Well having just lost my iMac G5 to a bad driver upgrade and now having to return the alum iMac 24", that replaced it, after 6 months of non stop faults, I'd like to debate that.
The technician who came out to "fix" my iMac knew exactly what the problem was almost as soon as I told him the symptoms. He is doing 2-3 a week and we are not a large town.
Yea, somehow people have the mistaken idea that Apple only turns out high quality hardware. Just do some research on "Road Apples" and you will see that they are really not particularly different from other manufacturers.
I think that the move to Intel chips has helped Apple somewhat in this regard though as Intel has supplied a lot of engineering support. They frequently still cut corners though.
There's probably something Apple can do in the $499 to $699 space, and I think I agree with everyone who's saying iPhone "max" or "pro" and an iPod touch max/pro with a 4.5" screen or so. This means a PA Semi integrated ARM + 3D graphics, 256/512 MB memory, and probably 64 GB Flash storage. For the OS, they would have to turn on access to the filesystem, turn on clip-board and cut/copy-n-paste, turn on the virtual memory system, etc. I don't view something like this as a tablet, it's a handheld or a PDA.
I don't get it.
For that money I can buy something like the Wind, which is perfectly capable of running OS X at speed. An Atom-powered netbook is significantly faster than the last generation of G4 laptops when running the full OS.
So why should consumers buy a less able device?
And if it *not* a lesser device. It becomes a worthy notebook replacement. And if it is, it will cannibalise sales of Apple's $1200 notebooks.
For that money I can buy something like the Wind, which is perfectly capable of running OS X at speed. An Atom-powered netbook is significantly faster than the last generation of G4 laptops when running the full OS.
So why should consumers buy a less able device?
And if it *not* a lesser device. It becomes a worthy notebook replacement. And if it is, it will cannibalise sales of Apple's $1200 notebooks.
C.
Well, does a netbook really sell because consumers want a small laptop with a small screen, subscale keyboard, comparatively anemic performance; or, does it sell because it costs $400 or less?
I've got a sneaking suspicion that this is like when the eMachine desktops came out at $400 and how it undercut all other desktops. It essentially failed as there were too many compromises. (It would have worked if people stuck with Windows 98 or something though, but nope that can't work either). On top of this, what problem is a netbook solving or what convenience does a netbook provide? Then you have to ask how does it make Apple money.
If Apple were to do it, I think a 1" inch think, unibody MB 12" solves the problem a netbook purportedly solves, and does it with a larger screen, normal sized MB keyboard, twice the performance, if not 3 times, and it would make Apple money as it would sell for $1000 or more.
If the answer is that it sells because it costs $400 or even $600, well, Apple don't play that.
Well in general yes larger devices have larger batteries. But this is engineering and there are trade offs. If Apple does battle with the netbooks with a tablet and a design goal on that tablet is thin, then you might not have the battery space you might think you have.
It will certainly have more battery space than any iPod/iPhone device. The larger footprint virtually guarantees that even if thinness was a priority.
Quote:
Why would Apple take a step backwards with battery technology. All their recent hardware has moved away form cells. On top of that since when is five hours of battery time respectable for a portable device. Some of Apples iPods are pushing 24 hours of use. Apple is generous with an advertised 36 hours on the newest Touch but I don't have personal experience here.
Look inside battery packs from Apple laptops and you'll find cylindrical lithium cells. And all those figures are for playing music. Do anything else and the battery life plummets. Video playback at half brightness can net close to the claimed 6 hours, but I wouldn't want to watch six hours of video at half brightness.
Quote:
Things will get very interesting here as strange as it might sound the newest cores from ARM are actually out of order machines as opposed to intels in order Silverthorne. Until somebody gets real products on the market we won't know which is better in raw performance. However as you point to what s getting better in the new Intel hardware is idle performance which frankly is just about useless for devices that actually get used a lot.
Everything idles. No CPU is running full out all the time. It's stop and go, mostly stop.
Quote:
Well it is not likely the power amps will ever go on chip, same for power management. However you do have a rather complete system on that chip outside of the flash storage. In any event this thread is in reference to future devices and the possibility of Apple competing against the netbooks. In that sense we are likely talking about a brand new SoC. PA Semi is fully capable of integrating all the core logic onto one ship and doing so at low power.
Time will tell. ARM has found its niche, but I don't see it as a player outside of that niche.
Quote:
I'm not sure where you are getting your info but if you want built in USB of PCI express you can have it in an ARM SoC if you want it. One problem people have with ARM is that it is marketed differently than intel hardware. part of that difference is the fact that there are ARM cores and on chip I/O busses that can connect to the hardware of the customers choice. That is why there is a huge number of ARM variants out there. Even their simpler Cortex cores have provision for customization.
In 3 Quarters time, the markets will have recovered around 3,000 points on the NYSE and only after 2 Quarters time the notion of targeting a netbook will be nothing but a loss.
I hate to break it to you, but these price points are addressed 2 quarters and sometimes longer prior to the products pending release.
This is DOA by Intel and AMD. It sure as hell is DOA by Apple.
I'd like you to be right about the timetable for economic recovery, but I've been studying markets and economics (and following Apple) for decades (since the beginning), and I'm mighty afeard you're wrong about your prediction about the markets. Everything I see tells me this will be at least the longest recession since WWII. As for most severe, I can't say -- nor can anybody, 'cos nobody still knows how much more funny credit paper is still waiting to surface like other noxious things that float to the surface of polluted waters.....
