So why would Apple make a 12 inch laptop? It would not reduce costs (will only increase them because of need to re-engineer the heat dispersing components). It will be hard to read anything on the screen and it would not make it any easier to transport. Call this one BS.
I hope the touch rumors are true, but after the last disappointment I don't want to get my hopes up.
So the 11.6" MacBook Air is going to be one expensive netbook. Wow.
If cost is an important issue for you, you are on the wrong site. For those of us who want a portable Mac, this is great news. I replaced a 12" PB with the current Air (too big and a step backwards in terms of mobility), then the current Air for an iPad. While the iPad is working out well, the fact I get access to a file system and a real OS makes a smaller Air an immediate buy. Whatever it costs.
In order to keep the iPod touch in its current price range it's going to have to remain a crippled device when compared to the iPhone or iPad.
To me it doesn't really matter what they do with the touch because I'm never buying another one. The screen is too small for the web and there's no optional 3G model with an inexpensive data-only plan like there is with the iPad. The iPad is nice, but way too big to fit in any pocket.
What Apple would have to make to win back my business is an iNotePad, a smaller pocketable version of the iPad. A screen size 50% larger than the iPhone yields a very practical device size.
So it appears that Apple made the decision (once again), that form is more important than function. They're using the less capable 3 megapixel camera in the iPod touch simply because it's slightly smaller than the 5 megapixel camera in the iPhone 4. They refuse to simply make the case slightly bigger to accomodate the better camera.
First we don't know that these reports are even half accurate. However the thickness of the Touch is a very important aspect of its design, so in this regard I believe Apple is making the right call. This from somebody that hasn't supported Apples stupid design decisions on other devices in the past.
The second issue is this: are they talking about a front or rear facing camera or both? I could see Apple implementing a front facing camera only to support FaceTime on the cheapest platforms possible. The rumors could be mixed up here.
IPod Touch will never be a point and shoot camera, it has to be physically compatible with it's primary usage. This doesn't eliminate a camera of course but sets physical bounds for its size. Well using today's technology, you have an upper limit on pixel density. That however could be very shortterm as tech is advancing rapidly with the possibility of compact sensors based on quantum dot tech hitting the street in 2012. Such tech hasalready demonstrated a 4X improvement in sensitivity which would greatly improve low light performance if nothing else.
To wrap it up I'm convinced that most people don't want a thicker Touch. Further the limits that places on the camera are only short term.
What Apple would have to make to win back my business is an iNotePad, a smaller pocketable version of the iPad. A screen size 50% larger than the iPhone yields a very practical device size.
I'm not sure that I'd consider a 50% larger screen on an iPhone to be "pocketable".
I'm not sure that I'd consider a 50% larger screen on an iPhone to be "pocketable".
50 per cent larger than a 3.5" device would translate to a 5.25" screen. That could easily be fitted onto a device smaller than a pocketable notepad. I have one of those that measures 4" X 6" that easily slips into my pant pocket. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that a very thin device with a 5.25" screen would be quite pocketable.
The only reason the Touch has the small screen that it does is that for reasons of economies of scale, Apple up to this point had built the Touch with many of the same components as the iPhone. For a smartphone like the iPhone, a 3.5" screen is just about right. But for a portable computer like the Touch, there is a lot wrong with the current form factor. It's not that the current Touch is a poor device per se but compromises abound. Those compromises makes sense on a product like the iPhone. They don't make sense on the Touch. Not sure Apple is going to do anything about this for the revision coming likely in September but eventually the Touch should be done right otherwise Apple leaves the door open for some other manufacturer to do it right instead.
This is a rumour, just as it has been rumoured, absurdly, that Apple is going to turn to OLED very soon.
It makes no sense for Apple to not use the exact same camera in the Touch that is found in the iPhone, if the Touch is to remain essentially an iPhone minus the phone part. Economies of scale means the cost per unit would go down as the number of units ordered goes up.
