Steve Jobs compares iPad battery life to Kindle's: 'You're not going to read for 10 hours' (video)
The "one-and-only" source for news and future reading for technology.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Editorial: Engadget on the Apple iPad
Josh:
If people walked away disappointed from the iPad launch today, it's likely they had some lofty ideas of what the device might do before Jobs ever took to the stage. At Engadget, we tend to mull over a lot of ideas about upcoming products without ever really getting too attached to them -- so when we finally saw what Apple had created in the iPad, it wasn't exactly a shock. What is was, however, was fairly underwhelming. Maybe underwhelming isn't the right word. Unimaginative might be more accurate.
I know that I'll find a reason to drop $500 (at least) on this thing -- but for the vast majority of consumers, I think the case for the iPad has yet to be made. |
There's no question that much of what the iPhone and iPod touch do translates nicely here, and there's no question that some of the tweaks made to native iPad apps are impressive, but nothing I saw made me sit up and think, "Wow, I need this." It's telling that the most intriguing user experiences shown off today were the iPad versions of the iWork suite. iWork? If Steve Jobs hoped to answer the question about why we need this third device, or how it's better than a netbook, he didn't make a compelling case. Where is video chat? Where is multitasking (honestly, only one app at a time for a device of this size and speed)? Why is the lock screen so embarrassingly empty? Why are there no active widgets to fill that huge homescreen space? Where is the expansion of the multitouch user experience? And seriously, where are the media partnerships?
Now there isn't a doubt in my mind that the iPad will really come into its own when developers get their hands on it, and I know that I'll find a reason to drop $500 (at least) on this thing -- but for the vast majority of consumers, I think the case for the iPad has yet to be made.
Ross:
A jack of some trades, a master of none.
Let's forget about all the hype and expectations (or at least pretend we can). When Steve Jobs came out on stage, he presented a compelling argument to justify a third product tier, but the Apple iPad doesn't live up to that potential. For all its horsepower, we're still relegated to one app at a time. For all its talk of being a great web experience -- and it is really snappy -- we still don't have Flash. The New York Times app showed promise for newspapers and magazines, but for now the experience unfortunately seems to be the exception, not the rule. There are some cool ideas in the iPad, and I was happy with the multitouch keyboard (though not nearly enough to justify writing a book with it), but the new and upgraded apps weren't that dominantly better.
Many of my favorite iPhone apps are great because I can conveniently pull it out of my pocket and check things contextually -- Yelp, FourSquare, etc. It's the device's raison d'être. For me, in a nutshell, the iPad is a larger screen iPhone with fewer capabilities. It's not bad -- in fact, web browsing is awesome and the device we saw was super fast -- but I have no way to justify this in my gadget collection. Not for $630 -- let's be realistic, 3G is a must -- and not until we at least see more compelling third-party apps that give the thing an unique edge.
As a portable gaming platform, the iPhone represented a sea change in quality; at first blush, the iPad carries no such distinction. |
With the App Store effectively splintered across the iPhone/iPod Touch and iPad "platforms," I'm not sure the device offers enough incentive to gamers to opt for an "iPad-enhanced" version. Without any iPad games available to really see what developers are able to do with the new device, I can only judge it as a larger iPhone and, well... it's larger. To be fair, that allows for more room for on-screen controls (a huge plus for those of us cursed with largehanditis) and responds better to tilt controls without taking the display out of your line-of-sight. But if you're at home, with actual gaming consoles around, will there be any draw to play higher-res iPhone games? As a portable gaming platform, the iPhone represented a sea change in quality; at first blush, the iPad carries no such distinction.
Nilay:
Maybe I'm too much of an optimist -- you know me, the happy optimist, right? -- but all this instant negative reaction to the iPad just conjures up memories of 2001, when Slashdot famously dismissed the iPod as "lame." I'm far from sold on the iPad as it was presented today, especially without the ability to multitask, but there's a lot of potential there -- the promise of this thing isn't necessarily in what it can do out of the box, but what it can do once app developers start feeling out the boundaries of a multitouch user interface on a larger screen. I'd love to see what a DJ or music creation app on the iPad looks like, or how a video editing app might work, and I'm very curious to see how game developers approach casual multiplayer gaming. Like it or not, Apple's way out in front of multitouch computing, and the iPad is at the very least fertile ground for experimentation. Will it replace my laptop? Never. But it could certainly serve as an able replacement for a netbook or an e-book reader -- especially since I think the choice between a $489 Kindle DX and a $499 iPad swings firmly in favor of Apple. Like mostly everyone else on staff, I think the right approach to the iPad is to wait and see; I think the difference for me is that I'm assuming we'll eventually see something good.
