I think even more than hardware its a philosophical point for Apple. They want the internet to be ruled by web standards. Apple is going through all of this effort to support and grow webkit, h.264, HTML5, and now HTTP Live Streaming. Continuing to support Flash would render this effort for nothing.
Does that mean that plenty of developers would get pissed now as they have to redo their application for the bigger screen ? Your point makes no sense. If they released info about new devices earlier (at least announced multiple screen sizes), developers would have more time to prepare.
The secretiveness of Apple shows as negative factor here. This is a royal treatment really : hint the developers by obscure "rumors" that they should prepare their apps for resolution independence by supporting very ambiguous "full-screen". One word : ridiculous.
Actually, foldable screen tech has been around for quite awhile. It does beg to question though, how long it could hold up to constant opening and closing.
There was a demo of that type of folded screen and the 'hinge' part was pretty bulky, much bigger than the mockup. It's like when you bend a hose pipe, you either have a huge curve or it creases. Apple's love of thin would go against having any bulk. This folding type of screen was demoed at CES:
The crease can still be seen at various angles but it isn't that bad but the guy mentions 1-2 years for affordability.
Given Apple's ties with LG, perhaps they'll manage to get a good deal on OLED displays. They must have gotten a big saving on 27" LED backlit IPS screens to be able to sell them at the price they do with a Core i7.
If it's going to be very cheap though, it likely won't be OLED in which case it won't fold at all. It will just be a standard 10-12" capacitive touch slate. One rumor was that it would fit in a handbag, which a 12" screen won't do. A 10" slate with iphone OS would kinda suck IMO because it's basically a big ipod. It would be like taking the screen off a Dell Mini 10:
The article was poorly worded, but what they mean is that all the apps that are properly coded in the store now are already resolution independent.
You are incorrect to assume that "... everything so (sic) bar (is) being designed around 320x480." In fact, hard coding to a specific screen size has been discouraged from the beginning and Apple specifically told developers they didn't want them to do that. That being said, a great deal of the games in the store apparently *are* hard-coded to the screen size, so those ones, will have to be "fixed."
At least I'm pretty sure that's what the article was trying to say.
That's just flat out wrong (referring to 'resolution independent' apps). Any app with custom designed graphics is made for one size only. If there is a larger device with the exact same screen resolution, then this would be a fair statement.
Is 1366x768 universally defined as ?full screen? in the PC field or at least in the Apple coding world? I read ?full screen resolution? and I can?t help but think that any image using any display?s complete resolution is at full screen, regardless of size, ratio or resolution.
Is 1366x768 universally defined as ?full screen? in the PC field or at least in the Apple coding world? I read ?full screen resolution? and I can?t help but think that any image using any display?s complete resolution is at full screen, regardless of size, ratio or resolution.
Full screen is technically defined as consuming the entire screen area. Apparently I was making an ASSUMPTION of the tablet's screen resolution.
Full screen is technically defined as consuming the entire screen area. Apparently I was making an ASSUMPTION of the tablet's screen resolution.
That does seem the most obvious device this ambiguous term is referring to but there is the lingering truth that Apple has been using 480x320 3.5? display in their phones since first demoed back in 2007 with dot pitch and overall smartphone competition ramping up considerably since then. I have to wonder if it might just be mid-cycle, update for a 64GB iPhone with a higher ppi.
Why do you think that it will be running iPhone OS? I can?t imagine that having 16 huge icons or having the same sized icons but with dozens on the screen makes much sense from a UI standpoint. I?d wager that it?s going to be a hybrid behind the iPhone OS and Mac OS frameworks and foundations with an entirely new UI setup specially for a 10? display whose main interaction is finger-baed multi-touch. Other tablets and many smartphones have failed or been unfulfilling by trying to shoe-horn an OS designed for one platform into another platform. Just look at the iPhone to see that its success comes from not following everyone else down that consumer unfriendly road.
YES. This is the first post here that made sense. Running iPhone OS on a Tablet is like running Linux on a gaming rig: a freaking waste of hardware.
Since iPhone OS is just Mac OS X "dumbed down" with just the necessary for the iPhone, I would predict Apple will get Snowy's enhanced kernel and GCD, OpenCL, and simply build a custom, multi-touch interface for it. There is nearly zero need to cut off anything here, since the size and hardware specs of the device mean it will work exactly like a computer. Should the MacTablet get even a third of the developers' dedication for the iPhone, it will help drive the adoption of Snowy's techs on the Mac as well!
