My netbook has a bigger HD then the current white MB and has the same size as the entry-level alu MB (160 GB) - I'm not exactly hurting for space on it. And with "only" 1 GB of RAM, it runs XP, Win7 (beta), and Linux just fine.
The problem is what is fine depends upon what the user considers acceptable. What is fine for you may be totally unacceptable to another. Have plenty of experience with Linux for example and have a hard time believing ATOM would run it the way I would like. But that is for a laptop.
Quote:
And the things that people probably usually do on a computer, would also suffice on a netbook. other than Flash. which isn't GPU accelerated, and the Atom CPU will choke on HD or full-screen content. For most mundane things, it works well enough, and certainly more portable than my 15.4" Toshiba.
Video and a place to store is an important consideration.
Quote:
But for internet, e-mail, Office, it's fine. The main issue with the majority of netbooks, are because their physical size. like the KB, but some of those largely disappear, with the 12.1" 1280x800 models from HP, and soon, Lenovo.
The HP uses an ATI HD 3410, while the Lenovo will have a Nvidia 9400M GPU. The HP is the most expensive at $700, but it has 4GB of RAM, a AMD Neo CPU. and Vista 64-bit, while the Lenovo will be around $500 with the Atom.
As far as Leopard on current netbooks, I've read it performs like an older iBook G4.
A lot of what you describe above can already be done on a iPhone. Obviously even a modestly more capable machine would improve that experience. There are other factors that drive the need for faster processing rather than older apps.
The problem is what is fine depends upon what the user considers acceptable. What is fine for you may be totally unacceptable to another. Have plenty of experience with Linux for example and have a hard time believing ATOM would run it the way I would like. But that is for a laptop.
Video and a place to store is an important consideration.
A lot of what you describe above can already be done on a iPhone. Obviously even a modestly more capable machine would improve that experience. There are other factors that drive the need for faster processing rather than older apps.
Dave
What, so a 160 GB HD limits you for most everything?
Let me reiterate: It's still bigger than what Apple includes in their entry-level Mini and bigger than the one in the white MB, and as big as the one in the $1300 alu MB. Those are all considered Apple's 'consumer', cheap Macs, and I'm not even that limited by my Mini's 80 GB drive, unless I'm downloading a lot of torrents.
The Atom is fine for mundane tasks, except for things like Flash video, as iFlash is not very optimized. But netbooks aren't designed to render video and the like. They cost about as much as a 16 GB Touch, yet they run a full-blown OS, as long as it isn't Vista.
But please don't toss the iPhone into this, I have a Touch, which is basically the same thing, minus the phone and camera part, but I would never compare it to my netbook; it's just ridiculous to say that one device is too limited, and then turn around and say that another device, that is even more limited, can somehow do the same thing.
I have both, I know what I'm talking about. iPhone OS 3.0 may improve things, but not with that 400 MHz or so ARM CPU and only 128 of RAM, and only several GB of non-upgrade flash storage.
What, so a 160 GB HD limits you for most everything?
For many people YES a 160 GB is limiting. Frankly it was a bit of a surprise as to how fast the HD on my MBP filled up. In part that is because I have used the Mac in ways I didn't expect.
Some things that have had a greater impact on disk usage then expected:
1. ITunes.
2. Virtual machines and system images.
3. Miro.
4. XCode & the iPhone SDK.
Of the above though iTunes can really kill disk space. Maybe you don't have that problem but some of us do as we use our machines in different ways.
Quote:
Let me reiterate: It's still bigger than what Apple includes in their entry-level Mini and bigger than the one in the white MB, and as big as the one in the $1300 alu MB. Those are all considered Apple's 'consumer', cheap Macs, and I'm not even that limited by my Mini's 80 GB drive, unless I'm downloading a lot of torrents.
That is great for you but might not be so great for people that use their system differently. Honestly though 80 GB is nothing these days for internal storage. I surpased that before I even got iTunes up and running. A few apps and a few VM images and 80 GB is cooked.
Quote:
The Atom is fine for mundane tasks, except for things like Flash video, as iFlash is not very optimized. But netbooks aren't designed to render video and the like. They cost about as much as a 16 GB Touch, yet they run a full-blown OS, as long as it isn't Vista.
That is a pathetic excuse to justify ATOM in netbooks, that is they aren't designed for video. If the machines can't render video then they aren't capable of doing a task I consider a requirement.
Quote:
But please don't toss the iPhone into this, I have a Touch, which is basically the same thing, minus the phone and camera part, but I would never compare it to my netbook;
I have to simply because your justification for the limited netbooks are activities you can do the iPhone. So yeah if you lower the bar enough a netbook can look very good.
Quote:
it's just ridiculous to say that one device is too limited, and then turn around and say that another device, that is even more limited, can somehow do the same thing.
Well considering the limitations you put on what is acceptable use they are close to the same thing.
Quote:
I have both, I know what I'm talking about. iPhone OS 3.0 may improve things, but not with that 400 MHz or so ARM CPU and only 128 of RAM, and only several GB of non-upgrade flash storage.
First you aren't concerned about storage then it's a problem because it can't be upgraded.
In any event your position with respect to the iPhone is a lot like mine with respect to netbooks, they aren't good enough for my needs. If you can't accept that people have needs different than yours then there is no discussion.
By the way I'm posting this from my iPhone while a movie plays on my MBP. Even a MBP can be limiting if you have but a single screen.
Would a netbook device really compete with Macbooks? Netbooks are not intended as a main machine, merely a highly mobile device that you use to complement your main computer. They lack the storage and processing power to do all the things a "proper" computer can do.
I know that enthusiasts have installed OSX on netbooks, I don't really know what sort of performance they get.
They perform as well or better than the fastest G4 based Powerbooks and that is without any processor specific adaptations for the Atom. My MSI Wind has 2GB of RAM, a 200GB HD, and is only limited by the god awful Intel graphics (the same graphics that are standard on my Mac Mini purchased a few months ago). It was not slow in Leopard, and it is positively snappy in Windows 7. The only times I wanted for something faster was when I was trying to play a game. But for the $300 I paid for it, I can't complain.
Point is, if you're saying that an Atom based Netbook is too limited to act as a main machine, you're also saying that everyone with a Powerbook (that may be less than 3 years old) has a machine that can't function as a proper desktop, and I know that's false.
For many people YES a 160 GB is limiting. Frankly it was a bit of a surprise as to how fast the HD on my MBP filled up. In part that is because I have used the Mac in ways I didn't expect.
Some things that have had a greater impact on disk usage then expected:
1. ITunes.
2. Virtual machines and system images.
3. Miro.
4. XCode & the iPhone SDK.
Of the above though iTunes can really kill disk space. Maybe you don't have that problem but some of us do as we use our machines in different ways.
That is great for you but might not be so great for people that use their system differently. Honestly though 80 GB is nothing these days for internal storage. I surpased that before I even got iTunes up and running. A few apps and a few VM images and 80 GB is cooked.
That is a pathetic excuse to justify ATOM in netbooks, that is they aren't designed for video. If the machines can't render video then they aren't capable of doing a task I consider a requirement.
I have to simply because your justification for the limited netbooks are activities you can do the iPhone. So yeah if you lower the bar enough a netbook can look very good.
Well considering the limitations you put on what is acceptable use they are close to the same thing.
First you aren't concerned about storage then it's a problem because it can't be upgraded.