About netbooks, I can't say. Clearly there's a lot of space between the Touch and the Air in terms of device size/weight/screen estate, price points, functionality, UI metaphors and OS choices for new products. I simply don't understand people here saying Apple won't make $600 devices because they won't make money on them.
They make a freaking ton of money -- more than on computers, folks, TODAY -- selling sub-FOUR hundred dollar devices (I'm including the iPhone, for which I realize they probably get another hundred fifty plus from back from the cellcos) -- and another ton on content.
They already sell devices from $49 to $4000 plus, and in the iDevice line there's lots of nice fairly even steps as you move from Shuffles to Nanos, Touches, Classics, etc. And there's Apple TV in that low range. Once you hit iBooks and iMacs, the price-point blanketing steps start again. The only big gap from there is between the iMac and Mac Pro -- the point where now a second generation of fans is still clamoring for the mythical Mid-Range Mac, which WILL stay mythical until and unless Apple makes a serious run at the SMB market, given that tethered computers are more and more becoming niche products, so a whole new market is the only reason to venture there.
And now is not exactly the time to try and convince SMB's that more expensive desktops are in their best interest. Biz owners are more concerned with keeping their doors open for the next year -- not on the long-term TCO benefits of Macs that last five years in that environment and require less IT support -- nor the argument that their employees want Macs. Their employees are feeling lucky to have jobs at all more than about their OS's.
Back to the low end, then, there is a HUGE gap, i.e., between about $400 to $1000 there's nada but the aging Mini. And there's plenty of bux to be harvested $6-700 at a clip. Especially if each device sold generates large incremental add-on media revenues and app sales. And brings new classes of buyers into the A, Inc. integrated product eco-system.
Making something scaled up from the current iDevices, then, is a natural and much more likely than something scaled down from a full OS X computer, on which they'd have trouble making Apple-like margins.
And it would clearly be fast enough with available hardware -- the fastest internet access and smoothest streaming video in my house is neither on my Mac or my PC, but my Touch. and even at the Touch's size, the internet experience is really quite as satisfactory, and in some ways better. So I'm not much involved with all the Atom/Arm etc. talk in this thread.
It also most certainly won't be called a netbook - just as their first music box was not called the Apple MP3 player. Nor will it cover the same range of functions as an EEE running XP. And will probably create one or more new classes of things to do on a digital device that will get general interest magazine covers.
It will absolutely do a few cool and showy tricks netbooks don't to create marketing buzz in a new Reality Distortion Field.
I lusted, for example, for widgets, but haven't invoked one in over two years, and Spaces sound cool, but I have no real use for them and get by with my cluttered desktop space just fine.
Meanwhile, a free copy of SuperDuper plus a leftover copy of backup.app from my single and likely never again subscription to then .Mac meets all my backup needs as well or better than Time Machine would. Nor, while I learned them all, do I ever use Cover Flow nor a single iLife or iWork app (tho old, near featureless TextEdit gets plenty of invocations when I don't want to give all those CPU cycles, bytes and slow start-up times to Word, and while I'm always ready to use Numbers for the occasional temporary quick spread sheet, in real life I haven't really been making any).
And I suspect I am hardly alone in this general tendency.
But all these "innovations" have sold a ton of product for Apple. And once people have the products, their real strengths do create Apple fans who don't look back.
So a beautiful, unique new iDevice should have a ready and lucrative market. It will be marketed as solving problems or doing new things no current devices do, not as an Asus killer, even if it turns out to be one. I'm not sure what Apple will emphasize, but e.g., as a mobile sales tool, a 6x8 or 5x9 screen (more likely the latter to fit current Apple notions of what screen proportions should be) would bring a briefcaseable lightweight device to many new locations. And make for a more satisfying and shareable video experience. But these would not be reasons enough to create the device.
For example, there has also not been much talk of gaming in this thread. Given the brisk pace of Touch and Phone game sales, the clever use of accelerometers, etc., this seems like an obvious major use that today's netbooks can't touch. And would also impact PSP's, DS's, etc., and even steal some Wii sales.
As an iDevice, and a Jobs/Ivie shepherded creation, I also suspect it will lack a physical keyboard, even if in this case it might support a pluggable one. It won't be a huge iPhone, but Skype and video chat/conferencing are certainly possible (without really cannabalizing the iPhone market). And it might be a unique form factor camera/vidcam with a Huge Viewfinder and instant visual gratification at a nice size.
It will have to do light document and image processing - e.g., bring mobilized, even lighter weight versions of newish iLife and iWork type apps - and would have, likely, hooks for bloggers, facebookers, twitterers, youtubers - and absolutely MobileMe'ers. And must solve the puzzling/vexing copy/paste issue.
There are just so many ways to go here I can't imagine Apple not going in some of them. As well as they are selling, XP netbooks are still inherently small, slow, butt-ugly UI, compromised PC's with little cachet. This device might be designed as more of a Mac Companion - with unique strengths, but also with the ability to synch files, projects and more (maybe wirelessly) with Mac notebooks (and other Macs on an Airport network), where work brought to a certain level could be massaged further by Snow Leopard machines. Or even as the ultimate home theatre/network remote controller.