I'm not convinced that Apple will continue to design the Touch strictly as a variation of the iPhone. It's a device that cries out for a different set of specs better suited to what people are doing with the device. I realize that rumours are not pointing in that direction but on the other hand, the rumours being offered have gone in some puzzling directions, meaning that all we're getting is unimaginative guessing.
While sales of the Touch have been outstanding, if Apple stands still, that can change very quickly. As touch-screen devices multiply, and not just from Apple, a device like the Touch that has no phone element yet sports a very small screen, relatively speaking, risks becoming irrelevant. It would be logical to up the screen size of the Touch, while keeping it compact enough for it to remain pocketable. I don't think there's really room in Apple's line-up for both a Touch as currently sized and something that slots in between that and the iPad.
Design a Touch around the current screen, then design one around a 5" screen. Compare the devices. The 5" Touch would offer better browsing, e-reading, game play, video playback, and would certainly be better suited for displaying photos. The current Touch would more easily slip into one's pocket but would a Touch sporting a 5" screen be difficult to slip into a pant pocket? I have a notepad that I have slipped into my pocket without a second's thought often that measures 4" X 6". The Touch measures roughly 2.5" X 4.5". Plenty of room between those two for increasing screen size with a negligible impact on portability. One would presume a cost advantage for the current design but how much of an advantage? Up to this point the Touch has shared a screen with the iPhone but the iPhone just went to the Retina display. Put a larger screen on the Touch but with the same resolution as the Retina display and chances are you have similarly priced screens. The larger screen would possess lower pixel density and hence likely be easier to produce.
What are the odds that after a very minimal update to the Touch last year, Apple would merely take the Touch as is and tack on a 3-megapixel camera that would be inferior to a lot of phone cameras, including the iPhone. At the very least you'd figure the next Touch would get the hardware bits from the new iPhone, including the Retina display, the 5-megapixel camera, faster processor, etc. It would not be a shock if Apple went beyond such an obvious update, evolving the Touch into something more than an iPhone variant. What people use the Touch for has evolved and as such isn't it logical to evolve the hardware to better accommodate what it's being used for? To do otherwise seems rather un-Apple-like.
best post this week
agreed
the touch may just cut the carrier apron and make apple a gate keeper
Ps. I would also eliminate my Cable Internet service (~$40/mo, $500/year) and solely survive with ATT 3g which is pretty good in my area and free wifi in said restaurants.
And you plan on dealing with the 2GB data cap, how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
If 11.6", thinner, with a Core 2010 processor is true, you can kiss non-Intel graphics goodbye.
The good news is that Intel's HD Graphics aren't terrible. They're a big improvement over the previous GMA X4500.
They are as bad as they've ever been in relation to integrated graphics from nVidia and ATI. There really is no competition... Intel graphics are just awful.
If Dell can do it, so can Apple. Granted, the m11x isn't as thin as a MBA (or try to be), but you can get an Nvidia 335m and a Core 2010 CPU and 11.6" screen for around $1000.
if you can afford only one get a macbook (pro or air)
if you can afford more, you might want to get an imac 27" & an ipad.
no one really needs both a macbook and ipad.
Actually I could see a case for someone who needs a MBP for travel heavy work with lots of horsepower needed (photographer or sound engineer could be a good example) could end up with a MBP to do their work and then, rather than kill that battery on the plane or a tour bus, have the iPad for watching movies and browsing the web. Still probably safe to say for most people to combine an iMac and iPad if they need 2.
If Dell can do it, so can Apple. Granted, the m11x isn't as thin as a MBA (or try to be), but you can get an Nvidia 335m and a Core 2010 CPU and 11.6" screen for around $1000.
You do realize that system you just linked to is a gaming laptop with a much slower processor that gets the following battery life:
Gaming: about 2 hours
Web surfing: about 5-6 hours
HD video: about 4 hours
This link is actually for the new R2 version, but it shows the battery life for the original as well: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3808/alienware-m11x-r2/7 . The new version has actual Optimus tech, the original 11X is a manual change and reboot.
