the continuing saga of the Apple tablet device

Today AppleInsider picked up a report from Kaufman Bros. that, over the last two years, Apple has purchased digital displays in 4 inch, 7 inch, 9 inch, 10 inch, and 12 inch sizes, and that some of these purchases were for a number of units appropriate to a small production run. While AppleInsider's report doesn't state outright that these were touchscreens, that is implied from the context.

In a separate development, Ars Technica reports finding yet another reference to an as yet unreleased iPhone OS device in the USBConfiguration.plist file distributed with an iPhone OS 3.1 beta release. That news shouldn't be public, but it is.

Meanwhile, Stefan Constantinescu contends that the Apple tablet device is a pipedream, one that will never come true. While his conclusion is looking like a long shot, he includes an interesting timeline of how the rumor of such a device has developed.

Given the various screen sizes that Apple has experimented with, I'm going to go a little further out on a limb and predict that the 2 versions of the Apple tablet device I've already predicted will be two different sizes, 7 inch and 10 inch, with the SMALLER of the two including the software-defined radio unit and being the more expensive (except as its purchase may be subsidized by one or more data service providers), as well as thicker than and approximately the same weight as the device with the larger screen.

Apple's much-rumored tablet device

While the rumor mill is abuzz with the prospect of an Apple tablet device, the anticipated details vary considerably.

Dan Knight of Low End Mac argues that the processor is likely to be the same type found in the MacBook Air, and that the device could be able to run either iPhone OS or the full-blown Mac OS X, possibly simultaneously. Others assume that the processor will be some variation on the ARM architecture, and that the operating system will be essentially the same as that found on the iPod Touch, the iPhone OS without the telephony components.

AppleInsider initially reported that we shouldn't expect to see this device released until early 2010, but then followed a few days later with the news that it might arrive as soon as September. (Apple's fiscal 1Q-2010 begins in October, '09.)

Financial Times broke the story that there is a tie-in between Apple's tablet and an effort to bring back the multitrack album, which has been losing ground to single song sales. PC Magazine chimed in in support of the FT story, adding some details of their own.

Jason Schwarz of Seeking Alpha emphasized how the new tablet will get a big boost from apps already written for the iPhone and iPod touch, and that it will be an even better platform for such apps. He also suggests that there's a tie-in between the tablet and a high-speed data offering from Verizon, but claims that there will be no carrier exclusivity.

Others hoping to climb on board the bandwagon include book publishers, who see such a device as potentially presenting a better opportunity for them than does Amazon's Kindle.

Meanwhile, Mac Night Owl asks whether an Apple tablet device would be "a product in search of a purpose", and PC World has already pronounced it "a train wreck".

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that it will come in two versions, a less expensive version with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, but no long-range datalink, and a more expensive version with a software-defined radio unit capable of working with a variety of data services.

Boom! ;-)

what's wrong with Microsoft's business plan

Microsoft's consumer PC OS market has been reduced to those for whom price is a primary factor in choosing between one product and another. A little reading between the lines would suggest that the same is also happening to their business market. People (business buyers included) who are more interested in productivity than per unit price are increasingly turning to Apple instead of any of the brands running Windows. Hardware quality certainly contributes to this, but the main difference between a Mac and a Windows machine is the operating system, and that's where the difference in quality is most stark. Since releasing XP, Microsoft has given every indication of being clueless as to how to proceed from there, whereas Mac OS X has seen significant improvement with each major update. Windows 7, due in October, will fix many of Vista's faults, but it is fundamentally the same architecture as XP (plus Vista's compositing engine), better implemented than Vista but otherwise much the same, rather like Mac OS 10.1 which was widely perceived as an apology for 10.0. (10.0, by the way, already had a compositing engine.)

Microsoft plans to make use of the window of opportunity surrounding the release of Windows 7 to pry the prices of the least expensive Windows machines upward. Certainly they'd like to have more for Windows 7 than they've been able to charge for Vista since its bubble burst, but they must also recognize that their hardware partners are in danger of going out of business, or at least of getting out of the PC business, if they aren't able to show some profit on their investments. So far so good, a little more margin will make all involved (except the consumer and price-conscious business buyer) more comfortable, but it will also further narrow the price advantage of Windows machines over Macs, and widen the price advantage of Linux-based computers.

So how much is a better Vista worth? How much can prices go up, on the merits of Windows 7, before the effect is to accelerate the rate of defections, to Apple at the high end and to Linux at the low end? 10%? 20%? Hard to say, but it's certain that they can't take a very large bite out of that $500 per unit premium Steve Ballmer claims Apple is charging before running into a wall. People will say to themselves "if I'm going to pay the price of a Mac, I might as well get a Mac!"

And, given that Windows 7 will be facing off with Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which is a bigger improvement over 10.5 than Windows 7 is over Vista, the vast majority of those who really give it a try will become loyal Mac users, with no thought of ever going back. Microsoft had best be careful not to do anything to interfere with the installation of Windows on Macs or (even more so) with the usability of the Mac version of Office as compared with the PC version, or they may end up losing the majority of their future revenue.

Unless they find a way to get more improvement for their development dollar, the unprofitability of further Windows development I've previously predicted will sooner or later come to pass, at which point Windows will become a static standard, updated only for compatibility with new hardware, if that. Microsoft may eventually be forced to release the source code to keep the platform viable as a foundation for their PC version of Office.

the other Steve: incompletely delusional

It's hard to know whether to compare Steve Ballmer with P. T. Barnum or with the alcoholic persona brought to life by W. C. Fields. John Gruber of Daring Fireball compares him with Grand Moff Tarkin of the original Star Wars film (now episode IV).

