About the Cube, you are just wrong on the facts. I don't see the point of repeating everything I've said previously, because I'm sure you would continue to ignore it.
The idea that a slate computer has to be capable of HD video editing is a completely arbitrary criterion for what would cause the product to be a success or a failure. You are committing the classic error of confusing what would make the product to appealing to you, personally, and extrapolating this to the public at large. And without having the first clue about what it will do and how it will do it besides, which only compounds the error.
How many people were absolutely certain that the iPhone would flop because it lacked a physical keyboard? Quite likely, some have not nor or will they ever buy an iPhone for that reason -- but they are overwhelmed by the many many millions more who don't have a problem with this at all. The iPhone succeeds because Apple tamed many of the problems users had with feature phones, not because they hit some arbitrary performance or feature target set by one person. The same rule will apply to the tablet.
You'd think people would have gotten tired of underestimating the intelligence of the people who run Apple, gotten tired of being mistaken. You'd think.
The lesson here is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
About the Cube, you are just wrong on the facts. I don't see the point of repeating everything I've said previously, because I'm sure you would continue to ignore it.
The idea that a slate computer has to be capable of HD video editing is a completely arbitrary criterion for what would cause the product to be a success or a failure. You are committing the classic error of confusing what would make the product to appealing to you, personally, and extrapolating this to the public at large. And without having the first clue about what it will do and how it will do it besides, which only compounds the error.
How many people were absolutely certain that the iPhone would flop because it lacked a physical keyboard? Quite likely, some have not nor or will they ever buy an iPhone for that reason -- but they are overwhelmed by the many many millions more who don't have a problem with this at all. The iPhone succeeds because Apple tamed many of the problems users had with feature phones, not because they hit some arbitrary performance or feature target set by one person. The same rule will apply to the tablet.
You'd think people would have gotten tired of underestimating the intelligence of the people who run Apple, gotten tired of being mistaken. You'd think.
The lesson here is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
I distinctly remember the Cube being significantly more expensive than other Apple computers at the time with comparable specs. If this is incorrect, please provide some specific data if you're so sure my recollection is faulty. Pretending something isn't true, as you seem intent on doing, is kind of an ineffective way to try and win an argument.
In regards to my reference to the ability to edit video, the point is quite simply that the capabilities of today's low-power, low-heat CPU options are such that the tablet will not serve as a laptop/desktop replacement unless you're talking folks who only use their computers to browse, check out e-mails, etc. In other words, if you're not really in need of a computer to edit video, manipulate photos, multi-task significantly, and so on and so on, well then sure the tablet is all the computer you need. I think you will find, though, that few of us fall into that category. Many of us do edit video, multi-task, etc. Even if you don't do it a lot, if you do want a machine capable of doing it from time to time, the upcoming tablet is not that machine.
As for not knowing what the tablet will do, I do know, as does everybody else, that the horsepower of any device like the tablet will be quite limited at this time. It's silly to expect Core 2 Duo performance out of a tablet form factor. As such, even before Apple unveils the device, there is quite a lot we can assume about the machine because Apple relies on technology from other companies. Apple does the software and they take externally sourced components and bring them together for great designs.Yet, Apple's designs are limited by what their suppliers can offer them at any given moment. This is non-negotiable. In short, it's not true, as you seem to be implying, that the sky is the limit in regards to what Apple is about to unveil. There are limits and many of those limits are common knowledge.
By the way, I have not suggested that the tablet will flop. I have said a $1,000 10-inch tablet would flop on account of $1,000 is very close to MacBook territory and the tablet simply will be no match for even a basic MacBook in terms of horsepower. I don't know what Apple will unveil on Wednesday, exactly, and as such I'm making no statement in regards to whether or not the new product will flop on account of I don't know what it is. On the other hand, if what Apple unveils is a $1,000 tablet, yes it will flop. Being as Apple has been on a roll, I doubt we're about to see them bring a $1,000 tablet to market.
And you are wrong about the Cube. Its performance was hardly "very poor" relative to the cost. In fact, it used exactly the same CPU, system bus, and graphics cards as the tower G4 sold at the very same time. It was even less expensive than a PowerMac with the same specs. It was a PowerMac G4 in a different form factor. That was its only distinction.
Amusingly yet another "fact" you're wrong about yet again.
The cube cost $200 more than the equivalent PowerMac G4, not less at launch. After poor sales they significantly reduced the price.
450Mhz G4 Cube $1,799 July 2000 dropped to $1,299 Feb 22, 2001 (before being discontinued)
The 500Mhz Cube was $2,299. A very sucky deal vs the $2,499 DP Powermac for $200 more.
Pretty much everyone agreed at the time that the G4 Cube cost too much in comparison with the G4 Gigabit towers which is why very few people bought one. Undercut at the low end by the base model Powermac and completely obliterated by the mid-tier Powermac.
Perhaps if it launched at the $1,299 price point and there was no single processor Powermac it would have been an instant success. There IS a reason that the current Mac Pro is priced and configured the way it is. If there were a $1,599 Mac Pro the iMac wouldn't do nearly as well as it does.
The cube form factor did very little to offset the higher cost and limited expansion capability. Unlike the MBA, the form factor has no real useful advantage over the nice looking tower that was typically hidden under the desk anyway.
Whether a $1000 tablet will do well vs the $1000 MB is an interesting question and a valid point. Personally, I don't think Steve is of the habit of repeating the same costly mistakes so I would be surprised with a $1000 tablet.
$399 iPod Touch, $699 Tablet and $999 Macbook seems a much smoother product lineup.
A $999 slate that smoothly docked into a keyboard + aux battery base (to form a notebook) and the MB removed from the lineup I could see that working as well. That solves a few other issues as well but really isn't Apple's design philosophy so I really doubt this scenario. Especially since this is 90% probable to be an ARM based tablet and not a Moorestown one. Even then Moorestown is probably too slow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
You'd think people would have gotten tired of underestimating the intelligence of the people who run Apple, gotten tired of being mistaken. You'd think.
The Cube and aTV are two examples of products that have not been huge Apple successes. You may or may not add MBA to that category even if I like the little guy. I'd be hard pressed to buy one over a 13" MBP though. I also like the aTV but it hasn't been selling like say...the iPhone. Then there are a couple other accessory items that haven't done well. Like the iPod Hi Fi.
They have very impressive home run records with very few strikeouts. That doesn't make them infallible.
Quote:
The lesson here is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
A lesson that would be good to learn as opposed to preach.
I have to take issue with your use of the term "proper laptop." Since it is undefined (and I think resistant to definition) I think you've used it as a term of convenience to describe how you use a laptop. Hence, it is really only meaningful only to you and not a basis for an argument.
He means as the primary (and only) computer for the user. That is easily understood in the context.
Laptops today are often the only computer a person owns. As such there are certain requirements even for the average consumer. The ability to import photos and movies from digital cameras, sufficiently touch them up/manipulate them for sending to friends and family is not a controversial requirement for such a device. In other words run the iLife suite.
Likewise a single primary computer would be required to be able to generate word and powerpoint documents for work or school. In other words run the iWork suite.
Editing HD video is a little bit of a stretch but not a very big one. You need at least the basic ability to grab the video, often AVC-HD these days, and transcode it into a format that's useful for playback (avi, mov, etc).
His concerns are legitimate but only at certain price points. At $999 even I would hesitate at buying a companion computing device even given my personal computer is a $599 Mac Mini (I have a MBP and Mac Pro at work). It would have to offer content artificially restricted from the Mac platform...and then I might be a little peeved about the whole idea.
$999 on top of a $1200 MBP or iMac is kinda steep and in that same "gee, this thing cost too much for what it does" range as the Cube. I'd rather buy a MBP and get a free iPod Touch come next Back To School season.
The cube form factor did very little to offset the higher cost and limited expansion capability. Unlike the MBA, the form factor has no real useful advantage over the nice looking tower that was typically hidden under the desk anyway.
I?m jumping into this conversation late and only skimmed the previous posts, but isn?t the Cube more on par with the Mac Mini in terms of how it was marketed? The cost to size benefit wasn?t as good as the Mac Mini but both devices do suffer from charging for a small form factor.
Quote:
$399 iPod Touch, $699 Tablet and $999 Macbook seems a much smoother product lineup.
That sounds reasonable. I put the tablet between $699 and $899. Except for some potential options, I don?t see it crossing over into the MacBook price.
