For the size of the screen versus the size of the device, well, we have to have some bit of reality. To fit a 5.2" diag, 16:10 aspect ratio, 4.41 x 2.76 inch screen onto a 5 x 3 inch PDA form factor, the sides will need to be 0.12 inches with a pretty sharp corner. The new screen sizes I laid out required this. For the top and bottom, I was keeping with the physical home buttom and cellular philisophy of the iPhone. These are iPhones, not iPods, so it needs cellular wireless tech (room for an earpiece), and the single home button is, well, one of Apple's signature features in the device.
Don't get me wrong I like the current Iphone but I don't see that template translating well into a larger device. The problem is length, for a pocketable device length quickly becomes more of an issue that width.
The single Home button is a fine idea but there is nothing to say that it needs to be on the front of the device. The same functionality can be had with the button on the end or Rear of the device. As for sound well there is a lot happening with transducers so I will leave that one up in the air.
My only concern with the bezel size is in the overall length of the device. As long as the HD resolution can be had in a reasonably long device we will be OK. If the iPhone ends up peaking out of my pocket all the time then it is a no go.
Quote:
All-in-all, the cases are about the size of the screens, especially relative to other phones and PDAs.
I really don't have a problem with a physically larger iPhone. Frankly I've handled them a lot and find that they are almost to small. Of course I'm 6' tall with big hands so just about all cell phones are an issue. Like I said I just don't want the thing protruding out of the pocket.
Quote:
I know you'd like a SD card and a full USB port (let alone a mini one), but those things limit Apple's thin thin thin design philosophy. (And Iike a 100+ GB HDD version too). I don't think they'll ship a handheld device on the order of 0.75" thick anymore.
I've seen this response to the idea of a USB port in the iPhone a number of times. I can't help to wonder if people have not imagination, it should be perfectly easy for Apple to implement a low profile USB plug design for the iPhone. USB plugs are that thick relative to the current iPhone. Sure that is case integrated design but why not?
AS to the SD / CF slot well that I will acknowledge is a bigger challenge and to be perfectly honest I'd take the flexibility of a real USB port over the FLASH port. Especially if that frees up more space for internal storage. Still for professional usage there are cases where it makes a lot of sense to have a built in FLASH port.
Quote:
Yeah. Apple will need to separate functionality of a prospective iPhone lineup, and I think it will be quite simple for them to do.
The "nano" version has to be multi-touch, very similar to the current iPhone, but only smaller, and as I've written before, smaller means 3 to 3.2 inch multi-touch screens. It should just be a shrunken version of the existing iPhone. If released in 2008, it should have 8 GB. As for functionality, well, that's easy. Only EDGE, no UMTS/HSPA. No QWERTY soft keyboard due to the width of the device (1.6 inches) being too small, so T9 for text entry. No computer like functionality. 1.3 MP camera. Less applications. Lots of things can be done to eliminate cannabilization of the upper tiers.
The thing I disagree on is the nano has to be multi Touch as I think that misses the whole point in a low cost and alternative model. A Touch free nano simply offers up an easier to use interface for people who don't need the complexity of a multi Touch unit.
Quote:
If released in 2008, the mid-range would have 3.5 to 3.8 inch screen, UMTS/HSPA, soft QWERTY, 3.2 MP camera, 16 GB storage, faster processor, GPS, and more applications. And the high end should have everything the mid-range should have, but more: 4.2 to 4.5 inch screen, 32 GB flash or 120 MB HDD, 2 cameras, etc.
Actually I think Apple will keep the current iPhone around for some time as the mid-range device. The will simply upgrade the FLASH storage from time to time. Though this may tweak a few, I even expect a price drop or two as higher end products are introduced.
Quote:
It's going to be long wait before this happens, if it happens at all.
I don't think so. Honestly I believe Cell Phones could be as big to Apple as the Ipod is to them now. They will need many models attractive to a number of different users.
Quote:
I don't understand what you are saying. 150-250 for a nano. 300-400 for mid-range and 450 to 550 for a high end.
Shave about $75 to $100 from each of those prices.
Quote:
Those are the prices points I think Apple should target, not what I as a consumer want. I'll leave it to other companies to drive the cost of the device down, but like the iPods, these are the price point for a pocketable cellular device.
Apple needs to target phones that are competitive with the range of Cell phones available now from the competition, that means at least one device in the sub $100 dollar range.
The delusions in these threads are frightening. I'm not even going to bother.
This IS a rumor site...
Some of it can be a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it sure makes for interesting speculation! I like seeing how others ideas differ from mine...how I see (and write about) things might be totally opposite to you, doesn't make either of us wrong. No need to call people delusional though!
Some of it can be a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it sure makes for interesting speculation! I like seeing how others ideas differ from mine...how I see (and write about) things might be totally opposite to you, doesn't make either of us wrong. No need to call people delusional though!
Z
It depends on how serious you are. Many people throw out ideas just for the fun of it, and others are dead serious.
If it's for fun, that's ok. But when it gets very serious, the really far out ideas do become delusional.
BUT......... Any thing that Apple produces in the coming year will be based on chips and chipsets now being finalized by other manufactures. If one keeps up on what is happening in that world you will see that it is very possible to stuff a lot of functionality into coming hand held devices. Frankly it kinda boggles the mind.
Now that doesn't mean that Apple will produce tablets of that sort just that the possibilities in the nest year or two are really startling. Besides Apple there have been some interesting rumors as to what Nokia is up to with its Tablets. The rumors are that Nokia will have Tablets with WiMax soon and other improvements.
Quote:
Some of it can be a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it sure makes for interesting speculation! I like seeing how others ideas differ from mine...how I see (and write about) things might be totally opposite to you, doesn't make either of us wrong. No need to call people delusional though!
Pie in the sky? I'm not to sure about that. In the I86 realm both Intel and Via are targeting extremely low power SOC. It doesn't look like a single chip implementation is going to happen in 2008 for Intel but an extremely low power chip set is. IN the real of the ARM products lots is happening there. This include dual core systems on chips due to come on line in 2008.
Combine this with Apples development of the TOUCH interface technology and a lot of interesting things can be imagined. Another way to look at this is to look at an ARCHOS media player and imagine what it could do with a real OS. Take something like the 605 and add a little Apple electronics and packaging engineering to the box and a Touch based OS. The throw in a cellular connection and a processor that might be 3 to 4 times faster.
Quote:
Z
So yeah we are dreaming but we have dreams base on what could happen if Apple wanted to go in the right direction.
As can be found on other websites, Intel has a presentation at the ISSCC about Silverthorne. Here's the abstract:
13.1 A Sub-1W to 2W Low-Power IA Processor for Mobile Internet Devices and
Ultra-Mobile PCs in 45nm High-К Metal-Gate CMOS
A 47M transistor, 25mm2, sub-2W IA processor designed for mobile internet devices is
presented. It features a 2-issue, in-order pipeline with 32KB iL1 and 24KB dL1 caches,
integer and floating point execution units, x86 front end, a 512KB L2 cache and a
533MT/s front-side bus. The design is manufactured in 9M 45nm High-К metal-gate
CMOS and housed in a 441-ball μFCBGA package.
This is like a Pentium I (the 586) reborn. Or the Moto PPC 750 / 7400 reborn. There will be multiple variants at "regular" voltage, "low" voltage, and "ultra low" voltage that'll span 2 Watts to 0.55 Watts. Rumored clock rates from 1 to 2 GHz (and I'm guessing a 7 to 8 stage execution pipeline). Also rumored to have 2-way SMT, Hyperthreading in Intel vernacular. The I/O chipset will likely be on the order of 1 to 2 Watts themselves. This is definitely not for pocketable - pants pockets, not sportscoat - devices.
I'm not really excited about this actually, unless the package comes in the form of a clamshell full laptop keyboard device, and $500 cheap. With the Nokia Internet Table (N800/N810) being one of the top holiday season sellers on Amazon, there may be a market for a tweener device, but it's not me. If you have to put it in a bag to carry around, you mind as well carry a ultra-mobile laptop.
