Assuming, then, that Apple releases a SSD-based ultraportable with either HDD or flash-based expansion options (basically, "use an external drive for larger stuff; if you want more onboard storage then fill up these expansion slots; you can fit up to two 64GB flash cards in."), what is the minimum onboard storage that people will be able to live with? 16GB? 32GB? 8GB? We are talking about a fully capable notebook here, so what is the minimum storage they could reasonably ship with?
I know that Leopard in all its glory has no trouble running on a friend's computer that is ancient and packs a 20GB HDD - but would 16GB not be enough? I'm running Tiger right now and the system takes 1.85GB, I have 6.3GB of applications (I could probably condense it to 4.5 or 5GB if I had to), a 10GB Library (4.4GB for Application Support, mostly Adobe, Garageband, and iDVD; 2GB of printer drivers; 2.5GB for Audio), and 17.4GB of files (10GB of music, 4GB of pictures, a 1.3GB Library, and misc files). I guess I could imagine having a 16GB main hard drive if I could expand twice by up to 64GB.
Assuming, then, that Apple releases a SSD-based ultraportable with either HDD or flash-based expansion options (basically, "use an external drive for larger stuff; if you want more onboard storage then fill up these expansion slots; you can fit up to two 64GB flash cards in."), what is the minimum onboard storage that people will be able to live with? 16GB? 32GB? 8GB? We are talking about a fully capable notebook here, so what is the minimum storage they could reasonably ship with?
A very good question and frankly one that can never be answered. There are just to many variables in what people use devices like this for.
The only benchmark we currently have is the ASUS Eee PC. The shipping model has 4GB of Flash on board, I consider that way to small. So 4 GB is below bottom end. Frankly I see 32 GB as the minimum with many users justifiably wanting 64 GB. That is partly due to marketing and partly due to technical reasons.
For system and application files I think it is fair to say that a reserve of 16GB is about right. This should cover a wide range of user applications mixes and provide room required for temporary files. That would leave 16 GB for user data. These are wild ass guesses as you might suspect, one can chew up a huge amount of disk space simply by installing Eclipse.
Quote:
I know that Leopard in all its glory has no trouble running on a friend's computer that is ancient and packs a 20GB HDD - but would 16GB not be enough? I'm running Tiger right now and the system takes 1.85GB, I have 6.3GB of applications (I could probably condense it to 4.5 or 5GB if I had to), a 10GB Library (4.4GB for Application Support, mostly Adobe, Garageband, and iDVD; 2GB of printer drivers; 2.5GB for Audio), and 17.4GB of files (10GB of music, 4GB of pictures, a 1.3GB Library, and misc files). I guess I could imagine having a 16GB main hard drive if I could expand twice by up to 64GB.
I have about 40 GB in my home directory. Much of that large files that could be purged (ISO's for Linux and such).
Another nice feature this laptop could add would be a port for plugging in a iPod. That would be just the nuts in my opinion.
You can't forget about .Mac users. I don't think Apple is going to leave them out on their UP. The stinking disk image for iDisk is 30 GB. I am thinking the minimum they can go with is 64 GB at this point.
You can't forget about .Mac users. I don't think Apple is going to leave them out on their UP. The stinking disk image for iDisk is 30 GB. I am thinking the minimum they can go with is 64 GB at this point.
Does this mean .Mac reserves 30 GB on your local harddisk for syncing with .Mac online regardless of the amount of files/storage you're actually using? That's rather stupid would probably need to be changed once there are SSD-based laptops.
Btw I don't know how .Mac works, but it wouldn't appear to me as too bright if say I sync my 10 GB home directory with .Mac and it not only requires 10 GB on .Mac as well as 10 GB in my Home directory but another 10 GB in a special local .Mac directory...
Assuming, then, that Apple releases a SSD-based ultraportable with either HDD or flash-based expansion options (basically, "use an external drive for larger stuff; if you want more onboard storage then fill up these expansion slots; you can fit up to two 64GB flash cards in."), what is the minimum onboard storage that people will be able to live with? 16GB? 32GB? 8GB? We are talking about a fully capable notebook here, so what is the minimum storage they could reasonably ship with?
