Larger iPod Touch In Apple's Future? 197
Ender_Stonebender writes "TechCrunch is reporting that three independent sources have mentioned to them a large form factor version of the iPod Touch, with either a 7- or 9-inch screen, to be released fall of 2009. The device is expected to have access to the iTunes App Store. Beyond that, everything about it appears to be pure speculation."
at first blush, no, but then... (Score:4, Insightful)
When I think about how Jobs operates, I think maybe yeah. Here's the reasoning:
Jobs hears people cry out for the 'xMac', and we get the Mac mini, way too small to be what people wanted (ridiculous expansion, so small in requires more expensive laptop-class components, etc.)
Jobs hears people cry out for the return of the 12-inch Macbook Pro form factor, and we get the MacBook Air, so slim and badly-realized that it lacks essential ports on the back (even though it's big enough to fit them).
Jobs hears people cry out for a netbook-class machine, and we get a MID.
So I'm thinkin' yeah, because it's exactly what people aren't asking for. That's my 2009 prediction! :)
As another poster said, this formfactor would be great to take up the iBook name. Either that or the return of the Newton. Well, the iNewton. Or i(of)Newt. Something along those lines, I'm sure.
Re:7 or 9 inch iPhones (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, personally, I'd be a bit surprised by Apple building a much larger device that takes iPhone apps, because introducing two completely different screen sizes to that niche would play aesthetic hell with existing apps and possibly result in an unpleasant bifurcation of that market. Apple, though, seems quite fond of the "all your apps are approved by us" concept, so I strongly doubt that anything smaller than one of their existing computers is not going to be getting open platform treatment.
I don't see it (Score:3, Insightful)
The tablet form factor never worked out well for the PC, and the rising netbook segment is more about cost than anything. Possibly some form of netbook that also offered a touch screen, that I could possibly see...
One stumbling block though is that even with access to the App Store, apps would have to be re-tooled to be able to take advantage of a larger screen.
Re:Apple is going to have a hell of a lot more (Score:3, Insightful)
I love Woz to death, but if Jobs gets hit by a bus and they install Woz as chairman/CEO, I will spend my sainted mother's last dime shorting AAPL.
Re:Apple is going to have a hell of a lot more (Score:4, Insightful)
Mmm, pixelly resolution goodness... (Score:4, Insightful)
"The difference now is the iTunes app store, which has thousands of games and other applications that are perfect for a touch screen device with an accelerometer."
No. The app has thousands of games and other applications that display 480x320 which looks great on a 3.5 inch screen.
At 163ppi, they look great.
Run those same resolutions on a screen with 2x (7 inch) or 2.5x (9 inch) resolution and you're looking at 60-80ppi of massively pixelated crap.
A 9 inch touchscreen with iPhone/iPod touch style OS-X and the same 163ppi resolution makes for a really interesting alternative to the netbook market. Stop hobbling the bluetooth so you can use their bluetooth keyboard when you want to type a lot and it's a fascinating package.
But the app store's catalog remains completely useless unless they come up with a way for resolution to upscale. Granted, I've not written anything for it, but I'm guessing most apps are written with a 480x320 assumption and no scaling, no multi-resolution icons, graphics, etc. bundled in to the downloads, etc. Apple would need to get the means for updating apps to support that out to developers way in advance of a larger Touch release if they wanted the app store to carry any value beyond to show off how bad apps could look... something that would harm the reputation of the device far more than help it.
Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Speculation is not news and should not be on /.. The are enough Apple-centered websites with discussions like this.
Why it'll be GREAT, new input technologies (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why it'll be really cool/great is because of the new input technologies which it'll have.
Remember, what makes Apple products unique are not their increasingly commodity hardware but the USER INTERFACE. I believe the user interface is THE major reason for the iPhone/iPod Touch's success (look at the Xmas sales figures). It is because of Apple's ability to take advantage of the touch screen and accelerometer. Not the hardware but things like the "pinch zoom" and "swipe" and landscape/portrait mode detection.
To really see how people have taken advantage of these features, play some of the many many games available for this PLATFORM.