Chris:
First, the obvious: there was absolutely nothing Steve Jobs could've done, said, or unveiled today to live up to the unprecedented lather the internet had worked itself into over the past few weeks. Taken in that context, the iPad is a huge letdown -- no groundbreaking display technology, no advanced user interface, no particularly interesting ways for the device to interact with the other devices and computers in your home. If you step out of that context, though, and look at the iPad in a vacuum, does it make sense?
This is simply Cupertino's answer to the smartbook executed with typical Apple spit and polish, and whether anyone really needs the world's slickest smartbook remains to be seen. |
The jury's going to be out for a couple months, but my early feel is that it doesn't. The iPad takes all the disadvantages of a MID -- primarily the fact that it doesn't run a desktop-class operating system -- and combines it with all the disadvantages of a larger-format device, leaving you with a giant iPod touch. You can't carry it around the same way you do a smartphone (and even if you could, you couldn't make cell calls on it), but you also can't use it to run your favorite Mac apps on the go. What's more, it suffers from all of the same software restrictions the iPhone does -- you live in Apple's world and play by Apple's rules. The company would have you believe that they've created a new kind of product with the iPad, but let's be real: this is simply Cupertino's answer to the smartbook executed with typical Apple spit and polish, and whether anyone really needs the world's slickest smartbook remains to be seen.
Paul:
I don't think Apple is in any way overstating the fact that the iPad is revolutionary technology at magical pricepoint, or whatever superlatives they've thrown against this thing in the last five minutes. Unfortunately it's revolutionary magic that I don't really have much use for... yet. See, I want Apple to reinvent the personal computer, not introduce a third device into my life. I want to eliminate my too-expensive, too-big, too-overthought laptop with a $500 or $600 laptop-lite device that does all my core tasks excellently. I want to cut the fat. And in a way, the iPad is delivering on very much of that promise. I think the iWork aspects are pretty remarkable from a creation standpoint -- at least I hope they are, and will be curious to find out what I think after I've played with them. Interfaces are meant to be challenged, and I think the iPad shows that a large touchscreen device can replace much more of my laptop's functionality than I might've given it credit for.
Still, it's lacking some core competencies like the iLife suite and the ability to manage other devices (like my iPhone, for instance) that are absolutely vital to my daily life. Mainly, it's lacking a physical keyboard. And by "keyboard," I mean an input mechanism that's always there, and is attached to the device and its core functionality. Sorry, but I'm nostalgic like that (though the keyboard dock does look fun). Overall, the device just doesn't do anything I can't already accomplish more excellently with another device: I produce content on my laptop, I consume content on my TV, and there's no way you're convincing me that you can have the best web surfing experience without a keyboard. But of course, I don't think Apple is done with the iPad, I believe they're just beginning, and over time I hope to witness the sort of "killer apps" and evolution of functionality that could turn this device into something wholly more vital. That's why I'm disappointed in the product as it stands for my own use, but not at all disappointed in Apple bringing it to market: I think it's a stepping stone for a new kind of computing that could truly be "revolutionary" and "magical" to a whole different class of people than ergonomically-challenged couch surfers.
Thomas:
Man... it's here, the Apple tablet. Still digesting that to be honest. Unlike the iPhone feature set, however, that surprised the world when announced, the iPad was pretty much a known quantity when Steve Jobs took the stage today. Will I buy it? Well, like any bright shiny gadget announcement my initial impulse is always, I have to have that. But then reality sets in: do I really need a third device?
My initial impulse is always, I have to have that. But then reality sets in: do I really need a third device? |
Don't get me wrong, I can definitely see using the iPad for media consumption and light content creation especially when toting an attached Bluetooth keyboard. But I already have a smartphone and a 15-inch laptop with discrete graphics. And I don't own a netbook (too slow) or an e-reader (too E Ink-y) because I simply don't want to carry around a bunch of crap that overlaps in functionality. I do like the fact that the iPad OS is custom built on a custom processor targeting specific use cases and thus, presumably optimized -- that already gives it a leg up on general-use devices like UMPCs, MIDs, and netbooks running OSes built for desktops. But I'll be waiting for the performance benchmarks and our review before making a purchase.
