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
Maybe at this point you could define what "real work" is, then.
I don't use optical disks for data transfer - I moved straight from using floppy disks to ethernet before writable CD's went mass market. That was during elementary school. Later on, I have used a Firewire cable in rare ad-hoc networking situations and when I have switched Macs, and also used USB keys and the occasional CD briefly at work when we had physically separate networks mandated for security. In any other situation, why would you not use a network?
I don't remember seeing anyone using removable media on my university's computers. Ever. So even the least computer-savvy engineering student recognizes that removable media is suboptimal.
Most of my software developer / computer science friends go for ultraportables or Macbooks for lack of an ultraportable Mac.
If it weren't for ripping cds to itunes and HB for dvds my optical drive would never get used. I could easily get by with an external optical drive. YMMV.
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.
We need to go over this as many times as you get it wrong.
The speed of the flash in the previous nano...which you erroneously call "slow flash"...is the SAME flash in the 1st gen Samsung 32 GB SSD with 30MB/write and 53MB/sec reads. The SanDisk 32GB (also last gen) has 62MB read and 36MB/s write. These both cost $599 retail.
What you are paying for with the Extremes are a combination of marketing and better interface h/w in a compact flash form factor. The CompactFlash devices are smaller than the SSDs in question which use disk interfaces (SATA, etc).
This has very little to do with either the speed of the flash OR a discussion about SSDs other than some manufacturers have so-so SATA implementations.
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?
What is being talked about here is that you confuse your experience with compact flash devices with flash devices in general.
"Standard flash" IS what is being used in these new SSDs. The same parts that go into Nanos and iPhones goes into SSDs.
Sheeh...do I REALLY need to drag out those photos?
I've looked at this machine as well. I'm totally unimpressed. Sure, for something really cheap, it does work. But, I'll tell you this, even with OS X sort of working, it will be a terrible experience. And by the time you add one of those 32 GB memory "drives" the price will be too high for what it is worth as a machine.
Now, if Apple came out with something that size that actually was worth it, it would be different.
It has to have three things for me aside from being small and light and cheap.
1) a passable screen
2) a passable keyboard
3) a wifi connection.
I've absolutely no need for hard drives or SSDs beyond basic stuff to store an OS. The storage for this kind of ultraportable is online via IMAP/Google.
And if Apple can get reasonable performance out of an ARM processor in the iPod Touch/iPhone then a 900Mhz Celery is plenty.
Basically, the question is how much flash memory Apple can afford to put into this device. We can actually get a good idea of this based on the disparity between the iPod Touch 8GB and 16GB.
iFixit dismantled an 8GB iPod Touch and found two Toshiba NAND flash chips stacked on top of each other ... 4GB each. I am assuming that the 16GB model sports two identical 8GB NAND flash chips.
According to the Apple Store, the 8GB Touch is $299 and the 16GB Touch is $399. This means that Apple's cost difference is no more than $100; probably a bit less. They are going to want to make some extra profit off of the larger model's price difference. I am putting a conservative estimate at 15%, which means that their cost for the 8GB component instead of 4GB component would be $85.
Putting in six chipsets like this (48GB of NAND flash) would put Apple's cost at $510. And that's assuming that there is no decrease in price - which is hardly a realistic factor for a larger application like this. Naturally, one 16GB Toshiba flash chip would be cheaper than two 8GB chips, but it might take up a bit more space. It's when you get up around 32GB or more that the cost goes through the roof for putting all the memory on a single chip - hence the $1K price point for a 64GB.
If two 8GB Toshiba or Samsung NAND flash chips cost about $85 each, then we can assume that one 16GB chip costs at least a little less than twice that - shall we say $150? (That's a 12% drop from two 8GB chips to one 16GB chip.)
In other words, it would most likely cost Apple about $450 to put 48GB of NAND flash memory into this SlimBook/ThinBook/TouchBook (directly onto the motherboard). While 48GB is certainly not perfect, it will definitely hold OS X, many applications, and quite a few files without any trouble. Offering two SD card expansion slots would allow users to put movies, music, and other files on SD cards so that they could expand as far out as necessary. In fact they could even have an SD card for work, for high-density media, and for home and switch them out however they wanted.
If memory is only $450, then I could definitely see Apple pricing the new MacBook at under $2K and still making a beautiful, "let's-make-Jobs-happy" profit.
See? Imagine how nice it would be to have a keyboard "floating" on the lower half of the screen. Since the space is fully customizable, you could even drop a virtual implementation of the iPhone's Safari application or iPod application in the lower half of the screen to make multitasking easier than ever.
And the thickness would still be amazing. If Apple can stack a battery, two flash chips, and a touch-sensitive screen in the 8mm iPod Touch, then surely it can make the lower half of the new MacBook less than 10mm (assuming a virtual keyboard, of course). The upper screen thickness would naturally be less than 8mm unless they decided to put some light hardware up there. So basically we are looking at an extremely slim notebook ... probably less than 16mm ... which blows Toshiba's upcoming Portégé® R500 and Intel's promised Metro out of the water.
Incidentally, iSuppli put the cost for 8GB of Flash at only $70 (that's a 30% profit margin for Apple based on the 16GB iPod Touch). That means that using the same figures as above, Apple could probably purchase 48GB worth of 16GB NAND flash chips for as low as $370. That's with current prices, not July 2008 prices (which will probably be significantly lower due to market progression and supply/demand).
While this is a fantastic design idea - and I'd buy one in a second without hesitation - the problem is this:
As far as I am aware there is no LCD technology on the market yet which allows 2 large LCD panels to be flush with each other with virtually no bezel. They need at least a 3-5mm wiring edge.
Or in other words 2 LCDs next to each other will always have a 5-10mm gap in the middle.
And with that the whole design idea falls apart IMHO.
I don't want 2 touch screens with a gap in the middle. How awkward would it be to move your cursor/finger from one LCD to the other over that 'bridge'?
There are smaller LCDs with as little as a 1mm bezel, but AFAIK these do not yet exist in large panel displays.
And these still need a tiny metal frame around them probably resulting in 1.5 mm bezel on each LCD with a total 'bridge' of 3mm. A 3mm dead zone in the middle is still a bit awkward for 'one' touch screen.
I am in the market for a smaller and lighter computer to replace my Windows laptop now and I will be disappoint if the specs on this one are true. First, 13-inches is not ultra portable. Sony makes a 10 inch laptop which I would consider ultra portable and it comes with a optical drive. I am not really sure why the inclusion of an optical drive is such an issue. Dell just released a new light 13 with a optical drive. The lack of that would be a deal breaker for me. I use it for numerous reasons and wouldnt want to have to pack one around. If the specs dont change I will just have to buy another windows laptop and stick with my Powermac.
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.
If 4GB is to small what difference does the speed make??? In any event the indications I'm getting is that the Eee PC does pretty damn good when loading programs from flash.
Quote:
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.
It doesn't really matter as they will need to buy the latest technology to get the mass storage area they need.
Quote:
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.
You seem to think that the technology world is a static place with no improvements in any thing taking place. Your argument makes about as much sense as arguing that a new CPU with twice the performance is more expensive than a 3 year old design. The only thing that counts is if they can get the flash into the box at the right cost for a given performance level.
Quote:
So, what is being talked about here?
Uh an Ultra portable with flash secondary storage?
Basically, the question is how much flash memory Apple can afford to put into this device. We can actually get a good idea of this based on the disparity between the iPod Touch 8GB and 16GB.
Somewhat maybe. While you could argue that the part can't cost more than the $100 difference that doesn't really help use with the real cost to Apple.
Quote:
. 4GB each. I am assuming that the 16GB model sports two identical 8GB NAND flash chips.
While not unreasonable there is always the possibility that Apple went with a higher density chip.
Quote:
This means that Apple's cost difference is no more than $100; probably a bit less.
If you go over to digikey you can find at least one type of 8 Gb Nand flash for about $23, 4GB for as little as $13.