And while running iPhone apps may **somewhat** help its adoption, I expect the product itself and its hype to do it themselves, so this would only slow development of "proper" apps for it (because developers ARE lazy).
That does seem the most obvious device this ambiguous term is referring to but there is the lingering truth that Apple has been using 480x320 3.5” display in their phones since first demoed back in 2007 with dot pitch and overall smartphone competition ramping up considerably since then. I have to wonder if it might just be mid-cycle, update for a 64GB iPhone with a higher ppi.
Anything larger than a sheet of paper (or even half a sheet of paper) will be very tiring to use. Even with the iPod touch, it can be irritating to have to interact with the screen constantly to achieve the desired operation. One-handed gestures, perhaps some kind of flipping motion or some other kind of natural motion may be needed to decrease the need for continuous 2 handed navigation and operation. Think of the old dictation recorders, or even the old Sony Walkman... these things were operable with one hand. If I'm riding a bike, I certainly don't want to be bothered with my iPod touch to adjust the screen.
No doubt whatever comes next, there will be some solid testing and improvements to the current form factor.
Does that mean that plenty of developers would get pissed now as they have to redo their application for the bigger screen ? Your point makes no sense. If they released info about new devices earlier (at least announced multiple screen sizes), developers would have more time to prepare.
If you were a software developer, you'd know that technology changes that require you do "redo your application" are de rigueur. Hardware improves and advances, operating systems improve and get new features, and don't for a second lose sight of the fact that the competition is constantly improving their applications.
Apple isn't known for giving advanced notice for new stuff, the other side of that spectrum are the vaporware crowd that announce stuff that never seems to ship. But everything we know about this seems to imply that the January announcement *is* the early announcement for developers who want to write apps for it. Remember that the iPhone isn't going away, this will apparently be a new device and this rumor seems to hint that there may be a way to write iPhone applications that support both the iPhone and whatever the new device is named.
At the end of the day, I think people are a bit up in arms over something that hasn't been confirmed yet; maybe we can dial back the histrionics meter until we know something more concrete?
YES. This is the first post here that made sense. Running iPhone OS on a Tablet is like running Linux on a gaming rig: a freaking waste of hardware.
That depends upon the game doesn't it? In any event when I see statements like the above it becomes pretty clear that the individual making the statement understands niether the iPhone nor Linux.
Quote:
Since iPhone OS is just Mac OS X "dumbed down" with just the necessary for the iPhone, I would predict Apple will get Snowy's enhanced kernel and GCD, OpenCL, and simply build a custom, multi-touch interface for it.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that iPhone OS is dumbed down. As far as GCD & OpenCL goes, there is no point in exposing such features until the hardware is available. That is coming though, which you would know if you followed ARM and Imagination.
Quote:
There is nearly zero need to cut off anything here, since the size and hardware specs of the device mean it will work exactly like a computer.
The fact is the iPhone is a computer too. The Tablet can be programmer any way that pleases Apple. They could even put Redhat on it if they wanted. They won't of course because they have an excellent model in iPhone.
Quote:
Should the MacTablet get even a third of the developers' dedication for the iPhone, it will help drive the adoption of Snowy's techs on the Mac as well!
Clearly you don't understand how close the two are already. I fully expect to see OpenCL on future portable devices. That won't happen though until the right hardware is implemented. You look at this as a special problem for iPhone OS I on the other hand see the two platforms running more or less the same kernels right now. It simply may be a case of adding another processor and libdispatch to iPhone and then boom you have much faster devices.
Quote:
And while running iPhone apps may **somewhat** help its adoption, I expect the product itself and its hype to do it themselves, so this would only slow development of "proper" apps for it (because developers ARE lazy).
And you would be wrong. IPhone really took of once native apps became a big thing. Apps sell computers, that has always been the case.
As to proper apps once it becomes obvious that the device is taking off there won't be any lack of developers. Honestly though if the device did support the Mac OS/X APIs there would never be proper apps. This is one of the key reasons to have the OS be an evolution of iPhone OS.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that iPhone OS is dumbed down.
