As we all know, the long awaited iTablet announcement happens in a couple of hours. Near mythical in nature, with anticipation that was only surpassed by the then rumored announcement of the iPhone, the iTablet has apparently captured the imagination of the net. What will it look like? What will it do? What will the experience feel like? All fine questions, and all showing the excitement building behind the announcement. But, lost within the excitement, a few of us had asked since the beginning, before the rumors started to have evidence behind them, back when the idea of the tablet was being floated around: Who exactly is this thing for? Consider speculation that the iTablet will be running on iPhone 3Gs-style hardware, will run on the iPhone OS, and will have access to the App Store, and will not be a "full fledged" Macbook in terms of power nor application capabilities. Okay...so what does that make it other than an oversized iPhone/iPod touch? There are some that will be quite fine with that sort of device. There are some that want a larger iPhone/iPod touch and have for quite a long time (hence why I alluded earlier to the pre-evidence idea days). That's fine and all...but how large is that consumer market? Isn't part of the appeal iPhone/iPod touch, a major part at that, the very fact that they are small, highly mobile devices? A tablet, even a mini tablet with a sub 10" screen, is not very mobile at all. There is quite a lot of evidence that this iTablet/Slate/whateveritshallbecalled will be marketed primarily as an e-reader, going against Google's Kindle, Sony's e-reader, and even Barnes & Noble's Nook. If so, that would be quite an about face by Steve Jobs, who just a couple of years ago stated that "no one reads anymore". Of course, by this he meant that no one just reads anymore, and that consumers want more than just a "do one thing" mobile device (Mr. Jobs may be a great hype man, but he has never really been given the gift of gab, hence periodically stating the right thing in the wrong manner). So this "do all" mobile need gave rise to the iPhone/iPod touch. And, lo and behold, we have books, e-books, on the iPhone/touch platform, via the App Store. So what, exactly, is the need for this iTablet, and who, exactly, is it for? It's not really for current iPhone/touch users, if all it amounts to is an larger version of their current hardware. It's not for the consumers looking for a Macbook, as the tablet hardware apparently won't be anywhere near as powerful or run the same "full" software. It, apparently, is for those interested in viewing things on a larger screen, and using it for productivity and a more comfortable reading. That it will be tied to iTunes (and the App Store, probably) means that it will have access to digital download shows, movies, music and games, and productivity apps, all fulfilling Steve Jobs' idea that consumers want "more" than just a "does one thing" device like Amazon's kindle. Wonderful idea...except...except how large is the consumer market for such a device? And aren't the very consumers that might've been interested in that already in ownership of a device that does most of the same things, in a smaller form factor (iPhone/touch)? So, again, we just whittled down the possible consumer market for this tablet to people who want a larger iPhone/touch. Not a very large segment of the market, IMHO. We should prepare ourselves for this thing not being a "major" part of Apple's line up in terms of market penetration/sales. This reminds me of AppleTV, in terms of I think it will be hyped but will sell in quite an underwhelming fashion compared to how Apple wants it to sell. The difference, of course, is that AppleTV, although not as hyped nor as championed by Steve Jobs himself (it's a "hobby") could actually be quite a game changer, moreso than this tablet would be, and just as much as iPhone/touch was to the mobile market. How? Simple. AppleTV App Store. Obviously a change in hardware is needed as well. 1080p video is something current AppleTV owners have wanted for quite a long time, so a new gen AppleTV is a necessity, but if that's all Apple does, then AppleTV will not be all that it could be. An App Store is needed. And an AppleTV specific App Store can change the game for Apple in the living room in the same manner that iPhone/touch did for mobile travel. Consider that things like PS3 and XBox 360 do many of the things AppleTV does after a few updates (AppleTV, IMHO, didn't really become a standalone product until the 2.0 update gave it direct access to iTunes). Movie and TV show downloads, streaming video and music from other sources, etc. Hell, MS now labels the movie and music market for 360 as the Zune market. We can see where MS is eventually going with this. But Apple can beat them to the punch and do it better. AppleTV, with an App Store, would be home not only to digital movie, show, and music downloads, but also games, productivity, and creative apps of it's own, as well as internet access via it's own Safari browser. This would fulfill Steve Jobs' idea of "do all" products beating out "does one thing" products. Sure, you can download movies on your PS3 or XBox 360, but you aren't going to quickly edit a photo or video. With AppleTV, you would be able to, as there'd be an app for that. The tablet will have a smaller possible consumer base than re-energized AppleTV, which would be, point of fact, not only in the digital entertainment set top box market, but also the game market and even the nettop computer market. Apple could even use the new AppleTV hardware as a testing ground for future iPhone/touch hardware. Die sizes shrink over time. Speculating a 5 or so year lifecycle before new revisions, a new AppleTV released this year could be built using multicore variants of ARM CPUs and PowerVR GPUs (you don't need much for 1080p video) which, by the time the lifecycle ends, might then be so reduced in size, power requirements, and heat that it would be feasible to just slot them into new iPhone/touch hardware. Why not make it a "full fledged" Mac? Because that's what the Mac Mini is for. This new AppleTV would still be in the iPod family line, but be an entry level nettop as well. Who would it be for? For those that don't have a Mac. For those that do but just want a cheap secondary option. For those that have an iPhone/touch and want to have an extension for that hardware. And, of course, all new consumers. And this last group would be FAR larger, IMHO, than any for the tablet, as there is a clear market (home users), and the hardware would be less expensive. Price it at $299 or so, and you have a game changer, a paradigm shift in the living room experience. Everyone is getting on the digital download bandwagon. Apple has all but conquered the mobile market. It's time to look at the living room. AppleTV should be Jobs' focus now, not the tablet.
