In Steve own words : We dont ship junk / We don't offer stripped down lousy products
Fortunately technology allows companies like Apple to ship good quality at a lower price every year. Just look at the evolution of the Air from a high priced under performing machine into a market leading platform. The simple fact that it is possible to ship high quality at a lower cost demands that Apple shift some of its business into the sub $1000 range. The reality is that there are high quality sub $1000 laptops already on the market.
The other way to look at this is to dissect A7 and SoC in general. Being able to pack a good portion of all logic required onto one very low cost chip, leads to the possibility of huge reductions in hardware costs while still allowing fat margins for Apple. IPad is a perfect example here as it is a real computer and a quality device.
Is JP Morgan's new Apple blog called iStupid? iOS isn't made for a mouse. Get over it.
Yet in the jailbreak community the mouse can work well. I'd go so far as to say a mouse could enhance certain types of iOS GUI operations with little if any changes to iOS.
Not that I think Apple needs to go this route, what it really needs to do is go full throttle with Artificial Intelligence with the goal of putting much of the AI right in the computing device. Again a mouse is about looking towards the past, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have mouse support in iOS, it is just that the future won't be written with the aid of a mouse.
IDK, the idea of an expanded iOS running, with kb/touchpad, on a somewhat more powerful device than an iPad intrigues me.
Done right it could be a desirable platform.
There are several no-man's-lands separating iOS and OSX -- the file system and multiple, overlapping windows. The touch UI on the iPad could handle these -- but I think a mouse/touchpad would provide a superior experience.
Personally I'd rather see an ARM based device be built with real Mac OS but supporting iPad apps in a window. Obviously Apple is 99.9% of the way there with the XCode iOS emulation layer. What this does is gives the platform an immediate supply of good apps to work along with the greater world of Mac OS and UNIX apps.
Consider a device with 4-8GB RAM 128-256GB SSD.
Please I'm in public, no wood producing suggestions please.
Aside: My iMac 27" is awaiting service and I am typing this on a Mac Mini -- 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 320GB HDD ... It is pure agony compared to using a iPad 4 -- even though the Mini has a BT KB/Mouse and a 23" Cinema Display.
Amazing, that absolutely nothing has changed. The same morons, cynics, trolls, opportunists, liars, and douchebags are still drumming on "marketshare", and the same answer applies 100% today. Back in 2008, Apple had a sliver of the marketshare it had today- yet, it is still doomed today because of "marketshare", as if Apple hasn't proven itself yet. Unbelievable.
You guys are missing the point here! Technology now allows Apple to build high quality hardware at a much lower cost. Since this reality also applies to the competition Apple has no choice but to lower prices over time. That doesn't mean that they compete dollar for dollar but rather the keep the perception in people's minds that an Apple device is worth a few hundred over the run of the mill hardware.
Personally I'd rather see an ARM based device be built with real Mac OS but supporting iPad apps in a window. Obviously Apple is 99.9% of the way there with the XCode iOS emulation layer. What this does is gives the platform an immediate supply of good apps to work along with the greater world of Mac OS and UNIX apps.
That makes sense ...
I keep falling into the trap: thinking that OSX needs to run on Intel so the user can optionally run Windows.
The problem with the Mini was speed (typing and switching) -- Mail and 18 Safari tabs. I have more running on the iPad (suspended).
Edit: The more I think about this the more I like it. A kb with a good touchpad and the ability to run multiple iPad apps receiving background updates, while running OSX apps.
There is a fundamental argument to be made against the thought of a more fully-featured iPad or iOS device with a keyboard. iOS and the iPad was designed to be an easy to use and modestly yet powerfully equipped mobile computing device. And thing more is a PC. When all the power users and tech bloggers and journalists and analysts get on this kick that iOS and the iPad needs to be more "full-featured", I interpret that as they just want a smaller, touch screened MacBook. We all know that is the opposite of what the iPad and iOS is. So why force these demands? We all saw the videos and the digram that Schiller showed at the Gen 1 iPad Keynote. A touch screen laptop DOSENT WORK.
That's the first fundamental argument to make against and iPad-pro. Useage. What are you really needing an iPad for? If it really just work or using productivity apps that are powerful and not really meant for a 9" screen? Then you probably are better suited with a MacBook. You're only going to frustrate yourself into forcing an iPad to do something it really isn't intended for. Yes Apple thinks the iPad can work as a content creation device for the lowest common denominator of the customer base, but for the office and or/ power user, the iPad is just not it. So why force it? Unless there is inherently another hidden reason why we are hearing wild demands for an iPad-pro.
If you want a full featured desktop experience in a small for factor, Apple has the MacBook Air 11". It's faster than the iPad, not quite as light but light enough and it's the full-featured experience that everyone wants, that is bitching and whining for a full-featured iOS device. So what's the point?
