mendax.org » computers http://mendax.org WyldKard's mental brouhaha. est. 1996 Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:02:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 The iPad is the volkscomputer. http://mendax.org/2010/02/24/the-ipad-is-the-volkscomputer/ http://mendax.org/2010/02/24/the-ipad-is-the-volkscomputer/#comments Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:00:13 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1950

We love this quote by Ed Finkler, which we spied over at Daring Fireball:

When folks need an elevator, we should give them an elevator, not an airplane. We’ve been giving them airplanes for 30 years, and then laughing at them for being too stupid to fly them right.

Finkler pretty much identifies what’s so great about the iPad. Not necessarily for power users, but for the non-computer nerds out there (i.e. 99% of the populace). An interesting thing we noticed is that most people (Apple fans and otherwise) weren’t particularly enthralled by the iPad when it was officially announced last month, but many have warmed to the idea since, despite the fact that Apple hasn’t revealed anything further on the device.

The iPad is already being called a “task-oriented” device, rather than what most computers are today: complex, prone to user-induced slow-down, and a great method to run multiple tasks at once. The benefit to this latter factor, however, remains questionable, and it’s certainly not a stipulation that 99% of the population needs.

The “old way” of thinking, insofar as computer development goes, is to build upon what’s already been done. Look at Microsoft: how many iterations of DOS were there before Windows, and how long did it take before Windows 95 stood on its own with DOS as a secondary consideration? And even though a windowing system made more sense to the average computer user, it wasn’t necessarily less complicated, because the underlying system was still exposed to a degree. Even OS X, which we consider the most usable desktop OS for the non-nerd isn’t entirely sensible out-of-box. For instance, we haven’t met a new OS X user yet who understands without our mention that closing a window in OS X doesn’t close the program. It’s not just as case of “Fuck, multitasking is hard,” nor one of simply staying attuned to visual indicators on the dock that a given applications, even sans windows, is still resident in memory. It’s an issue of multitasking (that is, at the user level) being mostly unnecessary in the first place. So why burden the user with cleaning up finite memory space, when all they want to do is write a letter while listening to some music in the background?

Why’d consoles become the gaming platform of choice when PC gaming offered better gaming opportunities well before, say, first person shooters (FPS) ever grabbed the public’s attention? How many now-legendary FPS traveled through gamers’ hard drives before Goldeneye became a flashing success on the Nintendo 64? PC gaming didn’t catch on because it was difficult, not in the gameplay sense, but in the setup sense. Under DOS, it wasn’t just a matter of installing a game, it was a matter of wrangling enough free memory to play it. For those of who who can’t remember tweaking the shit out of config.sys and autoexec.bat, you have no idea what lengths gamers will go through just to play the awesomest title ever. Messing with those two files became an art, one that’s now lost to time.

The point is, when it comes to consoles, you pop a disc or cartridge into the console, and can start gaming only moments later. When it comes to mundane computer tasks like laying out some pictures to send as a homemade Christmas card, users shouldn’t have to jump through a half-dozen screens just to install a new program after coming home from the computer store. Nor should they have to worry that once they’re done, they’ve left something running that will slow their computer to a crawl days later, because it ends up being one of ten things they didn’t realize stayed running in the background.

The iPad is simple. All apps come from one place, and that place doesn’t require any physical travel. There’s no messing with a file system hierarchy, and when you leave a program, it’s closed down or simply doesn’t affect other tasks in the background. It’s not only simple, but straightforward.

A machine for everyone.

We’ve said before that the iPad should serve most computer users admirably, without the need for another computer. Truth is, it’s not just grandma and grandpa who could benefit from the iPad. If you think about it, most college students can do everything they need to with an iPad also. The only stipulation are those who study computers and need more oomph, like Computer Science majors who need a platform they can develop on. For everyone else, the only potential obstacle is specialized software, but with the power behind the A4, we’d argue that most specialized applications could probably be ported to the iPad without issue. How long before CAD programs, analytical software, etc makes it onto the AppStore? Sure, there will always be a small segment of the computer-using populace that will have to rely on an incredibly specific software package that the respective developer refuses to port, but with accessibility the AppStore offers, and the support Apple provides for an external iPad keyboard, the sky is ultimately the limit for most programs.

While some applications will still shine brighter if they can be run on systems with larger screen sizes, this too isn’t necessarily an issue: an A/V cable may provide video-out for just these types of applications. For everyone else, including those who currently rely on 13″ screens for daily work, the iPad is already capable of serving as a lightweight workhorse. And for those that do need more powerful machines, there’s always the local school lab, office computer, etc.