Quote:
A $999 slate that smoothly docked into a keyboard + aux battery base (to form a notebook) and the MB removed from the lineup I could see that working as well. That solves a few other issues as well but really isn't Apple's design philosophy so I really doubt this scenario. Especially since this is 90% probable to be an ARM based tablet and not a Moorestown one. Even then Moorestown is probably too slow.
I don?t care what performance it has I can?t see a tablet replacing a notebook for the masses. At least not yet. I have no doubt this will not being using Intel ore technology so that means the performance will be at most Atom, but more than likely ARM. I see no reason to expect the tablet to not be designed and marketed as anything but an accessory to your PC.
He means as the primary (and only) computer for the user. That is easily understood in the context.
Laptops today are often the only computer a person owns. As such there are certain requirements even for the average consumer. The ability to import photos and movies from digital cameras, sufficiently touch them up/manipulate them for sending to friends and family is not a controversial requirement for such a device. In other words run the iLife suite.
Likewise a single primary computer would be required to be able to generate word and powerpoint documents for work or school. In other words run the iWork suite.
Editing HD video is a little bit of a stretch but not a very big one. You need at least the basic ability to grab the video, often AVC-HD these days, and transcode it into a format that's useful for playback (avi, mov, etc).
His concerns are legitimate but only at certain price points. At $999 even I would hesitate at buying a companion computing device even given my personal computer is a $599 Mac Mini (I have a MBP and Mac Pro at work). It would have to offer content artificially restricted from the Mac platform...and then I might be a little peeved about the whole idea.
$999 on top of a $1200 MBP or iMac is kinda steep and in that same "gee, this thing cost too much for what it does" range as the Cube. I'd rather buy a MBP and get a free iPod Touch come next Back To School season.
Didn?t we have the same problem just 3 years ago with the iPhone. It cost more out the door and most pay for PCs. When you consider the carrier fees, even excluding what you were paying previously for cell service, the cost over 2 years is considerably more than most pay for notebooks. No one thought they needed a phone that can do internet. How would it even be a decent experience on such a small screen? with no keyboard, to boot? But the design was good and the entire mobile industry shifted to copy it and people that had never thought about PDAs or smartphones were/are buying them in droves.
I think we shouldn?t look at a tablet like any other tablet we?ve seen or try to make it in a ?large iPod Touch? or ?touchscreen Mac? as seems the norm. I think that is the reason for so many finding it hard to place this device. They think it?s an either/or decision when it?s likely a complementary device that is geared to do things in ways we don?t even realize we yet want.
I think the multiple users is a likely way Apple will appeal this device to families. It?s only a couple dollars for a family of four. A handheld appliance that might save money in other areas, or at least save time by being more convenient. It won?t replace your phone, it won?t replace your iPod and it won?t replace your PC.
I think that will be only area that they market the device. As I?ve stated before, i think this device, unlike any other Apple product, as to fit many consumer and professional needs very well out the door for it to work, which may be the reason that the original tablet was scraped, the iPhone rose from its ashes and now 3 years after the iPhone the tablet is finally going to be released.
I?m jumping into this conversation late and only skimmed the previous posts, but isn?t the Cube more on par with the Mac Mini in terms of how it was marketed? The cost to size benefit wasn?t as good as the Mac Mini but both devices do suffer from charging for a small form factor.
My impression was that the mini was always sold as a entry level cross-over device. The cube much more a sexy alternative to a powermac.
Quote:
I don?t care what performance it has I can?t see a tablet replacing a notebook for the masses. At least not yet. I have no doubt this will not being using Intel ore technology so that means the performance will be at most Atom, but more than likely ARM. I see no reason to expect the tablet to not be designed and marketed as anything but an accessory to your PC.
Moorestown is faster than the current Atoms. Putting Leopard on a current Atom is not the definition of teh snappy but not unusable either. Someone put it about par with a Quicksilver, G4 Mini and iBook G4.
So a Moorestown one would do a bit better than that I think. The other aspect for replacing a notebook...at least one that is often used docked...is a decent docking station. That allows for a keyboard, HDD, etc. But docking stations are something else that Apple doesn't do so that's unlikely too.
You'll know, I think, by whether it has 64GB of Flash vs a much larger HDD (even as an option). With only 64GB worth of flash it wont be useful as anything other than a companion device because on travel what I need at a minimum is a place to stash by GB and GB of photos I take. My wife's old iPod classic with 160Gb is far more useful in that regard than my iPhone.
I can live without a keyboard if I have to. I can live without a lot of CPU if I have to. If I still have to keep a pocketful of 8GB flash cards for my camera I might as well not bother and just bring a 10" netbook with me.
Didn?t we have the same problem just 3 years ago with the iPhone. It cost more out the door and most pay for PCs.
Yes, but I can't stick a PC in my pocket. I can stick an iPhone in my pocket. Uber goodness worth a lot of $$$$.
I can't stick a 10" tablet in my pocket any more than my wife's 10" netbook. I'm not carrying a man bag. The tablet is going to have to be REALLY FREAKING AWESOME for me to start carrying a man bag around.
I would make "really freaking awesome" in very large type, red and blinking to adequately convey that feeling but it would really be annoying. Caps will have to do.
Quote:
I think the multiple users is a likely way Apple will appeal this device to families. It?s only a couple dollars for a family of four. A handheld appliance that might save money in other areas, or at least save time by being more convenient. It won?t replace your phone, it won?t replace your iPod and it won?t replace your PC.
I have two kids that will fight over legos...of which I bought 4 pounds worth on eBay. There's no freaking way sharing a single tablet is optimal with two kids if it's a really desirable device. Two ipod touches are IMHO far superior for most parents of two kids.
Not to mention if it's THAT killer I'm not all that inclined to share it either.
I distinctly remember the Cube being significantly more expensive than other Apple computers at the time with comparable specs. If this is incorrect, please provide some specific data if you're so sure my recollection is faulty. Pretending something isn't true, as you seem intent on doing, is kind of an ineffective way to try and win an argument.
Right, I must be pretending. The Cube debuted at $1,799 with a G4 450. The entry level PowerMac at the time was a G4 400 at $1,599. The next model up in the tower PowerMac line at the time was a dual G4 450 at $2,499. A year later, Apple lowered the price of the Cube by $500. The big ding on the Cube wasn't its performance, it was price, compared to the more expandable tower. As I have said several times already, Apple misjudged what a large number of customers would pay for form factor alone.
Quote:
In regards to my reference to the ability to edit video, the point is quite simply that the capabilities of today's low-power, low-heat CPU options are such that the tablet will not serve as a laptop/desktop replacement unless you're talking folks who only use their computers to browse, check out e-mails, etc. In other words, if you're not really in need of a computer to edit video, manipulate photos, multi-task significantly, and so on and so on, well then sure the tablet is all the computer you need. I think you will find, though, that few of us fall into that category. Many of us do edit video, multi-task, etc. Even if you don't do it a lot, if you do want a machine capable of doing it from time to time, the upcoming tablet is not that machine.
As for not knowing what the tablet will do, I do know, as does everybody else, that the horsepower of any device like the tablet will be quite limited at this time. It's silly to expect Core 2 Duo performance out of a tablet form factor. As such, even before Apple unveils the device, there is quite a lot we can assume about the machine because Apple relies on technology from other companies. Apple does the software and they take externally sourced components and bring them together for great designs.Yet, Apple's designs are limited by what their suppliers can offer them at any given moment. This is non-negotiable. In short, it's not true, as you seem to be implying, that the sky is the limit in regards to what Apple is about to unveil. There are limits and many of those limits are common knowledge.
By the way, I have not suggested that the tablet will flop. I have said a $1,000 10-inch tablet would flop on account of $1,000 is very close to MacBook territory and the tablet simply will be no match for even a basic MacBook in terms of horsepower. I don't know what Apple will unveil on Wednesday, exactly, and as such I'm making no statement in regards to whether or not the new product will flop on account of I don't know what it is. On the other hand, if what Apple unveils is a $1,000 tablet, yes it will flop. Being as Apple has been on a roll, I doubt we're about to see them bring a $1,000 tablet to market.
