Given that your mockups are either simply the iPhone enlarged (which you spam everywhere) or simply taken from someone else without attribution I think the two are equally easy.
Wow, bold claim 'hinting' that I stole someone else idea, basically. I didn't. Stop doing that. And no, it's not "simply" an iPhone enlarged. It's a Mac, with a dock, multiple docks (swipe-able), a manubar and spotlight etc.
Given I have a 10" netbook with a decent keyboard that's completely false. You do not need to have a touch-screen keyboard and given I've used a touch screen keyboard (full sized not the iPhone one) and you haven't I probably know the limitations of one far better than you.
I'll have to side with Ireland on this one. Not because it's impossible to have a less than full size keyboard that's comfortable or usable, but because Steve won't ship one. He made a point with the 12" PowerBook and again with the MacBook Air that the keyboard was full size.
He's about as likely to ship something that requires a stylus.
However, look at the problem the tablet is trying to solve: If you're going for one-handed operation, weight and bulk are as important as size. If we assume a 10" diagonal screen it will have to be thin and light ("sexy," in Steve's nomenclature). It has to have an attractive combination of capability and battery life. If it's a tablet, the virtual keyboard is less precise than a physical keyboard and fingers are less precise (if more expressive) than a mouse is, so there's not much point designing it to handle prolonged or precise input, or to design the UI to expect the kind of pinpoint accuracy that a mouse offers. Fitt's Law doesn't apply to touch interfaces. Most of these data points rule against the tablet being a Mac. Neither the OS nor (more importantly) the software for the Mac is set up to work with a touch interface, and since no other Mac has a touch interface this would either mean no tablet specific apps get written (Windows disease) or the platform fragments (another Windows disease). The iPhone/iPod and its software is designed from the ground up to work with fingertips. I'm not sure how well Mac OS X could run on an ARM or Atom platform, but the iPhone/iPod OS X runs very well. And, of course, iPhone/iPod already has support built in for goodies like virtual keyboards, portrait/landscape orientation switching, and everything else that the tablet could use.
I put the odds near 100% that if Apple releases a 10" tablet it will run on the mobile OS X and offer a variation on the mobile interface. Out of necessity, the hardware will be far too thin and light to hold hardware with the power necessary to run a modern Mac. Even the Air's 3 pound frame is way too heavy for comfortable one-handed use and look at the griping here about its performance.
Well Ireland, I don't really need to tell you why your idea is not going to happen, Apple will do that for me when they release a slightly larger iPod Touch or a smaller MacBook Air. Not a ridiculous and impractical 10" tablet. Oh, and I'll expect an apology for the "dumb" and "stupid" comments when you are proven wrong this year
Well Ireland, I don't really need to tell you why your idea is not going to happen, Apple will do that for me when they release a slightly larger iPod Touch or a smaller MacBook Air. Not a ridiculous and impractical 10" tablet. Oh, and I'll expect an apology for the "dumb" and "stupid" comments when you are proven wrong this year
Ok, I apologize.
You have your opinion, I have mine; we'll see what happens.
Well Ireland, I don't really need to tell you why your idea is not going to happen, Apple will do that for me when they release a slightly larger iPod Touch or a smaller MacBook Air. Not a ridiculous and impractical 10" tablet. Oh, and I'll expect an apology for the "dumb" and "stupid" comments when you are proven wrong this year
Why not a netbook with two 20'' screens that can be folded like a book? It will be an ebook reader that will turn into a netbook when turned 90 degrees, with one screen converted then to a touchscreen keyboard? When closed, a bookcover (or any other pucture) can show up on the outside.
You mean two 10". And YES. I agree. I've brought it up before. The "Book" format is still viable. Bonus: it folds into a double-sided tablet, or either side gets to be the (virtual) keyboard... The mind boggles.
Apple doesn't manufacture screens, Apple doesn't manufacture anything, and no-one manufactures 10" OLED screens for mobile devices. Sony has 11" OLED screens which are very expensive in a very limited run.
