This could be one of the most savvy moves Apple has ever made -- NetBooks done right (the Apple way) -- superior hardware, superior OS, superior apps (OSX and iOS) -- all in an inexpensive and usable package!
Cue the "It's not a real computer" and "It's using a toy processor" comments.
This could be one of the most savvy moves Apple has ever made -- NetBooks done right (the Apple way) -- superior hardware, superior OS, superior apps (OSX and iOS) -- all in an inexpensive and usable package!
Cue the "It's not a real computer" and "It's using a toy processor" comments.
That's not a a real computer with its toy processor :thumbup:
This could be one of the most savvy moves Apple has ever made -- NetBooks done right (the Apple way) -- superior hardware, superior OS, superior apps (OSX and iOS) -- all in an inexpensive and usable package!
Cue the "It's not a real computer" and "It's using a toy processor" comments.[/quote]
Oh, it'll be a real computer -- It'll run FCP, Logic, Office, iWorks, iLife, GarageBand, iMovie, Photoshop, etc. Likely much better than the Core 2 Duo I am running this on!
Just not legacy Windows app/crap or an emasculated Chrome OS.
Let's assume that Apple could make an A8 for a cost of $35-$50.
All else equal, the BOM savings on a ARM-only (no Intel) MacBookAir would be $100-$150 less that the current BOM of $600 ???
If so, this would make a $700-$800 ARM-only (no Intel) MacBookAir a viable, profitable product.
If Apple could get a discount like that on the i5 then the same would apply to the Celeron/Atom etc CPUs that have a price of ~$100 so closer to $50-60.
I don't think ARM has the advantage here at this point over a Celeron. These cheaper CPUs score around 1.6 in Cinebench:
That's a desktop chip but is comparable performance and that is only $64:
Let's assume that Apple could make an A8 for a cost of $35-$50.
All else equal, the BOM savings on a ARM-only (no Intel) MacBookAir would be $100-$150 less that the current BOM of $600 ???
If so, this would make a $700-$800 ARM-only (no Intel) MacBookAir a viable, profitable product.
If Apple could get a discount like that on the i5 then the same would apply to the Celeron/Atom etc CPUs that have a price of ~$100 so closer to $50-60.
I don't think ARM has the advantage here at this point over a Celeron. These cheaper CPUs score around 1.6 in Cinebench:
That's a desktop chip but is comparable performance and that is only $64:
That's about 1/4 of a Macbook Pro performance or one of the cores.
Mmm ... Nothing so annoying as facts!
It's been about 4 years since I Jailbroke an iDevice -- an AppleTV. It was amazing how similar the iOS was to OSX -- and it ran really well on the ARM chip.
Time forward to today ... We have custom ARM (and supporting) silicon and highly-tuned iOS and OSX migrating towards each other.
I guess my point is that Apple could tune OSX to exploit their custom A8 or A9 silicon, while removing any x86 overhead. Doing this, I suspect that Apple could narrow the performance gap you mention.
A few years ago, I read that in one prerelease of iOS, Apple included all the ProRes codecs -- on ARM!
Video codecs are some of the most CPU/GPU processor-intensive users of the hardware. Why would Apple do that if the hardware wasn't capable?
Maybe the A8 is not capable of running OSX acceptably on the device/price point we have been discussing ... Sigh
If Apple could get a discount like that on the i5 then the same would apply to the Celeron/Atom etc CPUs that have a price of ~$100 so closer to $50-60.
I don't think ARM has the advantage here at this point over a Celeron. These cheaper CPUs score around 1.6 in Cinebench:
That's a desktop chip but is comparable performance and that is only $64:
That's about 1/4 of a Macbook Pro performance or one of the cores.
Did you take into account performance per Watt and the overhead reduction Monsieur Applebaum mentions? Even with the A7 at 1.3GHz it's doing very well.
When I see things like this (below) and consider how far Apple has taken their A-series in such a short time I can't help but think this is definitely doable.
