Read the original post again, the 'main' screen is a regular screen, no touch input. The 'flip' screen is the touch-enabled screen. When folded against the 'regular' screen, it enables multi-touch input. When opened in 'laptop mode' the 'main' screen acts like any other 'normal' laptop screen and the 'flip' screen (still multi-touch enabled) becomes whatever type of interface the end user desires?
But there are still two displays. You have to display something on the multi-touch display like controls for it to work in laptop mode. Instead, it could just be a single tablet display like the iphone but the size of a laptop screen. iphone users are not complaining about the lack of a separate touch component so two displays is just more expense for little benefit.
But there are still two displays. You have to display something on the multi-touch display like controls for it to work in laptop mode. Instead, it could just be a single tablet display like the iphone but the size of a laptop screen. iphone users are not complaining about the lack of a separate touch component so two displays is just more expense for little benefit.
Little benefit?!?
The ability to have customized touch interfaces for various apps seems like a HUGE benefit…
Looks nice, but I'm not sure where the computer is supposed to go. Behind the "top" display, and it'll be too top heavy to sit while open.
That's a good point. It doesn't seem as feasible looking at it now. \
Thickness is something Apple would also have issues with, but after the air I think they may be able to tackle it. So putting the computer on the bottom is still possible after looking at it like that.
But there are still two displays. You have to display something on the multi-touch display like controls for it to work in laptop mode. Instead, it could just be a single tablet display like the iphone but the size of a laptop screen. iphone users are not complaining about the lack of a separate touch component so two displays is just more expense for little benefit.
I was just going off of the patent, not off of what people think the "perfect" tablet Mac would be. But let me hasten to point out that tablet-only computers are completely crippled for business use simply because they are impractical for any kind of communication. That's why we have convertible tablets - this is the first practical design that isn't uberbulky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
Looks nice, but I'm not sure where the computer is supposed to go. Behind the "top" display, and it'll be too top heavy to sit while open.
Yeah, behind the top display. But like I said, speakers in the silver bars act as a partial counterweight, and since the heaviest components are closer to the spine, it would balance quite well.
That's a good point. It doesn't seem as feasible looking at it now. \
Thickness is something Apple would also have issues with, but after the air I think they may be able to tackle it. So putting the computer on the bottom is still possible after looking at it like that.
You can't put it in the bottom - the bottom is a transparent, translucent touchscreen. They'll have enough trouble making a translucent touchscreen display monochrome graphics.
You can't put it in the bottom - the bottom is a transparent, translucent touchscreen. They'll have enough trouble making a translucent touchscreen display monochrome graphics.
I'm saying if they were to make something similar it wouldn't have that on the bottom. It would just be an adaptable LCD display keyboard/touchpad on the bottom. No see through translucent keypad.
This is your thread. You should be the one trying to figure out how it's supposed to work.
I'm saying if they were to make something similar it wouldn't have that on the bottom. It would just be an adaptable LCD display keyboard/touchpad on the bottom. No see through translucent keypad.
Which would totally negate the entire two-sided translucent multi-touch screen that the post is talking about in the first place?
And it is the two-sided translucent multi-touch screen (in conjunction with the regular display in the 'top') which makes the whole thing work in slate tablet mode?
I think that Apple will release a new multi touch mouse like device before all the other devices. The last revision to the Apple mouse was in 2005 for the wired version and 2006 for the wireless version. Since multi touch has been implemented on the iPhone, the iPod, and most of Apple's portables the desktop versions of Apple's computers are due for some sort of multi touch.
Perhaps they are designed for Large-screen Government Agency work where you have interactive screen displays, on both sides tracking, in real-time Military, Shipping, etc., transport operations, troop movements, Scientific Research for NASA, etc?
Perhaps they are touch screen displays to be accessed on both sides for Public Kiosks?
Which would totally negate the entire two-sided translucent multi-touch screen that the post is talking about in the first place?
And it is the two-sided translucent multi-touch screen (in conjunction with the regular display in the 'top') which makes the whole thing work in slate tablet mode?
So would you rather just drop the thread? It's obviously not going to work that way unless the two sided multi-touch bottom is as at least 2 to 3X as heavy as a macbook air? Because that is about what you'll need for it to be stable if the computer and the display are all on the display side.
So would you rather just drop the thread? It's obviously not going to work that way unless the two sided multi-touch bottom is as at least 2 to 3X as heavy as a macbook air? Because that is about what you'll need for it to be stable if the computer and the display are all on the display side.
It's been a long time since i agreed with you. You are completly right about that.
I'm also still waiting for an explaination about the size of the device vs the MB Air in the family picture. If both devices use a 13" display, how come the MB Air seems so big vs the "tablet"? Or the "tablet" so small...
