Really guys lets get a grip there is no market for a device that runs Mac OS/X as its primary operating system. Apples best chance of success is the marketing of devices derived from the iPod line and its OS. They need a device that can drive volume in ways that Apples PC hardware can't.
That is why I suspect the next Touch device from Apple will be a true Video IPod. It will be an iPod in the same sense as the Touch and iPhone, with an OS that supports apps in the same way that the current Touch and iPhone do. Apples goal wold be to move ten million in the first year, this to handily cover the development costs at PA Semi.
As to Video IPod, well you can call it whatever you want but honestly I still think Newton 2 is just the nuts. As a Newton 2 though it will be much thinner and much higher in performance than the old Newton. Still portable but a much more compelling Game platform than Touch, a much more useful internet device than IPhone and hopefully something that packs a lot of solid state storage space.
Really guys lets get a grip there is no market for a device that runs Mac OS/X as its primary operating system. Apples best chance of success is the marketing of devices derived from the iPod line and its OS. They need a device that can drive volume in ways that Apples PC hardware can't.
That is why I suspect the next Touch device from Apple will be a true Video IPod. It will be an iPod in the same sense as the Touch and iPhone, with an OS that supports apps in the same way that the current Touch and iPhone do. Apples goal wold be to move ten million in the first year, this to handily cover the development costs at PA Semi.
As to Video IPod, well you can call it whatever you want but honestly I still think Newton 2 is just the nuts. As a Newton 2 though it will be much thinner and much higher in performance than the old Newton. Still portable but a much more compelling Game platform than Touch, a much more useful internet device than IPhone and hopefully something that packs a lot of solid state storage space.
...Adding real tactile feedback is still a challenge for our industry. There are some approaches in the labs but none that I've seen (I'm about 6 months behind though in my journal reading and I skipped a conference or two this past year) but not very suitable to put on top of a LCD. The few Ive seen use projection onto a tactile surface.
So I don't disagree except that the challenge is difficult and the physical dimensions tend to preclude a lot of simulated key travel. At best you get a membrane keyboard kinda feel.
Interesting... The thing I would say is that until the mouse came along, which most people thought was "WTF?" at first, human-computer interaction was based on an old technology, the typewriter, which was based I believe in part on an even older technology, the Guternberg press.
What I would propose to the boffins* is to explore the characteristics and benefits of the key travel itself. Key travel offers a feel of whether a key has been depressed or not. What it does *not* offer I feel is the knowledge of *which* key was pressed. That comes from the visual feedback of the letters displayed on the screen, as well as feeling the texture and bumps of the keys as one's fingers move across the keypad.
I suggest the approach whereby some nerve stimulation is discharged through the skin. Given touch is an electrical-nerve-stimuli thingy anyway.
It's the *nature* of the stimulation that may be important. I propose looking at the problem across three areas:
1.
Without actually "pressing" any of the keys on the tacticle/haptic multitouch surface, just "washing" your hands over the surface would need to give a multitude of nerve stimulation, as that's how we "feel" where the keys are.
2.
Which key is your finger over? That is an important stimuli. I have no bloody idea how Braille works but I think that's an intriguing area to draw a lot of information from. Currently, in modern keyboards, we guess what a key is only by relative positioning within the whole keyboard. What if different tactile/haptic keys gave a different kind of stimuli? That would be the idea of texture. With just the tip of our finger, we can feel metal, wood, earth, skin, etc.
Could a vowel key feel more metallic? Would a number key feel more "woody"? Can these be customised to the user? Perhaps this is the "Braille" for sighted people. An "A" might feel like paper, etc...
3.
Key travel : that is, the tactile/haptic sensation of the key actually being depressed. Yeah, perhaps the membrane feeling might be the best that is practical. However, being a Biology major (wasted dreams of doing Medicine ) I feel electrophysiology is still a nascent area. Biofeedback has always been an attractive and sellable area of research, within the scope of Neuroscience, Physiology and BioEngineering.
Again, I am no expert since I specialised in Genetics in my undergraduate years, but I think we really have to go back and look at the actual sensation of touch. How do we "feel" that a key has been pressed? Is it a nerve response of a shift in certain tendons due to the movement of the finger in a certain way? Can this nerve response be simulated so that one "feels" that one has "pressed" a key even though it never happened?