Darren:
You're going to call me bitter, or just overly harsh. I don't care. The iPad is, in my mind, one of Apple's biggest misses. If it were positioned as the second coming of the e-reader, it'd be a runaway hit. It can do everything the Kindle can, but it adds a color display, multitouch gestures, a killer battery and a processor that's quick enough to play back video. It's (at least) twice the price of a Kindle, but it's roughly twice the device. If Apple would've marketed this as its play in the reader sector, I would've been duly impressed.
But, it didn't. Instead, Jobs had the nerve to slam netbooks (which I personally think are far too weak and small to be used as serious machines), and whether he intended to or not, he essentially compared the iPad to the system Cupertino refuses to build. I can't begin to explain how disappointing this device is in the sense of being a usable computer. There's a 1GHz CPU in there that can't even be used for multitasking. There's no camera for video chatting. There's no way to watch a Flash video and chat within an IRC client at the same time. There's not even a way to connect a USB device to this without paying Apple extra for an adapter. The iPad is remarkably limited in scope and functionality, and for no good reason. A netbook can run circles around this in terms of actually getting work done, and if I want to enjoy multimedia, I'll carry around something that can fit in my pocket. As I mentioned, you'll say I'm just missing the point, but this thing does absolutely nothing for me in its current iteration.
Laura:
Here's the thing: I'm not really into netbooks. I've never been able to convince myself that I needed one, so every time I walk out the door, I make a decision as to
I'm not going to form an opinion until I actually read with the iPad, but it looks like the best alternative to an actual book I've ever seen. |
Richard Lawler:
Doing without the capabilities of a real PC and the inherent connectedness/portability of a cell phone puts the iPad in an interesting though previously uninhabited middle ground, but the $499 minimum entrance fee means I'll only be looking from this side of the fence for now. Making it more capable by adding a dock/keyboard or 3G connectivity enhances its appeal but drives up the price further, and without proper multitasking support or a more open platform its focus remains artificially narrowed beyond what I can handle. Media playback capabilities, e-reader and gaming functions are shiny and good looking, but where's the substance? I'd like to avoid the transcoding necessary to play back media on my phone, enjoy the wide access and support that I have using a PC to browse the web or create content and hopefully have a dollar or two left in my pocket afterward. "Not good at anything" commentary aside, the iPad isn't built or priced to compete with my current go-to combination of phone and netbook -- that may work for Apple, but at this stage of the game it won't work for me.
Don:
I think it's interesting that Apple's focus with the iPad (at least initially) seems to be much more on consumption than creation, contrary to what the oft-analyzed invitation to the event seemed to suggest. The iPad-specific Brushes app demonstrated certainly looks impressive, and there will undoubtedly be many more third-party apps to follow, but the lack of an iLife suite to go along with iWork is a bit telling. Why not a touch-friendly version of iPhoto to go along with the camera connection kit? Or a streamlined version of iMovie or GarageBand for that matter? Guess maybe we have to save something for OS 4.0.
Joanna:
Before Steve revealed the iPad, he took a shot at those ever-so popular netbooks: "They're not better at laptops than anything -- they're just cheaper."
Touché, Mr. Jobs, but it's also easy to argue that a $399 netbook can do a number of things better than the $499 Apple iPad -- like multitask, play Flash video and make a video call. |
Sam (intern):
At first glance, it appeared to be something magical and fantastic, maybe even mythical. But as the harsh reality of the facts began to sink in, my hopes and dreams for a revolutionary device were crushed. The iPad appears to be an enlarged iPod Touch, with a few minor (key word: minor) software tweaks. Sure, it's faster and has a better / bigger display, but I was looking for something new and innovative. I was (possibly naively) expecting a device that could perhaps substitute for, or even replace my MacBook Pro and iPhone 3GS. I was also shocked and saddened to find that the iPad runs on what seems to be just a fancy version of iPhone OS. Thanks to Apple's decision to hamstring it in the software department, it's missing key elements that steered my interest away: the ability to multitask, a front-facing camera and support for Flash (to name a few). Until we see those features implemented into the device, the iPad will remain an expensive toy in my eyes. What we saw today simply didn't live up to the hype, though it's probably fair to say that nothing could have after years of embellished buzz. Next-gen iPhone for me, please.