In my opinion, the minimum for Apple would be at least 32GB and probably 64GB. If, as in your scenario, there is no HDD option, then 32GB is even less likely. This makes the idea implausible for a MWSF 2008 launch due to price. At current prices, 32GB is barely affordable and 64GB is too expensive for most buyers. For this to work, Apple would have to consign the low end to the MacBook and the MacBook Nano would be priced like the 17" MacBook Pro. It would sell well in Japan. At the prices Apple would need to charge to maintain their profit margins, it would not sell in the numbers at which other Apple laptops are selling -- perhaps half at best for its first year due to flash prices.
In my opinion, the minimum for Apple would be at least 32GB and probably 64GB. If, as in your scenario, there is no HDD option, then 32GB is even less likely.
There is no doubt there is a strong preference for 64 GB. The unit would not be objectionable with 32GB installed. Either way the unit needs access to additional user storage, be that flash or traditional hard disk. I'd go with flash as this is the only form factor really suitable for an ultra thin laptop.
Quote:
This makes the idea implausible for a MWSF 2008 launch due to price. At current prices, 32GB is barely affordable and 64GB is too expensive for most buyers.
I'm not sure why their is an issue with price here. Look at the iPod Touch, this guy has 16 GB based on todays flash technology. Lets say for instance that the margins on the Touch are 30%, which would imply 280 dollars for the Touch hardware. If we take a quarter of that as the cost of the Touch's memory we get about $70. So our wild ass estimates have the cost of 16 GB of flash at 70 dollars. Lets now say that Samsung doubles that storage capacity for 115% of that cost or about $80. So 32GB of storage will cost Apple around 80 dollars. Even if Apple went to 64 GB we are only talking about being slightly more than $160 out of the cost of the Ultra Laptop.
One should not confuse the cost of these new to market SSD with the cost to Apple to implement storage on the motherboard.
Quote:
For this to work, Apple would have to consign the low end to the MacBook and the MacBook Nano would be priced like the 17" MacBook Pro. It would sell well in Japan.
I'm thinking $900 dollars or there abouts. That would allow for $300 dollars in additional parts. This is possible if they implement a SOC. It is also doable with more traditional technology, if the bare minimum of features where implemented.
Quote:
At the prices Apple would need to charge to maintain their profit margins, it would not sell in the numbers at which other Apple laptops are selling -- perhaps half at best for its first year due to flash prices.
Err..... It won't sell as well as Apple's other hardware for the simple reason that it would offer to little. As much as many of use are looking for something really small in the way of a portable device it is not a computer for the masses.
Quote:
Yes, certainly.
We can only hope so. The problems with power management demand it though.
We can only hope so. The problems with power management demand it though.
Dave
You guys understand that the 45nm chips that will be available in january are regular ones (35W). The chipset they will work with is Santa Rosa which is not a light-weight in the area of consumption.
Better (less power hungry) chips will come in Q2 (around may) in the form of 25W models at clocks ranging from 2.13 to 2.53GHz (only 3MB of cache). Those will work with the Montevina GM/PM chipset.
Then in Q3 (summer), Intel will launch 2 new smaller/less power hungry chipsets Montevina GL/GS aimed at smaller/lower cost notebooks and mini desktops. At the same time, LV (17W) and ULV (10W) penryn chips will also be launched. Montevina GL/GS+Penryn LV/ULV are a better solution for a full featured UPN.
I don't think that in january 2008, SSD will be that much affordable, I think that something like Sandisk Vaulter is a cheaper (yet better) implementation of Flash right now: 8/16GB of Flash with a fast PCI-Express interface for system+apps PLUS a regular HDD for data (which in a UPN could be a 1.8" HDD just like the ones in the iPod Classic 80/160GB).
I'm not sure why their is an issue with price here. Look at the iPod Touch, this guy has 16 GB based on todays flash technology. Lets say for instance that the margins on the Touch are 30%, which would imply 280 dollars for the Touch hardware. If we take a quarter of that as the cost of the Touch's memory we get about $70. So our wild ass estimates have the cost of 16 GB of flash at 70 dollars.
I expect the cost of the flash in the iPod Touch is between 50 and 70% of the total parts cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Lets now say that Samsung doubles that storage capacity for 115% of that cost or about $80. So 32GB of storage will cost Apple around 80 dollars. Even if Apple went to 64 GB we are only talking about being slightly more than $160 out of the cost of the Ultra Laptop.
