More or less agree except for the size issue and the port issue. The size concern could be dealt with with a family of devices. USB or Firewire port is not a big deal as even the tinyest digital cameras have one or the other.
But when it coems down to it I don't think the technology is there yet for Apple to consider such a device. The rather lackluster acceptance of the palm devices pretty much point out the technology limitations. The current handhelds simply cost to much for what you get, their performance is marginal to say the least and they are just to thick.
Programer, you make a lot of good points. I think one of the biggest questions that needs to be answered is what do people want a tablet for, and what will they actually use it for. This would determine whether the software should be full featured, and help to determine the optimal size of the screen for the broadest market range.
I personally think the a successful tablet would be used similar to a pda most of the time, therefore a smaller screen is needed. When I go to meetings at work I rarely ever grab the 8.5" x 11" paper tablet, but the smaller one (5" x 7"). This is easier to carry and write on if I have to support it in my hands while standing instead of on a table, yet is still large enough to take notes without flipping the page too many times. This size advantage would be even more evident when you no longer have to actually flip the page while taking notes. I do concede that a tablet with a slightly larger screen, say 6" x 9" diagonal), might be even better for a larger number of people and make it easier to do tasks such as Web browsing where you might have more than one window open at a time. For a reference to page sizes that are tried and true a paper back book measures around 4.25" x 7" and a hard-bound book just over 6 x 9. Most text books are printed at 8.25" or 8.5" x 10.875". These are tried and true sizes that have been successfully marketed for longer than there has been a computer on or near a desktop. I think that 8.5 x 11 is the largest that you would want to make a tablet, and the optimal size is probably 6" x 9" and between .5" and 1" thick.
The above measures will limit what you can put in it, so the rest of the specs would be a balance of power to make a usable system. I would imagine that at minimum you would want some flavor of the 805.11 wireless networking, USB, and Bluetooth, a Hard Drive of 20-40 GB. The obvious absense of optical media is neccessary for space, and would require some way of "booting" the system over wireless or USB to load in a system from a host or external hard drive. FireWire would be nice but you might be running out of room, and USB has better support for devices like printers and card readers. Now, how much room is left in that case for the rest of the system and batteries? Is there anything else that needs to be left off or added? How much memory can you put in there (this would determine alot about the type of software that you could run, from the OS to the Apps).
I think that with the above limitations to the hardware you would want to have a "specialized" OS for this system, at least with components sizes that are currently available. That dosn't mean that you have to reinvent the wheel when doing it. How much of OS X is devoted to support for devices or features that most people dont have installed, at least on any one system? Take out all the video support except for the one system that the tablet actually uses and minimize all other device support unless it is specifically installed. Remove the "excess" overhead of the Aqua interface, and design a new one that is better suited to a streamlined interface. Get the Unix system down to a minimum, there is no need for Apache and I'm sure there is more that could be removed from it to minimize the footprint of the OS both in physical Ram as well as Hard Drive space needed for the system.
I believe that most people would still maintain all or most of their data on a main PC either at home or work. I also think that a lot of the programs that would be run are better off as clients, or maybe a better description would be children, of that main system that the data is synched to when you return home or to the office. Data bases might "carry" a portable version of the DB for access while not on the "parent" network, which would carry with it some, but not all of the data. Other programs, such as word processors, would be full fledged programs with "gestures" added in to replace quick keys to access features. Again, I dont think you need a whole new program for either of these, but rather a second that is most of the full program with some streamlining and interface tweeks to take advantage of the tablets streangths and limitations.
I don't think you'll save as much as you think by "specializing" the OS. If parts of the system aren't in use they get paged out to disk, and the amount of disk required for them is trivial compared to the size of content these days.
As for the size of the device, I guess it depends on your physical size. I'm a big guy -- I can't use the tiny little digital cameras or cel phones that seem so popular these days, and a 5x7 device wouldn't be comfortable for me to hold. 8x11 is big enough to be able to get a decent grip on, or prop against your side when on your arm. If it was really light then you want to be able to wedge it in the crook of your arm so you don't feel like you're going to drop it. I'll probably be out of luck again when these things arrive since they'll be built smaller for the majority.