Actually I could see a case for someone who needs a MBP for travel heavy work with lots of horsepower needed (photographer or sound engineer could be a good example) could end up with a MBP to do their work and then, rather than kill that battery on the plane or a tour bus, have the iPad for watching movies and browsing the web. Still probably safe to say for most people to combine an iMac and iPad if they need 2.
You do realize that system you just linked to is a gaming laptop with a much slower processor that gets the following battery life:
Gaming: about 2 hours
Web surfing: about 5-6 hours
HD video: about 4 hours
This link is actually for the new R2 version, but it shows the battery life for the original as well: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3808/alienware-m11x-r2/7 . The new version has actual Optimus tech, the original 11X is a manual change and reboot.
Apples white MB entry level is faster than this dell junk . Apple is catching up and surpassing . The high end allenwares dell machines are so over loaded they need super power insides just to process all the fat binary codes .
MY 1yr old 2 chip 15IN 3,02ghZ MBP
plays any game so far at highest setting . Bring on cryis dudes !!!.
Actually I could see a case for someone who needs a MBP for travel heavy work with lots of horsepower needed (photographer or sound engineer could be a good example) could end up with a MBP to do their work and then, rather than kill that battery on the plane or a tour bus, have the iPad for watching movies and browsing the web. Still probably safe to say for most people to combine an iMac and iPad if they need 2.
You do realize that system you just linked to is a gaming laptop with a much slower processor that gets the following battery life:
Gaming: about 2 hours
Web surfing: about 5-6 hours
HD video: about 4 hours
This link is actually for the new R2 version, but it shows the battery life for the original as well: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3808/alienware-m11x-r2/7 . The new version has actual Optimus tech, the original 11X is a manual change and reboot.
So? That wasn't the point. It has an 11.6" screen and dedicated graphics, something the current MBA doesn't even have, not to mention Core 2010 CPU's.
The MBA uses ULV C2D processors too, so I don't even know what you're taking about, re: CPU's, the m11x still has the option for Core 2010 ULV, while the current MBA has ULV C2D and 9400m.
It also starts at $800 vs $1500 for the base model MBA...well, duh, maybe Apple can afford to put a faster ULV C2D in the base model.
As far as batter life, IDK, it's a Dell, and it's ugly as sin. But for the cost/performance, it looks like a pretty nice setup.
Yep, this rumor is everywhere now, but I don't quite believe it. Did you watch Steve Jobs' presentation of iPad? If you didn't, go to YouTube right now and watch. There he says that there are phone, notebook and device in the middle. Most people thinks that it's netbook, but it's not ? iPad is what should be there. In my opinion, by that words Steve said that Apple won't enter netbooks market. Don't you think so?
So it appears that Apple made the decision (once again), that form is more important than function. They're using the less capable 3 megapixel camera in the iPod touch simply because it's slightly smaller than the 5 megapixel camera in the iPhone 4. They refuse to simply make the case slightly bigger to accomodate the better camera.
I'd rather have a thinner form factor. Still, a three megapixel camera will render great 8x10 photos. Want something more than that jump up to the iPhone or a point-and-shoot camera.
I definitely think the iPod Touch needs a camera. I see that happening.
As for the MacBook Air becoming smaller, thinner, and lighter? Hmmm not so sure about that! I can see adding a better processor, adding the glass trackpad, perhaps switching the display to a 16:9 ratio, but that's about it.
I definitely think the iPod Touch needs a camera. I see that happening.
The iPod Touch will absolutely, definitely get a front-facing Facetime camera. I see it as extremely unlikely it will get a rear-facing camera at all.
I think we'll see an exact replica of the iPhone 4, same exact form-factor, even, without the back camera, GPS, and obviously cell phone. It will have the retina display, the A4 chip and Facetime.