That MacBook Touch concept just doesn't work. It's needs a keyboard that isn't using your screen real estate. Apple would be stupid to release a product like that one, and as stupid as Apple can be sometimes I hope they are not that stupid.
That MacBook Touch concept just doesn't work. It's needs a keyboard that isn't using your screen real estate. Apple would be stupid to release a product like that one, and as stupid as Apple can be sometimes I hope they are not that stupid.
So would you rather just drop the thread? It's obviously not going to work that way unless the two sided multi-touch bottom is as at least 2 to 3X as heavy as a macbook air? Because that is about what you'll need for it to be stable if the computer and the display are all on the display side.
The base isn't going to be 2X or 3X as heavy as the Air. For starters, the Touch is significantly smaller (area and volume) than the Air. Also, you remove the keyboard and all the top frame of the Air. The battery (heaviest component) sits as far down as possble, so its weight won't need to be offset barely at all. Remember, to keep it from falling backwards you need torque, not just weight. Tipping backwards means that it must rotate on its spinal axis. For those engineers and physicists among us, that means that to tip over, the x (horizontal) component of the back slab's weight must be greater than the y (vertical) component of the base (touchscreen and speakers) weight. Pretty unlikely. I'm giving it an estimated weight of 2.3 lbs (just over 1 kg, about as heavy as half a ream of paper).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
It's been a long time since i agreed with you. You are completly right about that.
I'm also still waiting for an explaination about the size of the device vs the MB Air in the family picture. If both devices use a 13" display, how come the MB Air seems so big vs the "tablet"? Or the "tablet" so small...
So sorry that you were "still waiting" - you should have mentioned it! The MacBook Air has a 13.3" diagonal screen at 16:10 resolution (same as the base MacBook). The Touch has a 13" diagonal screen at 16:10. I really should have rendered it in portrait mode instead of landscape mode to display the appearance better. The Touch is 12"x8"; the Air is 12.8"x9". That comparison image I made is completely to scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
That MacBook Touch concept just doesn't work. It's needs a keyboard that isn't using your screen real estate. Apple would be stupid to release a product like that one, and as stupid as Apple can be sometimes I hope they are not that stupid.
Oi vey - some people just never learn. The keyboard isn't using your screen real estate when the device is open, and it balances (while open) quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krispie
Wouldn't Apple have to deal in the real world? You know, like actually fitting in components, etc?!
Why would they need to deal in the real world? Jobs just has to snap his fingers and POUF! Magic!
Just kidding. The only difficult component is the double-sided translucent touchscreen - the whole idea is based on the assumption that Apple develops their patent.
So sorry that you were "still waiting" - you should have mentioned it! The MacBook Air has a 13.3" diagonal screen at 16:10 resolution (same as the base MacBook). The Touch has a 13" diagonal screen at 16:10. I really should have rendered it in portrait mode instead of landscape mode to display the appearance better. The Touch is 12"x8"; the Air is 12.8"x9". That comparison image I made is completely to scale.
No it isn't, and it's getting ridiculous. Go back to the "drawing board".
Your MacBook Air display and your "MB touch" display don't have similar dimensions (13.3"/13") even without the bezel.
So either your MB touch in your drawing has a 11" display or your drawings are flawed.
I still agree with onlooker and futurepastnow, about the stability of this concept.
Maybe with a titanium leg coming out of the back of the "top" display part.
Something like that (so that the top display doesn't fall back):
No it isn't, and it's getting ridiculous. Go back to the "drawing board".
Your MacBook Air display and your "MB touch" display don't have similar dimensions (13.3"/13") even without the bezel.
So either your MB touch in your drawing has a 11" display or your drawings are flawed.
My "drawing board" is Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended, and all layers for the scale drawing were placed at regular size and scaled to their proper value in inches with the built-in tools for doing so. There may be some confusion for you simply because pixels are rectangles, not squares, so you might have some slight variance in any scale render - especially one that involves layered objects. The MacBook Touch has an 11" screen horizontally, not diagonally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
I still agree with onlooker and futurepastnow, about the stability of this concept.
Maybe with a titanium leg coming out of the back of the "top" display part.
Something like that (so that the top display doesn't fall back):
{image snipped}
Okay, look.
If the screen tilts (at most) 10 degrees back, then the ratio of vertically directed torque (2) and horizontally directed force (1) is more than 10 to 1. That's for the back screen. Obviously the vertically directed force (2) from the back won't do anything to balance the device. However, that does mean that in order to balance torque from the screen, the vertical component of the base touchscreen portion's weight (3) needs to be no more than 10% of the total weight of the back portion - about 10 grams total for a 1 kg device.
Think about torque, rotation, and force. That is only a very rough and imperfect assessment that I gave, but it gets the point across. The farther you are (horizontally) from the axis of rotation, the less weight is needed to act as a counterbalance. At a 10 degree tilt, you have a 10-to-1 ratio of torque, allowing for a very lightweight base just as long as weight is concentrated in the speakers on the end. Apple's engineers are a heckuvalot smarter than me.