There's some interesting videos floating around however:
Much much more interesting is the Moorestown sneek peak. I have to imagine Intel learned a little something about product design from IDF Spring 2007 to IDF Fall 2007, as the Moorestown device Intel shows is an iPhone-class RDF device. Just imagine if Jobs was doing the demo. It would be classic. I am imagining that the device is fake though. It's not functional and all it was was an LCD, some pictures, and an on/off button. Very cool nonetheless with good use of UI design. They'll need to accept reality though and have room for earpieces, speakers, etc.
Also interesting in the ISSCC abstract list was the 2 billion transistor 4-core Itanium with 30 MB of on-die cache. That'll be burning up some coal to use.
As can be found on other websites, Intel has a presentation at the ISSCC about Silverthorne. Here's the abstract:
13.1 A Sub-1W to 2W Low-Power IA Processor for Mobile Internet Devices and
Ultra-Mobile PCs in 45nm High-К Metal-Gate CMOS
A 47M transistor, 25mm2, sub-2W IA processor designed for mobile internet devices is
presented. It features a 2-issue, in-order pipeline with 32KB iL1 and 24KB dL1 caches,
integer and floating point execution units, x86 front end, a 512KB L2 cache and a
533MT/s front-side bus. The design is manufactured in 9M 45nm High-К metal-gate
CMOS and housed in a 441-ball μFCBGA package.
This is like a Pentium I (the 586) reborn. Or the Moto PPC 750 / 7400 reborn. There will be multiple variants at "regular" voltage, "low" voltage, and "ultra low" voltage that'll span 2 Watts to 0.55 Watts. Rumored clock rates from 1 to 2 GHz (and I'm guessing a 7 to 8 stage execution pipeline). Also rumored to have 2-way SMT, Hyperthreading in Intel vernacular. The I/O chipset will likely be on the order of 1 to 2 Watts themselves. This is definitely not for pocketable - pants pockets, not sportscoat - devices.
I'm not really excited about this actually, unless the package comes in the form of a clamshell full laptop keyboard device, and $500 cheap. With the Nokia Internet Table (N800/N810) being one of the top holiday season sellers on Amazon, there may be a market for a tweener device, but it's not me. If you have to put it in a bag to carry around, you mind as well carry a ultra-mobile laptop.
There's some interesting videos floating around however:
Much much more interesting is the Moorestown sneek peak. I have to imagine Intel learned a little something about product design from IDF Spring 2007 to IDF Fall 2007, as the Moorestown device Intel shows is an iPhone-class RDF device. Just imagine if Jobs was doing the demo. It would be classic. I am imagining that the device is fake though. It's not functional and all it was was an LCD, some pictures, and an on/off button. Very cool nonetheless with good use of UI design. They'll need to accept reality though and have room for earpieces, speakers, etc.
Also interesting in the ISSCC abstract list was the 2 billion transistor 4-core Itanium with 30 MB of on-die cache. That'll be burning up some coal to use.
The Menlo is ok as I saw that video and it was shown in Bejing running windows but it is more like a better OQO as it appears to be thumb input? The Moorestown is cool but the keyboard input again thumb.
I agree the type of market that needs to be filled in a pocket laptop running mainstream software; not a phone, not a pda. Thus for business users a touch type keboard is needed. I think the Moorestown device would have been great if they made that into a thin clamshell. Without good keyboard input Apple will be making the same mistake of the UMPC's. That is why price is so much an issue with UMPC's as they are not that fuctional; most people do not find pen input their ideal main input. That is whay only 350K UMPC have sold this year. The reality is touch typing may sound old school but people find it easier and for real computing use which is what needs to be done with a pocket laptop a touch or pen input will never be mainstream right now no matter whom builds it.
I think the Moorestown device would only be slightly thicker if it was clamshell designed.
Don't get me wrong I like the current Iphone but I don't see that template translating well into a larger device. The problem is length, for a pocketable device length quickly becomes more of an issue that width.
The single Home button is a fine idea but there is nothing to say that it needs to be on the front of the device. The same functionality can be had with the button on the end or Rear of the device. As for sound well there is a lot happening with transducers so I will leave that one up in the air.
My only concern with the bezel size is in the overall length of the device. As long as the HD resolution can be had in a reasonably long device we will be OK. If the iPhone ends up peaking out of my pocket all the time then it is a no go.
I really don't have a problem with a physically larger iPhone. Frankly I've handled them a lot and find that they are almost to small. Of course I'm 6' tall with big hands so just about all cell phones are an issue. Like I said I just don't want the thing protruding out of the pocket.
I really think a 3 x 5 inch device is the limit for a mass-market handheld device. It's almost too big - it is too big - but I'm leaving room for the "pro" device. I'm thinking that these are cell phone devices, and anything more than 2.6 or 2.8 inches is too wide for comfortable use next to your ear. The idea of it being a cell phone also forces some kind of visual orientation cues to be on there so we can tell which end is up on the device as well. It's very easy on the iPhone to tell which end is the ear piece and which end is the microphone.
You can do this with a good bezel design I suppose, but I don't think it'll be as distinguishing.
Quote:
I've seen this response to the idea of a USB port in the iPhone a number of times. I can't help to wonder if people have not imagination, it should be perfectly easy for Apple to implement a low profile USB plug design for the iPhone. USB plugs are that thick relative to the current iPhone. Sure that is case integrated design but why not?
I don't have problem with. I'm saying Apple will have a problem with it. If this supposed Macbook thin is going to come out at 0.75" thick, that'll probably leave about 0.5/0.6 inches of thickness to work with. It'll barely fit a USB port. A Firewire port, probably. An Ethernet port, probably not (unless that collapsable port patent is real!). On an iPhone that is 0.45" thick, a USB port is probably a non-starter. An iPod-port to USB dongle could do the trick though. Apple will just need to add USB host functionality, something that currently seems pretty remote.
Quote:
The thing I disagree on is the nano has to be multi Touch as I think that misses the whole point in a low cost and alternative model. A Touch free nano simply offers up an easier to use interface for people who don't need the complexity of a multi Touch unit.
...
Apple needs to target phones that are competitive with the range of Cell phones available now from the competition, that means at least one device in the sub $100 dollar range.
I don't think what I'm describing is low cost. In a range of 150 to 250 dollars, one can get (from ATT) Samsung Blackjacks, Moto Q's, Palm Treos, LG Shines, RIM Blackberrys, and Sony Walkman phones. It's a low-end iPhone, not a low end cell phone, and will need to compete against these types of phones. Since these are essentially smartphones, a low end iPhone will have to have at least the functionality of the current iPhone.
A regular Apple cell phone, like an iPhone version of the Moto ROKR, one which will be given away free or for <$50, will dilute the brand, and I don't think they are ready for that yet. Maybe in 2H 2009, but definitely not now. iTunes.app and iTMS has to be stronger to really do that I think.
[i]13.1 A Sub-1W to 2W Low-Power IA Processor for Mobile Internet Devices and
Ultra-Mobile PCs in 45nm High-К Metal-Gate CMOS
The thing that is not clear is if this is a power rating for the chip set or just the processor. It also doesn't take into account power management, under clocking and other techniques to lower power consumption. If the total power draw can be kept under three watts it might be a very doable solution.
Quote:
This is like a Pentium I (the 586) reborn. Or the Moto PPC 750 / 7400 reborn. ....... Also rumored to have 2-way SMT, Hyperthreading in Intel vernacular.
Actually this sounds a lot like the PPC section in PS3's chip. Except of the power usage, which in the CELL is hard to nail down. In any event this should be more than enough for the devices I imagine.
Quote:
I'm not really excited about this actually, unless the package comes in the form of a clamshell full laptop keyboard device, and $500 cheap. With the Nokia Internet Table (N800/N810) being one of the top holiday season sellers on Amazon, there may be a market for a tweener device, but it's not me. If you have to put it in a bag to carry around, you mind as well carry a ultra-mobile laptop.