If the iPad proves itself successful (and we think it will), it’s only a matter of time before the iPhone/iPad platform is expanded to devices with larger screens. For all we know, the iPhone heralded the birth of a new computer interface altogether, and it may not be more than a couple years before Apple’s primary computer lineup looks more like the iPad, and less like a Macbook.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2010/02/24/the-ipad-is-the-volkscomputer/feed/ 0 iTablet AppStore has its downsides. http://mendax.org/2010/01/11/itablet-appstore-has-its-downsides/ http://mendax.org/2010/01/11/itablet-appstore-has-its-downsides/#comments Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:00:21 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1906

By now, the rumour-wagon has settled on the idea that Apple’s purported tablet device, to be unveiled on the 27th, will run a mobile version of OS X (possibly the same OS as iPhone 4.0). The logical follow-up is that this tablet will also acquire its applications from iTunes, just like the iPhone does with the existing AppStore. In fact, with resolution-independence for iPhone apps being recent among Apple’s advice to developers, it follows that iPhone apps will likely support Apple’s upcoming tablet as a host. In other words, we can likely expect the AppStore to serve up both iPhone and iTablet apps in the near future.

The logic behind distributing applications in this manner for the iTablet makes sense, particularly for Apple’s bottom line. Under regular OS X, Apple doesn’t get a 30% cut of every application sold, nor can Apple control what gets sold, and how these independent applications function. With iPhone apps, Apple effectively makes free money, with the only associated cost tied to a staff of horrible reviewers, who may as well be high-school interns. Why not capitalize on the AppStore’s success by pushing this model into a market for the “general computer user,” which the iTablet will no doubt target?

For many end users, this makes sense. The AppStore is a one-stop-shop for all one’s application needs. Grandma and Grandpa don’t need to make a trip to the local Apple Store (if there even is one) to get new software. Nor do they need to find obscure indy titles by following Apple-minded blogs, or trolling Google for searches like “image editing program for mac”. No, all they need to do is run the AppStore program on their newly-minted Apple device and start browsing titles.

For the rest of us, the power users, the AppStore has less merit. We generally know where to find the software we want, or at the very least, know how to find it. And we’ve all invested time and money into the third-party programs we know and love. And that’s why we’re a bit perturbed at rumours suggesting that the iTablet won’t be running on Intel, because we want the iTablet to replace our general computing computer, but under the traditional application distribution model, not the new one.

If the iTablet isn’t running on Intel, many of our old favorites just won’t work. Kiss goodbye programs like Crossover, for example, which are slowly becoming a staple for the aging gamer in us. Heck, forget about emulating Windows with Parallels or VMWare, unless you want to stick with a MacBook for basic portable computing needs. In general, forget about all the shareware, downloaded applications, widgets, and scripts we’ve been using on OS X over the years. The iTablet cares not for these investments, because the iTablet is here to clear the slate (pun intended).

Yes, the iTablet’s AppStore will be easier to manage than the current way of acquiring applications on OS X. We can delete applications without needing apps like AppZapper to make sure that no residual mess was left behind. But there are other problems, such as iTunes not backing up user data for deleted apps (only apps currently on an Apple device), and the matter of redundancy. Do we need to replace all our OS X applications to acquire iTablet-specific applications now, assuming we’re really going to use the iTablet as our primary computing device? Will third-party developers be able to port their old OS X apps into the AppStore, and somehow give old license holders an easy way to transition customers over for free?

Maybe in the long term, it doesn’t matter. If the rumours are true, Apple is transitioning a good part of their audience (and potential audience) to a cleaner, simpler, computing experience, like ChromeOS and Litl. And they can do that without building an OS from scratch, because OS X even in its mobile form is still OS X, albeit with greater user and developer restrictions. Maybe when this platform has become more ubiquitous, no one will care that we dumped hundreds of dollars worth of software because of what the AppStore is effectively making a new platform. But in the meantime, in the transitional period that could last for at least a year, you know we’ll be bitching about not being able to run legacy OS X apps on our fancy new Apple devices.

Of course, with the AppStore’s quick growth-rate, assuming the iTablet is a success, and assuming the device will do things like support multi-tasking for downloaded apps, bluetooth keyboards, and other “must-have” features for daily mobile computer users, perhaps the AppStore’s benefits will outshine its flaws. Here’s hoping.

Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2010/01/11/itablet-appstore-has-its-downsides/feed/ 1 Enderle just wanted to write “JewJew.” http://mendax.org/2009/12/10/enderle-just-wanted-to-write-jewjew/ http://mendax.org/2009/12/10/enderle-just-wanted-to-write-jewjew/#comments Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:00:15 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1898

While we brought the Joo Joo up in passing, Rob Enderle proclaimed that the former CrunchPad could crush the market for tablet computing, thereby souring Apple’s entrance into the market altogether. The only problem with his assertion is that the Apple tablet isn’t the same beast as the Joo Joo, and to say that the latter will quell consumer desire for the iTablet is like saying that Motorola’s Razr savaged the Apple iPhone.