You are right that Apple doesn't manufacture anything directly any more, but you fail to realize the incredible amount of influence they have on component manufactures. Apple in effect paid for the production line for the Cinema Displays up front and has in effect paid up front for their new source of displays. It is rumored that Apple has locked in just about all of the world wide supply of high density flash for the next couple of months. Even if that rumor is not true Apple is estimated to consume more than 40% of world wide flash production. Combine this with Apples history of exclusivity contracts and the use of custom designed hardware, it is hard to not to imagine that they are in a unique position.
As to Sony and their expensive OLED TV, it is a jump to say that the price of that unit is high because the screen itself is expensive to manufacture. In volume OLEDs are expected to be much cheaper to produce. The screens can be very compatible with current manufacturing processes but enjoy the benefit of fewer layers to deal with.
Sure the manufactures have to pay off their development costs which in the electronics industry means early adopters pay. Much of that cost though is being dealt with as Smaller OPER screens have been on the market for sometime. Plus if somebody like Apple pays for your entire production line up front and may have also paid for much of the R&D costs then they are going to get a better deal. Does that mean dirt cheap, no but it does mean Apple can sell bleeding edge tech at a reasonable price and maintain margins.
Quote:
The fact is that large OLED screens won't happen until someone takes a big risk and invests a very large amount of money in a new fab to build them, which is unlikely in this economy.
Apple could do this in a heart beat. With 24 billion to play with spending 100 million on a manufacturing line would be nothing. The could likely do that out of cash flow. The fact is they already have a history here. The only question is simply is the tech ready to meet demand.
Wow, bold claim 'hinting' that I stole someone else idea, basically. I didn't. Stop doing that. And no, it's not "simply" an iPhone enlarged. It's a Mac, with a dock, multiple docks (swipe-able), a manubar and spotlight etc.
I'm not hinting. I'm saying you did it in the past. You posted a mockup without attribution for "discussion" and I called you on it with a link to the original mockup. It was no different than your other mockups you put up for "discussion" except it was a much better job.
I'll have to side with Ireland on this one. Not because it's impossible to have a less than full size keyboard that's comfortable or usable, but because Steve won't ship one. He made a point with the 12" PowerBook and again with the MacBook Air that the keyboard was full size.
He's about as likely to ship something that requires a stylus.
Yes, it's true that Steve might not do this because of design reasons. On the other hand, a 10" multitouch tablet is kind of a so-so device. Too big to be handy as a MID, too small for tablet use. Especially without a stylus for drawing or writing.
I would expect that the smaller 7-8" size to be better and that was the earlier rumor.
Quote:
Fitt's Law doesn't apply to touch interfaces.
This is incorrect. Size (and distance) matters even in direct manipulation. That most folks think of mousing in relation to Fitt's Law doesn't mean it doesn't apply to generic pointing, including with a finger.
Quote:
Most of these data points rule against the tablet being a Mac. Neither the OS nor (more importantly) the software for the Mac is set up to work with a touch interface, and since no other Mac has a touch interface this would either mean no tablet specific apps get written (Windows disease) or the platform fragments (another Windows disease). The iPhone/iPod and its software is designed from the ground up to work with fingertips. I'm not sure how well Mac OS X could run on an ARM or Atom platform, but the iPhone/iPod OS X runs very well. And, of course, iPhone/iPod already has support built in for goodies like virtual keyboards, portrait/landscape orientation switching, and everything else that the tablet could use.
Both are technically OSX with Cocoa. What you're asking is whether the MAC WIMP UI will be used in a tablet device or the iPhone's limited multitouch UI will be used. The answer is probably a combination of both. MS's tablet edition with onenote is an example of a so-so hybrid implementation. Desktop with tablet support.
You'd have to upsize all the interfaces and use some iPhone metaphors for others.