See this is where i have huge problems as I simply don't see the clam shell laptop as being the right form factor for devices this small. A tablet is the way to go. If you have to have a keyboard the N810 isn't a bad way to go at all. In fact I would have one now if it wasn't for Nokia pulling a big boner with the design of the machine. The N810's biggest short coming is that it lacks a reasonable amount of Flash storage. I trust Apple not to make this mistake. Even ASUS with the Eee Pc could have tried a little harder but at least they have a pretty good software install to start with.
Quote:
Also interesting in the ISSCC abstract list was the 2 billion transistor 4-core Itanium with 30 MB of on-die cache. That'll be burning up some coal to use.
Yep is people want a clue as to what the near future looks like computing wise this is one forum to attend. Or at least take note of what is presented there. This is why I have a fair amount of confidence that the technology is coming to do these sorts of devices right in 2008 or early 2009. Even the stuff that is not for public discussion has enough info available publicly to indicate that the ARM world is all so going to be very interesting.
The trade offs are interesting such as what makes more sense for a Maxi iPhone, an i86 processors as discussed or a DUAL core ARM with either running at 1GHz? Same thing for a larger tablet, though as you get up in size the scales balance heavily toward i86 even if it isn't the best over all performer.
***Note with hand held devices performance doesn't always mean how fast it runs code.
I really think a 3 x 5 inch device is the limit for a mass-market handheld device. It's almost too big - it is too big - but I'm leaving room for the "pro" device. I'm thinking that these are cell phone devices, and anything more than 2.6 or 2.8 inches is too wide for comfortable use next to your ear.
Well I guess that depends on the person. Most Cell phones are way to small for me to handle comfortably. But that is my hand I'm not sure what size has to do with holding it next to your head.
Besides about 99% of the people I see using a smart phone have some sort of head set. OK maybe not 99 but you get the idea.
Quote:
The idea of it being a cell phone also forces some kind of visual orientation cues to be on there so we can tell which end is up on the device as well. It's very easy on the iPhone to tell which end is the ear piece and which end is the microphone.
See now you have hit on something that I didn't even think about. Great feature of these forums.
Quote:
You can do this with a good bezel design I suppose, but I don't think it'll be as distinguishing.
I'm sure it can be worked out.
Quote:
I don't have problem with. I'm saying Apple will have a problem with it.
If any body could get it right it would be Apple. I hope they realize there is a demand for such features. The way I figure it the USB male connector needs about 5mm of opening, something that is not totally impossible in a hand held.
Quote:
If this supposed Macbook thin is going to come out at 0.75" thick, that'll probably leave about 0.5/0.6 inches of thickness to work with. It'll barely fit a USB port. A Firewire port, probably. An Ethernet port, probably not (unless that collapsable port patent is real!). On an iPhone that is 0.45" thick, a USB port is probably a non-starter. An iPod-port to USB dongle could do the trick though. Apple will just need to add USB host functionality, something that currently seems pretty remote.
YOU know I was just over at the CompUSA store closing looking at laptops and one of SONY's little guys and I have to say that it might be possible to go to thin. The device was way to flexible for my liking.
Note also that they where only allowing a 5% discount on iPods and laptops. Considering that was 5% off an already over priced device then you can understand my walking out of the store empty handed.
Quote:
I don't think what I'm describing is low cost. In a range of 150 to 250 dollars, one can get (from ATT) Samsung Blackjacks, Moto Q's, Palm Treos, LG Shines, RIM Blackberrys, and Sony Walkman phones. It's a low-end iPhone, not a low end cell phone, and will need to compete against these types of phones. Since these are essentially smartphones, a low end iPhone will have to have at least the functionality of the current iPhone.
See that is where I see the world a bit differently. Apple needs a low end Cell Phone one that isn't a Smart phone in the normal sense. As to a low end smart Phone Apple isn't in to bad of a position. They can simply move the current iPhone down a notch as the more advanced models come on line.
Quote:
A regular Apple cell phone, like an iPhone version of the Moto ROKR, one which will be given away free or for <$50, will dilute the brand, and I don't think they are ready for that yet.
I think it is a mistake to believe that the manufactures of these lower end phones aren't making a profit. Apple doesn't need to go extremely low end either as they do have the value that the iPod feature adds. I believe it will be very possible for them to deliver a phone that costs $100 and be profitable through the sale itself. Sure there is the question of would they really want to do that when they are getting pretty good buck for their other Flash based players.
It all comes down to dropping component prices and competition.
Quote:
Maybe in 2H 2009, but definitely not now. iTunes.app and iTMS has to be stronger to really do that I think.
Well it is obvious that we have different hardware in mind. While I think Apple needs a low end devcie as described, what I want is really the high end device. That is an iPhone that is souped up to be a really excellent internet device. But also a device that can really exploit third party apps.
Apple makes its products to secure a decent profit. I don't see them coming out with products that don't meet that need.
True; but it all depends if Apple wants to remain a one horse circus act or try to take significant market share from the other manufactures. Some times I believe Apple likes to be a niche product manufacture but I'm not sure that is a good way to handle such a huge market as is the Cell industry. Lets face it PC sales are dwarfed by the unit sales that the Cell industry has.
If Apple want to have a significant portion of those sales, they need product to cover a wide array of customers. Some of those customers don't need or want a smart phone. They want simple and easy to use.
True; but it all depends if Apple wants to remain a one horse circus act or try to take significant market share from the other manufactures. Some times I believe Apple likes to be a niche product manufacture but I'm not sure that is a good way to handle such a huge market as is the Cell industry. Lets face it PC sales are dwarfed by the unit sales that the Cell industry has.
If Apple want to have a significant portion of those sales, they need product to cover a wide array of customers. Some of those customers don't need or want a smart phone. They want simple and easy to use.
Dave
Don't confuse marketshare with profit. The low end of the market is struggling. PCs are being sold with little to no profit on the hardware and loaded with all sorts of crap software to supplement the cutthroat costs of those antiquated machines. Apple isn't in that business and it doesn't seem like that will be if it means selling machines with old hat tech and pay-for-play software.
As for your "one horse circus" statement, Apple has iPods, the iPhone, Macs, Xserves, OS X, consumer software, professional software, a media extender, and an online media store. That sounds like a lot for just one tent, much less one ring.
Because the cell market is so large Apple's profits will sore if they are lucky to get the same marketshare they have with the Mac platform. (I was going to insert automotive example--not analogy--but I know how people feel about that despite its relevancy)
True; but it all depends if Apple wants to remain a one horse circus act or try to take significant market share from the other manufactures. Some times I believe Apple likes to be a niche product manufacture but I'm not sure that is a good way to handle such a huge market as is the Cell industry. Lets face it PC sales are dwarfed by the unit sales that the Cell industry has.
If Apple want to have a significant portion of those sales, they need product to cover a wide array of customers. Some of those customers don't need or want a smart phone. They want simple and easy to use.
Dave
Apple doesn't seem to be interested in taking marketshare away from other manufacturers.
If they were, they would have released the phone to any and sundry who wanted them, rather than sucking money monthly from the few carriers it has deals with. This also makes the monthly fees the customers pay, more expensive, as the cell providers must raise those fees in order to pay Apple its cut.
Apple, as always, is going after profit. I do think that this is to their long term detriment.
Just think of how sales might have gone if Apple instead sold the phone to all carriers, and unlocked as well, perhaps even having a CDMA version.
I don't see a cheap model as being in the cards. At some point, we will likely see $199 as a bottom price.
The Menlo is ok as I saw that video and it was shown in Bejing running windows but it is more like a better OQO as it appears to be thumb input?
Yes. It's like an OQO, a [larger] Nokia N810, and many such devices. It's really too big to be considered a handheld.
Quote:
I think the Moorestown device would have been great if they made that into a thin clamshell. Without good keyboard input Apple will be making the same mistake of the UMPC's. That is why price is so much an issue with UMPC's as they are not that fuctional; most people do not find pen input their ideal main input.