Quote:
They are going to want to make some extra profit off of the larger model's price difference. I am putting a conservative estimate at 15%, which means that their cost for the 8GB component instead of 4GB component would be $85.
I'd be surprised if they are paying that much. There is a huge range of Flash technologies available and a corresponding wide range of prices. The only way to get a good handle on the price is to find a distributor with online prices.
Quote:
Putting in six chipsets like this (48GB of NAND flash) would put Apple's cost at $510. And that's assuming that there is no decrease in price - which is hardly a realistic factor for a larger application like this.
I'm thinking more like $200.
Quote:
Naturally, one 16GB Toshiba flash chip would be cheaper than two 8GB chips, but it might take up a bit more space. It's when you get up around 32GB or more that the cost goes through the roof for putting all the memory on a single chip - hence the $1K price point for a 64GB.
Lets say that Apple can get a 16 GB chip for $50 that is still $200 for a 64 GB "drive". That doesn't include support electronics but that could very well be part of a SOC.
Quote:
If two 8GB Toshiba or Samsung NAND flash chips cost about $85 each, then we can assume that one 16GB chip costs at least a little less than twice that - shall we say $150? (That's a 12% drop from two 8GB chips to one 16GB chip.)
I'm not sure we can assume anything. Some of Samsung 16GB "chips" are in actuality stacks of 4 GB devices. So the cost could be slightly more per GB. Even so I don't see a huge problem with costs here.
Quote:
In other words, it would most likely cost Apple about $450 to put 48GB of NAND flash memory into this SlimBook/ThinBook/TouchBook (directly onto the motherboard). While 48GB is certainly not perfect, it will definitely hold OS X, many applications, and quite a few files without any trouble.
Well obviously I think you are way high in price here. The question is are my values way off or not.
Quote:
Offering two SD card expansion slots would allow users to put movies, music, and other files on SD cards so that they could expand as far out as necessary. In fact they could even have an SD card for work, for high-density media, and for home and switch them out however they wanted.
User accessible expansion slots are very important. I would prefer Compact Flash myself, but that is me.
Quote:
If memory is only $450, then I could definitely see Apple pricing the new MacBook at under $2K and still making a beautiful, "let's-make-Jobs-happy" profit.
I'm still thinking they could do it under $800. In fact they will almost have to other wise it will suffer in the market place because people will not see the value in the "expensive little computer".
Quote:
And the thickness would still be amazing. If Apple can stack a battery, two flash chips, and a touch-sensitive screen in the 8mm iPod Touch, then surely it can make the lower half of the new MacBook less than 10mm (assuming a virtual keyboard, of course). The upper screen thickness would naturally be less than 8mm unless they decided to put some light hardware up there. So basically we are looking at an extremely slim notebook ... probably less than 16mm .
I think the big gating factor here is the battery and the processor/chipset. The battery has to be big enough for extended run times of course. The problem with the processor and chipset is removing heat from them. Even then a heat sink is not a problem but a fan is.
This is why I at times think the ultra Mobile is in fact an ARM based tablet. Currently it is the only way to get any sort of reasonable horse power into hand held or very small form factor devices.
So what does this mean. Well I don't think the device will be 18mm total thickness if it is running an Intel processor. Much as we would want it to be.
Quote:
Price that at $1,399 and we're SELLING.
One of the reasons the Ultra Mobil PC segment never took off in the USA is the fact that they are just to darn expensive. This is especially the case when one tries to use the device after using a regular laptop. The small form factor decreases he value of the product to the consumer. Now Apple can add some of that value back with Multi Touch and other innovations but still the argument will be made that the keyboard is to small and the screen is hard to read. The products are simply niche hardware for a certain class of user.
Note that I indicated that Apple should be able to sell these for under $800. That is based on the cost of hardware at extremely deep discounts, the sort Apple likely gets. Just because Apple can make and sell the thing for that price does not imply though that people will buy at that price. In the end if this guy is to small, and not a tablet, Apple will be lucky to move them for $500.
The same exact thing you do without a girl friend.
Quote:
Wardrive around town and email my parents? I use my drive about 10 times per week. Sometimes more.
I feel sorry for you, it must be hard on your drive to get abused like that.
Quote:
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.
Errr Yeah you got it just like the iPhone is only used for Cell connections.
Quote:
Or the business person who doesn't do anything with their computer except email and Excel.
So tell use what do you do with your PC?
Quote:
Yeah I guess if you have money to burn on an email only laptop for that purpose all the power to you.
If I had money to burn I'd not be interested in what is coming from Apple. There would be no need to budget my next PC purchase nor a need to evaluate its cost effectiveness.
Quote:
Maybe if it came with a 500GB HD and a free online 1mbps terrabyte storage option.
This is not the market that this laptop is targeting at all. In any event I suspect that your a simple troll.
Wizard69, way to own. Seriously though.. anyone who is so dependant on an optical drive that they cant survive by doing burning and such at home, and HAVE to do it while traveling.. this simply isn't for you.
You can still keep an external one with you.. leave it in the hotel room or whatever.
As far as I am aware there is no LCD technology on the market yet which allows 2 large LCD panels to be flush with each other with virtually no bezel. They need at least a 3-5mm wiring edge.
Or in other words 2 LCDs next to each other will always have a 5-10mm gap in the middle.
And with that the whole design idea falls apart IMHO. I don't want 2 touch screens with a gap in the middle. How awkward would it be to move your cursor/finger from one LCD to the other over that 'bridge'?
There are smaller LCDs with as little as a 1mm bezel, but AFAIK these do not yet exist in large panel displays.
And these still need a tiny metal frame around them probably resulting in 1.5 mm bezel on each LCD with a total 'bridge' of 3mm. A 3mm dead zone in the middle is still a bit awkward for 'one' touch screen.
Maybe in 2009.
You've got a good point, and this is definitely where the design idea has the potential to fall. Maybe in 2009. However, there is a chance that Apple could surprise us here; here's why:
If there are LCDs with a 1mm bezel, then if they CAN be applied to a 13-inch LCD then Apple would have access to it. Or at least know about it. On the outside chance that Apple can get a screen with a .7mm bezel, then they could have a translucent plastic frame instead of a tiny metal frame around it that goes OVER the wiring bezel. That would put a total "bridge" at 1.4mm - which, if it is translucent plastic, would be partly illuminated by the glow from the pixels around it and wouldn't be too noticeable. You could definitely watch a DVD on it; who really cares about a 1.4mm strip down the center that isn't quite as bright as the rest?
Or Apple could order an LCD screen where the edge of the screen was just slightly angled relative to the other part; enough to cover with transparent plastic so that the bezel would be inside the screen rather than at the edge. Then it could come together quite nicely.
Either way it would be awesome - especially if it comes before 2007. Can you think of any other way to have a decent Mac Tablet? I'm sure they won't do the convertible option. And if you don't have a keyboard (touchscreen or otherwise) that can be angled independently of the screen, then text entry is simply atrocious. Not that I don't love my iPhone's keyboard, but I can't type a report on that.
You've got a good point, and this is definitely where the design idea has the potential to fall. Maybe in 2009. However, there is a chance that Apple could surprise us here; here's why:
If there are LCDs with a 1mm bezel, then if they CAN be applied to a 13-inch LCD then Apple would have access to it. Or at least know about it. On the outside chance that Apple can get a screen with a .7mm bezel, then they could have a translucent plastic frame instead of a tiny metal frame around it that goes OVER the wiring bezel. That would put a total "bridge" at 1.4mm - which, if it is translucent plastic, would be partly illuminated by the glow from the pixels around it and wouldn't be too noticeable. You could definitely watch a DVD on it; who really cares about a 1.4mm strip down the center that isn't quite as bright as the rest?
Apple could surprise us but it won't be with LCDs. First no matter how small and transparent the border would be it will be distraction to have it in place. So that rules out LCDs pretty much for ever on a folding display.
What we shouldn't rule out is the alternative display technologies coming on line. Many of these are extremely thin and very flexible. Earlier this year Photonics/Spectra had a very interesting article on what was coming out of the various research labs. There are competing technologies for flexible display that might make you device very doable. The question is how soon are these technologies going to leave the lab.