A note about where your data and computing power "lives"... given that these things use wireless broadband, I think we'll probably see the beginnings of a system whereby you are always connected to "home" -- you have one large virtual filesystem and a distributed processor. Imagine doing a code compile on your tablet and Xcode automatically distributes the job to your desktop powerhouse. Obviously the tablet needs enough to get by when isolated from the network, but the normal modus operandi would be connected.
So, if you've read this far before leaping ahead and replying impulsively to my list... clearly this device is currently impossible for anybody (especially Apple) to build and actually make money selling. The technology isn't available to build it at any price, and that means if all the pieces suddenly came available tommorrow, the price would be astronomical.
The more I read about this tablet thing, the more I realize that it's a much safer proposition for Microsoft to keep flirting with the idea than Apple, since Microsoft doesn't make the hardware anyway ... they can just keep adding features for tablet computing into their OS, spend a bit on marketing, and see if it gets any traction ... if not, no biggie, they know it's just a matter of time anyway, and considering the size of their empire, it doesn't cost them too much to test probe it every now and then. After all, it's the hardware designer/manufacturers and OEM's that are taking most of the risk ... not much skin off Microsoft's sizeable teeth.
But Apple, well that's another story, they'd have to come up with a killer design, do oodles of R&D ... it's just a huge bandwidth hog for the Apple machinery, that - if the only reason Uncle Bill is flirting with Tablet computing is to get Steve to blink ... and fail ... well, it might work if Steve takes the bait.
I agree with programmer, Apple should continue to add whatever tablet features that are fairly easy to integrate with OSX as they can - so that - when tablet PC's make sense, they'll be ready ...but Apple shouldn't even think about releasing a tablet until it's crystal clear that all the ducks are in a row as Programmer lists above ... or if one of Microsofts test probes finally hits a vein.
Since people are saying that keyboard input is much much faster than pen input, I feel compelled to say that that's utterly wrong, and misses the point besides.
It's true that for entering text, keyboards are significantly faster. But not everyone spends all their time entering large amounts of text. For anything else, including editing that text, drawing, and navigating, pens are more efficient, and more ergonomic besides, and the performance hit in text entry is no big deal for most emails, forum posts, blog entries, etc. Writers and poets who are sensitive to the change in language (and even thought) that comes from typing rather than writing will appreciate the option as well. If you need a keyboard or keypad, that's what Bluetooth is for.
The basic problems are: Getting an interface and applications that are capable of harnessing the expressive power of pen input (this includes accurate HWR), and; building something that can be used like a tablet (light, sturdy, etc.) at an attractive price. Neither of these is at all simple, although I have to agree that if anyone on the market can do it, it's Apple.
Students need to write rather than type in order to actually incorporate information. And they need to be able draw diagrams and annotate them within in an open area of page.
One can only type very quickly if there is little to no processing of the content of the text. Students are not taking dictation when they take class notes.
There is no reason why a useful tablet using os X can't be made. The price point is another question.
Inkwell is already a part of of os X. It works well on the desktop with graphics pads and the Wacom Cintique graphics monitor with pressure sensitve pens. Its based on the Newton's handwriting recognition software.
The Newton interface is actually very good. We still use our Newtons as do many others (see the current discuusions in the archives at http://www.newtontalk.net).
It has such good handwriting recognition that it can still read both my left handed cursive and my husband's right handed rapid printing without any change of settings.
I personally would love to own a tablet. Yet it is important to recognize why tablets will never be the norm.
Tablets allow a person to view data with one hand and enter data with two hands. No work surface or other peripherals are needed especially when a finger works as a stylus for many (but not all) tasks. However, this is also a tablet's downfall. Both hands are typically needed for interaction. While seated, at least one hand is still occupied in order to keep the device in an ergonomic position. Laptops, can be set on a work surface or the user's lap. Using the laptop for intermittent tasks is convenient because the screen comes with a built-in stand. The input device can be pecked at without actually picking up the device. While this can be done with tablets, the tablet form becomes a hindrance rather than a benefit.