The only point that makes any sense to me about the pro-iPad argument is the one argument this article finally admits inadvertently. PRICE. this article basically is saying iOS and the iPad are great products and enormously successful, but what the power users and business users want is something like this but with a keyboard and pointing device, all at the same price point and size and weight as the current iPad airs if not slightly more after you add the keyboard and boosted hardware. Once again the analysts are saying they want Apple to either lower their prices or make a device at the price point of their most popular products to gain PC market share.
So Wall Street is basically saying Apple should make the MS Surface Pro. Which, not entirely a bad idea but bad implementation. Sure something like this is possible for Apple to do. But do they want to waste their time with a stop-gap like the surface or try to truly innovate? Not to mention there are tons of 3rd party options for a keyboard on the iPad. Yes, the productivity issue is still there, but now that we have MS office and much improved iWork apps, the only difference I can see between the iPad and the Mac now is the pointing method size, speed and weight. The UI being the biggest difference. And that's where my argument against and iPad-pro comes in. Even if they made and iOS device with a bigger screen, keyboard and pointing method other than touch, you basically have a laptop. So what is iOS doing for you that OSX on an ultra-light form factor not doing for you, other than size, weight and price?
Does anyone make any reasonable margin on a $599 laptop? No. Would it cannibalise sales of the MB Air which AAPL do make money on? Yes. Would it dilute AAPL's premium positioning and brand perception? Yes.
Therefore, analyst talking rubbish because they don't understand the difference between volume and profit. Again.
This is the reason why Wall Street analysts don't work for creative companies like Apple or whomever.
Wall Street looks at the bottom line. What's the price point, and works back to the type of product that might fill that price point to make the most profit and highest market share.
Apple starts at the product, then figures out how to get to the price point or nearly there, never compromising experience for cost.
It's two different ways of looking at product design and sales. Something tells me the Apple way is the better way, something Wall Street cold have never predicted.
There is a fundamental argument to be made against the thought of a more fully-featured iPad or iOS device with a keyboard. iOS and the iPad was designed to be an easy to use and modestly yet powerfully equipped mobile computing device. And thing more is a PC. ...
There is a fundamental argument to be made for a more fully-featured iPad with a larger size.
The argument is that a larger iPad is the most minimalistic computer you can make in a traditional setting.
It is just a slab of glas attached to a computing layer and thats it. Its usage is also pretty close to traditional paper (A4 size should be perfect) and the way people worked for thousands of years using a reading desk and proven by evolution to be the best way to work.
So what hardware feature is missing from the iPad? Not a keyboard, that is solved by making it virtual and transparant, not the mouse because we have touch for that (thats the whole point). Its the pen (or stylus) a tool that enhances our drawing precision and reduces the object size, a tool thats also proven by evolution to be the best solution.
<...>Its the pen (or stylus) a tool that enhances our drawing precision and reduces the object size, a tool thats also proven by evolution to be the best solution.
OK, then I just have to wait for evolution to grow me a pen ?
There is a fundamental argument to be made against the thought of a more fully-featured iPad or iOS device with a keyboard. iOS and the iPad was designed to be an easy to use and modestly yet powerfully equipped mobile computing device. And thing more is a PC. ...
There is a fundamental argument to be made for a more fully-featured iPad with a larger size.
The argument is that a larger iPad is the most minimalistic computer you can make in a traditional setting.
It is just a slab of glas attached to a computing layer and thats it. Its usage is also pretty close to traditional paper (A4 size should be perfect) and the way people worked for thousands of years using a reading desk and proven by evolution to be the best way to work.
So what hardware feature is missing from the iPad? Not a keyboard, that is solved by making it virtual and transparant, not the mouse because we have touch for that (thats the whole point). Its the pen (or stylus) a tool that enhances our drawing precision and reduces the object size, a tool thats also proven by evolution to be the best solution.
Or, an inexpensive laptop running OSX optimized for 64-bit ARM -- a keyboard, touchpad, standard I/O ports and non-touch screen ...
Less expensive (no Intel tax) than a MacBook Air – more powerful than an iPad.
Run native iOS apps concurrently with native OS X apps.
Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Target a price range of $600-$800 -- I'm really starting to get jazzed about this!
Apple doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator. If the customer doesn't care about performance and would settle for a underpowered laptop, perhaps they actually need an iPad. Apple makes those.
You can't manage bulk storage with an iPad, format drives, connect to USB peripherals, run all the productive software of OS X like Adobe Illustrator or XCode. These don't need huge amounts of performance and until an iPad can do that, a laptop will still be preferred.