In any event your position with respect to the iPhone is a lot like mine with respect to netbooks, they aren't good enough for my needs. If you can't accept that people have needs different than yours then there is no discussion.
By the way I'm posting this from my iPhone while a movie plays on my MBP. Even a MBP can be limiting if you have but a single screen.
Dave
I don't think you understand at all, now you're comparing a $2000+ laptop to a $300-400 netbook. They overlap in some areas, but a netbook just won't be able to do all the same things, hence the difference in price. I don't understand why that's hard to follow.
If you need more space, you replace the drive, or add an external. If you need more power, you pick the right tool. But again, you keep comparing netbooks to iPhones and MBPs, and it just doesn't make any logical sense. I wouldn't even compare my $700 laptop to a MBP; it can do most of the same things, but would still fall short in absolute power and design.
I don't think you understand at all, now you're comparing a $2000+ laptop to a $300-400 netbook. They overlap in some areas, but a netbook just won't be able to do all the same things, hence the difference in price. I don't understand why that's hard to follow.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to address your suggestion that netbooks are good enough for anybody. They aren't and I clearly suggested that for many an iPhone is a better alternative. You don't like that which I can accept but don't twist this into a comparison discussion.
It isn't, rather the issue at hand is how well certain classes of devices meet a persons need. Since movie playback is a significant consideration for many netbooks really aren't any better than the iPhone. By your own measure netbooks can't do the job.
Quote:
If you need more space, you replace the drive, or add an external. If you need more power, you pick the right tool. But again, you keep comparing netbooks to iPhones and MBPs, and it just doesn't make any logical sense.
Well again you are twisting things here. You are the one that said netbooks are good enough and then in the very same response go on about their short comings. Short comings they have in common with iPhone by the way. My point is that Flash and movie play back are important to many. Thus netbooks really aren't good enough by your own measure.
The mention of the MBP is there not as a comparison but rather to show that even that device is limited for certain uses. In this case it is a limitation of disk space. It is all well and good to say replace your drive on the netbook but you are even more limited on a netbook when it comes to the selection of mass storage. You can be as dismisive as you want to be but people need to think clearly about how the device will be used before buying into the idea that an 80GB drive will be acceptable. That is if the netbook even comes with that much capacity.
Quote:
I wouldn't even compare my $700 laptop to a MBP; it can do most of the same things, but would still fall short in absolute power and design.
You are missing the whole point. I'm not sure why you don't realize the contradictions in your statements or why I've responded like I have. Again it is not about comparisons it's about you saying netbooks are good enough and then repeatedly pointing out that in reality they are not. The problem is you don't realize you are doing this.
Instead the point I'm trying to get across is that all machines are limited to some extent or another. It is the objectionable limitations that define the value of a device. Thus when you say that a netbook can't playback movies I can't put a very high value on the device for me or a lot of people I know. When you add up all the little shortcomings (poor flash performance, small internal storage, questionable movie play back, limited I/O and whatever) I wonder how you can go online and say netbooks are good enough.
By the way I'm not a big fan of Flash either. The problem is it is a requirement on some of the sights I frequent. Sometimes a shortcoming is a reality you would rather not deal with.
Meh. Flash can die. Adobe will have no one to blame but themselves when it finally does. The more popular devices become that can't play that bloated, overdetermined platform the sooner we get rid of the last major obstacle between us and an open, standard Web.
As for movies, there are these nice little chips you can buy that decode MPEG video. If the CPU can't decode in real time it can farm the job out to something that can. Some of those chips are GPUs, so you get a twofer. As far as I can tell the iPhone does a perfectly adequate job of playing video. If the next iPhone represents a significant increase in power, as John Gruber thinks it will, this should be a solved problem even at the higher resolution implied by a 10" screen.
Meh. Flash can die. Adobe will have no one to blame but themselves when it finally does. The more popular devices become that can't play that bloated, overdetermined platform the sooner we get rid of the last major obstacle between us and an open, standard Web.
Flash is certainly ugly, bloated and buggy, thus I agree it ought to die. The problem is it is used by a number of Business portals and other things that makes it impossible to delete from my machine. Frustrating!
Quote:
As for movies, there are these nice little chips you can buy that decode MPEG video. If the CPU can't decode in real time it can farm the job out to something that can. Some of those chips are GPUs, so you get a twofer
ATOM based machines with Nvidia hardware may be able to pull off playback. Don't know personally because I haven't tried it. For the machines that the other poster indicated can't manage though I find them not worth investing in.
Quote:
. As far as I can tell the iPhone does a perfectly adequate job of playing video. If the next iPhone represents a significant increase in power, as John Gruber thinks it will, this should be a solved problem even at the higher resolution implied by a 10" screen.
I have experience with the iPhone and can honestly say playback quality varies widely. Part of that is of course source material related but the extra small screen is an issue too. Generally I don't consider it a good experience.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to address your suggestion that netbooks are good enough for anybody. They aren't and I clearly suggested that for many an iPhone is a better alternative. You don't like that which I can accept but don't twist this into a comparison discussion.
It isn't, rather the issue at hand is how well certain classes of devices meet a persons need. Since movie playback is a significant consideration for many netbooks really aren't any better than the iPhone. By your own measure netbooks can't do the job.
Well again you are twisting things here. You are the one that said netbooks are good enough and then in the very same response go on about their short comings. Short comings they have in common with iPhone by the way. My point is that Flash and movie play back are important to many. Thus netbooks really aren't good enough by your own measure.
The mention of the MBP is there not as a comparison but rather to show that even that device is limited for certain uses. In this case it is a limitation of disk space. It is all well and good to say replace your drive on the netbook but you are even more limited on a netbook when it comes to the selection of mass storage. You can be as dismisive as you want to be but people need to think clearly about how the device will be used before buying into the idea that an 80GB drive will be acceptable. That is if the netbook even comes with that much capacity.
You are missing the whole point. I'm not sure why you don't realize the contradictions in your statements or why I've responded like I have. Again it is not about comparisons it's about you saying netbooks are good enough and then repeatedly pointing out that in reality they are not. The problem is you don't realize you are doing this.
Instead the point I'm trying to get across is that all machines are limited to some extent or another. It is the objectionable limitations that define the value of a device. Thus when you say that a netbook can't playback movies I can't put a very high value on the device for me or a lot of people I know. When you add up all the little shortcomings (poor flash performance, small internal storage, questionable movie play back, limited I/O and whatever) I wonder how you can go online and say netbooks are good enough.
By the way I'm not a big fan of Flash either. The problem is it is a requirement on some of the sights I frequent. Sometimes a shortcoming is a reality you would rather not deal with.
Dave
Umm, Flash does not equal movie playback.
Most formats playback fine with VLC, even 720p, but Flash is a different story, as it's already running in a browser, and Flash is not optimized to use GPU acceleration, unlike something like Silverlight. Toss in CUDA-supported Flash, and an Nvidia 9400M (Ion), but it one of the few tasks that an Atom can't do right now, but even my desktop can struggle with full-screen Flash, if I'm doing a lot of other tasks that are using a lot of the CPU.
Why do so many people get their knickers in a kink over this subject? IF Apple is going to do this, they will do it according to their plan and NO other terms. Frankly, it's a non-issue for me. I like desktops, so a tablet or netbook is a non-starter for me.
