Think Different, people! New iDevices and Apple philosophy

in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
If you've come here expecting fake insider information about a new iDevice, then you've come to the wrong place.

The thing to think about is the direction of the Apple philosophy.

That can be summed in one word: Simplify.

The iMac started all this. The philosophy of the iMac is that it was a simple computer, without 57 different ports, and 5 different devices all hooked up to make it work. A one-piece computer with only one interface (USB).

Over on the software side, they have continued to simplify things. All of the iApps are designed to be easy-to-use single purpose apps.

And then comes iPod. All it does is play mp3. And syncs up to iTunes automatically. (Yes, also functions as a FW HD, too, but that's more of just a convenience of the technology involved).

It doesn't record live sound, it doesn't do much in the way of PDA stuff, it doesn't have bluetooth, or Airport or PDA software. (admittedly, the contact organizer is a nice touch).

So, instead of trying to cram PDA/Tablet/camera/DV cam/toaster oven/OS X lite/cell phone/video player/lug wrench/wireless all into one product as much of the (fake) speculation does areound here, I urge you to think like Steve.

Take a single idea, and make it better, cooler and simpler.

Like iPod. It plays mp3s, it syncs effortlessly to a computer, and the interface with jog wheel is just a step up and beyond all of the other mp3 players.

So, if you believe Apple is going to make a PDA, how will it be simpler and better? If you are a tablet proponent, how will the tablet work in such a way to make it a better experience for the user? How would a digital camera work in an ideal world? How would a DV cam allow even more people to become a movie maker with the greatest of ease?

Think like Steve.


[ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: Yet Another Registration ]</p>


  • Reply 1 of 95

    god bless you, sir.
  • Reply 2 of 95
    squashsquash Posts: 332member opens cans of soup and veggies <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

    I also think your post rocks
  • Reply 3 of 95
    jdbonjdbon Posts: 109member
    Great thread!

    Of all the devices you mentioned, the digital Camera/Camcorder seems the most likely. There are many digital still cameras and dv cameras, however there has yet to be a good camera that does both stills and video well. So lets start with a device available , the panasonic e-wear camera. It is a very good idea, but as previously mentioned, it is a "jack of all trades device that doesn't excel at any particular function. So the first thing Apple could offer is size. As the iPod has demonstrated, combining high capacity with small size is a winning combination. So this device would use the same firefly drive as the iPod (it would be available in different sizes like the ipod. Quality is also very important. I believe that the best format for video would be MP4, with an option for DV. For stills JPG is a good choose. The still resolution needs to be high. While I don't know a great deal about optics, I believe there is a new ccd with a resolution of 4 megapixels capable of video and stills. This would be a good choice for Apple's camera. The interface should be simple, with minimal buttons. It should be similar to the ipod. There would be a 2 inch color screen that organizes stills and video in the same format as the ipod. The jog wheel would be used to navigate and preview the stills and video on the camera. There would be a button "still picture" and another "Video". Pressing the button both starts and stops the video. A still can be taken when it is recording video and vice versa. Obviously the device would sync with iMovie and iPhoto. The camera would connect with firewire. The digital hub settings under system preferences would determine what happens when it is plugged in. By default the video would be downloaded to the MOvies folder and the Pictures downloaded to the Pictures folder. The user can determine if they want iMovie or iTunes to open. By default, the camera would record at its highest setting, and iMovie and iPhoto will adjust the resolution and quality for different forms of presentation (eg Internet, print, DVD etc. the user should not have to worry about adjusting resolution and changing format, the iApps should "know" what format and what resolution to use for different applications. A third function of this device would be an internet camera. Used in conjunction with .mac or ichat, the user would just select video chat in the window. in addition file transfer could be used to send pictures and video from the camera. Because it is in MP4 format, the video could be streamed at a decent quality, even with 56k. IChat would also have the ability to receive video from a PC using netmeeting. Also a user could broadcast directly to the internet through .mac, to set up an easy internet cam. Lastly the device would be attached to a television to view the pictures in a slide show or to watch the video both before and after editing (imovie and iphoto can send the edited media back to the camera so it can be presented on the TV and/or carried around with you.