Comments
MBA... meh... I still want a 15" MBP without DVD drive.
If you don't want the DVD drive try this--may be dated but you can find an update.
http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp13.html
I hope the touch rumors are true, but after the last disappointment I don't want to get my hopes up.
So the 11.6" MacBook Air is going to be one expensive netbook. Wow.
If cost is an important issue for you, you are on the wrong site. For those of us who want a portable Mac, this is great news. I replaced a 12" PB with the current Air (too big and a step backwards in terms of mobility), then the current Air for an iPad. While the iPad is working out well, the fact I get access to a file system and a real OS makes a smaller Air an immediate buy. Whatever it costs.
To me it doesn't really matter what they do with the touch because I'm never buying another one. The screen is too small for the web and there's no optional 3G model with an inexpensive data-only plan like there is with the iPad. The iPad is nice, but way too big to fit in any pocket.
What Apple would have to make to win back my business is an iNotePad, a smaller pocketable version of the iPad. A screen size 50% larger than the iPhone yields a very practical device size.
So it appears that Apple made the decision (once again), that form is more important than function. They're using the less capable 3 megapixel camera in the iPod touch simply because it's slightly smaller than the 5 megapixel camera in the iPhone 4. They refuse to simply make the case slightly bigger to accomodate the better camera.
First we don't know that these reports are even half accurate. However the thickness of the Touch is a very important aspect of its design, so in this regard I believe Apple is making the right call. This from somebody that hasn't supported Apples stupid design decisions on other devices in the past.
The second issue is this: are they talking about a front or rear facing camera or both? I could see Apple implementing a front facing camera only to support FaceTime on the cheapest platforms possible. The rumors could be mixed up here.
IPod Touch will never be a point and shoot camera, it has to be physically compatible with it's primary usage. This doesn't eliminate a camera of course but sets physical bounds for its size. Well using today's technology, you have an upper limit on pixel density. That however could be very shortterm as tech is advancing rapidly with the possibility of compact sensors based on quantum dot tech hitting the street in 2012. Such tech hasalready demonstrated a 4X improvement in sensitivity which would greatly improve low light performance if nothing else.
To wrap it up I'm convinced that most people don't want a thicker Touch. Further the limits that places on the camera are only short term.
Dave
What Apple would have to make to win back my business is an iNotePad, a smaller pocketable version of the iPad. A screen size 50% larger than the iPhone yields a very practical device size.
I'm not sure that I'd consider a 50% larger screen on an iPhone to be "pocketable".
I'm not sure that I'd consider a 50% larger screen on an iPhone to be "pocketable".
50 per cent larger than a 3.5" device would translate to a 5.25" screen. That could easily be fitted onto a device smaller than a pocketable notepad. I have one of those that measures 4" X 6" that easily slips into my pant pocket. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that a very thin device with a 5.25" screen would be quite pocketable.
The only reason the Touch has the small screen that it does is that for reasons of economies of scale, Apple up to this point had built the Touch with many of the same components as the iPhone. For a smartphone like the iPhone, a 3.5" screen is just about right. But for a portable computer like the Touch, there is a lot wrong with the current form factor. It's not that the current Touch is a poor device per se but compromises abound. Those compromises makes sense on a product like the iPhone. They don't make sense on the Touch. Not sure Apple is going to do anything about this for the revision coming likely in September but eventually the Touch should be done right otherwise Apple leaves the door open for some other manufacturer to do it right instead.
This is a rumour, just as it has been rumoured, absurdly, that Apple is going to turn to OLED very soon.
It makes no sense for Apple to not use the exact same camera in the Touch that is found in the iPhone, if the Touch is to remain essentially an iPhone minus the phone part. Economies of scale means the cost per unit would go down as the number of units ordered goes up.
I'm not convinced that Apple will continue to design the Touch strictly as a variation of the iPhone. It's a device that cries out for a different set of specs better suited to what people are doing with the device. I realize that rumours are not pointing in that direction but on the other hand, the rumours being offered have gone in some puzzling directions, meaning that all we're getting is unimaginative guessing.