Jacob (intern):
As excited as I was at the prospect of a sleek, always-connected internet tablet from a company that knows a lot about making attractive mobile devices, I can't help but feel that Apple has put itself into a corner with the iPad. Yes, the iPhone OS is cool, but at the end of the day, it was created for the iPhone. I got past the lack of multitasking on the iPhone / iPod touch because of its 3.5-inch screen, but with the introduction of the iPad, I suddenly have a whole 9.7 inches. And what can I do with this newfound screen real estate? Well, the same exact stuff I could do on the 3.5-inch one. Apple's pimping this new A4 chip as "a screamer," yet they still won't let me run more than one app at a time. How can you bill a device as a step down from a full fledged laptop and a step up from a netbook, but not allow users to open a web browser and an instant messaging client at the same time? It's not like we're pressed for space any more, and some sort of window management -- something like the webOS card interface -- would allow for seamless integration and multitasking. For me, the iPad is a great concept with seemingly great specs (and a very attractive entry price tag), but at the end of the day, I don't see anything revolutionary. That said, I think there's a whole lot of potential here, and hopefully through some updates to the OS they'll fully recognize the power of the hardware they've brought to the table. Until then, however, I guess I'm stuck with an overpowered, larger-screened iPod touch with an optional built in 3G connection that'll run me an extra $130.
Apple iPad first hands-on!
- It's not light. It feels pretty weighty in your hand.
- The screen is stunning, and it's 1024 x 768. Feels just like a huge iPhone in your hands.
- The speed of the CPU is something to be marveled at. It is blazingly fast from what we can tell. Webpages loaded up super fast, and scrolling was without a hiccup. Moving into and out of apps was a breeze. Everything flew.
- There's no multitasking at all. It's a real disappointment. All this power and very little you can do with it at once. No multitasking means no streaming Pandora when you're working in Pages... you can figure it out. It's a real setback for this device.
- The ebook implementation is about as close as you can get to reading without a stack of bound paper in your hand. The visual stuff really helps flesh out the experience. It may be just for show, but it counts here.
- No camera. None, nada. Zip. No video conferencing here folks. Hell, it doesn't have an SMS app!
- It's running iPhone OS 3.2.
- The keyboard is good, not great. Not quite as responsive as it looked in the demos.
- No Flash confirmed. So Hulu is out for you, folks!
Apple Before a Launch: "It Can Be a Little Frightening"
Turns out, Apple's veil of secrecy applies internally, as well. Former engineer Edward Eigerman spoke with Bloomberg News this morning about the atmosphere at the company before a major product launch—turns out, it's not all wine and roses.
Eigerman has a unique perspective on the extreme lengths Apple goes through to prevent leaks, having been fired for accidentally slipping software to a client a week early.
The upside is that only a very few people in Cupertino know what's actually going to be announced today, so they're as excited as the rest of us! The downside is that they're also likely in a debilitating paranoiac state. But, hey, you take the good with the bad, right? [Bloomberg via Cult of Mac via 9to5 Mac]
The Apple Tablet Week – Last-Minute Leaked Shot of the
Apple Tablet: Curiously Plausible
We're about 12 hours away from seeing the thing for real, away from the speculation and leaks, but these two photos popped up just a few minutes ago. We don't know if it's real, but it's definitely possible.
So here's what we can see: A tablet in the general form of an iPhone, including the trademark home button, looking like it's encased in some kind of S&M leather case with snaps. It's running what seems to be a larger, scaled version of the iPhone's mobile Safari browser, possibly with tabs. In the upper left, it looks like it says "No Service," which would be referencing 3G (also a ha! moment for AT&T, if it uses AT&T) as well as a Wi-Fi logo. Very little else can be ascertained, including the most important pieces of the puzzle, the software and keyboard.
Is it real? It's the most likely suspect in my mind, not least because it only popped up the night before the event—Apple's security is so tight that this is the most leakable time. But it is, right now, unconfirmed.
Stay tuned until tomorrow, when we'll be liveblogging the Apple event from San Francisco. [Engadget]
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Apple Tablet: A Complete History (supposedly)…
Apple's been kicking around the idea of a tablet since at least... oh, 1983. From real, physical prototypes to out-there ideas such as the Knowledge Navigator -- the company (who did not, alas, invent the idea of a tablet PC) has, somewhat unsurprisingly, seen fit to investigate the possibility for almost as long as it's been around. For one reason or another, though, they've never actually produced a device which saw the light of retail day (well, besides the Newton). Perhaps that's part of the fascination that Apple fans have with the product -- it's been rumored so long, and seemed on the verge of actual arrival so many times that it's become a Holy Grail of sorts for the tech community.