Quote:
I put the odds near 100% that if Apple releases a 10" tablet it will run on the mobile OS X and offer a variation on the mobile interface. Out of necessity, the hardware will be far too thin and light to hold hardware with the power necessary to run a modern Mac. Even the Air's 3 pound frame is way too heavy for comfortable one-handed use and look at the griping here about its performance.
Perhaps. But I put the odds of a 10" slate tablet to be low and a 10" convertible to be low but slightly higher than a slate.
I prefer a slate that I can stick in a large pocket. Paperback book sized would be better than 10". Better than a touch for eBook, movies, etc but still mobile enough to stick in a jacket pocket. At 10" I'd rather carry a netbook around with a built in 500GB drive and usable keyboard.
I'm not hinting. I'm saying you did it in the past. You posted a mockup without attribution for "discussion" and I called you on it with a link to the original mockup. It was no different than your other mockups you put up for "discussion" except it was a much better job.
What you have is an iPhone slightly redone in photoshop with a desktop overlaid on it.
That mockup shows an innate lack of ergonomics. Who in the hell wants a glide pad above their keyboard knowing damn well the wrist will displaced vertically and compress the keys below the pad?
Moronic design.
Secondly, what's the point of reversing the lid [> 180 degrees of kinematic rotation] just to have the place where the keyboard is normally embedded be replaced and now the basic bottom for this system to rest?
Buy a laptop. It's compact, all-in-one.
The point of a Tablet would be to have an ability to dock into a stand and use an external keyboard/mouse when you are at a station/table and then remove from the dock with a touch screen approach when you are holding it in your hand/inside a day planner.
This video has an example of what I was stating in a previous post about how the input can't be the same as the typical dock when using a touchscreen-based tablet.
[QUOTE=mdriftmeyer;1390537]That mockup shows an innate lack of ergonomics. Who in the hell wants a glide pad above their keyboard knowing damn well the wrist will displaced vertically and compress the keys below the pad?QUOTE]
The mockups usually do miss the boat on most levels. They make them cool but completely unpractical, which is why it's good that there isn't just one person working on these products. At least the video in the link shows the display for the tablet changing, which is practical. I haven't seen that before.
Given Cocoa Touch and and a touchscreen, how hard would it be to run iPhone OS apps within Snow Leopard? I know nothing about programming, but couldn't there be a pretty simple "emulation" environment?
My thought is that Apple need not choose between the iPhone OS or full OS X, but could offer a device that runs OS X and which leverages the robust iPhone ecosystem.
Want to sell your iPhone app to 10" whatever it is users? Tweak it to look great and offer it along side your iPhone version. Presto, a machine that runs OS X plus a bajillion touch optimized, resource efficient iPhone apps, right out of the gate.
That should drive sales while developers start writing apps targeted to the new form factor and Cocoa Touch.
Given Cocoa Touch and and a touchscreen, how hard would it be to run iPhone OS apps within Snow Leopard? I know nothing about programming, but couldn't there be a pretty simple "emulation" environment?
My thought is that Apple need not choose between the iPhone OS or full OS X, but could offer a device that runs OS X and which leverages the robust iPhone ecosystem.
Want to sell your iPhone app to 10" whatever it is users? Tweak it to look great and offer it along side your iPhone version. Presto, a machine that runs OS X plus a bajillion touch optimized, resource efficient iPhone apps, right out of the gate.
That should drive sales while developers start writing apps targeted to the new form factor and Cocoa Touch.
Isn't the fact that Cocoa Touch is a core element of the Snow Leopard stack obvious to folks that OS X will be able to run touch apps like the iPhone? Apple's not going to use the iPhones OS X version on a 10" screen folks. Snow Leopard is going to unify the best elements of the iPhone into Macs.
Thus your location aware apps that work on the iPhone will now work on your Macbooks.
Your gestures on the iPhone will work on your 10 Mac Tablet or whatever they calle it.