So, c'mon. Something's coming along some of these lines and if not by January, certainly by June. How can it not??
If Apple were to do it, I think a 1" inch think, unibody MB 12" solves the problem a netbook purportedly solves, and does it with a larger screen, normal sized MB keyboard, twice the performance, if not 3 times, and it would make Apple money as it would sell for $1000 or more.
Apple make a machine like this already. It's thinner that 1"
It also most certainly won't be called a netbook - just as their first music box was not called the Apple MP3 player. Nor will it cover the same range of functions as an EEE running XP. And will probably create one or more new classes of things to do on a digital device that will get general interest magazine covers.
It will absolutely do a few cool and showy tricks netbooks don't to create marketing buzz in a new Reality Distortion Field.
So, c'mon. Something's coming along some of these lines and if not by January, certainly by June. How can it not??
Nice post and you got a lot of stuff that are good. I agree not a NetBook for sure. How about iTablet for $599 with 120GB disk and $699 for 240GB (the new 1.8 inch toshiba sata drive). It will do all that iPod Touch will do. And great games as its CPU will be 900Mhz or 1Ghz PA Semi. Plus as a companion device its USB port will allow USD disk access from a Mac while it plays music and surf the web like the touch and iPhone. Plus there will be iWork sw for it for school and light note taking/ business use. It will take the wireless keyboard via bluetooth. This will be a compelling segment that students will absolutely love and get as a second device since their main Mac[B]ook cannot last the whole day taking notes and doing light surfing/research. Battery life got to be in the region of 6 hours minimum. This *WILL* sell like hotcakes to existing mac users and new students and younger folks as it will be the ideal Internet tablet with Wifi and good 7 or 8 inch wide screen. (1024X 600)
The problem I see with running ARM on a tablet is app development.
I would suspect that most software vendors would just want the current x86 OSX apps to just run on a new Mac tablet and not have to re-write from scratch.
For iPhone apps writing apps from scratch was necessary and beneficial. An x86 app wouldn't work well just being ported to an iPhone. Perhaps iPhone apps could be ported to the Mac tablet but iPhone apps, while generally useful, are a bit limited in function.
The nice thing about Atom is that the current apps would just run. Maybe a few changes would be necessary to take advantage of the hardware, but overall less work for software vendors.
The problem I see with running ARM on a tablet is app development.
I would suspect that most software vendors would just want the current x86 OSX apps to just run on a new Mac tablet and not have to re-write from scratch.
For iPhone apps writing apps from scratch was necessary and beneficial. An x86 app wouldn't work well just being ported to an iPhone. Perhaps iPhone apps could be ported to the Mac tablet but iPhone apps, while generally useful, are a bit limited in function.
The nice thing about Atom is that the current apps would just run. Maybe a few changes would be necessary to take advantage of the hardware, but overall less work for software vendors.
I very much agree about the software vendors.
As was mentioned earlier, even if the vendors have to write a "lite" version of their apps to deal with the lower powered processors of a netbook (and I do not think all of them will have to do that much), it is familiar territory.
Apple may have legitimate reasons to have a custom ARM processor for the iPods & etc, but if they go proprietary simply for the sake of doing so I am concerned that they will be harming themselves and the platform.
In the late 1970s GM produced something in excess of 25 different versions of the same basic Quadra-Jet carburator simply for the purpose of making life difficult for aftermarket gasket manufacturers so that they could capture that market. Had they expended that effort on designing and making better automobiles, they might not have lost so many customers who went elsewhere and never returned.
Despite what some people think of Apple hardware, what makes Apple's computer products is the operating system, or more precisely, the UI for the free OS that Apple uses.
I am surprised that Steve Jobs is so out of touch with reality.
That the iPhone, crippled to death as it is, can be used as a netbook has got to be the joke of the year.
1-The crippled Bluetooth prevents the use of a decent size wireless qwerty keyboard. Foldable keyboards on Berries, Windows Mobile and Symbian are about $75 on eBay.
2-No Cut & Paste (!)
3-No docking station for a larger display or keyboard.
4-Can't be used as a modem.
etc.
If I had an iPhone I would have to carry a full-size overpriced laptop with me most of the time. .
With iTablet. You leave the iPhone alone . Use a wifi tetering a app to make it a modem.
iTablet will fix (1), it will work with all bluetooth keyboards including Apple wireless keyboard,
Have Copy past (it is not an iPhone, it has no phone in it).
Use VGA output port. heck we can compromise with mini-DP port, or min-DVI. Just buy the cable dongles...
It will have 120GB or 240GB 1.6 inch disk. Battery life > 6 hours. Want more ?. You kidding, enough already for $599/$699 price tag as Apple "wants" their 30% margin!.
The problem I see with running ARM on a tablet is app development.
I would suspect that most software vendors would just want the current x86 OSX apps to just run on a new Mac tablet and not have to re-write from scratch.
For iPhone apps writing apps from scratch was necessary and beneficial. An x86 app wouldn't work well just being ported to an iPhone. Perhaps iPhone apps could be ported to the Mac tablet but iPhone apps, while generally useful, are a bit limited in function.
The nice thing about Atom is that the current apps would just run. Maybe a few changes would be necessary to take advantage of the hardware, but overall less work for software vendors.