Most formats playback fine with VLC, even 720p, but Flash is a different story, as it's already running in a browser, and Flash is not optimized to use GPU acceleration, unlike something like Silverlight. Toss in CUDA-supported Flash, and an Nvidia 9400M (Ion), but it one of the few tasks that an Atom can't do right now, but even my desktop can struggle with full-screen Flash, if I'm doing a lot of other tasks that are using a lot of the CPU.
To back up your post, here are some tests by Anand with an Ion platform and Hulu videos. If we can?t get decent playback from 1.6Ghz Atom how are we expected to get it from a 412MHz ARM11? Abode needs to get on the ball or they may lose some valuable marketshare to open standards, or worse, Silverlight.
Flash is certainly ugly, bloated and buggy, thus I agree it ought to die. The problem is it is used by a number of Business portals and other things that makes it impossible to delete from my machine. Frustrating!
Yeah, I haven't been able to purge it from my band's website either. But this will happen over time, inevitably, unless Adobe does something about the fact that Flash runs like a sclerotic sloth on any hardware that is not a relatively modern Windows PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
ATOM based machines with Nvidia hardware may be able to pull off playback. Don't know personally because I haven't tried it. For the machines that the other poster indicated can't manage though I find them not worth investing in.
Those netbooks use integrated graphics, which aren't going to do the trick. But the potential is there if anyone wants to exploit it. The iPhone and iPod Touch have GPUs, for instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I have experience with the iPhone and can honestly say playback quality varies widely. Part of that is of course source material related but the extra small screen is an issue too. Generally I don't consider it a good experience.
The issue here is which parts of the experience are acceptable tradeoffs and which are baseline performance issues? Obviously, nothing with a small screen is ever going to do video really well, so the question is whether it can at least represent the quality of the source material fairly. The iPhone demonstrates that it's possible to do that, as every subsequent effort (by Apple, at least) will be more powerful than the current iPhone is and screen resolutions will only go up.
The numbers don't lie: People like their video on the go. The small screen is an acceptable tradeoff. So then the question is, how do you make it look as good as possible without either giving the owner first degree burns or running the battery down too quickly?
The problem is what is fine depends upon what the user considers acceptable. What is fine for you may be totally unacceptable to another. Have plenty of experience with Linux for example and have a hard time believing ATOM would run it the way I would like. But that is for a laptop.
My netbook has 2GB RAM and reasonably fast 320GB HDD. As long as i can live with the 10" display (which is handy in some contexts) and slow graphics (not so good for games) i can run Office comfortably and even do some light development.
Quote:
Video and a place to store is an important consideration.
I can put a 500GB HDD in my netbook if I want. With Ion, video playback will hopefully be solved.
Quote:
A lot of what you describe above can already be done on a iPhone. Obviously even a modestly more capable machine would improve that experience. There are other factors that drive the need for faster processing rather than older apps.
Intel is hindering the Atom at the moment in netbooks simply because it's a low cost part that could easily cannibalize Celeron sales.
I have a Lenovo S10 and I'm looking at the S12. 1280x800 solves the screen real estate issue. 12" is still small enough and at 3.7 pounds...meh...a tad porky but still light enough for travel. It'll have a full sized keyboard and Ion (in August) and will MSRP at $449 (for the one without Ion anyway).
I hope they offer more than white and black when they ship with Ion.
Why dont they just throw away the mini and call this one the MacMini Touch. You dont have to pay for a display, it can run off of OS X and if they can cram all that stuff into the mini and Macbook Air I'm sure they could do the same and make a really fast tablet Mac and make it mouse/touch compatible, and they dont have to charge for data plans unless you want to by allowing you the option while purchasing online to include a plan and chip by the choice of your carrier. you could also have the option of on screen keyboard just like the iPod/iPhone or another keyboard, and dont forget the optional stand or wall mount. There you go, no more fussing. Fast small simple....duh
My netbook has 2GB RAM and reasonably fast 320GB HDD. As long as i can live with the 10" display (which is handy in some contexts) and slow graphics (not so good for games) i can run Office comfortably and even do some light development.
Having started out with a VIc 20 as my first "computer" I'm a bit demanding I guess when it comes to responsive operation of a PC. Thus the Linux comment above. It is only relatively recently that I've found computers to be fluid enough in responding to my inputs to not develop frustrations. I know going to work and dealing with legacy systems is a total pain in the but as you appear to be forever in a waiting mode.
Quote:
I can put a 500GB HDD in my netbook if I want. With Ion, video playback will hopefully be solved.
If it wasn't for far to many other money needs I'd be going for an ION based system my self. I doubt that it would replace my MBP but it would be a nice place to run Linux.
Quote:
Intel is hindering the Atom at the moment in netbooks simply because it's a low cost part that could easily cannibalize Celeron sales.
I didn't realize Intel was doing this until recently and frankly it appears to be a bad move on their part. Dual core ATOMs in netbooks would rock with four threads in play. I'm not sure what Intels reasoning is here as Celerons wouldn't be going into most netbooks anyways.
Quote:
I have a Lenovo S10 and I'm looking at the S12. 1280x800 solves the screen real estate issue.
Only if you have really good eye site! Old fart here but I'm not sure that high pixel density would pay off. Interestingly the other day I was in a restaurant with WiFi access watching two people make use of their computers. One was a more or less run of the mill laptop the other was using a netbook. She had her face buried into that netbook, I estimate just a bit over a foot away. It is just another reason why I have deeply mixed feeling with respect to netbooks.
They are at once interesting and yet deplorable
Quote:
12" is still small enough and at 3.7 pounds...meh...a tad porky but still light enough for travel. It'll have a full sized keyboard and Ion (in August) and will MSRP at $449 (for the one without Ion anyway).
This travel thing is another thing that I find a bit bogus. Usually when my MBP is to much anything laptop shaped would be to much. I don't travel like I use to but I'd find it hard to complain about carrying a MBP around. Beside when I need to move around light I have my iPhone.
Quote:
I hope they offer more than white and black when they ship with Ion.
My hope is that Apple is successful in twisting Intels arm and sticks a dual core ATOM in the machine. Something running 2 GHz too. That is if they produce a classic clam shell netbook.
With a tablet I'm still leaning towards a wider break away from Mac OS/X with something ARM based. With ARM they have the potential to vastly improve the integration and thus the performance of the unit in its portable untethered state. I just don't think the tech exists in Intels line up to make an extremely small motherboard that would lead to a thin tablet.
If you think about iPhone or Touch construction a good portion of the available space is dedicated to the battery. The actual CPU / SoC and motherboard are very small. If Apple where to duplicate this in a 7" tablet they could have a bleeding edge device with an excellent OS. With ARM they have the potential for one or more cores, the GPU and most of the I/O system on the SoC. Depending how far they go with integration they could do things like adding a RAM array for the GPU & CPU to access quickly. The SoC is likely to be a multi layer module with the RAM located within the module, maybe even the base Flash. The few external chips will not be taking up much space. So maybe 5/6th of the space in the unit is devoted to battery and 1/6th to the logic board.
Go ATOM and you end up with a vastly different device. Sad but true. What I've been indicating that I'm looking for is a small tablet that emulates a paper back book in size. A thin book at that.
Many MacBook Airs were not sold cause one cannot stuff 320 Gigs of info from the iMac or the MBP into a MBA.
The Sync between the iPhone and the Macs is excellent. But the Sync between Macs needs to address iPhoto, iTunes, Documents as part of the Sync.
When you Sync Macs (and the tablet will have to store some 100 or 300 Gigs in order to be competitive with other computers in that price range) you need something like ChronoSync.
