that's the difference between Apple and others. Apple creates a prototype and decides it's not ready for prime time. No one knows about it. Other companies produce prototypes, announce them and then either kill them or release half-assed solutions.
We had those at work. Our server procurement folks tried to use them for a couple years. I guess there was some resemblance to the rounded corners and such now that I think back, but they were less of a tablet as they converted from laptop to removable screen. They always had the keyboard attached as without it they became almost unusable for them. I never correlated the two as that product was very heavy, felt kind of flimsy, had the complete computer innards, the battery was very short life and it needed a stylus to function even halfway decent. Oh, and it ran windows.
But from a purely rectangular screen with rounded edges. Yes, they existed.
But from a purely rectangular screen with rounded edges. Yes, they existed.
And yet there's one big difference that we saw with a lot of those pre iPhone and iPad devices. The plastic goes all the way up and around the screen. Making a flat top was something that Apple was the first to do in the way that they did it. And then everyone else jumped on it. Even if the courts don't agree that that is 'illegal' copying, the court of public opinion generally sees it differently and votes with their wallets.
I can't help wondering what would have happened if they had released this back in 2003 (or say 2005). Would we have seen the same Apple fronted push to have better components being made by the suppliers. What might the world look like in terms of online media for such things. Would Apple have created iOS or just scaled down Mac OS with a touch UI level on top of it. etc. Keeping in mind that they did have a prototype tablet at the idea stage back in like 1986.
We had those at work. Our server procurement folks tried to use them for a couple years. I guess there was some resemblance to the rounded corners and such now that I think back, but they were less of a tablet as they converted from laptop to removable screen. They always had the keyboard attached as without it they became almost unusable for them. I never correlated the two as that product was very heavy, felt kind of flimsy, had the complete computer innards, the battery was very short life and it needed a stylus to function even halfway decent. Oh, and it ran windows.
But from a purely rectangular screen with rounded edges. Yes, they existed.
You mean like how it was just confirmed that early prototypes, like the one featured in this article, also used 'computer innards' ?
And yet there's one big difference that we saw with a lot of those pre iPhone and iPad devices. The plastic goes all the way up and around the screen. Making a flat top was something that Apple was the first to do in the way that they did it. And then everyone else jumped on it.
Fascinating how little the iPad design has changed since the early 2000's prototype, Other than the obvious thickness due to the hardware limitations of the time it's basically the same idea. What's most revealing was Apple's forward thinking concept of doing away with PC-style expansion and media slots from way back then. Even today there are still some manufacturers that burden their mobile devices with SD slots and removable batteries, which has been proven to be extremely lacking in vision.
Fascinating how little the iPad design has changed since the early 2000's prototype...
That's because, by the very nature of their function, ALL tablet comupters share the same basic aesthetic, one primarily of a detached laptop display... and they likely always will.
Additionally: The primary reason for manufacturers not proving 'expansion' slots etc. to just to force consumers to buy higher capacity models at exorbitant prices, and very little else.
The Hp TC 1000 was a laptop running windows with a removable screen that could be driven via stylus. The iPad prototype was far more forward thinking.
As someone who actually used (and still owns) an Hp TC1000 for several years as an engineer in the USAF, I KNOW that the device was not merely some 'laptop with a removable screen' and was, In Fact a tablet computer as outlined by the specifications by Microsoft in 2000.
Amazing device. I wonder if they initially planned on putting a desktop grade OS like OS X on it back then like the chunky old school tablets the competitors were putting out or if they had always planned on using a mobile OS?
IOS is OS/X with a different UI and limitations on multitasking. Deep down you have some of the same basic UNIX'y features of OS/X. One of the big reasons for Apples iOS success is the very fact that iOS is more UNIX than mobile OS at the time.
That's because, by the very nature of their function, ALL tablet comupters share the same basic aesthetic, one primarily of a detached laptop display... and they likely always will.
Nope.
That's backwards thinking that lacks vision and imagination. MS thought a tablet was simply a keyboard-less laptop. One that ran a marginally modified, stylus driven version of Windows, and one that was burdened with the same PC era expansion and media slots.
Apple re-invented the idea of a tablet by abandoning the windows metaphor and stylus input in favor of a completely new touch-based OS. Then they removed the expansion slot idea. Then they did away with the keyboard. All these bold decisions defined what Apple was doing, and all these concepts were absent in the wholly unoriginal and failed MS tablets.
The fact that Apple was happy to spend 8 years perfecting it tells you everything you need to know about whether innovation comes from visionary companies and is then copied or if it comes from everybody zeroing in on an "obvious" design. Frankly, if you think the latter is true, you know nothing about design or development. Android and the Android tablets are not just copies, they're obviously the product of careful and deliberate reverse engineering. They simply would not exist otherwise. I have no doubt at all that Google very carefully studied the iPhone and measured the way it responded to touch, etc, probably using some kind of robotic rig and high speed cameras to ensure they could copy it just-so. I have no doubt that Samsung took apart the iPhone and iPad and carefully studied them so they could make their own. That's how these products came into existence in such a short time after the iPhone/iPad was released.
