight, bookmark, and take notes in the margin. This will of course be highly integrated with the notetaking app, making them a dynamic duo for every classroom.
Part III - Early rebuttals
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: Gametes ]</p>
It is the ultimate legacy-free concept...Just as we have moved from Serial to USB, Modem to ethernet, floppy to CD, etc, so too are these technologies no longer the best mix of performance/convenience in the face of Airport, Bluetooth, and a good subdivision of computers.
The key idea here is the lack of ports and drives and other fixins, which serves a 4-fold purpose:
¤ To keep the price down
¤ To keep size, weight, and power consumption down
¤ To eliminate waste and streamline the design
¤ To reinforce the "Digital Hub" concept
"Digital Hub", you'll remember, refers to the use of accessorial electronic devices to increase the value of the central computer. This is a perfect example of one such device. Another Apple will be almost necessary between having a base station (for internet), a central connection for some devices, and the all important CD-installation.
At the same time, having this basically eliminates the need for a laptop for the daily excursion. While a laptop is important for being away from your computer, going to class or work for a few hours does not require all the bells and whistles. Therefore, for the majority of users (home and school), a good iMac + this (what truly is an "iBook") is a great combination.
Thus, the extracted features are not only not a loss to this machine, they are actually a benefit to Apple.
Remember, this is not the computer itself, but an accessory which is best used in conjunction with one, like a camera or an mp3 player.
That, and I really want a small, light computer I can take with me everywhere and do everything I do (web, words, music), everything I want to do (take notes electronically), without all the crap ("firewire so I can edit video! YAY! not.")
PART II - How to sell it
Of course, it'll almost sell itself.
A few killer apps will help a bunch though. They are not afterthoughts; they are apps that of course are missing from the library because they do not fit in with our current designs, yet are the true completion of the goals of this type of computer.
One is a well-done note-taking app. This is obvious.
The other is what will make this priceless to every college student in America: low-cost PDFs of their textbooks, with an app wherein one can highlight, bookmark, and take notes in the margin. This will of course be highly integrated with the notetaking app, making them a dynamic duo for every classroom.
Part III - Early rebuttals
- The thinking here is that every tablet design I see is like every other blunderous computer idea: why is it that everything involving a processor must also be "full featured"? That, IMHO, is the reason every single tablet to date has failed. They all want to be desktop computers in a smaller form = laptop computers in a smaller form = tablets, a 2000$ piece of paper, because they insist on putting CD-ROMs and serial ports in them. Well guess what, I have a CD-ROM, in my iMac. I'm not going to buy another one.
You know what I don't have? An electronic notebook. This is it. - I say taking the hard drive or monitor away would be disastrous, because at that point this is no longer usable itself. It would be like having an mp3 player with no buttons, or a camera that can only be used within 10 meters of a computer. Each of these things works equally well in the jungle as in the home, but they all must sooner or later come back to home base.
So too, here. I ask, what makes a core computer? Input, processing, and output. Then, what is the bare-minimum that accomplishes all these effectively? My plan is my answer. I think that removing the HD would cripple all 3 of these. As would removing the screen. As would removing the CD-ROM, but this is made up for easily in the other functions.
I mean, how often do you install software from the CD? How often do you save a file? Thank you.
How often do you read a document? How often do you transfer digital video? Thank you.
The bottom line is, the feature set now will be used every day, and the things left off just made it big and heavy. Not only that, but these less frequent tools will remain on the main machine, thus giving a reason to buy both Macs.
It's a great business case. - This is substantially smaller:
iBook : 11.2 x 9.09 x 1.35 = 137 cubic inches
iTablet : 11 x 7 x 1 = 77 cubic inches
or just over half the volume.
I suspect weight will be comfortably less as well, what with the missing screen diameter, CD-Drive, keyboard and mouse, and all the fixins that go along with these things and the other ports. If the current iBook weighs 5 pounds, I bet this could weigh in at 3.5 pounds.
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: Gametes ]</p>
Comments
Costs nothing, adds no weight.
I do want a tablet from Apple more than a PDA. This unfortunately looks to be an over-developed compromise between the two. (I've repeatedly posted around the board that Palm-type devices are doomed because wireless phones are 'stealing' more and more of their functionality. Besides, streaming video on a 2" screen?? Why? Just, why?!).
I think people are trying too hard. If Apple chooses to make one it will 'simply' be an iBook without the keyboard. (An iBook display on top of the component chassis perhaps even without trackpad input).
Screed
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
Didn't someone else do a tablet and they killed it about a year later??