Since I don't know all I can offer you is hope. What you imagine is very possible in the near future.
Quote:
Or Apple could order an LCD screen where the edge of the screen was just slightly angled relative to the other part; enough to cover with transparent plastic so that the bezel would be inside the screen rather than at the edge. Then it could come together quite nicely.
I don't ever see a folder based on conventional glass LCD technology making an acceptable display.
Quote:
Either way it would be awesome - especially if it comes before 2007. Can you think of any other way to have a decent Mac Tablet? I'm sure they won't do the convertible option. And if you don't have a keyboard (touchscreen or otherwise) that can be angled independently of the screen, then text entry is simply atrocious. Not that I don't love my iPhone's keyboard, but I can't type a report on that.
Well if it is going to come before 2007 it had better hurry up.
For a Mac Tablet though I'm not sure a folder display makes sense. Primarily because you would want a screen ratio somewhere around 16:9 for HD display. I guess an argument could be made for a longer narrower device but I think there are limitations here too, mainly PC board area.
As for the issue of typing that is sure to come up from time to time. Obviously on board keyboards are of limited use for extended data entry. Ultimately Apple will have to support Bluetooth keyboards for the rare occasions where extensive text entry is required. For most users though I don't think there will be the intent to due the Tablet for extensive data entry. Rather the data entry usage will be modest at best. I see Tablets as consumers of information for the most part.
By consumer I mean a device that receives far more data than it transmits. Web and E-Mail being two examples. Even things like financial applications where one receives more info on stock market activities than he does sending out buy or sell orders. A tablet isn't the place to write the next great novel. There are many other examples including the consumption of media.
If 4GB is to small what difference does the speed make??? In any event the indications I'm getting is that the Eee PC does pretty damn good when loading programs from flash.
I'm happy you're happy. But the difference between 600 KB/s and over 40 MB/s does matter if the Flash has a lot of info on it you need to get to.
{quote]
It doesn't really matter as they will need to buy the latest technology to get the mass storage area they need.[/quote]
The cheapest Flash is being made in larger increments as well. Why would they use Flash that costs almost as much as the machine, or more?
Quote:
You seem to think that the technology world is a static place with no improvements in any thing taking place. Your argument makes about as much sense as arguing that a new CPU with twice the performance is more expensive than a 3 year old design. The only thing that counts is if they can get the flash into the box at the right cost for a given performance level.
You are totally wrong about that.
But, we are talking about what is available now, not a year from now. In 2005, a 2 GB Flash card at 60 speed was several hundred dollars (Ultra II), now, I bought one for my daughters digital camers for $29.95 at Staples. Sure, I'm very aware of what's happening.
When you go and re-buy you computer in a year, fast Flash will be much cheaper, but it isn't now.
Quote:
Uh an Ultra portable with flash secondary storage?
Somewhat maybe. While you could argue that the part can't cost more than the $100 difference that doesn't really help use with the real cost to Apple.
If you go over to digikey you can find at least one type of 8 Gb Nand flash for about $23, 4GB for as little as $13. I'd be surprised if they are paying that much. There is a huge range of Flash technologies available and a corresponding wide range of prices. The only way to get a good handle on the price is to find a distributor with online prices.
Hey, I'd be totally excited if that was the case. I was just trying to demonstrate that unless Apple is losing money on the 16GB iPod Touch, then there is no way that 64GB of memory is going to cost $1000. Probably a lot less.
Quote:
I'm thinking more like $200.
Exactly. I think that Apple can make a no-HDD laptop that's priced reasonably. Hence the discussion of the iPod Touch's prices in re chip costs.
Quote:
I'm still thinking they could do it under $800. In fact they will almost have to other wise it will suffer in the market place because people will not see the value in the "expensive little computer".
Under $800? That's awesome but I doubt they would do that; probably not enough profit. The deal with this computer will be usability/portability/portable power, not cheapness. I don't think they are marketing it as "get a sortaMac for ultra cheap that's ultraportable" as much as "this full-power MacBook will do everything you ever needed in the realm of portability and more." But I agree that it should be under $1200 or they will have trouble getting people to buy it. We are talking about a full-featured computer without an optical drive or HDD and ostensibly multitouch - pricing that at $749 would totally upset the market. Not that THAT would be a bad thing. For Apple, that is.
Quote:
I think the big gating factor here is the battery and the processor/chipset. The battery has to be big enough for extended run times of course. The problem with the processor and chipset is removing heat from them. Even then a heat sink is not a problem but a fan is.
Yeah.
Quote:
One of the reasons the Ultra Mobil PC segment never took off in the USA is the fact that they are just to darn expensive. This is especially the case when one tries to use the device after using a regular laptop. The small form factor decreases the value of the product to the consumer. Now Apple can add some of that value back with Multi Touch and other innovations but still the argument will be made that the keyboard is to small and the screen is hard to read. The products are simply niche hardware for a certain class of user.
Note that I indicated that Apple should be able to sell these for under $800. That is based on the cost of hardware at extremely deep discounts, the sort Apple likely gets. Just because Apple can make and sell the thing for that price does not imply though that people will buy at that price. In the end if this guy is to small, and not a tablet, Apple will be lucky to move them for $500.
The biggest problem with tablets is that they are niche products. Apple needs to change that.
Quote:
What we shouldn't rule out is the alternative display technologies coming on line. Many of these are extremely thin and very flexible. Earlier this year Photonics/Spectra had a very interesting article on what was coming out of the various research labs. There are competing technologies for flexible display that might make you device very doable. The question is how soon are these technologies going to leave the lab.
But how flexible is flexible? I have been keeping track of polychrome e-paper development, etc, but I have yet to see anything that can actually do a 0 degree angle in a >1mm radius of curvature. And unfortunately that's what my model would require. I think. What's the maximum radius of curvature that you can have with something like that?
Quote:
I don't ever see a folder based on conventional glass LCD technology making an acceptable display.
Well if it is going to come before 2007 it had better hurry up.
LOL - I meant before 2009. I agree that it will be hard to have a basic glass LCD folder, but could you have a glass LCD (hence no new multitouch technology) with the central 4mm or so a flexible epaper display that doesn't require a bezel? Sure, you would probably lose the touchscreen sensitivity there, but since your finger is bigger than 4mm wide the screen would still be able to tell where your finger was. Granted, data entry with a stylus wouldn't be perfect but we've been dealing with two monitors on Photoshop for a while now.
Quote:
For a Mac Tablet though I'm not sure a folder display makes sense. Primarily because you would want a screen ratio somewhere around 16:9 for HD display. I guess an argument could be made for a longer narrower device but I think there are limitations here too, mainly PC board area.
Incidentally, a 16:10 display (what Apple's been using) folded is a 10:8 display, which translates to 16:13. So you won't have trouble with an open tablet that is too long; just a closed notebook that is a bit long.
Quote:
As for the issue of typing that is sure to come up from time to time. Obviously on board keyboards are of limited use for extended data entry. Ultimately Apple will have to support Bluetooth keyboards for the rare occasions where extensive text entry is required. For most users though I don't think there will be the intent to due the Tablet for extensive data entry. Rather the data entry usage will be modest at best. I see Tablets as consumers of information for the most part.
By consumer I mean a device that receives far more data than it transmits. Web and E-Mail being two examples. Even things like financial applications where one receives more info on stock market activities than he does sending out buy or sell orders. A tablet isn't the place to write the next great novel. There are many other examples including the consumption of media.
That's one of the reasons that the tablet market has failed to take off, IMHO. Smartphones are becoming the easiest ways to consume information (I find myself using my iPhone on WiFi to look something up on Wikipedia while I'm sitting at my computer since it's just more convenient than using the computer) and so it doesn't make much sense to have a "tablet computer" for doing the job of a smartphone. It's bulky and it requires mobile broadband or WiFi.