The Celeron 2955U is over $200 less than the CPU used in the $999 Air:
That doesn't mean to say a Mac laptop with one would perform like a 2009 laptop because they use PCIe SSD now, have much faster and more memory and they don't heat up nearly so much. They don't need to use that particular CPU but there are options that would let them ship a solid Intel-based entry-level laptop for $799 without sacrificing any of the build quality of the Air.
People are buying iPads and iPhones anyway but most of those buyers are Windows users. It may not be worth doing if the additional sales don't increase marketshare enough to offset the lower price and it drives people away from the $999 price point but the stats show buyers at $499. Some of those would consider a Mac at $799 where they wouldn't at $999.
12" laptop, designed like the MBP styling with black bezels, 128GB SSD, 4GB RAM soldered, Haswell or Broadwell Celeron/Pentium/Atom at a performance level around a 2009/2010 Mac laptop, starting at $799.
Apple doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator. If the customer doesn't care about performance and would settle for a underpowered laptop, perhaps they actually need an iPad. Apple makes those.
You can't manage bulk storage with an iPad, format drives, connect to USB peripherals, run all the productive software of OS X like Adobe Illustrator or XCode. These don't need huge amounts of performance and until an iPad can do that, a laptop will still be preferred.
The Celeron 2955U is over $200 less than the CPU used in the $999 Air:
That doesn't mean to say a Mac laptop with one would perform like a 2009 laptop because they use PCIe SSD now, have much faster and more memory and they don't heat up nearly so much. They don't need to use that particular CPU but there are options that would let them ship a solid Intel-based entry-level laptop for $799 without sacrificing any of the build quality of the Air.
People are buying iPads and iPhones anyway but most of those buyers are Windows users. It may not be worth doing if the additional sales don't increase marketshare enough to offset the lower price and it drives people away from the $999 price point but the stats show buyers at $499. Some of those would consider a Mac at $799 where they wouldn't at $999.
12" laptop, designed like the MBP styling with black bezels, 128GB SSD, 4GB RAM soldered, Haswell or Broadwell Celeron/Pentium/Atom at a performance level around a 2009/2010 Mac laptop, starting at $799.
Comments
The other way to look at this is to dissect A7 and SoC in general. Being able to pack a good portion of all logic required onto one very low cost chip, leads to the possibility of huge reductions in hardware costs while still allowing fat margins for Apple. IPad is a perfect example here as it is a real computer and a quality device.
Yet in the jailbreak community the mouse can work well. I'd go so far as to say a mouse could enhance certain types of iOS GUI operations with little if any changes to iOS.
Not that I think Apple needs to go this route, what it really needs to do is go full throttle with Artificial Intelligence with the goal of putting much of the AI right in the computing device. Again a mouse is about looking towards the past, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have mouse support in iOS, it is just that the future won't be written with the aid of a mouse.
Why is that; speed or software behavior!
You guys are missing the point here! Technology now allows Apple to build high quality hardware at a much lower cost. Since this reality also applies to the competition Apple has no choice but to lower prices over time. That doesn't mean that they compete dollar for dollar but rather the keep the perception in people's minds that an Apple device is worth a few hundred over the run of the mill hardware.
And this Virginia, is why most Apple analysts are considered imbeciles.
That makes sense ...
I keep falling into the trap: thinking that OSX needs to run on Intel so the user can optionally run Windows.
The problem with the Mini was speed (typing and switching) -- Mail and 18 Safari tabs. I have more running on the iPad (suspended).
Edit: The more I think about this the more I like it. A kb with a good touchpad and the ability to run multiple iPad apps receiving background updates, while running OSX apps.
Is JP Morgan's new Apple blog called iStupid? iOS isn't made for a mouse. Get over it.
In his defense, he's never used an iOS. Or a mouse. He's an analyst.
That's the first fundamental argument to make against and iPad-pro. Useage. What are you really needing an iPad for? If it really just work or using productivity apps that are powerful and not really meant for a 9" screen? Then you probably are better suited with a MacBook. You're only going to frustrate yourself into forcing an iPad to do something it really isn't intended for. Yes Apple thinks the iPad can work as a content creation device for the lowest common denominator of the customer base, but for the office and or/ power user, the iPad is just not it. So why force it? Unless there is inherently another hidden reason why we are hearing wild demands for an iPad-pro.
If you want a full featured desktop experience in a small for factor, Apple has the MacBook Air 11". It's faster than the iPad, not quite as light but light enough and it's the full-featured experience that everyone wants, that is bitching and whining for a full-featured iOS device. So what's the point?
The only point that makes any sense to me about the pro-iPad argument is the one argument this article finally admits inadvertently. PRICE.
this article basically is saying iOS and the iPad are great products and enormously successful, but what the power users and business users want is something like this but with a keyboard and pointing device, all at the same price point and size and weight as the current iPad airs if not slightly more after you add the keyboard and boosted hardware. Once again the analysts are saying they want Apple to either lower their prices or make a device at the price point of their most popular products to gain PC market share.