Apple will not do a tablet.
Yes, iBook sales would drop like a rock, but they ought to. I'd a never bought one if I coulda bought this combo.
Yes, Sony and several other companies have tried and failed at the Tablet device. This is for several reasons, all af which are solved by this device:
I love it! Powerful enough to be useful. Simple enough to be small, lightweight, and cheap. I'd buy one in a heartbeat (after my new G5
Only thing I differ on is your price structure. I would just sell it at one set price with maybe a BTO option for the hard drive.
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: Nitzer ]</p>
God, you're arrogant. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Like this required so much thought. If you actually build one and can sell it at that price point and find a market to make it profitable, then you can say, "God I'm good."
You've designed a great computer.. for 1999
proove me wrong kids, proove me wrong.. (Skinner)
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: JasonPP ]</p>
I was only kidding anyway, mostly about having written so much.
I don't see how your challenges are valid.
I've already spelled out at least one market where I think we could see major penetration (students).
The fact that this is made from laptop components and runs regular software translates into very real cost decreases compared to a PocketPC.
If we set as a ceiling the cost of an iBook, then --remembering that it uses the same components -- as this approaches the feature set of the iBook their costs merge. As their features diverge, their costs do:
$[iTablet]=$[iBook]-$SavedByBuying[smaller Screen, no CD-ROM, no Keyboard, no Trackpad, no Modem/Ethernet, no USB/Firewire, no Video-out]
1200$-(150+100+50+50+50)$=800$
It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.
<strong>
The fact that this is made from laptop components and runs regular software translates into very real cost decreases compared to a PocketPC.
If we set as a ceiling the cost of an iBook, then --remembering that it uses the same components -- as this approaches the feature set of the iBook their costs merge. As their features diverge, their costs do:
$[iTablet]=$[iBook]-$SavedByBuying[smaller Screen, no CD-ROM, no Keyboard, no Trackpad, no Modem/Ethernet, no USB/Firewire, no Video-out]
1200$-(150+100+50+50+50)$=800$
It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're leaving one significant variable out: The iBook's screen isn't touch-sensitive. The tablet's would have to be. Just for reference, there's now a touch-screen solution for the new iMac, priced at $599.
Even given the fact that Apple would pay much less than $600 a pop to integrate touchscreen capabilities, that feature alone would devour the savings achieved by the smaller screen, and the sum of inexpensive to cheap things (keyboard, ports) the tablet doesn't have (whose costs you have greatly overestimated).
Leaving off USB is OK if you're building Bluetooth in, but leaving off FW makes little sense. Apple has already built it into their motherboard chipsets, and the software support is there, so it costs them maybe a buck or two to add the port. In return, you get the ability to use FW Hard Drive, sync with your iPod, etc., all at speeds far in excess of any wireless protocols. You could even use it to recharge the tablet, iPod style.
Re: Your component costs. There's no way an iBook keyboard costs Apple anywhere near $100 (they sell the full standalone keyboard for $60 retail!), nor would video out cost anywhere near $50. That's probably more than Apple pays for the whole video subsystem.
Finally, Aqua prefers a 10x7 resolution. You can't realistically cram 10x7 into a 10" screen if you want anyone to actually be able to read what's on screen, so Apple would have to design a new interface for the more cramped environment of the tablet.
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
But an integrated microphone wold be nice.
For audible notes or... recording a lecture.
A headphone jack.. also.
Have you ever tried to install software over a network using Airport? It's dogslow. I know Airport (802.11 has faster versions but gimme a ethernet port)
I like the idea, but I wonder if it would sell.
What you describe is a Newton with a color display, and a hard drive.
MSKR
That add-on solution for the iMac, that's an end-market price on a small-scale product, hence higher markup and higher initial cost. Not to mention the fact that it's much larger (more cost) and a more complicated product.
I'd say that the 10" touchscreen would cost Apple 3-400$, tops.
That's irrelevant anyway. This couldn't possibly cost more than an iBook. how much do you think the removed components would save? I think 400$.
As for the fact that Firewire is cheap, you are misunderstanding a premise here: cheaper or not, we don't want firewire on the computer, because that would make it a more competitive offering compared to our own other products. The FW port stays off, even if it were subsidized by the government, because only this way can the iTablet + iMac combo remain attractive; this is the true reason for creating the product. Just like the iPod, it's sole purpose in this world is to sell Macs...