You want twice the capacity for 15% more money? That's very optimistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm thinking $900 dollars or there abouts. That would allow for $300 dollars in additional parts. This is possible if they implement a SOC. It is also doable with more traditional technology, if the bare minimum of features where implemented.
You want a flash-based MacBook Nano for $900 at MWSF 2008??? I think $1999 would be a more likely price.
Another reason why I expect Apple will first offer flash as a SSD with a HDD form-factor is that it would also be a BTO option for MacBook Pro buyers who care more about performance, reliability, or battery life than about capacity or price.
I expect the cost of the flash in the iPod Touch is between 50 and 70% of the total parts cost.
Possibly I really don't know and can't find any good estimates. I would see 50% as being on the high side though.
Quote:
You want twice the capacity for 15% more money? That's very optimistic.
Assuming the new chips are based on a process shrink I think it is possible. If the higher capacity is the result of some sort of stacked chip process then costs will balloon a bit.
Quote:
You want a flash-based MacBook Nano for $900 at MWSF 2008??? I think $1999 would be a more likely price.
Well remember where this device will be competing in the market place. Also realize that no matter what Apple does it will have a limited feature set as you can only fit so much into the chassis. I don't expect the machine to have the feature set of even a MacBook.
By definition the Ultra Portable will be a limited machine, designed right it should be rather cheap to produce. Then again we may simply have different concepts of what this device is. I see it as an Eee PC with more modern hardware.
Quote:
Another reason why I expect Apple will first offer flash as a SSD with a HDD form-factor is that it would also be a BTO option for MacBook Pro buyers who care more about performance, reliability, or battery life than about capacity or price.
If people are concerned about battery life wouldn't the Mac Book be the place to put the drives. I understand what you are saying to some extent as many people by the Pro simply because they have the cash to flash around. (pun intended)
wtf am I supposed to do without an optical drive? Wardrive around town and email my parents? I use my drive about 10 times per week. Sometimes more.
I guess this new product is for people such as pro audio users and video power users who use their desktops exclusively for their trade and want to buy an administrative laptop just for emailing parents and friends on the go. Or the business person who doesn't do anything with their computer except email and Excel.
Yeah I guess if you have money to burn on an email only laptop for that purpose all the power to you.
Maybe if it came with a 500GB HD and a free online 1mbps terrabyte storage option.
wtf am I supposed to do without an optical drive? Wardrive around town and email my parents? I use my drive about 10 times per week. Sometimes more.
I guess this new product is for people such as pro audio users and video power users who use their desktops exclusively for their trade and want to buy an administrative laptop just for emailing parents and friends on the go. Or the business person who doesn't do anything with their computer except email and Excel.
Yeah I guess if you have money to burn on an email only laptop for that purpose all the power to you.
Maybe if it came with a 500GB HD and a free online 1mbps terrabyte storage option.
It isn't 'email only.' Goodness. People don't get ultraportables as their main computer. People use them for travel. If needs be, they can bring an external drive to keep at their hotel or where they're staying. But aside from that, they can burn stuff at home. It's not that big of a deal. You weren't planning on this being your main computer, were you?
Actually, I was, and I still wouldn't need an internal optical drive.
It isn't 'email only.' Goodness. People don't get ultraportables as their main computer. People use them for travel. If needs be, they can bring an external drive to keep at their hotel or where they're staying. But aside from that, they can burn stuff at home. It's not that big of a deal. You weren't planning on this being your main computer, were you?
Actually, I was, and I still wouldn't need an internal optical drive.
Yeah, you got it right. If it had enough battery life, it'd be perfect for me spending most of the day working at the beach. I can get wifi at some points, so that's great. (I already do most of my conference calls from there, just to rub it in on people in New York or London .) Right now my MBP really only gives me about 4hrs, which means I can get a lot of work done, but by lunchtime I have to pack it in for home (and an extra battery isn't worth the trouble). For me, any optical drive usage I could do at home with an external drive. I'd buy one in a second.
No, it wouldn't. 4GB of flash is cheaper than a 1.8" 40GB HDD and smaller than a 1.8" drive. A 40GB 1.8" HDD is $80. A 20GB 1.8" is $50.