Of course ChronoSync (to me at least) looks and feels like a techie PC oriented ugly application full of warnings and threats at every turn. Far from asking "do you want to Sync these two Macs so that they have the same information" it asks for which "subdirectories and root directories are to be blind synced" and stuff that only programmers feel at ease with and and are sure to freak out 99% of the population.
Many people who would love to have a large iMac, a traveling MBA, even a luggable MBP and a iTablet are going to end up with only one device out of simple fear and/or inability to have the same data in all of them.
This will become extremely clear with the iTablet. It is by definition not a primary computing device.
In order to sync large drives perhaps a pop up or removable drive is one way. A hardwired connection is preferable considering that some 200 gigs will have to be moved often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
With a conventional netbook clearly out of the question, researchers for Piper Jaffray said Thursday there's mounting evidence to suggest Apple next year will introduce its own take on the market in the form of a tablet-based device that will sell for $700 or less.
"Between indications from our component contacts in Asia, recent patents relating to multi-touch sensitivity for more complex computing devices, comments from [chief operating officer] Tim Cook on the April 22nd conference call, and Apple's acquisition of P.A. Semi along with other recent chip-related hires, it is increasingly clear that Apple is investing more in its mobile computing franchise," analyst Gene Munster and his team wrote in lengthy research note to clients.
More specifically, the analyst said these investments will likely culminate with the launch of a touch-screen tablet with a display somewhere between 7- and 10-inches at a special event sometime in the first half of 2010. Such a move, he added, would be consistent with management's comments that Cupertino-based company has no interest in catering to the existing segment for "cheap" miniaturized notebooks and its spoken desire to differentiate in a market currently dominated by cramped computers with razor thin margins and a subpar user experience.
Thus far, Munster's contacts in the component supply chain have not seen a prototype of the device but say there's ongoing discussions between the company and its suppliers about the parts that will eventually be required to build the product.
For his part, the analyst believes the device will end up retailing somewhere in the range of $500 - $700, bridging the gap between the $399 iPod touch and the $999 MacBook. He expects that it will be driven by a proprietary microprocessor designed in-house by engineers Apple adopted in the acquisition of P.A. Semi and others it's known to have hired in recent months.
Apple has also been consistent in its communications that software will play a vital role in any and all of its efforts to achieve success in the mobile space, and therefore Munster anticipates that the tablet will run an operating system more robust than the iPhone's but optimized for multi-touch, unlike Mac OS X. He envisions a new "hybrid" piece of software that would meld traits from both its Mac-based OS and the one that runs on both the iPhone and iPod touch.
"The device's OS could bear a close resemblance to Apple's iPhone OS and run App Store apps," the analyst wrote. "Apple could possibly introduce a second screen resolution into the iPhone OS software development kit (SDK), enabling developers to build apps specifically for the larger tablet device." The larger screen real estate offered by a tablet could also pave the way for more than one iPhone application to run simultaneously in unaltered form.
"Key apps, like Safari and Mail, could make use of the larger screen resolution, making Apple's tablet appealing for more extended use, but the company could continue to leverage its primary asset in mobile computing, the App Store, in this scenario," he explained.
Alternatively, Munster said Apple may be working on a customized version of Mac OS X for traditional computers that would be optimized for its multi-touch platform. Such an effort would be extensive and time consuming, even if it's already underway, and therefore the analyst believes it may not be ready for consumption until sometime next year.
"In other words, we expect the end result of the expected product to be launched later but with more dramatic differentiation than the Street is expecting," he wrote. "Another important possibility for the tablet that we expect Apple to launch in 2010 is that of wireless carrier subsidies."
Apple has become all too familiar and rather comfortable with subsidy pricing on its iPhone 3G, and Munster believes the company may take a similar approach to sales of the tablet. He also points to recent media reports about ongoing talks with Verizon wireless, which lead him to believe the company "could include an integrated mobile data feature such as 3G wireless into the device and partner with AT or Verizon to subsidize the device together with a contract for a wireless data plan."
The Piper Jaffray analyst also told clients that a tablet device could pave the way for Apple to get more serious about eBooks and give devices like the Kindle and Kindle DX from online retailer Amazon.com some unwanted competition.
"While we do not expect this to be a core selling point for the device, it would make sense for Apple to develop an electronic reading app for the device (and possibly for iPhones and iPod touches too) along with digital books sold on the iTunes Store," he wrote.
Munster maintained his Buy rating and $180 price target on shares of Apple.
Meh. Flash can die. Adobe will have no one to blame but themselves when it finally does. The more popular devices become that can't play that bloated, overdetermined platform the sooner we get rid of the last major obstacle between us and an open, standard Web.
Flash is certainly ugly, bloated and buggy, thus I agree it ought to die. The problem is it is used by a number of Business portals and other things that makes it impossible to delete from my machine. Frustrating!
I'm tempted to agree about Flash. Fussy, and overated. Definitely slow on all but latest hardware...and I look questioningly at it for a device like the iPhone. Adobe may take a humbling (about time...) on flash as we move to the mobile (truly mobile...) era of computing...
Next. The netbook done right. I think the 'white' Macbook is the 'placeholder' for a revolution. The iPhone, to me..., is the closest thing we have to Star Trek technology. It's a revolution. It blew me out the water when it was first announced and the latest software/hardware update still as me wowed.
Can I imagine Apple making a large iPhone come Netbook to redefine the space vacated by the 'Macbook' as the 13 incher migrates to Pro status? Yes I can.
I think the Macbook is due a revolution...in fact, I think the Mac line is. And it's clear Apple's focus is on the portable revolution, catching all commentators cold with the laptop update AND to a lesser degree, the iPhone hardware launch at the WWDC. So, an expansion of the mobile computing platform seems inevitable and in my opinion, bound for affordability and something less 'clumsy' than a laptop (again, never liked them much...but I do like the iPhone...).
It's just a question of when. I don't think it will be a netbook as per the market quo. I can see a bigger iPhone, with a plug in keyboard as an option or just a dockable big iPhone that you can touch type on.
If one company is going to get the 'tablet/netbook' right? It's Apple. And I think the way the consumer/pro laptop line is currently positioned...we're looking at a 'new Macbook' line...but not as we know it.
Or, a club of affordability to beat M$'s 'Apple Tax' campaign with.
I'm tempted to agree about Flash. Fussy, and overated. Definitely slow on all but latest hardware...and I look questioningly at it for a device like the iPhone. Adobe may take a humbling (about time...) on flash as we move to the mobile (truly mobile...) era of computing...
Next. The netbook done right. I think the 'white' Macbook is the 'placeholder' for a revolution. The iPhone, to me..., is the closest thing we have to Star Trek technology. It's a revolution. It blew me out the water when it was first announced and the latest software/hardware update still as me wowed.
Can I imagine Apple making a large iPhone come Netbook to redefine the space vacated by the 'Macbook' as the 13 incher migrates to Pro status? Yes I can.
I think the Macbook is due a revolution...in fact, I think the Mac line is. And it's clear Apple's focus is on the portable revolution, catching all commentators cold with the laptop update AND to a lesser degree, the iPhone hardware launch at the WWDC. So, an expansion of the mobile computing platform seems inevitable and in my opinion, bound for affordability and something less 'clumsy' than a laptop (again, never liked them much...but I do like the iPhone...).