Comments
Read the original post again, the 'main' screen is a regular screen, no touch input. The 'flip' screen is the touch-enabled screen. When folded against the 'regular' screen, it enables multi-touch input. When opened in 'laptop mode' the 'main' screen acts like any other 'normal' laptop screen and the 'flip' screen (still multi-touch enabled) becomes whatever type of interface the end user desires?
But there are still two displays. You have to display something on the multi-touch display like controls for it to work in laptop mode. Instead, it could just be a single tablet display like the iphone but the size of a laptop screen. iphone users are not complaining about the lack of a separate touch component so two displays is just more expense for little benefit.
But there are still two displays. You have to display something on the multi-touch display like controls for it to work in laptop mode. Instead, it could just be a single tablet display like the iphone but the size of a laptop screen. iphone users are not complaining about the lack of a separate touch component so two displays is just more expense for little benefit.
Little benefit?!?
The ability to have customized touch interfaces for various apps seems like a HUGE benefit…
Looks nice, but I'm not sure where the computer is supposed to go. Behind the "top" display, and it'll be too top heavy to sit while open.
That's a good point. It doesn't seem as feasible looking at it now.
Thickness is something Apple would also have issues with, but after the air I think they may be able to tackle it. So putting the computer on the bottom is still possible after looking at it like that.
But there are still two displays. You have to display something on the multi-touch display like controls for it to work in laptop mode. Instead, it could just be a single tablet display like the iphone but the size of a laptop screen. iphone users are not complaining about the lack of a separate touch component so two displays is just more expense for little benefit.
I was just going off of the patent, not off of what people think the "perfect" tablet Mac would be. But let me hasten to point out that tablet-only computers are completely crippled for business use simply because they are impractical for any kind of communication. That's why we have convertible tablets - this is the first practical design that isn't uberbulky.
Looks nice, but I'm not sure where the computer is supposed to go. Behind the "top" display, and it'll be too top heavy to sit while open.
Yeah, behind the top display. But like I said, speakers in the silver bars act as a partial counterweight, and since the heaviest components are closer to the spine, it would balance quite well.
That's a good point. It doesn't seem as feasible looking at it now.
Thickness is something Apple would also have issues with, but after the air I think they may be able to tackle it. So putting the computer on the bottom is still possible after looking at it like that.
You can't put it in the bottom - the bottom is a transparent, translucent touchscreen. They'll have enough trouble making a translucent touchscreen display monochrome graphics.
You can't put it in the bottom - the bottom is a transparent, translucent touchscreen. They'll have enough trouble making a translucent touchscreen display monochrome graphics.
I'm saying if they were to make something similar it wouldn't have that on the bottom. It would just be an adaptable LCD display keyboard/touchpad on the bottom. No see through translucent keypad.
This is your thread. You should be the one trying to figure out how it's supposed to work.
I'm saying if they were to make something similar it wouldn't have that on the bottom. It would just be an adaptable LCD display keyboard/touchpad on the bottom. No see through translucent keypad.
Which would totally negate the entire two-sided translucent multi-touch screen that the post is talking about in the first place?
And it is the two-sided translucent multi-touch screen (in conjunction with the regular display in the 'top') which makes the whole thing work in slate tablet mode?
Perhaps they are touch screen displays to be accessed on both sides for Public Kiosks?
Which would totally negate the entire two-sided translucent multi-touch screen that the post is talking about in the first place?
And it is the two-sided translucent multi-touch screen (in conjunction with the regular display in the 'top') which makes the whole thing work in slate tablet mode?
So would you rather just drop the thread? It's obviously not going to work that way unless the two sided multi-touch bottom is as at least 2 to 3X as heavy as a macbook air? Because that is about what you'll need for it to be stable if the computer and the display are all on the display side.
So would you rather just drop the thread? It's obviously not going to work that way unless the two sided multi-touch bottom is as at least 2 to 3X as heavy as a macbook air? Because that is about what you'll need for it to be stable if the computer and the display are all on the display side.
It's been a long time since i agreed with you. You are completly right about that.
I'm also still waiting for an explaination about the size of the device vs the MB Air in the family picture. If both devices use a 13" display, how come the MB Air seems so big vs the "tablet"? Or the "tablet" so small...
http://tinyurl.com/269gs2
That MacBook Touch concept just doesn't work. It's needs a keyboard that isn't using your screen real estate. Apple would be stupid to release a product like that one, and as stupid as Apple can be sometimes I hope they are not that stupid.
Wow just wow..
DAMN IT!!!
I'd HAVE to buy one!!!11!!
Amazing concept art
Patent it and send it in to Apple pronto!