I think that the people who want a Tablet Mac aren't looking for something to help with information consumption. It's not much easier to sit on my couch and read Engadget on a tablet as opposed to my MacBook, and it's a lot bulkier than my phone. In order for Apple to maximize on the tablet idea, they'll need to make extensive data entry possible. Very possible. People want to be able to travel with a tablet instead of their laptops, and so they don't want to sacrifice versatility for mobility. Unless a tablet can do as much as a real notebook, people will just say "if I wanted that I would get an iPhone." Especially with the upcoming SDK.
Here's one reason I think this upcoming ultraportable will feature a multitouch on-board (and thus naturally independent-tilt) keyboard. This U.S. patent that is explained here by Engadget specifically talks about knowing the difference between finger contact, multi-finger contact, resting, palm contact, scrolling, and even "handwriting" (apparently by figuring out if you are mimicking the action of holding a pen).
This is a multitouch keyboard and touchpad combination. And it wouldn't make sense to have a touchpad like this without a screen behind it; you would never know where the keys were. \
If Apple is planning on applying this, the greatest place to do so would be on an ultraportable. And if you are going to take advantage of a keyboard, you have to be able to rest your fingers on it. So I would hope that it would be able to be tilted separate from the screen so that you could actually use it sensibly.
So assuming that the folding tablet idea doesn't work, what other innovative ways would there be to have a two-screen (at least one of which was ultramultitouch with keyboard) tablet? Or something with the functionality of a tablet (holding it at a 90 degree angle and writing on the screen, carrying it like a legal pad, etc). You know, an Apple-worthy concept.
Of course I naturally hope that they can pull something together using flexible displays or something. 'Cause that would quite literally pwn. The rest of the market, that is.
Hey, I'd be totally excited if that was the case. I was just trying to demonstrate that unless Apple is losing money on the 16GB iPod Touch, then there is no way that 64GB of memory is going to cost $1000. Probably a lot less.
Agreed! Now I will say that he flash in the Touch is likely to b a slower grade but the point remains that it is very dense. There aren't many processes for that new generation of flash.
Quote:
Exactly. I think that Apple can make a no-HDD laptop that's priced reasonably. Hence the discussion of the iPod Touch's prices in re chip costs.
Yep very possible and very doable. The question is is it the path that Apple follows?
Quote:
Under $800? That's awesome but I doubt they would do that; probably not enough profit. The deal with this computer will be usability/portability/portable power, not cheapness. I don't think they are marketing it as "get a sortaMac for ultra cheap that's ultraportable" as much as "this full-power MacBook will do everything you ever needed in the realm of portability and more." But I agree that it should be under $1200 or they will have trouble getting people to buy it. We are talking about a full-featured computer without an optical drive or HDD and ostensibly multitouch - pricing that at $749 would totally upset the market. Not that THAT would be a bad thing. For Apple, that is.
Well the first thing is that we are talking about a small machine with possibly fewer features than its larger cousins. I honestly believe the issue with the current Ultra Mobile PC's is that they are simply priced to high and people cannot credit them with that much value. No matter how you look at it the small machines do not offer much beyond portability. Apple can some what address the usability issue with the release of new technology for the man machine interface. But I don't think they can over come the thought that many consumers have which is there isn't much there for my money. Which in reality is pretty much true.
Quote:
The biggest problem with tablets is that they are niche products. Apple needs to change that.
I think they are already doing this with the Touch and the iPhone even though that might not have been their original goal. Really when it comes down to it all I need is a larger iPhone, that because of the display size. It doesn't need to be extremely large either.
Quote:
But how flexible is flexible? I have been keeping track of polychrome e-paper development, etc, but I have yet to see anything that can actually do a 0 degree angle in a >1mm radius of curvature. And unfortunately that's what my model would require. I think. What's the maximum radius of curvature that you can have with something like that?
Some of them extremely flexible much like paper. It was a very good article you should check out a library. I don't know of an material that can with stand bending to that radius repeatedly, but I see that as just a design issue. Some of the displays where capable of being rolled up like a scroll. We could very well end up with a 'pad' that stores itself like the fine works from the beginning of recorded history. Your next iPod could very well be something that looks like one of those AA flashlights.
Quote:
LOL - I meant before 2009. I agree that it will be hard to have a basic glass LCD folder, but could you have a glass LCD (hence no new multitouch technology) with the central 4mm or so a flexible epaper display that doesn't require a bezel? Sure, you would probably lose the touchscreen sensitivity there, but since your finger is bigger than 4mm wide the screen would still be able to tell where your finger was. Granted, data entry with a stylus wouldn't be perfect but we've been dealing with two monitors on Photoshop for a while now.
I can't ever envision running photoshop on what amounts to a PDA. While what you describe might be acceptable to many I don't see it that way myself. I'd rather they wait on the right technology.
Quote:
That's one of the reasons that the tablet market has failed to take off, IMHO. Smartphones are becoming the easiest ways to consume information (I find myself using my iPhone on WiFi to look something up on Wikipedia while I'm sitting at my computer since it's just more convenient than using the computer) and so it doesn't make much sense to have a "tablet computer" for doing the job of a smartphone. It's bulky and it requires mobile broadband or WiFi.
Believe me I understand the consumption, it is all I can do to resist going out and buying an iPhone right now. However I know I would be frustrated with the device as it is now. Hopefully either Apple will release a new model or somebody else will come out with a better computer. Computer being basically what we are talking about. I'm not sure if I can wait all the way to the middle of next year to be honest.
I'm still tempted by OpenMoko too. Hopefully they can deliver a good product in December.
Quote:
I think that the people who want a Tablet Mac aren't looking for something to help with information consumption. It's not much easier to sit on my couch and read Engadget on a tablet as opposed to my MacBook, and it's a lot bulkier than my phone.
Well I have to disagree with that as I've tried to surf from a laptop on the couch. A well engineered tablet would very much make that easier. By a long shot. Just to clarify that really doesn't matter if the unit is a Touch or something bigger. The primary thing that makes it a better device is that you get rid of the hinged unit.
Quote:
In order for Apple to maximize on the tablet idea, they'll need to make extensive data entry possible. Very possible. People want to be able to travel with a tablet instead of their laptops, and so they don't want to sacrifice versatility for mobility. Unless a tablet can do as much as a real notebook, people will just say "if I wanted that I would get an iPhone." Especially with the upcoming SDK.
As I see it the unit would be of the same family as the Touch and IPhone. Ideally it would have Cell capability built in or be optional. Once you have Bluetooth or wired headsets there really isn't any limitation on the devices size other than the average pocket. At least for a pocket device, there is still room in the family for something much larger.
Quote:
Here's one reason I think this upcoming ultraportable will feature a multitouch on-board (and thus naturally independent-tilt) keyboard. This U.S. patent that is explained here by Engadget specifically talks about knowing the difference between finger contact, multi-finger contact, resting, palm contact, scrolling, and even "handwriting" (apparently by figuring out if you are mimicking the action of holding a pen).
It would be an interesting machine. Note to that handwriting recognition would be key for a tablet also. I'm not sure how much progress Apple has made here, or even if the current "i" hardware can handle a stylus. What I do know is that it would make a good alternative data entry method.
Quote:
This is a multitouch keyboard and touchpad combination. And it wouldn't make sense to have a touchpad like this without a screen behind it; you would never know where the keys were. \
If Apple is planning on applying this, the greatest place to do so would be on an ultraportable. And if you are going to take advantage of a keyboard, you have to be able to rest your fingers on it. So I would hope that it would be able to be tilted separate from the screen so that you could actually use it sensibly.
So assuming that the folding tablet idea doesn't work, what other innovative ways would there be to have a two-screen (at least one of which was ultramultitouch with keyboard) tablet? Or something with the functionality of a tablet (holding it at a 90 degree angle and writing on the screen, carrying it like a legal pad, etc). You know, an Apple-worthy concept.
The real innovation doesn't involve two screens but rather one that takes up less space than its physical size. That is a roll up or folding screen.