Any Netbook class device from Apple is going to run on Snow Leopard's core. Targetting additional platforms would be done via LLVM/CLANG which would theoretically allow you to write to an Intermediary represenation and the apply JIT compilation at runtime or heavily optimized compilation.
WWDC 09 shoudl be very interesting. I don't think Apple will deliver any new class of portable device until after WWDC 09 because I think there's going to be some major implications to app development being unveiled.
We're certainly on the precipice of a new class of hardware that really demands larger screens and more application flexibility than the current iPhone's form factor allows. Next year is going to be very exciting in this space..whether you call it a Netbook or not.
I would suspect that most software vendors would just want the current x86 OSX apps to just run on a new Mac tablet and not have to re-write from scratch.
Developers would prefer that - but that's the way to make the device work poorly. Forget whether it has enough power - if you have an app that's designed for a keyboard and mouse and you then try to make your OS convert those needs to work with touch screen, etc - you get a system that is only half baked.
When people say that there's no market for a tablet it's because the tablets so far were just a laptop with the keyboard removed (hell, the ModBook is EXACTLY that ). So the first thing a user notices when using the tablet is that it FEELS like it would work so much better with a keyboard & mouse. Even look at Windows Mobile with it's start menu and sub-menus - they took the current interface paradigm and said "sure, that'll work on a totally different screen size, orientation, and with a stylus instead of a mouse".
The only hope apple has of making a tablet a useful device is to rethink it as if nothing else existed. Then they can look at how to best take advantage of what already exists. But they also need to BREAK user expectations, which means forcing them to use the tablet as Apple wants rather than giving them esoteric work-arounds so that a power user can learn odd tricks to make old things work.
The iPhone did this and I lean towards using iPhone paradigms instead of OSX ones, since they really are designed for a touch screen. Of course that still isn't a 'break' from the past, but Apple's pda/tablet team were working on their interface before it was moved to the iPhone anyway.
Developers would prefer that - but that's the way to make the device work poorly. Forget whether it has enough power - if you have an app that's designed for a keyboard and mouse and you then try to make your OS convert those needs to work with touch screen, etc - you get a system that is only half baked.
When people say that there's no market for a tablet it's because the tablets so far were just a laptop with the keyboard removed (hell, the ModBook is EXACTLY that ). So the first thing a user notices when using the tablet is that it FEELS like it would work so much better with a keyboard & mouse. Even look at Windows Mobile with it's start menu and sub-menus - they took the current interface paradigm and said "sure, that'll work on a totally different screen size, orientation, and with a stylus instead of a mouse".
The only hope apple has of making a tablet a useful device is to rethink it as if nothing else existed. Then they can look at how to best take advantage of what already exists. But they also need to BREAK user expectations, which means forcing them to use the tablet as Apple wants rather than giving them esoteric work-arounds so that a power user can learn odd tricks to make old things work.
The iPhone did this and I lean towards using iPhone paradigms instead of OSX ones, since they really are designed for a touch screen. Of course that still isn't a 'break' from the past, but Apple's pda/tablet team were working on their interface before it was moved to the iPhone anyway.
I see your points.
That's a problem for the tablet. Its a new platform really which will require re-writes of software. Will the software vendors feel up to it?
I don't know enough about clang or llvm, which Murch refers to, to know whether they make the process easier or not.
That's a problem for the tablet. Its a new platform really which will require re-writes of software. Will the software vendors feel up to it?
I don't know enough about clang or llvm, which Murch refers to, to know whether they make the process easier or not.
If Mac developers have moved to Xcode (which Apple has forced them to do over the last couple of years), and are using Cocoa (which Snow Leopard is forcing for 64 bits), then they now have very portable code. Developers are also already writing in Xcode for iPhone, and Dashcode. So they are in a good place code wise.
The technologies to allow one app to run on multiple platforms also have the side effect of allowing "one size fits all" apps, so I think Apple will want to think differently.
The Qualcomm Snapdragon may provide an interesting alternative (and spur development of the other CPUs with multiple integrated functions. The Snapdragon is apparently a dual core 1.5 GHz processor with integrated Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, mobile broadband and graphics. The linked article references a 4" screen in what would be classed as a MID, but Qualcomm apparently has intentions of moving into the netbook arena with Snapdragon.
The Qualcomm Snapdragon may provide an interesting alternative (and spur development of the other CPUs with multiple integrated functions. The Snapdragon is apparently a dual core 1.5 GHz processor with integrated Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, mobile broadband and graphics. The linked article references a 4" screen in what would be classed as a MID, but Qualcomm apparently has intentions of moving into the netbook arena with Snapdragon.
The processor powering the Android phone is not in contention for Apple products.
...will require re-writes of software. Will the software vendors feel up to it?
I kind of skimmed this point of whether the vendors would do it, focussing instead on the programming environment.
I think this model (to rewrite) will work for 4 reasons
1) I assume a tablet would be fully functional without 3rd party apps. There's no chicken-or-egg problem of vendors not bothering until the tablet is successful, while the tablet can't be successful until 3rd party apps appear.
2) Vendors who wrote (or rewrote) for the iPhone seem to be pretty happy with the financial return.
3) A common programming environment for iPhone, Leopard, Dashboard, & Tablet
4) Tablets haven't been that successful in the past while running existing apps, but a new paradigm could redefine the platform. And I think Steve could sell that.