Enderle is really comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended); all of these non-Apple products are extremely limited: the Kindle is first and foremost an eBook reader, the Razr is just a cellphone, and the Joo Joo is a web-surfing tool. For those like Enderle who still don’t get it, the Joo Joo is a one-trick pony. It’s not a media monster running iTunes, it isn’t a keyboard-less computer with the capacity to run OS X applications, and it certainly doesn’t have the potential packing of the print industry to push forward with digital distribution of magazines and newspapers.

Most consumers probably haven’t even heard of the Joo Joo and its developer, Fusion Garage. The Joo Joo will cost $500, and for what’s probably just twice that, users will be able to own an Apple-polished product that does significantly more. So even if news of the Joo Joo does trickle down to the average computer user, we’re not so sure anyone’s going to care, especially once Apple announces their own tablet (which will be an actual computer and not just a web-browser).

But what can we expect from a tech analyst with such stunning gems as this:

[It] sounds way to close to JewJew with implications that could offend a wide variety of buyers…

You’re right, Enderle, that’s what’s going to make the Joo Joo fail.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/12/10/enderle-just-wanted-to-write-jewjew/feed/ 0 Will MacBook evolution lead to the iTablet? http://mendax.org/2009/12/09/will-macbook-evolution-lead-to-the-itablet/ http://mendax.org/2009/12/09/will-macbook-evolution-lead-to-the-itablet/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:00:36 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1876

We’ve ruminated at length about the rumoured Apple tablet computer, from the iPhone “dock” that is our Apple Annex, to the Macbook sibling that is our iTablet Excelsior. And with recent clues shoved down our digital throat across the blogosphere suggesting that an Apple tablet will indeed be announced sometime next year, we find ourselves once again justifying its impending existence.

The truth’s in the Air.

It began with the MacBook Air and may indeed end with it. Almost two years ago, we complained that the MacBook Air was overpriced for a poorly performing machine with so little to offer other than a reduced physical footprint. To be fair, that same complaint holds even truer today, with even the basic 13″ MacBook Pro beating the MacBook Air out on all specs to include price, with the Air merely coming in at 1.5 lbs lighter. How many real-world applications is that 1.5 lbs going to make a real difference for?

But the Air, as we stated back in January, 2008, is a great proof-of-concept. And that proof-of-concept has gotten slight buffs during its two generational updates. One could almost say that the Air is Apple’s notebook AppleTV, in the sense that it’s more of a hobby to set the future stage than to sell based purely on its present merits. That’s not to say that the Air isn’t decent; we’re even considering picking up a used Air if the price is right, just so we have a very portable, no-frills writing device that runs OS X (we’ve seen first-gen models go for what amounts to the price of a netbook hackintosh). But if money is indeed a consideration, the Air today is a poor purchase when the 13″ MacBook Pro offers so much more for less money.

Back to the Air as a proof-of-concept, the makings of an Apple tablet were all thrown in front of us in 2007. The iPhone had the touch technology, and the Air had an ultra-portable form factor. Apple explored SSD hard drives with the Air, and in a sense, teased the niche market for expensive-but-polished notebooks. The unibody design was touted as an end to user-replaceable batteries, offering solid battery life that trickled into the MacBook Pro lineup. And with all that, Apple proved that there was a market for the Air, and one that could likely grow with cheaper hardware costs.

So what’s left? Take the Air, throw away the keyboard, and tablet nirvana is just around the corner. While we wouldn’t expect Apple to revive the Newton or Air names for a future tablet, one has to admit that the latter name is catchy and far more apt for a tablet than for what the Air is today.

Apple Tablet as the new king of media.

Looking at iTunes LP and iTunes Extra content, we see a pretty exciting, open technology for developers to exploit. These technologies add even more reason to go all-digital, as consumers won’t have to feel like they’re missing out on bonus content if they don’t buy a CD with art and lyrics on the pull-out jewel case pamphlet, or the extra content on DVD menus. The best thing about iTunes Extra, though, is that it’s flexible enough to be used with other media, like print. That is to say, books, newspapers, and magazines, in digital format, could have a degree of interaction that typical e-publications don’t. Instead of simply reading a PDF or ePub document, consumers will be able to interact with their digital downloads in a way we expect one to interact with web sites, only in this case, an online connection would only be leveraged sporadically.

For example, newspapers could have polls. When a user submits their response to the poll, the information is transmitted the next time the Tablet has an internet connection. Thereafter, the newspaper poll will show results to date, without the user having to manually reload the poll data. Local weather information could be dynamically generated upon purchase, while old issues of the publication would have static records based on the actual weather histories. Users could enable/disable audible readings of articles, and magazines could include video clips of product reviews, better leverage advertising, and generally include more media that would otherwise have been cut in a print magazine because of limited space. And books could leverage interactive media in another way: imagine reading through Lord of the Rings, and having an easy-to-access map of Middle-earth, where the Fellowship’s location is marked, and corresponds to where you are in the book’s reading. With enough foresight, one could even cross-reference terms from Lord of the Rings to Tolkien’s other works, assuming they too were purchased. In other words, digital publications could link to one another in a sort of quasi-wiki method.