Yes.... Enter... the Matrix.
*Um... I don't think this word is used in the USA? Check it out.
Of course, what follows next is if this kind of touch stimuli can be delivered without touching, for example, if your hands are within a 3D magnetic field. In other words all that "Virtual Glove" stuff except you don't need no gloves, and as we know from playing Wii, it looks cool in Minority Report but it must be frickin exhausting to wave your arms just to see if a new email came in.
However, if you look at the cubic space which we type in currently, the "Y" axis is actually a few inches. So 3D magnetic tactile/haptic response need not be over a huge area, just the width (X axis) and depth (Z axis) of a regular keyboard, with the height (Y axis) as the "new" 3D keyboard sensation space.
Wow. This could really be a fascinating area of user interface research. Isn't MIT's Media Lab supposed to be doing this kind of stuff? Or are they overrated nowadays? I did have some sort of boyhood fantasy (besides going into space... which is just a matter of a million or so bucks nowadays)... about being at the MIT Media Lab some day. But I digress.
It may not sound so facetious to suggest somebody in Bangalore is working on this.
Edit: With regard to 3D gestures, it is pertinent to note that *detecting* the movements of the fingers is half the job. Is there a way to deliver (through an EM field) touch stimuli to the naked hands within such an EM field? Imagine if you could feel your hands around some sort of virtual joystick. Even though it is *just* your hands in that 3D EM field.
As I have said many times already, I would settle for a convertible laptop/tablet from Apple, but with a few requirements?
I would like to see a 10" convertible with both multi-touch AND stylus (stored in the unit itself) capabilities. The internals from the MacBook Air would be good, and a screen with a high dpi (like the iPhone has) would be great. BlueTooth tethering to an iPhone nano on the go would be sweet, and a stereo BlueTooth headset/mic combo would be sweeter. This unit would sync with the new Apple Home Server/Media Center when in the house, and with MobileMe while on the go.
If iPhones and iPods had decent 250GB drives in them, and could do 720p output, boy that would be a Media Centre by itself. No need for no Apple TV or Microsoft Windows Media Centre.
Pop your iPhone in a simple dock (or just connect a cable), and voila, you're downloading 720p, or playing 720p you synced wireless or wirelessly a few hours ago, etc...
Probably within 5 years. Maybe within 2 years.
The only problem is the set top boxes are useful for just chucking it there and letting it download stuff in the background. If however compression tech and bandwidth was good enough, everything would just be on-demand streaming. So you wouldn't need as much storage even, because "the network is the content"... LOL to paraphrase a vision by a certain celestially-named company, a vision which did not quite come to pass... yet.
If iPhones and iPods had decent 250GB drives in them, and could do 720p output, boy that would be a Media Centre by itself. No need for no Apple TV or Microsoft Windows Media Centre.
One thing I was extremely disappointed with when the new iPods came out, was a reasonable increase in storage. To me this means that Apple has an alternative device, in the wings, that would offer up much more solid state storage. What is obvious is that Apple made a decision not to support more Flash storage on Touch for better or worst.
If such a device offered video out all the better. A Display Port compatible output would be even better.
Quote:
Pop your iPhone in a simple dock (or just connect a cable), and voila, you're downloading 720p, or playing 720p you synced wireless or wirelessly a few hours ago, etc...
Have you invaded my dreams or what? My only difference would be the desire to see 1080P. Of course there are plenty of people out there that likely think we are crazy but I'd suggest they simply don't know what is possible with a highly integrated SoC at 45nm. Given the right process Apple should be able to place four ARM CPUs on a die along with the video and other interface hardware. We might end up seeing one CPU chip and X number of flash chips doing amazing thins on future machines. This isn't to say that current Touch devices aren't minimal in chip count but rather what those chips are able to do and at what power level will be shocking.
Quote:
Probably within 5 years. Maybe within 2 years.
The only problem is the set top boxes are useful for just chucking it there and letting it download stuff in the background. If however compression tech and bandwidth was good enough, everything would just be on-demand streaming. So you wouldn't need as much storage even, because "the network is the content"... LOL to paraphrase a vision by a certain celestially-named company, a vision which did not quite come to pass... yet.
I'm actually thinking something new early next year.