BUT ...you will have full Mac OS X and the ability to run most if not all apps. I think people get stuck in this modal thinking and fail to realize that in many cases you don't have to limit your choice to either/or.
Isn't the fact that Cocoa Touch is a core element of the Snow Leopard stack obvious to folks that OS X will be able to run touch apps like the iPhone? Apple's not going to use the iPhones OS X version on a 10" screen folks. Snow Leopard is going to unify the best elements of the iPhone into Macs.
Thus your location aware apps that work on the iPhone will now work on your Macbooks.
Your gestures on the iPhone will work on your 10 Mac Tablet or whatever they calle it.
BUT ...you will have full Mac OS X and the ability to run most if not all apps. I think people get stuck in this modal thinking and fail to realize that in many cases you don't have to limit your choice to either/or.
Right, so my question is how much work an iPhone developer would have to do to make an iPhone app run on a Snow Leopard device with the appropriate hardware?
Nothing? A tick box on compile? As far as I know, the iPhone dev kit basically runs iPhone apps on your Mac now, with the caveat that you can't actually perform touch stuff per se.
So I would think that it would be possible to run iPhone apps straightaway, as downloaded from the app store, and all a dev would have to attend to would be scaling the necessary UI elements.
Running iPhone apps on an OS X device strikes me as a huge win for Apple.
Right, so my question is how much work an iPhone developer would have to do to make an iPhone app run on a Snow Leopard device with the appropriate hardware?
Nothing? A tick box on compile? As far as I know, the iPhone dev kit basically runs iPhone apps on your Mac now, with the caveat that you can't actually perform touch stuff per se.
So I would think that it would be possible to run iPhone apps straightaway, as downloaded from the app store, and all a dev would have to attend to would be scaling the necessary UI elements.
Running iPhone apps on an OS X device strikes me as a huge win for Apple.
I could see Apple or someone creating a compatibility box in SL but there may be politics against that sort of thing (Apple likely wants iPhone apps running strictly on the iPhone)
but technically it doesn't appear to be any signifant hurdle seeing as how so much of SL is tech coming over that started life on the iPhone.
I could see Apple or someone creating a compatibility box in SL but there may be politics against that sort of thing (Apple likely wants iPhone apps running strictly on the iPhone)
You think? If I were Apple and planning to bring out a 10" touch screen device, it seems like I would want to take advantage of an enormous library of touch optimized apps and a well established distribution system. After all, aside from whatever Apple manages to get out the door in the way of Cocoa Touch enabled stuff, a brand new touch device would suffer from a dearth of apps upon release, or possibly some clumsy implementations of keyboard driven stuff.
Quote:
but technically it doesn't appear to be any signifant hurdle seeing as how so much of SL is tech coming over that started life on the iPhone.
That's what I figured. So if it's technically easy, I can't imagine that Apple would allow some odd notion of "iPhone apps stay on the iPhone" to hinder what after all would be a terrific marketing tool. After all, it's not like Apple has been acting as if they think the iPhone is a second class citizen that would pollute the OS X environment. Quite the opposite, actually.
What you have is an iPhone slightly redone in photoshop with a desktop overlaid on it.
Slight oversimplification. I went into detail about the way it would function in the real world. Pop-out rear rest, swipe-able docks (plural), finger-sized menubar, full OS X etc. It's not simply an iPhone made bigger. The only similarities it has to the iPhone are that it's made from the same materials and the UI is all touch based. It has a desktop, and rather than multiple homescreens it has multiple docks. All the best ideas are the simplest ones. My point is the screen on this tablet could look like this, with the 2D touch (swipe) dock, desktop and finger-sized menubar.
This video has an example of what I was stating in a previous post about how the input can't be the same as the typical dock when using a touchscreen-based tablet.