Ultimately, these are things that will add value to a digital download, thereby making them more attractive for consumers. Considering Apple’s success with music, and to a more limited degree television and film, it would not be surprising if Apple took on the e-publishing mission with a zest yet unseen by the eBook industry. And why shouldn’t Apple carve out this rather important niche, especially since it won’t be competing head-on with today’s eBooks: the type of interaction we’re talking about isn’t suitable for an e-ink display. Apple will want colour (lots of colour!), and the quick, reactive display that one would expect to see on the iPhone or, in this case, an Apple tablet. Sure, the battery life won’t be as good as an eBook reader, but the experience will be better.

There have already been plenty of rumours suggesting that Apple has met with print-industry big-wigs, and other rumours indicating that print-industry execs are meeting with one another to address their future digital distribution plans. (Supposedly, Apple has even offered a 30/70 split to publishing houses as financial incentive.) It should be obvious to anyone that standardizing this distribution, to a firm degree, will be beneficial to all companies involved. And with Apple leading the charge, would it really surprise anyone if iTunes was rebranded as something more like “iMedia?”

The Apple Tablet as a MacBook.

With the type of interactive content we’re talking about, Apple won’t release a dedicated device. Anyone with iTunes will be able to download the latest music, movies, and magazines, and be able to sync them across all their iTunes-capable devices. What better way to showcase the multimedia prowess of the music/movie/magazine conglomeration flipping through virtual pages of the latest New York Times bestseller with an actual flick of one’s finger, using similar gestures to control music and movie playback? The processing power we’re talking about, particularly for the multimedia elements, will be greater than what most eBook readers have today.

Apple is about totality of experience. That’s where the iPhone trumps every other smartphone on the market, and why Apple was able to beat out competitors in 2007 when the iPhone, to much initial criticism, was unleashed upon the masses. Apple’s only going to duplicate this effort with a tablet: a perfect machine to showcase its multimedia initiative, but still capable of tackling most average computing needs. So yes, the tablet will support a wireless keyboard/mouse, and run the regular version of OS X. Its specs will likely be similar to that of the MacBook, or maybe even the 13″ MacBook Pro. But the market for a tablet is clearly different than the market for these more traditional laptops, so it won’t cannibalize sales of other Apple products any more than the Mac Mini cannibalizes sales of the iMac. Users who need a traditional notebook experience for class or work will still get a MacBook: it’s the desktop baseline for getting work done with mobility in mind. But those who can spare not having a physical keyboard will love the tablet, because it offers extra mobility at the expense of easy desktop integration. Some tablet owners may cart around a wireless keyboard in their tote bags, but they will likely be the exception. Everyone else will treat their tablets like an eReader that can do so much more; the tablet will be the perfect, portable entertainment tool aimed at those who consume information rather than games. It won’t be a one-trick pony like the CrunchPad Joo Joo, because as Steve Jobs said, an Apple tablet will be expected to do more than simply serve as a web-reading tool for toilet-surfers.

The assumed $1,000 price-point seems entirely realistic at this point, especially when one realizes that the tablet will be little more than a MacBook Air whose keyboard was replaced with a capacitive touchscreen. That price doesn’t make us gawk at all. In fact, we’re ready to jump at a tablet purchase under these conditions, and we wouldn’t be surprised if the device is ready in time for CES 2010.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/12/09/will-macbook-evolution-lead-to-the-itablet/feed/ 0 iPhone as computer, revisited. http://mendax.org/2009/08/07/iphone-as-computer-revisited/ http://mendax.org/2009/08/07/iphone-as-computer-revisited/#comments Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:30:16 +0000 WyldKard http://wyldkard.com/?p=1805

When the iPhone came out, we were one of the few who didn’t parade around the idea that it was the cell-phone Messiah. Heck, the iPhone didn’t do much that our Danger Sidekick didn’t, though the user experience was admittedly cleaner. But with iPhone OS 2.0 and the realization of an open AppStore (with some issues, admittedly), the iPhone user experience is as varied as the thousands of applications available. That’s why we weren’t so much taken aback by Meg Hourihan’s comment about whether or not she would purchase an iPhone 3GS: upgrading the iPhone was akin to upgrading her computer. John Gruber was quick to confirm this idea:

A decade ago, my first PowerBook was a secondary machine to the desktop anchored at my desk. Now, my main machine is my MacBook Pro, but it feels a bit like an anchor now. My mobile secondary computer is my iPhone.