There's a reason the Classmate, OLPC, and Eee all have SSD vs HDDs.
Well, it depends on the speed of the flash. how many times do we have to go over that/
A top manufacturers 4 GB high speed Flash?over 250 speed, is expensive. My SanDisk Extreme IV cost $95. Others, from smaller companies, are cheaper, and others are even more expensive.
Their 4 Gb Extreme III card, which is cheaper, and slower than the Exreme IV, at $80, has a 16 GB version for $300. If they made the faster IV version that size, it would be even more, probably $350.
Slow Flash is cheap though. My IV card will do 43 MB/s.
It all depends on what Intel and Apple have been up to. There has been more than a little talk about Intel building SOC possibly for Apple. This potentially could have the vast majority of the logic board on one IC. This would be ideal for a ultra portable if done on Intels 45nm process.
The question would be what core and what GPU. X3100 for the GPU core would be my guess, but the CPU is much harder to pin down. They will need maximum power savings so this points to a newer core. Then you have the issue of how many cores, frankly I suspect one.
If the SOC is no go, then the only options are what Intel has with respect to its ULV lines. Which is another way to say slow clocked current tech.
The way out there possibility would be an ARM SOC. This for excellent battery performance. I don't think this will happen as Apple needs the object code compatibility on any thing perceived to be a laptop. If the new device is a tablet they may be more inclined to go the ARM route.
In any event it comes down to what does Apple want to accomplish. If Passive cooling is a design requirement it will be very interesting indeed to see what goes into the box.
Dave
Yes, the ARM would be way out, unless Apple want to align this imaginary machine with the iPod/iPhone lines instead.
But, I would think that Apple would likely prefer to have it as a Mac instead.
And Apple might move the iPhone and iTouch to x86 in a year or so anyway, with Intel's new devices.
A very good question and frankly one that can never be answered. There are just to many variables in what people use devices like this for.
The only benchmark we currently have is the ASUS Eee PC. The shipping model has 4GB of Flash on board, I consider that way to small. So 4 GB is below bottom end. Frankly I see 32 GB as the minimum with many users justifiably wanting 64 GB. That is partly due to marketing and partly due to technical reasons.
And the question about that 4 GB, what speed is it?
This is a pretty slow, low end performance machine, the Flash could just as well be low performance.
After all, we can get 4x speed Flash for very little. Even 40x Flash these days is really cheap.
But, for a fast machine, that won't do. In order to match the speeds of HDD's the fastest, most expensive Flash will have to be used.
And standard Flash is NOT what is being used in these new, and expensive SSD's. Flash doesn't have very fast write speeds, nor does it have the very fast access times that SSD's have. It's fairly fast, esp when compared to a slow HDD, but it's really slow when compared to an SSD.
It needs repeating: I have had a MacBookPro or PowerBook for nearly four years and have only needed the optical drive on one occasion, and even then I could have done without. It is a waste of space, weight and energy. A portable device needs to be portable.
If they make a dock and re-invent the Duo, then I'm all for it, but the computer itself does not need the SuperDrive or a large HD for that matter. Most people in the market for a sub-notebook already use one or more powerful desktops and are looking for something, well, portable.
It needs repeating: I have had a MacBookPro or PowerBook for nearly four years and have only needed the optical drive on one occasion, and even then I could have done without. It is a waste of space, weight and energy. A portable device needs to be portable.
If they make a dock and re-invent the Duo, then I'm all for it, but the computer itself does not need the SuperDrive or a large HD for that matter. Most people in the market for a sub-notebook already use one or more powerful desktops and are looking for something, well, portable.
Most of you are just going to show it off at your local Starbucks anyway. You won't be doing real work with it :P
An ultra-portable would be useful for: typing, taking notes, mind-mapping, drawing simple images, organizing photos from the day, making a quick movie presentation, giving a presentation with Keynote, viewing video clips and making basic edits, managing a schedule with iCal, working on a spreadsheet in Numbers, surfing the Net, sending email and many other tasks. As long as there is a high-speed internet connection, you are completely set to go.
I already use my iPod as a backup drive while on the road, and sometimes as the presenting device itself when space is a concern (I live in Japan, too, and sometimes meetings are in very cramped offices). I think there will be plenty of third-party items for the device rather quickly, but Apple will likely have a few ready to go at the launch.