Quote:
Of course I naturally hope that they can pull something together using flexible displays or something. 'Cause that would quite literally pwn. The rest of the market, that is.
Only if they can get a lock on the market. Unfortunately this is not technology that Apple is developing, so it is likely to go to the highest bidder first.
Another tech that might be here soon is the idea of a micro projector. Your PDA/iPhone/Whatever could potentially have a second display that gets projected on to a convenient surface. For the most part I think this would be difficult to use all the time but that is why it would have to be a second display. Getting such into an 8mm case is still a ways off from what I understand.
What about the incorporation of a phone / multimedia telephony experience in this next product? I'm not sure this has been mentioned and yet it may be achievable.
Comments
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
Maybe at this point you could define what "real work" is, then.
I don't use optical disks for data transfer - I moved straight from using floppy disks to ethernet before writable CD's went mass market. That was during elementary school. Later on, I have used a Firewire cable in rare ad-hoc networking situations and when I have switched Macs, and also used USB keys and the occasional CD briefly at work when we had physically separate networks mandated for security. In any other situation, why would you not use a network?
I don't remember seeing anyone using removable media on my university's computers. Ever. So even the least computer-savvy engineering student recognizes that removable media is suboptimal.
Most of my software developer / computer science friends go for ultraportables or Macbooks for lack of an ultraportable Mac.
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.
We need to go over this as many times as you get it wrong.
The speed of the flash in the previous nano...which you erroneously call "slow flash"...is the SAME flash in the 1st gen Samsung 32 GB SSD with 30MB/write and 53MB/sec reads. The SanDisk 32GB (also last gen) has 62MB read and 36MB/s write. These both cost $599 retail.
What you are paying for with the Extremes are a combination of marketing and better interface h/w in a compact flash form factor. The CompactFlash devices are smaller than the SSDs in question which use disk interfaces (SATA, etc).
This has very little to do with either the speed of the flash OR a discussion about SSDs other than some manufacturers have so-so SATA implementations.
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?
What is being talked about here is that you confuse your experience with compact flash devices with flash devices in general.
"Standard flash" IS what is being used in these new SSDs. The same parts that go into Nanos and iPhones goes into SSDs.
Sheeh...do I REALLY need to drag out those photos?
1st Gen iPod used the K9WAG08U1M.
http://ipodlinux.org/Generations#iPo...n_.28Nano2G.29
Slightly fuzzy picture from PC World of the Samsung 32GB SSD:
I've seen better close ups but you can make out the part number on the flash.
Since these are both old the current drives and nanos use different flash.
The ones you see on DVNation appear to use K9NBG08U5M. These have also been used in MP3 players.
I've looked at this machine as well. I'm totally unimpressed. Sure, for something really cheap, it does work. But, I'll tell you this, even with OS X sort of working, it will be a terrible experience. And by the time you add one of those 32 GB memory "drives" the price will be too high for what it is worth as a machine.
Now, if Apple came out with something that size that actually was worth it, it would be different.
It has to have three things for me aside from being small and light and cheap.
1) a passable screen
2) a passable keyboard
3) a wifi connection.
I've absolutely no need for hard drives or SSDs beyond basic stuff to store an OS. The storage for this kind of ultraportable is online via IMAP/Google.
And if Apple can get reasonable performance out of an ARM processor in the iPod Touch/iPhone then a 900Mhz Celery is plenty.
iFixit dismantled an 8GB iPod Touch and found two Toshiba NAND flash chips stacked on top of each other ... 4GB each. I am assuming that the 16GB model sports two identical 8GB NAND flash chips.
According to the Apple Store, the 8GB Touch is $299 and the 16GB Touch is $399. This means that Apple's cost difference is no more than $100; probably a bit less. They are going to want to make some extra profit off of the larger model's price difference. I am putting a conservative estimate at 15%, which means that their cost for the 8GB component instead of 4GB component would be $85.
Putting in six chipsets like this (48GB of NAND flash) would put Apple's cost at $510. And that's assuming that there is no decrease in price - which is hardly a realistic factor for a larger application like this. Naturally, one 16GB Toshiba flash chip would be cheaper than two 8GB chips, but it might take up a bit more space. It's when you get up around 32GB or more that the cost goes through the roof for putting all the memory on a single chip - hence the $1K price point for a 64GB.
If two 8GB Toshiba or Samsung NAND flash chips cost about $85 each, then we can assume that one 16GB chip costs at least a little less than twice that - shall we say $150? (That's a 12% drop from two 8GB chips to one 16GB chip.)
In other words, it would most likely cost Apple about $450 to put 48GB of NAND flash memory into this SlimBook/ThinBook/TouchBook (directly onto the motherboard). While 48GB is certainly not perfect, it will definitely hold OS X, many applications, and quite a few files without any trouble. Offering two SD card expansion slots would allow users to put movies, music, and other files on SD cards so that they could expand as far out as necessary. In fact they could even have an SD card for work, for high-density media, and for home and switch them out however they wanted.
If memory is only $450, then I could definitely see Apple pricing the new MacBook at under $2K and still making a beautiful, "let's-make-Jobs-happy" profit.
See? Imagine how nice it would be to have a keyboard "floating" on the lower half of the screen. Since the space is fully customizable, you could even drop a virtual implementation of the iPhone's Safari application or iPod application in the lower half of the screen to make multitasking easier than ever.
And the thickness would still be amazing. If Apple can stack a battery, two flash chips, and a touch-sensitive screen in the 8mm iPod Touch, then surely it can make the lower half of the new MacBook less than 10mm (assuming a virtual keyboard, of course). The upper screen thickness would naturally be less than 8mm unless they decided to put some light hardware up there. So basically we are looking at an extremely slim notebook ... probably less than 16mm ... which blows Toshiba's upcoming Portégé® R500 and Intel's promised Metro out of the water.
Price that at $1,399 and we're SELLING.
While this is a fantastic design idea - and I'd buy one in a second without hesitation - the problem is this:
As far as I am aware there is no LCD technology on the market yet which allows 2 large LCD panels to be flush with each other with virtually no bezel. They need at least a 3-5mm wiring edge.
Or in other words 2 LCDs next to each other will always have a 5-10mm gap in the middle.
And with that the whole design idea falls apart IMHO.
I don't want 2 touch screens with a gap in the middle. How awkward would it be to move your cursor/finger from one LCD to the other over that 'bridge'?
There are smaller LCDs with as little as a 1mm bezel, but AFAIK these do not yet exist in large panel displays.
http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news...s.php?id=14952
And these still need a tiny metal frame around them probably resulting in 1.5 mm bezel on each LCD with a total 'bridge' of 3mm. A 3mm dead zone in the middle is still a bit awkward for 'one' touch screen.
Maybe in 2009.
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.
If 4GB is to small what difference does the speed make??? In any event the indications I'm getting is that the Eee PC does pretty damn good when loading programs from flash.
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.
It doesn't really matter as they will need to buy the latest technology to get the mass storage area they need.
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.
You seem to think that the technology world is a static place with no improvements in any thing taking place. Your argument makes about as much sense as arguing that a new CPU with twice the performance is more expensive than a 3 year old design. The only thing that counts is if they can get the flash into the box at the right cost for a given performance level.
So, what is being talked about here?
Uh an Ultra portable with flash secondary storage?
Dave
Basically, the question is how much flash memory Apple can afford to put into this device. We can actually get a good idea of this based on the disparity between the iPod Touch 8GB and 16GB.
Somewhat maybe. While you could argue that the part can't cost more than the $100 difference that doesn't really help use with the real cost to Apple.
. 4GB each. I am assuming that the 16GB model sports two identical 8GB NAND flash chips.
While not unreasonable there is always the possibility that Apple went with a higher density chip.
This means that Apple's cost difference is no more than $100; probably a bit less.
If you go over to digikey you can find at least one type of 8 Gb Nand flash for about $23, 4GB for as little as $13.
They are going to want to make some extra profit off of the larger model's price difference. I am putting a conservative estimate at 15%, which means that their cost for the 8GB component instead of 4GB component would be $85.