Back to the $599 topic... we were talking about Netbook not Tablet. If vendors need YET ANOTHER program for Netbooks I think we're in for problems. Unless Apple makes writing a single code base across all palatable (with different interfaces).
Comments
Well having just lost my iMac G5 to a bad driver upgrade and now having to return the alum iMac 24", that replaced it, after 6 months of non stop faults, I'd like to debate that.
The technician who came out to "fix" my iMac knew exactly what the problem was almost as soon as I told him the symptoms. He is doing 2-3 a week and we are not a large town.
Yea, somehow people have the mistaken idea that Apple only turns out high quality hardware. Just do some research on "Road Apples" and you will see that they are really not particularly different from other manufacturers.
I think that the move to Intel chips has helped Apple somewhat in this regard though as Intel has supplied a lot of engineering support. They frequently still cut corners though.
There's probably something Apple can do in the $499 to $699 space, and I think I agree with everyone who's saying iPhone "max" or "pro" and an iPod touch max/pro with a 4.5" screen or so. This means a PA Semi integrated ARM + 3D graphics, 256/512 MB memory, and probably 64 GB Flash storage. For the OS, they would have to turn on access to the filesystem, turn on clip-board and cut/copy-n-paste, turn on the virtual memory system, etc. I don't view something like this as a tablet, it's a handheld or a PDA.
I don't get it.
For that money I can buy something like the Wind, which is perfectly capable of running OS X at speed. An Atom-powered netbook is significantly faster than the last generation of G4 laptops when running the full OS.
So why should consumers buy a less able device?
And if it *not* a lesser device. It becomes a worthy notebook replacement. And if it is, it will cannibalise sales of Apple's $1200 notebooks.
C.
I don't get it.
For that money I can buy something like the Wind, which is perfectly capable of running OS X at speed. An Atom-powered netbook is significantly faster than the last generation of G4 laptops when running the full OS.
So why should consumers buy a less able device?
And if it *not* a lesser device. It becomes a worthy notebook replacement. And if it is, it will cannibalise sales of Apple's $1200 notebooks.
C.
Well, does a netbook really sell because consumers want a small laptop with a small screen, subscale keyboard, comparatively anemic performance; or, does it sell because it costs $400 or less?
I've got a sneaking suspicion that this is like when the eMachine desktops came out at $400 and how it undercut all other desktops. It essentially failed as there were too many compromises. (It would have worked if people stuck with Windows 98 or something though, but nope that can't work either). On top of this, what problem is a netbook solving or what convenience does a netbook provide? Then you have to ask how does it make Apple money.
If Apple were to do it, I think a 1" inch think, unibody MB 12" solves the problem a netbook purportedly solves, and does it with a larger screen, normal sized MB keyboard, twice the performance, if not 3 times, and it would make Apple money as it would sell for $1000 or more.
If the answer is that it sells because it costs $400 or even $600, well, Apple don't play that.
Well in general yes larger devices have larger batteries. But this is engineering and there are trade offs. If Apple does battle with the netbooks with a tablet and a design goal on that tablet is thin, then you might not have the battery space you might think you have.
It will certainly have more battery space than any iPod/iPhone device. The larger footprint virtually guarantees that even if thinness was a priority.
Why would Apple take a step backwards with battery technology. All their recent hardware has moved away form cells. On top of that since when is five hours of battery time respectable for a portable device. Some of Apples iPods are pushing 24 hours of use. Apple is generous with an advertised 36 hours on the newest Touch but I don't have personal experience here.
Look inside battery packs from Apple laptops and you'll find cylindrical lithium cells. And all those figures are for playing music. Do anything else and the battery life plummets. Video playback at half brightness can net close to the claimed 6 hours, but I wouldn't want to watch six hours of video at half brightness.
Things will get very interesting here as strange as it might sound the newest cores from ARM are actually out of order machines as opposed to intels in order Silverthorne. Until somebody gets real products on the market we won't know which is better in raw performance. However as you point to what s getting better in the new Intel hardware is idle performance which frankly is just about useless for devices that actually get used a lot.
Everything idles. No CPU is running full out all the time. It's stop and go, mostly stop.
Well it is not likely the power amps will ever go on chip, same for power management. However you do have a rather complete system on that chip outside of the flash storage. In any event this thread is in reference to future devices and the possibility of Apple competing against the netbooks. In that sense we are likely talking about a brand new SoC. PA Semi is fully capable of integrating all the core logic onto one ship and doing so at low power.
Time will tell. ARM has found its niche, but I don't see it as a player outside of that niche.
I'm not sure where you are getting your info but if you want built in USB of PCI express you can have it in an ARM SoC if you want it. One problem people have with ARM is that it is marketed differently than intel hardware. part of that difference is the fact that there are ARM cores and on chip I/O busses that can connect to the hardware of the customers choice. That is why there is a huge number of ARM variants out there. Even their simpler Cortex cores have provision for customization.
http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Lo...sDUm-large.jpg
Note the battery charger/USB controller chip. There are a lot of chips there, so Apple isn't putting a lot on that ARM CPU.
As to credit card size systems the whole point here is that ARM is already well under that size.
The point wasn't that the Atom could be smaller than the ARM, but that it could be plenty small enough for a small netbook.
In 3 Quarters time, the markets will have recovered around 3,000 points on the NYSE and only after 2 Quarters time the notion of targeting a netbook will be nothing but a loss.