If Apple could get a discount like that on the i5 then the same would apply to the Celeron/Atom etc CPUs that have a price of ~$100 so closer to $50-60.
I don't think ARM has the advantage here at this point over a Celeron. These cheaper CPUs score around 1.6 in Cinebench:
That's a desktop chip but is comparable performance and that is only $64:
That's about 1/4 of a Macbook Pro performance or one of the cores.
Did you take into account performance per Watt and the overhead reduction Monsieur Applebaum mentions? Even with the A7 at 1.3GHz it's doing very well.
When I see things like this (below) and consider how far Apple has taken their A-series in such a short time I can't help but think this is definitely doable.
I wonder if Apple would do a special Ax chip for an ARM-only OSX laptop -- more CPU and GPU Cores, Higher Clocking, More RAM, etc. With the larger device size, power, heat and battery are less restrictive.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I've been using a Core 2 Duo 2.6 GHz 4GB Mini running OSX 9.2 -- and it is pure agony compared to an iPad 4 doing more.
I wonder if Apple would do a special Ax chip for an ARM-only OSX laptop -- more CPU and GPU Cores, Higher Clocking, More RAM, etc. With the larger device size, power, heat and battery are less restrictive.
I don't see why not. That sounds like a great reason to being back the X version of their A-series chip with additional cores and performance.
Note they don't have to put the RAM package on the SoC. It could be discreet thereby allowing Apple to sell versions with different amounts of RAM without having to change the SoC. I'd also like to see, if this ARMBook happens, the use of PCIe SSDs, not NAND on the logic board. We're still taking about a small board with plenty of power savings over a traditional notebook design.
I have to disagree, I don't think you'd be able to install anything outside of the Mac App Store. The APIs/sandbox in the MAS are the key as they're all designed and pre-approved by Apple so they can guarantee it will work and offer a smooth experience for the customer. Apps outside of that system could be incompatible with the architecture and wouldn't translate.
I literally have no idea what they would call the OS or whether they would spin it off (again) but I would lean towards the Mac OS X side of things due to the inclusion of the MAS
If they did go this route I would expect to see:
* 12" Retina Display
* A8/A9 64-bit Processor clocked between 1.4GHz & 1.9GHz
* 4GB RAM
* ULTRA Ultra thin laptop (likely with very little port support)
* 24 hour battery life
* Non clickable touchpad design due to space constraints
* Some kind of new keyboard technology to reduce the size (leaving space for an adequate battery)
* New developments in OS X/iOS for further compatibility (iCloud file developments, iOS to OS X AirDrop etc)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's how envision it, too. They'd likely make it very easy for developers and for customers if it shows up on MAS it'll work on your machine.
My questions are: If they go this route…
… will they still allow app installations that are downloaded outside MAS? (I would hope so)
… will they still call it Mac OS X or create a new name to help differentiate it? (MS has shown that using Windows for everything can be harmful).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Interesting questions ...
I suspect they will allow app installs outside of MAS.
The OS name depends on whether Apple wants to differentiate or consolidate -- I suspect the latter, to appeal to developers and users.
I have to disagree, I don't think you'd be able to install anything outside of the Mac App Store. The APIs/sandbox in the MAS are the key as they're all designed and pre-approved by Apple so they can guarantee it will work and offer a smooth experience for the customer. Apps outside of that system could be incompatible with the architecture and wouldn't translate.
I literally have no idea what they would call the OS or whether they would spin it off (again) but I would lean towards the Mac OS X side of things due to the inclusion of the MAS
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that happened but I think they'd have to lock down a "desktop" OS pretty tight to keep it from being a possibility. I would hope they would have some semi-hidden setting that would allow this.
edit: This would keep Adobe Flash, Silverlight and perhaps even Java off these systems, but that might be a good thing.