It's just a question of when. I don't think it will be a netbook as per the market quo. I can see a bigger iPhone, with a plug in keyboard as an option or just a dockable big iPhone that you can touch type on.
If one company is going to get the 'tablet/netbook' right? It's Apple. And I think the way the consumer/pro laptop line is currently positioned...we're looking at a 'new Macbook' line...but not as we know it.
Or, a club of affordability to beat M$'s 'Apple Tax' campaign with.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Your preaching to the choir here dude.
So does anyone....I mean ANYONE have any leaks or info on the status of the MacTouch project as of late?
Comments
My netbook has a bigger HD then the current white MB and has the same size as the entry-level alu MB (160 GB) - I'm not exactly hurting for space on it. And with "only" 1 GB of RAM, it runs XP, Win7 (beta), and Linux just fine.
The problem is what is fine depends upon what the user considers acceptable. What is fine for you may be totally unacceptable to another. Have plenty of experience with Linux for example and have a hard time believing ATOM would run it the way I would like. But that is for a laptop.
And the things that people probably usually do on a computer, would also suffice on a netbook. other than Flash. which isn't GPU accelerated, and the Atom CPU will choke on HD or full-screen content. For most mundane things, it works well enough, and certainly more portable than my 15.4" Toshiba.
Video and a place to store is an important consideration.
But for internet, e-mail, Office, it's fine. The main issue with the majority of netbooks, are because their physical size. like the KB, but some of those largely disappear, with the 12.1" 1280x800 models from HP, and soon, Lenovo.
The HP uses an ATI HD 3410, while the Lenovo will have a Nvidia 9400M GPU. The HP is the most expensive at $700, but it has 4GB of RAM, a AMD Neo CPU. and Vista 64-bit, while the Lenovo will be around $500 with the Atom.
As far as Leopard on current netbooks, I've read it performs like an older iBook G4.
A lot of what you describe above can already be done on a iPhone. Obviously even a modestly more capable machine would improve that experience. There are other factors that drive the need for faster processing rather than older apps.
Dave
The problem is what is fine depends upon what the user considers acceptable. What is fine for you may be totally unacceptable to another. Have plenty of experience with Linux for example and have a hard time believing ATOM would run it the way I would like. But that is for a laptop.
Video and a place to store is an important consideration.
A lot of what you describe above can already be done on a iPhone. Obviously even a modestly more capable machine would improve that experience. There are other factors that drive the need for faster processing rather than older apps.
Dave
What, so a 160 GB HD limits you for most everything?
Let me reiterate: It's still bigger than what Apple includes in their entry-level Mini and bigger than the one in the white MB, and as big as the one in the $1300 alu MB. Those are all considered Apple's 'consumer', cheap Macs, and I'm not even that limited by my Mini's 80 GB drive, unless I'm downloading a lot of torrents.
The Atom is fine for mundane tasks, except for things like Flash video, as iFlash is not very optimized. But netbooks aren't designed to render video and the like. They cost about as much as a 16 GB Touch, yet they run a full-blown OS, as long as it isn't Vista.
But please don't toss the iPhone into this, I have a Touch, which is basically the same thing, minus the phone and camera part, but I would never compare it to my netbook; it's just ridiculous to say that one device is too limited, and then turn around and say that another device, that is even more limited, can somehow do the same thing.
I have both, I know what I'm talking about. iPhone OS 3.0 may improve things, but not with that 400 MHz or so ARM CPU and only 128 of RAM, and only several GB of non-upgrade flash storage.
What, so a 160 GB HD limits you for most everything?
For many people YES a 160 GB is limiting. Frankly it was a bit of a surprise as to how fast the HD on my MBP filled up. In part that is because I have used the Mac in ways I didn't expect.
Some things that have had a greater impact on disk usage then expected:
1. ITunes.
2. Virtual machines and system images.
3. Miro.
4. XCode & the iPhone SDK.
Of the above though iTunes can really kill disk space. Maybe you don't have that problem but some of us do as we use our machines in different ways.
Let me reiterate: It's still bigger than what Apple includes in their entry-level Mini and bigger than the one in the white MB, and as big as the one in the $1300 alu MB. Those are all considered Apple's 'consumer', cheap Macs, and I'm not even that limited by my Mini's 80 GB drive, unless I'm downloading a lot of torrents.
That is great for you but might not be so great for people that use their system differently. Honestly though 80 GB is nothing these days for internal storage. I surpased that before I even got iTunes up and running. A few apps and a few VM images and 80 GB is cooked.
The Atom is fine for mundane tasks, except for things like Flash video, as iFlash is not very optimized. But netbooks aren't designed to render video and the like. They cost about as much as a 16 GB Touch, yet they run a full-blown OS, as long as it isn't Vista.
That is a pathetic excuse to justify ATOM in netbooks, that is they aren't designed for video. If the machines can't render video then they aren't capable of doing a task I consider a requirement.
But please don't toss the iPhone into this, I have a Touch, which is basically the same thing, minus the phone and camera part, but I would never compare it to my netbook;
I have to simply because your justification for the limited netbooks are activities you can do the iPhone. So yeah if you lower the bar enough a netbook can look very good.
it's just ridiculous to say that one device is too limited, and then turn around and say that another device, that is even more limited, can somehow do the same thing.
Well considering the limitations you put on what is acceptable use they are close to the same thing.
I have both, I know what I'm talking about. iPhone OS 3.0 may improve things, but not with that 400 MHz or so ARM CPU and only 128 of RAM, and only several GB of non-upgrade flash storage.
First you aren't concerned about storage then it's a problem because it can't be upgraded.
In any event your position with respect to the iPhone is a lot like mine with respect to netbooks, they aren't good enough for my needs. If you can't accept that people have needs different than yours then there is no discussion.
By the way I'm posting this from my iPhone while a movie plays on my MBP. Even a MBP can be limiting if you have but a single screen.
Dave
Would a netbook device really compete with Macbooks? Netbooks are not intended as a main machine, merely a highly mobile device that you use to complement your main computer. They lack the storage and processing power to do all the things a "proper" computer can do.
I know that enthusiasts have installed OSX on netbooks, I don't really know what sort of performance they get.
They perform as well or better than the fastest G4 based Powerbooks and that is without any processor specific adaptations for the Atom. My MSI Wind has 2GB of RAM, a 200GB HD, and is only limited by the god awful Intel graphics (the same graphics that are standard on my Mac Mini purchased a few months ago). It was not slow in Leopard, and it is positively snappy in Windows 7. The only times I wanted for something faster was when I was trying to play a game. But for the $300 I paid for it, I can't complain.
Point is, if you're saying that an Atom based Netbook is too limited to act as a main machine, you're also saying that everyone with a Powerbook (that may be less than 3 years old) has a machine that can't function as a proper desktop, and I know that's false.
For many people YES a 160 GB is limiting. Frankly it was a bit of a surprise as to how fast the HD on my MBP filled up. In part that is because I have used the Mac in ways I didn't expect.
Some things that have had a greater impact on disk usage then expected:
1. ITunes.
2. Virtual machines and system images.
3. Miro.
4. XCode & the iPhone SDK.
Of the above though iTunes can really kill disk space. Maybe you don't have that problem but some of us do as we use our machines in different ways.
That is great for you but might not be so great for people that use their system differently. Honestly though 80 GB is nothing these days for internal storage. I surpased that before I even got iTunes up and running. A few apps and a few VM images and 80 GB is cooked.