This is pretty much a self-cancelling argument. As with the iPhone, I think Apple can be counted upon to appropriately scale function to the available screen size and CPU performance. They will not make the dumb mistake of trying to shoehorn a full desktop OS into a small device and hope it works. Maybe you just don't see that. But you've already admitted that you don't understand the value of UI in this context, which I think explains the problem you are having seeing this. You could easily look at an iPhone or iPod touch and answer the question for yourself. I'm not sure why this isn't self-explanatory.
I've never said that the "sky is the limit." I have said that the success of the product depends on Apple solving problems that people have in an appealing way. If they can manage that, then what they can reasonably charge for it is more about convenience and pleasure in use and ownership, than specifications, or comparison with a completely different device, or any one arbitrary feature that somebody or some group of somebodies thinks is essential. Apple will have decided who to target for this device. It might not be you.
I have said that the success of the product depends on Apple solving problems that people have in an appealing way. If they can manage that, then what they can reasonably charge for it is more about convenience and pleasure in use and ownership, than specifications, or comparison with a completely different device, or any one arbitrary feature that somebody or some group of somebodies thinks is essential. Apple will have decided who to target for this device. It might not be you.
Very well said. This is the exact nuance that a lot of people seem to miss.
My impression was that the mini was always sold as a entry level cross-over device. The cube much more a sexy alternative to a powermac.
Sure, it?s the cheapest Mac Apple sells but it?s still a device using notebook-grade components which is not cost effective compared to desktop-gread components. The failing with the Cube wasn?t the form factor, but the closeness in price to the much more powerful PowerMac. At some point the desirability scale for a petite machine will tip in favour of a competing device if the price is low enough and the performance is high enough. Just look at the Lisa. I don?t even think it was the actual price of the Cube that is the biggest failing, but the price in comparison to the PowerMac. Apple is smart to keep it and the Mac Pro so separate.
Quote:
Moorestown is faster than the current Atoms. Putting Leopard on a current Atom is not the definition of teh snappy but not unusable either. Someone put it about par with a Quicksilver, G4 Mini and iBook G4.
So a Moorestown one would do a bit better than that I think. The other aspect for replacing a notebook...at least one that is often used docked...is a decent docking station. That allows for a keyboard, HDD, etc. But docking stations are something else that Apple doesn't do so that's unlikely too.
You'll know, I think, by whether it has 64GB of Flash vs a much larger HDD (even as an option). With only 64GB worth of flash it wont be useful as anything other than a companion device because on travel what I need at a minimum is a place to stash by GB and GB of photos I take. My wife's old iPod classic with 160Gb is far more useful in that regard than my iPhone.
I can live without a keyboard if I have to. I can live without a lot of CPU if I have to. If I still have to keep a pocketful of 8GB flash cards for my camera I might as well not bother and just bring a 10" netbook with me.
Those are all reasons why it won?t run Mac OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes, but I can't stick a PC in my pocket. I can stick an iPhone in my pocket. Uber goodness worth a lot of $$$$.
I can't stick a 10" tablet in my pocket any more than my wife's 10" netbook. I'm not carrying a man bag. The tablet is going to have to be REALLY FREAKING AWESOME for me to start carrying a man bag around.
I would make "really freaking awesome" in very large type, red and blinking to adequately convey that feeling but it would really be annoying. Caps will have to do.
I don?t see the logic of it not fitting in your pocket means that it has to replace your PC. My previous point was addressing the cost, yet that is problem that people seem to have less concern with than before.
Personally, I want a device that can replace newspapers, magazines, books in the living room and bedroom. Use it on the couch while watching TV. Even having it act as the TV remote control with a slide-out widget would be great, but I?m holding my breath. I don?t by magazines or newspapers anymore, but I would like to if they were done well and my subscriptions were sent to my tablet automatically like Podcasts are subscribed to. I?d like the entire publishing industry to be reborn in a dynamic digital format. But that is just my desires for the home. I think it has to have scholastic, business, and other home uses right from the get go.
Quote:
I have two kids that will fight over legos...of which I bought 4 pounds worth on eBay. There's no freaking way sharing a single tablet is optimal with two kids if it's a really desirable device. Two ipod touches are IMHO far superior for most parents of two kids.
Not to mention if it's THAT killer I'm not all that inclined to share it either.
People fight over magazines, book and watch channel to watch. Either they learn to deal with it, you make them deal with it, or you buy additional TVs, magazines and books. I don?t see a tablet being any differnt.
Sure, it?s the cheapest Mac Apple sells but it?s still a device using notebook-grade components which is not cost effective compared to desktop-gread components. The failing with the Cube wasn?t the form factor, but the closeness in price to the much more powerful PowerMac.
Have to differ with you here. I thought I'd already demolished that myth. The entry level Cube was slightly faster than the cheapest tower PowerMac, and also slightly more expensive. The next notch up in the tower line was "much more powerful" only for applications which were optimized for dual CPUs, which at the time, wasn't many, and it was also $700 more expensive. Not very close in price at all, and not necessarily a universally appealing value added. Apple predicted that premium would mean different things to different people -- some would pay for form factor, others would pay for the most advanced CPUs and expandability. I don't think this was an unreasonable bet, it just didn't work out the way they'd hoped.
Quote:
Personally, I want a device that can replace newspapers, magazines, books in the living room and bedroom. Use it on the couch while watching TV. Even having it act as the TV remote control with a slide-out widget would be great, but I?m holding my breath. I don?t by magazines or newspapers anymore, but I would like to if they were done well and my subscriptions were sent to my tablet automatically like Podcasts are subscribed to. I?d like the entire publishing industry to be reborn in a dynamic digital format. But that is just my desires for the home. I think it has to have scholastic, business, and other home uses right from the get go.
A really good column on this subject, from one of my favorite writers from the olde days.
Have to differ with you here. I thought I'd already demolished that myth.
As previously mentioned, I did get into the discussion late. I concede to your point about the Cube?s price and performance, but I still contend that its failing was in no small part due to consumer confusion. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are no where close in price or performance, this is a wise move.
Quote:
A really good column on this subject, from one of my favorite writers from the olde days.
Glad to read about someone finally seeing what I?ve been seeing for so long, but I think his article barely scratches the surface of what can be expected by a proper tablet as printed works replacement.
As previously mentioned, I did get into the discussion late. I concede to your point about the Cube?s price and performance, but I still contend that its failing was in no small part due to consumer confusion. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are no where close in price or performance, this is a wise move.
True, I think Apple learned from this experience, but I don't think it tells us much about what to expect from the tablet.
Quote:
Glad to read about someone finally seeing what I?ve been seeing for so long, but I think his article barely scratches the surface of what can be expected by a proper tablet as printed works replacement.
Sure, but it's a column for general readers in a newspaper, so scratching the surface is about the most you can expect (assuming it's the right surface, which in this case I think it is). Akst was one of the more enlightened tech writers back in the day. Always liked his stuff. I had some e-mail correspondence with him, before he left the LA Times.
That article puts me in mind of a salient point of comparison with the iPhone: the iPhone didn't become a huge hit (and change the mobile handset industry almost literally overnight) by doing the same stuff better, or cheaper, of with extra features.
It did it by satisfying needs most people didn't know the had, because there wasn't any technology that combined sufficient ease of use with thoughtfulness about what people might actually want to do (as opposed to what engineers and marketing people want devices to do).
Think about it: before the iPhone, there was absolutely no popular awareness of things like "location based services." The average person would have been bemused by the idea of carrying around a little computer with ubiquitous ties to the internet, with a browser good enough to actually use, and enough cross application functionality to make things like "call a friend, chose a restaurant, look at reviews of restaurant, look at a map of the where the restaurant is, put friend on hold while calling restaurant from a link in the map app, make reservation, resume call with friend" an every day reality for the average person.
Astonishingly, such scenarios are close to being taken for granted, and it only happened because Apple designed the shit out their handset to make all of that as easy as humanly possible. And they did that because people at Apple are tasked with thinking about what people might want to do, if they could, with technology made sufficiently accessible. Some days it seems like Apple is literally the only CE company that has anyone thinking about that. Everyone else seems to have replaced that department with one that watches what Apple does, then tries to do "the same" while beating them on features, specs, and price. Which is akin to trying to replicate music by making louder and faster (not that you won't have some success in that endeavor, some people really like louder and faster).
Should we have shunned the iPhone, or, more importantly, the entire iPhone philosophy that now undergirds every other significant handset, because it didn't have the power of a "real computer", or because other phones were "more powerful" or had "more features?"