Where the laptop falls short is for manual laborers with mobile, repetitive tasks that involve sparse data access and entry. Warehouses are a perfect example of where the tablet form is optimal. For most business and casual uses, tablets are non-optimal. Thus, for consumers they are a secondary device to a desktop or laptop in the sense that tablets get used less often. Supplementary devices, which are occasionally optimal but typically inferior, must be inexpensive in order to be commercially viable.
Simply put, the first successful tablet will be, above all, cheap.
</manifesto>
[EDIT: in hindsight, my remarks apply more to pdas/tablets rather than a pure tablet (aka big pda). I'm still yet to be convinced that large pen based devices are optimal for any common task.]
Tablets allow a person to view data with one hand and enter data with two hands. No work surface or other peripherals are needed especially when a finger works as a stylus for many (but not all) tasks. However, this is also a tablet's downfall. Both hands are typically needed for interaction. While seated, at least one hand is still occupied in order to keep the device in an ergonomic position. Laptops, can be set on a work surface or the user's lap. Using the laptop for intermittent tasks is convenient because the screen comes with a built-in stand. The input device can be pecked at without actually picking up the device. While this can be done with tablets, the tablet form becomes a hindrance rather than a benefit.
This is exactly why I said above that it must be light, durable, and "droppable". If you need to free both hands you must be able to either release it onto its cord to dang from your belt, or drop it on the table (without it making a large crash) without worrying about damage. This implies some cushioning, no doubt.
When you are emoting you aren't writing, when you are writing you are not emoting. You do need to rapidly switch back and forth. And of course if you are conversing then you use the tablet's audio/video capture capabilities (combined with speech recognition for automatic dictation).
But then you would probably have to use the active pen approach as opposed to the passive surface approach. That is, the pointer would move as the pen passes near the surface, but a "click" is only registered upon contact. Consider the difficulty with the dock set to hide.
I think you can assume dock hiding is disabled on the tablet, or that there's a dedicated virtual button to pop it up. There's never a pointer on the screen without stylus contact; so anything rollover-based would break, but is that such a big deal? (Drag-rollover, like grabbing a file and digging through spring-loaded folders, would work.) Most rollover effects are more about informing the user what's available for clicking than about providing actual functionality.
I'd also expect virtual buttons for the 3 Exposé functions, brightness/volume, and a few other things. There'd be a virtual keyboard available, and I could see having virtual scrollpads on either side of the screen that always scrolled the active window, so you're not required to go for the scrollbar every time.
Quote:
The newton really was ahead of it's time with gesture controls (scribble to erase, draw a line for new page).
And Apple could certainly produce an application or three just for the pen user, with this kind of gesture-centrism in mind. And a few developers might make more. But otherwise Apple would really only need to encourage developers to adopt some level of gesture recognition in their software. Certain functions (cut, copy, paste, new, close) would be global to the OS, and there would be guidelines for adding other gestures. Some apps would never be good for use on the tablet; others would be ideal, even better than when used on the desktop.
This isn't all that different than the current laptop/desktop dichotomy, where certain apps really require the horsepower of a big machine, while others (browsers, perhaps) take on new life when cut away from the power tether.
In short, I think OS X is not as far away as you think from bringing together the best of both worlds.
An 8 x 11 screen is BIGGER than the current 12.1" Powerbook. Take it down to 6.75 x 9 and you still end up with an 11.25" diagonal screen. If you support millions of colors at 1024-by-768-pixel resolution, I believe you'll have a size that people can happilly live with. In part this is because a tablet is held much closer than a desktop or notebook.
I think we're talking about two different products here. One is the full-featured TabletMac, which is bascially a nomal laptop (with touch-screen), just folded differently. I don't think this is what Cringley means. For one thing, TabletPCs tanked. For another, with 802.11 there's no need for a fancy new wireless connectivity protocol.
The second product is the wirelessly-tethered monitor. No CPU, no RAM, no drives, no nothing - except an LCD screen, an antenna, and the chips needed to bridge the two. It's completely dependent on its "server" - its mothership computer - for everything. The wireless link substitutes for a monitor cable, and you can control the GUI with a stylus. The advantages are essentially the same as for any laptop or TabletPC - use your computer anywhere (as long as you're in range of the mothership). But it's cheap - you could probably build this functionality into an iMac for nominal cost. It wouldn't have to be a standalone product, thought I suppose it could be sold as one as well, for use with, say, G5 motherships. It would probably cost just a little more than your average touchscreen LCD - not too much, in comparison to laptops/TabletPCs/PocketPCs.