The 50$ was for the M/E, U/F, and the video out, not just the video out. And I said the keyboard was 50$, not 100. Still high, I suppose, but I think that removing all these things have a cumulative effect more than just their component costs. If we save 25$ on each trackpad and 25$ on each keyboard by not including them, then we save 75$ by leaving them both off. By dropping the vast list of garbage that we have here, we get quite a cumulative effect.
Of the viable/expected technologies in today's world, this leaves more off than it includes, and that is a good thing. Less is more.
As for the resolution, 800x600 10" screens exist. I've been looking at component costs and sizes (expecting them to be the biggest debates), and so I know that these things can be combined in this way. Anyway, OS X runs fine on 8x6, so no redesign necessary...
<strong>hmm...
That add-on solution for the iMac, that's an end-market price on a small-scale product, hence higher markup and higher initial cost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I took that into account.
[quote]<strong>That's irrelevant anyway. This couldn't possibly cost more than an iBook. how much do you think the removed components would save? I think 400$.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think that's anywhere close. The ports - all totaled - are maybe $10. The keyboard and trackpad together are maybe $50. The modem is, oh, $10 or $20. You say $400 total savings, I say maybe $200. Maybe.
[quote]<strong>As for the fact that Firewire is cheap, you are misunderstanding a premise here: cheaper or not, we don't want firewire on the computer, because that would make it a more competitive offering compared to our own other products.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It also makes it a more interoperable offering. The whole point of the digital hub is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so interoperability is utterly fundamental as a selling point. If an iTablet can be connected via FireWire to an iMac, that makes the iTablet + iMac combo even more appealing. If the iTablet can be connected to an iPod, that makes it more appealing, too. Think about it: You recharge your tablet by plugging it into the iMac, and meanwhile all your files synchronize. Quickly. If you need to grab a bunch of files, you can use the iTablet as an external FW drive easily from the iMac, or vice versa.
[quote]<strong> Just like the iPod, it's sole purpose in this world is to sell Macs...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And just like the iPod, it should take advantage of one of the main selling points of the Mac: pervasive, standard, onboard FireWire.
[quote]<strong>Of the viable/expected technologies in today's world, this leaves more off than it includes, and that is a good thing. Less is more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Up to a point.
[quote]<strong>As for the resolution, 800x600 10" screens exist. I've been looking at component costs and sizes (expecting them to be the biggest debates), and so I know that these things can be combined in this way. Anyway, OS X runs fine on 8x6, so no redesign necessary...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know 10" 8x6 screens exist - that's not the problem. As to whether OS X runs fine at that resolution, Apple doesn't think so. They publish 10x7 as the minimum recommended resolution for Aqua, and their opinion is more relevant to any product design that they'll attempt than anyone else's.
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
- "Well, one little FW port can't hurt. We might as well put on two and throw on some USB ports while we're at it; you never know when you'll be out without your Bluetooth adapter, hehe"
- I really, honestly think that the included method is sufficient. How much slower is an Airport transfer than a FireWire one?
- I stand by my argument that removing all the ports will save space, power, and cost. The motherboard will be easier to design and manufacture, too, in addition to just the cost of the parts.
- I'm desperately concerned with keeping the combo package attractive. If you say that with FW the tablet would go better with an iMac, then you have indeed hit on the question. I for one think that, with FW, I now have no reason to even have an iMac...Why not just connect my iPod to my iTablet only?
That last one is my most important point; if you answer no other, answer it.I don't know, maybe FW is a good thing, but that really starts to make the philosophy behind this model very fuzzy...
About the screen: I originally envisioned a 1024x768 resolution (knowing the inconvenience of X on an 800 intimately), but that would require a 12.1" LCD, making the frame here just too big to sit in the nook of your arm, I think. Therefore, if Apple won't work with less than 1024, and more than 800 is impractical, a tablet is impossible. I don't buy it <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Anyway, all good points, but I still feel that this is a real winner because it's not only the cheapest design possible, but the reasons why it is so cheap are not weaknesses as our intuition would premise, but in fact strengths.
Also, Apple is still profiting on their iBooks. iPod is almost no profit, because it is only a selling point for the profitables. This would be the same way. So while an iBook is 1200$, this would be cheaper by 20% right off the bat, plus the savings already outlined. So even if we only save 200 as you say on components etc, 1200(base price)-200(profit)-200(components)=800 again, a fair upper price range. Personally, I think we could see 600$ as the price. I mean, surfing the web you can buy all the components in here, one at a time, for 800$. Apple can surely do better.
Viva la combo de iMac y iTablet!