Some tried of course (and will some will never acknowledge the obvious), but those people were simply and inarguably wrong. They were wrong about the sea-change in human technological relations that the iPhone represented, by insisting on the primacy of trivial details hopelessly yoked to the previous model of that relationship.
So will an Apple tablet represent a similar advancement? Have no idea. But what seems clear is that the game Apple is playing has nothing to do with "being as good as a real laptop." They want to take the technology available to us now, and making something new that you didn't know you wanted or needed. A vanishingly light, vanishingly thin, endlessly adaptable 21st century bit of magic. Pretty much like the iPhone seemed, before the rightness of its design turned it into business as usual for the industry.
Trying to conjure that away by talking about "what people properly do with laptops" or "but can I edit HD video" or "if I can't run Office why should I care" just really, really misses the point. Apple isn't looking to make a collection of features and bullet points and specs and parts. It's looking to make an experience, and an enormously appealing one. If that experience clicks-- if people pick up this thing and it "feels right", like something you want to carry around and use when you're out biking or shopping or going to the coffee shop or taking notes in class or looking a movie while waiting for the bus or surfing while on the couch-- then it will be successful.
And the "feel" of that experience, it's appeal, will be the intricate interaction of hardware design and UI and the larger connected world-- the very thing that Apple has proven themselves to be masters at.
But such interaction is well and truly an art, as much as that term alarms the Asperger's crowd. It inspires cries of "form over function" and "trendy elitists" because a certain sort of person imagines that the art of human technological interaction must be a hoax of some sort, since it must involve "esthetics" which in their understanding is little more than a coat of paint or a bit of flair.
Deciding that such an art is unappealing, unseen, is like dismissing music you've never heard because you figure it won't be "real" orchestral music, or because you heard it won't be loud enough, or fast enough.
I realize this line of though is going to bug the shit out of some of the people here, and confirm that I'm an idiot fan boy with rainbow Apples dancing around my head.
But I'm not championing Apple so much as the fundamental idea that there is an extremely difficult to pin down art to the design of satisfying human technological interaction, and that when it works it simply transcends the metrics of hardware and features. It's the wild card that precludes making judgements about a product that aspires to that art. It's just that Apple seems to be one of the few companies that even tries, so to talk about that art is to generally end up talking about Apple.
Have to differ with you here. I thought I'd already demolished that myth. The entry level Cube was slightly faster than the cheapest tower PowerMac, and also slightly more expensive.
Funny..."It was even less expensive than a PowerMac with the same specs." has become "slightly more expensive" after I point that out.
Quote:
The next notch up in the tower line was "much more powerful" only for applications which were optimized for dual CPUs, which at the time, wasn't many, and it was also $700 more expensive. Not very close in price at all, and not necessarily a universally appealing value added. Apple predicted that premium would mean different things to different people -- some would pay for form factor, others would pay for the most advanced CPUs and expandability. I don't think this was an unreasonable bet, it just didn't work out the way they'd hoped.
Except that at the bottom end the tower was $200 cheaper and at the top end $200 more and TWICE AS FAST.
The cube was not less expensive than the tower as you stated until it was about to be cancelled and was considered a poor value.
Sure, it?s the cheapest Mac Apple sells but it?s still a device using notebook-grade components which is not cost effective compared to desktop-gread components.
For $599 the mini is cheap enough where the absolute cost delta isn't as significant and it IS much smaller than the cube.
Quote:
The failing with the Cube wasn?t the form factor, but the closeness in price to the much more powerful PowerMac.
Yes and no. The problem with the cube vs the tower was the lack of expansion while is saved some but not a lot of space. SFF computers like the Shuttle's primary market has been the LAN party set...big enough to be a real desktop, smaller than a uber tower.
The Cube isn't really meant to go anywhere and wasn't really small enough to disappear like the computer in the iMac or the much smaller mini.
Quote:
I don?t see the logic of it not fitting in your pocket means that it has to replace your PC. My previous point was addressing the cost, yet that is problem that people seem to have less concern with than before.
Personally, I want a device that can replace newspapers, magazines, books in the living room and bedroom. Use it on the couch while watching TV. Even having it act as the TV remote control with a slide-out widget would be great, but I?m holding my breath.
It replaces something...either in your budget or in what you carry. This has been the failure of the kindle. One more thing to carry but only does one thing. The tablet will fare much better since it will do many things but since it doesn't fit in my pocket I have to really want to carry it.
What am I not going to carry instead? Preferably my laptop. What do I carry that is lighter when when I still want to: read books, watch movies, surf the web, hold photos, do some light office work? A netbook.
If there are use cases where the tablet can't meet then it's less likely to end up in my bag. Too many use cases and I'm probably more likely to get a MB instead. Or heck...the MBA is only $1499. For $500 I have a 90% desktop replacement that's a little slower and almost as mobile as a 10" tablet.
Unless Apple restricts certain content to the tablet, why wouldn't you get a MBA vs a Tablet + a low end iMac?
Quote:
People fight over magazines, book and watch channel to watch. Either they learn to deal with it, you make them deal with it, or you buy additional TVs, magazines and books. I don?t see a tablet being any differnt.
A TV is naturally shared. A 10" tablet a lot less so. Why would you think buying 1 tablet as opposed to 2 touches would be better?
Funny..."It was even less expensive than a PowerMac with the same specs." has become "slightly more expensive" after I point that out.
Except that at the bottom end the tower was $200 cheaper and at the top end $200 more and TWICE AS FAST.
The cube was not less expensive than the tower as you stated until it was about to be cancelled and was considered a poor value.
The day the Cube was unveiled I remember thinking that it was a poorer choice if power relative to price was a factor. At the time the megahertz race was still in full swing and as such how much power you got for what you paid was a very big deal.
That perception that the Cube was pricey for what you got is not something that I made up. It's how the Cube was perceived at the time and why it was a sales flop. My point is that a $1,000 tablet would likely suffer a similar fate. It's just not possible for Apple to bring to market a device like the tablet that can come close to approaching the CPU and GPU muscle of today's laptops and desktops. At least it's not possible today. Five years from now probably there will be processors available that would allow a 10-inch tablet to match current laptop performance. Then how you interact with said tablet would matter because the ability to do some heavy lifting would exist under the hood.
Everything needs to be done at the right time. For instance, the Mini, which I happen to own, achieves many of the goals of the original Cube but the difference is that the Mini is perceived as being a high-value product. It costs significantly less than a Mac Pro tower yet for many of us offers enough power to get the job done. It makes sense, at least to me and anyone else who has decided to buy one. Laptop components, used to achieve such a small form factor, have become so capable and so affordable that the Mini is now a viable product even though it really isn't much of a departure from the ill-fated Cube.
The same holds for the tablet. Introduce a pricey unit that in intention really exceeds what is reasonable with today's technology and you pay for it with a sales flop. Quite simply ARM horsepower offered for the same price, more or less, as a MacBook, is simply not a formula for success. The average consumer is going to see the tablet as a very desirable laptop/desktop compliment and would be willing to pay accordingly. $1,000 by today's standards is more than most would be able to justify. I could see some upgrading from a Touch to a larger unit in around the $500 range and certainly gadget lovers jumping all over a $500 toy. But ask someone to choose the tablet over a laptop, Mini, or iMac, and you'll find very few takers. Also, $1,000 elevates this device out of the range of an affordable impulse purchase. You spend $1,000 and you have to start rationalizing the purchase, at the very least have an argument ready to placate your spouse. With many worried about where the economy is headed, $1,000 for a new toy isn't going to cut it, especially since you'd likely have to still buy a phone ? the tablet would be too large to simply slip in your pocket ? and another computer, be it a Mini, MacBook, iMac, or whatever (since the tablet wouldn't be powerful enough to do it all).
Then again, maybe Apple has found a way to make it work. My money, though, is on Apple bringing to market a Touch with a larger screen, albeit smaller than 10 inches, and checking in around $500 for the base version. That's quite doable and a much safer way to go. It's the logical next move and Apple in recent years has been logical with its product development. Why fail to be so now?
Why would you think buying 1 tablet as opposed to 2 touches would be better?
Magazines, newspapers and books are usually considerably larger than the 3.5? Touch allows. It?s more natural for use to read with for extended periods, especially if there are images. For a device in the classroom, in the home, or portable while stationary a larger device is more ideal.