Evidence that any tablet actually existed or would come to retail, however, has always been slim at best. In the entire lifespan of Engadget, not one viable photo of a real-looking prototype has ever emerged, and not one source within Apple itself has ever really hinted that it was at work on such a product. Oh sure, there have been dozens -- possibly hundreds -- of people "familiar with the matter," but almost no one who would or could go on record to talk about the tablet, and in the end, it's always seemed like a non-starter. The Apple Tablet rumor started in earnest around 2002 -- before Engadget was even around. By the time we arrived to the party, the idea that Apple might be working on a tablet or slate PC was pretty firmly entrenched into the psyche of the avid gadget geek, but again, perilously little evidence existed to support the idea, or shall we say... the hope?
And here we are, in January of 2010, on the verge of yet another expiration date for the rumored launch of an Apple Tablet (though let's be honest -- this thing is starting to feel pretty real). We thought now might be as good a time as any to take a look back -- back through the rumor timeline of one of the gadget world's longest-standing, and seemingly best-loved unicorns. Join us for the ride, won't you?
Back to top
2004 - 2006: The early years
This may blow your collective minds, but the first time Engadget encountered the somewhat-maybe-semi-realistic prospect of an Apple tablet-style PC was... in August of 2004. The year of our launch. The talk of the tablet was brought on by a design patent Apple filed in Europe in May of that year for a "handheld computer," and listed Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive on the application, along with a handful of other members of the company's industrial design team. This filing, detailed in The Register, added fuel to a fire that had caught spark in 2003, when a "source close to" Taiwanese manufacturer Quanta said it had been hired to build a "wireless display" for Apple. Then Editor-in-Chief Peter Rojas displayed a healthy amount of skepticism about the story -- as Engadget is naturally wont to do -- since the talk amounted to no more than hearsay and rumor about a stack of filings on some British clerk's desk. What no one could have foreseen back in those days was the extent to which our quest for some honest-to-goodness truth would be tried... for the next five and a half years.
Further patent applications filed in February of 2006 (and actually dating back to 2004) revealed that Apple was working on various touchscreen-related interface ideas, most of which described using "multiple fingers, gestures and motions" plus additional methods for manipulating the user interface itself. Things were still pretty vague at this point -- remember, this is all pre-iPhone -- but it was certainly clear that Apple was up to something -- the patent applications mention "multipoint touch screens", and describe pinch-to-zoom and control elements that enlarge when a finger is held over them. (Like, say, the iPhone keyboard.) Add to that a second patent application for a virtual keyboard in April of 2006 and a certain ideal for a product seemed to be coming into view -- hell, hrmpf.com even made an animated GIFto explain the then-new idea of pinch-to-zoom. Looking back, it's hard to say which of these patent applications were actually granted, since many of them seem to have withered away, been combined with other patent applications, or simply rejected. (We can certainly tell you that we've never seen a granted patent on pinch-to-zoom, though.) Finally, in late in 2006, blog Smarthouse caught wind of "sources in Taiwan" which claimed that the Apple tablet would launch in mid-2007. This time, the Intel-based Mac tablet would have educational and enterprise uses in its sights, boasting a docking station, HDMI inputs, plus some intriguing talk of integration with a new, wireless version of the iPod Hi-Fi, as well as a sprinkling of home automation features. It all sounded so good, so tangible... so close. Yet after all of the promise of those patent applications, and source upon source claiming to know for a fact that the tablet was on its way, only silence and darkness followed.
Back to top
2007 - 2008: Backburner
The first half of 2007 was a particularly lame time in the life of the saga of the Apple tablet. Where previously there had been a steady stream of chatter there were now only iPhone rumors which consumed pretty much all of any Apple fan's time and energy. So while the iPhone may have dampened people's thoughts (and hopes) for or about an Apple tablet, its appearance also ultimately reformatted people's options of what the tablet was going to be like when those rumors re-emerged. And they did, of course -- and this time, there was something new to compare it to. Adding to the fire, just before iPhone launched on June 29th, 2007, The New York Times ran a piece on the iPhone in which a former Apple employee said Steve Jobs had become sweet on multitouch when it was first proposed for a "Safari Pad" tablet, but had decided to build a cellphone with the technology instead. In September of 2007, when the first talk of the tablet really hit for the year, it was thought that Apple's "Newton successor" would be about 1.5-times the size of... the iPhone, and that it would boast a 720x480 resolution touchscreen display that covered nearly the entire surface of the unit. Yes, that sure does sound familiar! October saw our first glimpse of what a next-gen Apple touch device could be like in a patent application detailing a touchscreen with an "articulating frame" that forms raised "dots" for easier typing -- a seeming compromise between a physical keyboard and virtual unit. Another wild patent filed in November revealed a seriously multitouch surface capable of detecting all 10 fingers and whether or not a user was holding a pen. No matter, the Apple Tablet was soon "confirmed" by Crave, who reported anonymous sources -- "friends at ASUS" -- which said that the company was helping Apple to build a tablet PC, but provided no other details, and sadly, not a single shred of evidence.
