| |
DaffyDuck
|
Quote: from FIB on 2:57 pm on June 6, 2008
Oh yes I have, several times, with prototypes following the same ergonomic principle actually, a few years ago. But not with a multi-touch enabled iMac, obviously.
There is a VAST difference in ergonomics between a tablet screen device (9"-12") and a desktop computer size screen (20"-24").
For a tablet device, such as a 13" MacBook tablet, a touch interface makes more sense. For an iMac, no matter at what angle, it currently is an idiotic suggestion.
YMMV.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 7:59 pm on June 6, 2008
|
|
FIB
|
Quote: from DaffyDuck on 10:25 am on June 7, 2008
There is a VAST difference in ergonomics between a tablet screen device (9"-12") and a desktop computer size screen (20"-24").
For a tablet device, such as a 13" MacBook tablet, a touch interface makes more sense. For an iMac, no matter at what angle, it currently is an idiotic suggestion.
Continuing to raise the ergonomics argument are you? Don't bother, you obviously don't know what you are talking about and just prove your VAST ignorance of the current research on ergonomics, multi-touch and human computer interfaces. Oh well...
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 8:38 pm on June 6, 2008
|
|
DaffyDuck
|
This is not to say that we will never see an Apple tablet, just not in the immediate future - there are several good reasons for it (the Windows tablet market barely clears 20,000 units, worldwide, of all manufacturers, combined; the one MacBook tablet while selling briskly, sold too few tablets for Apple to care; lastly, multi-touch screens of larger sizes are not yet available in large enough quantities).
If you are talking 'tablet' that is a vastly different form factor than 'iMac'. Use the proper reference and term, and my answer will not be monosyllabic.
Regarding the TV references - yes, Apple wants to be in the living room, and that is what AppleTV and future set top boxes will be all about - that strategy most likely won't come to fruition until the WiFi platform (iPhone and iPod) have gained sufficient momentum (i.e. 30-60 million installed base), and that won't be for another 1-2 years - there is no reason for Apple to provide an actual TV set -- there are too many variables of what people prefer : Plasma, LCD, DLP rear projection, front projection, etc... besides, Apple's goal is not to sell you a TV.
TV manufacturers do that well enough -- Apple is interested in capturing your mindshare of what you USE the TV for. Easier and better for them to sell you an AppleTV box, which you plug into whatever TV you have, and control the content you see through it.
Give me one good reason where this would REQUIRE Apple to provide their own TV? There is none, that doesn't have more downside than the upside of leaving that to be someone else's headache.
Lastly, regarding FIB -- Oh man, are you ever funny!
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 9:52 pm on June 6, 2008
|
|
caronte
|
Had the chance to play with a great 24" touch screen iMac developed by these guys http://www.trolltouch.com/ and I can say that touch screen PCs make a lot of sense!
I have an iphone so getting used was a no brainer and I did really appreciate how much faster you can work in this way...only problem, after a while you got tired of moving your arms like the director of orchestra!
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 9:52 pm on June 6, 2008
|
|
Buttman 007
|
Duck
Thank you for using words like "Idiotic suggestion" and "Ridiculous", as it paves the way for me to be equally acerbic. I'm surprised you would willingly debate me with that tone, then again watching retards walk into walls never ceases to surprise me either.
You are wrong on so many issues, I hardly know where to start. I suggest you do more research before you post, to stave off further embarrassment.
Apple COULDN'T CARE LESS how effective Microsoft has been with their tablet technology. Just look at Microsoft's MP3 software and technology. Or just consider Vista. Both are stunning failures compared to their Apple counterparts. Apple paves their own path, and has never based their business model on what Microsoft is unable to do. In fact it's reasonable to say that Microsoft's failures only embolden Apple.
Below are two more articles that you may want to consider reading on current tablet development. Just a simple Google search yields several hundred thousand articles on the subject. In truth, no outsider knows when Apple will manufacture Touch Notebooks or Tablets or larger, flat iMac tablets. And, of course, smaller ones (Notebooks) will come out before the larger ones (iMacs). But for you to call it an "idiotic suggestion" reveals a stunning depth of ignorance on your part. I think it is fair and reasonable that a tablet could be developed within the next year. It won't happen Monday, but it's happening sooner than later. Caronte's link, http://www.trolltouch.com/ provides great proof of how touch-technology on iMacs or tablets is closer than you think. Here are some more links for you to consider:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/4243000.html
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple-tablet-contest/apple-touchscreen-tablet-contest-winner-and-gallery-326468.php
Taking the "touch technology" from the iphone and ipod, and developing it into their computers is, perhaps, one of the greatest innovative features that will happen to Apple in the near future. It won't happen Monday, but it certainly isn't "idiotic." And, yes, iMac is the correct term that I wanted to use. I suspect the iMac to morph into the tablet; hell, it already looks like a vertical tablet. Had I known this would send such shock waves through your ability to carry on a discussion, I would have considered drawing you pictures. Small tablets, large tablets, iMac tablets.....whatever. Neither you nor I know what Apple is doing. All I can surmise is what's reasonable, probable and heavily speculated by the industry.