That is a pathetic excuse to justify ATOM in netbooks, that is they aren't designed for video. If the machines can't render video then they aren't capable of doing a task I consider a requirement.
I have to simply because your justification for the limited netbooks are activities you can do the iPhone. So yeah if you lower the bar enough a netbook can look very good.
Well considering the limitations you put on what is acceptable use they are close to the same thing.
First you aren't concerned about storage then it's a problem because it can't be upgraded.
In any event your position with respect to the iPhone is a lot like mine with respect to netbooks, they aren't good enough for my needs. If you can't accept that people have needs different than yours then there is no discussion.
By the way I'm posting this from my iPhone while a movie plays on my MBP. Even a MBP can be limiting if you have but a single screen.
Dave
I don't think you understand at all, now you're comparing a $2000+ laptop to a $300-400 netbook. They overlap in some areas, but a netbook just won't be able to do all the same things, hence the difference in price. I don't understand why that's hard to follow.
If you need more space, you replace the drive, or add an external. If you need more power, you pick the right tool. But again, you keep comparing netbooks to iPhones and MBPs, and it just doesn't make any logical sense. I wouldn't even compare my $700 laptop to a MBP; it can do most of the same things, but would still fall short in absolute power and design.
I don't think you understand at all, now you're comparing a $2000+ laptop to a $300-400 netbook. They overlap in some areas, but a netbook just won't be able to do all the same things, hence the difference in price. I don't understand why that's hard to follow.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to address your suggestion that netbooks are good enough for anybody. They aren't and I clearly suggested that for many an iPhone is a better alternative. You don't like that which I can accept but don't twist this into a comparison discussion.
It isn't, rather the issue at hand is how well certain classes of devices meet a persons need. Since movie playback is a significant consideration for many netbooks really aren't any better than the iPhone. By your own measure netbooks can't do the job.
If you need more space, you replace the drive, or add an external. If you need more power, you pick the right tool. But again, you keep comparing netbooks to iPhones and MBPs, and it just doesn't make any logical sense.
Well again you are twisting things here. You are the one that said netbooks are good enough and then in the very same response go on about their short comings. Short comings they have in common with iPhone by the way. My point is that Flash and movie play back are important to many. Thus netbooks really aren't good enough by your own measure.
The mention of the MBP is there not as a comparison but rather to show that even that device is limited for certain uses. In this case it is a limitation of disk space. It is all well and good to say replace your drive on the netbook but you are even more limited on a netbook when it comes to the selection of mass storage. You can be as dismisive as you want to be but people need to think clearly about how the device will be used before buying into the idea that an 80GB drive will be acceptable. That is if the netbook even comes with that much capacity.
I wouldn't even compare my $700 laptop to a MBP; it can do most of the same things, but would still fall short in absolute power and design.
You are missing the whole point. I'm not sure why you don't realize the contradictions in your statements or why I've responded like I have. Again it is not about comparisons it's about you saying netbooks are good enough and then repeatedly pointing out that in reality they are not. The problem is you don't realize you are doing this.
Instead the point I'm trying to get across is that all machines are limited to some extent or another. It is the objectionable limitations that define the value of a device. Thus when you say that a netbook can't playback movies I can't put a very high value on the device for me or a lot of people I know. When you add up all the little shortcomings (poor flash performance, small internal storage, questionable movie play back, limited I/O and whatever) I wonder how you can go online and say netbooks are good enough.
By the way I'm not a big fan of Flash either. The problem is it is a requirement on some of the sights I frequent. Sometimes a shortcoming is a reality you would rather not deal with.
Dave
As for movies, there are these nice little chips you can buy that decode MPEG video. If the CPU can't decode in real time it can farm the job out to something that can. Some of those chips are GPUs, so you get a twofer. As far as I can tell the iPhone does a perfectly adequate job of playing video. If the next iPhone represents a significant increase in power, as John Gruber thinks it will, this should be a solved problem even at the higher resolution implied by a 10" screen.
Meh. Flash can die. Adobe will have no one to blame but themselves when it finally does. The more popular devices become that can't play that bloated, overdetermined platform the sooner we get rid of the last major obstacle between us and an open, standard Web.
Flash is certainly ugly, bloated and buggy, thus I agree it ought to die. The problem is it is used by a number of Business portals and other things that makes it impossible to delete from my machine. Frustrating!
As for movies, there are these nice little chips you can buy that decode MPEG video. If the CPU can't decode in real time it can farm the job out to something that can. Some of those chips are GPUs, so you get a twofer
ATOM based machines with Nvidia hardware may be able to pull off playback. Don't know personally because I haven't tried it. For the machines that the other poster indicated can't manage though I find them not worth investing in.
. As far as I can tell the iPhone does a perfectly adequate job of playing video. If the next iPhone represents a significant increase in power, as John Gruber thinks it will, this should be a solved problem even at the higher resolution implied by a 10" screen.
I have experience with the iPhone and can honestly say playback quality varies widely. Part of that is of course source material related but the extra small screen is an issue too. Generally I don't consider it a good experience.
Dave
I understand fine, I'm just trying to address your suggestion that netbooks are good enough for anybody. They aren't and I clearly suggested that for many an iPhone is a better alternative. You don't like that which I can accept but don't twist this into a comparison discussion.
It isn't, rather the issue at hand is how well certain classes of devices meet a persons need. Since movie playback is a significant consideration for many netbooks really aren't any better than the iPhone. By your own measure netbooks can't do the job.
Well again you are twisting things here. You are the one that said netbooks are good enough and then in the very same response go on about their short comings. Short comings they have in common with iPhone by the way. My point is that Flash and movie play back are important to many. Thus netbooks really aren't good enough by your own measure.
The mention of the MBP is there not as a comparison but rather to show that even that device is limited for certain uses. In this case it is a limitation of disk space. It is all well and good to say replace your drive on the netbook but you are even more limited on a netbook when it comes to the selection of mass storage. You can be as dismisive as you want to be but people need to think clearly about how the device will be used before buying into the idea that an 80GB drive will be acceptable. That is if the netbook even comes with that much capacity.
You are missing the whole point. I'm not sure why you don't realize the contradictions in your statements or why I've responded like I have. Again it is not about comparisons it's about you saying netbooks are good enough and then repeatedly pointing out that in reality they are not. The problem is you don't realize you are doing this.
Instead the point I'm trying to get across is that all machines are limited to some extent or another. It is the objectionable limitations that define the value of a device. Thus when you say that a netbook can't playback movies I can't put a very high value on the device for me or a lot of people I know. When you add up all the little shortcomings (poor flash performance, small internal storage, questionable movie play back, limited I/O and whatever) I wonder how you can go online and say netbooks are good enough.
By the way I'm not a big fan of Flash either. The problem is it is a requirement on some of the sights I frequent. Sometimes a shortcoming is a reality you would rather not deal with.
Dave
Umm, Flash does not equal movie playback.
Most formats playback fine with VLC, even 720p, but Flash is a different story, as it's already running in a browser, and Flash is not optimized to use GPU acceleration, unlike something like Silverlight. Toss in CUDA-supported Flash, and an Nvidia 9400M (Ion), but it one of the few tasks that an Atom can't do right now, but even my desktop can struggle with full-screen Flash, if I'm doing a lot of other tasks that are using a lot of the CPU.
Umm, Flash does not equal movie playback.