Just some ideas:
2 USB
1 FW400 (perhaps also FW800 to connect to desktop for data transfer)
Ethernet
audio out jack (just a tiny speaker)
iSight with microphone
WiFi
video out
Options:
spare battery
battery charger (can charge the battery directly or power the computer)
Comments
I know that Leopard in all its glory has no trouble running on a friend's computer that is ancient and packs a 20GB HDD - but would 16GB not be enough? I'm running Tiger right now and the system takes 1.85GB, I have 6.3GB of applications (I could probably condense it to 4.5 or 5GB if I had to), a 10GB Library (4.4GB for Application Support, mostly Adobe, Garageband, and iDVD; 2GB of printer drivers; 2.5GB for Audio), and 17.4GB of files (10GB of music, 4GB of pictures, a 1.3GB Library, and misc files). I guess I could imagine having a 16GB main hard drive if I could expand twice by up to 64GB.
Assuming, then, that Apple releases a SSD-based ultraportable with either HDD or flash-based expansion options (basically, "use an external drive for larger stuff; if you want more onboard storage then fill up these expansion slots; you can fit up to two 64GB flash cards in."), what is the minimum onboard storage that people will be able to live with? 16GB? 32GB? 8GB? We are talking about a fully capable notebook here, so what is the minimum storage they could reasonably ship with?
A very good question and frankly one that can never be answered. There are just to many variables in what people use devices like this for.
The only benchmark we currently have is the ASUS Eee PC. The shipping model has 4GB of Flash on board, I consider that way to small. So 4 GB is below bottom end. Frankly I see 32 GB as the minimum with many users justifiably wanting 64 GB. That is partly due to marketing and partly due to technical reasons.
For system and application files I think it is fair to say that a reserve of 16GB is about right. This should cover a wide range of user applications mixes and provide room required for temporary files. That would leave 16 GB for user data. These are wild ass guesses as you might suspect, one can chew up a huge amount of disk space simply by installing Eclipse.
I know that Leopard in all its glory has no trouble running on a friend's computer that is ancient and packs a 20GB HDD - but would 16GB not be enough? I'm running Tiger right now and the system takes 1.85GB, I have 6.3GB of applications (I could probably condense it to 4.5 or 5GB if I had to), a 10GB Library (4.4GB for Application Support, mostly Adobe, Garageband, and iDVD; 2GB of printer drivers; 2.5GB for Audio), and 17.4GB of files (10GB of music, 4GB of pictures, a 1.3GB Library, and misc files). I guess I could imagine having a 16GB main hard drive if I could expand twice by up to 64GB.
I have about 40 GB in my home directory. Much of that large files that could be purged (ISO's for Linux and such).
Another nice feature this laptop could add would be a port for plugging in a iPod. That would be just the nuts in my opinion.
Dave
lets hope they aren't freeze-happy like 30% (personal estimate) of all macs out there now.
Out of the 120 Macs I maintain on and off the job, none are freeze-happy (personal experience).
You can't forget about .Mac users. I don't think Apple is going to leave them out on their UP. The stinking disk image for iDisk is 30 GB. I am thinking the minimum they can go with is 64 GB at this point.
Does this mean .Mac reserves 30 GB on your local harddisk for syncing with .Mac online regardless of the amount of files/storage you're actually using? That's rather stupid would probably need to be changed once there are SSD-based laptops.
Btw I don't know how .Mac works, but it wouldn't appear to me as too bright if say I sync my 10 GB home directory with .Mac and it not only requires 10 GB on .Mac as well as 10 GB in my Home directory but another 10 GB in a special local .Mac directory...
Assuming, then, that Apple releases a SSD-based ultraportable with either HDD or flash-based expansion options (basically, "use an external drive for larger stuff; if you want more onboard storage then fill up these expansion slots; you can fit up to two 64GB flash cards in."), what is the minimum onboard storage that people will be able to live with? 16GB? 32GB? 8GB? We are talking about a fully capable notebook here, so what is the minimum storage they could reasonably ship with?
