Apple's new tablet in November: The iBook

Whatever you're smoking, i want!

um no. two totally different products so this wouldn't work too well at all. the imac example is null and void since the imac has only really changed components and shape, but its still an AIO home computer system

The term book is used for laptops cause they open like a book.

iBook would be a stupid name for a tablet. iTablet would actually make sense

Plus the reasoning to stop iBook was to put Mac in the whole mac product line names. So MacTab or MacinTouch would make even more sense.

Hey *I* know - why don't they call it Newton?

I kid, I kid.

I dont see Apple releasing any new products any time soon. Also, the name "iBook" is still in use. If they use the name "iBook" on a completely new product it would probably create confusion. Remember it's only been a couple years since the 'Books stop producing...

If Apple uses "MacInTouch" in whatever product they ever release, I am going to be certainly disappointed on their design team. "MacInTouch" sounds like a cheap TV-only product, like an e-dictionary or something. argh >.>

Wasn't the name iBook already used by Apple on before? Let me guess, you want the next Mac Pro to be called The Apple I.

BTW, I loved this little line under TheNightPheonix message:
Last edited by TheNightPhoenix : Today at 11:17 AM. Reason: speeling

klymr said:

BTW, I loved this little line under TheNightPheonix message:
Last edited by TheNightPhoenix : Today at 11:17 AM. Reason: speeling

Click to expand...

Makes you wonder if it were done on purpose.

Personally I think a tablet is a great idea. But I don't see apple reusing old product names on a regular basis. Especially with a piece of hardware.

Toe said:

And the iBook (tablet) would still be a portable Mac.

Click to expand...

Ummm...the iMac never stopped being an all-in-one computer. Sure, it was updated and has been changed since its inception, but that doesn't mean the computer's primary focus has changed. The iBook is a consumer laptop. Its production was only ended about 16 months ago. To revamp the product in such a way would cause confusion.

Toe said:

Why wouldn't Apple re-use such a good name as iBook. Using it for a touch tablet would fit perfectly into their product matrix.

Click to expand...

The name is good, but the product is not a notebook. Tablets are different, and thus need a different name. I'm guessing something along the line of "Mac Tablet," "iTablet," or something way out there like "iTouch." Personally though, it looks like the "i" prefix is being changed; it used to be the range of "consumer" products, which included iMac, iBook, iPod, iLife, iWork, etc. Now it seems that the only computer left in the "i" range is the iMac, and that the brand may be in for some changes. We'll have to wait and see what old Steve has up his sleeve.

how do you define a "tablet" anyway? i think it could be argued that the iPhone is version 1.0 of the apple tablet computer.

shecky said:

how do you define a "tablet" anyway? i think it could be argued that the iPhone is version 1.0 of the apple tablet computer.

Click to expand...

Naw, the iPhone is simply "Newton's Revenge."

.

Toe said:

Apple doesn't give one hoot about how much confusion they cause. It causes no end of confusion for (to pick one of many, many examples) a Titanium 800 MHz 15" laptop and an Aluminum 1.5 GHz 17" laptop with a completely different motherboard to both be called nothing but "PowerBook G4." And don't even get me started on "iPod." Sure, there are ways of differentiating, such as "3rd generation," but those aren't official. Any full sized iPod is simply an iPod.

Click to expand...

Oh Apple gives plenty of hoot. What you're describing with the iPod is different from an iBook being launched as a tablet. It might be a little confusing for noobs to be able to tell the difference between a newer iPod and an older iPod, but at least they'll know that is is an MP3 player and not an iPhone(for example). This iBook you're talking about is a different product with a different goal. It wouldn't work.

Toe said:

Apple has recycled names before. AppleWorks comes to mind

Click to expand...

Appleworks didn't change function when it went back and forth between names. There was never an Appleworks which served as a photo editing suit or something along those lines. It was always an office productivity suit.

CalBoy said:

Naw, the iPhone is simply "Newton's Revenge."

Click to expand...

True 'dat! Egg freckles, what?

No, I think for a tablet it has to have a large enough area where you can write (with a stylus) directly on the screen, you know for notes, presentations, looking cooler than your co-workers at big meetings.

I'd imagine Apple has been reluctant to get into the tablet market because it hasn't taken off the way the "experts" said it would a few years back. Subnotebooks have taken off, but not tablets. They could always do an ultrapotable sub notebook and call it the iSub or the iNote or the MacNote.

filmgirl said:

I'd imagine Apple has been reluctant to get into the tablet market because it hasn't taken off the way the "experts" said it would a few years back. Subnotebooks have taken off, but not tablets. They could always do an ultrapotable sub notebook and call it the iSub or the iNote or the MacNote.

Click to expand...

I like iNote. I think it's a good name; it really works well for a subnotebook.

how about they call it the iSaac?

for iSaac Newton

It's true that Tablets havent really "taken off", but I believe that is due to a bad "target audience" philosophy among big companies like HP and Gateway (two of the top, if not the *only* TabletPC manufacturers). THe thing is, HPs and Gateways appeal to the "business" croud. Their laptops are cheap but functional, nothing too stylish about them.
Now, who would *really* use a tablet? Artists...and I dont see many artists buying HP or Gateway laptops. If a company ever wants Tablets to *take off*, they must design them with artists on mind, that is: Great touch interface and response time (some Tablets have quite a noticeable lag), Great screen and *big* resolutions. A pretty design (*gasp*: Apple much?) and awesome performance (CAD, Photoshop [and any other photo app] are pretty intensive piece of software.) That's why Wacom is so successful, they have AMAZING tablets, and you can use them in whatever computer you want, so you're not limited on the processing power, and if you ever need to scale, you can do that easily.
Once Apple can cram up a decent graphics chip and CPU on a lightweight and small case, plus a good touch-screen, then they WILL have a successful tablet.

what ever it's called, I want it.

Would be kewl if it were something like this:

http://lostinafog.com/blog/2006/03/10/144/

neB

They should take naming advice from ATI and nVidia

The Newton X9850 GTX...Pro...

...

XT

x
.....

Toe said:

There's also the home user segment. From Gateway (etc.)'s perspective, a tablet makes no sense for the home user. But as part of Apple's "digital lifestyle," a tablet would be amazing. If you're playing music or a movie through your AirPort/TV setup, do you really have to go to a computer to change what's playing? Can't you just grab a tablet and control it from there?

Click to expand...

So, you're telling me you're willing to buy:
1) iMac or Mac Pro as a dedicated Media Server
2) TV as your Media Extender
3) Mac Tablet as your "remote Control"

...

dont you think its a bit pricey? It would make WAY more sense to use your..idk, iPhone as the remote control. So there you have your Phone, IM (hopefully), Internet, Media, and Remote Control, in a truly all in one device.

Toe said:

Or if you want to read a book on a computer, a tablet would be a much nicer interface. Same for any sort of web browsing/reading done while lying in bed or sprawled on the couch... a tablet would be more comfortable than a laptop.

Click to expand...

If you want to read a book, you may as-well use THE BOOK. I love technology, Im only 17 years old, but I still find the actual book easier to read than a computer screen, touch screen or not.

triddent222 said:

"MacInTouch" sounds like a cheap TV-only product, like an e-dictionary or something. argh >.>

Click to expand...

It does, however, sound like a good name for a reader-supported website about Mac products and experiences.