As to streaming for the most part I see that as crap as you end up paying for every view. Of course the right pricing, broad band and good buffering could make that all very possible. If Apple was smart they would give everyone options between streaming and local storage.
In any event I see huge potential in the concept of a video iPod. If Apple isn't working on such they need to have their heads examined.
Have you invaded my dreams or what? My only difference would be the desire to see 1080P. Of course there are plenty of people out there that likely think we are crazy but I'd suggest they simply don't know what is possible with a highly integrated SoC at 45nm. Given the right process Apple should be able to place four ARM CPUs on a die along with the video and other interface hardware. We might end up seeing one CPU chip and X number of flash chips doing amazing thins on future machines. This isn't to say that current Touch devices aren't minimal in chip count but rather what those chips are able to do and at what power level will be shocking...Dave
Nah, just tapping into them global-avant-garde-consciousness stream thingys.
Seriously though, Nvidia and others are working on a lot of mobile (as in handheld) chips that can do some serious sh*t.
Hopefully some stuff like this will come to iPhone/iPod over the next few years. We're talking moving up to console-quality gaming, Media-Centre quality 720p (and then 1080p) processing with 5 channel audio, etc. Give it a few years... or less.
Nvidia's Tegra already promises a lot of the above.
The key is like you say mashing together a whole bunch of chips. The CPU, Nvidia Tegra/Chipset/Graphics/Etc and the Memory chips. It's close. That and battery tech is improving well but needs a bit of kick in the butt to keep up with today's power and 24/7 society demands.
I can bet my bottom dollar Nvidia is dying to get more into the mobile space, so they're pretty pleased about their implementation in Apple's *entire* portable line.
Next up: Nvidia gets into iPhone. There's a few angles here. Video, Gaming of course. 720p video output. Then, CUDA/OpenCL on the iPhone. Therefore, just like what we're close to on the desktop and laptop, we could have iPhone using both ARM CPU and NvidiaHandheld GPU/GPGPU.
It may or may not happen, but Nvidia is seriously trying to get into the Apple Tablet and Apple Handheld/Mobile space. My personal guess is where Nvidia has to bring it's A+ game is CUDA and OpenCL.
If the benefits of increased cost/space/etc. of a powerful GPGPU/GPU outweighs difficulties/cost of increasing ARM/Intel CPU power, then... They could tip the scales.
You could almost say Nvidia wants to be a "CPU" player of its own. It's got the manufacturing ability and so on, but architecture wise it's gotta go with what it has.
Of course an Intel-Nvidia merger may happen, but only if Nvidia is doing real bad, IMO, or if AMD and ATI start to get back strong into the mainstream, which I doubt.
I can bet my bottom dollar Nvidia is dying to get more into the mobile space, so they're pretty pleased about their implementation in Apple's *entire* portable line.
Next up: Nvidia gets into iPhone. There's a few angles here. Video, Gaming of course. 720p video output. Then, CUDA/OpenCL on the iPhone. Therefore, just like what we're close to on the desktop and laptop, we could have iPhone using both ARM CPU and NvidiaHandheld GPU/GPGPU.
It may or may not happen, but Nvidia is seriously trying to get into the Apple Tablet and Apple Handheld/Mobile space. My personal guess is where Nvidia has to bring it's A+ game is CUDA and OpenCL.
If the benefits of increased cost/space/etc. of a powerful GPGPU/GPU outweighs difficulties/cost of increasing ARM/Intel CPU power, then... They could tip the scales.
You could almost say Nvidia wants to be a "CPU" player of its own. It's got the manufacturing ability and so on, but architecture wise it's gotta go with what it has.
Of course an Intel-Nvidia merger may happen, but only if Nvidia is doing real bad, IMO, or if AMD and ATI start to get back strong into the mainstream, which I doubt.
NOthing outlandish.
I think the 'giant' iPhone/iPod/Touch/netbook slant is on its way. Something between the iPhone and the Macbook.
Basically a smaller iMac or Macbook with guts in the screen. Running the touch stuff ala iPhone.
...and...........you blow the 'nascent' netbook laptop market out the water. You could even add your own iMac style keyboard to a 'computer' like that.
*Looks towards the skies of SanFran 09. Not long ago we saw the revolutionary iPhone.
A 'giant' one? An evolutionary follow on...and then laptops are living on borrowed time...as anything other than a desktop replacement?
