Sure, it would be more functional at a larger size, but obviously going larger means less portability.
Yes, but if you take Apple's MacBook, i.e. currently their smallest screened Mac. That's 27.5 mm thick & 325 mm x 227 mm in width and depth. It also weighs 5.0 pounds (2.27 kg).
So for this example let's assume Apple makes it 11", the size I would like.
At 14 mm thick (or thin as Apple likes to say) and about 260 mm wide x 180 mm deep a Mac touch would be "a lot" more portable than what Apple's currently offering. It would be even smaller than most other ultra-portables. And it will likely be under the so-called crucial 2 pound mark.
Not to mention truly "ultra-portable", useful and scha-weet!
Well I'd say the 64GB version would cost about that $1,199. The 128GB version could be double that price. Though pricing would rapidly coming down over the following three years.
Right now, a 64 GB SSD sells for over $1,000, and a 128 Gb sells for $3,000.
Get some pricing before coming up with your own.
Even if Apple could get the 64 GB model for $500, they would still have to charge at least $750 for it as part of the machine price, and that's being very nice.
And when we see the teardowns of Apple's products, we notice that the price of the parts is never more than 50% of the selling price, which is as it should be.
Also. an 11" multitouch screen would cost about $400 by itself. And then you have the processor and ancillary chips, the battery, the mobo itself, the Bluetooth and Wifi, and, of course, that case.
For this machine to sell for $1200, all of that together would have to cost Apple less than $600. Impossible.
Look at the iTouch. It costs $399, with that very small screen, much weaker processors, 16 GB Flash, much smaller battery, case, and everything else.
And this is all supposed to be .5 inch thick? How much run time do you expect, one hour?
Point taken, I just think as it'll be a Mac I know how a bigger screen does miracles for productivity. Screen size matters.
so why do you want a smaller screen that a mac touch will provi... oh yeah thats right your obsessed .. never mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I personally wouldn't buy it if it has an 8" screen
I'd settle for 10", but any smaller and the Mac touch as I see it won't be for me.
In a perfect (productivity) world I'd like to have my 24" iMac (which I have), my 3.5 iPhone (which I have), and a 10 or 11" Mac touch to do "some" work on the move.
IF Apple release anything remotely like a Mac slate I would almost wager good money that you WILL NOT buy it.
You have built it up in your mind so far that if it does not conform to your every whim and desire, you won't buy it.
As has been pointed out to you the parts alone to build the item YOU want to see would far exceed any "reasonable" sticker price.
You won't be getting it, thats the reality.
--
after thought.. what will the iPhone SDK bring to the table in terms of taking your work with you? text manipulation improvements? it aint for picture manipulation, mind you neither is an 8-10" screen well not for serious work anyway.
Right now, a 64 GB SSD sells for over $1,000, and a 128 Gb sells for $3,000.
Get some pricing before coming up with your own.
Even if Apple could get the 64 GB model for $500, they would still have to charge at least $750 for it as part of the machine price, and that's being very nice.
And when we see the teardowns of Apple's products, we notice that the price of the parts is never more than 50% of the selling price, which is as it should be.
Also. an 11" multitouch screen would cost about $400 by itself. And then you have the processor and ancillary chips, the battery, the mobo itself, the Bluetooth and Wifi, and, of course, that case.
For this machine to sell for $1200, all of that together would have to cost Apple less than $600. Impossible.
Look at the iTouch. It costs $399, with that very small screen, much weaker processors, 16 GB Flash, much smaller battery, case, and everything else.
And this is all supposed to be .5 inch thick? How much run time do you expect, one hour?
So now it's 12.7mm? hmm, this device just keeps on getting thinner. And what's this hour business? Good one.
You mention the cost of 64GB SSD's at $1000. I take it you never bought 500,000 of them before yeah? Apple may be prepared to even buy 1,000,000 of them if they truly believe in this device as much as I think they do.
so why do you want a smaller screen that a mac touch will provi... oh yeah thats right your obsessed .. never mind.
Wow, you're a fool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe
IF Apple release anything remotely like a Mac slate I would almost wager good money that you WILL NOT buy it.
You have built it up in your mind so far that if it does not conform to your every whim and desire, you won't buy it.
As has been pointed out to you the parts alone to build the item YOU want to see would far exceed any "reasonable" sticker price.
You won't be getting it, thats the reality.
--
after thought.. what will the iPhone SDK bring to the table in terms of taking your work with you? text manipulation improvements? it aint for picture manipulation, mind you neither is an 8-10" screen well not for serious work anyway.
All balls. I'm buying one, they're releasing one, it's that simple.
I'd want it to be 10" or 11", that's the perfect size IMO.
Really I don't believe in a perfect size. Laptop, tablet or a roll of toilet paper, everybody has his own needs.
With respect to Tablets though I don't see any reason why Apple couldn't hit the market with several devices right off the bat. One size to replace the Newton or slightly larger and a 10" device. The reality is that I won't be walking around with a 10 inch device other than the one I was born with. A Newton sized device, with a modern rendition would rock though.
All of this has to be carefully crafted to work well with Apples move into movies. Apple TV's of the future could very much be digital TV's/tablet computers/cell phones & etc. In a way this is saying that a good tablet design would be a convergence device. Ideally MWSF will be all about convergence.
Really I don't believe in a perfect size. Laptop, tablet or a roll of toilet paper, everybody has his own needs.
With respect to Tablets though I don't see any reason why Apple couldn't hit the market with several devices right off the bat. One size to replace the Newton or slightly larger and a 10" device. The reality is that I won't be walking around with a 10 inch device other than the one I was born with. A Newton sized device, with a modern rendition would rock though.
All of this has to be carefully crafted to work well with Apples move into movies. Apple TV's of the future could very much be digital TV's/tablet computers/cell phones & etc. In a way this is saying that a good tablet design would be a convergence device. Ideally MWSF will be all about convergence.
dave
I'd love to see the tablet at this Macworld, but I'd say it would be too soon. Best bet Macworld '09, though it could "possibly" be August or September be earlier. I'd rather see it done right than done early though.
Right now, a 64 GB SSD sells for over $1,000, and a 128 Gb sells for $3,000.
8Gb chips/modules go for around $25 in small quantities. So around $200 dollars for the storage plus the controller chip. Given that Apple will likely use more advanced technology than the 8GB modules the costs will be more controlled. At least board real estate can be better managed with higher density device.
With a larger tablet though Apple has the option to spread things out a bit.
Quote:
Even if Apple could get the 64 GB model for $500, they would still have to charge at least $750 for it as part of the machine price, and that's being very nice.
It is not unreasonable to expect Apple to be able to supply 64 GB at around $300 dollars even with a 100% mark up.