I think you are being too harsh. It?s colloquial to refer to a slimming down of the codebase as ?dumbing down? and it?s true that the iPhone is less capable than Mac OS X in many tasks. Stating that iPhone OS is a slimmed down version of Mac OS would have been more suitable, but I don?t think it?s entirely incorrect.
There was a demo of that type of folded screen and the 'hinge' part was pretty bulky, much bigger than the mockup. It's like when you bend a hose pipe, you either have a huge curve or it creases. Apple's love of thin would go against having any bulk. This folding type of screen was demoed at CES:
The crease can still be seen at various angles but it isn't that bad but the guy mentions 1-2 years for affordability.
Given Apple's ties with LG, perhaps they'll manage to get a good deal on OLED displays. They must have gotten a big saving on 27" LED backlit IPS screens to be able to sell them at the price they do with a Core i7.
If it's going to be very cheap though, it likely won't be OLED in which case it won't fold at all. It will just be a standard 10-12" capacitive touch slate. One rumor was that it would fit in a handbag, which a 12" screen won't do. A 10" slate with iphone OS would kinda suck IMO because it's basically a big ipod. It would be like taking the screen off a Dell Mini 10:
I'm holding on to a slim sliver of hope that somehow it will be foldable. It would revolutionize the entire personal computing industry. And Apple again would the first to market with it. But I'm guessing it's not going to happen...at least not in January.
I'm holding on to a slim sliver of hope that somehow it will be foldable. It would revolutionize the entire personal computing industry. And Apple again would the first to market with it. But I'm guessing it's not going to happen...at least in January.
I'm not particularly interested in whether or not Apple revolutionizes anything going forward, I just want them to continue to boldly go where no consumer electronics company has gone before.
I'm not particularly interested in whether or not Apple revolutionizes anything going forward, I just want them to continue to boldly go where no consumer electronics company has gone before.
Well, Apple revolutionizing stuff and going where no one has gone before usually coincides.
Comments
I think even more than hardware its a philosophical point for Apple. They want the internet to be ruled by web standards. Apple is going through all of this effort to support and grow webkit, h.264, HTML5, and now HTTP Live Streaming. Continuing to support Flash would render this effort for nothing.
Agreed.
Flash is problematic. I have no love for Flash.
Does that mean that plenty of developers would get pissed now as they have to redo their application for the bigger screen ? Your point makes no sense. If they released info about new devices earlier (at least announced multiple screen sizes), developers would have more time to prepare.
The secretiveness of Apple shows as negative factor here. This is a royal treatment really : hint the developers by obscure "rumors" that they should prepare their apps for resolution independence by supporting very ambiguous "full-screen". One word : ridiculous.
Do you think we are, brainless?
Along this thought of the Knowledge Nav., I've always liked this idea.
http://tommasogecchelin.wordpress.co...touch-beta-20/
Actually, foldable screen tech has been around for quite awhile. It does beg to question though, how long it could hold up to constant opening and closing.
There was a demo of that type of folded screen and the 'hinge' part was pretty bulky, much bigger than the mockup. It's like when you bend a hose pipe, you either have a huge curve or it creases. Apple's love of thin would go against having any bulk. This folding type of screen was demoed at CES:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtN_TkZUOt4
The crease can still be seen at various angles but it isn't that bad but the guy mentions 1-2 years for affordability.
Given Apple's ties with LG, perhaps they'll manage to get a good deal on OLED displays. They must have gotten a big saving on 27" LED backlit IPS screens to be able to sell them at the price they do with a Core i7.
If it's going to be very cheap though, it likely won't be OLED in which case it won't fold at all. It will just be a standard 10-12" capacitive touch slate. One rumor was that it would fit in a handbag, which a 12" screen won't do. A 10" slate with iphone OS would kinda suck IMO because it's basically a big ipod. It would be like taking the screen off a Dell Mini 10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxopgaEV3DE
Quite cramped.
The article was poorly worded, but what they mean is that all the apps that are properly coded in the store now are already resolution independent.
You are incorrect to assume that "... everything so (sic) bar (is) being designed around 320x480." In fact, hard coding to a specific screen size has been discouraged from the beginning and Apple specifically told developers they didn't want them to do that. That being said, a great deal of the games in the store apparently *are* hard-coded to the screen size, so those ones, will have to be "fixed."
At least I'm pretty sure that's what the article was trying to say.