Ergonomics? Sure. Among a thousand other issues, as well. Certainly you don't think ergonomics is the 'coup de grace' for the Apple researchers, do you? But I commend you for throwing around a big word, even if it's hardly an insurmountable stumbling block for Apple.
The TV? Here's your one reason: PROFITS, you fool. How could you call it ridiculous when they already have something called the AppleTV? And their competitors like Dell already sell televisions. Do you actually think Dell sells televisions for the headache? It's not someone else's headache, it's someone else's PROFIT! All they need to do is pay some company like Sony to manufacture the television, put the Apple logo on it, retail it, and take easy profits. Why do you think Apple sells cameras or printers? Why do you think car manufacturers sell navigation systems that are manufactured by someone else? Why do you think home-builders sell GE kitchen appliances? It's just another avenue for profit. Selling a exceptionally cool LCD or plasma television with the Apple logo on it is perfectly fitting. Whether it happens or not, it hardly warrants your "ridiculous" labeling.
You have yet to support your claim that the 1.3 billion mainland Chinese cell phone market is "irrelevant," and that only Hong Kong matters. That claim alone is breathtakingly ignorant. That's like selling cheeseburgers in NYC, and claiming the rest of the American cheeseburger market is "irrelevant."
I originally put out those ideas for the sake of good discussion. Realistically, the only unexpected thing I think Apple could do on Monday is introduce a less expensive iphone in addition to the new 3G. Or subsidies through AT&T. Or maybe that won't happen until they see how the 3G is selling. Maybe a cheaper iphone pops up near the holidays. Maybe during the 3G demonstration, the software crashes and Apple tanks to $125 again. Maybe they announce they're quitting the computer business to start selling hybrid vehicles. Who the f*** knows? You certainly haven't added one prediction for Monday, except for your monosyllabic "yes". And that's because you don't know either, and I don't expect you to. Just don't be so ignorant and brash in your attempts to hide that.
I would never have taken this approach with you, had you not responded with such a sharp tongue. Whether you want to debate or belittle is your choice. And I will always respond accordingly.
Sweet Kisses of Fury,
Buttman
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 12:34 pm on June 7, 2008
|
|
DaffyDuck
|
Oddly enough, the only thing that you consider to be the most unexpected thing, is the one I most likely expect to see on Monday, on the iPhone front.
Subsequently, you must have missed me starting off my response with "This is not to say that we will never see an Apple tablet, just not in the immediate future" - meaning, within the next year. Is Apple setting the stage for an eventual presentation of such a product? Certainly, with splitting off product platforms into 'Mac' and 'Mobile', they are laying the groundwork for the environment needed for such a product -- but it certainly won't happen on Monday, and it certainly won't happen by MacWorld 2009, or even WWDC 2009.
Regarding the fanbois slobbering over anything incorporating the word 'Touch' - trust me, I am well aware of the various articles you throw up, and as for Caronte's link to Trolltouch, we have been setting up kiosks with touch-screen enabled iMacs for nearly a decade with their technologies - the point is simply that not anything with the word 'touch' immediately translates into a product worth doing for Apple - everything needed for the fanboi wetdream of a MacTablet is already present in OS X - the ModBook product proves that - but there is simply no reason, right now, for Apple to advance into that area.
I really don't believe providing links to a couple of fanboi wishful thinking renderings provides any sort of supporting proof for a MacTablet to be anytime near.
If anything, there's a link that the tech is starting to exist:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/07/shuttle-xp19-touchscreen-display-official-images-and-specs-unear/
Which also, in the grand scheme of things w/regards to Apple, means nothing - it's an engineering sample, meaning that tech certainly moves in that direction - but it's far from being consumer ready by Apple's standard, criteria, or time table.
The TV - the reason you have given is the very reason why Apple is not interested in getting involved in that sort of front in the near future, or, for that matter, ever - for a plethora of reasons that are best discussed in their own thread. I have been fielding the "Apple will make a plasma display" arguments for nearly 5 years now, and not a single argument in favor if it is ever compelling enough for something Apple would do.