Quote:
And when we see the teardowns of Apple's products, we notice that the price of the parts is never more than 50% of the selling price, which is as it should be.
The only problem I have with the tear downs is how they arrive at the prices of the components, especially the ones custom to Apple. In any event the prices on Apples current technology should indicate to you that a large flash array is not impossible and can be cost effective.
Quote:
Also. an 11" multitouch screen would cost about $400 by itself. And then you have the processor and ancillary chips, the battery, the mobo itself, the Bluetooth and Wifi, and, of course, that case.
Where do you get that wild idea about $400 for a display? We aren't talking retail here and we aren't talking about low volume products like industrial or commercial touch screens.
Quote:
For this machine to sell for $1200, all of that together would have to cost Apple less than $600. Impossible.
Well if you where ot use reasonable numbers your conclusion would be different.
Quote:
Look at the iTouch. It costs $399, with that very small screen, much weaker processors, 16 GB Flash, much smaller battery, case, and everything else.
And what do those parts cost? If Apple is lucky they may be laying out $125 for total cost of parts. I'd be surprised if they are paying more than $30 for the flash in the unit and probably less.
Quote:
And this is all supposed to be .5 inch thick? How much run time do you expect, one hour?
New Intel processor set up to run at 1.5 watts total chip set power plus the support electronics and memory so we max out at about 5 watts. Likely much more when RF is being used. Then you have to realize that the battery technologies that Apple has been using can be sized to fit any reasonable rectangle. Since you have a much larger screen you can have a dramatically larger battery. Feed a modestly higher power demand electronics board with and increase the battery by 4 or 5 five times capacity and you are golden.
Sivlerthorne's CPU element is rated at anywhere form 0.55 watts up to 3. Add in all the power of he support chips and you can still be manageable on i86. Go to SoC technology from ARM and power get even lower. Apple will want i86 of course and Silverthorne will give then some very exciting capabilities. It won't be ideal, as even 10 watts total system power would be a lot for a tablet, mostly from the heat management standpoint. This won't be normal run time power tough as any such device would allocate processing resources on demand. Personally I would think that Apple would set maximum permitable system power at 5 watts for the design. In any event battery lifetimes won't be an issue. It is really just a matter of matching the amp hours to the desired run time based on max power draw.
So now it's 12.7mm? hmm, this device just keeps on getting thinner. And what's this hour business? Good one.
Ok, I was thinking of Wizaed69's call for it being no thicker than the iPhone/iTouch. You're calling for 14mm, but that's not far off from .5". It's .55" That's so closre to .5", I just rounded off. I suppose I could have rounded to .6".
An hour of battery life. What size battery do you think you can fit into this very thin device? Large, but very thin batteries don't deliver the amp/hours that the same volume, but thicker, batteries do. It's a matter of heat build-up. For any kind of lithium battery, this is of the utmost importance.
Considering that current, far smaller UMPC's get 2 hours of actual battery life more often than not, one of the big reasons they haven't caught on, I don't see this one doing well in this area. But, perhaps it could also manage two hours.
Quote:
You mention the cost of 64GB SSD's at $1000. I take it you never bought 500,000 of them before yeah? Apple may be prepared to even buy 1,000,000 of them if they truly believe in this device as much as I think they do.
Dell offers an upgrade on its ultralight from the standard, much larger HDD, to a 64 GB SSD for about $1,000. Adding the price of the HDD it's replacing, since this charge is in addition to the standard price, and it's been estimated the drive would sell alone, retail, for at least $1,070.
Apple will get no better pricing than Dell does. even if they did, it wouldn't be much better. My estimate for Apple's price for the drive was $500. I think that's reasonable. Don't forget that the Sandisk 32 GB drive sells retail for about $600 (last I looked).
These prices will surely come down, as prices for HDD's have, but this is what they are now. So, if you're expecting to see this portable now, this is what Apple, and by extension?we, at retail, will pay.
8Gb chips/modules go for around $25 in small quantities. So around $200 dollars for the storage plus the controller chip. Given that Apple will likely use more advanced technology than the 8GB modules the costs will be more controlled. At least board real estate can be better managed with higher density device.
8 Gb chip modules. It rakes 8 of them to make 8 GB of storage. Usually though, an 8 Gb module wil l be used as a 1 GB module.
If you look at RETAIL pricing for these they are quite a bit more.
My Sandisk Extreme IV (fast) 4 GB Flash costs $95 retail. Besides, we are talking DRIVES. Drives cost much more.
Quote:
With a larger tablet though Apple has the option to spread things out a bit.
It is not unreasonable to expect Apple to be able to supply 64 GB at around $300 dollars even with a 100% mark up.
Yes it is. They will pay more for that themselves.
Quote:
The only problem I have with the tear downs is how they arrive at the prices of the components, especially the ones custom to Apple. In any event the prices on Apples current technology should indicate to you that a large flash array is not impossible and can be cost effective.
I see no problems with the teardowns. The prices won't ever be exact, but they just have to be close.
Quote:
Where do you get that wild idea about $400 for a display? We aren't talking retail here and we aren't talking about low volume products like industrial or commercial touch screens.
Going from the estimated price for the one for the iPhone, scaling up, and cutting the price by over half (60% actually). I can't find the link to the teardown now, but I'm sure someone will find it.
Quote:
Well if you where ot use reasonable numbers your conclusion would be different.
Mine ARE the reasonable numbers. The difference is that I don't care one way or the other if Apple comes out with this now, so I don't have an ax to grind about it.
Quote:
And what do those parts cost? If Apple is lucky they may be laying out $125 for total cost of parts. I'd be surprised if they are paying more than $30 for the flash in the unit and probably less.
I think it was more like $143. But, the lower the actual cost of the iPhone/iTouch, the less reasonable your argument becomes. It would mean that Apple would apply even larger margins to the selling price, and so the price would be even higher.
That would apply to any table they might come out with as well, as is true with all of their products.
There is just no way at all this device could cost, in parts, $600. no way at all. It would be much more.
Quote:
New Intel processor set up to run at 1.5 watts total chip set power plus the support electronics and memory so we max out at about 5 watts. Likely much more when RF is being used. Then you have to realize that the battery technologies that Apple has been using can be sized to fit any reasonable rectangle. Since you have a much larger screen you can have a dramatically larger battery. Feed a modestly higher power demand electronics board with and increase the battery by 4 or 5 five times capacity and you are golden.
Sivlerthorne's CPU element is rated at anywhere form 0.55 watts up to 3. Add in all the power of he support chips and you can still be manageable on i86. Go to SoC technology from ARM and power get even lower. Apple will want i86 of course and Silverthorne will give then some very exciting capabilities. It won't be ideal, as even 10 watts total system power would be a lot for a tablet, mostly from the heat management standpoint. This won't be normal run time power tough as any such device would allocate processing resources on demand. Personally I would think that Apple would set maximum permitable system power at 5 watts for the design. In any event battery lifetimes won't be an issue. It is really just a matter of matching the amp hours to the desired run time based on max power draw.