I hate to break it to you, but these price points are addressed 2 quarters and sometimes longer prior to the products pending release.
This is DOA by Intel and AMD. It sure as hell is DOA by Apple.
I'd like you to be right about the timetable for economic recovery, but I've been studying markets and economics (and following Apple) for decades (since the beginning), and I'm mighty afeard you're wrong about your prediction about the markets. Everything I see tells me this will be at least the longest recession since WWII. As for most severe, I can't say -- nor can anybody, 'cos nobody still knows how much more funny credit paper is still waiting to surface like other noxious things that float to the surface of polluted waters.....
About netbooks, I can't say. Clearly there's a lot of space between the Touch and the Air in terms of device size/weight/screen estate, price points, functionality, UI metaphors and OS choices for new products. I simply don't understand people here saying Apple won't make $600 devices because they won't make money on them.
They make a freaking ton of money -- more than on computers, folks, TODAY -- selling sub-FOUR hundred dollar devices (I'm including the iPhone, for which I realize they probably get another hundred fifty plus from back from the cellcos) -- and another ton on content.
They already sell devices from $49 to $4000 plus, and in the iDevice line there's lots of nice fairly even steps as you move from Shuffles to Nanos, Touches, Classics, etc. And there's Apple TV in that low range. Once you hit iBooks and iMacs, the price-point blanketing steps start again. The only big gap from there is between the iMac and Mac Pro -- the point where now a second generation of fans is still clamoring for the mythical Mid-Range Mac, which WILL stay mythical until and unless Apple makes a serious run at the SMB market, given that tethered computers are more and more becoming niche products, so a whole new market is the only reason to venture there.
And now is not exactly the time to try and convince SMB's that more expensive desktops are in their best interest. Biz owners are more concerned with keeping their doors open for the next year -- not on the long-term TCO benefits of Macs that last five years in that environment and require less IT support -- nor the argument that their employees want Macs. Their employees are feeling lucky to have jobs at all more than about their OS's.
Back to the low end, then, there is a HUGE gap, i.e., between about $400 to $1000 there's nada but the aging Mini. And there's plenty of bux to be harvested $6-700 at a clip. Especially if each device sold generates large incremental add-on media revenues and app sales. And brings new classes of buyers into the A, Inc. integrated product eco-system.
Making something scaled up from the current iDevices, then, is a natural and much more likely than something scaled down from a full OS X computer, on which they'd have trouble making Apple-like margins.
And it would clearly be fast enough with available hardware -- the fastest internet access and smoothest streaming video in my house is neither on my Mac or my PC, but my Touch. and even at the Touch's size, the internet experience is really quite as satisfactory, and in some ways better. So I'm not much involved with all the Atom/Arm etc. talk in this thread.
It also most certainly won't be called a netbook - just as their first music box was not called the Apple MP3 player. Nor will it cover the same range of functions as an EEE running XP. And will probably create one or more new classes of things to do on a digital device that will get general interest magazine covers.
It will absolutely do a few cool and showy tricks netbooks don't to create marketing buzz in a new Reality Distortion Field.
I lusted, for example, for widgets, but haven't invoked one in over two years, and Spaces sound cool, but I have no real use for them and get by with my cluttered desktop space just fine.
Meanwhile, a free copy of SuperDuper plus a leftover copy of backup.app from my single and likely never again subscription to then .Mac meets all my backup needs as well or better than Time Machine would. Nor, while I learned them all, do I ever use Cover Flow nor a single iLife or iWork app (tho old, near featureless TextEdit gets plenty of invocations when I don't want to give all those CPU cycles, bytes and slow start-up times to Word, and while I'm always ready to use Numbers for the occasional temporary quick spread sheet, in real life I haven't really been making any).
And I suspect I am hardly alone in this general tendency.
But all these "innovations" have sold a ton of product for Apple. And once people have the products, their real strengths do create Apple fans who don't look back.
So a beautiful, unique new iDevice should have a ready and lucrative market. It will be marketed as solving problems or doing new things no current devices do, not as an Asus killer, even if it turns out to be one. I'm not sure what Apple will emphasize, but e.g., as a mobile sales tool, a 6x8 or 5x9 screen (more likely the latter to fit current Apple notions of what screen proportions should be) would bring a briefcaseable lightweight device to many new locations. And make for a more satisfying and shareable video experience. But these would not be reasons enough to create the device.
For example, there has also not been much talk of gaming in this thread. Given the brisk pace of Touch and Phone game sales, the clever use of accelerometers, etc., this seems like an obvious major use that today's netbooks can't touch. And would also impact PSP's, DS's, etc., and even steal some Wii sales.
As an iDevice, and a Jobs/Ivie shepherded creation, I also suspect it will lack a physical keyboard, even if in this case it might support a pluggable one. It won't be a huge iPhone, but Skype and video chat/conferencing are certainly possible (without really cannabalizing the iPhone market). And it might be a unique form factor camera/vidcam with a Huge Viewfinder and instant visual gratification at a nice size.
It will have to do light document and image processing - e.g., bring mobilized, even lighter weight versions of newish iLife and iWork type apps - and would have, likely, hooks for bloggers, facebookers, twitterers, youtubers - and absolutely MobileMe'ers. And must solve the puzzling/vexing copy/paste issue.