The Moorestown mockup - I'm more convinced it's a fake the more I see it btw - is fine with a soft QWERTY. It's too big to be a handheld or a pants-pocket device, but as something very very close to a handheld, it looks beautiful. Make it about 25% smaller, it'll make a very nice handheld, but then it'd be running on an ARM platform. As it is, I think it is a brilliant idea for a UMPC. Like I side before, it's not just a really small device running Windows, but it has a multi-touch UI designed for it. As long as it has the right price ($500 to $700), wireless broadband be it cellular or WiFi / WiMAX, I think a lot of people will buy it.
Apple can probably do this device today using a 600+ MHz ARM. It could fill the space between the iPhone and the MacBook, but I still have doubts on the usage model. It's still a tweener device, it'll still need a bag / case to carry around. It may fit in the front pocket of your pants or your jacket pcokets, but when I say pants pocket, it should always mean the back pants pocket. So, it has the same traps that current UMPCs do.
The reason I think this may work is because it's trading the inconvenience of a keyboard mechanism (slider, clamshell) for making it smaller while maintaining rigidity and using a big screen. It's the same iPhone multi-touch / big screen / thinness trade over thumb board & small screen / mechanism, but for the UMPC space. And they mocked it up with the right UI concepts. This could really push it to being usable.
I agree with you that a touch-type keyboard is needed for real productivity, but if so, it has to be as big as the existing MB/MBP keyboards which will result in a sub-notebook, not a UMPC. Menlow would be interesting for it though, because 8 to 10 hour battery life is a good thing.
The thing that is not clear is if this is a power rating for the chip set or just the processor. It also doesn't take into account power management, under clocking and other techniques to lower power consumption. If the total power draw can be kept under three watts it might be a very doable solution.
It's very clear that Silverthorne, the CPU, depending on voltage variant, will have TDPs in the 0.55, 1, or 2 Watt range. If you add the I/O chipset and other supporting chips, Menlow will be a 2 to 5 Watt platform. Idle and sleep states are obviously less.
Quote:
See this is where i have huge problems as I simply don't see the clam shell laptop as being the right form factor for devices this small. A tablet is the way to go. If you have to have a keyboard the N810 isn't a bad way to go at all. In fact I would have one now if it wasn't for Nokia pulling a big boner with the design of the machine. The N810's biggest short coming is that it lacks a reasonable amount of Flash storage. I trust Apple not to make this mistake. Even ASUS with the Eee Pc could have tried a little harder but at least they have a pretty good software install to start with.
When I said clamshell, the one I think would work, it means one with a full laptop keyboard. My trusty ruler tells me that this could as small as 10 x 5.5 x <1 inches.
On the storage, I agree with you. I'm not sure why flash is used or considered so much for devices these sizes. They can use 60, 80, 100, 120, 160 GB 1.8" HDDs and wouldn't pay much penalty in weight or battery life...
Quote:
Yep is people want a clue as to what the near future looks like computing wise this is one forum to attend. Or at least take note of what is presented there. This is why I have a fair amount of confidence that the technology is coming to do these sorts of devices right in 2008 or early 2009. Even the stuff that is not for public discussion has enough info available publicly to indicate that the ARM world is all so going to be very interesting.
Yeah. The ARM SoC chips to be presented are very very interesting.
Yes. It's like an OQO, a [larger] Nokia N810, and many such devices. It's really too big to be considered a handheld.
The Moorestown mockup - I'm more convinced it's a fake the more I see it btw - is fine with a soft QWERTY. It's too big to be a handheld or a pants-pocket device, but as something very very close to a handheld, it looks beautiful. Make it about 25% smaller, it'll make a very nice handheld, but then it'd be running on an ARM platform. As it is, I think it is a brilliant idea for a UMPC. Like I side before, it's not just a really small device running Windows, but it has a multi-touch UI designed for it. As long as it has the right price ($500 to $700), wireless broadband be it cellular or WiFi / WiMAX, I think a lot of people will buy it.
Apple can probably do this device today using a 600+ MHz ARM. It could fill the space between the iPhone and the MacBook, but I still have doubts on the usage model. It's still a tweener device, it'll still need a bag / case to carry around. It may fit in the front pocket of your pants or your jacket pcokets, but when I say pants pocket, it should always mean the back pants pocket. So, it has the same traps that current UMPCs do.
The reason I think this may work is because it's trading the inconvenience of a keyboard mechanism (slider, clamshell) for making it smaller while maintaining rigidity and using a big screen. It's the same iPhone multi-touch / big screen / thinness trade over thumb board & small screen / mechanism, but for the UMPC space. And they mocked it up with the right UI concepts. This could really push it to being usable.
I agree with you that a touch-type keyboard is needed for real productivity, but if so, it has to be as big as the existing MB/MBP keyboards which will result in a sub-notebook, not a UMPC. Menlow would be interesting for it though, because 8 to 10 hour battery life is a good thing.
If Apple used a keyboard like the old Psion's that would easily enable it to be jacket pocket size. The Psion was only 6.9" x 3.6" x .9". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psion_5
An even more creative device that provides almost a desktop keyboard yet is just barely jacket pocket size is the Samsung SPH P9200 only available in Korea http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9795471-1.html
From reading other postings here I believe it would be McCaslin Intel chips? that could enable a more true laptop type jacket pocket computer? Either way I think the market is ripe for Apple to capitalize and be the first to fill the jacket pocket laptop market. For business users that type of device would be a steal at $500-700. I would pay double that but right now there is nothing to buy that provides a touch type keyboard and fits into your jacket pocket.
It's very clear that Silverthorne, the CPU, depending on voltage variant, will have TDPs in the 0.55, 1, or 2 Watt range. If you add the I/O chipset and other supporting chips, Menlow will be a 2 to 5 Watt platform. Idle and sleep states are obviously less.
I suppose what will really make or break the platform is how well the platform manages power. I'm looking for a device that can be available 12 hours a day, minimal. That doesn't mean powered up and running demanding applications but intermittent use including RF networking. The ability of Menlow to deliver such performance is still a question in my mind.
Of course with battery technology improving at 8 percent a year it might not be an issue.
Quote:
When I said clamshell, the one I think would work, it means one with a full laptop keyboard. My trusty ruler tells me that this could as small as 10 x 5.5 x <1 inches.
No way in hell, way to big, that would leave a bulge in your jacket bigger than a 1911! Remember we are looking for something to carry on our person. The other problem is that clam shell or laptop emulating machines suck in the hand held on the go arena. These aren't devices for writing war and peace on, it is a different user and a different problem set then the heavy laptop user.
Quote:
On the storage, I agree with you. I'm not sure why flash is used or considered so much for devices these sizes. They can use 60, 80, 100, 120, 160 GB 1.8" HDDs and wouldn't pay much penalty in weight or battery life...
Actually I believe that Flash will be a requirement. There is the issue of performance from the small HDD and there is also an issue with Power. Sure Flash has mixed performance issues but it can be shown to be more power efficient.
Now are we going to get 160GB of flash from Apple? I doubt it. The question is how much do we need and how economical is it for Apple to reach that value. But like I've said I trust Apple not to screw up like Nokia did. 32GB would be to low in my estimation.
Quote:
Yeah. The ARM SoC chips to be presented are very very interesting.
Yep some interesting approaches. Some that stand out include dual core SoC's. What I really find interesting though is that many of the devices are slated to hit 1GHz or so.
What that means is that we will have hand held devices in the near future that are significantly faster than more that half the computers I've ever owned. Since I'm +45 that is a lot of computing hardware. Plus they will be able to do that for a long time on a recharge. Now with all of this hardware coming we just need somebody to package it up in a nice tidy enclosure with a nice OS.
The main mobile computers are laptops which generally only have 1.5 to 4 hours of battery life so any jacket pocket device with at least 3-4 hours would still sell. Of course 12 hours would be great but as long as the battery was removable lower hours of battery would not prevent people from buying them.
Clamshell designs such as the old Psion 5mx or Revo were only .90" thick and easily fit into any jacket pocket without causing any bulge. If you never owned one or used one, they had a unique expanding keyboard that when opened provided a keyboard that I was able to type about 55-65 wpm which is about 85% of my desktop speeds yet it was only 6.9" x 3.6" x .90" in size.