Dave
I've already gone over why the battery doesn't scale too well if it's very thin. This is well known. It's not my own idea. Lithium batteries have serious problems with heat build-up. Mass prevents (hopefully) a dangerous local heating overload. But, make the batter very thin, and you have to drop the power density levels. This is one of the problems battery manufacturers are finding with the bad batteries recalled over the past few years.
The "iPad" will have roughly a 5" size LTPS touchscreen with a 720x480 resolution. The screen will cover nearly all of the front face and the device will have a docking port, usb 2.0 port, and a headphone port. No physical keyboard.
It will weigh less than a third of a pound, be about 2cm thick, up to 32gb SSD, and have a removable rechargeable battery. It will be announced later this year and out about Q3 2008 after the iPhone and iPod Touch revisions lose sales steam.
So now it's 12.7mm? hmm, this device just keeps on getting thinner. And what's this hour business? Good one.
You mention the cost of 64GB SSD's at $1000. I take it you never bought 500,000 of them before yeah? Apple may be prepared to even buy 1,000,000 of them if they truly believe in this device as much as I think they do.
This investment is missing from their 10-Q forms and nothing in guidance gives credence to it happening this 10-Q results.
Being a publicly traded corporation they have to make such investments public to us shareholders.
Also of interest are flash memory trends and prices. In my column "Tech Predictions for 2008"., I mentioned that we would see at least three or four flash-based laptops hit the market this year. My concern with these systems is their cost. I'm hearing that some of them may have 64GB of storage. Today, the cost to vendors for 64GB of flash memory is around $500 to $600. That means that these systems will be priced well above $1,800?and that's too much for consumers.
An hour of battery life. What size battery do you think you can fit into this very thin device? Large, but very thin batteries don't deliver the amp/hours that the same volume, but thicker, batteries do. It's a matter of heat build-up. For any kind of lithium battery, this is of the utmost importance.
If heat build up is the issue then a thinner battery with a large surface area would make more sense. The point still remains that these lithium batteries can simply and easily be tailored to the needs of a specific device. The iPhone and Touch pretty much point this out with the iPhone getting the higher capacity device.
On top of all that Lithium battery technology is improving by about 8% a year, so what was possible in one form factor a year or two ago will be more impressive if implemented with the latest technology.
None of this should be taken as an indication that we have the ultimate in battery technology available to us. Rather that it is much more difficult guessing hwo a machine will perform with the latest technology available.
Quote:
Considering that current, far smaller UMPC's get 2 hours of actual battery life more often than not, one of the big reasons they haven't caught on, I don't see this one doing well in this area. But, perhaps it could also manage two hours.
This is a huge concern. The question will be can Apple find a practical way to deal with that problem. They only have three choices, one is a bigger battery, two is more advanced low power chips, and three is trimming unneeded crap. If Apple can manage all three at once we may see a fairly impressive machine.
Look at it this way the Eee PC is using rather crude technology and is managing close to 4 hours for the average user of the hardware. If Apple takes a crack at this form factor suing the technology they already have access to we would see a better battery and likely Silverthorne. Apple would also, as rumored, trim out stuff not needed such as a optical drive. So I believe they have a crack at rather long run times, certainly far better than 2 hours.
Quote:
Dell offers an upgrade on its ultralight from the standard, much larger HDD, to a 64 GB SSD for about $1,000. Adding the price of the HDD it's replacing, since this charge is in addition to the standard price, and it's been estimated the drive would sell alone, retail, for at least $1,070.
Or it could simply mean they are making $1000 of profit on $70 worth of components.
Quote:
Apple will get no better pricing than Dell does. even if they did, it wouldn't be much better. My estimate for Apple's price for the drive was $500. I think that's reasonable. Don't forget that the Sandisk 32 GB drive sells retail for about $600 (last I looked).
Again those retail prices don't jive with the real cost of flash which is like $25 in very low volume. It still looks like a case of very high profits to me or very high costs for IP and controller chips. 32 GB of flash chips would likely cost Apple around $50 to $75 dollars. Add in the cost of the controller and IP and you are likely not talking much more than $125 which would translate into about $250 retail.
Quote:
These prices will surely come down, as prices for HDD's have, but this is what they are now. So, if you're expecting to see this portable now, this is what Apple, and by extension?we, at retail, will pay.
I still believe we have confusion here with respect to the retail costs of flash and the cost of the underlying technology. That is not to say Flash is cheap on a per bit basis but it is still manageable. It is simply a matter of the way that Apple implements the technology. Frankly buying Flash storage in the same manner as hard disk storage doesn't make a lot of sense and instead should be looked at like any other item that gets soldered to the mother board. The Flash Storage Module approach simply puts an unneeded middle man in the construction process. Especially for a device like we are talking about, that is an ultra mobile or tablet computer. There is no advantage at all to the idea of a flash storage module being sourced from a secondary supplier.
One look at the iPod, with flash storage, should point this out completely. If you don't trust Apple as an example then ASUS's Eee PC can be seen as an example. ASUS takes an off the shelf flash chip, and a compact flash controller chip and simply solders them to the mother board. That is an extremely low cost approach, in Apples case I'd expect them to use a more advanced controller platform. In any event the world is already full of examples of manufactures shying away from the storage module approach and going direct.
If all this doesn't shift your perspective consider the latest law suit that has been brought against Apple accusing them of over charging for an extra 3GB of storage on the iPod Nano's. It is being alleged that the extra storage space costs Apple something like $5.52. While I disagree with the law suit, at least of the basis of what Apple can charge for something, the point remains that the underlying technology cost Apple penny's. What we are paying retail for storage simply does not reflect the cost of the hardware and thus can not be used to guess how much it will cost Apple to deliver a platform with a large flash storage array. It is more a question of marketing and profits.
In Apples case we can expect excessive profits. The question is how much success will they have with marketing a piece of hardware that is over priced and undervalued by the consumer. The biggest problem Apple will have is overcoming consumer perception that the platforms don't offer enough to justify their costs. Frankly I come down on the side of most consumers in that I just can't get the price of the so called ultra mobile laptops to jive with what I'm actually getting. So if Apple wants to be successful I suspect that the most important element in that success is achieve a low price to the consumer. I just don't see Apple marketing machine being successful selling half a laptop for twice the price of a full size one.
Nice article if you are a manufacture wanting to prep the consumers for a royal screwing!!!