There are just so many ways to go here I can't imagine Apple not going in some of them. As well as they are selling, XP netbooks are still inherently small, slow, butt-ugly UI, compromised PC's with little cachet. This device might be designed as more of a Mac Companion - with unique strengths, but also with the ability to synch files, projects and more (maybe wirelessly) with Mac notebooks (and other Macs on an Airport network), where work brought to a certain level could be massaged further by Snow Leopard machines. Or even as the ultimate home theatre/network remote controller.
So, c'mon. Something's coming along some of these lines and if not by January, certainly by June. How can it not??
If Apple were to do it, I think a 1" inch think, unibody MB 12" solves the problem a netbook purportedly solves, and does it with a larger screen, normal sized MB keyboard, twice the performance, if not 3 times, and it would make Apple money as it would sell for $1000 or more.
Apple make a machine like this already. It's thinner that 1"
C.
It also most certainly won't be called a netbook - just as their first music box was not called the Apple MP3 player. Nor will it cover the same range of functions as an EEE running XP. And will probably create one or more new classes of things to do on a digital device that will get general interest magazine covers.
It will absolutely do a few cool and showy tricks netbooks don't to create marketing buzz in a new Reality Distortion Field.
So, c'mon. Something's coming along some of these lines and if not by January, certainly by June. How can it not??
Nice post and you got a lot of stuff that are good. I agree not a NetBook for sure. How about iTablet for $599 with 120GB disk and $699 for 240GB (the new 1.8 inch toshiba sata drive). It will do all that iPod Touch will do. And great games as its CPU will be 900Mhz or 1Ghz PA Semi. Plus as a companion device its USB port will allow USD disk access from a Mac while it plays music and surf the web like the touch and iPhone. Plus there will be iWork sw for it for school and light note taking/ business use. It will take the wireless keyboard via bluetooth. This will be a compelling segment that students will absolutely love and get as a second device since their main Mac[B]ook cannot last the whole day taking notes and doing light surfing/research. Battery life got to be in the region of 6 hours minimum. This *WILL* sell like hotcakes to existing mac users and new students and younger folks as it will be the ideal Internet tablet with Wifi and good 7 or 8 inch wide screen. (1024X 600)
And it ain't a Netbook!!!.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/apple...x_architecture
Here is an interesting article about ARM development and speculation about employment by Apple in a tablet.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/apple...x_architecture
The problem I see with running ARM on a tablet is app development.
I would suspect that most software vendors would just want the current x86 OSX apps to just run on a new Mac tablet and not have to re-write from scratch.
For iPhone apps writing apps from scratch was necessary and beneficial. An x86 app wouldn't work well just being ported to an iPhone. Perhaps iPhone apps could be ported to the Mac tablet but iPhone apps, while generally useful, are a bit limited in function.
The nice thing about Atom is that the current apps would just run. Maybe a few changes would be necessary to take advantage of the hardware, but overall less work for software vendors.
The problem I see with running ARM on a tablet is app development.
I would suspect that most software vendors would just want the current x86 OSX apps to just run on a new Mac tablet and not have to re-write from scratch.
For iPhone apps writing apps from scratch was necessary and beneficial. An x86 app wouldn't work well just being ported to an iPhone. Perhaps iPhone apps could be ported to the Mac tablet but iPhone apps, while generally useful, are a bit limited in function.
The nice thing about Atom is that the current apps would just run. Maybe a few changes would be necessary to take advantage of the hardware, but overall less work for software vendors.
I very much agree about the software vendors.
As was mentioned earlier, even if the vendors have to write a "lite" version of their apps to deal with the lower powered processors of a netbook (and I do not think all of them will have to do that much), it is familiar territory.
Apple may have legitimate reasons to have a custom ARM processor for the iPods & etc, but if they go proprietary simply for the sake of doing so I am concerned that they will be harming themselves and the platform.
In the late 1970s GM produced something in excess of 25 different versions of the same basic Quadra-Jet carburator simply for the purpose of making life difficult for aftermarket gasket manufacturers so that they could capture that market. Had they expended that effort on designing and making better automobiles, they might not have lost so many customers who went elsewhere and never returned.
Despite what some people think of Apple hardware, what makes Apple's computer products is the operating system, or more precisely, the UI for the free OS that Apple uses.
Cheers
I am surprised that Steve Jobs is so out of touch with reality.
That the iPhone, crippled to death as it is, can be used as a netbook has got to be the joke of the year.
1-The crippled Bluetooth prevents the use of a decent size wireless qwerty keyboard. Foldable keyboards on Berries, Windows Mobile and Symbian are about $75 on eBay.
2-No Cut & Paste (!)
3-No docking station for a larger display or keyboard.
4-Can't be used as a modem.
etc.
If I had an iPhone I would have to carry a full-size overpriced laptop with me most of the time. .
With iTablet. You leave the iPhone alone . Use a wifi tetering a app to make it a modem.
iTablet will fix (1), it will work with all bluetooth keyboards including Apple wireless keyboard,
Have Copy past (it is not an iPhone, it has no phone in it).
Use VGA output port. heck we can compromise with mini-DP port, or min-DVI. Just buy the cable dongles...
It will have 120GB or 240GB 1.6 inch disk. Battery life > 6 hours. Want more ?. You kidding, enough already for $599/$699 price tag as Apple "wants" their 30% margin!.
The problem I see with running ARM on a tablet is app development.