I'd be surprised if they are paying that much. There is a huge range of Flash technologies available and a corresponding wide range of prices. The only way to get a good handle on the price is to find a distributor with online prices.
Putting in six chipsets like this (48GB of NAND flash) would put Apple's cost at $510. And that's assuming that there is no decrease in price - which is hardly a realistic factor for a larger application like this.
I'm thinking more like $200.
Naturally, one 16GB Toshiba flash chip would be cheaper than two 8GB chips, but it might take up a bit more space. It's when you get up around 32GB or more that the cost goes through the roof for putting all the memory on a single chip - hence the $1K price point for a 64GB.
Lets say that Apple can get a 16 GB chip for $50 that is still $200 for a 64 GB "drive". That doesn't include support electronics but that could very well be part of a SOC.
If two 8GB Toshiba or Samsung NAND flash chips cost about $85 each, then we can assume that one 16GB chip costs at least a little less than twice that - shall we say $150? (That's a 12% drop from two 8GB chips to one 16GB chip.)
I'm not sure we can assume anything. Some of Samsung 16GB "chips" are in actuality stacks of 4 GB devices. So the cost could be slightly more per GB. Even so I don't see a huge problem with costs here.
In other words, it would most likely cost Apple about $450 to put 48GB of NAND flash memory into this SlimBook/ThinBook/TouchBook (directly onto the motherboard). While 48GB is certainly not perfect, it will definitely hold OS X, many applications, and quite a few files without any trouble.
Well obviously I think you are way high in price here. The question is are my values way off or not.
Offering two SD card expansion slots would allow users to put movies, music, and other files on SD cards so that they could expand as far out as necessary. In fact they could even have an SD card for work, for high-density media, and for home and switch them out however they wanted.
User accessible expansion slots are very important. I would prefer Compact Flash myself, but that is me.
If memory is only $450, then I could definitely see Apple pricing the new MacBook at under $2K and still making a beautiful, "let's-make-Jobs-happy" profit.
I'm still thinking they could do it under $800. In fact they will almost have to other wise it will suffer in the market place because people will not see the value in the "expensive little computer".
And the thickness would still be amazing. If Apple can stack a battery, two flash chips, and a touch-sensitive screen in the 8mm iPod Touch, then surely it can make the lower half of the new MacBook less than 10mm (assuming a virtual keyboard, of course). The upper screen thickness would naturally be less than 8mm unless they decided to put some light hardware up there. So basically we are looking at an extremely slim notebook ... probably less than 16mm .
I think the big gating factor here is the battery and the processor/chipset. The battery has to be big enough for extended run times of course. The problem with the processor and chipset is removing heat from them. Even then a heat sink is not a problem but a fan is.
This is why I at times think the ultra Mobile is in fact an ARM based tablet. Currently it is the only way to get any sort of reasonable horse power into hand held or very small form factor devices.
So what does this mean. Well I don't think the device will be 18mm total thickness if it is running an Intel processor. Much as we would want it to be.
Price that at $1,399 and we're SELLING.
One of the reasons the Ultra Mobil PC segment never took off in the USA is the fact that they are just to darn expensive. This is especially the case when one tries to use the device after using a regular laptop. The small form factor decreases he value of the product to the consumer. Now Apple can add some of that value back with Multi Touch and other innovations but still the argument will be made that the keyboard is to small and the screen is hard to read. The products are simply niche hardware for a certain class of user.
Note that I indicated that Apple should be able to sell these for under $800. That is based on the cost of hardware at extremely deep discounts, the sort Apple likely gets. Just because Apple can make and sell the thing for that price does not imply though that people will buy at that price. In the end if this guy is to small, and not a tablet, Apple will be lucky to move them for $500.
Dave
ummmm
wtf am I supposed to do without an optical drive?
The same exact thing you do without a girl friend.
Wardrive around town and email my parents? I use my drive about 10 times per week. Sometimes more.
I feel sorry for you, it must be hard on your drive to get abused like that.
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.
Errr Yeah you got it just like the iPhone is only used for Cell connections.
Or the business person who doesn't do anything with their computer except email and Excel.
So tell use what do you do with your PC?
Yeah I guess if you have money to burn on an email only laptop for that purpose all the power to you.
If I had money to burn I'd not be interested in what is coming from Apple. There would be no need to budget my next PC purchase nor a need to evaluate its cost effectiveness.
Maybe if it came with a 500GB HD and a free online 1mbps terrabyte storage option.
This is not the market that this laptop is targeting at all. In any event I suspect that your a simple troll.
DAVE
You can still keep an external one with you.. leave it in the hotel room or whatever.
As far as I am aware there is no LCD technology on the market yet which allows 2 large LCD panels to be flush with each other with virtually no bezel. They need at least a 3-5mm wiring edge.
Or in other words 2 LCDs next to each other will always have a 5-10mm gap in the middle.
And with that the whole design idea falls apart IMHO. I don't want 2 touch screens with a gap in the middle. How awkward would it be to move your cursor/finger from one LCD to the other over that 'bridge'?
There are smaller LCDs with as little as a 1mm bezel, but AFAIK these do not yet exist in large panel displays.
http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news...s.php?id=14952
And these still need a tiny metal frame around them probably resulting in 1.5 mm bezel on each LCD with a total 'bridge' of 3mm. A 3mm dead zone in the middle is still a bit awkward for 'one' touch screen.
Maybe in 2009.
You've got a good point, and this is definitely where the design idea has the potential to fall. Maybe in 2009. However, there is a chance that Apple could surprise us here; here's why:
If there are LCDs with a 1mm bezel, then if they CAN be applied to a 13-inch LCD then Apple would have access to it. Or at least know about it. On the outside chance that Apple can get a screen with a .7mm bezel, then they could have a translucent plastic frame instead of a tiny metal frame around it that goes OVER the wiring bezel. That would put a total "bridge" at 1.4mm - which, if it is translucent plastic, would be partly illuminated by the glow from the pixels around it and wouldn't be too noticeable. You could definitely watch a DVD on it; who really cares about a 1.4mm strip down the center that isn't quite as bright as the rest?
Or Apple could order an LCD screen where the edge of the screen was just slightly angled relative to the other part; enough to cover with transparent plastic so that the bezel would be inside the screen rather than at the edge. Then it could come together quite nicely.
Either way it would be awesome - especially if it comes before 2007. Can you think of any other way to have a decent Mac Tablet? I'm sure they won't do the convertible option. And if you don't have a keyboard (touchscreen or otherwise) that can be angled independently of the screen, then text entry is simply atrocious. Not that I don't love my iPhone's keyboard, but I can't type a report on that.
You've got a good point, and this is definitely where the design idea has the potential to fall. Maybe in 2009. However, there is a chance that Apple could surprise us here; here's why:
If there are LCDs with a 1mm bezel, then if they CAN be applied to a 13-inch LCD then Apple would have access to it. Or at least know about it. On the outside chance that Apple can get a screen with a .7mm bezel, then they could have a translucent plastic frame instead of a tiny metal frame around it that goes OVER the wiring bezel. That would put a total "bridge" at 1.4mm - which, if it is translucent plastic, would be partly illuminated by the glow from the pixels around it and wouldn't be too noticeable. You could definitely watch a DVD on it; who really cares about a 1.4mm strip down the center that isn't quite as bright as the rest?
Apple could surprise us but it won't be with LCDs. First no matter how small and transparent the border would be it will be distraction to have it in place. So that rules out LCDs pretty much for ever on a folding display.
What we shouldn't rule out is the alternative display technologies coming on line. Many of these are extremely thin and very flexible. Earlier this year Photonics/Spectra had a very interesting article on what was coming out of the various research labs. There are competing technologies for flexible display that might make you device very doable. The question is how soon are these technologies going to leave the lab.
Since I don't know all I can offer you is hope. What you imagine is very possible in the near future.