That's just flat out wrong (referring to 'resolution independent' apps). Any app with custom designed graphics is made for one size only. If there is a larger device with the exact same screen resolution, then this would be a fair statement.
What is the resolution of Full Screen?
1366x768.
DeviceID=
1366x768.
DeviceID=
Is 1366x768 universally defined as ?full screen? in the PC field or at least in the Apple coding world? I read ?full screen resolution? and I can?t help but think that any image using any display?s complete resolution is at full screen, regardless of size, ratio or resolution.
Is 1366x768 universally defined as ?full screen? in the PC field or at least in the Apple coding world? I read ?full screen resolution? and I can?t help but think that any image using any display?s complete resolution is at full screen, regardless of size, ratio or resolution.
Full screen is technically defined as consuming the entire screen area. Apparently I was making an ASSUMPTION of the tablet's screen resolution.
Full screen is technically defined as consuming the entire screen area. Apparently I was making an ASSUMPTION of the tablet's screen resolution.
That does seem the most obvious device this ambiguous term is referring to but there is the lingering truth that Apple has been using 480x320 3.5? display in their phones since first demoed back in 2007 with dot pitch and overall smartphone competition ramping up considerably since then. I have to wonder if it might just be mid-cycle, update for a 64GB iPhone with a higher ppi.
You can't talk about something that doesn't actually exist.
on this forum we do it all the time
So why the additional 0.3??
Why do you think that it will be running iPhone OS? I can?t imagine that having 16 huge icons or having the same sized icons but with dozens on the screen makes much sense from a UI standpoint. I?d wager that it?s going to be a hybrid behind the iPhone OS and Mac OS frameworks and foundations with an entirely new UI setup specially for a 10? display whose main interaction is finger-baed multi-touch. Other tablets and many smartphones have failed or been unfulfilling by trying to shoe-horn an OS designed for one platform into another platform. Just look at the iPhone to see that its success comes from not following everyone else down that consumer unfriendly road.
YES. This is the first post here that made sense. Running iPhone OS on a Tablet is like running Linux on a gaming rig: a freaking waste of hardware.
Since iPhone OS is just Mac OS X "dumbed down" with just the necessary for the iPhone, I would predict Apple will get Snowy's enhanced kernel and GCD, OpenCL, and simply build a custom, multi-touch interface for it. There is nearly zero need to cut off anything here, since the size and hardware specs of the device mean it will work exactly like a computer. Should the MacTablet get even a third of the developers' dedication for the iPhone, it will help drive the adoption of Snowy's techs on the Mac as well!
And while running iPhone apps may **somewhat** help its adoption, I expect the product itself and its hype to do it themselves, so this would only slow development of "proper" apps for it (because developers ARE lazy).
That does seem the most obvious device this ambiguous term is referring to but there is the lingering truth that Apple has been using 480x320 3.5” display in their phones since first demoed back in 2007 with dot pitch and overall smartphone competition ramping up considerably since then. I have to wonder if it might just be mid-cycle, update for a 64GB iPhone with a higher ppi.
Anything larger than a sheet of paper (or even half a sheet of paper) will be very tiring to use. Even with the iPod touch, it can be irritating to have to interact with the screen constantly to achieve the desired operation. One-handed gestures, perhaps some kind of flipping motion or some other kind of natural motion may be needed to decrease the need for continuous 2 handed navigation and operation. Think of the old dictation recorders, or even the old Sony Walkman... these things were operable with one hand. If I'm riding a bike, I certainly don't want to be bothered with my iPod touch to adjust the screen.
No doubt whatever comes next, there will be some solid testing and improvements to the current form factor.
I Believe In Steve™.
Does that mean that plenty of developers would get pissed now as they have to redo their application for the bigger screen ? Your point makes no sense. If they released info about new devices earlier (at least announced multiple screen sizes), developers would have more time to prepare.
If you were a software developer, you'd know that technology changes that require you do "redo your application" are de rigueur. Hardware improves and advances, operating systems improve and get new features, and don't for a second lose sight of the fact that the competition is constantly improving their applications.
Apple isn't known for giving advanced notice for new stuff, the other side of that spectrum are the vaporware crowd that announce stuff that never seems to ship. But everything we know about this seems to imply that the January announcement *is* the early announcement for developers who want to write apps for it. Remember that the iPhone isn't going away, this will apparently be a new device and this rumor seems to hint that there may be a way to write iPhone applications that support both the iPhone and whatever the new device is named.