Most formats playback fine with VLC, even 720p, but Flash is a different story, as it's already running in a browser, and Flash is not optimized to use GPU acceleration, unlike something like Silverlight. Toss in CUDA-supported Flash, and an Nvidia 9400M (Ion), but it one of the few tasks that an Atom can't do right now, but even my desktop can struggle with full-screen Flash, if I'm doing a lot of other tasks that are using a lot of the CPU.
To back up your post, here are some tests by Anand with an Ion platform and Hulu videos. If we can?t get decent playback from 1.6Ghz Atom how are we expected to get it from a 412MHz ARM11? Abode needs to get on the ball or they may lose some valuable marketshare to open standards, or worse, Silverlight.
Flash is certainly ugly, bloated and buggy, thus I agree it ought to die. The problem is it is used by a number of Business portals and other things that makes it impossible to delete from my machine. Frustrating!
Yeah, I haven't been able to purge it from my band's website either. But this will happen over time, inevitably, unless Adobe does something about the fact that Flash runs like a sclerotic sloth on any hardware that is not a relatively modern Windows PC.
ATOM based machines with Nvidia hardware may be able to pull off playback. Don't know personally because I haven't tried it. For the machines that the other poster indicated can't manage though I find them not worth investing in.
Those netbooks use integrated graphics, which aren't going to do the trick. But the potential is there if anyone wants to exploit it. The iPhone and iPod Touch have GPUs, for instance.
I have experience with the iPhone and can honestly say playback quality varies widely. Part of that is of course source material related but the extra small screen is an issue too. Generally I don't consider it a good experience.
The issue here is which parts of the experience are acceptable tradeoffs and which are baseline performance issues? Obviously, nothing with a small screen is ever going to do video really well, so the question is whether it can at least represent the quality of the source material fairly. The iPhone demonstrates that it's possible to do that, as every subsequent effort (by Apple, at least) will be more powerful than the current iPhone is and screen resolutions will only go up.
The numbers don't lie: People like their video on the go. The small screen is an acceptable tradeoff. So then the question is, how do you make it look as good as possible without either giving the owner first degree burns or running the battery down too quickly?
The problem is what is fine depends upon what the user considers acceptable. What is fine for you may be totally unacceptable to another. Have plenty of experience with Linux for example and have a hard time believing ATOM would run it the way I would like. But that is for a laptop.
My netbook has 2GB RAM and reasonably fast 320GB HDD. As long as i can live with the 10" display (which is handy in some contexts) and slow graphics (not so good for games) i can run Office comfortably and even do some light development.
Video and a place to store is an important consideration.
I can put a 500GB HDD in my netbook if I want. With Ion, video playback will hopefully be solved.
A lot of what you describe above can already be done on a iPhone. Obviously even a modestly more capable machine would improve that experience. There are other factors that drive the need for faster processing rather than older apps.
Intel is hindering the Atom at the moment in netbooks simply because it's a low cost part that could easily cannibalize Celeron sales.
I have a Lenovo S10 and I'm looking at the S12. 1280x800 solves the screen real estate issue. 12" is still small enough and at 3.7 pounds...meh...a tad porky but still light enough for travel. It'll have a full sized keyboard and Ion (in August) and will MSRP at $449 (for the one without Ion anyway).
I hope they offer more than white and black when they ship with Ion.
My netbook has 2GB RAM and reasonably fast 320GB HDD. As long as i can live with the 10" display (which is handy in some contexts) and slow graphics (not so good for games) i can run Office comfortably and even do some light development.
Having started out with a VIc 20 as my first "computer" I'm a bit demanding I guess when it comes to responsive operation of a PC. Thus the Linux comment above. It is only relatively recently that I've found computers to be fluid enough in responding to my inputs to not develop frustrations. I know going to work and dealing with legacy systems is a total pain in the but as you appear to be forever in a waiting mode.
I can put a 500GB HDD in my netbook if I want. With Ion, video playback will hopefully be solved.
If it wasn't for far to many other money needs I'd be going for an ION based system my self. I doubt that it would replace my MBP but it would be a nice place to run Linux.
Intel is hindering the Atom at the moment in netbooks simply because it's a low cost part that could easily cannibalize Celeron sales.
I didn't realize Intel was doing this until recently and frankly it appears to be a bad move on their part. Dual core ATOMs in netbooks would rock with four threads in play. I'm not sure what Intels reasoning is here as Celerons wouldn't be going into most netbooks anyways.
I have a Lenovo S10 and I'm looking at the S12. 1280x800 solves the screen real estate issue.
Only if you have really good eye site! Old fart here but I'm not sure that high pixel density would pay off. Interestingly the other day I was in a restaurant with WiFi access watching two people make use of their computers. One was a more or less run of the mill laptop the other was using a netbook. She had her face buried into that netbook, I estimate just a bit over a foot away. It is just another reason why I have deeply mixed feeling with respect to netbooks.
They are at once interesting and yet deplorable
12" is still small enough and at 3.7 pounds...meh...a tad porky but still light enough for travel. It'll have a full sized keyboard and Ion (in August) and will MSRP at $449 (for the one without Ion anyway).
This travel thing is another thing that I find a bit bogus. Usually when my MBP is to much anything laptop shaped would be to much. I don't travel like I use to but I'd find it hard to complain about carrying a MBP around. Beside when I need to move around light I have my iPhone.
I hope they offer more than white and black when they ship with Ion.
My hope is that Apple is successful in twisting Intels arm and sticks a dual core ATOM in the machine. Something running 2 GHz too. That is if they produce a classic clam shell netbook.
With a tablet I'm still leaning towards a wider break away from Mac OS/X with something ARM based. With ARM they have the potential to vastly improve the integration and thus the performance of the unit in its portable untethered state. I just don't think the tech exists in Intels line up to make an extremely small motherboard that would lead to a thin tablet.
If you think about iPhone or Touch construction a good portion of the available space is dedicated to the battery. The actual CPU / SoC and motherboard are very small. If Apple where to duplicate this in a 7" tablet they could have a bleeding edge device with an excellent OS. With ARM they have the potential for one or more cores, the GPU and most of the I/O system on the SoC. Depending how far they go with integration they could do things like adding a RAM array for the GPU & CPU to access quickly. The SoC is likely to be a multi layer module with the RAM located within the module, maybe even the base Flash. The few external chips will not be taking up much space. So maybe 5/6th of the space in the unit is devoted to battery and 1/6th to the logic board.
Go ATOM and you end up with a vastly different device. Sad but true. What I've been indicating that I'm looking for is a small tablet that emulates a paper back book in size. A thin book at that.
Dave
?a small tablet that emulates a paper back book in size. A thin book at that.
I have always thought of a tablet device about the same size as a standard DVD case.
I just want to know what product the supposed 10" touchscreens were ordered for?!
The Sync between the iPhone and the Macs is excellent. But the Sync between Macs needs to address iPhoto, iTunes, Documents as part of the Sync.
When you Sync Macs (and the tablet will have to store some 100 or 300 Gigs in order to be competitive with other computers in that price range) you need something like ChronoSync.
Of course ChronoSync (to me at least) looks and feels like a techie PC oriented ugly application full of warnings and threats at every turn. Far from asking "do you want to Sync these two Macs so that they have the same information" it asks for which "subdirectories and root directories are to be blind synced" and stuff that only programmers feel at ease with and and are sure to freak out 99% of the population.
Many people who would love to have a large iMac, a traveling MBA, even a luggable MBP and a iTablet are going to end up with only one device out of simple fear and/or inability to have the same data in all of them.