If they aren't going to allow access to user-installed Apps they might finally get rid of Finder, Terminal, and rely much more heavily on iCloud, as you state. I could see the Desktop being the only "folder" users get access to. If any of that is true I think calling it a Mac or OS X would be a bad move. Not only does it add to the confusion between both Mac types but it also gives the Chicken Littles more reason to believe in a plunging firmament….Not that it matters, even if they named it OS Y and issued a statement saying that "Macs are the trucks of the computer world and so we understand that you need certain tools not available in OS Y" they would still fear the worst.
If they did go this route I would expect to see:
* 12" Retina Display
* A8/A9 64-bit Processor clocked between 1.4GHz & 1.9GHz
* 4GB RAM
* ULTRA Ultra thin laptop (likely with very little port support)
* 24 hour battery life
* Non clickable touchpad design due to space constraints
* Some kind of new keyboard technology to reduce the size (leaving space for an adequate battery)
* New developments in OS X/iOS for further compatibility (iCloud file developments, iOS to OS X AirDrop etc)
1) I'm thinking it would be clocked quite a bit higher than 1.4GHz. Over 2Ghz is what I'd expect.
2) Those trackpad and keyboard patents fit in very nicely hear.
Yes you're absolutely correct in terms of the OS choice muddying the waters. They probably would have to spin off a new converged OS that takes the best from both iOS and OS X.
1) I think you're being way too optimistic with the clock speed for this concept though, this is Apple we're talking about! They push for ultimate efficiency and their upgrade cycles would likely take care of 2GHz & beyond. A vocal minority? tend to feel the first gen of any new Apple product is lacking something (I don't for the record. I dive right in and upgrade with each key development). I wouldn't be surprised if a product such as this did land with 1.4GHz, 1GB RAM & 32GB of storage to be honest!! Haha " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
2) I remember small details from those trackpad/keyboard patents, they would fit very nicely indeed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that happened but I think they'd have to lock down a "desktop" OS pretty tight to keep it from being a possibility. I would hope they would have some semi-hidden setting that would allow this.
If they aren't going to allow access to user-installed Apps they might finally get rid of Finder, Terminal, and rely much more heavily on iCloud, as you state. I could see the Desktop being the only "folder" users get access to. If any of that is true I think calling it a Mac or OS X would be a bad move. Not only does it add to the confusion between both Mac types but it also gives the Chicken Littles more reason to believe in a plunging firmament….Not that it matters, even if they named it OS Y and issued a statement saying that "Macs are the trucks of the computer world and so we understand that you need certain tools not available in OS Y" they would still fear the worst.
1) I'm thinking it would be clocked quite a bit higher than 1.4GHz. Over 2Ghz is what I'd expect.
2) Those trackpad and keyboard patents fit in very nicely hear.
I have to disagree, I don't think you'd be able to install anything outside of the Mac App Store. The APIs/sandbox in the MAS are the key as they're all designed and pre-approved by Apple so they can guarantee it will work and offer a smooth experience for the customer. Apps outside of that system could be incompatible with the architecture and wouldn't translate.]I literally have no idea what they would call the OS or whether they would spin it off (again) but I would lean towards the Mac OS X side of things due to the inclusion of the MAS
If they did go this route I would expect to see:
* 12" Retina Display[/CONTENTEMBED]
* A8/A9 64-bit Processor clocked between 1.4GHz & 1.9GHz[/CONTENTEMBED]
* 4GB RAM
* ULTRA Ultra thin laptop (likely with very little port support)
* 24 hour battery life
* Non clickable touchpad design due to space constraints[/CONTENTEMBED]
* Some kind of new keyboard technology to reduce the size (leaving space for an adequate battery)
* New developments in OS X/iOS for further compatibility (iCloud file developments, iOS to OS X AirDrop etc)
Good points! I think they will have to offer an SD card slot, and USB 2/3.
A little OT, but Apple is going to need to do something about the Lightening Connector -- If they don't, Europe is going to force MiniUSB on us. What I'd like to see is make Lightening both USB 2 and USB 3 compatible, then offer free licensing of the patent.