Or Apple could order an LCD screen where the edge of the screen was just slightly angled relative to the other part; enough to cover with transparent plastic so that the bezel would be inside the screen rather than at the edge. Then it could come together quite nicely.
I don't ever see a folder based on conventional glass LCD technology making an acceptable display.
Either way it would be awesome - especially if it comes before 2007. Can you think of any other way to have a decent Mac Tablet? I'm sure they won't do the convertible option. And if you don't have a keyboard (touchscreen or otherwise) that can be angled independently of the screen, then text entry is simply atrocious. Not that I don't love my iPhone's keyboard, but I can't type a report on that.
Well if it is going to come before 2007 it had better hurry up.
For a Mac Tablet though I'm not sure a folder display makes sense. Primarily because you would want a screen ratio somewhere around 16:9 for HD display. I guess an argument could be made for a longer narrower device but I think there are limitations here too, mainly PC board area.
As for the issue of typing that is sure to come up from time to time. Obviously on board keyboards are of limited use for extended data entry. Ultimately Apple will have to support Bluetooth keyboards for the rare occasions where extensive text entry is required. For most users though I don't think there will be the intent to due the Tablet for extensive data entry. Rather the data entry usage will be modest at best. I see Tablets as consumers of information for the most part.
By consumer I mean a device that receives far more data than it transmits. Web and E-Mail being two examples. Even things like financial applications where one receives more info on stock market activities than he does sending out buy or sell orders. A tablet isn't the place to write the next great novel. There are many other examples including the consumption of media.
Dave
If 4GB is to small what difference does the speed make??? In any event the indications I'm getting is that the Eee PC does pretty damn good when loading programs from flash.
I'm happy you're happy. But the difference between 600 KB/s and over 40 MB/s does matter if the Flash has a lot of info on it you need to get to.
{quote]
It doesn't really matter as they will need to buy the latest technology to get the mass storage area they need.[/quote]
The cheapest Flash is being made in larger increments as well. Why would they use Flash that costs almost as much as the machine, or more?
You seem to think that the technology world is a static place with no improvements in any thing taking place. Your argument makes about as much sense as arguing that a new CPU with twice the performance is more expensive than a 3 year old design. The only thing that counts is if they can get the flash into the box at the right cost for a given performance level.
You are totally wrong about that.
But, we are talking about what is available now, not a year from now. In 2005, a 2 GB Flash card at 60 speed was several hundred dollars (Ultra II), now, I bought one for my daughters digital camers for $29.95 at Staples. Sure, I'm very aware of what's happening.
When you go and re-buy you computer in a year, fast Flash will be much cheaper, but it isn't now.
Uh an Ultra portable with flash secondary storage?
Dave
You missed the discussion on that.
Somewhat maybe. While you could argue that the part can't cost more than the $100 difference that doesn't really help use with the real cost to Apple.
If you go over to digikey you can find at least one type of 8 Gb Nand flash for about $23, 4GB for as little as $13. I'd be surprised if they are paying that much. There is a huge range of Flash technologies available and a corresponding wide range of prices. The only way to get a good handle on the price is to find a distributor with online prices.
Hey, I'd be totally excited if that was the case. I was just trying to demonstrate that unless Apple is losing money on the 16GB iPod Touch, then there is no way that 64GB of memory is going to cost $1000. Probably a lot less.
I'm thinking more like $200.
Exactly. I think that Apple can make a no-HDD laptop that's priced reasonably. Hence the discussion of the iPod Touch's prices in re chip costs.
I'm still thinking they could do it under $800. In fact they will almost have to other wise it will suffer in the market place because people will not see the value in the "expensive little computer".
Under $800? That's awesome but I doubt they would do that; probably not enough profit. The deal with this computer will be usability/portability/portable power, not cheapness. I don't think they are marketing it as "get a sortaMac for ultra cheap that's ultraportable" as much as "this full-power MacBook will do everything you ever needed in the realm of portability and more." But I agree that it should be under $1200 or they will have trouble getting people to buy it. We are talking about a full-featured computer without an optical drive or HDD and ostensibly multitouch - pricing that at $749 would totally upset the market. Not that THAT would be a bad thing. For Apple, that is.
I think the big gating factor here is the battery and the processor/chipset. The battery has to be big enough for extended run times of course. The problem with the processor and chipset is removing heat from them. Even then a heat sink is not a problem but a fan is.
Yeah.
One of the reasons the Ultra Mobil PC segment never took off in the USA is the fact that they are just to darn expensive. This is especially the case when one tries to use the device after using a regular laptop. The small form factor decreases the value of the product to the consumer. Now Apple can add some of that value back with Multi Touch and other innovations but still the argument will be made that the keyboard is to small and the screen is hard to read. The products are simply niche hardware for a certain class of user.
Note that I indicated that Apple should be able to sell these for under $800. That is based on the cost of hardware at extremely deep discounts, the sort Apple likely gets. Just because Apple can make and sell the thing for that price does not imply though that people will buy at that price. In the end if this guy is to small, and not a tablet, Apple will be lucky to move them for $500.
The biggest problem with tablets is that they are niche products. Apple needs to change that.
What we shouldn't rule out is the alternative display technologies coming on line. Many of these are extremely thin and very flexible. Earlier this year Photonics/Spectra had a very interesting article on what was coming out of the various research labs. There are competing technologies for flexible display that might make you device very doable. The question is how soon are these technologies going to leave the lab.
But how flexible is flexible? I have been keeping track of polychrome e-paper development, etc, but I have yet to see anything that can actually do a 0 degree angle in a >1mm radius of curvature. And unfortunately that's what my model would require. I think. What's the maximum radius of curvature that you can have with something like that?
I don't ever see a folder based on conventional glass LCD technology making an acceptable display.
Well if it is going to come before 2007 it had better hurry up.
LOL - I meant before 2009. I agree that it will be hard to have a basic glass LCD folder, but could you have a glass LCD (hence no new multitouch technology) with the central 4mm or so a flexible epaper display that doesn't require a bezel? Sure, you would probably lose the touchscreen sensitivity there, but since your finger is bigger than 4mm wide the screen would still be able to tell where your finger was. Granted, data entry with a stylus wouldn't be perfect but we've been dealing with two monitors on Photoshop for a while now.
For a Mac Tablet though I'm not sure a folder display makes sense. Primarily because you would want a screen ratio somewhere around 16:9 for HD display. I guess an argument could be made for a longer narrower device but I think there are limitations here too, mainly PC board area.
Incidentally, a 16:10 display (what Apple's been using) folded is a 10:8 display, which translates to 16:13. So you won't have trouble with an open tablet that is too long; just a closed notebook that is a bit long.
As for the issue of typing that is sure to come up from time to time. Obviously on board keyboards are of limited use for extended data entry. Ultimately Apple will have to support Bluetooth keyboards for the rare occasions where extensive text entry is required. For most users though I don't think there will be the intent to due the Tablet for extensive data entry. Rather the data entry usage will be modest at best. I see Tablets as consumers of information for the most part.
By consumer I mean a device that receives far more data than it transmits. Web and E-Mail being two examples. Even things like financial applications where one receives more info on stock market activities than he does sending out buy or sell orders. A tablet isn't the place to write the next great novel. There are many other examples including the consumption of media.
That's one of the reasons that the tablet market has failed to take off, IMHO. Smartphones are becoming the easiest ways to consume information (I find myself using my iPhone on WiFi to look something up on Wikipedia while I'm sitting at my computer since it's just more convenient than using the computer) and so it doesn't make much sense to have a "tablet computer" for doing the job of a smartphone. It's bulky and it requires mobile broadband or WiFi.
I think that the people who want a Tablet Mac aren't looking for something to help with information consumption. It's not much easier to sit on my couch and read Engadget on a tablet as opposed to my MacBook, and it's a lot bulkier than my phone. In order for Apple to maximize on the tablet idea, they'll need to make extensive data entry possible. Very possible. People want to be able to travel with a tablet instead of their laptops, and so they don't want to sacrifice versatility for mobility. Unless a tablet can do as much as a real notebook, people will just say "if I wanted that I would get an iPhone." Especially with the upcoming SDK.