Yes it is great to have huge memory but as long as it has enough memory to hold all of the typical office applications and room for at least a good handful of third party softwares it would still sell as files could be stored on removable usb, cf/sd cards, etc. Remember there has never been a pocket laptop so it does not have to be as full blown as the top of the line laptops to gain a lot of sales.
If Apple just makes a larger version of their Iphone and it does not really a true computer for applications, etc. then I see it as a gimick toy that will not be as popular unless is is ultra cheap.
Comments
For the size of the screen versus the size of the device, well, we have to have some bit of reality. To fit a 5.2" diag, 16:10 aspect ratio, 4.41 x 2.76 inch screen onto a 5 x 3 inch PDA form factor, the sides will need to be 0.12 inches with a pretty sharp corner. The new screen sizes I laid out required this. For the top and bottom, I was keeping with the physical home buttom and cellular philisophy of the iPhone. These are iPhones, not iPods, so it needs cellular wireless tech (room for an earpiece), and the single home button is, well, one of Apple's signature features in the device.
Don't get me wrong I like the current Iphone but I don't see that template translating well into a larger device. The problem is length, for a pocketable device length quickly becomes more of an issue that width.
The single Home button is a fine idea but there is nothing to say that it needs to be on the front of the device. The same functionality can be had with the button on the end or Rear of the device. As for sound well there is a lot happening with transducers so I will leave that one up in the air.
My only concern with the bezel size is in the overall length of the device. As long as the HD resolution can be had in a reasonably long device we will be OK. If the iPhone ends up peaking out of my pocket all the time then it is a no go.
All-in-all, the cases are about the size of the screens, especially relative to other phones and PDAs.
I really don't have a problem with a physically larger iPhone. Frankly I've handled them a lot and find that they are almost to small. Of course I'm 6' tall with big hands so just about all cell phones are an issue. Like I said I just don't want the thing protruding out of the pocket.
I know you'd like a SD card and a full USB port (let alone a mini one), but those things limit Apple's thin thin thin design philosophy. (And Iike a 100+ GB HDD version too). I don't think they'll ship a handheld device on the order of 0.75" thick anymore.
I've seen this response to the idea of a USB port in the iPhone a number of times. I can't help to wonder if people have not imagination, it should be perfectly easy for Apple to implement a low profile USB plug design for the iPhone. USB plugs are that thick relative to the current iPhone. Sure that is case integrated design but why not?
AS to the SD / CF slot well that I will acknowledge is a bigger challenge and to be perfectly honest I'd take the flexibility of a real USB port over the FLASH port. Especially if that frees up more space for internal storage. Still for professional usage there are cases where it makes a lot of sense to have a built in FLASH port.
Yeah. Apple will need to separate functionality of a prospective iPhone lineup, and I think it will be quite simple for them to do.
The "nano" version has to be multi-touch, very similar to the current iPhone, but only smaller, and as I've written before, smaller means 3 to 3.2 inch multi-touch screens. It should just be a shrunken version of the existing iPhone. If released in 2008, it should have 8 GB. As for functionality, well, that's easy. Only EDGE, no UMTS/HSPA. No QWERTY soft keyboard due to the width of the device (1.6 inches) being too small, so T9 for text entry. No computer like functionality. 1.3 MP camera. Less applications. Lots of things can be done to eliminate cannabilization of the upper tiers.
The thing I disagree on is the nano has to be multi Touch as I think that misses the whole point in a low cost and alternative model. A Touch free nano simply offers up an easier to use interface for people who don't need the complexity of a multi Touch unit.
If released in 2008, the mid-range would have 3.5 to 3.8 inch screen, UMTS/HSPA, soft QWERTY, 3.2 MP camera, 16 GB storage, faster processor, GPS, and more applications. And the high end should have everything the mid-range should have, but more: 4.2 to 4.5 inch screen, 32 GB flash or 120 MB HDD, 2 cameras, etc.
Actually I think Apple will keep the current iPhone around for some time as the mid-range device. The will simply upgrade the FLASH storage from time to time. Though this may tweak a few, I even expect a price drop or two as higher end products are introduced.
It's going to be long wait before this happens, if it happens at all.
I don't think so. Honestly I believe Cell Phones could be as big to Apple as the Ipod is to them now. They will need many models attractive to a number of different users.
I don't understand what you are saying. 150-250 for a nano. 300-400 for mid-range and 450 to 550 for a high end.
Shave about $75 to $100 from each of those prices.
Those are the prices points I think Apple should target, not what I as a consumer want. I'll leave it to other companies to drive the cost of the device down, but like the iPods, these are the price point for a pocketable cellular device.
Apple needs to target phones that are competitive with the range of Cell phones available now from the competition, that means at least one device in the sub $100 dollar range.
Dave
The delusions in these threads are frightening. I'm not even going to bother.
This IS a rumor site...
Some of it can be a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it sure makes for interesting speculation! I like seeing how others ideas differ from mine...how I see (and write about) things might be totally opposite to you, doesn't make either of us wrong. No need to call people delusional though!
Z
This IS a rumor site...
Some of it can be a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it sure makes for interesting speculation! I like seeing how others ideas differ from mine...how I see (and write about) things might be totally opposite to you, doesn't make either of us wrong. No need to call people delusional though!
Z
It depends on how serious you are. Many people throw out ideas just for the fun of it, and others are dead serious.
If it's for fun, that's ok. But when it gets very serious, the really far out ideas do become delusional.
This IS a rumor site...
Exactly!!!
BUT......... Any thing that Apple produces in the coming year will be based on chips and chipsets now being finalized by other manufactures. If one keeps up on what is happening in that world you will see that it is very possible to stuff a lot of functionality into coming hand held devices. Frankly it kinda boggles the mind.
Now that doesn't mean that Apple will produce tablets of that sort just that the possibilities in the nest year or two are really startling. Besides Apple there have been some interesting rumors as to what Nokia is up to with its Tablets. The rumors are that Nokia will have Tablets with WiMax soon and other improvements.
Some of it can be a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it sure makes for interesting speculation! I like seeing how others ideas differ from mine...how I see (and write about) things might be totally opposite to you, doesn't make either of us wrong. No need to call people delusional though!
Pie in the sky? I'm not to sure about that. In the I86 realm both Intel and Via are targeting extremely low power SOC. It doesn't look like a single chip implementation is going to happen in 2008 for Intel but an extremely low power chip set is. IN the real of the ARM products lots is happening there. This include dual core systems on chips due to come on line in 2008.
Combine this with Apples development of the TOUCH interface technology and a lot of interesting things can be imagined. Another way to look at this is to look at an ARCHOS media player and imagine what it could do with a real OS. Take something like the 605 and add a little Apple electronics and packaging engineering to the box and a Touch based OS. The throw in a cellular connection and a processor that might be 3 to 4 times faster.
Z
So yeah we are dreaming but we have dreams base on what could happen if Apple wanted to go in the right direction.
Dave
13.1 A Sub-1W to 2W Low-Power IA Processor for Mobile Internet Devices and
Ultra-Mobile PCs in 45nm High-К Metal-Gate CMOS
A 47M transistor, 25mm2, sub-2W IA processor designed for mobile internet devices is
presented. It features a 2-issue, in-order pipeline with 32KB iL1 and 24KB dL1 caches,
integer and floating point execution units, x86 front end, a 512KB L2 cache and a
533MT/s front-side bus. The design is manufactured in 9M 45nm High-К metal-gate
CMOS and housed in a 441-ball μFCBGA package.
This is like a Pentium I (the 586) reborn. Or the Moto PPC 750 / 7400 reborn. There will be multiple variants at "regular" voltage, "low" voltage, and "ultra low" voltage that'll span 2 Watts to 0.55 Watts. Rumored clock rates from 1 to 2 GHz (and I'm guessing a 7 to 8 stage execution pipeline). Also rumored to have 2-way SMT, Hyperthreading in Intel vernacular. The I/O chipset will likely be on the order of 1 to 2 Watts themselves. This is definitely not for pocketable - pants pockets, not sportscoat - devices.