PS - it was a pisser to edit your post -- what's with all the embeds?
That's how envision it, too. They'd likely make it very easy for developers and for customers if it shows up on MAS it'll work on your machine.
My questions are: If they go this route…
… will they still allow app installations that are downloaded outside MAS? (I would hope so)
… will they still call it Mac OS X or create a new name to help differentiate it? (MS has shown that using Windows for everything can be harmful).
1) I think you're being way too optimistic with the clock speed for this concept though, this is Apple we're talking about! They push for ultimate efficiency and their upgrade cycles would likely take care of 2GHz & beyond.
You might be right but I'd personally bet on it being faster than in an iDevice due to the extra load and utility it would have as a notebook.
Note that the Galaxy S4 has a 1.9 GHz CPU and the Galaxy S5 has a 2.45 Ghz CPU. Note that Samsung is a good measure of spec restraint but the S5 does have great battery life according to AnandTech's review. The Galaxy S5 does have 10.78 Whr battery which is getting close to 2x the capacity as the iPhone 5S's 5.96 Whr battery, but the battery life isn't poor with that CPU and comparing it to the 11.6" MBA which has a whooping 38 Whr battery I think the CPU increase would improve performance nautically and not be an issue for the size of the chassis (I'm assuming the battery capacity would be at least halved) with most of the power likely going to the display.
Or, an inexpensive laptop running OSX optimized for 64-bit ARM -- a keyboard, touchpad, standard I/O ports and non-touch screen ...
Less expensive (no Intel tax) than a MacBook Air – more powerful than an iPad.
Run native iOS apps concurrently with native OS X apps.
Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Target a price range of $600-$800 -- I'm really starting to get jazzed about this!
Again (thinking back to my original post) I ask you...Why? why does this netbook/ios/osx laptop do that the Macbook Air does not? Is it really price? Then if Apple does this, it will be underpowered for most people who want such a thing and will complain. What do you really want in a mobile computing experience and what is wrong with the current line-up? is it really price? is it that you want a device that runs iOS and OSX together? Why? why is that so important? You have yet to give anyone on this forum a legitimate reason why other than you want one. If price is really the biggest concern, then why is that important? because you want to upgrade every year? isn't that extremely wasteful? if i had even a Macbook that could run iOS apps (not that i'd want that because the UI is a totally different animal altogether and would be pointless) I would default to the Macbook over the iPad. Yeah, a single device would be great but I just don't see a clear solution out there. Not that Apple isn't working on something like this, but I just don't see how a product like this would be more successful over what's currently out there.
So let's say this device comes to be. It's going to be less powerful than a macbook (any model) and more powerful (probably speed-wise) than an iPad. What practical real-world use-case do you have that this device would do better than what's currently available?
Haha! Apologies, I have no idea what's going on with the embeds!
I'd love an SD Card slot but I just can't see it personally. I'm not sure what architecture & licensing issues (due to Intel's involvement) are involved but I imagine Thunderbolt and Lightning would be the perfect combination for a product like this. Dreaded adapters would be needed though
I HATE to bring up Samsung in this discussion but I happen to think they got one thing right (only one) when they cloned the MacBook air and that's the 'foot' at the back of their ultra book design leading into a much thinner enclosure. This is the kind of technique that would suit an ARMBook IMO albeit much smaller due to minimal/small ports!
Or, an inexpensive laptop running OSX optimized for 64-bit ARM -- a keyboard, touchpad, standard I/O ports and non-touch screen ...
Less expensive (no Intel tax) than a MacBook Air – more powerful than an iPad.
Run native iOS apps concurrently with native OS X apps.
Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Target a price range of $600-$800 -- I'm really starting to get jazzed about this!