    So basically specs aside this device would be unique and better than the competion in several ways:

    1. Size- It is small like the ipod

    2. No tapes or flash cards to carry or fiddle with, its all internal.

    3. Easy interface- just a few logical buttons make it easy to use.

    4. It "knows" about the iApps and the iApps know about the camera. When you plug it in it just works the way you want it.

    5. Focus on Presentation. Unlike the iPod, the camera is a device to capture media, not present it. Aside from the small LCD and tv out function, the camera is not for looking at pictures and video. People want to share their media. Today there are a number of ways to do so. Apple would make it easy to share them a number of ways without having to convert formats and resolution. You press a button and it works the way you want it to.
  • Reply 4 of 95
    mrbilldatamrbilldata Posts: 489member
    I'm sorry...

    I can't think like Jobs. Cute novelty machines do not help me to get my work done any faster.

    I like how Wozniak thought. High quality state-of-the-art thinking made Cutting-edge computers.

    Apple was the computer of Univerities and Hightech industries.

    Apple philosophy today can now be summed up as: Simple for Simple-tons.
  • Reply 5 of 95
    squashsquash Posts: 332member
    There is nothing simple about an ipod, imac, emac, powermac,powerbook, or ibook...nothing!!! All are the best designed boxes or device in their place in the market...period. Your gripe is about the issue of speed, nothing else.

    I won't disagree with you on that issue, but Apple is still the most innovative company out there for computers and computer related devices.

    He didn't post this topic for you to bitch, it's to think and speculate on a new device. Simple,Elegant, and Apple of the Future like...not the past!!!
  • Reply 6 of 95
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    [quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:

    <strong>I'm sorry...

    I can't think like Jobs. Cute novelty machines do not help me to get my work done any faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Then you've missed the point of Apple's change in

    philosophy. Apple has squarely directed itself as a Consumer Entertainer, like Sony.

    [quote]<strong>Apple philosophy today can now be summed up as: Simple for Simple-tons.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I'm in IT support (read: Windows systems and the users that break them). Simpletons adequately describes users and most consumers. They watch TV so they want On, Off, Channel, and Volume Control. That's it.

    Look at the iPod. One "button". Simply simple.

    [Now getting closer to the topic]

    If a Digital Photo/Video Camera, I would expect the exact same, single "button" as the iPod. Pressing it turns the camera on, pressing it takes the pictures (or starts recording), and pressing and holding it shuts it off. The wheel function is used to scroll through taken images/videos and so forth. See simply simple.


    [ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 95
    Dang, good thread. You deserver cool points for such a great thread. Bless you! (2 pts awarded)
  • Reply 8 of 95
    timortistimortis Posts: 149member
    Whatever happened to making "the best personal computers money can buy" in Steve's own words?

    When did Apple users turn into gadget junkies? When did Apple become a consumer electronics manufacturer?

    Screw the iPod, screw the ipad, and all other future idevices. I want a good, fast, high-performance personal computer that's on the bleeding edge of technological innovation.
  • Reply 9 of 95
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    [quote]Originally posted by timortis:

    <strong>Screw the iPod, screw the ipad, and all other future idevices. I want a good, fast, high-performance personal computer that's on the bleeding edge of technological innovation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Dude, you're getting a <a href=""; target="_blank">Dell</a>.

    As for me, I'm staying with the best OS available. Unix or otherwise; free or otherwise.

  • Reply 10 of 95
    mafiamacmafiamac Posts: 66member
    Yes, i concur that this thread is awesome. Great points and good ideas.

    To think like Steve you have to do a number of things.

    1. You have to put complications out of your mind.

    2. You have to start thinking that things are more simple than they really are.

    3. You must realize that you can make anything happen.

    Apple has done this and continues to innovate with these rules in mind. They wont stop either.
  • Reply 11 of 95
    squashsquash Posts: 332member
    I think we do get the best computers made....maybe not the fastest as you define best. They run and run and run, which is what I'd rather have. Buy a PC is you need the fastest chip, or so they say. Enjoy your hardware problems and tech support.