Your argument about Dell doing is kinda unresearched - as Dell is actually not making huge profits, or *any* profits on the TV displays they sell - so much so that every year, there are concerns they will be dropping the line. Dell is in the business of cash flow, and desperately trying to generate revenue to remain viable. Mind you, 10 years ago, Miochael Dell went on record when asked what he would do with Apple, by saying "Sell the company, and give the money back to the shareholders". Apple passed Dell's marketcap long ago, and at this point Dell has fallen far beyond Apple, and has flirted with insolvency a few times. I really do not believe portraying them as a shining example of how Apple should conduct business is very beneficial to your argument.
Lastly, suggesting that Apple go into simple rebadging of someone else's product just to make a quick buck is quite ridiculous, and not likely to happen anytime soon as long as Steve is at the helm.
Also, can you explain:
"Why do you think Apple sells cameras or printers?"
Apple sells neither cameras, nor printers with an Apple logo on them - they used to, but they got out of it a long time ago.
If you are referring to them selling all kinds of cameras or printers on the Apple Store - then you are right, that is a profit source, but the Apple Store is also a *store* that sells whatever complements, and adds value to Apple's products. You will notice that none of these products are Apple branded, and are not pushed or plugged on Apple's other marketing materials.
Under that argument, might it be possible that Apple may make a SONY TV or a plasma screen of other makers available via their store? Sure.
To have said screen branded and badged with an Apple logo? Hardly likely, to nearly impossible in the current climate and management.
Why do I use qualifiers like 'idiotic' and 'ridiculous' to label such suggestions? Because they are hardly new, invariably reflect what the suggester *wants* to see, and is often as removed from plausible reality. It goes hand in hand with "Apple will license OS X clones again", and 'Apple is about to put Flash on the iPhone". This isn't to say that such developments are entirely impossible, they are just incredibly highly unlikely at this juncture.
I did not mean, nor mean to imply that the Chinese market does not matter - but only that cooperation from Chinese mobile carriers is irrelevant to Apple's goals. Furthermore, I get really tired of reading the "1.3 billion consumers are not irrelevant" argument -- when you yourself are aware that these 1.3 Billion users are not in any position to afford anything like an iPhone. Currently, there are over 400,000 iPhones deployed in China (grey market, obviously), and I posit that the Chinese market, over the next 1-3 years, may be able to accomodate an upper limit of, maybe 3-10 million, at most, iPhones during that period (and I'm being extremely generous with the 10 million figure), as 90% of 'consumers' in China live below what we might consider the poverty level. The same, as you know, holds true in Thailand - in both places, only a very small, minority, or Hi-So upper class is able to afford consumer goods like the kind Apple makes.
Will Apple expand that market? Of course? Will the middle class grow, and will there be more people likely to afford Apple products? Of course,
It won't happen in the next 1-2 years, though - hence, Apple is establishing a presence in China (thus, Apple Stores in these places), but does not necessarily see the need to pursue the Chinese market at all costs (as most dumb US companies do), but prefers to play its hand so the Chinese carriers will come *to* Apple.
As such, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan represent for more lucrative and valuable markets for Apple - both economically and strategically - to assure China to fall in place.
"And that's because you don't know either"
I guess you are right -- so, I guess this discussion is over, then?
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 7:42 pm on June 7, 2008
|
|
FIB
|
It's good to see Daffy recognizing that his earlier arguments on ergonomics were idiotic and finally, after several days of undoubtedly frantic research on the web to finally at least pretend he knows something about it, finding out the reasons why Apple will not go in the large screen multi-touch market yet. Good for you Daffy, and, yes you definitely provide good entertainment! Don't change a thing...
As for TV, yes, it wouldn't make sense for Apple to go in that direction, but two points are worthy of discussion: it's a mistake that Apple does make from times to times, the last time not so long ago actually. Anybody remembers the iPod Hi-Fi? And the Apple TV platform has obviously not yet found a successful format/functionality setup and depends on the relationship Apple can or cannot build with content providers, so let's see how it evolves, as it will probably evolve quite differently from country to country (and Apple has had to learn a thing or two on regional differences in use and business model with the iPhone)
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 9:28 pm on June 7, 2008
|
|
DaffyDuck
|
Quote: from quack quack on 11:20 am on June 8, 2008
Personally think that voice recognition and commands are way more helpful than touch screens.
(...)
Anything happening on this front at AAPL?
Voice recognition, for all practical purposes, has lost it's way years ago - it's built-in to OS X, and actually works quite well - and most likely may find its way into iPhone in the form of Voice Dialing. The kind of Voice Recognition you described from IBM (actually, developed by Dragon, and effectively stolen from them, IP and all) works well for select vertical applications - Apple's works moderately well for issuing commands (hence, why I believe it'll be used for voice dialing at one point).