This would be a very cool device, and one that people would easily get used to and incorporate into their lives. Surf in bed or on the couch. Show your vacation pictures to the in-laws in the sitting room. Read PDFs in front of the fireplace. Bring recipes into the kitchen. It just makes life simpler, but most importantly, doesn't cost much/any extra. You can do all this with a laptop, but then you have to actually buy a laptop, with the extra cost and fewer features that entails - and carry the whole thing around with you. Granted, you can't carry this thing to Starbucks, but if that's the kind of mobility you need, you *will* actually buy a laptop.
All in all, I've thought for several years that this could be a killer device. It's just been waiting for the right bandwidth.
i got this from macrumours as you might have guessed but here again i think this guy is on to something.
think "home on the ipod".
i honestly think the "year of the portable" is just beginning.
and judging from the rumours ive been rereading i think apple intended to release another "portable" device this year but did not for reasons i dont know.
... The second product is the wirelessly-tethered monitor. No CPU, no RAM, no drives, no nothing - except an LCD screen, an antenna, and the chips needed to bridge the two. It's completely dependent on its "server" - its mothership computer - for everything. The wireless link substitutes for a monitor cable, and you can control the GUI with a stylus. The advantages are essentially the same as for any laptop or TabletPC - use your computer anywhere (as long as you're in range of the mothership). But it's cheap - you could probably build this functionality into an iMac for nominal cost. It wouldn't have to be a standalone product, thought I suppose it could be sold as one as well, for use with, say, G5 motherships. It would probably cost just a little more than your average touchscreen LCD - not too much, in comparison to laptops/TabletPCs/PocketPCs....
If you could have multiple users loged into the OS at the same time, one for each "Tablet" and one for the "Mothership" and your system were powerfull enough to service all of these "Clients" and the price were cheep enough, then this might be a winner. I dont think that the current crop of G4 iMacs is powerfull enough for this, due to the multiple users you would probably want at least dual processors. Also, where would the video be handled? If on the "Mothership" then is it all routed through the same video card? If not, is there enough bandwidth to send QE and Open GL calls each of these "Tablets" without perceptable lag? This could be a good idea, and I could see myself buying at least one the next time I upgrade my Mac, but I have reservations about the practicality of this. It is basically a "Virtual" thin client, and thin clients are not the norm in home or buisness use as far as I know.
Seems like the idea of an Apple Tablet has been *bumped* around again these few days before MacWorld. I'm still holding out that it's a possibility, even though there are many naysayers here.
Seems like the idea of an Apple Tablet has been *bumped* around again these few days before MacWorld. I'm still holding out that it's a possibility, even though there are many naysayers here.
Not this year. This will be the Year of the Anti-Tablet (the year where every other goddamned thing (including a Six Foot Tall Cubical Rectangle, a Complete Sphere, a iBeam, an iChopper (ala 'American Chopper') and even an Apple iMicroWave) will come out of Apple.
No.... No Tablet will show. This is the foundation to how I plan remain Tablet Clean and Sober for 2004.
However, the Tablet design team, currently residing in their own Wing at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will finally be allowed to receive snail mail. That is the only improvement that I foresee on the Tablet Front in 2004.
Yours sincerely and without the slightest shred of evidence,
Can care less if Apple comes out with a tablet or not, just recently purchased my second tablet from NEC replacing my Acer C100. Love Tablet PC's absolutely love them. I even don't mind that it has Windows XP, runs my three cores perfectly, Mindjet for Tablet PC, Office 2003 and Dreamweaver Suite MX 2004. If you guys really want a Tablet don't knock the PC version from your list, they do a pretty good job. Especially the ones with the Centrino processor, runs circles around the Powerbook in terms of battery life. Which by the way has gotten to be a joke, 5 hours my ass, more like 2.
Comments
More or less agree except for the size issue and the port issue. The size concern could be dealt with with a family of devices. USB or Firewire port is not a big deal as even the tinyest digital cameras have one or the other.