Again (thinking back to my original post) I ask you...Why? why does this netbook/ios/osx laptop do that the Macbook Air does not? Is it really price? Then if Apple does this, it will be underpowered for most people who want such a thing and will complain. What do you really want in a mobile computing experience and what is wrong with the current line-up? is it really price? is it that you want a device that runs iOS and OSX together? Why? why is that so important? You have yet to give anyone on this forum a legitimate reason why other than you want one. If price is really the biggest concern, then why is that important? because you want to upgrade every year? isn't that extremely wasteful? if i had even a Macbook that could run iOS apps (not that i'd want that because the UI is a totally different animal altogether and would be pointless) I would default to the Macbook over the iPad. Yeah, a single device would be great but I just don't see a clear solution out there. Not that Apple isn't working on something like this, but I just don't see how a product like this would be more successful over what's currently out there.
So let's say this device comes to be. It's going to be less powerful than a macbook (any model) and more powerful (probably speed-wise) than an iPad. What practical real-world use-case do you have that this device would do better than what's currently available?
I am looking at this from the perspective of an AAPL shareholder rather than as a potential customer (though I will likely buy one).
I don't need this, but it offers Apple the potential to earn a good profit in a sector of the marketplace in which they don't currently participate.
It would eliminate, or at least reduce, the $1,000 Apple price umbrella for non-tablet mobile.
It could potentially dominate the non-tablet mobile OS market setting a bar that could not be met by Windows, Chrome or any tablet OS.
To my mind, those are 3 pretty damned good reasons!
I am looking at this from the perspective of an AAPL shareholder rather than as a potential customer (though I will likely buy one).
I don't need this, but it offers Apple the potential to earn a good prof in a sector of the marketplace in which they don't currently participate.
It would eliminate, or at least reduce, the $1,000 Apple price umbrella for non-tablet mobile.
It could potentially dominate the non-tablet mobile OS market setting a bar that could not be met by Windows, Chrome or any tablet OS.
To my mind, those are 3 pretty damned good reasons!
So basically you don't have a legitimate reason other than the bottom line. that's completely the opposite of how apple works. They look for a need and a solution to that need first...then enter the market at a competitive level.
Lot's of how Apple prices things are in a way self-inflicted. Like the $100 up-charges for storage on the iPad for example.
Yep, they definitely 'could' clock an ARMBook that high and if they used a larger battery like you pointed out (one that is still way smaller than the MBA) then it would be a win win.
To try and address some of the 'Whys' as to this product's potential existence:
* Even thinner & lighter (beyond what is possible with current architecture)
* ARM/A Chips are developing at a faster rate (due to strong competition?)
* Massive potential with Imagination graphics chips
* Very little power usage
* Greatly increased battery life
* The Mac App Store caters for everything in terms of the regular joe? (Final Cut X, iWork, iLife, Evernote, Browser etc). I happen to need the grunt/Intel architecture for video editing at the moment but who knows what Apple has up their sleeve. They already demonstrated their hardware + software optimisation skills with the Mac Pro as it cuts through 4K like butter.
* Keyboard & trackpad works better/is preferable for a lot of productivity tasks. The laptop concept is still viable but can improve based on lessons learnt/technologies from the new platforms.
* Price is a real factor but I'm not convinced Apple would low ball. They're more likely to include new components such as the retina display whilst meeting a slightly lower price point ($899?).
I am looking at this from the perspective of an AAPL shareholder rather than as a potential customer (though I will likely buy one).
I don't need this, but it offers Apple the potential to earn a good prof in a sector of the marketplace in which they don't currently participate.
It would eliminate, or at least reduce, the $1,000 Apple price umbrella for non-tablet mobile.
It could potentially dominate the non-tablet mobile OS market setting a bar that could not be met by Windows, Chrome or any tablet OS.
To my mind, those are 3 pretty damned good reasons!
So basically you don't have a legitimate reason other than the bottom line. that's completely the opposite of how apple works. They look for a need and a solution to that need first...then enter the market at a competitive level.
