+1 Dittos Unless they offer Free 3G like the Kindle. Then were cooking!![]()
Yoda say: Know the word "Free" Steve does not
+1 Dittos Unless they offer Free 3G like the Kindle. Then were cooking!![]()
Jobs mentioned they were not in the market for making an eBook reader, since people really don't read anymore. So, supplement that capability with magazines, comic books, daily newspapers, local publications, plus Wifi for Email and web browsing, then I think we're almost there.
Its not the keys, its the qwerty. When are we going to stop trying to adapt everything to a 100+ year old, intentionally crappy method of input?
At the risk of assuming that most on this list were in some way Trek influenced, may I ask where the indispensable qwerty keyboard was on a TriCorder?
Just asking.
I'm hoping for a "mac touch" pure tablet with multi core ARM.
My other thought is that we may see this as a dual display clamshell design, possibly with no physical keyboard. That would be rockin.
We're missing something.
What exactly is the market for this? Multimedia device? With a 10in. screen, will it fit in your pocket? Can you even use something with a screen slightly smaller than your foot as a phone? If it's not a phone, would at&t allow 3G connectivity?
Will it be some sort of supplement to a laptop? Will it have an optical drive? Or be app-store only?
Finally, have any of you ever tried typing on something that's not a keyboard? I'm not sure how that will be without any sort of tactile feedback.
There are just a lot of pieces to this puzzle that are not fitting together just yet. My best guess is that this will tie in with the iPods and related announcements in September.
I doubt it'll use an Atom-based CPU for battery life concerns. I'll bet they use a new generation of Apple-designed ARM chips.
Of course we are. We know nothing about it, aside from being a 10" screen, it's from Apple, and it is probably coming in the fall.We're missing something.
What exactly is the market for this? Multimedia device? With a 10in. screen, will it fit in your pocket? Can you even use something with a screen slightly smaller than your foot as a phone? If it's not a phone, would at&t allow 3G connectivity?
We don't know, but the best guess is that it won't have drives for weight and power consumption.Will it be some sort of supplement to a laptop? Will it have an optical drive? Or be app-store only?
Yes. Remember the 80's? Good god, they were cheap and cheesy. There was a spate of flat plastic keyboards for a small while. Awful, but only because they often didn't work and didn't register key hits. The iPhone keyboard is small but nice enough and works. With a bigger device would come a roomier keyboard on screen. The finger taps are sounded out. Hopefully they can link with a BT keyboard when needed.Finally, have any of you ever tried typing on something that's not a keyboard? I'm not sure how that will be without any sort of tactile feedback.
That's why we are here just contemplating possibilities--markets, processors, size, function,etc.There are just a lot of pieces to this puzzle that are not fitting together just yet. My best guess is that this will tie in with the iPods and related announcements in September.
When you start with myths, you end up with false results. The QWERTY layout was never meant to slow anyone down.
If we assume the resolution density is like the iPhone, this new device should be around 1400x900.
That would be incredibly nice resolution for a handheld device. Kick ass, in fact. It would trounce the current crop of products in the netbook range, and it would be keeping with Apple's one-up-manship.
If this is a tablet with that resolution, and it has stylus recognition, I'd buy it for $2000.... assuming it runs a full/near full OSX and can run Photoshop. Watch it be just a larger version of the iPT with some small improvements.
Yes it was.
The QWERTY was made to stop secretaries from jamming together the typewriter strikes when they were cruising too fast due to a simple layout of keys. There's nothing wrong with QWERTY--it's as good as any other layout. Most people these days aren't entering data so fast and furious that they need a special layout to help boost speed.
The QWERTY was made to stop secretaries from jamming together the typewriter strikes when they were cruising too fast due to a simple layout of keys.
You have any clue what netbooks are for? They aren't supposed to be $2,000 devices, and they sure as heck won't be designed to run Photoshop with any sort of power. If it's a true netbook, it'll have an Atom CPU (think slower and uses less power), maybe 1GB of RAM and a small SSD. These devices are literally for people who want a cheap way to do e-mail, Web browsing, word processing...just basic stuff. If you use Photoshop, get a MacBook.
Of course.They were arranged specifically so that jams would NOT slow the user down.
Does anyone else here remember the keynote show where Steve Jobs showed off iWeb or Garage Band and made a joke pod-cast talking about a 10" iPod? ("It's going to be really big!") Was that in 2006 or 07? I forgot when it was.
I'd like to find a video clip of that. Seems it was true. He really may have known at the time that a 10" iPod was in the works.
Yoda say: Know the word "Free" Steve does not![]()
Its not the keys, its the qwerty. When are we going to stop trying to adapt everything to a 100+ year old, intentionally crappy method of input?
When you start with myths, you end up with false results. The QWERTY layout was never meant to slow anyone down.
Yes it was.
The QWERTY was made to stop secretaries from jamming together the typewriter strikes when they were cruising too fast due to a simple layout of keys. There's nothing wrong with QWERTY--it's as good as any other layout. Most people these days aren't entering data so fast and furious that they need a special layout to help boost speed.
Sorry, the idea that it was 'designed to slow down typing' has been debunked. You are correct in that it was designed to prevent jams; but it was done by moving frequently moved letters so that their strikers weren't next to each other. The fact that other layouts are faster was *NOT* a consideration, because until then, raw typing speed was not something that had been able to be empirically measured easily. Indeed, by moving frequently used letters further apart, typists could type *FASTER*, because of the lack of jams.
Indeed, if someone had thought to do layout research first, and had actually thought about making typing speed faster by improving layout, then making the mechanism to fit; rather than changing layout to match a more efficient mechanism, someone may have redesigned the entire mechanism, like was done with electric 'ball' typewriters. But that wasn't what happened.
Has been discussed here recently. Please Google "qwerty myth".
Yes, it was to prevent jams. But slowing people down was not how it did so. Early competition was fierce, and the LAST thing he wanted was to slow down customers.
The keys were arranged so that common combinations were not directly next to each other.
They were arranged specifically so that jams would NOT slow the user down.
Of course.
I remember from the plethora of documentaries I've seen on the subject that the rearrangement actually did slow down the typists, but allowed them better speed because they weren't prying apart the strikes every few seconds. My memory might be wrong--the subject of the QWERTY invention is a nice footnote in history or a winning question in Trivial Pursuit.