But when it coems down to it I don't think the technology is there yet for Apple to consider such a device. The rather lackluster acceptance of the palm devices pretty much point out the technology limitations. The current handhelds simply cost to much for what you get, their performance is marginal to say the least and they are just to thick.
Thanks
dave
Originally posted by Programmer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>..snipped
All just my opinion, of course.
I personally think the a successful tablet would be used similar to a pda most of the time, therefore a smaller screen is needed. When I go to meetings at work I rarely ever grab the 8.5" x 11" paper tablet, but the smaller one (5" x 7"). This is easier to carry and write on if I have to support it in my hands while standing instead of on a table, yet is still large enough to take notes without flipping the page too many times. This size advantage would be even more evident when you no longer have to actually flip the page while taking notes. I do concede that a tablet with a slightly larger screen, say 6" x 9" diagonal), might be even better for a larger number of people and make it easier to do tasks such as Web browsing where you might have more than one window open at a time. For a reference to page sizes that are tried and true a paper back book measures around 4.25" x 7" and a hard-bound book just over 6 x 9. Most text books are printed at 8.25" or 8.5" x 10.875". These are tried and true sizes that have been successfully marketed for longer than there has been a computer on or near a desktop. I think that 8.5 x 11 is the largest that you would want to make a tablet, and the optimal size is probably 6" x 9" and between .5" and 1" thick.
The above measures will limit what you can put in it, so the rest of the specs would be a balance of power to make a usable system. I would imagine that at minimum you would want some flavor of the 805.11 wireless networking, USB, and Bluetooth, a Hard Drive of 20-40 GB. The obvious absense of optical media is neccessary for space, and would require some way of "booting" the system over wireless or USB to load in a system from a host or external hard drive. FireWire would be nice but you might be running out of room, and USB has better support for devices like printers and card readers. Now, how much room is left in that case for the rest of the system and batteries? Is there anything else that needs to be left off or added? How much memory can you put in there (this would determine alot about the type of software that you could run, from the OS to the Apps).
I think that with the above limitations to the hardware you would want to have a "specialized" OS for this system, at least with components sizes that are currently available. That dosn't mean that you have to reinvent the wheel when doing it. How much of OS X is devoted to support for devices or features that most people dont have installed, at least on any one system? Take out all the video support except for the one system that the tablet actually uses and minimize all other device support unless it is specifically installed. Remove the "excess" overhead of the Aqua interface, and design a new one that is better suited to a streamlined interface. Get the Unix system down to a minimum, there is no need for Apache and I'm sure there is more that could be removed from it to minimize the footprint of the OS both in physical Ram as well as Hard Drive space needed for the system.
I believe that most people would still maintain all or most of their data on a main PC either at home or work. I also think that a lot of the programs that would be run are better off as clients, or maybe a better description would be children, of that main system that the data is synched to when you return home or to the office. Data bases might "carry" a portable version of the DB for access while not on the "parent" network, which would carry with it some, but not all of the data. Other programs, such as word processors, would be full fledged programs with "gestures" added in to replace quick keys to access features. Again, I dont think you need a whole new program for either of these, but rather a second that is most of the full program with some streamlining and interface tweeks to take advantage of the tablets streangths and limitations.
As for the size of the device, I guess it depends on your physical size. I'm a big guy -- I can't use the tiny little digital cameras or cel phones that seem so popular these days, and a 5x7 device wouldn't be comfortable for me to hold. 8x11 is big enough to be able to get a decent grip on, or prop against your side when on your arm. If it was really light then you want to be able to wedge it in the crook of your arm so you don't feel like you're going to drop it. I'll probably be out of luck again when these things arrive since they'll be built smaller for the majority.
A note about where your data and computing power "lives"... given that these things use wireless broadband, I think we'll probably see the beginnings of a system whereby you are always connected to "home" -- you have one large virtual filesystem and a distributed processor. Imagine doing a code compile on your tablet and Xcode automatically distributes the job to your desktop powerhouse. Obviously the tablet needs enough to get by when isolated from the network, but the normal modus operandi would be connected.