I'm not really excited about this actually, unless the package comes in the form of a clamshell full laptop keyboard device, and $500 cheap. With the Nokia Internet Table (N800/N810) being one of the top holiday season sellers on Amazon, there may be a market for a tweener device, but it's not me. If you have to put it in a bag to carry around, you mind as well carry a ultra-mobile laptop.
There's some interesting videos floating around however:
Menlow slider from IDF Spring
BenQ Menlow device from IDF
Computex UMPC music video from jkkmobile
Much much more interesting is the Moorestown sneek peak. I have to imagine Intel learned a little something about product design from IDF Spring 2007 to IDF Fall 2007, as the Moorestown device Intel shows is an iPhone-class RDF device. Just imagine if Jobs was doing the demo. It would be classic. I am imagining that the device is fake though. It's not functional and all it was was an LCD, some pictures, and an on/off button. Very cool nonetheless with good use of UI design. They'll need to accept reality though and have room for earpieces, speakers, etc.
Moorestown device at IDF Fall 2007
Also interesting in the ISSCC abstract list was the 2 billion transistor 4-core Itanium with 30 MB of on-die cache. That'll be burning up some coal to use.
As can be found on other websites, Intel has a presentation at the ISSCC about Silverthorne. Here's the abstract:
13.1 A Sub-1W to 2W Low-Power IA Processor for Mobile Internet Devices and
Ultra-Mobile PCs in 45nm High-К Metal-Gate CMOS
A 47M transistor, 25mm2, sub-2W IA processor designed for mobile internet devices is
presented. It features a 2-issue, in-order pipeline with 32KB iL1 and 24KB dL1 caches,
integer and floating point execution units, x86 front end, a 512KB L2 cache and a
533MT/s front-side bus. The design is manufactured in 9M 45nm High-К metal-gate
CMOS and housed in a 441-ball μFCBGA package.
This is like a Pentium I (the 586) reborn. Or the Moto PPC 750 / 7400 reborn. There will be multiple variants at "regular" voltage, "low" voltage, and "ultra low" voltage that'll span 2 Watts to 0.55 Watts. Rumored clock rates from 1 to 2 GHz (and I'm guessing a 7 to 8 stage execution pipeline). Also rumored to have 2-way SMT, Hyperthreading in Intel vernacular. The I/O chipset will likely be on the order of 1 to 2 Watts themselves. This is definitely not for pocketable - pants pockets, not sportscoat - devices.
I'm not really excited about this actually, unless the package comes in the form of a clamshell full laptop keyboard device, and $500 cheap. With the Nokia Internet Table (N800/N810) being one of the top holiday season sellers on Amazon, there may be a market for a tweener device, but it's not me. If you have to put it in a bag to carry around, you mind as well carry a ultra-mobile laptop.
There's some interesting videos floating around however:
Menlow slider from IDF Spring
BenQ Menlow device from IDF
Computex UMPC music video from jkkmobile
Much much more interesting is the Moorestown sneek peak. I have to imagine Intel learned a little something about product design from IDF Spring 2007 to IDF Fall 2007, as the Moorestown device Intel shows is an iPhone-class RDF device. Just imagine if Jobs was doing the demo. It would be classic. I am imagining that the device is fake though. It's not functional and all it was was an LCD, some pictures, and an on/off button. Very cool nonetheless with good use of UI design. They'll need to accept reality though and have room for earpieces, speakers, etc.
Moorestown device at IDF Fall 2007
Also interesting in the ISSCC abstract list was the 2 billion transistor 4-core Itanium with 30 MB of on-die cache. That'll be burning up some coal to use.
The Menlo is ok as I saw that video and it was shown in Bejing running windows but it is more like a better OQO as it appears to be thumb input? The Moorestown is cool but the keyboard input again thumb.
I agree the type of market that needs to be filled in a pocket laptop running mainstream software; not a phone, not a pda. Thus for business users a touch type keboard is needed. I think the Moorestown device would have been great if they made that into a thin clamshell. Without good keyboard input Apple will be making the same mistake of the UMPC's. That is why price is so much an issue with UMPC's as they are not that fuctional; most people do not find pen input their ideal main input. That is whay only 350K UMPC have sold this year. The reality is touch typing may sound old school but people find it easier and for real computing use which is what needs to be done with a pocket laptop a touch or pen input will never be mainstream right now no matter whom builds it.
I think the Moorestown device would only be slightly thicker if it was clamshell designed.
Don't get me wrong I like the current Iphone but I don't see that template translating well into a larger device. The problem is length, for a pocketable device length quickly becomes more of an issue that width.
The single Home button is a fine idea but there is nothing to say that it needs to be on the front of the device. The same functionality can be had with the button on the end or Rear of the device. As for sound well there is a lot happening with transducers so I will leave that one up in the air.
My only concern with the bezel size is in the overall length of the device. As long as the HD resolution can be had in a reasonably long device we will be OK. If the iPhone ends up peaking out of my pocket all the time then it is a no go.
I really don't have a problem with a physically larger iPhone. Frankly I've handled them a lot and find that they are almost to small. Of course I'm 6' tall with big hands so just about all cell phones are an issue. Like I said I just don't want the thing protruding out of the pocket.
I really think a 3 x 5 inch device is the limit for a mass-market handheld device. It's almost too big - it is too big - but I'm leaving room for the "pro" device. I'm thinking that these are cell phone devices, and anything more than 2.6 or 2.8 inches is too wide for comfortable use next to your ear. The idea of it being a cell phone also forces some kind of visual orientation cues to be on there so we can tell which end is up on the device as well. It's very easy on the iPhone to tell which end is the ear piece and which end is the microphone.
You can do this with a good bezel design I suppose, but I don't think it'll be as distinguishing.
I've seen this response to the idea of a USB port in the iPhone a number of times. I can't help to wonder if people have not imagination, it should be perfectly easy for Apple to implement a low profile USB plug design for the iPhone. USB plugs are that thick relative to the current iPhone. Sure that is case integrated design but why not?
I don't have problem with.
The thing I disagree on is the nano has to be multi Touch as I think that misses the whole point in a low cost and alternative model. A Touch free nano simply offers up an easier to use interface for people who don't need the complexity of a multi Touch unit.
...
Apple needs to target phones that are competitive with the range of Cell phones available now from the competition, that means at least one device in the sub $100 dollar range.
I don't think what I'm describing is low cost. In a range of 150 to 250 dollars, one can get (from ATT) Samsung Blackjacks, Moto Q's, Palm Treos, LG Shines, RIM Blackberrys, and Sony Walkman phones. It's a low-end iPhone, not a low end cell phone, and will need to compete against these types of phones. Since these are essentially smartphones, a low end iPhone will have to have at least the functionality of the current iPhone.
A regular Apple cell phone, like an iPhone version of the Moto ROKR, one which will be given away free or for <$50, will dilute the brand, and I don't think they are ready for that yet. Maybe in 2H 2009, but definitely not now. iTunes.app and iTMS has to be stronger to really do that I think.
[i]13.1 A Sub-1W to 2W Low-Power IA Processor for Mobile Internet Devices and
Ultra-Mobile PCs in 45nm High-К Metal-Gate CMOS
The thing that is not clear is if this is a power rating for the chip set or just the processor. It also doesn't take into account power management, under clocking and other techniques to lower power consumption. If the total power draw can be kept under three watts it might be a very doable solution.
This is like a Pentium I (the 586) reborn. Or the Moto PPC 750 / 7400 reborn. ....... Also rumored to have 2-way SMT, Hyperthreading in Intel vernacular.
Actually this sounds a lot like the PPC section in PS3's chip. Except of the power usage, which in the CELL is hard to nail down. In any event this should be more than enough for the devices I imagine.
I'm not really excited about this actually, unless the package comes in the form of a clamshell full laptop keyboard device, and $500 cheap. With the Nokia Internet Table (N800/N810) being one of the top holiday season sellers on Amazon, there may be a market for a tweener device, but it's not me. If you have to put it in a bag to carry around, you mind as well carry a ultra-mobile laptop.