Lot's of how Apple prices things are in a way self-inflicted. Like the $100 up-charges for storage on the iPad for example.
I have been a customer, reseller, co-developer, supplier, developer, observer and shareholder of Apple spanning almost 36 years – I think I understand how Apple works.
Comments
I don't know what that means.
Cue the "It's not a real computer" and "It's using a toy processor" comments.
It's a diminutive of "Bingo".
Cue the "It's not a real computer" and "It's using a toy processor" comments.[/quote]
Oh, it'll be a real computer -- It'll run FCP, Logic, Office, iWorks, iLife, GarageBand, iMovie, Photoshop, etc. Likely much better than the Core 2 Duo I am running this on!
Just not legacy Windows app/crap or an emasculated Chrome OS.
This will hit a real sweet spot, IMO!
If Apple could get a discount like that on the i5 then the same would apply to the Celeron/Atom etc CPUs that have a price of ~$100 so closer to $50-60.
I don't think ARM has the advantage here at this point over a Celeron. These cheaper CPUs score around 1.6 in Cinebench:
That's a desktop chip but is comparable performance and that is only $64:
http://ark.intel.com/products/53486
That's about 1/4 of a Macbook Pro performance or one of the cores.
Mmm ... Nothing so annoying as facts!
It's been about 4 years since I Jailbroke an iDevice -- an AppleTV. It was amazing how similar the iOS was to OSX -- and it ran really well on the ARM chip.
Time forward to today ... We have custom ARM (and supporting) silicon and highly-tuned iOS and OSX migrating towards each other.
I guess my point is that Apple could tune OSX to exploit their custom A8 or A9 silicon, while removing any x86 overhead. Doing this, I suspect that Apple could narrow the performance gap you mention.
A few years ago, I read that in one prerelease of iOS, Apple included all the ProRes codecs -- on ARM!
Video codecs are some of the most CPU/GPU processor-intensive users of the hardware. Why would Apple do that if the hardware wasn't capable?
Maybe the A8 is not capable of running OSX acceptably on the device/price point we have been discussing ... Sigh
I was thinking they were dancers for Bing in another poor attempt at marketing by MS¡
Did you take into account performance per Watt and the overhead reduction Monsieur Applebaum mentions? Even with the A7 at 1.3GHz it's doing very well.
When I see things like this (below) and consider how far Apple has taken their A-series in such a short time I can't help but think this is definitely doable.
Thanks for the above -- pretty impressive!
I wonder if Apple would do a special Ax chip for an ARM-only OSX laptop -- more CPU and GPU Cores, Higher Clocking, More RAM, etc. With the larger device size, power, heat and battery are less restrictive.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I've been using a Core 2 Duo 2.6 GHz 4GB Mini running OSX 9.2 -- and it is pure agony compared to an iPad 4 doing more.
I don't see why not. That sounds like a great reason to being back the X version of their A-series chip with additional cores and performance.
Note they don't have to put the RAM package on the SoC. It could be discreet thereby allowing Apple to sell versions with different amounts of RAM without having to change the SoC. I'd also like to see, if this ARMBook happens, the use of PCIe SSDs, not NAND on the logic board. We're still taking about a small board with plenty of power savings over a traditional notebook design.
That's how envision it, too. They'd likely make it very easy for developers and for customers if it shows up on MAS it'll work on your machine.
My questions are: If they go this route…
Interesting questions ...
I suspect they will allow app installs outside of MAS.
The OS name depends on whether Apple wants to differentiate or consolidate -- I suspect the latter, to appeal to developers and users.
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that happened but I think they'd have to lock down a "desktop" OS pretty tight to keep it from being a possibility. I would hope they would have some semi-hidden setting that would allow this.
edit: This would keep Adobe Flash, Silverlight and perhaps even Java off these systems, but that might be a good thing.