Then, at the beginning of 2008, right before Macworld, some mockups which then Engadget Editor-in-Chief Ryan Block referred to as "crappy" surfaced, and helped get the old rumor wheels really cranking into motion again. The mocks essentially resembled giant iPhones, sporting a similar virtual keyboard and 'home' button that would become the hallmark of any sweet Photoshop of the Apple Tablet. The fan-made dream device included a docking station, a dual-screen SSD-boasting tablet, and was dubbed the MacBook Touch. Sure, it was exceedingly far-fetched and nearly laughable, but the idea of what we expected a potential Apple Tablet to look like surely had solidified. By mid-May of 2008 -- amid the tech world's fascination with separate rumors about an iPhone 3G -- a report hailing from Intel Germany chief Hannes Schwaderer claimed that Apple was working on a MID which would boast the company's new Atom CPU, and was expected to be launched around WWDC 2008. Schwaderer later said that the report -- which was first printed on ZDNET -- had all its facts wrong, but the damage (insofar as it stoked further rumors) was already done.
Back to top
2009: The heat is (back) on
So what happened? Well, on June 9th, 2008 the iPhone 3G was announced at WWDC. No, there was not a single mention of tablet computing, but there were plenty of other, real things to freak out about: the aforementioned iPhone 3G, the announcement of Snow Leopard, and plenty of app announcements to boot. But the tablet rumor wasn't one that would stay dead for long, and when it returned in March of 2009, it returned with a vengeance. This time, details about supposed specs would flow easily and often, starting with a DigiTimes / Commercial Times doubleshot which suggested that Wintek would supply the touchpanels to Quanta, who in turn would be tasked with putting Apple's tablets together for a launch in the third quarter of 2009. The same information was regurgitated just a day later, adding that said tablet would be somewhere between 9.7 and 10-inches.
By the end of April, BusinessWeek was reporting (via two people "familiar with the matter") that Apple was in the prototyping phase of two devices for Verizon -- one of them said to be a "media pad" for gaming, music, HD video, and placing calls over WiFi. Just two days later AppleInsider (courtesy of our old friends, "people familiar with the matter") was saying that Apple might cut prices on some MacBooks and iMacs, but that this was just an interim solution leading up to... you guessed it! A low cost tablet computer set to compete with netbooks. Then late in May DigiTimes reavowed its earlier supposition that Wintek would supply the panels for the tablet, but things started to get seriously interesting in September, when we got our first earful of rumored pricing for the non-existent product. This time it was the ChinaTimes saying that a 9.7-inch Apple "netbook" of unclear form factor would run about $800 when it debuted in October, 2009 -- which did sound pretty good, we have to say. So, with pricing kind of, sort of out of the way, what could we learn next? Well, in July, 2009 TechCrunch busted out the news thatVerizon was pushing up its LTE launch plans to the first quarter of 2010, and that it was possibly doing so because a tablet with no voice services that worked on LTE wouldn't violate Apple's exclusive agreement with AT&T.
And this, we have to tell you, is where the rumors started to really get out of hand. Nearly every day we were shoveling them out the door to make room for the new flood coming in -- and we nixed way, waymore than we ever published. So, by the time AppleInsider reported on July 24th that Steve Jobs, after innumerable setbacks, had finally given the tablet the go-ahead, our editorial eyebrows were raised pretty high. It's not that we didn't want the tablet to be real, merely that we'd heard it so many times before... but okay, this time the tablet would be 10 inches, have 3G, and a custom P.A. Semi processor. Just two days later someone at Barron's (ominously referred to as a "veteran analyst") said they'd actually held the tablet... in their hands! The report was riddled with other facts (which of course conflicted with previously reported information), including a September launch, a shelf-date of November, a $699-$799 price range and the notion that the device would be largely a media player with Apple TV tie-ins. But then, just about a week later, our hopes -- well, those of us that had any firm hopes left, anyway -- were dashed by The Loop's report that "very reliable sources" said that there would be no Apple tablet until 2010. The next day, on August 14th, the iPAD (as it was referred to in the text) was listed as an option in a Borders' Books survey about e-readers, seemingly confirming what we already knew: everybody on earth was convinced that Apple was producing a tablet which would compete with smartphones, netbooks, e-readers, and every other conceivable gadget. By the time the next day rolled around, when a purportedly real but seemingly 100 percent fake image of the tablet rolled around, even the family dog was starting to look unconvinced.