Steve would love that! Did you ever hear the expression over-engineered? Cause the suggested product in that video is just that. Simply giving this tablet a (special) USB port would allow it to use the same superdrive the Air uses. Knowing Apple and Steve, this product likely won't have a hardware keyboard, but rather a software keyboard with advanced software, that takes up zero thickness and zero weight. If you want a computer with a keyboard it's called a notebook, Apple already sell those.
Comments
Given that your mockups are either simply the iPhone enlarged (which you spam everywhere) or simply taken from someone else without attribution I think the two are equally easy.
Wow, bold claim 'hinting' that I stole someone else idea, basically. I didn't. Stop doing that. And no, it's not "simply" an iPhone enlarged. It's a Mac, with a dock, multiple docks (swipe-able), a manubar and spotlight etc.
Given I have a 10" netbook with a decent keyboard that's completely false. You do not need to have a touch-screen keyboard and given I've used a touch screen keyboard (full sized not the iPhone one) and you haven't I probably know the limitations of one far better than you.
I'll have to side with Ireland on this one. Not because it's impossible to have a less than full size keyboard that's comfortable or usable, but because Steve won't ship one. He made a point with the 12" PowerBook and again with the MacBook Air that the keyboard was full size.
He's about as likely to ship something that requires a stylus.
However, look at the problem the tablet is trying to solve: If you're going for one-handed operation, weight and bulk are as important as size. If we assume a 10" diagonal screen it will have to be thin and light ("sexy," in Steve's nomenclature). It has to have an attractive combination of capability and battery life. If it's a tablet, the virtual keyboard is less precise than a physical keyboard and fingers are less precise (if more expressive) than a mouse is, so there's not much point designing it to handle prolonged or precise input, or to design the UI to expect the kind of pinpoint accuracy that a mouse offers. Fitt's Law doesn't apply to touch interfaces. Most of these data points rule against the tablet being a Mac. Neither the OS nor (more importantly) the software for the Mac is set up to work with a touch interface, and since no other Mac has a touch interface this would either mean no tablet specific apps get written (Windows disease) or the platform fragments (another Windows disease). The iPhone/iPod and its software is designed from the ground up to work with fingertips. I'm not sure how well Mac OS X could run on an ARM or Atom platform, but the iPhone/iPod OS X runs very well. And, of course, iPhone/iPod already has support built in for goodies like virtual keyboards, portrait/landscape orientation switching, and everything else that the tablet could use.
I put the odds near 100% that if Apple releases a 10" tablet it will run on the mobile OS X and offer a variation on the mobile interface. Out of necessity, the hardware will be far too thin and light to hold hardware with the power necessary to run a modern Mac. Even the Air's 3 pound frame is way too heavy for comfortable one-handed use and look at the griping here about its performance.
Well Ireland, I don't really need to tell you why your idea is not going to happen, Apple will do that for me when they release a slightly larger iPod Touch or a smaller MacBook Air. Not a ridiculous and impractical 10" tablet. Oh, and I'll expect an apology for the "dumb" and "stupid" comments when you are proven wrong this year
Ok, I apologize.
You have your opinion, I have mine; we'll see what happens.
Well Ireland, I don't really need to tell you why your idea is not going to happen, Apple will do that for me when they release a slightly larger iPod Touch or a smaller MacBook Air. Not a ridiculous and impractical 10" tablet. Oh, and I'll expect an apology for the "dumb" and "stupid" comments when you are proven wrong this year
The NetPad is coming. You're in denial.
Why not a netbook with two 20'' screens that can be folded like a book? It will be an ebook reader that will turn into a netbook when turned 90 degrees, with one screen converted then to a touchscreen keyboard? When closed, a bookcover (or any other pucture) can show up on the outside.
You mean two 10". And YES. I agree. I've brought it up before. The "Book" format is still viable. Bonus: it folds into a double-sided tablet, or either side gets to be the (virtual) keyboard... The mind boggles.
Apple doesn't manufacture screens, Apple doesn't manufacture anything, and no-one manufactures 10" OLED screens for mobile devices. Sony has 11" OLED screens which are very expensive in a very limited run.
