Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Purchased iSlate.com in 2007. Apple's New Tablet Called iSlate?

It is very possible Apple may go with 'iSlate' for the name of the new tablet. I can see it being a virtual slate you can write on or view things with.

The Trademark evidence worldwide, in addition to all the domains is most telling.

Apple learned their lesson with the iPhone trademark squabbles, and seems to have been preemptive with protecting the iSlate mark...
 
I am getting tired of iEverything. Maybe Apple needs to think of something new and different to bring us into 2010...By the way, we are coming up on 10 years as Steve Jobs being Apple's official CEO (or iCEO as the case make be). Wow time flies!
 
inkswamp said:
This is interesting. "Slate" is an outdated term for small, individual chalkboards used by schoolchildren in the 1800s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_(writing)

It was replaced by the coming of cheap paper. Given that this rumored produced is supposedly going to replace paper publications, it would almost be poetic to give it this name. Paper replaces slate and eventually the Slate replaces paper... 😀
Click to expand...

That was a thought I had as well. What if Apple brings handwriting back? A digital revolution of an old technique? Perhaps Steve Jobs was being tongue in cheek when he made his statement.

lord patton said:
Do you mean the iPhone and the iPhone 3G? 😕
Click to expand...

iPhone 3G and 3GS (the iPhone was a 2G model)
 
Pilgrim1099 said:
ChuckG,

One thing though is that a lot of publishers are lining up to this device for reading content along with interactivity. That means, it's more than just a 'slate' based concept. If you're using it to read, then why not re-instate the iBook name? After all, it has to be a combination of the Newton with multi-touch in netbook size.

With such a portable size, I think it is designed to compete with the Kindle and Nook to do much more than reading and writing, even though they are apparently the primary use of this device, but music and movies are obviously part of the feature as an added bonus. Wi-fi is definitely expected for internet and email browsing.

Think of this way. It is meant to fill in the void between a netbook and an e-book reader. Almost a hybridized version of these markets involved.

If this 'slate' is designed for professionals to do light work 'on the go', that's a great solution. Or perhaps doing a little book editing for Editors. Or portfolio presentations for graphic designers/illustrators.

It's a mix of iPod, iBook, and iWork. And yes, it can be very useful for the educational sector. Remember how the colleges were using iPods for lectures? Here's a better solution. The tablet device is the thing to use.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. But the word iSlate represents more of the device's capabilities than "iBook."

iSlate resembles the 2001 monolith in symbolism of the theatre screen (the audience), in the very same way a slate (dark piece of flat material) does for a universal LCD. Make of that what you want.

After all, the iPod was inspired by said film's space pods, which were one-man, detachable, miniaturized versions of the mother ship (Discovery/iMac). The glossy white plastics and circular motifs even made it to the iPod.

The iSlate is Apple's monolith. It could be Apple's toned down way of saying "this is our masterstroke" to use the control of digital media and multitouch as the PC war endgame.
 
Revelation78 said:
MacTablet has my vote until I see or hear of a better name.
Click to expand...

How about a take off from Mac Journal the software app from Mariner and call it...

MacJourney... 😎

Seeing as how it keeps the Mac nam that Steve likes and whether you are using it to read interactive magazine articles, enhanced e-books, viewing tv or movies... it is always taking you someplace... 🙄 😉 :apple:
 
str1f3 said:
iSlate isn't totally horrible. Would have liked iPad better. It doesn't have the same ring as iPhone. Anyway what's in a name?
Click to expand...

There was already a device called an "iPad" or "IPad", I can't remember exactly. It was a hand-held computer with a touch screen.
 
flopticalcube said:
Intel hasn't always used micro-ops in the x86 line. It started in the Pentium Pro (Yale Patt?). Its not true RISC like a PPC, however. Its more RISC-like but does show that RISC had an impact if not a win.
Click to expand...

Not true. As far back as the 8086 they used microcode:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

"The 8086 was sequenced[7] using a mix of random logic and microcode and was implemented using depletion load nMOS circuitry with approximately 20,000 active transistors (29,000 counting all ROM and PLA sites)."
 
aeaglex07 said:
I hope that really is the name of the tablet..
Click to expand...

This has the whiff of subterfuge about it. Registered in 2007 two years ago but Jobs never puts his cards on the table until he really needs to. I doubt when he's doing the rounds with the publishers, he's going to use the real name of the product just in case they let slip... as has happened. The name was probably settled on in the past few months as Apple needs to commit to the name for manufacture and marketing.
 
They will drop the current Macbook line, name whatever this is the Macbook. Currently there is no reason to buy the Macbook instead of the Macbook Pro given the price differnce. They have been pushing the Macbook Pro more and more and slowely getting rid of the the Macbook.
 
cmaier said:
Not true. As far back as the 8086 they used microcode:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

"The 8086 was sequenced[7] using a mix of random logic and microcode and was implemented using depletion load nMOS circuitry with approximately 20,000 active transistors (29,000 counting all ROM and PLA sites)."
Click to expand...

Not pure microcode like the PP though. All this is splitting hairs, however. Apple didn't accept Intel until they improved their game using many technologies pioneered by RISC CPUs. It wasn't until Core that Intel showed that it could beat pure RISC machines at their own game even if was helped to a large degree by borrowing many of their ideas.
 
flopticalcube said:
Not pure microcode like the PP though. All this is splitting hairs, however. Apple didn't accept Intel until they improved their game using many technologies pioneered by RISC CPUs. It wasn't until Core that Intel showed that it could beat pure RISC machines at their own game even if was helped to a large degree by borrowing many of their ideas.
Click to expand...

What is "pure microcode?" Are you implying that every PP instruction was broken into microcode? Because that's simply not true. Nor are most (by frequency of occurrence) instructions broken into microcode on modern x86 processors.
 
cmaier said:
What is "pure microcode?" Are you implying that every PP instruction was broken into microcode? Because that's simply not true. Nor are most (by frequency of occurrence) instructions broken into microcode on modern x86 processors.
Click to expand...
No. I was inferring that only until the PP could microcode be used in a form that allowed total control of the instruction stream including pipelining, parallelism and re-ording. THe microcode of the 8086 does not function in the same way as the micro-ops of the PP and later.
 
flopticalcube said:
No. I was inferring that only until the PP could microcode be used in a form that allowed total control of the instruction stream including pipelining, parallelism and re-ording. THe microcode of the 8086 does not function in the same way as the micro-ops of the PP and later.
Click to expand...

Microcode doesn't control parallelism or re-ordering. That's done by the scheduler and renaming unit. Of course 8086 wasn't out-of-order, so that's moot.

Nonetheless, I assure you there's nothing fundamentally different about the microcode on the PP versus the microcode on earlier Intel processors.

flopticalcube said:
Perhaps not but pimping your own website on MacRumors is against forum rules.
Click to expand...

DId you actually have anything on it this whole time? You really are asking for your domain to be taken away from you, at the very least. You should at the very least put a giant "not affiliated with apple" across the top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back