Originally posted by Programmer
So, if you've read this far before leaping ahead and replying impulsively to my list... clearly this device is currently impossible for anybody (especially Apple) to build and actually make money selling. The technology isn't available to build it at any price, and that means if all the pieces suddenly came available tommorrow, the price would be astronomical.
The more I read about this tablet thing, the more I realize that it's a much safer proposition for Microsoft to keep flirting with the idea than Apple, since Microsoft doesn't make the hardware anyway ... they can just keep adding features for tablet computing into their OS, spend a bit on marketing, and see if it gets any traction ... if not, no biggie, they know it's just a matter of time anyway, and considering the size of their empire, it doesn't cost them too much to test probe it every now and then. After all, it's the hardware designer/manufacturers and OEM's that are taking most of the risk ... not much skin off Microsoft's sizeable teeth.
But Apple, well that's another story, they'd have to come up with a killer design, do oodles of R&D ... it's just a huge bandwidth hog for the Apple machinery, that - if the only reason Uncle Bill is flirting with Tablet computing is to get Steve to blink ... and fail ... well, it might work if Steve takes the bait.
I agree with programmer, Apple should continue to add whatever tablet features that are fairly easy to integrate with OSX as they can - so that - when tablet PC's make sense, they'll be ready ...but Apple shouldn't even think about releasing a tablet until it's crystal clear that all the ducks are in a row as Programmer lists above ... or if one of Microsofts test probes finally hits a vein.
One or the other
Originally posted by Amorph
Since people are saying that keyboard input is much much faster than pen input, I feel compelled to say that that's utterly wrong, and misses the point besides.
It's true that for entering text, keyboards are significantly faster. But not everyone spends all their time entering large amounts of text. For anything else, including editing that text, drawing, and navigating, pens are more efficient, and more ergonomic besides, and the performance hit in text entry is no big deal for most emails, forum posts, blog entries, etc. Writers and poets who are sensitive to the change in language (and even thought) that comes from typing rather than writing will appreciate the option as well. If you need a keyboard or keypad, that's what Bluetooth is for.
The basic problems are: Getting an interface and applications that are capable of harnessing the expressive power of pen input (this includes accurate HWR), and; building something that can be used like a tablet (light, sturdy, etc.) at an attractive price. Neither of these is at all simple, although I have to agree that if anyone on the market can do it, it's Apple.
Students need to write rather than type in order to actually incorporate information. And they need to be able draw diagrams and annotate them within in an open area of page.
One can only type very quickly if there is little to no processing of the content of the text. Students are not taking dictation when they take class notes.
There is no reason why a useful tablet using os X can't be made. The price point is another question.
Inkwell is already a part of of os X. It works well on the desktop with graphics pads and the Wacom Cintique graphics monitor with pressure sensitve pens. Its based on the Newton's handwriting recognition software.
The Newton interface is actually very good. We still use our Newtons as do many others (see the current discuusions in the archives at http://www.newtontalk.net).
It has such good handwriting recognition that it can still read both my left handed cursive and my husband's right handed rapid printing without any change of settings.
I personally would love to own a tablet. Yet it is important to recognize why tablets will never be the norm.
Tablets allow a person to view data with one hand and enter data with two hands. No work surface or other peripherals are needed especially when a finger works as a stylus for many (but not all) tasks. However, this is also a tablet's downfall. Both hands are typically needed for interaction. While seated, at least one hand is still occupied in order to keep the device in an ergonomic position. Laptops, can be set on a work surface or the user's lap. Using the laptop for intermittent tasks is convenient because the screen comes with a built-in stand. The input device can be pecked at without actually picking up the device. While this can be done with tablets, the tablet form becomes a hindrance rather than a benefit.
Where the laptop falls short is for manual laborers with mobile, repetitive tasks that involve sparse data access and entry. Warehouses are a perfect example of where the tablet form is optimal. For most business and casual uses, tablets are non-optimal. Thus, for consumers they are a secondary device to a desktop or laptop in the sense that tablets get used less often. Supplementary devices, which are occasionally optimal but typically inferior, must be inexpensive in order to be commercially viable.
Simply put, the first successful tablet will be, above all, cheap.