Following soon after that, iLounge had some sources of its own saying that the tablet would actually boast a 10.7-inch display with a 720p (or thereabouts) resolution, that there would be two versions of it -- one with 3G and one without -- and that it would run iPhone OS. The next thing we knew, DigiTimes was spraying the news all over town that Foxconn would be manufacturing the tablet, not the long-rumored Quanta. The pub also took the time to spill some other beans, including that the tablet would be a 10.6-inch panel with e-book functions, and that it would hit the market in the first quarter of 2010. Interest was running high enough that when another Apple patent application was slightly revised and refiled, no one noticed that it was old news -- this time it was the 10 finger multitouch screen filing that piqued our interest for the second time. Then Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times added to the strange brew by mentioning the "impending Apple slate" in a public setting during a speech about the paper's web presence. A mid-November patent application for handling "ink information" on a "pen-based input / display device" kept the rumors going, as did another DigiTimes hit claiming that the tablet would now actually be two tablets -- a 9.7-incher with an LG OLED screen running $2,000, and a 10.6-incher LCD version costing around $800. By now, Conde Nast had also confirmed its content would be available on the tablet.
On December 9, 2009, Engadget Editor-in-Chief (and major babe) Joshua Topolsky referred to some "analyst noise" courtesy of Oppenheimer analyst Yair Reiner, who opined that the tablet would be 10.1 inches and unleashed upon earthly consumers in March or April of 2010 with a $1,000 pricepoint -- and that it would profoundly affect both the state of publishing and e-reader powerhouse Amazon. Then, on the eve of Christmas Eve, the first whisper of an impending Apple event arrived via a triple-threat of whopper reporting. Silicon Alley Insider reported that Apple was working with app developers for demos on a "new, larger mobile device" while Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster was in a betting mood, scribbling of an investor note which gave a 75% chance of a January Apple event happening, while Apple Insider pegged the date for January 26th. (Gene, we hope you put some money down on this one, man!) The year really ended with a bang in the Apple tablet department, including the one-two punch of a New York Timesarticle saying people would be "surprised" with how they interacted with the tablet coupled with a newly revised version of that multitouch tactile keyboard patent application (sadly, we once again didn't catch the lineage), a nice rise in the company's stock due to the rumored tablet event, and a bunch of component talk, including some DigiTimes reports that the 10-inch glass panels would now be manufactured by Innolux (rather than Wintek), with a March or April launch date in sight. It seemed even ex-head of Google China Kai-fu Lee (who also has connections to Foxconn) wanted to weigh in, saying that the announcement would indeed come in January, while repeating many of the previously heard specs -- less than $1,000, 3G onboard, 10.1-inch size, iPhone-esque stylings, and so on. He also interestingly noted that Apple expected to move around ten million units in the first year of sale... though Lee later toldBloomberg that he had never discussed Apple's products at all. Engadget friend and columnist (and renowned lover of bagels) Michael Gartenberg ended the year around here with a piece detailing the many things that the Apple Tablet probably wouldn't or shouldn't be, among them a giant iPhone and a crummy MID.
Back to top
2010: The year we make contact?
2010 started off with three whole days of silence about the Apple Tablet, but that silence proved to be a fleeting calm before the storm. By the 4th of January, All Things D, The Wall Street Journal and some sources close to yours truly were all saying the same thing: a January 27th Apple event was going to happen (with a major product announcement in tow), and the word was that a beta of iPhone OS 4.0 had already been given to developers complete with a "simulator" for reformatting and resizing apps. Yes, the evidence was truly piling up this time. The next day, a 2008 patent application emerged detailing Apple's dalliances with zooming about in 3D employing multitouch -- and while it didn't necessarily have anything at all to do with the tablet, well, one could extrapolate and dream. Things took a slight turn for the zany next, with Silicon Alley Insider spouting some wisdom-slaying quotes from a "source" who had "seen it" such as "it's a big iPhone, but it's not just a big iPhone" and "it's pretty." AppleInsider also opined that the device would be fit for multiple carriers, though Verizon Wireless was going to get preference, or possibly first dibs on the damned thing. Then just as we were boarding our plane home from Sin City and CES 2010, French blog Nowhere Else published a report of Orange executive Stéphane Richard seemingly confirming that the tablet existed, simultaneously giving a "yay" to the fact that it boasted a webcam. He, like so many before him, later recanted and said he was taken out of context... but really, no one cared. Up next, AppleInsider detailed a globe-encompassing shortage of 10.1-inch OLED and LCD displays because of the tablet's production, and some even began to opine -- based a newly-filed patent application -- that the mythic slate might sport handwriting recognition.