In my opinion, the minimum for Apple would be at least 32GB and probably 64GB. If, as in your scenario, there is no HDD option, then 32GB is even less likely. This makes the idea implausible for a MWSF 2008 launch due to price. At current prices, 32GB is barely affordable and 64GB is too expensive for most buyers. For this to work, Apple would have to consign the low end to the MacBook and the MacBook Nano would be priced like the 17" MacBook Pro. It would sell well in Japan. At the prices Apple would need to charge to maintain their profit margins, it would not sell in the numbers at which other Apple laptops are selling -- perhaps half at best for its first year due to flash prices.
Will it have the new 45-nanometer chip?
Yes, certainly.
In my opinion, the minimum for Apple would be at least 32GB and probably 64GB. If, as in your scenario, there is no HDD option, then 32GB is even less likely.
There is no doubt there is a strong preference for 64 GB. The unit would not be objectionable with 32GB installed. Either way the unit needs access to additional user storage, be that flash or traditional hard disk. I'd go with flash as this is the only form factor really suitable for an ultra thin laptop.
This makes the idea implausible for a MWSF 2008 launch due to price. At current prices, 32GB is barely affordable and 64GB is too expensive for most buyers.
I'm not sure why their is an issue with price here. Look at the iPod Touch, this guy has 16 GB based on todays flash technology. Lets say for instance that the margins on the Touch are 30%, which would imply 280 dollars for the Touch hardware. If we take a quarter of that as the cost of the Touch's memory we get about $70. So our wild ass estimates have the cost of 16 GB of flash at 70 dollars. Lets now say that Samsung doubles that storage capacity for 115% of that cost or about $80. So 32GB of storage will cost Apple around 80 dollars. Even if Apple went to 64 GB we are only talking about being slightly more than $160 out of the cost of the Ultra Laptop.
One should not confuse the cost of these new to market SSD with the cost to Apple to implement storage on the motherboard.
For this to work, Apple would have to consign the low end to the MacBook and the MacBook Nano would be priced like the 17" MacBook Pro. It would sell well in Japan.
I'm thinking $900 dollars or there abouts. That would allow for $300 dollars in additional parts. This is possible if they implement a SOC. It is also doable with more traditional technology, if the bare minimum of features where implemented.
At the prices Apple would need to charge to maintain their profit margins, it would not sell in the numbers at which other Apple laptops are selling -- perhaps half at best for its first year due to flash prices.
Err..... It won't sell as well as Apple's other hardware for the simple reason that it would offer to little. As much as many of use are looking for something really small in the way of a portable device it is not a computer for the masses.
Yes, certainly.
We can only hope so. The problems with power management demand it though.
Dave
Will it have the new 45-nanometer chip?
Yes, certainly.
We can only hope so. The problems with power management demand it though.
Dave
You guys understand that the 45nm chips that will be available in january are regular ones (35W). The chipset they will work with is Santa Rosa which is not a light-weight in the area of consumption.
Better (less power hungry) chips will come in Q2 (around may) in the form of 25W models at clocks ranging from 2.13 to 2.53GHz (only 3MB of cache). Those will work with the Montevina GM/PM chipset.
Then in Q3 (summer), Intel will launch 2 new smaller/less power hungry chipsets Montevina GL/GS aimed at smaller/lower cost notebooks and mini desktops. At the same time, LV (17W) and ULV (10W) penryn chips will also be launched. Montevina GL/GS+Penryn LV/ULV are a better solution for a full featured UPN.
I don't think that in january 2008, SSD will be that much affordable, I think that something like Sandisk Vaulter is a cheaper (yet better) implementation of Flash right now: 8/16GB of Flash with a fast PCI-Express interface for system+apps PLUS a regular HDD for data (which in a UPN could be a 1.8" HDD just like the ones in the iPod Classic 80/160GB).
I'm not sure why their is an issue with price here. Look at the iPod Touch, this guy has 16 GB based on todays flash technology. Lets say for instance that the margins on the Touch are 30%, which would imply 280 dollars for the Touch hardware. If we take a quarter of that as the cost of the Touch's memory we get about $70. So our wild ass estimates have the cost of 16 GB of flash at 70 dollars.
I expect the cost of the flash in the iPod Touch is between 50 and 70% of the total parts cost.
Lets now say that Samsung doubles that storage capacity for 115% of that cost or about $80. So 32GB of storage will cost Apple around 80 dollars. Even if Apple went to 64 GB we are only talking about being slightly more than $160 out of the cost of the Ultra Laptop.
