If this is what the rumored Apple tablet is going to be — basically a bigger version of the iPod Touch — then I’ll pass. I mean, really, what’s the point of a device like this? It’s too big to be an iPod or an extremely mobile computing device like the iPhone, and I already have an iPhone anyway. Yet it’s too small and underpowered to be useful in the ways a laptop is useful, as a real computer that just happens to be portable. In fact, the only niche I see a device like this filling is the netbook niche, which Apple has already eschewed, and which I agree will prove to be a flash in the pan, a fad. I guess it’s possible they could be going for gamers, but that seems unlikely to me. The Apple tablet that I’m hearing about sounds like a netbook with a touchscreen, which, frankly, just isn’t compelling in the least.
Apple Tablet? No Thanks! (artist's rendition via AppleInsider)
Besides, I thought the advantage of tablet computers was that you could draw on them. I thought they were for artists. This thing doesn’t look like you’re meant to use it that way at all. And isn’t the whole reason Apple went with a virtual keyboard on the iPhone because of the small size of the device, to conserve space? What would be the purpose on a larger device?
I realize all is speculation at this point, and maybe I’m missing something about this thing that isn’t obvious because the device hasn’t even been announced. I mean, who knows, maybe it’s something completely revolutionary, like nothing we’ve ever seen before, with fabulous, new untold uses and capabilities. Or, hell, maybe you can draw on it. That would be great.
But if this thing’s for real and it’s anything like the rumors say it is, I’m amazed anyone’s excited about it at all. It sounds like a computer without a purpose.
Oh, and one more thing: when it comes out they should call it the Ablet. Right? Don’t you think?
Totally.
4 Comments
That concept rendering is silly because it scales up the iPhone design without reconsidering the reasons for that iPhone design:
* the concept rendering looks to be the same thickness as the iPhone, but that makes little sense because the electronics in the iPhone (phone, camera) that require the iPhone to be a certain thickness can be distributed throughout the area of the tablet, resulting in a much thinner device.
* the iPhone’s chromed border works in part because of the iPhone’s small size, while the same border applied to the concept rendering is overwhelming.
* There’s no Home button on the concept rendering, which will probably serve a vital purpose on any tablet.
Yes, but perhaps it’s reflective of the silliness of the actual device.
The fact is, everyone’s describing this thing as an oversized iPod Touch, something with a 10″ screen or so. Which, to my mind, is just the right size to be utterly useless.
I know I’m out on a limb here, and I’m almost sure to be proven wrong. There will be something cool to recommend this device, I have little doubt, if indeed it ever sees the light of day. But the thing folks are writing about all over the place sounds totally lame.
Don’t you think? A 10″ touchscreen iPod/netbook? No thanks!
-systemsboy
Funny, because I would love a 10″ tablet. The games I have now on my iPhone would be much better on a large screen. In fact, I can’t think of a game that *benefits* from a screen as small as the iPhone’s.
But where a tablet would shine is movies. My wife and I don’t watch TV—we watch MacBook Pro, the 15-inch screen on our laps a fine replacement for a 42-inch across the room. It’s possible that a 10-inch screen wouldn’t be large enough to replace the MacBook Pro, though. For personal use with a single viewer, I am sure it would.
One problem with a tablet that the iPhone already exhibits is…how do you stand it up so you don’t have to hold it. Watch a movie on an iPhone for a while and you’ll be looking for somewhere to perch the iPhone up so you no longer have to hold it. It can be a tricky proposition. Propping up a tablet would pose similar problems. Maybe a tablet will come with a kickstand.
One thing’s clear about a tablet: it will be an adjunct device, and not a primary one. Like the iPhone and iPod, you’ll use the tablet for consuming more than producing, with the notable exceptions of email and note-taking.
I guess that’s it really. I think you’ve at least nailed why such a device would have zero appeal to me: I don’t game and I have (almost) no interest in watching TV on a computer.
I think your point about this being a consumer device — for consuming, not creating media — is spot on, and will likely turn out to be the case, again, lessening the appeal to someone like myself. I tend to use my computers to make things and relegate my media consumption to TV, mostly. My hope for a tablet computer, as I intimated in the post, was one for creating — specifically for drawing — on the go. I think that would be quite cool.
I suppose I’m fast becoming a relic in these matters. *sigh*
But, yes, if they expect users to watch TV on these things, a kickstand on the tablet is requisite I would think.
I also maintain that if this is mainly a gaming device, it’s a strange niche for Apple. Yes, the iPod touch and iPhone are becoming interesting gaming platforms in their own right. But they still seem the sort of games you play while waiting for the subway to me.
Then again, I don’t know squat about gaming. Maybe Apple’s trying to broaden their reach in gaming spheres. Maybe this is the new Gameboy.
In any case, unless this ends up being a device that does enable new creative approaches to media making, rather than just another media consuming device, it will likely not appeal to me. In fact, now that I think of it, I never even got an iPod until someone gave one to me. And I never used one ’til I had it on my iPhone.
Fascinating. Thanks for the revelation.
-systemsboy