It would be far better for you to ignore the consumer manipulations and take a look at the real costs of flash. For example: http://search.digikey.com/scripts/Dk...=557-1374-1-ND. That is 16GB at around $25 less the controller chip. So 32 GB is +$50 in very low quantities.
Now if you want to believe that it will cost Apple thousands to put in lace solid state storage then fine. One can't argue with published figure though. Well other than the fact that Apple is likely paying far less than published figures.
If you really want to get a sense about how badly the consumer is getting screwed here look at the cost of the components. Then when thinking about the use of an expensive SSD, ask where is the value in this module. There isn't any and is why Apple went to soldered in flash in its flash based iPods. There is very littel value added in sticking flash memory into a old disk drive form factor and paying for that imagined value!
So no matter how you look at it, 32GB of flash storage shouldn't be adding more than $100 to the cost of a ultra mobile machine. Now that doesn't mean Apple won't try to sell the machine for $1800, it just means we don't have to be stupid enough to buy it at that price. At least we don't have to believe that the price will be that high based on the cost of the included Flash memory.
In a nut shell the referenced article is just an attempt to brain wash the buying public into believing that the prices being charged or attempted are justified. The big problem here is that the consumer doesn't normally have access to the raw product like they do with normal disk drives so it is easy to jerk them around. The best thing a consumer can do is to remain well informed.
Thanks
Dave
PS.
Looks like ASUS is having a briefing come the 7th on the next generation Eee PC. It will be very interesting to see how this machine stacks up against anything Apple offers up. At the very least it will be a WiMAx capable machine.
In all seriousness though, I said I'd be very surprised to see Mac touch at Macworld '08, but I'd say Macworld '09 or earlier though. End of the day who knows what the storage will be, I just really think it will be an iPhone-esque design, as in one thin slab. I think it would also be a clever design move to have that pop-out rest on the back to give it a tilt when on a flat surface, but pop it back in "and away out of site" when on lap or holding it. I'd like it to be 11", but 10" would be just about as good, and quite acceptable.
Think this, but more rounded like my crude mock-up:
If heat build up is the issue then a thinner battery with a large surface area would make more sense. The point still remains that these lithium batteries can simply and easily be tailored to the needs of a specific device. The iPhone and Touch pretty much point this out with the iPhone getting the higher capacity device.
It's just the opposite. A small point of heat in lithium batteries is usually caused by a small metal crystal growth in the battery that is a defect. that is the most common cause of battery failure. Battery experts blame two things for the destruction of the battery from that. The first is the high power density in todays batteries which makes a short very destructive, and the second is due to the thin batteries not being able to absorb that small amount for focussed heat due to their thinness. Thicker batteries allow that momentary short to dissipate within the battery in a 3d fashion (a globular pattern). Very thin batteries have only a planar dissipation (like a doughnut) which is far less effective, and so the battery is much more likely to fail catastrophically.
[quote0
On top of all that Lithium battery technology is improving by about 8% a year, so what was possible in one form factor a year or two ago will be more impressive if implemented with the latest technology.[/quote]
Mmmm! 8 percent. So in about three years they should be suitable, if they can solve the failure problem.
Quote:
None of this should be taken as an indication that we have the ultimate in battery technology available to us. Rather that it is much more difficult guessing hwo a machine will perform with the latest technology available.
Unfortunately, battery technology is improving at a far slower rate than the electronics dependent upon them. This is the bane of the electronics industry, and considered to be one of its biggest problems in delivering more functionality. Fuel cells are supposed to be the holy grail, but every year, they are pushed back another year. According to industry predictions, 2005 was supposed to be THE year, but it wasn't. Maybe by 2010, maybe not.
Quote:
This is a huge concern. The question will be can Apple find a practical way to deal with that problem. They only have three choices, one is a bigger battery, two is more advanced low power chips, and three is trimming unneeded crap. If Apple can manage all three at once we may see a fairly impressive machine.
Look at it this way the Eee PC is using rather crude technology and is managing close to 4 hours for the average user of the hardware. If Apple takes a crack at this form factor suing the technology they already have access to we would see a better battery and likely Silverthorne. Apple would also, as rumored, trim out stuff not needed such as a optical drive. So I believe they have a crack at rather long run times, certainly far better than 2 hours.
The Eee PC is a piece of crap. Do you really see an Apple product with specs like that? It's about as far from what you and Ireland want as a stone is from a baseball.
Quote:
Or it could simply mean they are making $1000 of profit on $70 worth of components.
You wish, but no.
[
Again those retail prices don't jive with the real cost of flash which is like $25 in very low volume. It still looks like a case of very high profits to me or very high costs for IP and controller chips. 32 GB of flash chips would likely cost Apple around $50 to $75 dollars. Add in the cost of the controller and IP and you are likely not talking much more than $125 which would translate into about $250 retail.[/
I still believe we have confusion here with respect to the retail costs of flash and the cost of the underlying technology. That is not to say Flash is cheap on a per bit basis but it is still manageable. It is simply a matter of the way that Apple implements the technology. Frankly buying Flash storage in the same manner as hard disk storage doesn't make a lot of sense and instead should be looked at like any other item that gets soldered to the mother board. The Flash Storage Module approach simply puts an unneeded middle man in the construction process. Especially for a device like we are talking about, that is an ultra mobile or tablet computer. There is no advantage at all to the idea of a flash storage module being sourced from a secondary supplier.
One look at the iPod, with flash storage, should point this out completely. If you don't trust Apple as an example then ASUS's Eee PC can be seen as an example. ASUS takes an off the shelf flash chip, and a compact flash controller chip and simply solders them to the mother board. That is an extremely low cost approach, in Apples case I'd expect them to use a more advanced controller platform. In any event the world is already full of examples of manufactures shying away from the storage module approach and going direct.
If all this doesn't shift your perspective consider the latest law suit that has been brought against Apple accusing them of over charging for an extra 3GB of storage on the iPod Nano's. It is being alleged that the extra storage space costs Apple something like $5.52. While I disagree with the law suit, at least of the basis of what Apple can charge for something, the point remains that the underlying technology cost Apple penny's. What we are paying retail for storage simply does not reflect the cost of the hardware and thus can not be used to guess how much it will cost Apple to deliver a platform with a large flash storage array. It is more a question of marketing and profits.
In Apples case we can expect excessive profits. The question is how much success will they have with marketing a piece of hardware that is over priced and undervalued by the consumer. The biggest problem Apple will have is overcoming consumer perception that the platforms don't offer enough to justify their costs. Frankly I come down on the side of most consumers in that I just can't get the price of the so called ultra mobile laptops to jive with what I'm actually getting. So if Apple wants to be successful I suspect that the most important element in that success is achieve a low price to the consumer. I just don't see Apple marketing machine being successful selling half a laptop for twice the price of a full size one.