While sales of the Touch have been outstanding, if Apple stands still, that can change very quickly. As touch-screen devices multiply, and not just from Apple, a device like the Touch that has no phone element yet sports a very small screen, relatively speaking, risks becoming irrelevant. It would be logical to up the screen size of the Touch, while keeping it compact enough for it to remain pocketable. I don't think there's really room in Apple's line-up for both a Touch as currently sized and something that slots in between that and the iPad.
Design a Touch around the current screen, then design one around a 5" screen. Compare the devices. The 5" Touch would offer better browsing, e-reading, game play, video playback, and would certainly be better suited for displaying photos. The current Touch would more easily slip into one's pocket but would a Touch sporting a 5" screen be difficult to slip into a pant pocket? I have a notepad that I have slipped into my pocket without a second's thought often that measures 4" X 6". The Touch measures roughly 2.5" X 4.5". Plenty of room between those two for increasing screen size with a negligible impact on portability. One would presume a cost advantage for the current design but how much of an advantage? Up to this point the Touch has shared a screen with the iPhone but the iPhone just went to the Retina display. Put a larger screen on the Touch but with the same resolution as the Retina display and chances are you have similarly priced screens. The larger screen would possess lower pixel density and hence likely be easier to produce.
What are the odds that after a very minimal update to the Touch last year, Apple would merely take the Touch as is and tack on a 3-megapixel camera that would be inferior to a lot of phone cameras, including the iPhone. At the very least you'd figure the next Touch would get the hardware bits from the new iPhone, including the Retina display, the 5-megapixel camera, faster processor, etc. It would not be a shock if Apple went beyond such an obvious update, evolving the Touch into something more than an iPhone variant. What people use the Touch for has evolved and as such isn't it logical to evolve the hardware to better accommodate what it's being used for? To do otherwise seems rather un-Apple-like.
best post this week
agreed
the touch may just cut the carrier apron and make apple a gate keeper
via 3g/4g face time call's
9
The good news is that Intel's HD Graphics aren't terrible. They're a big improvement over the previous GMA X4500.
Ps. I would also eliminate my Cable Internet service (~$40/mo, $500/year) and solely survive with ATT 3g which is pretty good in my area and free wifi in said restaurants.
And you plan on dealing with the 2GB data cap, how?
If 11.6", thinner, with a Core 2010 processor is true, you can kiss non-Intel graphics goodbye.
The good news is that Intel's HD Graphics aren't terrible. They're a big improvement over the previous GMA X4500.
They are as bad as they've ever been in relation to integrated graphics from nVidia and ATI. There really is no competition... Intel graphics are just awful.
If 11.6", thinner, with a Core 2010 processor is true, you can kiss non-Intel graphics goodbye.
The good news is that Intel's HD Graphics aren't terrible. They're a big improvement over the previous GMA X4500.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/noteb...1x&cs=19&s=dhs
If Dell can do it, so can Apple. Granted, the m11x isn't as thin as a MBA (or try to be), but you can get an Nvidia 335m and a Core 2010 CPU and 11.6" screen for around $1000.
my buying advice for people with no computer:
if you can afford only one get a macbook (pro or air)
if you can afford more, you might want to get an imac 27" & an ipad.
no one really needs both a macbook and ipad.
Actually I could see a case for someone who needs a MBP for travel heavy work with lots of horsepower needed (photographer or sound engineer could be a good example) could end up with a MBP to do their work and then, rather than kill that battery on the plane or a tour bus, have the iPad for watching movies and browsing the web. Still probably safe to say for most people to combine an iMac and iPad if they need 2.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/noteb...1x&cs=19&s=dhs
If Dell can do it, so can Apple. Granted, the m11x isn't as thin as a MBA (or try to be), but you can get an Nvidia 335m and a Core 2010 CPU and 11.6" screen for around $1000.