You are right that Apple doesn't manufacture anything directly any more, but you fail to realize the incredible amount of influence they have on component manufactures. Apple in effect paid for the production line for the Cinema Displays up front and has in effect paid up front for their new source of displays. It is rumored that Apple has locked in just about all of the world wide supply of high density flash for the next couple of months. Even if that rumor is not true Apple is estimated to consume more than 40% of world wide flash production. Combine this with Apples history of exclusivity contracts and the use of custom designed hardware, it is hard to not to imagine that they are in a unique position.
As to Sony and their expensive OLED TV, it is a jump to say that the price of that unit is high because the screen itself is expensive to manufacture. In volume OLEDs are expected to be much cheaper to produce. The screens can be very compatible with current manufacturing processes but enjoy the benefit of fewer layers to deal with.
Sure the manufactures have to pay off their development costs which in the electronics industry means early adopters pay. Much of that cost though is being dealt with as Smaller OPER screens have been on the market for sometime. Plus if somebody like Apple pays for your entire production line up front and may have also paid for much of the R&D costs then they are going to get a better deal. Does that mean dirt cheap, no but it does mean Apple can sell bleeding edge tech at a reasonable price and maintain margins.
The fact is that large OLED screens won't happen until someone takes a big risk and invests a very large amount of money in a new fab to build them, which is unlikely in this economy.
Apple could do this in a heart beat. With 24 billion to play with spending 100 million on a manufacturing line would be nothing. The could likely do that out of cash flow. The fact is they already have a history here. The only question is simply is the tech ready to meet demand.
Dave
Wow, bold claim 'hinting' that I stole someone else idea, basically. I didn't. Stop doing that. And no, it's not "simply" an iPhone enlarged. It's a Mac, with a dock, multiple docks (swipe-able), a manubar and spotlight etc.
I'm not hinting. I'm saying you did it in the past. You posted a mockup without attribution for "discussion" and I called you on it with a link to the original mockup. It was no different than your other mockups you put up for "discussion" except it was a much better job.
These are mockups.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...html?series=48
http://www.oobject.com/category/best...ncept-mockups/
What you have is an iPhone slightly redone in photoshop with a desktop overlaid on it.
I'll have to side with Ireland on this one. Not because it's impossible to have a less than full size keyboard that's comfortable or usable, but because Steve won't ship one. He made a point with the 12" PowerBook and again with the MacBook Air that the keyboard was full size.
He's about as likely to ship something that requires a stylus.
Yes, it's true that Steve might not do this because of design reasons. On the other hand, a 10" multitouch tablet is kind of a so-so device. Too big to be handy as a MID, too small for tablet use. Especially without a stylus for drawing or writing.
I would expect that the smaller 7-8" size to be better and that was the earlier rumor.
Fitt's Law doesn't apply to touch interfaces.
This is incorrect. Size (and distance) matters even in direct manipulation. That most folks think of mousing in relation to Fitt's Law doesn't mean it doesn't apply to generic pointing, including with a finger.
Most of these data points rule against the tablet being a Mac. Neither the OS nor (more importantly) the software for the Mac is set up to work with a touch interface, and since no other Mac has a touch interface this would either mean no tablet specific apps get written (Windows disease) or the platform fragments (another Windows disease). The iPhone/iPod and its software is designed from the ground up to work with fingertips. I'm not sure how well Mac OS X could run on an ARM or Atom platform, but the iPhone/iPod OS X runs very well. And, of course, iPhone/iPod already has support built in for goodies like virtual keyboards, portrait/landscape orientation switching, and everything else that the tablet could use.
Both are technically OSX with Cocoa. What you're asking is whether the MAC WIMP UI will be used in a tablet device or the iPhone's limited multitouch UI will be used. The answer is probably a combination of both. MS's tablet edition with onenote is an example of a so-so hybrid implementation. Desktop with tablet support.