I can bet my bottom dollar Nvidia is dying to get more into the mobile space, so they're pretty pleased about their implementation in Apple's *entire* portable line.
They should be and so should Apples customers. Even Apples low end notebook is now leading edge performance wise. Considering we are talking about what would have been desktop performance a couple of years ago. Plus the system is CUDA capable.
Quote:
Next up: Nvidia gets into iPhone. There's a few angles here. Video, Gaming of course. 720p video output. Then, CUDA/OpenCL on the iPhone. Therefore, just like what we're close to on the desktop and laptop, we could have iPhone using both ARM CPU and NvidiaHandheld GPU/GPGPU.
Well that to me is more of a stretch. Apple could have an agreement to use their IP in PA Semi developed chips but Apple has enough IP options there to build their own OpenCL optimized video chip. The big problem with handhelds of course is the battery and it's limited ability to drive high performance chips. That means compromises in performance.
Quote:
It may or may not happen, but Nvidia is seriously trying to get into the Apple Tablet and Apple Handheld/Mobile space. My personal guess is where Nvidia has to bring it's A+ game is CUDA and OpenCL.
One can't dismiss the importance of gaming in the handheld arena but for nvidia to play here they would have to drastically reduce power consumption with respect to the alternatives. Cuda is nice but is not required for OpenCL.
Quote:
If the benefits of increased cost/space/etc. of a powerful GPGPU/GPU outweighs difficulties/cost of increasing ARM/Intel CPU power, then... They could tip the scales.
You might as well write Intel out of the equation. I don't believe they will ever be able to catch up with ARMs low power performance. The big mystery right now is PA Semi and what Apple is really doing with them. Apple may not have any interest at all in external SoC vendors. Of course the question is this: is PA really working on mobile chips?
Quote:
You could almost say Nvidia wants to be a "CPU" player of its own. It's got the manufacturing ability and so on, but architecture wise it's gotta go with what it has.
Not at all they simply could license the CPU architecture of their own choosing. It could be MIPS or ARM or something else. The reality is they would need a general purpose CPU of some sort as GPUs come up very short for some tasks. Either way advanced programmers must be creaming at the thought of a CPU and GPU sitting so close together on a die. Especially if onboard video ram is provided for.
Quote:
Of course an Intel-Nvidia merger may happen, but only if Nvidia is doing real bad, IMO, or if AMD and ATI start to get back strong into the mainstream, which I doubt.
It is a question of wills, if Nvidia wants to remain independent they will. As to AMD/ATI in the graphics realm they are actually doing very well. AMD has been very successful at dealing with the driver issues and now has some impressive hardware to compete against Nvidia.
In any event I share your enthusasim for what the future holds. I'm just not to sure which way Apple is going here. I'd love to see that iPhone/Touch Maxi though. I just hope the economy is strong enough to make it successful.
I saw the Dell Mini today. Not that it isn't impressive, but I bet Jonny Ive could easily just sht1 out a Mac "netbook" that kicks its ass.
Profane but true...
I just got down to the local Apple store last week and took a quick glance at the new laptops, let me say they are even more impressive in person. So profane or not you are probably right.
In any event I do question the usability of those netbooks. This is why I see so much potential in Apples Touch technology on smaller tablets. The latest example I can give is a device that is about the size of a check.
I'm drawn to this because people carry check books around all the time in pockets, purses, jackets and the like. It is an acceptable size. More so it offers up one he'll of a lot more screen real estate than the current IPhone or Touch. Plus the concept is easy for people to experiment with, you just lay your check book on top of a Touch or Iphone to get a feel for size. Just imagine the increase in screen area especially if pixel density is kept the same. Notably it still fits into you pockets or easily on the belt and a device this size easily satisfies the Newton 2 crowd. More importantly the size remains very usable in portable mode something big laptops fail at.
It isn't that there has been a technological shortcoming preventing tablets from becoming popular. But rather it is the very shape and size of tablets that make them non-optimal for most tasks. Unless humans suddenly become a different size and have a different number of arms, tablet computing will remain a niche market.
Comments
Actually that would be tactile, Apple have a patent on this - the idea of which scares me.
People often misuse the term. It's haptic. Google it.
People often misuse the term. It's haptic. Google it.