Does this mean that Apple also invented 'Instagram'?
Anyway....Seems that all of these 'leak-type' photos have to have that 'grainy' look, it's like it's some kind of requirement to add an element of secrecy. LOL
Think back on digital camera image quality around 2004. High quality output was very expensive, affordable not nearly so much.
The original images shown in the article were likely shot on film, either C41 process, or fast black and white, like Tri-X or Tmax-400.
The fact that Apple was happy to spend 8 years perfecting it tells you everything you need to know about whether innovation comes from visionary companies and is then copied or if it comes from everybody zeroing in on an "obvious" design. Frankly, if you think the latter is true, you know nothing about design or development. Android and the Android tablets are not just copies, they're obviously the product of careful and deliberate reverse engineering. They simply would not exist otherwise. I have no doubt at all that Google very carefully studied the iPhone and measured the way it responded to touch, etc, probably using some kind of robotic rig and high speed cameras to ensure they could copy it just-so. I have no doubt that Samsung took apart the iPhone and iPad and carefully studied them so they could make their own. That's how these products came into existence in such a short time after the iPhone/iPad was released.
Apple should offer a multi-million dollar bounty to anyone who would testify to and who could offer evidence proving such events occurred. I bet there would be some takers if the $$$ were large enough. Make it a global offer to cover Samsung and others.
As someone who actually used (and still owns) an Hp TC1000 for several years as an engineer in the USAF, I KNOW that the device was not merely some 'laptop with a removable screen' and was, In Fact a tablet computer as outlined by the specifications by Microsoft in 2000.
You're moving the goal post. We're not talking about what MS defined as a Tablet. We're not talking about your credentials (I do UI design and have owned a tablet since the 1990's but thats beside the point, and what MS defined as a 'tablet PC' has been made irrelevant by Apple).
What we're supposed to be talking about was your post claiming that the TC1000 somehow predated the iPad. It did not.
The TC1000 had none of what defines an iPad. Namely a windowless touch OS, uncluttered expansion slot-free design, and edge-to-edge glass front.
I'm amazed at the industrial design on that prototype, and how many design features ended up in the final shipping iPad in 2010 - a full 6 to 8 years later. When I first saw the iPad at its unveiling, I recall being impressed with the pure beauty and elegance of the design. Once I had one, I was even more amazed purely from an aesthetic standpoint. While the final iPad was successful based on a combination of how it looked, felt, and worked from a software standpoint it's pretty amazing how long these design characteristics existed within Apple - especially secretly.
Looks like a Macbook (white, plastic, poly-carbonate maybe?).
If it's running an Atom, that would explain the thickness.
As for the photo quality, these look like scans of photocopied greyscale printouts. In 2003, digital camera quality was great. I still have my Kodak DC4800 3.1MP camera and it took great pictures and I bought it in 2001.
Comments
that's the difference between Apple and others. Apple creates a prototype and decides it's not ready for prime time. No one knows about it. Other companies produce prototypes, announce them and then either kill them or release half-assed solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges
Meh, looks like one of those Windows tablets. Thick, and prototype-looking. Of course, back then, this was great.
But from a purely rectangular screen with rounded edges. Yes, they existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ
But from a purely rectangular screen with rounded edges. Yes, they existed.
And yet there's one big difference that we saw with a lot of those pre iPhone and iPad devices. The plastic goes all the way up and around the screen. Making a flat top was something that Apple was the first to do in the way that they did it. And then everyone else jumped on it. Even if the courts don't agree that that is 'illegal' copying, the court of public opinion generally sees it differently and votes with their wallets.
I can't help wondering what would have happened if they had released this back in 2003 (or say 2005). Would we have seen the same Apple fronted push to have better components being made by the suppliers. What might the world look like in terms of online media for such things. Would Apple have created iOS or just scaled down Mac OS with a touch UI level on top of it. etc. Keeping in mind that they did have a prototype tablet at the idea stage back in like 1986.
Thoughts to ponder
You mean like how it was just confirmed that early prototypes, like the one featured in this article, also used 'computer innards' ?
Actually... My Hp TC1000 has a very similar 'flat top' etc. design.
Anyway... Still cool to see the iPad in the early stages of development.
Fascinating how little the iPad design has changed since the early 2000's prototype, Other than the obvious thickness due to the hardware limitations of the time it's basically the same idea. What's most revealing was Apple's forward thinking concept of doing away with PC-style expansion and media slots from way back then. Even today there are still some manufacturers that burden their mobile devices with SD slots and removable batteries, which has been proven to be extremely lacking in vision.
2) if Apple would have released a tablet then it would have failed as a product. That is certain.
That's because, by the very nature of their function, ALL tablet comupters share the same basic aesthetic, one primarily of a detached laptop display... and they likely always will.
Additionally: The primary reason for manufacturers not proving 'expansion' slots etc. to just to force consumers to buy higher capacity models at exorbitant prices, and very little else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Hmmm... The HP TC1000 that I've owned since 2003?
Bullsh*t.
The TC 1000 was a laptop running windows with a removable screen that could be driven via stylus. The iPad prototype was far more forward thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) if Apple would have released a tablet then it would have failed as a product. That is certain.