Comments
I'd want it to be 10" or 11", that's the perfect size IMO.
Sure, it would be more functional at a larger size, but obviously going larger means less portability.
Sure, it would be more functional at a larger size, but obviously going larger means less portability.
Yes, but if you take Apple's MacBook, i.e. currently their smallest screened Mac. That's 27.5 mm thick & 325 mm x 227 mm in width and depth. It also weighs 5.0 pounds (2.27 kg).
So for this example let's assume Apple makes it 11", the size I would like.
At 14 mm thick (or thin as Apple likes to say) and about 260 mm wide x 180 mm deep a Mac touch would be "a lot" more portable than what Apple's currently offering. It would be even smaller than most other ultra-portables. And it will likely be under the so-called crucial 2 pound mark.
Not to mention truly "ultra-portable", useful and scha-weet!
Well I'd say the 64GB version would cost about that $1,199. The 128GB version could be double that price. Though pricing would rapidly coming down over the following three years.
Right now, a 64 GB SSD sells for over $1,000, and a 128 Gb sells for $3,000.
Get some pricing before coming up with your own.
Even if Apple could get the 64 GB model for $500, they would still have to charge at least $750 for it as part of the machine price, and that's being very nice.
And when we see the teardowns of Apple's products, we notice that the price of the parts is never more than 50% of the selling price, which is as it should be.
Also. an 11" multitouch screen would cost about $400 by itself. And then you have the processor and ancillary chips, the battery, the mobo itself, the Bluetooth and Wifi, and, of course, that case.
For this machine to sell for $1200, all of that together would have to cost Apple less than $600. Impossible.
Look at the iTouch. It costs $399, with that very small screen, much weaker processors, 16 GB Flash, much smaller battery, case, and everything else.
And this is all supposed to be .5 inch thick? How much run time do you expect, one hour?
Point taken, I just think as it'll be a Mac I know how a bigger screen does miracles for productivity. Screen size matters.
so why do you want a smaller screen that a mac touch will provi... oh yeah thats right your obsessed .. never mind.
I personally wouldn't buy it if it has an 8" screen
I'd settle for 10", but any smaller and the Mac touch as I see it won't be for me.
In a perfect (productivity) world I'd like to have my 24" iMac (which I have), my 3.5 iPhone (which I have), and a 10 or 11" Mac touch to do "some" work on the move.
IF Apple release anything remotely like a Mac slate I would almost wager good money that you WILL NOT buy it.
You have built it up in your mind so far that if it does not conform to your every whim and desire, you won't buy it.
As has been pointed out to you the parts alone to build the item YOU want to see would far exceed any "reasonable" sticker price.
You won't be getting it, thats the reality.
--
after thought.. what will the iPhone SDK bring to the table in terms of taking your work with you? text manipulation improvements? it aint for picture manipulation, mind you neither is an 8-10" screen well not for serious work anyway.
Right now, a 64 GB SSD sells for over $1,000, and a 128 Gb sells for $3,000.
Get some pricing before coming up with your own.
Even if Apple could get the 64 GB model for $500, they would still have to charge at least $750 for it as part of the machine price, and that's being very nice.
And when we see the teardowns of Apple's products, we notice that the price of the parts is never more than 50% of the selling price, which is as it should be.
Also. an 11" multitouch screen would cost about $400 by itself. And then you have the processor and ancillary chips, the battery, the mobo itself, the Bluetooth and Wifi, and, of course, that case.
For this machine to sell for $1200, all of that together would have to cost Apple less than $600. Impossible.
Look at the iTouch. It costs $399, with that very small screen, much weaker processors, 16 GB Flash, much smaller battery, case, and everything else.
And this is all supposed to be .5 inch thick? How much run time do you expect, one hour?
So now it's 12.7mm? hmm, this device just keeps on getting thinner. And what's this hour business? Good one.
You mention the cost of 64GB SSD's at $1000. I take it you never bought 500,000 of them before yeah? Apple may be prepared to even buy 1,000,000 of them if they truly believe in this device as much as I think they do.
so why do you want a smaller screen that a mac touch will provi... oh yeah thats right your obsessed .. never mind.
Wow, you're a fool.
IF Apple release anything remotely like a Mac slate I would almost wager good money that you WILL NOT buy it.
You have built it up in your mind so far that if it does not conform to your every whim and desire, you won't buy it.
As has been pointed out to you the parts alone to build the item YOU want to see would far exceed any "reasonable" sticker price.
You won't be getting it, thats the reality.
--
after thought.. what will the iPhone SDK bring to the table in terms of taking your work with you? text manipulation improvements? it aint for picture manipulation, mind you neither is an 8-10" screen well not for serious work anyway.
All balls. I'm buying one, they're releasing one, it's that simple.
I'd want it to be 10" or 11", that's the perfect size IMO.
Really I don't believe in a perfect size. Laptop, tablet or a roll of toilet paper, everybody has his own needs.
With respect to Tablets though I don't see any reason why Apple couldn't hit the market with several devices right off the bat. One size to replace the Newton or slightly larger and a 10" device. The reality is that I won't be walking around with a 10 inch device other than the one I was born with. A Newton sized device, with a modern rendition would rock though.
All of this has to be carefully crafted to work well with Apples move into movies. Apple TV's of the future could very much be digital TV's/tablet computers/cell phones & etc. In a way this is saying that a good tablet design would be a convergence device. Ideally MWSF will be all about convergence.
dave
Really I don't believe in a perfect size. Laptop, tablet or a roll of toilet paper, everybody has his own needs.
With respect to Tablets though I don't see any reason why Apple couldn't hit the market with several devices right off the bat. One size to replace the Newton or slightly larger and a 10" device. The reality is that I won't be walking around with a 10 inch device other than the one I was born with. A Newton sized device, with a modern rendition would rock though.
All of this has to be carefully crafted to work well with Apples move into movies. Apple TV's of the future could very much be digital TV's/tablet computers/cell phones & etc. In a way this is saying that a good tablet design would be a convergence device. Ideally MWSF will be all about convergence.
dave
I'd love to see the tablet at this Macworld, but I'd say it would be too soon. Best bet Macworld '09, though it could "possibly" be August or September be earlier. I'd rather see it done right than done early though.
Right now, a 64 GB SSD sells for over $1,000, and a 128 Gb sells for $3,000.
8Gb chips/modules go for around $25 in small quantities. So around $200 dollars for the storage plus the controller chip. Given that Apple will likely use more advanced technology than the 8GB modules the costs will be more controlled. At least board real estate can be better managed with higher density device.
With a larger tablet though Apple has the option to spread things out a bit.
Even if Apple could get the 64 GB model for $500, they would still have to charge at least $750 for it as part of the machine price, and that's being very nice.