I would suspect that most software vendors would just want the current x86 OSX apps to just run on a new Mac tablet and not have to re-write from scratch.
For iPhone apps writing apps from scratch was necessary and beneficial. An x86 app wouldn't work well just being ported to an iPhone. Perhaps iPhone apps could be ported to the Mac tablet but iPhone apps, while generally useful, are a bit limited in function.
The nice thing about Atom is that the current apps would just run. Maybe a few changes would be necessary to take advantage of the hardware, but overall less work for software vendors.
Any Netbook class device from Apple is going to run on Snow Leopard's core. Targetting additional platforms would be done via LLVM/CLANG which would theoretically allow you to write to an Intermediary represenation and the apply JIT compilation at runtime or heavily optimized compilation.
WWDC 09 shoudl be very interesting. I don't think Apple will deliver any new class of portable device until after WWDC 09 because I think there's going to be some major implications to app development being unveiled.
The secret device will not be a tablet or a netbook but something.....different.
How do you have a large screen in a device that must still fit in your pocket?
Steve has the answer.
<snip>
We're certainly on the precipice of a new class of hardware that really demands larger screens and more application flexibility than the current iPhone's form factor allows. Next year is going to be very exciting in this space..whether you call it a Netbook or not.
HM
Indeed!
I would suspect that most software vendors would just want the current x86 OSX apps to just run on a new Mac tablet and not have to re-write from scratch.
Developers would prefer that - but that's the way to make the device work poorly. Forget whether it has enough power - if you have an app that's designed for a keyboard and mouse and you then try to make your OS convert those needs to work with touch screen, etc - you get a system that is only half baked.
When people say that there's no market for a tablet it's because the tablets so far were just a laptop with the keyboard removed (hell, the ModBook is EXACTLY that
The only hope apple has of making a tablet a useful device is to rethink it as if nothing else existed. Then they can look at how to best take advantage of what already exists. But they also need to BREAK user expectations, which means forcing them to use the tablet as Apple wants rather than giving them esoteric work-arounds so that a power user can learn odd tricks to make old things work.
The iPhone did this and I lean towards using iPhone paradigms instead of OSX ones, since they really are designed for a touch screen. Of course that still isn't a 'break' from the past, but Apple's pda/tablet team were working on their interface before it was moved to the iPhone anyway.
Developers would prefer that - but that's the way to make the device work poorly. Forget whether it has enough power - if you have an app that's designed for a keyboard and mouse and you then try to make your OS convert those needs to work with touch screen, etc - you get a system that is only half baked.
When people say that there's no market for a tablet it's because the tablets so far were just a laptop with the keyboard removed (hell, the ModBook is EXACTLY that
The only hope apple has of making a tablet a useful device is to rethink it as if nothing else existed. Then they can look at how to best take advantage of what already exists. But they also need to BREAK user expectations, which means forcing them to use the tablet as Apple wants rather than giving them esoteric work-arounds so that a power user can learn odd tricks to make old things work.
The iPhone did this and I lean towards using iPhone paradigms instead of OSX ones, since they really are designed for a touch screen. Of course that still isn't a 'break' from the past, but Apple's pda/tablet team were working on their interface before it was moved to the iPhone anyway.
I see your points.
That's a problem for the tablet. Its a new platform really which will require re-writes of software. Will the software vendors feel up to it?
I don't know enough about clang or llvm, which Murch refers to, to know whether they make the process easier or not.
I see your points.
That's a problem for the tablet. Its a new platform really which will require re-writes of software. Will the software vendors feel up to it?
I don't know enough about clang or llvm, which Murch refers to, to know whether they make the process easier or not.
If Mac developers have moved to Xcode (which Apple has forced them to do over the last couple of years), and are using Cocoa (which Snow Leopard is forcing for 64 bits), then they now have very portable code. Developers are also already writing in Xcode for iPhone, and Dashcode. So they are in a good place code wise.
The technologies to allow one app to run on multiple platforms also have the side effect of allowing "one size fits all" apps, so I think Apple will want to think differently.
The Qualcomm Snapdragon may provide an interesting alternative (and spur development of the other CPUs with multiple integrated functions. The Snapdragon is apparently a dual core 1.5 GHz processor with integrated Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, mobile broadband and graphics. The linked article references a 4" screen in what would be classed as a MID, but Qualcomm apparently has intentions of moving into the netbook arena with Snapdragon.
The processor powering the Android phone is not in contention for Apple products.
...will require re-writes of software. Will the software vendors feel up to it?
I kind of skimmed this point of whether the vendors would do it, focussing instead on the programming environment.
I think this model (to rewrite) will work for 4 reasons
1) I assume a tablet would be fully functional without 3rd party apps. There's no chicken-or-egg problem of vendors not bothering until the tablet is successful, while the tablet can't be successful until 3rd party apps appear.
2) Vendors who wrote (or rewrote) for the iPhone seem to be pretty happy with the financial return.
3) A common programming environment for iPhone, Leopard, Dashboard, & Tablet
4) Tablets haven't been that successful in the past while running existing apps, but a new paradigm could redefine the platform. And I think Steve could sell that.
Back to the $599 topic... we were talking about Netbook not Tablet. If vendors need YET ANOTHER program for Netbooks I think we're in for problems. Unless Apple makes writing a single code base across all palatable (with different interfaces).