You do realize that system you just linked to is a gaming laptop with a much slower processor that gets the following battery life:
Gaming: about 2 hours
Web surfing: about 5-6 hours
HD video: about 4 hours
This link is actually for the new R2 version, but it shows the battery life for the original as well: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3808/alienware-m11x-r2/7 . The new version has actual Optimus tech, the original 11X is a manual change and reboot.
Actually I could see a case for someone who needs a MBP for travel heavy work with lots of horsepower needed (photographer or sound engineer could be a good example) could end up with a MBP to do their work and then, rather than kill that battery on the plane or a tour bus, have the iPad for watching movies and browsing the web. Still probably safe to say for most people to combine an iMac and iPad if they need 2.
You do realize that system you just linked to is a gaming laptop with a much slower processor that gets the following battery life:
Gaming: about 2 hours
Web surfing: about 5-6 hours
HD video: about 4 hours
This link is actually for the new R2 version, but it shows the battery life for the original as well: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3808/alienware-m11x-r2/7 . The new version has actual Optimus tech, the original 11X is a manual change and reboot.
Apples white MB entry level is faster than this dell junk . Apple is catching up and surpassing . The high end allenwares dell machines are so over loaded they need super power insides just to process all the fat binary codes .
MY 1yr old 2 chip 15IN 3,02ghZ MBP
plays any game so far at highest setting . Bring on cryis dudes !!!.
peace
9
Actually I could see a case for someone who needs a MBP for travel heavy work with lots of horsepower needed (photographer or sound engineer could be a good example) could end up with a MBP to do their work and then, rather than kill that battery on the plane or a tour bus, have the iPad for watching movies and browsing the web. Still probably safe to say for most people to combine an iMac and iPad if they need 2.
You do realize that system you just linked to is a gaming laptop with a much slower processor that gets the following battery life:
Gaming: about 2 hours
Web surfing: about 5-6 hours
HD video: about 4 hours
This link is actually for the new R2 version, but it shows the battery life for the original as well: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3808/alienware-m11x-r2/7 . The new version has actual Optimus tech, the original 11X is a manual change and reboot.
So? That wasn't the point. It has an 11.6" screen and dedicated graphics, something the current MBA doesn't even have, not to mention Core 2010 CPU's.
The MBA uses ULV C2D processors too, so I don't even know what you're taking about, re: CPU's, the m11x still has the option for Core 2010 ULV, while the current MBA has ULV C2D and 9400m.
It also starts at $800 vs $1500 for the base model MBA...well, duh, maybe Apple can afford to put a faster ULV C2D in the base model.
As far as batter life, IDK, it's a Dell, and it's ugly as sin. But for the cost/performance, it looks like a pretty nice setup.
So it appears that Apple made the decision (once again), that form is more important than function. They're using the less capable 3 megapixel camera in the iPod touch simply because it's slightly smaller than the 5 megapixel camera in the iPhone 4. They refuse to simply make the case slightly bigger to accomodate the better camera.
I'd rather have a thinner form factor. Still, a three megapixel camera will render great 8x10 photos. Want something more than that jump up to the iPhone or a point-and-shoot camera.
I definitely think the iPod Touch needs a camera. I see that happening.
As for the MacBook Air becoming smaller, thinner, and lighter? Hmmm not so sure about that! I can see adding a better processor, adding the glass trackpad, perhaps switching the display to a 16:9 ratio, but that's about it.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/m...ch-ips-screen/
Hoping MacBook Air doesn't become iPad Pro.
I definitely think the iPod Touch needs a camera. I see that happening.
The iPod Touch will absolutely, definitely get a front-facing Facetime camera. I see it as extremely unlikely it will get a rear-facing camera at all.
I think we'll see an exact replica of the iPhone 4, same exact form-factor, even, without the back camera, GPS, and obviously cell phone. It will have the retina display, the A4 chip and Facetime.