And now that we have an iPhone 3GS, we too acknowledge the shift in computing gadgetry: on the very day we activated our 3GS, our MacBook Pro’s screen refused to turn back on after we set the 3GS up, and rebooted after the most recent Safari 4 patch. It turns out that the logic board needed to be replaced, since there was a known issue with the NVidia graphics card in our 17″ version of the MacBook Pro. While the repairs were done at an Apple Store an hour away, it still took a couple days to get the computer back, and in that time, we relied almost entirely on the iPhone for our internet-related tasks after work. And we weren’t very disappointed with the experience. In fact, in many ways, reliance on the 3GS versus the MacBook Pro was a relief: the device was always on us or nearby.

Now we’re hardly saying that the 3GS is an appropriate stand-in for a full-fledged computer. We still maintain that the iPhone is a poor device for inputting of most meaningful text, which is why we use the iPhone as a reader more than we rely on it to respond to people outside Twitter and SMS. But for this former purpose, the 3GS shines, because it’s snappy in most every sense of the word, and the experience of using it on the road (via 3G) is pretty much the same as using it at home on wi-fi. And that consistency makes the iPhone shine. For many, with greater storage (to hold all one’s songs, movies, and photos) and a bluetooth keyboard, the iPhone could theoretically become a replacement for the average home computer user almost entirely.

So changed were we by our forced use of the 3GS for nearly a week, we decided to offer our fixed MacBook Pro on craigslist. Not to rid ourselves of the anchor for our home computer use, but because we now find the device to be overkill for what we need to get done at home, and we see little reason not to downgrade to a smaller anchor now. Indeed, Apple’s “low-end” lineup is now ever-more attractive to us, and for the limited computer needs we have at home, we can finally agree that a 17″ monitor isn’t much of a necessity now that we’re not tied to an online game that benefits from it. Thanks in great part to AppStore apps, and the rise of mobile web pages tailored to the iPhone’s display, there’s an easy case to be made for iPhone’s replacing netbooks and many common-use notebooks/desktops. Again, the only obvious items holding the iPhone back from becoming a true computer replacement is its poor input mechanic and limited storage space, but the former can easily be remedied with technology that Apple appears to have green-lighted with better Bluetooth gadget operability.

We’re still holding out for a mid-way solution between the iPhone and MacBook, and we’re hoping that the iTablet fits the bill. But in the meantime, we’re only seeing use of our 3GS go up, while our MacBook is getting lonelier by the day.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/08/07/iphone-as-computer-revisited/feed/ 0 Point of the iTablet? Try these variants. http://mendax.org/2009/08/03/point-of-the-itablet-try-these-variants/ http://mendax.org/2009/08/03/point-of-the-itablet-try-these-variants/#comments Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:30:18 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1813

All this talk about the iTablet, and we’re still confused as to what the ultimate point is. Not about the talk itself, but about the reasoning to release an iTablet in the first place, novelty factor aside. The iPhone Blog was keen on pointing out the OS possibilities for the rumoured iTablet, and that consideration will clearly define where the device fits into Apple’s lineup, and what kind of consumer it will target. We thought more on the subject of use, and came up with a couple iTablet versions worth discussing.

The Browser

Those in the “large iPod” camp are undoubtedly browsers. That is to say, they’re the exact market the iPod Touch and iPhone go after when Apple advertises mobile Safari and video iPod features. So why a new device? Because as good a mobile entertainment center it is, the Touch/iPhone isn’t ideal for sitting back on a couch and watching a movie. Granted, that’s what TVs are for, but the iTablet Browser will enable users to take their movies and television shows to places their TVs can’t go: camping, the hotel room, the back-yard, etc. In other words, the iTablet Browser is exactly what the iPod Touch is, albeit bigger, which means less eye strain, easier-to-navigate web pages, etc.

While a niche target for sure, the iTablet Browser could be the most basic of all netbook-like devices: targeting the most casual of casual computer users. In other words, this device would be for the many grandparents out there who only need to get online to check their e-mail to receive pictures of their grandkids, or to folks who do little more than surf the web. It’s the perfect dumb-terminal for people who don’t do enough traveling to justify the small screen real-estate of the iPod Touch, or don’t need a portable phone-computer like the iPhone. What’s more, with a screen able to run multiple iPhone apps, or even customized apps like a large Kindle application, the iTablet Browser could becomes a cross between the Kindle (albeit with no e-ink display), an iPod Touch, and an AppleTV. In other words, it would be the ultimate throw-in-your-briefcase computer.

The beauty of this device is in its low-hardware requirements. The iTablet Browser needn’t be much faster than the iPhone 3GS (though likely will be since its size will be larger), and there’s little need to enable the device to run more than one application at a time, much like with the iPod Touch. Thus, the OS would likely be the same (with minor modifications), and the overall price of the device wil be low.