It is not unreasonable to expect Apple to be able to supply 64 GB at around $300 dollars even with a 100% mark up.
And when we see the teardowns of Apple's products, we notice that the price of the parts is never more than 50% of the selling price, which is as it should be.
The only problem I have with the tear downs is how they arrive at the prices of the components, especially the ones custom to Apple. In any event the prices on Apples current technology should indicate to you that a large flash array is not impossible and can be cost effective.
Also. an 11" multitouch screen would cost about $400 by itself. And then you have the processor and ancillary chips, the battery, the mobo itself, the Bluetooth and Wifi, and, of course, that case.
Where do you get that wild idea about $400 for a display? We aren't talking retail here and we aren't talking about low volume products like industrial or commercial touch screens.
For this machine to sell for $1200, all of that together would have to cost Apple less than $600. Impossible.
Well if you where ot use reasonable numbers your conclusion would be different.
Look at the iTouch. It costs $399, with that very small screen, much weaker processors, 16 GB Flash, much smaller battery, case, and everything else.
And what do those parts cost? If Apple is lucky they may be laying out $125 for total cost of parts. I'd be surprised if they are paying more than $30 for the flash in the unit and probably less.
And this is all supposed to be .5 inch thick? How much run time do you expect, one hour?
New Intel processor set up to run at 1.5 watts total chip set power plus the support electronics and memory so we max out at about 5 watts. Likely much more when RF is being used. Then you have to realize that the battery technologies that Apple has been using can be sized to fit any reasonable rectangle. Since you have a much larger screen you can have a dramatically larger battery. Feed a modestly higher power demand electronics board with and increase the battery by 4 or 5 five times capacity and you are golden.
Sivlerthorne's CPU element is rated at anywhere form 0.55 watts up to 3. Add in all the power of he support chips and you can still be manageable on i86. Go to SoC technology from ARM and power get even lower. Apple will want i86 of course and Silverthorne will give then some very exciting capabilities. It won't be ideal, as even 10 watts total system power would be a lot for a tablet, mostly from the heat management standpoint. This won't be normal run time power tough as any such device would allocate processing resources on demand. Personally I would think that Apple would set maximum permitable system power at 5 watts for the design. In any event battery lifetimes won't be an issue. It is really just a matter of matching the amp hours to the desired run time based on max power draw.
Dave
So now it's 12.7mm? hmm, this device just keeps on getting thinner. And what's this hour business? Good one.
Ok, I was thinking of Wizaed69's call for it being no thicker than the iPhone/iTouch. You're calling for 14mm, but that's not far off from .5". It's .55" That's so closre to .5", I just rounded off. I suppose I could have rounded to .6".
An hour of battery life. What size battery do you think you can fit into this very thin device? Large, but very thin batteries don't deliver the amp/hours that the same volume, but thicker, batteries do. It's a matter of heat build-up. For any kind of lithium battery, this is of the utmost importance.
Considering that current, far smaller UMPC's get 2 hours of actual battery life more often than not, one of the big reasons they haven't caught on, I don't see this one doing well in this area. But, perhaps it could also manage two hours.
You mention the cost of 64GB SSD's at $1000. I take it you never bought 500,000 of them before yeah? Apple may be prepared to even buy 1,000,000 of them if they truly believe in this device as much as I think they do.
Dell offers an upgrade on its ultralight from the standard, much larger HDD, to a 64 GB SSD for about $1,000. Adding the price of the HDD it's replacing, since this charge is in addition to the standard price, and it's been estimated the drive would sell alone, retail, for at least $1,070.
Apple will get no better pricing than Dell does. even if they did, it wouldn't be much better. My estimate for Apple's price for the drive was $500. I think that's reasonable. Don't forget that the Sandisk 32 GB drive sells retail for about $600 (last I looked).
These prices will surely come down, as prices for HDD's have, but this is what they are now. So, if you're expecting to see this portable now, this is what Apple, and by extension?we, at retail, will pay.
All balls. I'm buying one, they're releasing one, it's that simple.
Good luck my friend.
8Gb chips/modules go for around $25 in small quantities. So around $200 dollars for the storage plus the controller chip. Given that Apple will likely use more advanced technology than the 8GB modules the costs will be more controlled. At least board real estate can be better managed with higher density device.
8 Gb chip modules. It rakes 8 of them to make 8 GB of storage. Usually though, an 8 Gb module wil l be used as a 1 GB module.
If you look at RETAIL pricing for these they are quite a bit more.
My Sandisk Extreme IV (fast) 4 GB Flash costs $95 retail. Besides, we are talking DRIVES. Drives cost much more.
With a larger tablet though Apple has the option to spread things out a bit.
It is not unreasonable to expect Apple to be able to supply 64 GB at around $300 dollars even with a 100% mark up.
Yes it is. They will pay more for that themselves.
The only problem I have with the tear downs is how they arrive at the prices of the components, especially the ones custom to Apple. In any event the prices on Apples current technology should indicate to you that a large flash array is not impossible and can be cost effective.
I see no problems with the teardowns. The prices won't ever be exact, but they just have to be close.
Where do you get that wild idea about $400 for a display? We aren't talking retail here and we aren't talking about low volume products like industrial or commercial touch screens.
Going from the estimated price for the one for the iPhone, scaling up, and cutting the price by over half (60% actually). I can't find the link to the teardown now, but I'm sure someone will find it.
Well if you where ot use reasonable numbers your conclusion would be different.
Mine ARE the reasonable numbers. The difference is that I don't care one way or the other if Apple comes out with this now, so I don't have an ax to grind about it.
And what do those parts cost? If Apple is lucky they may be laying out $125 for total cost of parts. I'd be surprised if they are paying more than $30 for the flash in the unit and probably less.
I think it was more like $143. But, the lower the actual cost of the iPhone/iTouch, the less reasonable your argument becomes. It would mean that Apple would apply even larger margins to the selling price, and so the price would be even higher.
That would apply to any table they might come out with as well, as is true with all of their products.
There is just no way at all this device could cost, in parts, $600. no way at all. It would be much more.
New Intel processor set up to run at 1.5 watts total chip set power plus the support electronics and memory so we max out at about 5 watts. Likely much more when RF is being used. Then you have to realize that the battery technologies that Apple has been using can be sized to fit any reasonable rectangle. Since you have a much larger screen you can have a dramatically larger battery. Feed a modestly higher power demand electronics board with and increase the battery by 4 or 5 five times capacity and you are golden.