Now Apple has (hopefully) the opportunity to take these ideas even further. A 7-9" iPod Touch would make a passable netbook; that is a decent device for doing most CASUAL computing tasks. (many complaints about the tiny "keyboard" on the iPhone would go away). Where it would excel in would be in the new applications (10,000+ strong in the AppStore, close to 500 MILLION downloads) that take REAL advantage of the new input technologies. A lot of these applications, particularly the creative ones (sound and paint programs for example) would benefit substantially from more screen real-estate. And think of the games!
So that could be Apple's answer to the netbooks. Using its (I know, I know) proprietary technologies it could bring these new technologies together in a way that is cohesive, fun and easy to use. That's the advantage of totally controlling the hardware and software. Unfortunately without this control, open source projects and (to a lesser extent) Microsoft have to aim at the lowest common denominator and can only copy what Apple pioneers.
Re:7 or 9 inch iPhones (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mmm, pixelly resolution goodness... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the app store's catalog remains completely useless unless they come up with a way for resolution to upscale. Granted, I've not written anything for it, but I'm guessing most apps are written with a 480x320 assumption and no scaling, no multi-resolution icons, graphics, etc. bundled in to the downloads, etc. Apple would need to get the means for updating apps to support that out to developers way in advance of a larger Touch release if they wanted the app store to carry any value beyond to show off how bad apps could look... something that would harm the reputation of the device far more than help it.
By default apps are laid out with buttons etc tied to one edge in interface builder and sometimes with flexible spaces in between, so interfaces would just expand. They'd probably need a bit of tweaking but not as much as you imply.
Games would be the main area which might have problems if they assume a certain screen width or need to upsize their textures. If they do this right and pre-announce then give developers a few months lead time, they could easily get most content from the app store working at a higher resolution.
Take the example of the google maps app - toolbars at top and bottom will just be wider, with bigger gaps between buttons. Perhaps they could move some stuff from that god-awful miscellany page accessed with the little page curl onto the main toolbar, but otherwise, it would function perfectly well, just drawing more map at a time. They're unlikely to have hardcoded in screen-sizes, because you can ask for the screen size, and often the view is given a rect to draw into, rather than specifically requesting a rect. Buttons on the auxiliary functions screen might be too wide, depending on how they have them set - probably not though.
Or take the mail app - the mail rows would just be a bit wider, probably the same height and just showing more in the screen. Toolbars and nabar will just expand and have more blank space.
That's with no extra work on the developers' part - these apps would work pretty well, with only a few minor tweaks required depending on how they're set up.
This isn't such a big issue if the transition is handled right.
Some have claimed resolution issues mean iPhoneOS and UIxxx won't be used for a tablet , and they'd have to use OS X and AppKit, but I think UIKit shows signs of being flexible enough to cope with many screen sizes - most of it could be used fine on a desktop OS and reads like a clean-up of the desktop APIs (it may be that later cocoa is relegated to a compatability layer, along with all those other APIs before it).
The really important feature for a tablet would be reading - reading websites, reading email, reading newspapers (though those are really a subset of websites nowadays), and reading books. I'd buy it just for that, but it worries me that Apple would try to be the single gatekeeper for data as Amazon have done with the Kindle.
If they keep to an iTunes music model of allowing users to copy their own books on there via iTunes, and tie in with someone like gutenberg for classics, they could have this sewn up in no time. But I'd rather they just opened it up and let developers copy data into their sandbox - then we won't be stuck with one app for a vital function (mail.app, I'm looking at you).
The big thing that the iPhone OS is missing at the moment is a way to get arbitrary user data onto the device for sandboxed apps - if they address that (and the bluetooth issue you mentioned), it'd be a great reading device, and perhaps even one for writing on.
Re:iBook (Score:3, Insightful)
even a 3.8" vga screen is already useful for reading ebooks. pdf sucks as ebook format, though.
Re:Why it'll be GREAT, new input technologies (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be implying that companies should change their UI frequently... Soo... I mean... MS Office 2007 is all I'm sayin'...
Seriously, when I went back to the Mac after 10 years off the platform last year, part of what I really appreciated was that so little of the UI had changed since System 8.5 that I just sat right back down, found the things that had changed since 10, and went to work. The fact that they get a great UI from the start and then leave it alone is one of the best things Apple has going for it.
One more example of what happens when you don't do that: MS designed the "blade" interface for the Xbox 360. It won design awards. It was quick, easy, and intuitive to use. Everything from the most basic to most advanced options were easy to find. I, for one, loved it, and I can't remember the last time I actually liked a MS product.