Comments
The idea that a slate computer has to be capable of HD video editing is a completely arbitrary criterion for what would cause the product to be a success or a failure. You are committing the classic error of confusing what would make the product to appealing to you, personally, and extrapolating this to the public at large. And without having the first clue about what it will do and how it will do it besides, which only compounds the error.
How many people were absolutely certain that the iPhone would flop because it lacked a physical keyboard? Quite likely, some have not nor or will they ever buy an iPhone for that reason -- but they are overwhelmed by the many many millions more who don't have a problem with this at all. The iPhone succeeds because Apple tamed many of the problems users had with feature phones, not because they hit some arbitrary performance or feature target set by one person. The same rule will apply to the tablet.
You'd think people would have gotten tired of underestimating the intelligence of the people who run Apple, gotten tired of being mistaken. You'd think.
The lesson here is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
About the Cube, you are just wrong on the facts. I don't see the point of repeating everything I've said previously, because I'm sure you would continue to ignore it.
The idea that a slate computer has to be capable of HD video editing is a completely arbitrary criterion for what would cause the product to be a success or a failure. You are committing the classic error of confusing what would make the product to appealing to you, personally, and extrapolating this to the public at large. And without having the first clue about what it will do and how it will do it besides, which only compounds the error.
How many people were absolutely certain that the iPhone would flop because it lacked a physical keyboard? Quite likely, some have not nor or will they ever buy an iPhone for that reason -- but they are overwhelmed by the many many millions more who don't have a problem with this at all. The iPhone succeeds because Apple tamed many of the problems users had with feature phones, not because they hit some arbitrary performance or feature target set by one person. The same rule will apply to the tablet.
You'd think people would have gotten tired of underestimating the intelligence of the people who run Apple, gotten tired of being mistaken. You'd think.
The lesson here is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
I distinctly remember the Cube being significantly more expensive than other Apple computers at the time with comparable specs. If this is incorrect, please provide some specific data if you're so sure my recollection is faulty. Pretending something isn't true, as you seem intent on doing, is kind of an ineffective way to try and win an argument.
In regards to my reference to the ability to edit video, the point is quite simply that the capabilities of today's low-power, low-heat CPU options are such that the tablet will not serve as a laptop/desktop replacement unless you're talking folks who only use their computers to browse, check out e-mails, etc. In other words, if you're not really in need of a computer to edit video, manipulate photos, multi-task significantly, and so on and so on, well then sure the tablet is all the computer you need. I think you will find, though, that few of us fall into that category. Many of us do edit video, multi-task, etc. Even if you don't do it a lot, if you do want a machine capable of doing it from time to time, the upcoming tablet is not that machine.
As for not knowing what the tablet will do, I do know, as does everybody else, that the horsepower of any device like the tablet will be quite limited at this time. It's silly to expect Core 2 Duo performance out of a tablet form factor. As such, even before Apple unveils the device, there is quite a lot we can assume about the machine because Apple relies on technology from other companies. Apple does the software and they take externally sourced components and bring them together for great designs.Yet, Apple's designs are limited by what their suppliers can offer them at any given moment. This is non-negotiable. In short, it's not true, as you seem to be implying, that the sky is the limit in regards to what Apple is about to unveil. There are limits and many of those limits are common knowledge.
By the way, I have not suggested that the tablet will flop. I have said a $1,000 10-inch tablet would flop on account of $1,000 is very close to MacBook territory and the tablet simply will be no match for even a basic MacBook in terms of horsepower. I don't know what Apple will unveil on Wednesday, exactly, and as such I'm making no statement in regards to whether or not the new product will flop on account of I don't know what it is. On the other hand, if what Apple unveils is a $1,000 tablet, yes it will flop. Being as Apple has been on a roll, I doubt we're about to see them bring a $1,000 tablet to market.
And you are wrong about the Cube. Its performance was hardly "very poor" relative to the cost. In fact, it used exactly the same CPU, system bus, and graphics cards as the tower G4 sold at the very same time. It was even less expensive than a PowerMac with the same specs. It was a PowerMac G4 in a different form factor. That was its only distinction.
Amusingly yet another "fact" you're wrong about yet again.
The cube cost $200 more than the equivalent PowerMac G4, not less at launch. After poor sales they significantly reduced the price.
450Mhz G4 Cube $1,799 July 2000 dropped to $1,299 Feb 22, 2001 (before being discontinued)
64MB RAM, 20GB HDD, ACG ATI Rage 128 Pro
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl..._450_cube.html
400Mhz G4 PowerMac (Gigabit) $1,599 July 2000.
64MB RAM, 20GB HDD, AGP ATI Rage 128 Pro
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl..._g4_400_2.html
The 450Mhz G4 Tower was a DP unit with significantly higher specs
450Mhz PowerMac G4 DP (Gigabit) $2,499
128MB RAM, 30GB HDD, AGP ATI RAGE 128 Pro
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...g4_450_dp.html
The 500Mhz Cube was $2,299. A very sucky deal vs the $2,499 DP Powermac for $200 more.
Pretty much everyone agreed at the time that the G4 Cube cost too much in comparison with the G4 Gigabit towers which is why very few people bought one. Undercut at the low end by the base model Powermac and completely obliterated by the mid-tier Powermac.
Perhaps if it launched at the $1,299 price point and there was no single processor Powermac it would have been an instant success. There IS a reason that the current Mac Pro is priced and configured the way it is. If there were a $1,599 Mac Pro the iMac wouldn't do nearly as well as it does.
The cube form factor did very little to offset the higher cost and limited expansion capability. Unlike the MBA, the form factor has no real useful advantage over the nice looking tower that was typically hidden under the desk anyway.
Whether a $1000 tablet will do well vs the $1000 MB is an interesting question and a valid point. Personally, I don't think Steve is of the habit of repeating the same costly mistakes so I would be surprised with a $1000 tablet.
$399 iPod Touch, $699 Tablet and $999 Macbook seems a much smoother product lineup.
A $999 slate that smoothly docked into a keyboard + aux battery base (to form a notebook) and the MB removed from the lineup I could see that working as well. That solves a few other issues as well but really isn't Apple's design philosophy so I really doubt this scenario. Especially since this is 90% probable to be an ARM based tablet and not a Moorestown one. Even then Moorestown is probably too slow.
You'd think people would have gotten tired of underestimating the intelligence of the people who run Apple, gotten tired of being mistaken. You'd think.
The Cube and aTV are two examples of products that have not been huge Apple successes. You may or may not add MBA to that category even if I like the little guy. I'd be hard pressed to buy one over a 13" MBP though. I also like the aTV but it hasn't been selling like say...the iPhone. Then there are a couple other accessory items that haven't done well. Like the iPod Hi Fi.
They have very impressive home run records with very few strikeouts. That doesn't make them infallible.
The lesson here is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
A lesson that would be good to learn as opposed to preach.
I have to take issue with your use of the term "proper laptop." Since it is undefined (and I think resistant to definition) I think you've used it as a term of convenience to describe how you use a laptop. Hence, it is really only meaningful only to you and not a basis for an argument.
He means as the primary (and only) computer for the user. That is easily understood in the context.
Laptops today are often the only computer a person owns. As such there are certain requirements even for the average consumer. The ability to import photos and movies from digital cameras, sufficiently touch them up/manipulate them for sending to friends and family is not a controversial requirement for such a device. In other words run the iLife suite.
Likewise a single primary computer would be required to be able to generate word and powerpoint documents for work or school. In other words run the iWork suite.
Editing HD video is a little bit of a stretch but not a very big one. You need at least the basic ability to grab the video, often AVC-HD these days, and transcode it into a format that's useful for playback (avi, mov, etc).
His concerns are legitimate but only at certain price points. At $999 even I would hesitate at buying a companion computing device even given my personal computer is a $599 Mac Mini (I have a MBP and Mac Pro at work). It would have to offer content artificially restricted from the Mac platform...and then I might be a little peeved about the whole idea.
$999 on top of a $1200 MBP or iMac is kinda steep and in that same "gee, this thing cost too much for what it does" range as the Cube. I'd rather buy a MBP and get a free iPod Touch come next Back To School season.
The cube form factor did very little to offset the higher cost and limited expansion capability. Unlike the MBA, the form factor has no real useful advantage over the nice looking tower that was typically hidden under the desk anyway.