Sivlerthorne's CPU element is rated at anywhere form 0.55 watts up to 3. Add in all the power of he support chips and you can still be manageable on i86. Go to SoC technology from ARM and power get even lower. Apple will want i86 of course and Silverthorne will give then some very exciting capabilities. It won't be ideal, as even 10 watts total system power would be a lot for a tablet, mostly from the heat management standpoint. This won't be normal run time power tough as any such device would allocate processing resources on demand. Personally I would think that Apple would set maximum permitable system power at 5 watts for the design. In any event battery lifetimes won't be an issue. It is really just a matter of matching the amp hours to the desired run time based on max power draw.
Dave
I've already gone over why the battery doesn't scale too well if it's very thin. This is well known. It's not my own idea. Lithium batteries have serious problems with heat build-up. Mass prevents (hopefully) a dangerous local heating overload. But, make the batter very thin, and you have to drop the power density levels. This is one of the problems battery manufacturers are finding with the bad batteries recalled over the past few years.
It will weigh less than a third of a pound, be about 2cm thick, up to 32gb SSD, and have a removable rechargeable battery. It will be announced later this year and out about Q3 2008 after the iPhone and iPod Touch revisions lose sales steam.
Kendall.
So now it's 12.7mm? hmm, this device just keeps on getting thinner. And what's this hour business? Good one.
You mention the cost of 64GB SSD's at $1000. I take it you never bought 500,000 of them before yeah? Apple may be prepared to even buy 1,000,000 of them if they truly believe in this device as much as I think they do.
This investment is missing from their 10-Q forms and nothing in guidance gives credence to it happening this 10-Q results.
Being a publicly traded corporation they have to make such investments public to us shareholders.
Also of interest are flash memory trends and prices. In my column "Tech Predictions for 2008"., I mentioned that we would see at least three or four flash-based laptops hit the market this year. My concern with these systems is their cost. I'm hearing that some of them may have 64GB of storage. Today, the cost to vendors for 64GB of flash memory is around $500 to $600. That means that these systems will be priced well above $1,800?and that's too much for consumers.
Check out the article at PC magazine:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2243279,00.asp
An hour of battery life. What size battery do you think you can fit into this very thin device? Large, but very thin batteries don't deliver the amp/hours that the same volume, but thicker, batteries do. It's a matter of heat build-up. For any kind of lithium battery, this is of the utmost importance.
If heat build up is the issue then a thinner battery with a large surface area would make more sense. The point still remains that these lithium batteries can simply and easily be tailored to the needs of a specific device. The iPhone and Touch pretty much point this out with the iPhone getting the higher capacity device.
On top of all that Lithium battery technology is improving by about 8% a year, so what was possible in one form factor a year or two ago will be more impressive if implemented with the latest technology.
None of this should be taken as an indication that we have the ultimate in battery technology available to us. Rather that it is much more difficult guessing hwo a machine will perform with the latest technology available.
Considering that current, far smaller UMPC's get 2 hours of actual battery life more often than not, one of the big reasons they haven't caught on, I don't see this one doing well in this area. But, perhaps it could also manage two hours.
This is a huge concern. The question will be can Apple find a practical way to deal with that problem. They only have three choices, one is a bigger battery, two is more advanced low power chips, and three is trimming unneeded crap. If Apple can manage all three at once we may see a fairly impressive machine.
Look at it this way the Eee PC is using rather crude technology and is managing close to 4 hours for the average user of the hardware. If Apple takes a crack at this form factor suing the technology they already have access to we would see a better battery and likely Silverthorne. Apple would also, as rumored, trim out stuff not needed such as a optical drive. So I believe they have a crack at rather long run times, certainly far better than 2 hours.
Dell offers an upgrade on its ultralight from the standard, much larger HDD, to a 64 GB SSD for about $1,000. Adding the price of the HDD it's replacing, since this charge is in addition to the standard price, and it's been estimated the drive would sell alone, retail, for at least $1,070.
Or it could simply mean they are making $1000 of profit on $70 worth of components.
Apple will get no better pricing than Dell does. even if they did, it wouldn't be much better. My estimate for Apple's price for the drive was $500. I think that's reasonable. Don't forget that the Sandisk 32 GB drive sells retail for about $600 (last I looked).
Again those retail prices don't jive with the real cost of flash which is like $25 in very low volume. It still looks like a case of very high profits to me or very high costs for IP and controller chips. 32 GB of flash chips would likely cost Apple around $50 to $75 dollars. Add in the cost of the controller and IP and you are likely not talking much more than $125 which would translate into about $250 retail.
These prices will surely come down, as prices for HDD's have, but this is what they are now. So, if you're expecting to see this portable now, this is what Apple, and by extension?we, at retail, will pay.
I still believe we have confusion here with respect to the retail costs of flash and the cost of the underlying technology. That is not to say Flash is cheap on a per bit basis but it is still manageable. It is simply a matter of the way that Apple implements the technology. Frankly buying Flash storage in the same manner as hard disk storage doesn't make a lot of sense and instead should be looked at like any other item that gets soldered to the mother board. The Flash Storage Module approach simply puts an unneeded middle man in the construction process. Especially for a device like we are talking about, that is an ultra mobile or tablet computer. There is no advantage at all to the idea of a flash storage module being sourced from a secondary supplier.
One look at the iPod, with flash storage, should point this out completely. If you don't trust Apple as an example then ASUS's Eee PC can be seen as an example. ASUS takes an off the shelf flash chip, and a compact flash controller chip and simply solders them to the mother board. That is an extremely low cost approach, in Apples case I'd expect them to use a more advanced controller platform. In any event the world is already full of examples of manufactures shying away from the storage module approach and going direct.
If all this doesn't shift your perspective consider the latest law suit that has been brought against Apple accusing them of over charging for an extra 3GB of storage on the iPod Nano's. It is being alleged that the extra storage space costs Apple something like $5.52. While I disagree with the law suit, at least of the basis of what Apple can charge for something, the point remains that the underlying technology cost Apple penny's. What we are paying retail for storage simply does not reflect the cost of the hardware and thus can not be used to guess how much it will cost Apple to deliver a platform with a large flash storage array. It is more a question of marketing and profits.
In Apples case we can expect excessive profits. The question is how much success will they have with marketing a piece of hardware that is over priced and undervalued by the consumer. The biggest problem Apple will have is overcoming consumer perception that the platforms don't offer enough to justify their costs. Frankly I come down on the side of most consumers in that I just can't get the price of the so called ultra mobile laptops to jive with what I'm actually getting. So if Apple wants to be successful I suspect that the most important element in that success is achieve a low price to the consumer. I just don't see Apple marketing machine being successful selling half a laptop for twice the price of a full size one.
Dave
To buttress my numbers, check this out;
Nice article if you are a manufacture wanting to prep the consumers for a royal screwing!!!
It would be far better for you to ignore the consumer manipulations and take a look at the real costs of flash. For example: http://search.digikey.com/scripts/Dk...=557-1374-1-ND. That is 16GB at around $25 less the controller chip. So 32 GB is +$50 in very low quantities.