No its not haptic. Why don't YOU google the patent in question.
*school kids in yard all say "ohhhhhhhhhhhhh" in unison*
So what now brown cow??!!
That is why I suspect the next Touch device from Apple will be a true Video IPod. It will be an iPod in the same sense as the Touch and iPhone, with an OS that supports apps in the same way that the current Touch and iPhone do. Apples goal wold be to move ten million in the first year, this to handily cover the development costs at PA Semi.
As to Video IPod, well you can call it whatever you want but honestly I still think Newton 2 is just the nuts. As a Newton 2 though it will be much thinner and much higher in performance than the old Newton. Still portable but a much more compelling Game platform than Touch, a much more useful internet device than IPhone and hopefully something that packs a lot of solid state storage space.
Dave
Really guys lets get a grip there is no market for a device that runs Mac OS/X as its primary operating system. Apples best chance of success is the marketing of devices derived from the iPod line and its OS. They need a device that can drive volume in ways that Apples PC hardware can't.
That is why I suspect the next Touch device from Apple will be a true Video IPod. It will be an iPod in the same sense as the Touch and iPhone, with an OS that supports apps in the same way that the current Touch and iPhone do. Apples goal wold be to move ten million in the first year, this to handily cover the development costs at PA Semi.
As to Video IPod, well you can call it whatever you want but honestly I still think Newton 2 is just the nuts. As a Newton 2 though it will be much thinner and much higher in performance than the old Newton. Still portable but a much more compelling Game platform than Touch, a much more useful internet device than IPhone and hopefully something that packs a lot of solid state storage space.
Dave
I really "thin" you may be crazy
...Adding real tactile feedback is still a challenge for our industry. There are some approaches in the labs but none that I've seen (I'm about 6 months behind though in my journal reading and I skipped a conference or two this past year) but not very suitable to put on top of a LCD. The few Ive seen use projection onto a tactile surface.
So I don't disagree except that the challenge is difficult and the physical dimensions tend to preclude a lot of simulated key travel. At best you get a membrane keyboard kinda feel.
Interesting... The thing I would say is that until the mouse came along, which most people thought was "WTF?" at first, human-computer interaction was based on an old technology, the typewriter, which was based I believe in part on an even older technology, the Guternberg press.
What I would propose to the boffins* is to explore the characteristics and benefits of the key travel itself. Key travel offers a feel of whether a key has been depressed or not. What it does *not* offer I feel is the knowledge of *which* key was pressed. That comes from the visual feedback of the letters displayed on the screen, as well as feeling the texture and bumps of the keys as one's fingers move across the keypad.
I suggest the approach whereby some nerve stimulation is discharged through the skin. Given touch is an electrical-nerve-stimuli thingy anyway.
It's the *nature* of the stimulation that may be important. I propose looking at the problem across three areas:
1.
Without actually "pressing" any of the keys on the tacticle/haptic multitouch surface, just "washing" your hands over the surface would need to give a multitude of nerve stimulation, as that's how we "feel" where the keys are.
2.
Which key is your finger over? That is an important stimuli. I have no bloody idea how Braille works but I think that's an intriguing area to draw a lot of information from. Currently, in modern keyboards, we guess what a key is only by relative positioning within the whole keyboard. What if different tactile/haptic keys gave a different kind of stimuli? That would be the idea of texture. With just the tip of our finger, we can feel metal, wood, earth, skin, etc.
Could a vowel key feel more metallic? Would a number key feel more "woody"? Can these be customised to the user? Perhaps this is the "Braille" for sighted people. An "A" might feel like paper, etc...
3.
Key travel : that is, the tactile/haptic sensation of the key actually being depressed. Yeah, perhaps the membrane feeling might be the best that is practical. However, being a Biology major (wasted dreams of doing Medicine
Again, I am no expert since I specialised in Genetics in my undergraduate years, but I think we really have to go back and look at the actual sensation of touch. How do we "feel" that a key has been pressed? Is it a nerve response of a shift in certain tendons due to the movement of the finger in a certain way? Can this nerve response be simulated so that one "feels" that one has "pressed" a key even though it never happened?
Yes.... Enter... the Matrix.
*Um... I don't think this word is used in the USA? Check it out.