The Secretary

Moving up a notch, the iTablet Secretary addresses one of our oldest complaints about the iPhone: the lack of a solid input mechanism. The iTablet has the additional real-estate we need to adequately review our textual input, but at its core, a bloated iPod Touch still doesn’t have a good way to type. So, the iTablet Secretary will have to either have a bluetooth keyboard, some sort of slideout keyboard, or fancy handwriting recognition ala the legendary Apple Newton. Plus, for bloggers, students, and other multi-taskers, there would need to be an ability to quickly switch between a note-taking application and a browsing screen (mobile Safari, an eBook application, etc.) This could be as simple as beefing up the iPhone Notes app and letting it run in the background just like the iPod app, but with this and handwriting recognition, we’d likely be looking at faster hardware. Plus, there’s the whole issue of a stylus, which we wouldn’t discount outright, but it’d still be a questionable move for Apple, since their reliance on new capacitative touchscreens left the stylus behind. Of course, the iTablet Secretary could work by just letting users write letters with their fingers, which seems like the most logical move at this point.

Obviously, the cost of the iTablet Secretary would be greater than the iTablet Browser, but it would have many more uses, and target many more consumers. The cost needn’t be much higher, however, since adequate handwriting recognition was done years ago in portable devices. In fact, one would have to wonder why Apple wouldn’t release the iTablet Secretary over the iTablet Browser given that its hardware requirements wouldn’t be vastly greater, what with software considerations being the primary difference. Indeed, a modified iPod Touch OS would work wonderfully here, too.

The Excelsior

The ideal ultra-casual, portable PC, is embodied in our idea of the iTablet Excelsior. In short, it’s a full-on Apple computer with the regular version of OS X. Like the MacBook Air, it would have an attachable SuperDrive as an accessory, and would work with bluetooth devices like keyboards and mice (in addition to maintaining handwriting recognition). It would have a USB port, and maybe even a video-out port. It wouldn’t be particularly powerful, with specs at or below the basic MacBook, but it would easily handle all the tasks the iTablet Secretary could handle. In short, it’s a MacBook Air, sans keyboard.

But why go this route? Some may argue against this because of possible cannibalzing of MacBook sales, but we could make the same argument for the iTablet Browser or iTablet Secretary cannibalizing iPod Touch sales. The reality is that in their current state, the iPod Touch and iPhone are mere extensions of the home PC. That is to say, one needs a PC or Mac to sync with, and one needs iTunes to similarly manage media. Without a home computer, the iPod Touch and iPhone are artificially limited. The iTablet Excelsior, however, could serve not only as the backbone for one’s existing iPod Touch and iPhone, but for those only wanting only one super-portable device for media browsing, the iTablet Excelsior is it.

In other words, for an all-in-one solution for the average student, the MacBook may be the way to go, and maybe the iTablet Excelsior, with all its options (superdrive, keyboard, mouse, external display) would dwarf the MacBook in price, but by itself, it could squeeze well below the 1k mark and still offer a great niche computing experience. In other words, it wouldn’t cannibalize MacBook sales (effectively being part of the lineup), and would serve as the Mac Mini of the notebook world; it would be extensible enough to still offer a great home-computing experience, while working great as an on-the-go computer for class, managing warehouse inventory, or just blogging from the local coffee shop.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, Apple will be targeting some sort of niche with the iTablet, but just which niche will it go for? Will the iTablet cut into would-be iPod Touch customers, or would-be MacBook customers? And can it carve a definitive place for itself in the market? The hype behind the device will no doubt steamroll it into the mindshare of computer users, but only its practicality will determine its success, and save it from the fate of Apple’s hobby venture, the AppleTV. We tend to think that the potential for a surefire hit is there, but even as gadget aficionados, we’d be hard-pressed to justify the purchase of anything less than the iTablet Excelsior, considering we already carry an iPhone and use a MacBook.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/08/03/point-of-the-itablet-try-these-variants/feed/ 1 Apple will sooner release a netbook than an iTablet. http://mendax.org/2009/03/21/apple-will-sooner-release-a-netbook-than-an-itablet/ http://mendax.org/2009/03/21/apple-will-sooner-release-a-netbook-than-an-itablet/#comments Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:00:10 +0000 WyldKard http://wyldkard.com/?p=1606

Why the Apple-faithful pray for an iTablet is anyone’s guess. Perhaps it’s their love for the long-dead Newton, or their strange fetish for a bigger iPhone. But that’s just it: the iPhone is already an iTablet, albeit with an OS X distribution with limitations imposed on it such that it doesn’t appear to be a small computer, but rather, a concise, embedded system.

The primary flaw of the iPhone today (and even after 3.0 is released unto the masses this summer) is the same as it’s always been: the iPhone is great for serving information up, but it’s a poor device for taking input in. We’re sorry, but tactile feedback is absolutely necessary if one is to type quickly and accurately without one’s eyes straying to the keyboard to ensure every last keystroke is accurate. The iPhone’s poor input mechanism is arguably fine for a mobile device that is not meant to replace typical computing functions, but rather, compliment them. The premise of an iTablet, or a netbook, however, relegates such a device to a position where it must replicate the core functionality of a typical computer. For purposes of daily usability, this means that an iTablet/netbook must not only be able to serve content on a larger screen than sported by the iPhone, but be able to receive more coherent input, either in the case of well-evolved handwriting recognition, or simply, via a keyboard.