    I'll stick with the best OS and hardware money can buy....::hugs dual ghz::
  • Reply 11 of 95
    mrbilldatamrbilldata Posts: 489member
    [quote]Originally posted by timortis:

    <strong>Whatever happened to making "the best personal computers money can buy" in Steve's own words?

    When did Apple users turn into gadget junkies? When did Apple become a consumer electronics manufacturer?

    Screw the iPod, screw the ipad, and all other future idevices. I want a good, fast, high-performance personal computer that's on the bleeding edge of technological innovation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Exactly right.

    It's Apple Computer, NOT Apple Gadgets Inc.
  • Reply 13 of 95
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    Yep, I like the philosophy of one intention, one device.

    So we get:

    Music -&gt; iTunes -&gt; iPod (with the added bonus of an external hard drive).

    Pictures -&gt; iPhoto -&gt; iCam (or whatever)

    Video -&gt; iMove -&gt; iCam also?? (or whatever)

    I'm a big advocate for a non-PDA portable device. In other words a tablet. But what's the corresponding function and Mac software?

    This is where I can understand those who are against the idea. Tablet could be a "mini-Mac" and therefore be slow or expensive or both.

    Does the Palm fulfill this:

    PIM -&gt; Palm Desktop -&gt; Palm device

    Marginally, I think.

  • Reply 14 of 95
    blizaineblizaine Posts: 239member

    Just kidding
  • Reply 15 of 95
    squashsquash Posts: 332member
    [quote]Screw the iPod, screw the ipad, and all other future idevices. I want a good, fast, high-performance personal computer that's on the bleeding edge of technological innovation. <hr></blockquote>

    You're not on the bleeding edge unless you support these type of devices, so why not just make the best possible ones to sync with your OS and hardware?
  • Reply 16 of 95
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    I'm not against the keep-it-simple-and-elegant philosophy, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment...

    The iPod is a portable device. So is a PDA, so is a cell phone, so is a camera, etc. How many portable devices do you want to carry around with you all of the time? The urge to create a digital Swiss army knife grows from the urge to not have a dozen different little boxes crammed into your pockets, hanging from your belt, stuffed into your backpack, briefcase or purse... with each gadget bringing a new set of patch cables and wall warts into your life.

    I leave my cell phone in my car most of the time, because I don't want to carry even that one item around. I haven't bought a PDA yet because I can't see myself keeping it on my person all of time, and I don't think it would be very useful to me unless I did have it on hand nearly 24/7.

    If enough functions were combined into one tiny package, however, the overall utility might just be enough to overcome my reluctance to bear more than clothes, wallet, and wristwatch.

    I don't know how well combo gadgets can be done, however. I see commercials for things like the Nokia Communicator, and think it's a nice combination of features, but... Would I want a cell phone that chunky? Could I be satisfied with the display, which is smaller than a PDA and not very tall compared to its own width?

    If somehow, magically, someone could make a cell phone that also worked *well* as a PDA, worked well for wireless e-mail and web browsing, that could store thousands of songs like an iPod, and packed all of this functionality into pleasantly small, lightweight package than ran for 10-20 hours on a single charge... and ran 100-200 hours in standby mode... I'd happily hang that übergadget from a belt loop, or start wearing baggy cargo pants with big pockets just to be able to have so much digital goodness at my side all of the time.

    Throw in a tiny camera... hell, it doesn't even have to be great quality... and I'd be in techno geek heaven.

    I don't see Apple or anyone else doing this (or at least doing this well) anytime soon, so I'll happily take a clean and simple iPod instead, maybe with some PDA functionality thrown in if there's a decent sized screen.
  • Reply 17 of 95
    frawgzfrawgz Posts: 547member
    Ok, applying the Steve-Zen philosophy to one aspect of the computing experience: the mouse.

    Simple doesn't mean crippled, nor does it mean &lt;insert anything here&gt; for dummies. As Jonathan Ive put it, good design is when you have taken everything you can away from a product without sacrificing the essence of the product. Good design usually results in something incredibly simple, but it is nowhere near as simple to achieve it.