Then they updated it. Now I can't find anything and I have to shuffle through a seemingly endless pile of 3D frames, half of which seem to be ads, to use my machine. It's preposterous. You know what they should have done to improve the UI? Nothing. When you nailed it, you nailed it.
Newer is far from always better.
Re:at first blush, no, but then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Jobs hears people cry out for the 'xMac', and we get the Mac mini, way too small to be what people wanted (ridiculous expansion, so small in requires more expensive laptop-class components, etc.)
I rather like my mini, though. Sure, it has less oomph than a "full size" machine, but it's not too expensive, it has a small desk footprint, and it runs silent. I don't care about not being able to cram in 346 PCI cards, USB works for an increasing range of products nowadays.
Part of the charm of Apple is that they don't follow the market. The fact that every computer maker is making underpowered netbooks nowadays doesn't mean Apple will do the same, unless they can find a way to get it right. They're not gonna run off and build anything that some people are asking for, and why would they.
I'm with you on the 12" Macbook though, the Air is no replacement for that and it'd be great if they re-introduced a small laptop. Dunno if that's possible without severely underpowering the thing, though.
a living autopsy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hysterical and/or prone to using overly emotional turns of phrase much?
A "whipple" is best described as a major surgical intervention intended to reduce the risk of mortality from cancer, because unlike "living autopsy," it's at least a little bit accurate. An autopsy is a examination to determine cause of death or extent of disease - a living autopsy would be an exploratory surgery.
Re:at first blush, no, but then... (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't say I needed room for '346 PCI cards'. If it had been, say, twice the volume of the existing mini, it would've been large enough to use regular DIMMs instead of SO-DIMMs, and large enough to use a regular 3.5" HD instead of a laptop HD. Right there, they would've saved enough money to probably make it $100 cheaper.
True, even though my mini is a PPC one which takes "normal" DIMMs. I'd love a speedier grown-up harddisk though, and yes, they would've saved money.
Make it just a smidge longer, and you could've put in a discrete graphics card - maybe just a low-profile one, but certainly the option for something much more powerful than the one included in the chipset. Even with these size increases, it would still be waaaay smaller than a Mac Pro or iMac.
That's somewhat debatable -- the iMac isn't bigger than a mini with a 20" flatscreen. In fact, it's smaller. True for the Mac Pro, but that's a completely different class of machine altogether.
Plus it would've allowed them to sell more upgrades, etc, and more importantly, provided a machine that people have been wanting for _years_. What kind of business flat-out ignored what their user base wants? If they had a cheap upgradeable Mac, they could almost certainly grow their userbase substantially, and thus sell more stuff from the iTunes store, which seems to be their real business model.
And would the average tinkerer (the kind of guy that would want an expandable machine you just outlined) really be the iTunes-shopping crowd?
I think the most important thing for Apple is the Great User Experience(TM), and by offering a machine that can't be screwed up by some uneducated end user plugging in some cheap-ass hardware is NOT going to help that goal one bit. I'm going to guess that the majority of buyers falls firmly into the uneducated end user category, so this "Mac mini tower" that lots of geeks have been wishing for is not going to materialize anytime soon. Sad, but true.
Of course, there's always the OSx86 project for the DIY people, but apart from that the userbase that wants expansion isn't really substantial enough for Apple.
Will It Compete With TechCrunch's Own Tablet? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/ [techcrunch.com]
Yes, TechCrunch were making their own tablet. What happened to that, I wonder.
I love these sort of stories. Unsubstantiated rumours, speculation, hype and hope all mixed up into a story that is only a shade more believable than your average fairy tale.
The success of pundits with long-range Apple forecasts is not so much bad as utterly atrocious. I'll file this story in the "believe it only after it's announced by Apple" pile (aka garbage bin).
Re:7 or 9 inch iPhones (Score:3, Insightful)
http://9to5mac.com/iwork-going-cloud [9to5mac.com]
"We just got a truckload of Macworld information dumped on us from our best source. As we piece it together we'll trickle it out. The first big piece of information is that iWork is going into the Cloud. Not just storage, either. We are talking interface for Numbers, Pages and Keynote (which is going to see some interesting new templates and transition additions). Yes, the iWork applications are now going to be Web Applications."