You want twice the capacity for 15% more money? That's very optimistic.
I'm thinking $900 dollars or there abouts. That would allow for $300 dollars in additional parts. This is possible if they implement a SOC. It is also doable with more traditional technology, if the bare minimum of features where implemented.
You want a flash-based MacBook Nano for $900 at MWSF 2008??? I think $1999 would be a more likely price.
Another reason why I expect Apple will first offer flash as a SSD with a HDD form-factor is that it would also be a BTO option for MacBook Pro buyers who care more about performance, reliability, or battery life than about capacity or price.
I expect the cost of the flash in the iPod Touch is between 50 and 70% of the total parts cost.
Possibly I really don't know and can't find any good estimates. I would see 50% as being on the high side though.
You want twice the capacity for 15% more money? That's very optimistic.
Assuming the new chips are based on a process shrink I think it is possible. If the higher capacity is the result of some sort of stacked chip process then costs will balloon a bit.
You want a flash-based MacBook Nano for $900 at MWSF 2008??? I think $1999 would be a more likely price.
Well remember where this device will be competing in the market place. Also realize that no matter what Apple does it will have a limited feature set as you can only fit so much into the chassis. I don't expect the machine to have the feature set of even a MacBook.
By definition the Ultra Portable will be a limited machine, designed right it should be rather cheap to produce. Then again we may simply have different concepts of what this device is. I see it as an Eee PC with more modern hardware.
Another reason why I expect Apple will first offer flash as a SSD with a HDD form-factor is that it would also be a BTO option for MacBook Pro buyers who care more about performance, reliability, or battery life than about capacity or price.
If people are concerned about battery life wouldn't the Mac Book be the place to put the drives. I understand what you are saying to some extent as many people by the Pro simply because they have the cash to flash around. (pun intended)
dave
wtf am I supposed to do without an optical drive? Wardrive around town and email my parents? I use my drive about 10 times per week. Sometimes more.
I guess this new product is for people such as pro audio users and video power users who use their desktops exclusively for their trade and want to buy an administrative laptop just for emailing parents and friends on the go. Or the business person who doesn't do anything with their computer except email and Excel.
Yeah I guess if you have money to burn on an email only laptop for that purpose all the power to you.
Maybe if it came with a 500GB HD and a free online 1mbps terrabyte storage option.
ummmm
wtf am I supposed to do without an optical drive? Wardrive around town and email my parents? I use my drive about 10 times per week. Sometimes more.
I guess this new product is for people such as pro audio users and video power users who use their desktops exclusively for their trade and want to buy an administrative laptop just for emailing parents and friends on the go. Or the business person who doesn't do anything with their computer except email and Excel.
Yeah I guess if you have money to burn on an email only laptop for that purpose all the power to you.
Maybe if it came with a 500GB HD and a free online 1mbps terrabyte storage option.
It isn't 'email only.' Goodness. People don't get ultraportables as their main computer. People use them for travel. If needs be, they can bring an external drive to keep at their hotel or where they're staying. But aside from that, they can burn stuff at home. It's not that big of a deal. You weren't planning on this being your main computer, were you?
Actually, I was, and I still wouldn't need an internal optical drive.
It isn't 'email only.' Goodness. People don't get ultraportables as their main computer. People use them for travel. If needs be, they can bring an external drive to keep at their hotel or where they're staying. But aside from that, they can burn stuff at home. It's not that big of a deal. You weren't planning on this being your main computer, were you?
Actually, I was, and I still wouldn't need an internal optical drive.
Yeah, you got it right. If it had enough battery life, it'd be perfect for me spending most of the day working at the beach. I can get wifi at some points, so that's great. (I already do most of my conference calls from there, just to rub it in on people in New York or London
No, it wouldn't. 4GB of flash is cheaper than a 1.8" 40GB HDD and smaller than a 1.8" drive. A 40GB 1.8" HDD is $80. A 20GB 1.8" is $50.
There's a reason the Classmate, OLPC, and Eee all have SSD vs HDDs.
Well, it depends on the speed of the flash. how many times do we have to go over that/
A top manufacturers 4 GB high speed Flash?over 250 speed, is expensive. My SanDisk Extreme IV cost $95. Others, from smaller companies, are cheaper, and others are even more expensive.