Personally, I feel that we'll see LCD and multi-touch based keyboards, long before we see multi-touch effectively in use on iMac screens - the biggest benefit to Apple of the multi-touch interface is that it allows them to ship a single, non-localized device globally -- and localization is provided entirely in software. For a company like Apple that loves economies of scale, and likes to keep as few sku's as possible of discrete parts in stock, the iPhone represents the ultimate apogee of that pursuit.
The pieces are already in place, regarding the keyboards evolution -- just compare Apple's latest wired / wireless keyboards, and the keyboard on the iPhone. Look familiar?
Essentially, if Apple can design a multi-touch keyboard that essentially changes surface via software, again they would be able to ship a single device globally, and leaving the localization to software.
Essentially similarly in concept to the Optimus Maximus keyboard by Art Lebedev:
http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/
Each keycap is composed of an OLED surface - originally budgeted at $300-$400, it now ends up costing $1,000. Not ideal.
Replacing this concept with a single multi-touch surface will go a long way reducing the cost, though currently that would still be around $200-$300. It will take a few years for that to come down to more reasonable $50-$125
THAT in my opinion, is the future of multi-touch. The wet dreams of multi-touch enabled large displays are, IMO, just that - flights of fancy by the usual kids enamored by buzz words, and thinking that something working on a small scale must be sooooooo much better on a large scale.
As for FIB - cut down on your run-on sentences, I'd suggest, and maybe we'd know what you are actually trying to say.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 11:22 pm on June 7, 2008
|
|
Buttman 007
|
You misread my comment about a cheaper iphone on Monday. Of all the speculation out there of any surprise announcements, a cheaper iphone or subsidies through AT&T are the most plausible. We agree on that point.
Outside of that, we are in disagreement of virtually everything else. I do, however, respect that you steered this toward a sensible debate, rather than the direction you originally started.
A tablet, or touch technology coming to the computers is reasonable in 2009. I think it's more likely, rather than less likely. But I can understand someone viewing that differently.
I am unaware that Dell has a liquidity problem and is struggling with solvency (or has faced insolvency in the near past), as you claim. If you could provide a credible link to that claim, you would singlehandedly and instantaneously cause a 50% decline in Dell's stock price on Monday morning. Last month, Dell reported $8.27 billion in cash on their balance sheet. While operating expenses had increased and cash-on-hand had slightly decreased in 2007, they are no where close to having solvency problems. Not even remotely close. Throughout 2007, they spent $4 billion just repurchasing their own shares--that is hardly the hallmark of a cash-strapped corporation. I am fully aware of their market capitalization and the struggles they have had in the past 2 years. However, insolvency or cash-liquidity issues would be stunning surprise for me and everyone else tied to WallStreet. They sell televisions because it's a source of profit, and cash-liquidity issues are extremely far from relevant.
Indeed, for Apple to have delved into the television market five years ago would have been ridiculous. But Apple is in a drastically different position today than it was even two years ago. As they expand the iTunes movie and television content, continue to develop the AppleTV offering, and further develop their foray into the living room, an Apple television is perfectly reasonable and fitting. When I suggested re-badging someone else's flat screen, I was merely trying to show how easy it would be to retail it--not at all the headache that you suggest. I admit the television is a stretch, but it's hardly ridiculous.
I don't think people in mainland China will buy many $500 3G iphones, either. But if Apple were to develop a cheaper phone (which they will soon), then the 1.3 billion Chinese market would be exceptionally important. For the last 3 months of 2007, Nokia sold 20.2 million phones in China. That's roughly 80 million cell phones per year. Granted, those are drastically cheaper phones, but nonetheless those numbers should not be ignored by a company making their first foray into the cell phone market. Just 5% of Nokia's sales would be substantial for Apple. You think Apple isn't eager for that?
http://www.nokia.com/A4136001?newsid=1184821
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 12:06 am on June 8, 2008
|
|
DaffyDuck
|
Quote: from Buttman 007 on 2:32 pm on June 8, 2008
You misread my comment about a cheaper iphone on Monday. Of all the speculation out there of any surprise announcements, a cheaper iphone or subsidies through AT&T are the most plausible. We agree on that point.
If we're into predictions - personally, I'm not advocating that Apple will release *a* cheaper iPhone.
Rather, I believe that they will release the premium 3G iPhone, at a premium retail price of $399/$499 or even $599 in a high-end model.