If they aren't going to allow access to user-installed Apps they might finally get rid of Finder, Terminal, and rely much more heavily on iCloud, as you state. I could see the Desktop being the only "folder" users get access to. If any of that is true I think calling it a Mac or OS X would be a bad move. Not only does it add to the confusion between both Mac types but it also gives the Chicken Littles more reason to believe in a plunging firmament….Not that it matters, even if they named it OS Y and issued a statement saying that "Macs are the trucks of the computer world and so we understand that you need certain tools not available in OS Y" they would still fear the worst.
1) I'm thinking it would be clocked quite a bit higher than 1.4GHz. Over 2Ghz is what I'd expect.
2) Those trackpad and keyboard patents fit in very nicely hear.
Yes you're absolutely correct in terms of the OS choice muddying the waters. They probably would have to spin off a new converged OS that takes the best from both iOS and OS X.
1) I think you're being way too optimistic with the clock speed for this concept though, this is Apple we're talking about!
They push for ultimate efficiency and their upgrade cycles would likely take care of 2GHz & beyond. A vocal minority? tend to feel the first gen of any new Apple product is lacking something (I don't for the record. I dive right in and upgrade with each key development). I wouldn't be surprised if a product such as this did land with 1.4GHz, 1GB RAM & 32GB of storage to be honest!! Haha 
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
2) I remember small details from those trackpad/keyboard patents, they would fit very nicely indeed!
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that happened but I think they'd have to lock down a "desktop" OS pretty tight to keep it from being a possibility. I would hope they would have some semi-hidden setting that would allow this.
If they aren't going to allow access to user-installed Apps they might finally get rid of Finder, Terminal, and rely much more heavily on iCloud, as you state. I could see the Desktop being the only "folder" users get access to. If any of that is true I think calling it a Mac or OS X would be a bad move. Not only does it add to the confusion between both Mac types but it also gives the Chicken Littles more reason to believe in a plunging firmament….Not that it matters, even if they named it OS Y and issued a statement saying that "Macs are the trucks of the computer world and so we understand that you need certain tools not available in OS Y" they would still fear the worst.
1) I'm thinking it would be clocked quite a bit higher than 1.4GHz. Over 2Ghz is what I'd expect.
2) Those trackpad and keyboard patents fit in very nicely hear.
Good points! I think they will have to offer an SD card slot, and USB 2/3.
A little OT, but Apple is going to need to do something about the Lightening Connector -- If they don't, Europe is going to force MiniUSB on us. What I'd like to see is make Lightening both USB 2 and USB 3 compatible, then offer free licensing of the patent.
PS - it was a pisser to edit your post -- what's with all the embeds?
You might be right but I'd personally bet on it being faster than in an iDevice due to the extra load and utility it would have as a notebook.
Note that the Galaxy S4 has a 1.9 GHz CPU and the Galaxy S5 has a 2.45 Ghz CPU. Note that Samsung is a good measure of spec restraint but the S5 does have great battery life according to AnandTech's review. The Galaxy S5 does have 10.78 Whr battery which is getting close to 2x the capacity as the iPhone 5S's 5.96 Whr battery, but the battery life isn't poor with that CPU and comparing it to the 11.6" MBA which has a whooping 38 Whr battery I think the CPU increase would improve performance nautically and not be an issue for the size of the chassis (I'm assuming the battery capacity would be at least halved) with most of the power likely going to the display.
Or, an inexpensive laptop running OSX optimized for 64-bit ARM -- a keyboard, touchpad, standard I/O ports and non-touch screen ...
Less expensive (no Intel tax) than a MacBook Air – more powerful than an iPad.
Run native iOS apps concurrently with native OS X apps.
Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Target a price range of $600-$800 -- I'm really starting to get jazzed about this!