    Why did Apple refine the original Xerox PARC mouse into a one-button device? Because they were introducing an entirely new way of computing, point-and-click. They could have kept 3 buttons on the mouse and made their own lives easier by off-loading complexity onto the user. However, the system is such that the good design of the user interface obviates the need for extra mouse buttons. The result: the new user, the jaded user, and every user in between only has to click one button at any given point in time, regardless of context. It's a binary situation. On, off. Click, no click.

    Fast forward many years later. PC users complain that "Macs suck! They only have one mouse button!" Their criticism smacks of ignorance of all the design and meaning that sits behind that single button (which has since been refined into a single surface). However, their complaints aren't without merit. While graphical interfaces have become the primary mode of computing, programs that live in the graphical space have become more sophisticated, growing beyond what a single mouse button can offer. Photoshop is no MacPaint, nor, I'm sure, can you somehow revolutionize its design to require only one button with no modifier keys.

    In this case, contextual menus become a powerful way to access context-specific functionality that would otherwise be tucked away in a nest of menus or dialogs somewhere. Should the Mac finally gain a second mouse button?

    Given the above, making this default would be a highly debatable decision, since the single button is a boon to users who are new computers still. Remember, within the U.S. alone, half the population doesn't own a computer. This doesn't mean they're not exposed to computers, but it speaks strongly along with the fact that there is no intuitive reason why left-click should be the default action, while right-click should be the context action.

    Rumors of a multi-button mouse persist. They've resurfaced again for this MacWorld. If you were Steve and you decided it was time for the Mac to move to multi-button mice, would you simply drop a second button onto the mouse, or would you rethink how a mouse can include context functionality?
  • Reply 18 of 95
    <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 19 of 95
    disinedisine Posts: 6member
    First <a href=""; target="_blank">see this</a>.

    then take it a step further

    I still want "the device" as in ONE device. We?re carrying a phone, iPod, video camera, pda and digital camera around. Each device needs a separate power cord (that I have to keep track of) and a different way to connect to my computer. USB, Firewire, Infrared... Plus a different headphone jack for each with multiple volume settings and conflicting methods of operation. This is not simple.

    A single device.

    Bluetooth and Rendezvous:

    Automatic sync with computers at work and home.

    All your data available on the device while at work, home or in the car.

    Audio and video instantly available on car stereo and home entertainment centers.

    Remote control for every system it interfaces with.

    Visual / Control:

    Simplest form factor imaginable. One button on top and two buttons on the side. One side is all color LCD touch screen with multiple interfaces for more complex commands, the other side like back of iPod with a lens, microphone and speaker. Size as close to iPod as possible set to widescreen proportion for MPEG-4 viewing on the run.


    20 gig HD

    2.1 Mega Pixel Camera

    DV Camera

    Audio Recorder/Player


    Portable OS X not PDA software

    GPS Map System

    Web Browsing and Email

    Radio (Yes, Radio)


    Bluetooth Headphones

    Bluetooth Clip-On remote / microphone
  • Reply 20 of 95
    IPod is a great product but it's a high-end product in a niche-market. As Apple computer in fact.

    Technology behind Mp3 player is simple.

    This situation look like Swatch : They create a great simple watch, revolutionize Swiss Watch industry and promise the same thing about car.

    In this high-technology and high-concurenced market, even with the help of Mercedes-Benz they only realize a niche-car (both literally and

    figuratively.:-) ).

    In front of Sony or Matsuchita with theirs huge R&D budget, Apple will have a Hell to do a great Cam.

    Simpliest creative tools: Yes artists wants tools they could forget. But they wants also shape "material" as they want. With one button tools the machine make artisitic choices in place of you. It's no more tools but toys.

    One button mice was great when Mac was out. Now the computers are object-oriented. In this conception 2 buttons, one for acting one for alter is the more logical design. Even for newbies this may help them to understand computer's internal working and the way to interact with her.

    One button mice are still here for bad reason:

    -it's an historical part of Mac design, an hallmark.

    -One button look like more simpler than 2,4+roll boutons.

    Graphical pad don't equipped any workstation in standard.
Sign In or Register to comment.