</manifesto>
[EDIT: in hindsight, my remarks apply more to pdas/tablets rather than a pure tablet (aka big pda). I'm still yet to be convinced that large pen based devices are optimal for any common task.]
Originally posted by dfiler
Tablets allow a person to view data with one hand and enter data with two hands. No work surface or other peripherals are needed especially when a finger works as a stylus for many (but not all) tasks. However, this is also a tablet's downfall. Both hands are typically needed for interaction. While seated, at least one hand is still occupied in order to keep the device in an ergonomic position. Laptops, can be set on a work surface or the user's lap. Using the laptop for intermittent tasks is convenient because the screen comes with a built-in stand. The input device can be pecked at without actually picking up the device. While this can be done with tablets, the tablet form becomes a hindrance rather than a benefit.
This is exactly why I said above that it must be light, durable, and "droppable". If you need to free both hands you must be able to either release it onto its cord to dang from your belt, or drop it on the table (without it making a large crash) without worrying about damage. This implies some cushioning, no doubt.
When you are emoting you aren't writing, when you are writing you are not emoting. You do need to rapidly switch back and forth. And of course if you are conversing then you use the tablet's audio/video capture capabilities (combined with speech recognition for automatic dictation).
Originally posted by joshink
Has anyone thought of a design concept? This is just an idea.
What would the stylus look like? How would it be stored?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
But then you would probably have to use the active pen approach as opposed to the passive surface approach. That is, the pointer would move as the pen passes near the surface, but a "click" is only registered upon contact. Consider the difficulty with the dock set to hide.
I think you can assume dock hiding is disabled on the tablet, or that there's a dedicated virtual button to pop it up. There's never a pointer on the screen without stylus contact; so anything rollover-based would break, but is that such a big deal? (Drag-rollover, like grabbing a file and digging through spring-loaded folders, would work.) Most rollover effects are more about informing the user what's available for clicking than about providing actual functionality.
I'd also expect virtual buttons for the 3 Exposé functions, brightness/volume, and a few other things. There'd be a virtual keyboard available, and I could see having virtual scrollpads on either side of the screen that always scrolled the active window, so you're not required to go for the scrollbar every time.
The newton really was ahead of it's time with gesture controls (scribble to erase, draw a line for new page).
And Apple could certainly produce an application or three just for the pen user, with this kind of gesture-centrism in mind. And a few developers might make more. But otherwise Apple would really only need to encourage developers to adopt some level of gesture recognition in their software. Certain functions (cut, copy, paste, new, close) would be global to the OS, and there would be guidelines for adding other gestures. Some apps would never be good for use on the tablet; others would be ideal, even better than when used on the desktop.
This isn't all that different than the current laptop/desktop dichotomy, where certain apps really require the horsepower of a big machine, while others (browsers, perhaps) take on new life when cut away from the power tether.
In short, I think OS X is not as far away as you think from bringing together the best of both worlds.
Originally posted by joshink
Has anyone thought of a design concept? This is just an idea.
this looks reasonable to me.
i dont see apple making a tablet computer,im sorry,it makes NO sense!
something smaller would be a LOT better,say....something like the iwalk!
i know im gonna hear it but thats the feeling i get.
they need something thats a handheld or a LITTLE bigger,NOT a full sized tablet.
besides i think we are asking all the wrong questions.
it should not be about FORM but about FUNCTION.
what does this new device do that cant be done on the powerbook or ibook?
that should be the question.
anyone with an answer?
Hmmm...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I really like the tablet design above...der-rool...
this little blurb from macrumours was dismissed by me but now im beginning to reconsider.
if what this says is true that means apple will be about to stream VIDEO wirelessly at higher bit-rates than what is available now.
this could be interesting.
this could be.......
macrumors newbie
Registered: Nov 2003
Location:
I think we're talking about two different products here. One is the full-featured TabletMac, which is bascially a nomal laptop (with touch-screen), just folded differently. I don't think this is what Cringley means. For one thing, TabletPCs tanked. For another, with 802.11 there's no need for a fancy new wireless connectivity protocol.