You'd have to upsize all the interfaces and use some iPhone metaphors for others.
I put the odds near 100% that if Apple releases a 10" tablet it will run on the mobile OS X and offer a variation on the mobile interface. Out of necessity, the hardware will be far too thin and light to hold hardware with the power necessary to run a modern Mac. Even the Air's 3 pound frame is way too heavy for comfortable one-handed use and look at the griping here about its performance.
Perhaps. But I put the odds of a 10" slate tablet to be low and a 10" convertible to be low but slightly higher than a slate.
I prefer a slate that I can stick in a large pocket. Paperback book sized would be better than 10". Better than a touch for eBook, movies, etc but still mobile enough to stick in a jacket pocket. At 10" I'd rather carry a netbook around with a built in 500GB drive and usable keyboard.
I'm not hinting. I'm saying you did it in the past. You posted a mockup without attribution for "discussion" and I called you on it with a link to the original mockup. It was no different than your other mockups you put up for "discussion" except it was a much better job.
These are mockups.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...html?series=48
http://www.oobject.com/category/best...ncept-mockups/
What you have is an iPhone slightly redone in photoshop with a desktop overlaid on it.
That mockup shows an innate lack of ergonomics. Who in the hell wants a glide pad above their keyboard knowing damn well the wrist will displaced vertically and compress the keys below the pad?
Moronic design.
Secondly, what's the point of reversing the lid [> 180 degrees of kinematic rotation] just to have the place where the keyboard is normally embedded be replaced and now the basic bottom for this system to rest?
Buy a laptop. It's compact, all-in-one.
The point of a Tablet would be to have an ability to dock into a stand and use an external keyboard/mouse when you are at a station/table and then remove from the dock with a touch screen approach when you are holding it in your hand/inside a day planner.
Guys, the name of this "tablet" will be Mac touch. Please, stop with the crumby names.
The mockups usually do miss the boat on most levels. They make them cool but completely unpractical, which is why it's good that there isn't just one person working on these products. At least the video in the link shows the display for the tablet changing, which is practical. I haven't seen that before.
My thought is that Apple need not choose between the iPhone OS or full OS X, but could offer a device that runs OS X and which leverages the robust iPhone ecosystem.
Want to sell your iPhone app to 10" whatever it is users? Tweak it to look great and offer it along side your iPhone version. Presto, a machine that runs OS X plus a bajillion touch optimized, resource efficient iPhone apps, right out of the gate.
That should drive sales while developers start writing apps targeted to the new form factor and Cocoa Touch.
Given Cocoa Touch and and a touchscreen, how hard would it be to run iPhone OS apps within Snow Leopard? I know nothing about programming, but couldn't there be a pretty simple "emulation" environment?
My thought is that Apple need not choose between the iPhone OS or full OS X, but could offer a device that runs OS X and which leverages the robust iPhone ecosystem.
Want to sell your iPhone app to 10" whatever it is users? Tweak it to look great and offer it along side your iPhone version. Presto, a machine that runs OS X plus a bajillion touch optimized, resource efficient iPhone apps, right out of the gate.
That should drive sales while developers start writing apps targeted to the new form factor and Cocoa Touch.
Isn't the fact that Cocoa Touch is a core element of the Snow Leopard stack obvious to folks that OS X will be able to run touch apps like the iPhone? Apple's not going to use the iPhones OS X version on a 10" screen folks. Snow Leopard is going to unify the best elements of the iPhone into Macs.
Thus your location aware apps that work on the iPhone will now work on your Macbooks.
Your gestures on the iPhone will work on your 10 Mac Tablet or whatever they calle it.
BUT ...you will have full Mac OS X and the ability to run most if not all apps. I think people get stuck in this modal thinking and fail to realize that in many cases you don't have to limit your choice to either/or.