However, if you look at the cubic space which we type in currently, the "Y" axis is actually a few inches. So 3D magnetic tactile/haptic response need not be over a huge area, just the width (X axis) and depth (Z axis) of a regular keyboard, with the height (Y axis) as the "new" 3D keyboard sensation space.
Wow. This could really be a fascinating area of user interface research. Isn't MIT's Media Lab supposed to be doing this kind of stuff? Or are they overrated nowadays? I did have some sort of boyhood fantasy (besides going into space... which is just a matter of a million or so bucks nowadays)... about being at the MIT Media Lab some day. But I digress.
It may not sound so facetious to suggest somebody in Bangalore is working on this.
Edit: With regard to 3D gestures, it is pertinent to note that *detecting* the movements of the fingers is half the job. Is there a way to deliver (through an EM field) touch stimuli to the naked hands within such an EM field? Imagine if you could feel your hands around some sort of virtual joystick. Even though it is *just* your hands in that 3D EM field.
As I have said many times already, I would settle for a convertible laptop/tablet from Apple, but with a few requirements?
I would like to see a 10" convertible with both multi-touch AND stylus (stored in the unit itself) capabilities. The internals from the MacBook Air would be good, and a screen with a high dpi (like the iPhone has) would be great. BlueTooth tethering to an iPhone nano on the go would be sweet, and a stereo BlueTooth headset/mic combo would be sweeter. This unit would sync with the new Apple Home Server/Media Center when in the house, and with MobileMe while on the go.
If iPhones and iPods had decent 250GB drives in them, and could do 720p output, boy that would be a Media Centre by itself. No need for no Apple TV or Microsoft Windows Media Centre.
Pop your iPhone in a simple dock (or just connect a cable), and voila, you're downloading 720p, or playing 720p you synced wireless or wirelessly a few hours ago, etc...
Probably within 5 years. Maybe within 2 years.
The only problem is the set top boxes are useful for just chucking it there and letting it download stuff in the background. If however compression tech and bandwidth was good enough, everything would just be on-demand streaming. So you wouldn't need as much storage even, because "the network is the content"... LOL to paraphrase a vision by a certain celestially-named company, a vision which did not quite come to pass... yet.
If iPhones and iPods had decent 250GB drives in them, and could do 720p output, boy that would be a Media Centre by itself. No need for no Apple TV or Microsoft Windows Media Centre.
One thing I was extremely disappointed with when the new iPods came out, was a reasonable increase in storage. To me this means that Apple has an alternative device, in the wings, that would offer up much more solid state storage. What is obvious is that Apple made a decision not to support more Flash storage on Touch for better or worst.
If such a device offered video out all the better. A Display Port compatible output would be even better.
Pop your iPhone in a simple dock (or just connect a cable), and voila, you're downloading 720p, or playing 720p you synced wireless or wirelessly a few hours ago, etc...
Have you invaded my dreams or what? My only difference would be the desire to see 1080P. Of course there are plenty of people out there that likely think we are crazy but I'd suggest they simply don't know what is possible with a highly integrated SoC at 45nm. Given the right process Apple should be able to place four ARM CPUs on a die along with the video and other interface hardware. We might end up seeing one CPU chip and X number of flash chips doing amazing thins on future machines. This isn't to say that current Touch devices aren't minimal in chip count but rather what those chips are able to do and at what power level will be shocking.
Probably within 5 years. Maybe within 2 years.
The only problem is the set top boxes are useful for just chucking it there and letting it download stuff in the background. If however compression tech and bandwidth was good enough, everything would just be on-demand streaming. So you wouldn't need as much storage even, because "the network is the content"... LOL to paraphrase a vision by a certain celestially-named company, a vision which did not quite come to pass... yet.
I'm actually thinking something new early next year.
As to streaming for the most part I see that as crap as you end up paying for every view. Of course the right pricing, broad band and good buffering could make that all very possible. If Apple was smart they would give everyone options between streaming and local storage.
In any event I see huge potential in the concept of a video iPod. If Apple isn't working on such they need to have their heads examined.