See this is where i have huge problems as I simply don't see the clam shell laptop as being the right form factor for devices this small. A tablet is the way to go. If you have to have a keyboard the N810 isn't a bad way to go at all. In fact I would have one now if it wasn't for Nokia pulling a big boner with the design of the machine. The N810's biggest short coming is that it lacks a reasonable amount of Flash storage. I trust Apple not to make this mistake. Even ASUS with the Eee Pc could have tried a little harder but at least they have a pretty good software install to start with.
Also interesting in the ISSCC abstract list was the 2 billion transistor 4-core Itanium with 30 MB of on-die cache. That'll be burning up some coal to use.
Yep is people want a clue as to what the near future looks like computing wise this is one forum to attend. Or at least take note of what is presented there. This is why I have a fair amount of confidence that the technology is coming to do these sorts of devices right in 2008 or early 2009. Even the stuff that is not for public discussion has enough info available publicly to indicate that the ARM world is all so going to be very interesting.
The trade offs are interesting such as what makes more sense for a Maxi iPhone, an i86 processors as discussed or a DUAL core ARM with either running at 1GHz? Same thing for a larger tablet, though as you get up in size the scales balance heavily toward i86 even if it isn't the best over all performer.
***Note with hand held devices performance doesn't always mean how fast it runs code.
Dave
I really think a 3 x 5 inch device is the limit for a mass-market handheld device. It's almost too big - it is too big - but I'm leaving room for the "pro" device. I'm thinking that these are cell phone devices, and anything more than 2.6 or 2.8 inches is too wide for comfortable use next to your ear.
Well I guess that depends on the person. Most Cell phones are way to small for me to handle comfortably. But that is my hand I'm not sure what size has to do with holding it next to your head.
Besides about 99% of the people I see using a smart phone have some sort of head set. OK maybe not 99 but you get the idea.
The idea of it being a cell phone also forces some kind of visual orientation cues to be on there so we can tell which end is up on the device as well. It's very easy on the iPhone to tell which end is the ear piece and which end is the microphone.
See now you have hit on something that I didn't even think about. Great feature of these forums.
You can do this with a good bezel design I suppose, but I don't think it'll be as distinguishing.
I'm sure it can be worked out.
I don't have problem with.
If any body could get it right it would be Apple. I hope they realize there is a demand for such features. The way I figure it the USB male connector needs about 5mm of opening, something that is not totally impossible in a hand held.
If this supposed Macbook thin is going to come out at 0.75" thick, that'll probably leave about 0.5/0.6 inches of thickness to work with. It'll barely fit a USB port. A Firewire port, probably. An Ethernet port, probably not (unless that collapsable port patent is real!). On an iPhone that is 0.45" thick, a USB port is probably a non-starter. An iPod-port to USB dongle could do the trick though. Apple will just need to add USB host functionality, something that currently seems pretty remote.
YOU know I was just over at the CompUSA store closing looking at laptops and one of SONY's little guys and I have to say that it might be possible to go to thin. The device was way to flexible for my liking.
Note also that they where only allowing a 5% discount on iPods and laptops. Considering that was 5% off an already over priced device then you can understand my walking out of the store empty handed.
I don't think what I'm describing is low cost. In a range of 150 to 250 dollars, one can get (from ATT) Samsung Blackjacks, Moto Q's, Palm Treos, LG Shines, RIM Blackberrys, and Sony Walkman phones. It's a low-end iPhone, not a low end cell phone, and will need to compete against these types of phones. Since these are essentially smartphones, a low end iPhone will have to have at least the functionality of the current iPhone.
See that is where I see the world a bit differently. Apple needs a low end Cell Phone one that isn't a Smart phone in the normal sense. As to a low end smart Phone Apple isn't in to bad of a position. They can simply move the current iPhone down a notch as the more advanced models come on line.
A regular Apple cell phone, like an iPhone version of the Moto ROKR, one which will be given away free or for <$50, will dilute the brand, and I don't think they are ready for that yet.
I think it is a mistake to believe that the manufactures of these lower end phones aren't making a profit. Apple doesn't need to go extremely low end either as they do have the value that the iPod feature adds. I believe it will be very possible for them to deliver a phone that costs $100 and be profitable through the sale itself. Sure there is the question of would they really want to do that when they are getting pretty good buck for their other Flash based players.
It all comes down to dropping component prices and competition.
Maybe in 2H 2009, but definitely not now. iTunes.app and iTMS has to be stronger to really do that I think.
Well it is obvious that we have different hardware in mind. While I think Apple needs a low end devcie as described, what I want is really the high end device. That is an iPhone that is souped up to be a really excellent internet device. But also a device that can really exploit third party apps.
Dave
Apple makes its products to secure a decent profit. I don't see them coming out with products that don't meet that need.
True; but it all depends if Apple wants to remain a one horse circus act or try to take significant market share from the other manufactures. Some times I believe Apple likes to be a niche product manufacture but I'm not sure that is a good way to handle such a huge market as is the Cell industry. Lets face it PC sales are dwarfed by the unit sales that the Cell industry has.
If Apple want to have a significant portion of those sales, they need product to cover a wide array of customers. Some of those customers don't need or want a smart phone. They want simple and easy to use.
Dave
True; but it all depends if Apple wants to remain a one horse circus act or try to take significant market share from the other manufactures. Some times I believe Apple likes to be a niche product manufacture but I'm not sure that is a good way to handle such a huge market as is the Cell industry. Lets face it PC sales are dwarfed by the unit sales that the Cell industry has.
If Apple want to have a significant portion of those sales, they need product to cover a wide array of customers. Some of those customers don't need or want a smart phone. They want simple and easy to use.
Dave
Don't confuse marketshare with profit. The low end of the market is struggling. PCs are being sold with little to no profit on the hardware and loaded with all sorts of crap software to supplement the cutthroat costs of those antiquated machines. Apple isn't in that business and it doesn't seem like that will be if it means selling machines with old hat tech and pay-for-play software.
As for your "one horse circus" statement, Apple has iPods, the iPhone, Macs, Xserves, OS X, consumer software, professional software, a media extender, and an online media store. That sounds like a lot for just one tent, much less one ring.
Because the cell market is so large Apple's profits will sore if they are lucky to get the same marketshare they have with the Mac platform. (I was going to insert automotive example--not analogy--but I know how people feel about that despite its relevancy)
True; but it all depends if Apple wants to remain a one horse circus act or try to take significant market share from the other manufactures. Some times I believe Apple likes to be a niche product manufacture but I'm not sure that is a good way to handle such a huge market as is the Cell industry. Lets face it PC sales are dwarfed by the unit sales that the Cell industry has.
If Apple want to have a significant portion of those sales, they need product to cover a wide array of customers. Some of those customers don't need or want a smart phone. They want simple and easy to use.
Dave
Apple doesn't seem to be interested in taking marketshare away from other manufacturers.
If they were, they would have released the phone to any and sundry who wanted them, rather than sucking money monthly from the few carriers it has deals with. This also makes the monthly fees the customers pay, more expensive, as the cell providers must raise those fees in order to pay Apple its cut.
Apple, as always, is going after profit. I do think that this is to their long term detriment.
Just think of how sales might have gone if Apple instead sold the phone to all carriers, and unlocked as well, perhaps even having a CDMA version.
I don't see a cheap model as being in the cards. At some point, we will likely see $199 as a bottom price.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/26/app...partner=alerts
The Menlo is ok as I saw that video and it was shown in Bejing running windows but it is more like a better OQO as it appears to be thumb input?
Yes. It's like an OQO, a [larger] Nokia N810, and many such devices. It's really too big to be considered a handheld.
I think the Moorestown device would have been great if they made that into a thin clamshell. Without good keyboard input Apple will be making the same mistake of the UMPC's. That is why price is so much an issue with UMPC's as they are not that fuctional; most people do not find pen input their ideal main input.