So Wall Street is basically saying Apple should make the MS Surface Pro. Which, not entirely a bad idea but bad implementation. Sure something like this is possible for Apple to do. But do they want to waste their time with a stop-gap like the surface or try to truly innovate? Not to mention there are tons of 3rd party options for a keyboard on the iPad. Yes, the productivity issue is still there, but now that we have MS office and much improved iWork apps, the only difference I can see between the iPad and the Mac now is the pointing method size, speed and weight. The UI being the biggest difference. And that's where my argument against and iPad-pro comes in. Even if they made and iOS device with a bigger screen, keyboard and pointing method other than touch, you basically have a laptop. So what is iOS doing for you that OSX on an ultra-light form factor not doing for you, other than size, weight and price?
Would it cannibalise sales of the MB Air which AAPL do make money on? Yes.
Would it dilute AAPL's premium positioning and brand perception? Yes.
Therefore, analyst talking rubbish because they don't understand the difference between volume and profit. Again.
Wall Street looks at the bottom line. What's the price point, and works back to the type of product that might fill that price point to make the most profit and highest market share.
Apple starts at the product, then figures out how to get to the price point or nearly there, never compromising experience for cost.
It's two different ways of looking at product design and sales. Something tells me the Apple way is the better way, something Wall Street cold have never predicted.
What Apple needs is a netbook with BluRay, a matte screen, USB 3 and HDMI at sub $300...
...maybe then these analysts will f*ck off.
There is a fundamental argument to be made against the thought of a more fully-featured iPad or iOS device with a keyboard. iOS and the iPad was designed to be an easy to use and modestly yet powerfully equipped mobile computing device. And thing more is a PC. ...
There is a fundamental argument to be made for a more fully-featured iPad with a larger size.
The argument is that a larger iPad is the most minimalistic computer you can make in a traditional setting.
It is just a slab of glas attached to a computing layer and thats it. Its usage is also pretty close to traditional paper (A4 size should be perfect) and the way people worked for thousands of years using a reading desk and proven by evolution to be the best way to work.
So what hardware feature is missing from the iPad? Not a keyboard, that is solved by making it virtual and transparant, not the mouse because we have touch for that (thats the whole point). Its the pen (or stylus) a tool that enhances our drawing precision and reduces the object size, a tool thats also proven by evolution to be the best solution.
<...>Its the pen (or stylus) a tool that enhances our drawing precision and reduces the object size, a tool thats also proven by evolution to be the best solution.
OK, then I just have to wait for evolution to grow me a pen ?
Or, an inexpensive laptop running OSX optimized for 64-bit ARM -- a keyboard, touchpad, standard I/O ports and non-touch screen ...
Less expensive (no Intel tax) than a MacBook Air – more powerful than an iPad.
Run native iOS apps concurrently with native OS X apps.
Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Target a price range of $600-$800 -- I'm really starting to get jazzed about this!
You can't manage bulk storage with an iPad, format drives, connect to USB peripherals, run all the productive software of OS X like Adobe Illustrator or XCode. These don't need huge amounts of performance and until an iPad can do that, a laptop will still be preferred.
The Celeron 2955U is over $200 less than the CPU used in the $999 Air:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75608/Intel-Celeron-Processor-2955U-2M-Cache-1_40-GHz
It's used in the Acer Aspire E1-532 and it scores like a 2009 dual-core Macbook Pro:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2389949
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
That doesn't mean to say a Mac laptop with one would perform like a 2009 laptop because they use PCIe SSD now, have much faster and more memory and they don't heat up nearly so much. They don't need to use that particular CPU but there are options that would let them ship a solid Intel-based entry-level laptop for $799 without sacrificing any of the build quality of the Air.
People are buying iPads and iPhones anyway but most of those buyers are Windows users. It may not be worth doing if the additional sales don't increase marketshare enough to offset the lower price and it drives people away from the $999 price point but the stats show buyers at $499. Some of those would consider a Mac at $799 where they wouldn't at $999.
12" laptop, designed like the MBP styling with black bezels, 128GB SSD, 4GB RAM soldered, Haswell or Broadwell Celeron/Pentium/Atom at a performance level around a 2009/2010 Mac laptop, starting at $799.
Why does it need an Intel chip?
Couldn't it run on an ARM A8 or somesuch?
Apple has said numerous times it was not going to put a touch screen on a traditional computer.
Exactly. But if Apple introduced a laptop than ran iOS with trackpad support for under £500 I would buy one tomorrow.
Why iOS?
Why not 64-bit ARM-optimized OS X with native OSX and native iOS apps running concurrently?
On OSX, You can run MS Office, iWorks, iLife, Apple Pro apps, iOS apps and cloud apps.