I?m jumping into this conversation late and only skimmed the previous posts, but isn?t the Cube more on par with the Mac Mini in terms of how it was marketed? The cost to size benefit wasn?t as good as the Mac Mini but both devices do suffer from charging for a small form factor.
$399 iPod Touch, $699 Tablet and $999 Macbook seems a much smoother product lineup.
That sounds reasonable. I put the tablet between $699 and $899. Except for some potential options, I don?t see it crossing over into the MacBook price.
A $999 slate that smoothly docked into a keyboard + aux battery base (to form a notebook) and the MB removed from the lineup I could see that working as well. That solves a few other issues as well but really isn't Apple's design philosophy so I really doubt this scenario. Especially since this is 90% probable to be an ARM based tablet and not a Moorestown one. Even then Moorestown is probably too slow.
I don?t care what performance it has I can?t see a tablet replacing a notebook for the masses. At least not yet. I have no doubt this will not being using Intel ore technology so that means the performance will be at most Atom, but more than likely ARM. I see no reason to expect the tablet to not be designed and marketed as anything but an accessory to your PC.
He means as the primary (and only) computer for the user. That is easily understood in the context.
Laptops today are often the only computer a person owns. As such there are certain requirements even for the average consumer. The ability to import photos and movies from digital cameras, sufficiently touch them up/manipulate them for sending to friends and family is not a controversial requirement for such a device. In other words run the iLife suite.
Likewise a single primary computer would be required to be able to generate word and powerpoint documents for work or school. In other words run the iWork suite.
Editing HD video is a little bit of a stretch but not a very big one. You need at least the basic ability to grab the video, often AVC-HD these days, and transcode it into a format that's useful for playback (avi, mov, etc).
His concerns are legitimate but only at certain price points. At $999 even I would hesitate at buying a companion computing device even given my personal computer is a $599 Mac Mini (I have a MBP and Mac Pro at work). It would have to offer content artificially restricted from the Mac platform...and then I might be a little peeved about the whole idea.
$999 on top of a $1200 MBP or iMac is kinda steep and in that same "gee, this thing cost too much for what it does" range as the Cube. I'd rather buy a MBP and get a free iPod Touch come next Back To School season.
Didn?t we have the same problem just 3 years ago with the iPhone. It cost more out the door and most pay for PCs. When you consider the carrier fees, even excluding what you were paying previously for cell service, the cost over 2 years is considerably more than most pay for notebooks. No one thought they needed a phone that can do internet. How would it even be a decent experience on such a small screen? with no keyboard, to boot? But the design was good and the entire mobile industry shifted to copy it and people that had never thought about PDAs or smartphones were/are buying them in droves.
I think we shouldn?t look at a tablet like any other tablet we?ve seen or try to make it in a ?large iPod Touch? or ?touchscreen Mac? as seems the norm. I think that is the reason for so many finding it hard to place this device. They think it?s an either/or decision when it?s likely a complementary device that is geared to do things in ways we don?t even realize we yet want.
I think the multiple users is a likely way Apple will appeal this device to families. It?s only a couple dollars for a family of four. A handheld appliance that might save money in other areas, or at least save time by being more convenient. It won?t replace your phone, it won?t replace your iPod and it won?t replace your PC.
I think that will be only area that they market the device. As I?ve stated before, i think this device, unlike any other Apple product, as to fit many consumer and professional needs very well out the door for it to work, which may be the reason that the original tablet was scraped, the iPhone rose from its ashes and now 3 years after the iPhone the tablet is finally going to be released.
I?m jumping into this conversation late and only skimmed the previous posts, but isn?t the Cube more on par with the Mac Mini in terms of how it was marketed? The cost to size benefit wasn?t as good as the Mac Mini but both devices do suffer from charging for a small form factor.
My impression was that the mini was always sold as a entry level cross-over device. The cube much more a sexy alternative to a powermac.
I don?t care what performance it has I can?t see a tablet replacing a notebook for the masses. At least not yet. I have no doubt this will not being using Intel ore technology so that means the performance will be at most Atom, but more than likely ARM. I see no reason to expect the tablet to not be designed and marketed as anything but an accessory to your PC.
Moorestown is faster than the current Atoms. Putting Leopard on a current Atom is not the definition of teh snappy but not unusable either. Someone put it about par with a Quicksilver, G4 Mini and iBook G4.
So a Moorestown one would do a bit better than that I think. The other aspect for replacing a notebook...at least one that is often used docked...is a decent docking station. That allows for a keyboard, HDD, etc. But docking stations are something else that Apple doesn't do so that's unlikely too.
You'll know, I think, by whether it has 64GB of Flash vs a much larger HDD (even as an option). With only 64GB worth of flash it wont be useful as anything other than a companion device because on travel what I need at a minimum is a place to stash by GB and GB of photos I take. My wife's old iPod classic with 160Gb is far more useful in that regard than my iPhone.
I can live without a keyboard if I have to. I can live without a lot of CPU if I have to. If I still have to keep a pocketful of 8GB flash cards for my camera I might as well not bother and just bring a 10" netbook with me.
Didn?t we have the same problem just 3 years ago with the iPhone. It cost more out the door and most pay for PCs.
Yes, but I can't stick a PC in my pocket. I can stick an iPhone in my pocket. Uber goodness worth a lot of $$$$.
I can't stick a 10" tablet in my pocket any more than my wife's 10" netbook. I'm not carrying a man bag. The tablet is going to have to be REALLY FREAKING AWESOME for me to start carrying a man bag around.
I would make "really freaking awesome" in very large type, red and blinking to adequately convey that feeling but it would really be annoying. Caps will have to do.
I think the multiple users is a likely way Apple will appeal this device to families. It?s only a couple dollars for a family of four. A handheld appliance that might save money in other areas, or at least save time by being more convenient. It won?t replace your phone, it won?t replace your iPod and it won?t replace your PC.
I have two kids that will fight over legos...of which I bought 4 pounds worth on eBay. There's no freaking way sharing a single tablet is optimal with two kids if it's a really desirable device. Two ipod touches are IMHO far superior for most parents of two kids.
Not to mention if it's THAT killer I'm not all that inclined to share it either.
I distinctly remember the Cube being significantly more expensive than other Apple computers at the time with comparable specs. If this is incorrect, please provide some specific data if you're so sure my recollection is faulty. Pretending something isn't true, as you seem intent on doing, is kind of an ineffective way to try and win an argument.
Right, I must be pretending. The Cube debuted at $1,799 with a G4 450. The entry level PowerMac at the time was a G4 400 at $1,599. The next model up in the tower PowerMac line at the time was a dual G4 450 at $2,499. A year later, Apple lowered the price of the Cube by $500. The big ding on the Cube wasn't its performance, it was price, compared to the more expandable tower. As I have said several times already, Apple misjudged what a large number of customers would pay for form factor alone.
In regards to my reference to the ability to edit video, the point is quite simply that the capabilities of today's low-power, low-heat CPU options are such that the tablet will not serve as a laptop/desktop replacement unless you're talking folks who only use their computers to browse, check out e-mails, etc. In other words, if you're not really in need of a computer to edit video, manipulate photos, multi-task significantly, and so on and so on, well then sure the tablet is all the computer you need. I think you will find, though, that few of us fall into that category. Many of us do edit video, multi-task, etc. Even if you don't do it a lot, if you do want a machine capable of doing it from time to time, the upcoming tablet is not that machine.
As for not knowing what the tablet will do, I do know, as does everybody else, that the horsepower of any device like the tablet will be quite limited at this time. It's silly to expect Core 2 Duo performance out of a tablet form factor. As such, even before Apple unveils the device, there is quite a lot we can assume about the machine because Apple relies on technology from other companies. Apple does the software and they take externally sourced components and bring them together for great designs.Yet, Apple's designs are limited by what their suppliers can offer them at any given moment. This is non-negotiable. In short, it's not true, as you seem to be implying, that the sky is the limit in regards to what Apple is about to unveil. There are limits and many of those limits are common knowledge.
By the way, I have not suggested that the tablet will flop. I have said a $1,000 10-inch tablet would flop on account of $1,000 is very close to MacBook territory and the tablet simply will be no match for even a basic MacBook in terms of horsepower. I don't know what Apple will unveil on Wednesday, exactly, and as such I'm making no statement in regards to whether or not the new product will flop on account of I don't know what it is. On the other hand, if what Apple unveils is a $1,000 tablet, yes it will flop. Being as Apple has been on a roll, I doubt we're about to see them bring a $1,000 tablet to market.
