Squire said:
You're talking about that thing replacing an iMac, right? That's a desktop. For any amount of typing, you're going to need a keyboard. Most people would add a mouse. And, again, if you're replacing a desktop, you'll want a fancy LCD display, too. The tax man might want a piece of the pie, too. Like I said before, there's an extra 800 bucks.
and
Belly-laughs said:
Right... you have obviously never been in need of an efficient system when on the go. How on earth would someone be able to do any work with that screen size and resolution. The 12" PB just makes it with a 1024x768 resolution. If it had the same resolution on a 10" screen it would be too small for my liking. I do get a feeling you don´t think so.
Point is, 800x600 is useless for design at all. A Photoshop palette uses approx 210px of horisontal screen estate. The tools palette uses another 50-60. You´re left with 540px. Then, if you have rulers on, you got even less. For 3D-work, well Cinema 4D requires even more. So, even though it might be a fast devil, the 800x600 resolution is not just a slight disadvantage. It kills it.
I disagree wholeheartedly and without qualification, because what you're talking about at the moment is the traditional paradigm of computing where there has to be a defined role for a computer. This could very well remain true within the professional space, but I can forsee a very spacious market for a computer that functions well as the center of a home unit, as an assistant and work device when on the go, and which retains your personal settings and preferences wherever you are.
The docking station would silence those who cry for the "headless" mac because it allows expandability at the station, while not cluttering the basic unit's functionality, and also allowing for other options. Apple could easily bundle the same keyboard and mouse that come with their other computers in the package without taking much of a hit on margins, because you know that they buy those things by the lot. If you don't want to pay $600-2000 for an Apple display, you can just buy another one. I hear CRTs and basic USB peripherals are pretty cheap these days.
However, you're not looking far enough out, you're not "thinking different."
This might be a bit hard to do under the current setup and the programs that exist at the moment, but
Microsoft has shown how you can use palettes that don't get too far into the way. Combine Expose functionality (touchscreen command with hotzones to tap for each of the modes) and you suddenly have all of those windows in an easily manageable format. This is using software to circumvent the issues with holdovers from people who refuse to move with new technology just because they're used to something else.
That being said, here's a specific answer to the problem:
The flexMac (I like the flexMac name) would be perfectly usable as a tablet with onscreen feedback, which most current designs don't have. Quite aside from that, it would allow people like me who do a lot of academic shuffling between locations to carry one machine that auto-synchs, allows both handwritten and typed notes, sketches and hand-diagrams (important in all kinds of academic and professional settings, and impossible on a standard laptop). Perhaps it might limit in-field creation, but so does the trackpad and laptop keyboard, so don't kid yourself on the idea that a laptop is an ideal solution to the problem of work on the go. Serious graphics design is still done in front of a tower, not on any portable with an even remotely respectable battery life.
The putative artist could sketch out their ideas, rough the concepts, and then leave the heavy work for when they can plug in and work on a larger monitor. Hell, it could be that we see 802.15.3 soon enough that one of these things could drive a full-scale monitor wirelessly, feeding the information to the base station or a compatible unit so that you could work wirelessly and direct your more serious computer without having to stay put. Sounds like an advantage in a design house, especially given the whole distributed processing, remote-client, SAN storage model that Apple seems to be moving towards.
More and more, I expect to see Apple pushing the idea of leaving heavy-duty stuff to a farm of some sort, and not to individual computers. This fits perfectly with that.
pjkelnhofer said:
I don't see the point to the extra slot idea. If you have access to a second processor why would you ever take it out (same goes for more RAM). But, I love the idea of a PDA with an iPod style hard drive and OS X that allows me to basically take my Mac with me.
Simple. You get more power control if you are drawing less off the battery. When you need to conserve, you merely remove or shut off the modules you don't need, and that includes everything from drives to processors. When you need it again, slap it in and there it is. Also, this would allow the sale of massively upgradable chassis and product lines, which would only need the purchase of modules to increase their performance.
Apple wouldn't do it?
What do you call the xServe and the hot-swappable xServe RAID?
Belly-laughs said:
I just don´t see your urge to bin the 12" because it may fall far behind it´s bigger siblings on processor power. Or the iMac. It offers the true portability that many users crave for. If there was no market for it Apple would have killed it just as quickly as they did with the Cube.
No, I think you miss my point entirely. The PowerBook 12"
will fall behind, if technology continues as it is. As much as you might think there's a market for it, there isn't a chip that will work across the line at the same speed, while being faster than the G4 and allowing the same heat profile. Even the e600s will be 10 wattts more (but also gaining a second proccesor on-die), and the 970 hardly bears talking about with it's increase in support and chip heat for minimal performance gain.
As for iMac designs, yes Apple could do something revolutionary again. But all functions need to be justified, not just added to create a buzz. As it stands, I´d rather have a fully featured notebook that can perform almost any task wherever you are (incl. DVD-burning), than a powerful ultra-compact with a tiny, useless screen, syncable home-folder (might come in handy), and a dock with a 17" LCD that´s likely to sit in front of you when you work anyway.
It's perfectly justifiable, though perhaps not for you. That doesn't mean Apple shouldn't do it, especially not if they can continue to revolutionize computing as they always have. This is a paradigm shift, not a mere form factor change, and it fits with the distributed, parallel strategy they seem to be fond of.
Imagine, if you will, the Apple home computer system in five to ten years. When I look, I see a device like the flexMac for personal use, with two or three processor and storage units serving to the client machines (which could be more traditional or even further jumps) so that resources are optimized as much as possible.
Simple, fast, and innovative. Think Different.