Much like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiotron_Modbook
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/modbook
But don't tell Woz.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/steve_wozniak_joins_modbook_makers_board_of_advisors/
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/06/woz_helps_take_the_wraps_off_modbook_pro_tablet_photos.html
http://newtonpoetry.com/2009/06/25/newtvid-woz-praises-newton-while-demonstrating-a-modbook/
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges
Meh, looks like one of those Windows tablets. Thick, and prototype-looking. Of course, back then, this was great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ
Ummm, yeah. This was a prototype. That is why it looks like one. And even then, what windows tablet looked even close?
Windows tablet prototype from same period:
As someone who actually used (and still owns) an Hp TC1000 for several years as an engineer in the USAF, I KNOW that the device was not merely some 'laptop with a removable screen' and was, In Fact a tablet computer as outlined by the specifications by Microsoft in 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC#History
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
That's because, by the very nature of their function, ALL tablet comupters share the same basic aesthetic, one primarily of a detached laptop display... and they likely always will.
Nope.
That's backwards thinking that lacks vision and imagination. MS thought a tablet was simply a keyboard-less laptop. One that ran a marginally modified, stylus driven version of Windows, and one that was burdened with the same PC era expansion and media slots.
Apple re-invented the idea of a tablet by abandoning the windows metaphor and stylus input in favor of a completely new touch-based OS. Then they removed the expansion slot idea. Then they did away with the keyboard. All these bold decisions defined what Apple was doing, and all these concepts were absent in the wholly unoriginal and failed MS tablets.
The fact that Apple was happy to spend 8 years perfecting it tells you everything you need to know about whether innovation comes from visionary companies and is then copied or if it comes from everybody zeroing in on an "obvious" design. Frankly, if you think the latter is true, you know nothing about design or development. Android and the Android tablets are not just copies, they're obviously the product of careful and deliberate reverse engineering. They simply would not exist otherwise. I have no doubt at all that Google very carefully studied the iPhone and measured the way it responded to touch, etc, probably using some kind of robotic rig and high speed cameras to ensure they could copy it just-so. I have no doubt that Samsung took apart the iPhone and iPad and carefully studied them so they could make their own. That's how these products came into existence in such a short time after the iPhone/iPad was released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Does this mean that Apple also invented 'Instagram'?
Anyway....Seems that all of these 'leak-type' photos have to have that 'grainy' look, it's like it's some kind of requirement to add an element of secrecy. LOL
Think back on digital camera image quality around 2004. High quality output was very expensive, affordable not nearly so much.
The original images shown in the article were likely shot on film, either C41 process, or fast black and white, like Tri-X or Tmax-400.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke
The fact that Apple was happy to spend 8 years perfecting it tells you everything you need to know about whether innovation comes from visionary companies and is then copied or if it comes from everybody zeroing in on an "obvious" design. Frankly, if you think the latter is true, you know nothing about design or development. Android and the Android tablets are not just copies, they're obviously the product of careful and deliberate reverse engineering. They simply would not exist otherwise. I have no doubt at all that Google very carefully studied the iPhone and measured the way it responded to touch, etc, probably using some kind of robotic rig and high speed cameras to ensure they could copy it just-so. I have no doubt that Samsung took apart the iPhone and iPad and carefully studied them so they could make their own. That's how these products came into existence in such a short time after the iPhone/iPad was released.
Apple should offer a multi-million dollar bounty to anyone who would testify to and who could offer evidence proving such events occurred. I bet there would be some takers if the $$$ were large enough. Make it a global offer to cover Samsung and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
As someone who actually used (and still owns) an Hp TC1000 for several years as an engineer in the USAF, I KNOW that the device was not merely some 'laptop with a removable screen' and was, In Fact a tablet computer as outlined by the specifications by Microsoft in 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC#History
You're moving the goal post. We're not talking about what MS defined as a Tablet. We're not talking about your credentials (I do UI design and have owned a tablet since the 1990's but thats beside the point, and what MS defined as a 'tablet PC' has been made irrelevant by Apple).
What we're supposed to be talking about was your post claiming that the TC1000 somehow predated the iPad. It did not.
The TC1000 had none of what defines an iPad. Namely a windowless touch OS, uncluttered expansion slot-free design, and edge-to-edge glass front.
I'm amazed at the industrial design on that prototype, and how many design features ended up in the final shipping iPad in 2010 - a full 6 to 8 years later. When I first saw the iPad at its unveiling, I recall being impressed with the pure beauty and elegance of the design. Once I had one, I was even more amazed purely from an aesthetic standpoint. While the final iPad was successful based on a combination of how it looked, felt, and worked from a software standpoint it's pretty amazing how long these design characteristics existed within Apple - especially secretly.
Looks like a Macbook (white, plastic, poly-carbonate maybe?).
If it's running an Atom, that would explain the thickness.
As for the photo quality, these look like scans of photocopied greyscale printouts. In 2003, digital camera quality was great. I still have my Kodak DC4800 3.1MP camera and it took great pictures and I bought it in 2001.