Isn't the fact that Cocoa Touch is a core element of the Snow Leopard stack obvious to folks that OS X will be able to run touch apps like the iPhone? Apple's not going to use the iPhones OS X version on a 10" screen folks. Snow Leopard is going to unify the best elements of the iPhone into Macs.
Thus your location aware apps that work on the iPhone will now work on your Macbooks.
Your gestures on the iPhone will work on your 10 Mac Tablet or whatever they calle it.
BUT ...you will have full Mac OS X and the ability to run most if not all apps. I think people get stuck in this modal thinking and fail to realize that in many cases you don't have to limit your choice to either/or.
Right, so my question is how much work an iPhone developer would have to do to make an iPhone app run on a Snow Leopard device with the appropriate hardware?
Nothing? A tick box on compile? As far as I know, the iPhone dev kit basically runs iPhone apps on your Mac now, with the caveat that you can't actually perform touch stuff per se.
So I would think that it would be possible to run iPhone apps straightaway, as downloaded from the app store, and all a dev would have to attend to would be scaling the necessary UI elements.
Running iPhone apps on an OS X device strikes me as a huge win for Apple.
Right, so my question is how much work an iPhone developer would have to do to make an iPhone app run on a Snow Leopard device with the appropriate hardware?
Nothing? A tick box on compile? As far as I know, the iPhone dev kit basically runs iPhone apps on your Mac now, with the caveat that you can't actually perform touch stuff per se.
So I would think that it would be possible to run iPhone apps straightaway, as downloaded from the app store, and all a dev would have to attend to would be scaling the necessary UI elements.
Running iPhone apps on an OS X device strikes me as a huge win for Apple.
I could see Apple or someone creating a compatibility box in SL but there may be politics against that sort of thing (Apple likely wants iPhone apps running strictly on the iPhone)
but technically it doesn't appear to be any signifant hurdle seeing as how so much of SL is tech coming over that started life on the iPhone.
I could see Apple or someone creating a compatibility box in SL but there may be politics against that sort of thing (Apple likely wants iPhone apps running strictly on the iPhone)
You think? If I were Apple and planning to bring out a 10" touch screen device, it seems like I would want to take advantage of an enormous library of touch optimized apps and a well established distribution system. After all, aside from whatever Apple manages to get out the door in the way of Cocoa Touch enabled stuff, a brand new touch device would suffer from a dearth of apps upon release, or possibly some clumsy implementations of keyboard driven stuff.
but technically it doesn't appear to be any signifant hurdle seeing as how so much of SL is tech coming over that started life on the iPhone.
That's what I figured. So if it's technically easy, I can't imagine that Apple would allow some odd notion of "iPhone apps stay on the iPhone" to hinder what after all would be a terrific marketing tool. After all, it's not like Apple has been acting as if they think the iPhone is a second class citizen that would pollute the OS X environment. Quite the opposite, actually.
What you have is an iPhone slightly redone in photoshop with a desktop overlaid on it.
Slight oversimplification. I went into detail about the way it would function in the real world. Pop-out rear rest, swipe-able docks (plural), finger-sized menubar, full OS X etc. It's not simply an iPhone made bigger. The only similarities it has to the iPhone are that it's made from the same materials and the UI is all touch based. It has a desktop, and rather than multiple homescreens it has multiple docks. All the best ideas are the simplest ones. My point is the screen on this tablet could look like this, with the 2D touch (swipe) dock, desktop and finger-sized menubar.
This video has an example of what I was stating in a previous post about how the input can't be the same as the typical dock when using a touchscreen-based tablet.
Steve would love that! Did you ever hear the expression over-engineered? Cause the suggested product in that video is just that. Simply giving this tablet a (special) USB port would allow it to use the same superdrive the Air uses. Knowing Apple and Steve, this product likely won't have a hardware keyboard, but rather a software keyboard with advanced software, that takes up zero thickness and zero weight. If you want a computer with a keyboard it's called a notebook, Apple already sell those.