On January 13th blog Valleywag offered a bounty of some of its parent company Gawker Media's cash --up to $100,000 for photos or a chance to fondle the elusive tablet -- though as of this writing the only thing it's produced is a snippy letter from Apple's lawyers pointing out that inducing people to break their NDAs isn't exactly "legal." Then on January 18th, the official word came from Apple that there would, indeed, be an event on January 27th at Yerba Buena Center for the Arts Theater in San Francisco (points to Paczkowski for totally nailing the date), and the same day, Engadget pal and Fox News reporter Clayton Morris said his source close to Apple was tipping at a three-pronged presentation for the 27th: iLife, iPhone OS 4.0, and yes, a tablet. The internet indulged itself in the opportunity to read into Apple's "come see our latest creation" quote what it could (and likewise found Rorschach-style meanings in the graphic which accompanied the press release), and while it was pretty clear at this point that a product would indeed be announced... well, nothing was necessarily much clearer than it had been back in 2004. The Wall Street Journal added another fun bit to the day by reporting that Apple was deep in talks with Harper Collins for a tablet e-book deal. Over the next few days, we heard plenty: the China Times said that the tablet would be 9.7-inches (a previously heard size) while Ars Technica disputed previous rumors that the tablet would boast an AMOLED screen by astutely pointing out that no 10.1-inch AMOLEDs are actually in production. Peter Kafka seemed to know something... and it seemed to involve the New York Times, Disney and "enhanced" e-books, and MacRumors dug deep enough to find a long, drawn out tale of Apple seemingly registering for a trademark on the name iPad (which we had, alas, heard in the past). There are other murmurings too: another unquestionably fake image (or a real image that's been doctored!?), a Tweet in a language we can't read, by someone possibly pretending to be a European retail chain, spraying some knowledge about pricing that's probably incorrect.
At the beginning of last week, we were treated to some possibly real but extremely terrible photos of the 10-inch glass front of the tablet courtesy of the Mac Observer, while some analysts seemed to be thinking that it was now possible that the tablet wouldn't be available until June of this year because of battery life issues, supply chain problems, or maybe even global warming. 9to5Mac got in on the game for the UK, suggesting it would hit the Queen's shores with subsidization. Most recently, we've heard the P.A. Semi processor part of the specifications tale reavowed, plus some tell via the Wall Street Journal of the tablet's ability to act as a gaming device (with collaboration from Electronic Arts), e-reader (with help from the aforementioned New York Times, Conde Nast and Harper Collins), television subscription plans, a web-based version of iTunes, and a bunch of other no brainers... if you're devising the best device in the whole entire world. With our morning coffee today has just come what seems like a New York Times piece confirming 3G and WiFi on this thing, but at this point... well, maybe we just imagined that article.
And that brings us to now: present-day earth.
So, you may be wondering -- what does it all mean? As you can no doubt see from the information elaborately and lovingly collected above, with regards to Apple's plans, there are far more question marks than solid answers. And when we say "far more," we mean that there are pretty much no solid answers. However, if you take a long, hard look at this data, you certainly begin to see patterns emerging; a February or March release, a 10-inch display, lots of media partnerships lined up, inventive new user interface ideas. We'd like to think that the key to understanding Apple's plans lies in seeing those patterns, but the company is more clever then that. More than once they've completely upended what we expected, delivering something decidedly different altogether. The one thing you can take to the bank is that Apple has expertly played this game -- a game the company all but invented -- and it plays for keeps.
So what can we expect on Wednesday? Will it be the mythical tablet of analyst's dreams, the ultimate fanboy accessory, the culmination of Steve Jobs' and Jonathan Ive's hardest work? We know for sure that not all of the above rumor-mongers can be right -- but we'd also like to believe that somewhere in that stew lies a little bit of truth. If we were the wagering type, we'd tell you that this is a gamble where the safest bet is no bet at all -- but that's why we'll all be watching. Right Steve?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)