Their 4 Gb Extreme III card, which is cheaper, and slower than the Exreme IV, at $80, has a 16 GB version for $300. If they made the faster IV version that size, it would be even more, probably $350.
Slow Flash is cheap though. My IV card will do 43 MB/s.
It all depends on what Intel and Apple have been up to. There has been more than a little talk about Intel building SOC possibly for Apple. This potentially could have the vast majority of the logic board on one IC. This would be ideal for a ultra portable if done on Intels 45nm process.
The question would be what core and what GPU. X3100 for the GPU core would be my guess, but the CPU is much harder to pin down. They will need maximum power savings so this points to a newer core. Then you have the issue of how many cores, frankly I suspect one.
If the SOC is no go, then the only options are what Intel has with respect to its ULV lines. Which is another way to say slow clocked current tech.
The way out there possibility would be an ARM SOC. This for excellent battery performance. I don't think this will happen as Apple needs the object code compatibility on any thing perceived to be a laptop. If the new device is a tablet they may be more inclined to go the ARM route.
In any event it comes down to what does Apple want to accomplish. If Passive cooling is a design requirement it will be very interesting indeed to see what goes into the box.
Dave
Yes, the ARM would be way out, unless Apple want to align this imaginary machine with the iPod/iPhone lines instead.
But, I would think that Apple would likely prefer to have it as a Mac instead.
And Apple might move the iPhone and iTouch to x86 in a year or so anyway, with Intel's new devices.
That would be best.
A very good question and frankly one that can never be answered. There are just to many variables in what people use devices like this for.
The only benchmark we currently have is the ASUS Eee PC. The shipping model has 4GB of Flash on board, I consider that way to small. So 4 GB is below bottom end. Frankly I see 32 GB as the minimum with many users justifiably wanting 64 GB. That is partly due to marketing and partly due to technical reasons.
And the question about that 4 GB, what speed is it?
This is a pretty slow, low end performance machine, the Flash could just as well be low performance.
After all, we can get 4x speed Flash for very little. Even 40x Flash these days is really cheap.
But, for a fast machine, that won't do. In order to match the speeds of HDD's the fastest, most expensive Flash will have to be used.
And standard Flash is NOT what is being used in these new, and expensive SSD's. Flash doesn't have very fast write speeds, nor does it have the very fast access times that SSD's have. It's fairly fast, esp when compared to a slow HDD, but it's really slow when compared to an SSD.
So, what is being talked about here?
If they make a dock and re-invent the Duo, then I'm all for it, but the computer itself does not need the SuperDrive or a large HD for that matter. Most people in the market for a sub-notebook already use one or more powerful desktops and are looking for something, well, portable.
It needs repeating: I have had a MacBookPro or PowerBook for nearly four years and have only needed the optical drive on one occasion, and even then I could have done without. It is a waste of space, weight and energy. A portable device needs to be portable.
If they make a dock and re-invent the Duo, then I'm all for it, but the computer itself does not need the SuperDrive or a large HD for that matter. Most people in the market for a sub-notebook already use one or more powerful desktops and are looking for something, well, portable.
Most of you are just going to show it off at your local Starbucks anyway. You won't be doing real work with it :P
An ultra-portable would be useful for: typing, taking notes, mind-mapping, drawing simple images, organizing photos from the day, making a quick movie presentation, giving a presentation with Keynote, viewing video clips and making basic edits, managing a schedule with iCal, working on a spreadsheet in Numbers, surfing the Net, sending email and many other tasks. As long as there is a high-speed internet connection, you are completely set to go.
I already use my iPod as a backup drive while on the road, and sometimes as the presenting device itself when space is a concern (I live in Japan, too, and sometimes meetings are in very cramped offices). I think there will be plenty of third-party items for the device rather quickly, but Apple will likely have a few ready to go at the launch.
Just some ideas:
2 USB
1 FW400 (perhaps also FW800 to connect to desktop for data transfer)
Ethernet
audio out jack (just a tiny speaker)
iSight with microphone
WiFi
video out
Options:
spare battery
battery charger (can charge the battery directly or power the computer)
swappable bay:
flash drive (low power)
mini HD