I also believe that they will *also* release a new revision of the first generation iPhone, at a reduced price - most likely in the $299 range. Both the development of the iPod Touch, and the 3G iPhone have allowed Apple to minimize component cost, and leverage the economic scale of using the same components across the line, to allow them to further significantly reduce their component costs.
Economically speaking, while Apple retained a healthy 30 points margin on the 'reduced' price iPhone, it was expensive to manufacture, and the innards show a lot of first generation engineering - as compared to the iPod Touch, for example. I suspect the 3G iPhone to leverage much of the engineering, and it makes perfect sense for Apple to turn that around, back into a cheaper revision of the first generation product - essentially, a smaller, thinner version of what we have now, with the same features, just without 3G, and GPS (though there's speculation of being able to use external Bluetooth GPS receivers).
So, we should end up with:
- redesigned First Generation iPhone, 16GB - $299
- 3G iPhone II, 16GB - $399
- 3G iPhone II, 32GB - $499
(There is a high likelyhood of the Refurb Store subsequently selling original First Generation iPhones for $199, most likely as the holiday season nears...
This will be joined by a redesigned iPod Touch (which I sincerely hope will contain a camera, though I personally give that a 25% chance - while speakers will likely never happen) :
- iPod Touch, 32GB - $399
- iPod Touch, 64GB - $499
Alongside this, a healthy portion of the Keynote will subsequently be devoted to the OS X iPhone SBK - with some demos from app developers that are sure to blow most of us away...
This will lead into the rebranding of Apple's online service, as Apple will drop dot-Mac, and replace it with Me.com and MobileMe.com - while showing off the enhanced and improved features - including seamless over the air synching of contacts and calendars to iPhone and iPod Touch, remote Macs, better online web-mail, web-cal, and web-contacts features, and a couple of other features of Apple's new ME.com services.
...and that's just the OS X iPhone side... There's still the Mac side to touch upon, and to show and demonstrate XCode 3.0 and some interesting surprises on the OS X Leopard side.... 
Nope, no TVs, or Touch iMacs -- though really, if you want to get an idea where Apple's support for Multi-Touch on the Mac side is headed, you only need to look as far as the current MacBook Pros, with multi-touch enabled trackpad -- which work great, by the way, and integrate the use of multi-touch in an expected, and intuitive manner.
Apple understand how their computers are being used, or rather, how Steve wants us to use them As such, slapping your hands constantly over the screen is not that way.
Which isn't to say that there may not be a clever way to achieve what you and FIB seem to be wanting - in which case, it's actually quite easy to get there. Prepare a presentation for Steve Jobs that shows your killer method to get there, so to speak, and do it in a manner that gets him excited -- because, if you don't, then what you considered my 'not civil' mannerisms will seem like a visit from Miss Manners....
Regarding Televisions - a lot of things could be 'easy to retail', but Apple (or, rather, Steve Jobs) is not in the business of doing things because they are *easy*, but because they are *right* (in Steve's eyes). A lot of other companies in this industry do things that are easy - none of those share the level of success that Apple has -- oh, sure they all make some measures of money, but they don't significantly change your life, or your way of doing things.
You need to gain a healthy understanding of what motivates Steve Jobs, and why he does what he does, and (most of all) how he does things -- then you start being able to eliminate certain things that seem 'obvious' or 'easy' to you, even from any consideration.
Does Apple covet a portion of Nokia's market? Maybe, that's not a given.
What they want, is a portion of a market they can do well in, and establish themselves as the leader in -- what they are pursuing right now, is the exact same strategy they have taken with the iPod (and the inability of *everyone* to grasp that is fascinating) -- they enter an existing market with a high-end product, that quickly establishes itself in the high-end segment they targeted - in this case, high-end smartphones. They reach downwards from that segment, into the mid-range, and only later do they follow-up with the low-end, in a separate push and product.
Right now, we are in that first push - and Apple pretty much established themselves as the number two player, behind RIM - leaving Windows Mobile already far behind (despite the blabberings of The Ballmer). This is mostly the US market, while WinMo Ballmer talks constantly of the international market when claiming the number of licenses they sell.
After Monday, as the iPhone will be available in an astounding number of markets simultaneously (maybe even.... Thailand?), WinMo may see the need for more creative exagerations... Combine that with Google's Android, which is really only targeting WinMo licensees with a free, and popular alternative, and WinMo's days are numbered.
Really, at one point towards the end of the year, it will come to a showdown between Apple, RIM and Nokia -- particularly when Apple releases a sub-$100 product that's *just* a phone
Nevertheless, that battle will be waged in the US and European markets, with China not being a very significant battleground, IMO.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:47 pm on June 8, 2008
|
|
| |
|