Now if you want to believe that it will cost Apple thousands to put in lace solid state storage then fine. One can't argue with published figure though. Well other than the fact that Apple is likely paying far less than published figures.
If you really want to get a sense about how badly the consumer is getting screwed here look at the cost of the components. Then when thinking about the use of an expensive SSD, ask where is the value in this module. There isn't any and is why Apple went to soldered in flash in its flash based iPods. There is very littel value added in sticking flash memory into a old disk drive form factor and paying for that imagined value!
So no matter how you look at it, 32GB of flash storage shouldn't be adding more than $100 to the cost of a ultra mobile machine. Now that doesn't mean Apple won't try to sell the machine for $1800, it just means we don't have to be stupid enough to buy it at that price. At least we don't have to believe that the price will be that high based on the cost of the included Flash memory.
In a nut shell the referenced article is just an attempt to brain wash the buying public into believing that the prices being charged or attempted are justified. The big problem here is that the consumer doesn't normally have access to the raw product like they do with normal disk drives so it is easy to jerk them around. The best thing a consumer can do is to remain well informed.
Thanks
Dave
PS.
Looks like ASUS is having a briefing come the 7th on the next generation Eee PC. It will be very interesting to see how this machine stacks up against anything Apple offers up. At the very least it will be a WiMAx capable machine.
Dave
Good luck my friend.
Thanks.
In all seriousness though, I said I'd be very surprised to see Mac touch at Macworld '08, but I'd say Macworld '09 or earlier though. End of the day who knows what the storage will be, I just really think it will be an iPhone-esque design, as in one thin slab. I think it would also be a clever design move to have that pop-out rest on the back to give it a tilt when on a flat surface, but pop it back in "and away out of site" when on lap or holding it. I'd like it to be 11", but 10" would be just about as good, and quite acceptable.
Think this, but more rounded like my crude mock-up:
Mac touch FTW!!
If heat build up is the issue then a thinner battery with a large surface area would make more sense. The point still remains that these lithium batteries can simply and easily be tailored to the needs of a specific device. The iPhone and Touch pretty much point this out with the iPhone getting the higher capacity device.
It's just the opposite. A small point of heat in lithium batteries is usually caused by a small metal crystal growth in the battery that is a defect. that is the most common cause of battery failure. Battery experts blame two things for the destruction of the battery from that. The first is the high power density in todays batteries which makes a short very destructive, and the second is due to the thin batteries not being able to absorb that small amount for focussed heat due to their thinness. Thicker batteries allow that momentary short to dissipate within the battery in a 3d fashion (a globular pattern). Very thin batteries have only a planar dissipation (like a doughnut) which is far less effective, and so the battery is much more likely to fail catastrophically.
[quote0
On top of all that Lithium battery technology is improving by about 8% a year, so what was possible in one form factor a year or two ago will be more impressive if implemented with the latest technology.[/quote]
Mmmm! 8 percent. So in about three years they should be suitable, if they can solve the failure problem.
None of this should be taken as an indication that we have the ultimate in battery technology available to us. Rather that it is much more difficult guessing hwo a machine will perform with the latest technology available.
Unfortunately, battery technology is improving at a far slower rate than the electronics dependent upon them. This is the bane of the electronics industry, and considered to be one of its biggest problems in delivering more functionality. Fuel cells are supposed to be the holy grail, but every year, they are pushed back another year. According to industry predictions, 2005 was supposed to be THE year, but it wasn't. Maybe by 2010, maybe not.
This is a huge concern. The question will be can Apple find a practical way to deal with that problem. They only have three choices, one is a bigger battery, two is more advanced low power chips, and three is trimming unneeded crap. If Apple can manage all three at once we may see a fairly impressive machine.
Look at it this way the Eee PC is using rather crude technology and is managing close to 4 hours for the average user of the hardware. If Apple takes a crack at this form factor suing the technology they already have access to we would see a better battery and likely Silverthorne. Apple would also, as rumored, trim out stuff not needed such as a optical drive. So I believe they have a crack at rather long run times, certainly far better than 2 hours.
The Eee PC is a piece of crap. Do you really see an Apple product with specs like that? It's about as far from what you and Ireland want as a stone is from a baseball.
Or it could simply mean they are making $1000 of profit on $70 worth of components.
You wish, but no.
[
Again those retail prices don't jive with the real cost of flash which is like $25 in very low volume. It still looks like a case of very high profits to me or very high costs for IP and controller chips. 32 GB of flash chips would likely cost Apple around $50 to $75 dollars. Add in the cost of the controller and IP and you are likely not talking much more than $125 which would translate into about $250 retail.[/
I still believe we have confusion here with respect to the retail costs of flash and the cost of the underlying technology. That is not to say Flash is cheap on a per bit basis but it is still manageable. It is simply a matter of the way that Apple implements the technology. Frankly buying Flash storage in the same manner as hard disk storage doesn't make a lot of sense and instead should be looked at like any other item that gets soldered to the mother board. The Flash Storage Module approach simply puts an unneeded middle man in the construction process. Especially for a device like we are talking about, that is an ultra mobile or tablet computer. There is no advantage at all to the idea of a flash storage module being sourced from a secondary supplier.
One look at the iPod, with flash storage, should point this out completely. If you don't trust Apple as an example then ASUS's Eee PC can be seen as an example. ASUS takes an off the shelf flash chip, and a compact flash controller chip and simply solders them to the mother board. That is an extremely low cost approach, in Apples case I'd expect them to use a more advanced controller platform. In any event the world is already full of examples of manufactures shying away from the storage module approach and going direct.
If all this doesn't shift your perspective consider the latest law suit that has been brought against Apple accusing them of over charging for an extra 3GB of storage on the iPod Nano's. It is being alleged that the extra storage space costs Apple something like $5.52. While I disagree with the law suit, at least of the basis of what Apple can charge for something, the point remains that the underlying technology cost Apple penny's. What we are paying retail for storage simply does not reflect the cost of the hardware and thus can not be used to guess how much it will cost Apple to deliver a platform with a large flash storage array. It is more a question of marketing and profits.
In Apples case we can expect excessive profits. The question is how much success will they have with marketing a piece of hardware that is over priced and undervalued by the consumer. The biggest problem Apple will have is overcoming consumer perception that the platforms don't offer enough to justify their costs. Frankly I come down on the side of most consumers in that I just can't get the price of the so called ultra mobile laptops to jive with what I'm actually getting. So if Apple wants to be successful I suspect that the most important element in that success is achieve a low price to the consumer. I just don't see Apple marketing machine being successful selling half a laptop for twice the price of a full size one.
Dave[/QUOTE]