Again (thinking back to my original post) I ask you...Why? why does this netbook/ios/osx laptop do that the Macbook Air does not? Is it really price? Then if Apple does this, it will be underpowered for most people who want such a thing and will complain. What do you really want in a mobile computing experience and what is wrong with the current line-up? is it really price? is it that you want a device that runs iOS and OSX together? Why? why is that so important? You have yet to give anyone on this forum a legitimate reason why other than you want one. If price is really the biggest concern, then why is that important? because you want to upgrade every year? isn't that extremely wasteful? if i had even a Macbook that could run iOS apps (not that i'd want that because the UI is a totally different animal altogether and would be pointless) I would default to the Macbook over the iPad. Yeah, a single device would be great but I just don't see a clear solution out there. Not that Apple isn't working on something like this, but I just don't see how a product like this would be more successful over what's currently out there.
So let's say this device comes to be. It's going to be less powerful than a macbook (any model) and more powerful (probably speed-wise) than an iPad. What practical real-world use-case do you have that this device would do better than what's currently available?
Haha! Apologies, I have no idea what's going on with the embeds!
I'd love an SD Card slot but I just can't see it personally. I'm not sure what architecture & licensing issues (due to Intel's involvement) are involved but I imagine Thunderbolt and Lightning would be the perfect combination for a product like this. Dreaded adapters would be needed though
I HATE to bring up Samsung in this discussion but I happen to think they got one thing right (only one) when they cloned the MacBook air and that's the 'foot' at the back of their ultra book design leading into a much thinner enclosure. This is the kind of technique that would suit an ARMBook IMO albeit much smaller due to minimal/small ports!
I am looking at this from the perspective of an AAPL shareholder rather than as a potential customer (though I will likely buy one).
I don't need this, but it offers Apple the potential to earn a good profit in a sector of the marketplace in which they don't currently participate.
It would eliminate, or at least reduce, the $1,000 Apple price umbrella for non-tablet mobile.
It could potentially dominate the non-tablet mobile OS market setting a bar that could not be met by Windows, Chrome or any tablet OS.
To my mind, those are 3 pretty damned good reasons!
I am looking at this from the perspective of an AAPL shareholder rather than as a potential customer (though I will likely buy one).
I don't need this, but it offers Apple the potential to earn a good prof in a sector of the marketplace in which they don't currently participate.
It would eliminate, or at least reduce, the $1,000 Apple price umbrella for non-tablet mobile.
It could potentially dominate the non-tablet mobile OS market setting a bar that could not be met by Windows, Chrome or any tablet OS.
To my mind, those are 3 pretty damned good reasons!
So basically you don't have a legitimate reason other than the bottom line. that's completely the opposite of how apple works. They look for a need and a solution to that need first...then enter the market at a competitive level.
Lot's of how Apple prices things are in a way self-inflicted. Like the $100 up-charges for storage on the iPad for example.
Yep, they definitely 'could' clock an ARMBook that high and if they used a larger battery like you pointed out (one that is still way smaller than the MBA) then it would be a win win.
To try and address some of the 'Whys' as to this product's potential existence:
* Even thinner & lighter (beyond what is possible with current architecture)
* ARM/A Chips are developing at a faster rate (due to strong competition?)
* Massive potential with Imagination graphics chips
* Very little power usage
* Greatly increased battery life
* The Mac App Store caters for everything in terms of the regular joe? (Final Cut X, iWork, iLife, Evernote, Browser etc). I happen to need the grunt/Intel architecture for video editing at the moment but who knows what Apple has up their sleeve. They already demonstrated their hardware + software optimisation skills with the Mac Pro as it cuts through 4K like butter.
* Keyboard & trackpad works better/is preferable for a lot of productivity tasks. The laptop concept is still viable but can improve based on lessons learnt/technologies from the new platforms.
* Price is a real factor but I'm not convinced Apple would low ball. They're more likely to include new components such as the retina display whilst meeting a slightly lower price point ($899?).
* Probably 100 things we can't imagine
I have been a customer, reseller, co-developer, supplier, developer, observer and shareholder of Apple spanning almost 36 years – I think I understand how Apple works.