This is pretty much a self-cancelling argument. As with the iPhone, I think Apple can be counted upon to appropriately scale function to the available screen size and CPU performance. They will not make the dumb mistake of trying to shoehorn a full desktop OS into a small device and hope it works. Maybe you just don't see that. But you've already admitted that you don't understand the value of UI in this context, which I think explains the problem you are having seeing this. You could easily look at an iPhone or iPod touch and answer the question for yourself. I'm not sure why this isn't self-explanatory.
I've never said that the "sky is the limit." I have said that the success of the product depends on Apple solving problems that people have in an appealing way. If they can manage that, then what they can reasonably charge for it is more about convenience and pleasure in use and ownership, than specifications, or comparison with a completely different device, or any one arbitrary feature that somebody or some group of somebodies thinks is essential. Apple will have decided who to target for this device. It might not be you.
I have said that the success of the product depends on Apple solving problems that people have in an appealing way. If they can manage that, then what they can reasonably charge for it is more about convenience and pleasure in use and ownership, than specifications, or comparison with a completely different device, or any one arbitrary feature that somebody or some group of somebodies thinks is essential. Apple will have decided who to target for this device. It might not be you.
Very well said. This is the exact nuance that a lot of people seem to miss.
My impression was that the mini was always sold as a entry level cross-over device. The cube much more a sexy alternative to a powermac.
Sure, it?s the cheapest Mac Apple sells but it?s still a device using notebook-grade components which is not cost effective compared to desktop-gread components. The failing with the Cube wasn?t the form factor, but the closeness in price to the much more powerful PowerMac. At some point the desirability scale for a petite machine will tip in favour of a competing device if the price is low enough and the performance is high enough. Just look at the Lisa. I don?t even think it was the actual price of the Cube that is the biggest failing, but the price in comparison to the PowerMac. Apple is smart to keep it and the Mac Pro so separate.
Moorestown is faster than the current Atoms. Putting Leopard on a current Atom is not the definition of teh snappy but not unusable either. Someone put it about par with a Quicksilver, G4 Mini and iBook G4.
So a Moorestown one would do a bit better than that I think. The other aspect for replacing a notebook...at least one that is often used docked...is a decent docking station. That allows for a keyboard, HDD, etc. But docking stations are something else that Apple doesn't do so that's unlikely too.
You'll know, I think, by whether it has 64GB of Flash vs a much larger HDD (even as an option). With only 64GB worth of flash it wont be useful as anything other than a companion device because on travel what I need at a minimum is a place to stash by GB and GB of photos I take. My wife's old iPod classic with 160Gb is far more useful in that regard than my iPhone.
I can live without a keyboard if I have to. I can live without a lot of CPU if I have to. If I still have to keep a pocketful of 8GB flash cards for my camera I might as well not bother and just bring a 10" netbook with me.
Those are all reasons why it won?t run Mac OS X.
Yes, but I can't stick a PC in my pocket. I can stick an iPhone in my pocket. Uber goodness worth a lot of $$$$.
I can't stick a 10" tablet in my pocket any more than my wife's 10" netbook. I'm not carrying a man bag. The tablet is going to have to be REALLY FREAKING AWESOME for me to start carrying a man bag around.
I would make "really freaking awesome" in very large type, red and blinking to adequately convey that feeling but it would really be annoying. Caps will have to do.
I don?t see the logic of it not fitting in your pocket means that it has to replace your PC. My previous point was addressing the cost, yet that is problem that people seem to have less concern with than before.
Personally, I want a device that can replace newspapers, magazines, books in the living room and bedroom. Use it on the couch while watching TV. Even having it act as the TV remote control with a slide-out widget would be great, but I?m holding my breath. I don?t by magazines or newspapers anymore, but I would like to if they were done well and my subscriptions were sent to my tablet automatically like Podcasts are subscribed to. I?d like the entire publishing industry to be reborn in a dynamic digital format. But that is just my desires for the home. I think it has to have scholastic, business, and other home uses right from the get go.
I have two kids that will fight over legos...of which I bought 4 pounds worth on eBay. There's no freaking way sharing a single tablet is optimal with two kids if it's a really desirable device. Two ipod touches are IMHO far superior for most parents of two kids.
Not to mention if it's THAT killer I'm not all that inclined to share it either.
People fight over magazines, book and watch channel to watch. Either they learn to deal with it, you make them deal with it, or you buy additional TVs, magazines and books. I don?t see a tablet being any differnt.
Sure, it?s the cheapest Mac Apple sells but it?s still a device using notebook-grade components which is not cost effective compared to desktop-gread components. The failing with the Cube wasn?t the form factor, but the closeness in price to the much more powerful PowerMac.
Have to differ with you here. I thought I'd already demolished that myth. The entry level Cube was slightly faster than the cheapest tower PowerMac, and also slightly more expensive. The next notch up in the tower line was "much more powerful" only for applications which were optimized for dual CPUs, which at the time, wasn't many, and it was also $700 more expensive. Not very close in price at all, and not necessarily a universally appealing value added. Apple predicted that premium would mean different things to different people -- some would pay for form factor, others would pay for the most advanced CPUs and expandability. I don't think this was an unreasonable bet, it just didn't work out the way they'd hoped.
Personally, I want a device that can replace newspapers, magazines, books in the living room and bedroom. Use it on the couch while watching TV. Even having it act as the TV remote control with a slide-out widget would be great, but I?m holding my breath. I don?t by magazines or newspapers anymore, but I would like to if they were done well and my subscriptions were sent to my tablet automatically like Podcasts are subscribed to. I?d like the entire publishing industry to be reborn in a dynamic digital format. But that is just my desires for the home. I think it has to have scholastic, business, and other home uses right from the get go.
A really good column on this subject, from one of my favorite writers from the olde days.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3445923.story
Have to differ with you here. I thought I'd already demolished that myth.
As previously mentioned, I did get into the discussion late. I concede to your point about the Cube?s price and performance, but I still contend that its failing was in no small part due to consumer confusion. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are no where close in price or performance, this is a wise move.
A really good column on this subject, from one of my favorite writers from the olde days.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3445923.story
Glad to read about someone finally seeing what I?ve been seeing for so long, but I think his article barely scratches the surface of what can be expected by a proper tablet as printed works replacement.
As previously mentioned, I did get into the discussion late. I concede to your point about the Cube?s price and performance, but I still contend that its failing was in no small part due to consumer confusion. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are no where close in price or performance, this is a wise move.
True, I think Apple learned from this experience, but I don't think it tells us much about what to expect from the tablet.
Glad to read about someone finally seeing what I?ve been seeing for so long, but I think his article barely scratches the surface of what can be expected by a proper tablet as printed works replacement.
Sure, but it's a column for general readers in a newspaper, so scratching the surface is about the most you can expect (assuming it's the right surface, which in this case I think it is). Akst was one of the more enlightened tech writers back in the day. Always liked his stuff. I had some e-mail correspondence with him, before he left the LA Times.
It did it by satisfying needs most people didn't know the had, because there wasn't any technology that combined sufficient ease of use with thoughtfulness about what people might actually want to do (as opposed to what engineers and marketing people want devices to do).
Think about it: before the iPhone, there was absolutely no popular awareness of things like "location based services." The average person would have been bemused by the idea of carrying around a little computer with ubiquitous ties to the internet, with a browser good enough to actually use, and enough cross application functionality to make things like "call a friend, chose a restaurant, look at reviews of restaurant, look at a map of the where the restaurant is, put friend on hold while calling restaurant from a link in the map app, make reservation, resume call with friend" an every day reality for the average person.
Astonishingly, such scenarios are close to being taken for granted, and it only happened because Apple designed the shit out their handset to make all of that as easy as humanly possible. And they did that because people at Apple are tasked with thinking about what people might want to do, if they could, with technology made sufficiently accessible. Some days it seems like Apple is literally the only CE company that has anyone thinking about that. Everyone else seems to have replaced that department with one that watches what Apple does, then tries to do "the same" while beating them on features, specs, and price. Which is akin to trying to replicate music by making louder and faster (not that you won't have some success in that endeavor, some people really like louder and faster).
Should we have shunned the iPhone, or, more importantly, the entire iPhone philosophy that now undergirds every other significant handset, because it didn't have the power of a "real computer", or because other phones were "more powerful" or had "more features?"