And when it comes to handwriting recognition, an invariable fact remains: handwriting is inherently slower than typing. So for efficiency, the solution for a compact, on-the-go computer is not an iTablet, as similar devices are primarily novelty or niche devices (like the Modbook). This is especially true if input requires screen real-estate, which takes away from one’s experience that a, let’s say, 10-inch screen, would otherwise produce.

So we come back to the keyboard as a necessary input device. It’s the input device that people wish the iPhone could leverage, and why iPhone owners tend to be drawn back to their computers when at home instead of using their iPhone’s more. That doesn’t mean that Apple’s new device can’t have a screen made of multi-touch magic. Or that the core functionality fetishists want in an iTablet can’t also be there. Rather, we mean to say that an iTablet on its own, without a keyboard, makes for a poor device that would not appeal to the masses after an initial “oh wow” reaction; for practical reasons, would-be buyers will demand a keyboard interface, even if that calls for the secondary purchase of a compact, bluetooth keyboard. Otherwise, they could just buy an iPhone and squint.

So dismiss the idea of an iTablet designed to surf the web; Apple isn’t going to release a web-browser appliance if it enters the netbook market fray, but a netbook with all the makings of a portable writing station, completely integrated with flagship Apple products like iTunes and iPhoto. Maybe this means that Apple’s future netbook will borrow the iPhone’s intentionally-limited OS so that it doesn’t compete with Apple’s Macbooks. Maybe Apple will enable more functionality like better multitasking between applications. Certainly, Apple will leverage the AppStore, and propose that their netbook be tied to a full-fledged Apple computer for best operation. And it will even likely sport 3G integration for mobile web-browsing. But Apple won’t release a device that, for all intents and purposes, acts like a large-screen iPhone. If that’s what they wanted to do, they’d sooner figure out how to make the Annex a possibility.

No, if Apple releases a netbook, it will need to stand apart from the iPhone. It will be a perfect median device between the iPhone and the Macbook. It will be able to use the iPhone’s 3G connection via tethering, else use its own 3G subscription if the user doesn’t own an iPhone. It will sync up with a Mac desktop to swap media files, and maybe even sport iSight for wi-fi enabled video conferencing. It will have a keyboard for blogging that can probably be stashed away for simple web-browsing.

And everyone in the market for a netbook will want one, even if it’s slightly more expensive than the competition.
Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/03/21/apple-will-sooner-release-a-netbook-than-an-itablet/feed/ 0 mendax.mac v1.16. http://mendax.org/2009/02/08/mendaxmac-v116/ http://mendax.org/2009/02/08/mendaxmac-v116/#comments Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:17:23 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/2009/02/08/mendaxmac-v116/

We finally got around to updating our recommended list of OS X applications, bringing the virtual “distro” of mendax.mac to version 1.16. Changes include the removal of ClamXav in light of the fact that we rarely used it. That fact brings us to the second reason for ClamXav’s removal: anti-virus apps for OS X are pretty much pointless. (And, it doesn’t help that many users of ClamXav have experienced some major issues with the program.)

While Remote Buddy still has many uses, the main reason we adopted it was for controlling iTunes from our iPhone. The iPhone Remote application has made this redundant, however, so we’re sticking with the newer, simpler solution. In the meantime, Remote Buddy no longer makes the cut. Besides, lots of people gawked at the 19.99 € price tag.

Azureus treated us well for some time on both the Windows and OS X platforms, but Transmission for OS X is simply simpler, with may features still packed in for handling all one’s BitTorrent needs. So, out with Azureus, and in with Transmission.

Similar Posts:

  • mendax.mac v1.12. – After reading Maxator’s post about his go-to Mac applications, we decided to give ClamXav a spin. Co…

  • mendax.wow v2.23. – This minor change brings the removal of the Target Range addon, after we realized that a recent chan…

  • Azureus requires restarts, and that’s annoying. – Despite the fact that I’m using the latest version of Azureus the Bittorrent Client, every once in a…

  • iPhone 3G sports a poor GPS. – It’s iPhone 3G release day, and the havoc out there makes it pretty clear that the activation proces…

  • mendax.mac – v1.16 We’re not shy about our love for OS X, and don’t hesitate to declare it superior to Windows in…

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/02/08/mendaxmac-v116/feed/ 0 Mac viruses? What Mac viruses? http://mendax.org/2009/02/02/mac-viruses-what-mac-viruses/ http://mendax.org/2009/02/02/mac-viruses-what-mac-viruses/#comments Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:06:59 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/2009/02/02/mac-viruses-what-mac-viruses/

Windows gets sick. A lot. We confess: we only installed an anti-virus utility on our Mac nine months ago, after years of using OS X. Even then, we only loaded the application once, because a friend declared how awesome it was. Only, by “awesome” we mean to suggest that the application only appeared awesome, because it, and other applications like it, are wholly useless on Macs.