Wouldn't Apple have to deal in the real world? You know, like actually fitting in components, etc?!
i been wathching it all d time and it was really cool i will buy one of it as soon as possible im so excited.. lol
___________
elsphit
http://www.animea.net/reviews
So would you rather just drop the thread? It's obviously not going to work that way unless the two sided multi-touch bottom is as at least 2 to 3X as heavy as a macbook air? Because that is about what you'll need for it to be stable if the computer and the display are all on the display side.
The base isn't going to be 2X or 3X as heavy as the Air. For starters, the Touch is significantly smaller (area and volume) than the Air. Also, you remove the keyboard and all the top frame of the Air. The battery (heaviest component) sits as far down as possble, so its weight won't need to be offset barely at all. Remember, to keep it from falling backwards you need torque, not just weight. Tipping backwards means that it must rotate on its spinal axis. For those engineers and physicists among us, that means that to tip over, the x (horizontal) component of the back slab's weight must be greater than the y (vertical) component of the base (touchscreen and speakers) weight. Pretty unlikely. I'm giving it an estimated weight of 2.3 lbs (just over 1 kg, about as heavy as half a ream of paper).
It's been a long time since i agreed with you. You are completly right about that.
I'm also still waiting for an explaination about the size of the device vs the MB Air in the family picture. If both devices use a 13" display, how come the MB Air seems so big vs the "tablet"? Or the "tablet" so small...
So sorry that you were "still waiting" - you should have mentioned it! The MacBook Air has a 13.3" diagonal screen at 16:10 resolution (same as the base MacBook). The Touch has a 13" diagonal screen at 16:10. I really should have rendered it in portrait mode instead of landscape mode to display the appearance better. The Touch is 12"x8"; the Air is 12.8"x9". That comparison image I made is completely to scale.
That MacBook Touch concept just doesn't work. It's needs a keyboard that isn't using your screen real estate. Apple would be stupid to release a product like that one, and as stupid as Apple can be sometimes I hope they are not that stupid.
Oi vey - some people just never learn. The keyboard isn't using your screen real estate when the device is open, and it balances (while open) quite well.
Wouldn't Apple have to deal in the real world? You know, like actually fitting in components, etc?!
Why would they need to deal in the real world? Jobs just has to snap his fingers and POUF! Magic!
Just kidding. The only difficult component is the double-sided translucent touchscreen - the whole idea is based on the assumption that Apple develops their patent.
So sorry that you were "still waiting" - you should have mentioned it! The MacBook Air has a 13.3" diagonal screen at 16:10 resolution (same as the base MacBook). The Touch has a 13" diagonal screen at 16:10. I really should have rendered it in portrait mode instead of landscape mode to display the appearance better. The Touch is 12"x8"; the Air is 12.8"x9". That comparison image I made is completely to scale.
No it isn't, and it's getting ridiculous. Go back to the "drawing board".
Your MacBook Air display and your "MB touch" display don't have similar dimensions (13.3"/13") even without the bezel.
So either your MB touch in your drawing has a 11" display or your drawings are flawed.
I still agree with onlooker and futurepastnow, about the stability of this concept.
Maybe with a titanium leg coming out of the back of the "top" display part.
Something like that (so that the top display doesn't fall back):
No it isn't, and it's getting ridiculous. Go back to the "drawing board".
Your MacBook Air display and your "MB touch" display don't have similar dimensions (13.3"/13") even without the bezel.
So either your MB touch in your drawing has a 11" display or your drawings are flawed.
My "drawing board" is Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended, and all layers for the scale drawing were placed at regular size and scaled to their proper value in inches with the built-in tools for doing so. There may be some confusion for you simply because pixels are rectangles, not squares, so you might have some slight variance in any scale render - especially one that involves layered objects. The MacBook Touch has an 11" screen horizontally, not diagonally.
I still agree with onlooker and futurepastnow, about the stability of this concept.
Maybe with a titanium leg coming out of the back of the "top" display part.
Something like that (so that the top display doesn't fall back):
{image snipped}
Okay, look.
If the screen tilts (at most) 10 degrees back, then the ratio of vertically directed torque (2) and horizontally directed force (1) is more than 10 to 1. That's for the back screen. Obviously the vertically directed force (2) from the back won't do anything to balance the device. However, that does mean that in order to balance torque from the screen, the vertical component of the base touchscreen portion's weight (3) needs to be no more than 10% of the total weight of the back portion - about 10 grams total for a 1 kg device.
Think about torque, rotation, and force. That is only a very rough and imperfect assessment that I gave, but it gets the point across. The farther you are (horizontally) from the axis of rotation, the less weight is needed to act as a counterbalance. At a 10 degree tilt, you have a 10-to-1 ratio of torque, allowing for a very lightweight base just as long as weight is concentrated in the speakers on the end. Apple's engineers are a heckuvalot smarter than me.
Any other technical inquiries?