Some tried of course (and will some will never acknowledge the obvious), but those people were simply and inarguably wrong. They were wrong about the sea-change in human technological relations that the iPhone represented, by insisting on the primacy of trivial details hopelessly yoked to the previous model of that relationship.
So will an Apple tablet represent a similar advancement? Have no idea. But what seems clear is that the game Apple is playing has nothing to do with "being as good as a real laptop." They want to take the technology available to us now, and making something new that you didn't know you wanted or needed. A vanishingly light, vanishingly thin, endlessly adaptable 21st century bit of magic. Pretty much like the iPhone seemed, before the rightness of its design turned it into business as usual for the industry.
Trying to conjure that away by talking about "what people properly do with laptops" or "but can I edit HD video" or "if I can't run Office why should I care" just really, really misses the point. Apple isn't looking to make a collection of features and bullet points and specs and parts. It's looking to make an experience, and an enormously appealing one. If that experience clicks-- if people pick up this thing and it "feels right", like something you want to carry around and use when you're out biking or shopping or going to the coffee shop or taking notes in class or looking a movie while waiting for the bus or surfing while on the couch-- then it will be successful.
And the "feel" of that experience, it's appeal, will be the intricate interaction of hardware design and UI and the larger connected world-- the very thing that Apple has proven themselves to be masters at.
But such interaction is well and truly an art, as much as that term alarms the Asperger's crowd. It inspires cries of "form over function" and "trendy elitists" because a certain sort of person imagines that the art of human technological interaction must be a hoax of some sort, since it must involve "esthetics" which in their understanding is little more than a coat of paint or a bit of flair.
Deciding that such an art is unappealing, unseen, is like dismissing music you've never heard because you figure it won't be "real" orchestral music, or because you heard it won't be loud enough, or fast enough.
I realize this line of though is going to bug the shit out of some of the people here, and confirm that I'm an idiot fan boy with rainbow Apples dancing around my head.
But I'm not championing Apple so much as the fundamental idea that there is an extremely difficult to pin down art to the design of satisfying human technological interaction, and that when it works it simply transcends the metrics of hardware and features. It's the wild card that precludes making judgements about a product that aspires to that art. It's just that Apple seems to be one of the few companies that even tries, so to talk about that art is to generally end up talking about Apple.
Have to differ with you here. I thought I'd already demolished that myth. The entry level Cube was slightly faster than the cheapest tower PowerMac, and also slightly more expensive.
Funny..."It was even less expensive than a PowerMac with the same specs." has become "slightly more expensive" after I point that out.
The next notch up in the tower line was "much more powerful" only for applications which were optimized for dual CPUs, which at the time, wasn't many, and it was also $700 more expensive. Not very close in price at all, and not necessarily a universally appealing value added. Apple predicted that premium would mean different things to different people -- some would pay for form factor, others would pay for the most advanced CPUs and expandability. I don't think this was an unreasonable bet, it just didn't work out the way they'd hoped.
Except that at the bottom end the tower was $200 cheaper and at the top end $200 more and TWICE AS FAST.
The cube was not less expensive than the tower as you stated until it was about to be cancelled and was considered a poor value.
Sure, it?s the cheapest Mac Apple sells but it?s still a device using notebook-grade components which is not cost effective compared to desktop-gread components.
For $599 the mini is cheap enough where the absolute cost delta isn't as significant and it IS much smaller than the cube.
The failing with the Cube wasn?t the form factor, but the closeness in price to the much more powerful PowerMac.
Yes and no. The problem with the cube vs the tower was the lack of expansion while is saved some but not a lot of space. SFF computers like the Shuttle's primary market has been the LAN party set...big enough to be a real desktop, smaller than a uber tower.
The Cube isn't really meant to go anywhere and wasn't really small enough to disappear like the computer in the iMac or the much smaller mini.
I don?t see the logic of it not fitting in your pocket means that it has to replace your PC. My previous point was addressing the cost, yet that is problem that people seem to have less concern with than before.
Personally, I want a device that can replace newspapers, magazines, books in the living room and bedroom. Use it on the couch while watching TV. Even having it act as the TV remote control with a slide-out widget would be great, but I?m holding my breath.
It replaces something...either in your budget or in what you carry. This has been the failure of the kindle. One more thing to carry but only does one thing. The tablet will fare much better since it will do many things but since it doesn't fit in my pocket I have to really want to carry it.
What am I not going to carry instead? Preferably my laptop. What do I carry that is lighter when when I still want to: read books, watch movies, surf the web, hold photos, do some light office work? A netbook.
If there are use cases where the tablet can't meet then it's less likely to end up in my bag. Too many use cases and I'm probably more likely to get a MB instead. Or heck...the MBA is only $1499. For $500 I have a 90% desktop replacement that's a little slower and almost as mobile as a 10" tablet.
Unless Apple restricts certain content to the tablet, why wouldn't you get a MBA vs a Tablet + a low end iMac?
People fight over magazines, book and watch channel to watch. Either they learn to deal with it, you make them deal with it, or you buy additional TVs, magazines and books. I don?t see a tablet being any differnt.
A TV is naturally shared. A 10" tablet a lot less so. Why would you think buying 1 tablet as opposed to 2 touches would be better?
Funny..."It was even less expensive than a PowerMac with the same specs." has become "slightly more expensive" after I point that out.
Except that at the bottom end the tower was $200 cheaper and at the top end $200 more and TWICE AS FAST.
The cube was not less expensive than the tower as you stated until it was about to be cancelled and was considered a poor value.
The day the Cube was unveiled I remember thinking that it was a poorer choice if power relative to price was a factor. At the time the megahertz race was still in full swing and as such how much power you got for what you paid was a very big deal.
That perception that the Cube was pricey for what you got is not something that I made up. It's how the Cube was perceived at the time and why it was a sales flop. My point is that a $1,000 tablet would likely suffer a similar fate. It's just not possible for Apple to bring to market a device like the tablet that can come close to approaching the CPU and GPU muscle of today's laptops and desktops. At least it's not possible today. Five years from now probably there will be processors available that would allow a 10-inch tablet to match current laptop performance. Then how you interact with said tablet would matter because the ability to do some heavy lifting would exist under the hood.
Everything needs to be done at the right time. For instance, the Mini, which I happen to own, achieves many of the goals of the original Cube but the difference is that the Mini is perceived as being a high-value product. It costs significantly less than a Mac Pro tower yet for many of us offers enough power to get the job done. It makes sense, at least to me and anyone else who has decided to buy one. Laptop components, used to achieve such a small form factor, have become so capable and so affordable that the Mini is now a viable product even though it really isn't much of a departure from the ill-fated Cube.
The same holds for the tablet. Introduce a pricey unit that in intention really exceeds what is reasonable with today's technology and you pay for it with a sales flop. Quite simply ARM horsepower offered for the same price, more or less, as a MacBook, is simply not a formula for success. The average consumer is going to see the tablet as a very desirable laptop/desktop compliment and would be willing to pay accordingly. $1,000 by today's standards is more than most would be able to justify. I could see some upgrading from a Touch to a larger unit in around the $500 range and certainly gadget lovers jumping all over a $500 toy. But ask someone to choose the tablet over a laptop, Mini, or iMac, and you'll find very few takers. Also, $1,000 elevates this device out of the range of an affordable impulse purchase. You spend $1,000 and you have to start rationalizing the purchase, at the very least have an argument ready to placate your spouse. With many worried about where the economy is headed, $1,000 for a new toy isn't going to cut it, especially since you'd likely have to still buy a phone ? the tablet would be too large to simply slip in your pocket ? and another computer, be it a Mini, MacBook, iMac, or whatever (since the tablet wouldn't be powerful enough to do it all).
Then again, maybe Apple has found a way to make it work. My money, though, is on Apple bringing to market a Touch with a larger screen, albeit smaller than 10 inches, and checking in around $500 for the base version. That's quite doable and a much safer way to go. It's the logical next move and Apple in recent years has been logical with its product development. Why fail to be so now?
Why would you think buying 1 tablet as opposed to 2 touches would be better?
Magazines, newspapers and books are usually considerably larger than the 3.5? Touch allows. It?s more natural for use to read with for extended periods, especially if there are images. For a device in the classroom, in the home, or portable while stationary a larger device is more ideal.