The second product is the wirelessly-tethered monitor. No CPU, no RAM, no drives, no nothing - except an LCD screen, an antenna, and the chips needed to bridge the two. It's completely dependent on its "server" - its mothership computer - for everything. The wireless link substitutes for a monitor cable, and you can control the GUI with a stylus. The advantages are essentially the same as for any laptop or TabletPC - use your computer anywhere (as long as you're in range of the mothership). But it's cheap - you could probably build this functionality into an iMac for nominal cost. It wouldn't have to be a standalone product, thought I suppose it could be sold as one as well, for use with, say, G5 motherships. It would probably cost just a little more than your average touchscreen LCD - not too much, in comparison to laptops/TabletPCs/PocketPCs.
This would be a very cool device, and one that people would easily get used to and incorporate into their lives. Surf in bed or on the couch. Show your vacation pictures to the in-laws in the sitting room. Read PDFs in front of the fireplace. Bring recipes into the kitchen. It just makes life simpler, but most importantly, doesn't cost much/any extra. You can do all this with a laptop, but then you have to actually buy a laptop, with the extra cost and fewer features that entails - and carry the whole thing around with you. Granted, you can't carry this thing to Starbucks, but if that's the kind of mobility you need, you *will* actually buy a laptop.
All in all, I've thought for several years that this could be a killer device. It's just been waiting for the right bandwidth.
i got this from macrumours as you might have guessed but here again i think this guy is on to something.
think "home on the ipod".
i honestly think the "year of the portable" is just beginning.
and judging from the rumours ive been rereading i think apple intended to release another "portable" device this year but did not for reasons i dont know.
something brilliant is coming from apple.
just you wait and see.
Originally posted by geekmeet
... The second product is the wirelessly-tethered monitor. No CPU, no RAM, no drives, no nothing - except an LCD screen, an antenna, and the chips needed to bridge the two. It's completely dependent on its "server" - its mothership computer - for everything. The wireless link substitutes for a monitor cable, and you can control the GUI with a stylus. The advantages are essentially the same as for any laptop or TabletPC - use your computer anywhere (as long as you're in range of the mothership). But it's cheap - you could probably build this functionality into an iMac for nominal cost. It wouldn't have to be a standalone product, thought I suppose it could be sold as one as well, for use with, say, G5 motherships. It would probably cost just a little more than your average touchscreen LCD - not too much, in comparison to laptops/TabletPCs/PocketPCs....
If you could have multiple users loged into the OS at the same time, one for each "Tablet" and one for the "Mothership" and your system were powerfull enough to service all of these "Clients" and the price were cheep enough, then this might be a winner. I dont think that the current crop of G4 iMacs is powerfull enough for this, due to the multiple users you would probably want at least dual processors. Also, where would the video be handled? If on the "Mothership" then is it all routed through the same video card? If not, is there enough bandwidth to send QE and Open GL calls each of these "Tablets" without perceptable lag? This could be a good idea, and I could see myself buying at least one the next time I upgrade my Mac, but I have reservations about the practicality of this. It is basically a "Virtual" thin client, and thin clients are not the norm in home or buisness use as far as I know.
Originally posted by geekmeet
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/...26154726.shtml
this little blurb from macrumours was dismissed by me but now im beginning to reconsider.
if what this says is true that means apple will be about to stream VIDEO wirelessly at higher bit-rates than what is available now.
this could be interesting.
this could be.......
'bout time for a Kormac visit, don't cha think.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Seems like the idea of an Apple Tablet has been *bumped* around again these few days before MacWorld. I'm still holding out that it's a possibility, even though there are many naysayers here.
Not this year. This will be the Year of the Anti-Tablet (the year where every other goddamned thing (including a Six Foot Tall Cubical Rectangle, a Complete Sphere, a iBeam, an iChopper (ala 'American Chopper') and even an Apple iMicroWave) will come out of Apple.
No.... No Tablet will show. This is the foundation to how I plan remain Tablet Clean and Sober for 2004.
However, the Tablet design team, currently residing in their own Wing at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will finally be allowed to receive snail mail. That is the only improvement that I foresee on the Tablet Front in 2004.
Yours sincerely and without the slightest shred of evidence,
Aries 1B