<strong>How much slower is an Airport transfer than a FireWire one?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Approximately 36.36 times.
[QB]Those all sound like good reasons to include FireWire, but I can't help but feel reserved at the prospect, because:
- "Well, one little FW port can't hurt. We might as well put on two and throw on some USB ports while we're at it; you never know when you'll be out without your Bluetooth adapter, hehe"
- I really, honestly think that the included method is sufficient. How much slower is an Airport transfer than a FireWire one?
- I stand by my argument that removing all the ports will save space, power, and cost. The motherboard will be easier to design and manufacture, too, in addition to just the cost of the parts.
- I'm desperately concerned with keeping the combo package attractive. If you say that with FW the tablet would go better with an iMac, then you have indeed hit on the question. I for one think that, with FW, I now have no reason to even have an iMac...Why not just connect my iPod to my iTablet only?
That last one is my most important point; if you answer no other, answer it.I don't know, maybe FW is a good thing, but that really starts to make the philosophy behind this model very fuzzy...<hr></blockquote>
I like your tablet except for the missing firewire. Truly, it needs it. The speed difference is enormous. FW = 400Mb/sec Airport = 11Mb/sec. And that is theoretical on both with Firewire able to hit closer to the theoretical top than airport ever will. Winner = Firewire by a landslide. And you cut costs by including it and not having to make a new power jack, just use the one on the iPod, leverage that component and you can drop the cost of both items. Also, Firewire is everywhere in MacDom, makes no sense not to include it. What happens for the guy that does not have Airport installed? They have to buy a $99 card to sync up? Firewire is already there. USB is too slow, dump it.
[quote]About the screen: I originally envisioned a 1024x768 resolution (knowing the inconvenience of X on an 800 intimately), but that would require a 12.1" LCD, making the frame here just too big to sit in the nook of your arm, I think. Therefore, if Apple won't work with less than 1024, and more than 800 is impractical, a tablet is impossible. I don't buy it <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Anyway, all good points, but I still feel that this is a real winner because it's not only the cheapest design possible, but the reasons why it is so cheap are not weaknesses as our intuition would premise, but in fact strengths.
Also, Apple is still profiting on their iBooks. iPod is almost no profit, because it is only a selling point for the profitables. This would be the same way. So while an iBook is 1200$, this would be cheaper by 20% right off the bat, plus the savings already outlined. So even if we only save 200 as you say on components etc, 1200(base price)-200(profit)-200(components)=800 again, a fair upper price range. Personally, I think we could see 600$ as the price. I mean, surfing the web you can buy all the components in here, one at a time, for 800$. Apple can surely do better.
Viva la combo de iMac y iTablet!<hr></blockquote>
I agree that OS X works fine at 800x600. Your theory is plausible. How many here thought Apple had made a big mistake with the iPod? How many thought, and still think the Cube was a good idea? Goes to show you that you can never tell what people will like and not like.
In order to design a "groundbreaking" or "revolutionary" product one needs to look into R&D labs and see what's leading edge, almost ready for production.
A few key technologies I've read about that could impact your device are:
1. OLED's. <a href="http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/index.jhtml"; target="_blank">http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/index.jhtml</a>; (Apple's LCD company is now licensing OLED technology... coincidence??.. hmmm)
2. Magnetic Ram. <a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/mram.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.howstuffworks.com/mram.htm</a>; This stuff will make computing like light bulbs. When you need it it turns on and computes, when you don't need it, it turns off.
3. The semantic Web
<a href="http://www.sciam.com/2001/0501issue/0501berners-lee.html"; target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/2001/0501issue/0501berners-lee.html</a>; From the horses mouth! Tim Burners Lee talks about the next Internet software.. amazing stuff
4. the Grid
<a href="http://www.gridcomputingplanet.com/news/article/0,,3281_965771,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.gridcomputingplanet.com/news/article/0,,3281_965771,00.html</a>; This will replace the Internet. If this was implemented today, we would have a global macrocomputer much more complex than the human brain... Imagine if all 1.14 billion cell phones worked on a cure for cancer when you weren't talking..
5. Nanotechnology
Search "nanotechnology" on Google... it's a long weekend. Most people still think this is SciFi, but we use it every day. Materials like nanotubes thought to be still in the lab are being mass produced and NASA is working on a space elevator.. it'll be cheaper than the millennium towers in Hong Kong...which are being built...
<a href="http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html</a>;
I commend your design, we need more people thinking of design, but remember it's not art, it's problem solving art... enjoy some research, and you'll find that the ideas will come too fast to write down.