This will become extremely clear with the iTablet. It is by definition not a primary computing device.
In order to sync large drives perhaps a pop up or removable drive is one way. A hardwired connection is preferable considering that some 200 gigs will have to be moved often.
With a conventional netbook clearly out of the question, researchers for Piper Jaffray said Thursday there's mounting evidence to suggest Apple next year will introduce its own take on the market in the form of a tablet-based device that will sell for $700 or less.
"Between indications from our component contacts in Asia, recent patents relating to multi-touch sensitivity for more complex computing devices, comments from [chief operating officer] Tim Cook on the April 22nd conference call, and Apple's acquisition of P.A. Semi along with other recent chip-related hires, it is increasingly clear that Apple is investing more in its mobile computing franchise," analyst Gene Munster and his team wrote in lengthy research note to clients.
More specifically, the analyst said these investments will likely culminate with the launch of a touch-screen tablet with a display somewhere between 7- and 10-inches at a special event sometime in the first half of 2010. Such a move, he added, would be consistent with management's comments that Cupertino-based company has no interest in catering to the existing segment for "cheap" miniaturized notebooks and its spoken desire to differentiate in a market currently dominated by cramped computers with razor thin margins and a subpar user experience.
Thus far, Munster's contacts in the component supply chain have not seen a prototype of the device but say there's ongoing discussions between the company and its suppliers about the parts that will eventually be required to build the product.
For his part, the analyst believes the device will end up retailing somewhere in the range of $500 - $700, bridging the gap between the $399 iPod touch and the $999 MacBook. He expects that it will be driven by a proprietary microprocessor designed in-house by engineers Apple adopted in the acquisition of P.A. Semi and others it's known to have hired in recent months.
Apple has also been consistent in its communications that software will play a vital role in any and all of its efforts to achieve success in the mobile space, and therefore Munster anticipates that the tablet will run an operating system more robust than the iPhone's but optimized for multi-touch, unlike Mac OS X. He envisions a new "hybrid" piece of software that would meld traits from both its Mac-based OS and the one that runs on both the iPhone and iPod touch.
"The device's OS could bear a close resemblance to Apple's iPhone OS and run App Store apps," the analyst wrote. "Apple could possibly introduce a second screen resolution into the iPhone OS software development kit (SDK), enabling developers to build apps specifically for the larger tablet device." The larger screen real estate offered by a tablet could also pave the way for more than one iPhone application to run simultaneously in unaltered form.
"Key apps, like Safari and Mail, could make use of the larger screen resolution, making Apple's tablet appealing for more extended use, but the company could continue to leverage its primary asset in mobile computing, the App Store, in this scenario," he explained.
Alternatively, Munster said Apple may be working on a customized version of Mac OS X for traditional computers that would be optimized for its multi-touch platform. Such an effort would be extensive and time consuming, even if it's already underway, and therefore the analyst believes it may not be ready for consumption until sometime next year.
"In other words, we expect the end result of the expected product to be launched later but with more dramatic differentiation than the Street is expecting," he wrote. "Another important possibility for the tablet that we expect Apple to launch in 2010 is that of wireless carrier subsidies."
Apple has become all too familiar and rather comfortable with subsidy pricing on its iPhone 3G, and Munster believes the company may take a similar approach to sales of the tablet. He also points to recent media reports about ongoing talks with Verizon wireless, which lead him to believe the company "could include an integrated mobile data feature such as 3G wireless into the device and partner with AT or Verizon to subsidize the device together with a contract for a wireless data plan."
The Piper Jaffray analyst also told clients that a tablet device could pave the way for Apple to get more serious about eBooks and give devices like the Kindle and Kindle DX from online retailer Amazon.com some unwanted competition.
"While we do not expect this to be a core selling point for the device, it would make sense for Apple to develop an electronic reading app for the device (and possibly for iPhones and iPod touches too) along with digital books sold on the iTunes Store," he wrote.
Munster maintained his Buy rating and $180 price target on shares of Apple.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Originally Posted by Amorph
Meh. Flash can die. Adobe will have no one to blame but themselves when it finally does. The more popular devices become that can't play that bloated, overdetermined platform the sooner we get rid of the last major obstacle between us and an open, standard Web.
Flash is certainly ugly, bloated and buggy, thus I agree it ought to die. The problem is it is used by a number of Business portals and other things that makes it impossible to delete from my machine. Frustrating!
I'm tempted to agree about Flash. Fussy, and overated. Definitely slow on all but latest hardware...and I look questioningly at it for a device like the iPhone. Adobe may take a humbling (about time...) on flash as we move to the mobile (truly mobile...) era of computing...
Next. The netbook done right. I think the 'white' Macbook is the 'placeholder' for a revolution. The iPhone, to me..., is the closest thing we have to Star Trek technology. It's a revolution. It blew me out the water when it was first announced and the latest software/hardware update still as me wowed.
Can I imagine Apple making a large iPhone come Netbook to redefine the space vacated by the 'Macbook' as the 13 incher migrates to Pro status? Yes I can.
I think the Macbook is due a revolution...in fact, I think the Mac line is. And it's clear Apple's focus is on the portable revolution, catching all commentators cold with the laptop update AND to a lesser degree, the iPhone hardware launch at the WWDC. So, an expansion of the mobile computing platform seems inevitable and in my opinion, bound for affordability and something less 'clumsy' than a laptop (again, never liked them much...but I do like the iPhone...).
It's just a question of when. I don't think it will be a netbook as per the market quo. I can see a bigger iPhone, with a plug in keyboard as an option or just a dockable big iPhone that you can touch type on.
If one company is going to get the 'tablet/netbook' right? It's Apple. And I think the way the consumer/pro laptop line is currently positioned...we're looking at a 'new Macbook' line...but not as we know it.
Or, a club of affordability to beat M$'s 'Apple Tax' campaign with.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm tempted to agree about Flash. Fussy, and overated. Definitely slow on all but latest hardware...and I look questioningly at it for a device like the iPhone. Adobe may take a humbling (about time...) on flash as we move to the mobile (truly mobile...) era of computing...
Next. The netbook done right. I think the 'white' Macbook is the 'placeholder' for a revolution. The iPhone, to me..., is the closest thing we have to Star Trek technology. It's a revolution. It blew me out the water when it was first announced and the latest software/hardware update still as me wowed.
Can I imagine Apple making a large iPhone come Netbook to redefine the space vacated by the 'Macbook' as the 13 incher migrates to Pro status? Yes I can.
I think the Macbook is due a revolution...in fact, I think the Mac line is. And it's clear Apple's focus is on the portable revolution, catching all commentators cold with the laptop update AND to a lesser degree, the iPhone hardware launch at the WWDC. So, an expansion of the mobile computing platform seems inevitable and in my opinion, bound for affordability and something less 'clumsy' than a laptop (again, never liked them much...but I do like the iPhone...).
It's just a question of when. I don't think it will be a netbook as per the market quo. I can see a bigger iPhone, with a plug in keyboard as an option or just a dockable big iPhone that you can touch type on.
If one company is going to get the 'tablet/netbook' right? It's Apple. And I think the way the consumer/pro laptop line is currently positioned...we're looking at a 'new Macbook' line...but not as we know it.
Or, a club of affordability to beat M$'s 'Apple Tax' campaign with.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Your preaching to the choir here dude.
So does anyone....I mean ANYONE have any leaks or info on the status of the MacTouch project as of late?