The Moorestown mockup - I'm more convinced it's a fake the more I see it btw - is fine with a soft QWERTY. It's too big to be a handheld or a pants-pocket device, but as something very very close to a handheld, it looks beautiful. Make it about 25% smaller, it'll make a very nice handheld, but then it'd be running on an ARM platform. As it is, I think it is a brilliant idea for a UMPC. Like I side before, it's not just a really small device running Windows, but it has a multi-touch UI designed for it. As long as it has the right price ($500 to $700), wireless broadband be it cellular or WiFi / WiMAX, I think a lot of people will buy it.
Apple can probably do this device today using a 600+ MHz ARM. It could fill the space between the iPhone and the MacBook, but I still have doubts on the usage model. It's still a tweener device, it'll still need a bag / case to carry around. It may fit in the front pocket of your pants or your jacket pcokets, but when I say pants pocket, it should always mean the back pants pocket.
The reason I think this may work is because it's trading the inconvenience of a keyboard mechanism (slider, clamshell) for making it smaller while maintaining rigidity and using a big screen. It's the same iPhone multi-touch / big screen / thinness trade over thumb board & small screen / mechanism, but for the UMPC space. And they mocked it up with the right UI concepts. This could really push it to being usable.
I agree with you that a touch-type keyboard is needed for real productivity, but if so, it has to be as big as the existing MB/MBP keyboards which will result in a sub-notebook, not a UMPC. Menlow would be interesting for it though, because 8 to 10 hour battery life is a good thing.
The thing that is not clear is if this is a power rating for the chip set or just the processor. It also doesn't take into account power management, under clocking and other techniques to lower power consumption. If the total power draw can be kept under three watts it might be a very doable solution.
It's very clear that Silverthorne, the CPU, depending on voltage variant, will have TDPs in the 0.55, 1, or 2 Watt range. If you add the I/O chipset and other supporting chips, Menlow will be a 2 to 5 Watt platform. Idle and sleep states are obviously less.
See this is where i have huge problems as I simply don't see the clam shell laptop as being the right form factor for devices this small. A tablet is the way to go. If you have to have a keyboard the N810 isn't a bad way to go at all. In fact I would have one now if it wasn't for Nokia pulling a big boner with the design of the machine. The N810's biggest short coming is that it lacks a reasonable amount of Flash storage. I trust Apple not to make this mistake. Even ASUS with the Eee Pc could have tried a little harder but at least they have a pretty good software install to start with.
When I said clamshell, the one I think would work, it means one with a full laptop keyboard. My trusty ruler tells me that this could as small as 10 x 5.5 x <1 inches.
On the storage, I agree with you. I'm not sure why flash is used or considered so much for devices these sizes. They can use 60, 80, 100, 120, 160 GB 1.8" HDDs and wouldn't pay much penalty in weight or battery life...
Yep is people want a clue as to what the near future looks like computing wise this is one forum to attend. Or at least take note of what is presented there. This is why I have a fair amount of confidence that the technology is coming to do these sorts of devices right in 2008 or early 2009. Even the stuff that is not for public discussion has enough info available publicly to indicate that the ARM world is all so going to be very interesting.
Yeah. The ARM SoC chips to be presented are very very interesting.
Yes. It's like an OQO, a [larger] Nokia N810, and many such devices. It's really too big to be considered a handheld.
The Moorestown mockup - I'm more convinced it's a fake the more I see it btw - is fine with a soft QWERTY. It's too big to be a handheld or a pants-pocket device, but as something very very close to a handheld, it looks beautiful. Make it about 25% smaller, it'll make a very nice handheld, but then it'd be running on an ARM platform. As it is, I think it is a brilliant idea for a UMPC. Like I side before, it's not just a really small device running Windows, but it has a multi-touch UI designed for it. As long as it has the right price ($500 to $700), wireless broadband be it cellular or WiFi / WiMAX, I think a lot of people will buy it.
Apple can probably do this device today using a 600+ MHz ARM. It could fill the space between the iPhone and the MacBook, but I still have doubts on the usage model. It's still a tweener device, it'll still need a bag / case to carry around. It may fit in the front pocket of your pants or your jacket pcokets, but when I say pants pocket, it should always mean the back pants pocket.
The reason I think this may work is because it's trading the inconvenience of a keyboard mechanism (slider, clamshell) for making it smaller while maintaining rigidity and using a big screen. It's the same iPhone multi-touch / big screen / thinness trade over thumb board & small screen / mechanism, but for the UMPC space. And they mocked it up with the right UI concepts. This could really push it to being usable.
I agree with you that a touch-type keyboard is needed for real productivity, but if so, it has to be as big as the existing MB/MBP keyboards which will result in a sub-notebook, not a UMPC. Menlow would be interesting for it though, because 8 to 10 hour battery life is a good thing.
If Apple used a keyboard like the old Psion's that would easily enable it to be jacket pocket size. The Psion was only 6.9" x 3.6" x .9". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psion_5
An even more creative device that provides almost a desktop keyboard yet is just barely jacket pocket size is the Samsung SPH P9200 only available in Korea http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9795471-1.html
From reading other postings here I believe it would be McCaslin Intel chips? that could enable a more true laptop type jacket pocket computer? Either way I think the market is ripe for Apple to capitalize and be the first to fill the jacket pocket laptop market. For business users that type of device would be a steal at $500-700. I would pay double that but right now there is nothing to buy that provides a touch type keyboard and fits into your jacket pocket.
It's very clear that Silverthorne, the CPU, depending on voltage variant, will have TDPs in the 0.55, 1, or 2 Watt range. If you add the I/O chipset and other supporting chips, Menlow will be a 2 to 5 Watt platform. Idle and sleep states are obviously less.
I suppose what will really make or break the platform is how well the platform manages power. I'm looking for a device that can be available 12 hours a day, minimal. That doesn't mean powered up and running demanding applications but intermittent use including RF networking. The ability of Menlow to deliver such performance is still a question in my mind.
Of course with battery technology improving at 8 percent a year it might not be an issue.
When I said clamshell, the one I think would work, it means one with a full laptop keyboard. My trusty ruler tells me that this could as small as 10 x 5.5 x <1 inches.
No way in hell, way to big, that would leave a bulge in your jacket bigger than a 1911! Remember we are looking for something to carry on our person. The other problem is that clam shell or laptop emulating machines suck in the hand held on the go arena. These aren't devices for writing war and peace on, it is a different user and a different problem set then the heavy laptop user.
On the storage, I agree with you. I'm not sure why flash is used or considered so much for devices these sizes. They can use 60, 80, 100, 120, 160 GB 1.8" HDDs and wouldn't pay much penalty in weight or battery life...
Actually I believe that Flash will be a requirement. There is the issue of performance from the small HDD and there is also an issue with Power. Sure Flash has mixed performance issues but it can be shown to be more power efficient.
Now are we going to get 160GB of flash from Apple? I doubt it. The question is how much do we need and how economical is it for Apple to reach that value. But like I've said I trust Apple not to screw up like Nokia did. 32GB would be to low in my estimation.
Yeah. The ARM SoC chips to be presented are very very interesting.
Yep some interesting approaches. Some that stand out include dual core SoC's. What I really find interesting though is that many of the devices are slated to hit 1GHz or so.
What that means is that we will have hand held devices in the near future that are significantly faster than more that half the computers I've ever owned. Since I'm +45 that is a lot of computing hardware. Plus they will be able to do that for a long time on a recharge. Now with all of this hardware coming we just need somebody to package it up in a nice tidy enclosure with a nice OS.
Dave
Clamshell designs such as the old Psion 5mx or Revo were only .90" thick and easily fit into any jacket pocket without causing any bulge. If you never owned one or used one, they had a unique expanding keyboard that when opened provided a keyboard that I was able to type about 55-65 wpm which is about 85% of my desktop speeds yet it was only 6.9" x 3.6" x .90" in size.
Yes it is great to have huge memory but as long as it has enough memory to hold all of the typical office applications and room for at least a good handful of third party softwares it would still sell as files could be stored on removable usb, cf/sd cards, etc. Remember there has never been a pocket laptop so it does not have to be as full blown as the top of the line laptops to gain a lot of sales.
If Apple just makes a larger version of their Iphone and it does not really a true computer for applications, etc. then I see it as a gimick toy that will not be as popular unless is is ultra cheap.