Dave
Have you invaded my dreams or what? My only difference would be the desire to see 1080P. Of course there are plenty of people out there that likely think we are crazy but I'd suggest they simply don't know what is possible with a highly integrated SoC at 45nm. Given the right process Apple should be able to place four ARM CPUs on a die along with the video and other interface hardware. We might end up seeing one CPU chip and X number of flash chips doing amazing thins on future machines. This isn't to say that current Touch devices aren't minimal in chip count but rather what those chips are able to do and at what power level will be shocking...Dave
Nah, just tapping into them global-avant-garde-consciousness stream thingys.
Seriously though, Nvidia and others are working on a lot of mobile (as in handheld) chips that can do some serious sh*t.
Hopefully some stuff like this will come to iPhone/iPod over the next few years. We're talking moving up to console-quality gaming, Media-Centre quality 720p (and then 1080p) processing with 5 channel audio, etc. Give it a few years... or less.
http://www.nvidia.com/page/handheld.html
Nvidia's Tegra already promises a lot of the above.
The key is like you say mashing together a whole bunch of chips. The CPU, Nvidia Tegra/Chipset/Graphics/Etc and the Memory chips. It's close. That and battery tech is improving well but needs a bit of kick in the butt to keep up with today's power and 24/7 society demands.
Next up: Nvidia gets into iPhone. There's a few angles here. Video, Gaming of course. 720p video output. Then, CUDA/OpenCL on the iPhone. Therefore, just like what we're close to on the desktop and laptop, we could have iPhone using both ARM CPU and NvidiaHandheld GPU/GPGPU.
It may or may not happen, but Nvidia is seriously trying to get into the Apple Tablet and Apple Handheld/Mobile space. My personal guess is where Nvidia has to bring it's A+ game is CUDA and OpenCL.
If the benefits of increased cost/space/etc. of a powerful GPGPU/GPU outweighs difficulties/cost of increasing ARM/Intel CPU power, then... They could tip the scales.
You could almost say Nvidia wants to be a "CPU" player of its own. It's got the manufacturing ability and so on, but architecture wise it's gotta go with what it has.
Of course an Intel-Nvidia merger may happen, but only if Nvidia is doing real bad, IMO, or if AMD and ATI start to get back strong into the mainstream, which I doubt.
I can bet my bottom dollar Nvidia is dying to get more into the mobile space, so they're pretty pleased about their implementation in Apple's *entire* portable line.
Next up: Nvidia gets into iPhone. There's a few angles here. Video, Gaming of course. 720p video output. Then, CUDA/OpenCL on the iPhone. Therefore, just like what we're close to on the desktop and laptop, we could have iPhone using both ARM CPU and NvidiaHandheld GPU/GPGPU.
It may or may not happen, but Nvidia is seriously trying to get into the Apple Tablet and Apple Handheld/Mobile space. My personal guess is where Nvidia has to bring it's A+ game is CUDA and OpenCL.
If the benefits of increased cost/space/etc. of a powerful GPGPU/GPU outweighs difficulties/cost of increasing ARM/Intel CPU power, then... They could tip the scales.
You could almost say Nvidia wants to be a "CPU" player of its own. It's got the manufacturing ability and so on, but architecture wise it's gotta go with what it has.
Of course an Intel-Nvidia merger may happen, but only if Nvidia is doing real bad, IMO, or if AMD and ATI start to get back strong into the mainstream, which I doubt.
NOthing outlandish.
I think the 'giant' iPhone/iPod/Touch/netbook slant is on its way. Something between the iPhone and the Macbook.
Basically a smaller iMac or Macbook with guts in the screen. Running the touch stuff ala iPhone.
...and...........you blow the 'nascent' netbook laptop market out the water. You could even add your own iMac style keyboard to a 'computer' like that.
*Looks towards the skies of SanFran 09. Not long ago we saw the revolutionary iPhone.
A 'giant' one? An evolutionary follow on...and then laptops are living on borrowed time...as anything other than a desktop replacement?
Lemon Bon Bon.
I can bet my bottom dollar Nvidia is dying to get more into the mobile space, so they're pretty pleased about their implementation in Apple's *entire* portable line.
They should be and so should Apples customers. Even Apples low end notebook is now leading edge performance wise. Considering we are talking about what would have been desktop performance a couple of years ago. Plus the system is CUDA capable.
Next up: Nvidia gets into iPhone. There's a few angles here. Video, Gaming of course. 720p video output. Then, CUDA/OpenCL on the iPhone. Therefore, just like what we're close to on the desktop and laptop, we could have iPhone using both ARM CPU and NvidiaHandheld GPU/GPGPU.