Here's one reason I think this upcoming ultraportable will feature a multitouch on-board (and thus naturally independent-tilt) keyboard. This U.S. patent that is explained here by Engadget specifically talks about knowing the difference between finger contact, multi-finger contact, resting, palm contact, scrolling, and even "handwriting" (apparently by figuring out if you are mimicking the action of holding a pen).
This is a multitouch keyboard and touchpad combination. And it wouldn't make sense to have a touchpad like this without a screen behind it; you would never know where the keys were.
If Apple is planning on applying this, the greatest place to do so would be on an ultraportable. And if you are going to take advantage of a keyboard, you have to be able to rest your fingers on it. So I would hope that it would be able to be tilted separate from the screen so that you could actually use it sensibly.
So assuming that the folding tablet idea doesn't work, what other innovative ways would there be to have a two-screen (at least one of which was ultramultitouch with keyboard) tablet? Or something with the functionality of a tablet (holding it at a 90 degree angle and writing on the screen, carrying it like a legal pad, etc). You know, an Apple-worthy concept.
Of course I naturally hope that they can pull something together using flexible displays or something. 'Cause that would quite literally pwn. The rest of the market, that is.
Hey, I'd be totally excited if that was the case. I was just trying to demonstrate that unless Apple is losing money on the 16GB iPod Touch, then there is no way that 64GB of memory is going to cost $1000. Probably a lot less.
Agreed! Now I will say that he flash in the Touch is likely to b a slower grade but the point remains that it is very dense. There aren't many processes for that new generation of flash.
Exactly. I think that Apple can make a no-HDD laptop that's priced reasonably. Hence the discussion of the iPod Touch's prices in re chip costs.
Yep very possible and very doable. The question is is it the path that Apple follows?
Under $800? That's awesome but I doubt they would do that; probably not enough profit. The deal with this computer will be usability/portability/portable power, not cheapness. I don't think they are marketing it as "get a sortaMac for ultra cheap that's ultraportable" as much as "this full-power MacBook will do everything you ever needed in the realm of portability and more." But I agree that it should be under $1200 or they will have trouble getting people to buy it. We are talking about a full-featured computer without an optical drive or HDD and ostensibly multitouch - pricing that at $749 would totally upset the market. Not that THAT would be a bad thing. For Apple, that is.
Well the first thing is that we are talking about a small machine with possibly fewer features than its larger cousins. I honestly believe the issue with the current Ultra Mobile PC's is that they are simply priced to high and people cannot credit them with that much value. No matter how you look at it the small machines do not offer much beyond portability. Apple can some what address the usability issue with the release of new technology for the man machine interface. But I don't think they can over come the thought that many consumers have which is there isn't much there for my money. Which in reality is pretty much true.
The biggest problem with tablets is that they are niche products. Apple needs to change that.
I think they are already doing this with the Touch and the iPhone even though that might not have been their original goal. Really when it comes down to it all I need is a larger iPhone, that because of the display size. It doesn't need to be extremely large either.
But how flexible is flexible? I have been keeping track of polychrome e-paper development, etc, but I have yet to see anything that can actually do a 0 degree angle in a >1mm radius of curvature. And unfortunately that's what my model would require. I think. What's the maximum radius of curvature that you can have with something like that?
Some of them extremely flexible much like paper. It was a very good article you should check out a library. I don't know of an material that can with stand bending to that radius repeatedly, but I see that as just a design issue. Some of the displays where capable of being rolled up like a scroll. We could very well end up with a 'pad' that stores itself like the fine works from the beginning of recorded history. Your next iPod could very well be something that looks like one of those AA flashlights.
LOL - I meant before 2009. I agree that it will be hard to have a basic glass LCD folder, but could you have a glass LCD (hence no new multitouch technology) with the central 4mm or so a flexible epaper display that doesn't require a bezel? Sure, you would probably lose the touchscreen sensitivity there, but since your finger is bigger than 4mm wide the screen would still be able to tell where your finger was. Granted, data entry with a stylus wouldn't be perfect but we've been dealing with two monitors on Photoshop for a while now.
I can't ever envision running photoshop on what amounts to a PDA. While what you describe might be acceptable to many I don't see it that way myself. I'd rather they wait on the right technology.
That's one of the reasons that the tablet market has failed to take off, IMHO. Smartphones are becoming the easiest ways to consume information (I find myself using my iPhone on WiFi to look something up on Wikipedia while I'm sitting at my computer since it's just more convenient than using the computer) and so it doesn't make much sense to have a "tablet computer" for doing the job of a smartphone. It's bulky and it requires mobile broadband or WiFi.
Believe me I understand the consumption, it is all I can do to resist going out and buying an iPhone right now. However I know I would be frustrated with the device as it is now. Hopefully either Apple will release a new model or somebody else will come out with a better computer. Computer being basically what we are talking about. I'm not sure if I can wait all the way to the middle of next year to be honest.
I'm still tempted by OpenMoko too. Hopefully they can deliver a good product in December.
I think that the people who want a Tablet Mac aren't looking for something to help with information consumption. It's not much easier to sit on my couch and read Engadget on a tablet as opposed to my MacBook, and it's a lot bulkier than my phone.
Well I have to disagree with that as I've tried to surf from a laptop on the couch. A well engineered tablet would very much make that easier. By a long shot. Just to clarify that really doesn't matter if the unit is a Touch or something bigger. The primary thing that makes it a better device is that you get rid of the hinged unit.
In order for Apple to maximize on the tablet idea, they'll need to make extensive data entry possible. Very possible. People want to be able to travel with a tablet instead of their laptops, and so they don't want to sacrifice versatility for mobility. Unless a tablet can do as much as a real notebook, people will just say "if I wanted that I would get an iPhone." Especially with the upcoming SDK.
As I see it the unit would be of the same family as the Touch and IPhone. Ideally it would have Cell capability built in or be optional. Once you have Bluetooth or wired headsets there really isn't any limitation on the devices size other than the average pocket. At least for a pocket device, there is still room in the family for something much larger.
Here's one reason I think this upcoming ultraportable will feature a multitouch on-board (and thus naturally independent-tilt) keyboard. This U.S. patent that is explained here by Engadget specifically talks about knowing the difference between finger contact, multi-finger contact, resting, palm contact, scrolling, and even "handwriting" (apparently by figuring out if you are mimicking the action of holding a pen).
It would be an interesting machine. Note to that handwriting recognition would be key for a tablet also. I'm not sure how much progress Apple has made here, or even if the current "i" hardware can handle a stylus. What I do know is that it would make a good alternative data entry method.
This is a multitouch keyboard and touchpad combination. And it wouldn't make sense to have a touchpad like this without a screen behind it; you would never know where the keys were.
If Apple is planning on applying this, the greatest place to do so would be on an ultraportable. And if you are going to take advantage of a keyboard, you have to be able to rest your fingers on it. So I would hope that it would be able to be tilted separate from the screen so that you could actually use it sensibly.
So assuming that the folding tablet idea doesn't work, what other innovative ways would there be to have a two-screen (at least one of which was ultramultitouch with keyboard) tablet? Or something with the functionality of a tablet (holding it at a 90 degree angle and writing on the screen, carrying it like a legal pad, etc). You know, an Apple-worthy concept.
The real innovation doesn't involve two screens but rather one that takes up less space than its physical size. That is a roll up or folding screen.
Of course I naturally hope that they can pull something together using flexible displays or something. 'Cause that would quite literally pwn. The rest of the market, that is.
Only if they can get a lock on the market. Unfortunately this is not technology that Apple is developing, so it is likely to go to the highest bidder first.
Another tech that might be here soon is the idea of a micro projector. Your PDA/iPhone/Whatever could potentially have a second display that gets projected on to a convenient surface. For the most part I think this would be difficult to use all the time but that is why it would have to be a second display. Getting such into an 8mm case is still a ways off from what I understand.
Dave