At the end of the day, I think people are a bit up in arms over something that hasn't been confirmed yet; maybe we can dial back the histrionics meter until we know something more concrete?
YES. This is the first post here that made sense. Running iPhone OS on a Tablet is like running Linux on a gaming rig: a freaking waste of hardware.
That depends upon the game doesn't it? In any event when I see statements like the above it becomes pretty clear that the individual making the statement understands niether the iPhone nor Linux.
Since iPhone OS is just Mac OS X "dumbed down" with just the necessary for the iPhone, I would predict Apple will get Snowy's enhanced kernel and GCD, OpenCL, and simply build a custom, multi-touch interface for it.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that iPhone OS is dumbed down. As far as GCD & OpenCL goes, there is no point in exposing such features until the hardware is available. That is coming though, which you would know if you followed ARM and Imagination.
There is nearly zero need to cut off anything here, since the size and hardware specs of the device mean it will work exactly like a computer.
The fact is the iPhone is a computer too. The Tablet can be programmer any way that pleases Apple. They could even put Redhat on it if they wanted. They won't of course because they have an excellent model in iPhone.
Should the MacTablet get even a third of the developers' dedication for the iPhone, it will help drive the adoption of Snowy's techs on the Mac as well!
Clearly you don't understand how close the two are already. I fully expect to see OpenCL on future portable devices. That won't happen though until the right hardware is implemented. You look at this as a special problem for iPhone OS I on the other hand see the two platforms running more or less the same kernels right now. It simply may be a case of adding another processor and libdispatch to iPhone and then boom you have much faster devices.
And while running iPhone apps may **somewhat** help its adoption, I expect the product itself and its hype to do it themselves, so this would only slow development of "proper" apps for it (because developers ARE lazy).
And you would be wrong. IPhone really took of once native apps became a big thing. Apps sell computers, that has always been the case.
As to proper apps once it becomes obvious that the device is taking off there won't be any lack of developers. Honestly though if the device did support the Mac OS/X APIs there would never be proper apps. This is one of the key reasons to have the OS be an evolution of iPhone OS.
Dave
I'm not sure where you get the idea that iPhone OS is dumbed down.
I think you are being too harsh. It?s colloquial to refer to a slimming down of the codebase as ?dumbing down? and it?s true that the iPhone is less capable than Mac OS X in many tasks. Stating that iPhone OS is a slimmed down version of Mac OS would have been more suitable, but I don?t think it?s entirely incorrect.
There was a demo of that type of folded screen and the 'hinge' part was pretty bulky, much bigger than the mockup. It's like when you bend a hose pipe, you either have a huge curve or it creases. Apple's love of thin would go against having any bulk. This folding type of screen was demoed at CES:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtN_TkZUOt4
The crease can still be seen at various angles but it isn't that bad but the guy mentions 1-2 years for affordability.
Given Apple's ties with LG, perhaps they'll manage to get a good deal on OLED displays. They must have gotten a big saving on 27" LED backlit IPS screens to be able to sell them at the price they do with a Core i7.
If it's going to be very cheap though, it likely won't be OLED in which case it won't fold at all. It will just be a standard 10-12" capacitive touch slate. One rumor was that it would fit in a handbag, which a 12" screen won't do. A 10" slate with iphone OS would kinda suck IMO because it's basically a big ipod. It would be like taking the screen off a Dell Mini 10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxopgaEV3DE
Quite cramped.
I'm holding on to a slim sliver of hope that somehow it will be foldable. It would revolutionize the entire personal computing industry. And Apple again would the first to market with it. But I'm guessing it's not going to happen...at least not in January.
I'm holding on to a slim sliver of hope that somehow it will be foldable. It would revolutionize the entire personal computing industry. And Apple again would the first to market with it. But I'm guessing it's not going to happen...at least in January.
I'm not particularly interested in whether or not Apple revolutionizes anything going forward, I just want them to continue to boldly go where no consumer electronics company has gone before.
I'm not particularly interested in whether or not Apple revolutionizes anything going forward, I just want them to continue to boldly go where no consumer electronics company has gone before.
Well, Apple revolutionizing stuff and going where no one has gone before usually coincides.
Well, Apple revolutionizing stuff and going where no one has gone before usually coincides.
Just a joke.
Just a joke.
Oh.