Well that to me is more of a stretch. Apple could have an agreement to use their IP in PA Semi developed chips but Apple has enough IP options there to build their own OpenCL optimized video chip. The big problem with handhelds of course is the battery and it's limited ability to drive high performance chips. That means compromises in performance.
It may or may not happen, but Nvidia is seriously trying to get into the Apple Tablet and Apple Handheld/Mobile space. My personal guess is where Nvidia has to bring it's A+ game is CUDA and OpenCL.
One can't dismiss the importance of gaming in the handheld arena but for nvidia to play here they would have to drastically reduce power consumption with respect to the alternatives. Cuda is nice but is not required for OpenCL.
If the benefits of increased cost/space/etc. of a powerful GPGPU/GPU outweighs difficulties/cost of increasing ARM/Intel CPU power, then... They could tip the scales.
You might as well write Intel out of the equation. I don't believe they will ever be able to catch up with ARMs low power performance. The big mystery right now is PA Semi and what Apple is really doing with them. Apple may not have any interest at all in external SoC vendors. Of course the question is this: is PA really working on mobile chips?
You could almost say Nvidia wants to be a "CPU" player of its own. It's got the manufacturing ability and so on, but architecture wise it's gotta go with what it has.
Not at all they simply could license the CPU architecture of their own choosing. It could be MIPS or ARM or something else. The reality is they would need a general purpose CPU of some sort as GPUs come up very short for some tasks. Either way advanced programmers must be creaming at the thought of a CPU and GPU sitting so close together on a die. Especially if onboard video ram is provided for.
Of course an Intel-Nvidia merger may happen, but only if Nvidia is doing real bad, IMO, or if AMD and ATI start to get back strong into the mainstream, which I doubt.
It is a question of wills, if Nvidia wants to remain independent they will. As to AMD/ATI in the graphics realm they are actually doing very well. AMD has been very successful at dealing with the driver issues and now has some impressive hardware to compete against Nvidia.
In any event I share your enthusasim for what the future holds. I'm just not to sure which way Apple is going here. I'd love to see that iPhone/Touch Maxi though. I just hope the economy is strong enough to make it successful.
Dave
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
The more I see netbooks, the more I want a tablet. As in Ireland's version.
http://gizmodo.com/5084147/umids-min...s-look-massive
The more I see netbooks, the more I want a tablet. As in Ireland's version.
I saw the Dell Mini today. Not that it isn't impressive, but I bet Jonny Ive could easily just sht1 out a Mac "netbook" that kicks its ass.
Profane but true...
I saw the Dell Mini today. Not that it isn't impressive, but I bet Jonny Ive could easily just sht1 out a Mac "netbook" that kicks its ass.
Profane but true...
I just got down to the local Apple store last week and took a quick glance at the new laptops, let me say they are even more impressive in person. So profane or not you are probably right.
In any event I do question the usability of those netbooks. This is why I see so much potential in Apples Touch technology on smaller tablets. The latest example I can give is a device that is about the size of a check.
I'm drawn to this because people carry check books around all the time in pockets, purses, jackets and the like. It is an acceptable size. More so it offers up one he'll of a lot more screen real estate than the current IPhone or Touch. Plus the concept is easy for people to experiment with, you just lay your check book on top of a Touch or Iphone to get a feel for size. Just imagine the increase in screen area especially if pixel density is kept the same. Notably it still fits into you pockets or easily on the belt and a device this size easily satisfies the Newton 2 crowd. More importantly the size remains very usable in portable mode something big laptops fail at.
Just what we need if you ask me.
Dave
<wet blanket>
It isn't that there has been a technological shortcoming preventing tablets from becoming popular. But rather it is the very shape and size of tablets that make them non-optimal for most tasks. Unless humans suddenly become a different size and have a different number of arms, tablet computing will remain a niche market.
</wet blanket>
I guess that would open up the door for introducing a tablet at MWSF 09. I certanly hope so.
/Daniel
There's a story today that Apple will release Snow Leopard in Q1 2009.
I guess that would open up the door for introducing a tablet at MWSF 09. I certanly hope so.
/Daniel
Tablet will be demoed at Macworld in January and release in May 2009