…you can rest assured that every article you read about a wide spread virus attacks is really about Microsoft Windows. Of course, there will also be those sneaky articles written in CNET and Wired and the Register that insinuate that trojan horse attacks are the same thing as viruses because they are both “malware,” just like stubbing your toe and the Black Death are both “health-related issues.”

At the root of the issue is the media’s almost intentional misuse of the term “virus,” when most of the time, they actually mean “trojan.” The latter type of attack is based on duping a user into installing a piece of malware that exploits a system vulnerability, but doesn’t naturally propagate. While some trojans have virus-like behavior, what’s worth noting is that OS X is virtually free of real viruses, making anti-virus applications for the platform overprotective at best. In a time when broadband connectivity wasn’t available to most computer users, making updating an operating system painful if not impossible without loading diskettes into one’s system, exploiting system vulnerabilities was a much easier task for malware developers. The argument posed by Daniel Dilger and others is simply this: OS X is a robust OS with a built-in method for notifying the user when updates are available. Effectively, any vulnerabilities in the system should be patched up quickly enough, and all other malware attacks are due to a user’s poor judgement in what to install. Everything else, stereotypical ideas of computer viruses included, are simply fiction.

Similar Posts:

  • mendax.mac v1.12. – After reading Maxator’s post about his go-to Mac applications, we decided to give ClamXav a spin. Co…

  • mendax.mac v1.16. – We finally got around to updating our recommended list of OS X applications, bringing the virtual “d…

  • Girls can write viruses too! – Feminism has reached the virtual world. In an attempt to battle cyber-sexism, a hacker, claiming to …

  • iPhone SDK doesn’t mean jack. – News is abound that Steve Jobs announced a non-widget based SDK for native third-party applications …

  • Why Apple should embrace potty humour. – John Gruber reported earlier today that Apple denied listing an application on the iTunes AppStore t…

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/02/02/mac-viruses-what-mac-viruses/feed/ 1 The Mac Mini needs to eat the AppleTV, and shoot up with TiVo. http://mendax.org/2009/01/17/the-mac-mini-needs-to-eat-the-appletv-and-shoot-up-with-tivo/ http://mendax.org/2009/01/17/the-mac-mini-needs-to-eat-the-appletv-and-shoot-up-with-tivo/#comments Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:00:57 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/2009/01/17/the-mac-mini-needs-to-eat-the-appletv-and-shoot-up-with-tivo/

apple_tivo.png At the end of an article at TUAW talking about the possibility of the Mac Mini and AppleTV both transitioning over to Nvidia’s Ion platform, Robert Palmer asks the same question we’ve been musing over:

But what if the next-generation Apple TV and Mac mini were one in the same?

Since the AppleTV is considered an Apple “hobby” product, without Apple’s full weight behind it, it stands to reason that the product is little more than a proof-of-concept with the need for forward movement. Effectively, the AppleTV is little more than a cheap, headless Mac running a quick-to-boot version of OS X. Beyond that, the AppleTV is pretty software on an otherwise normal foundation.

That said, there’s little reason Apple couldn’t simply refresh the Mac Mini and include on it the AppleTV software. Imagine a product that, once booted, loads the AppleTV interface, and includes a way to quickly jump to a the OS X desktop if one wants to use the device’s computing functions. With wireless HDMI and a bluetooth keyboard/mouse, this new Mac Mini could leverage a modern television as a monitor, thus becoming an incredibly cost-effective, family computing solution.

With other entertainment products sporting integrated Netflix and YouTube streaming, and packages like Boxee already available for the AppleTV, there’s little reason that Apple couldn’t gain third-party support to beautifully integrate additional video delivery systems into the AppleTV framework. With a commanding video delivery system and the opportunity to transform ones living room into their office, a new Mac Mini could become a perfect alternative to a secluded office environment, especially for students and young professionals.

With TiVo software already out in the wild for use on PCs, the Mac Mini could further be refined with an integrated version of the TiVo software. This would solidify the Mac Mini’s hold in one’s entertainment center, being a viable alternative to stand-alone units. The only problem here is royalties, which Apple may not be prepared to pay. Of course, knowing Apple, a home-grown TiVo competitor could also materialize, and is exactly what AppleTV users have been asking for since day one.

In any case, here’s hoping the merger of the AppleTV and Mac Mini products actually materializes. Combined with a cheap Apple notebook netbook Annex, our computing needs would pretty much be met entirely.

Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/01/17/the-mac-mini-needs-to-eat-the-appletv-and-shoot-up-with-tivo/feed/ 0