The iPad could've have been everything Apple TV should've been if they just put in one of the new OTA HD TV Tuners that were developed for use in cellphones to use. Heck it could've actually been worth getting if it actually offered some of the below... No GPS No Camera (with LED Flash) No Multitasking No OLED Screen An extremely disappointing 256 MB of RAM! No Additional Touch Gestures No Videocalling/conferencing/iChat No Handwriting Recognition or Support for a Stylus No Wireless Syncing or File Transfers No File Management or Freedom to download files (even documents) from online No Ability to run custom Apps not preapproved by Apple and sold via the App Store A Very Low Resolution Display with 25% fewer PPPs than the iPhone or iPod Touch No integrated TV antenna or Radio antenna (They even developed a HD DTV Tuner for use in cellphones to allow users to pick up OTA HDTV signals on the go! Why they didn't include this technology in this device I won't understand) No Video Out According to Apple's page on the product, the maximum resolution it is capable of playing MPEG4s at is 640x480 resolution at 30 fps. Not even HD! It features a 1 Ghz processor that significantly slower than just about every single notebook on the market today. No OTA Sync With Apple TV or Servers To Stream Video No Low Reflective Screen Mode for high contrast Ebook Reading that doesn't hurt your eyes Only 64 mbs of HDD space No Gamepad attachment for Gaming With Physical Buttons/Tactile Feedback No bluetooth, or ability to connect to a bluetooth mouse/keyboard No RFID/IR to use it as a remote, or to tag it to yourself No Replacable/Removable Batteries No Java or Flash support (no hulu.com) No ability to connect to an extrernal hdd, or even to pop in an SDCard
If you're going to keep posting that loooong list everywhere it should at least be accurate. It has bluetooth and an SD card slot.
the hype for this thing is overwhelming... it'll get purchases just off of that... but honestly I agree with you on the market is small argument... people want something portable, something pocketable... that is whats so great about an ipod... it does everything that the kindle/ds/psp/zune/ect does and it does it in a stylish pocketsized manner... the iTablet is that - the pocket sizedness that makes the iTouch so amazing
The iPod and the iPhone were actual significant leaps forward when they first came out. Everyone else followed them. And this is why I bought both devices early on, and the reason why I, like everyone else, had high hopes that this device would do something innovative, or offer something new of value. This thing however is like taking 3 steps back. There is so much this can't do that even the iPhone that's a fifth it's size can do, and there is nothing it can do that the iPhone can't. Apple started the presentation by saying that for a Tablet to succeed, it has to some things better than both the iPhone 3GS and a Macbook Pro do. Then he unveiled a product that utterly fails this test. There is nothing it does better than either device.
Lol, that was hilarious. I love how Steve went on and on about how awesome the browsing experience is when we all know that the browser can't even load up hulu.com, one of the top 10 most visited sites on the web.
Going back to my original post, and tying it in with yours: I've read that Hulu is or was attempting to make an iPhone/touch specific app version of their service. There are other similar services with apps on the App Store right now like CBS.tv, etc. The problem is that streaming vids in such a way in larger files is slow over mobile. And that's where an AppleTV specific App Store would come in. People are modifying their AppleTV devices to get stuff like Hulu, right? Well, if Apple created an AppleTV specific App Store then Hulu could quite possibly make an app for that device.