In a much longer piece, yesterday, Gruber lays out a compelling argument that Microsoft has entered a phase of long-term decline, whereas Ballmer would have you believe that recent trends in the market are a drop in the bucket when compared with Microsoft's still undeniable dominance of the PC operating system market, as measured by unit sales (counting a netbook the same as a workstation). (Here's Rafe Colburn responding to Gruber.)

But put a roomful of Mac-using journalists and investors in front of him, and even he notices.

ordering feed for uncounted chickens

They say don't count your chickens before they hatch. They also say don't count on any rumors about new Apple products until you hear it from Steve Jobs (or Phil Schiller).

On the other hand, you sometimes have to take uncertainties into account in making plans for the future, rather than waiting for them to be resolved into news.

The rumored Apple tablet device is one such case. If the rumors are true, it's introduction will lead to tremendous change in the personal computer market.

It will enable applications for which the iPhone or iPod touch would be perfectly suited, if they just had a little more screen area, or if they had a few times the memory or faster processors. This by itself is huge.

It will get a jump start by running existing iPhone/iPod touch apps unmodified. This may be speculation, but it makes too much sense not to be part of the plan. Expect the resolution to be a simple multiple of that of the iPhone, like 640 X 960, or maybe 800 X 1200, maintaining the 2 X 3 aspect ratio.

As far as I'm concerned, the prospect of extremely fast cellular wireless internet connectivity is icing on the cake, but there are doubtless potential applications for which this is essential. Moreover, if tethering to your desktop is allowed, it will prove a huge selling point.

In fact, that issue of interoperability with other equipment remains a big question mark. Would an Apple tablet device work as a touch interface input device for your Mac? Would it work as a remote controller and/or handheld viewer for your Apple TV? Chances are the answer to both is "yes, with the appropriate application running."

If you're a (potential) iPhone software developer, you'll be wanting to keep the possibility of a larger device that works very much the same way as does an iPhone in the back of your mind, maybe even starting to accumulate the alternative resources you'd want to include if there were a possibility of your app running on a device with 4..9 (2^2 to 3^2) times the screen resolution, or making sure your app is resolution independent by using vector-based graphics.

To get back to the main point. The significance of the release of this device, if it happens, is too great to ignore just because it might not happen. If it happens (and it's looking like a good bet that it will) it will be HUGE!

(Here's Jason O'Grady's take on what an Apple tablet would need to be successful.)

Google VP: the web has won

In an informal panel discussion before the MobileBeat 2009 conference, Google engineering vice president and developer evangelist, Vic Gundotra, said "that the web had won and users of mobile phones would get their information and entertainment from browsers in future." (Financial Times Tech Blog)

Saying "the browser [...] will become the platform that matters," Mr. Gundotra pointed out that browsers built around Webkit would have access to information provided by GPS and accelerometer hardware. Interestingly, both Google's own Android and Palm both make use of Webkit in their respective browsers.

His main point is about the expense of supporting several different operating system platforms, versus the expense of providing a single, cross-platform web application. And, wherever that argument applies, he's certainly right.

My point is that this argument isn't as universally applicable as it might seem.

For example, processor intensive games, commonly done in OpenGL, aren't going to be delivered as web applications anytime soon, because their performance would suffer too much as compared with the same games delivered as native applications. Even if the more important mobile device operating systems all provided both OpenGL and some means of making direct use of it from within their web environments, the chances that the exact same code would run properly on any two is vanishingly small. In any case, game developers have been shifting away from direct coding and towards the use of cross-platform development environments, that provide the tools and performance they need while taking the pain out of supporting multiple platforms. While it wouldn't be what Gundotra is talking about, a hybrid system you might see would couple a native game engine app from the provider of such a development system with web apps that run within the environment it creates. Combined with a web-based framework, like SproutCore, that approach could be very powerful. (Bingo!) Game developers will support as many platforms as makes sense in the market, variations on the web included.

Performance is only one reason for preferring native applications to web applications. There's also the matter of general functionality. I personally lost most of my interest in developing for the web when I discovered there was no standard means of generating synthesized sound in real time, and while workarounds might exist they were both platform and browser specific. I decided I was better off to pick a platform and develop for it instead of for the web. So far as I'm aware, that situation has not yet been remedied in HTML5.

There are good reasons why native applications will continue to have more functionality available than do cross-platform web apps, for some time to come. First, at least in Apple's approach, vending all native applications through its iTunes Store, problem apps are quickly identified and those that remain on the system for more than a few days can be considered trustworthy, far more trustworthy than a web app from some random source. Hence the walls of the sandbox around web apps must necessarily be higher than those that surround native apps.

Almost as significantly, cross-platform web applications depend upon web standards, which require agreement among vendors, which takes time. Any new development will nearly always appear in one or more native app toolsets (long) before it appears as a web capability enjoying widespread support. Consider that the animation capabilities included in HTML5 were first introduced to the market with the advent of the Amiga computer, in 1985, ten years before the web went mainstream.

Then there's the advantage of working with tools you already know. Apple has attracted 100,000 people, with widely varying degrees of programming experience, to their iPhone platform. That's very likely many millions of person-hours spent studying documentation, learning how OS X works, an investment many won't be eager to walk away from to take up HTML5 instead. For more than a few it won't matter at all that their apps only run on iPhone OS devices, and not on everything out there.

And let's not forget that the cost of getting into the web app business includes either running your own continuously connected server or renting space and bandwidth on someone else's, whereas an independent developer working from a coffee shop can get an app published on the iTunes Store, and Apple handles all of the nitty gritty details, for a mere 30% commission.

Nevertheless, there will be situations where web apps make more sense, and it's good to see the standard finally moving forward.

an open letter to M. Ahmadinejad

How will it go for you, Mahmoud, when the tables are finally turned, when the mud falls from the eyes of those who currently wonder what all the ruckus is about and they find common cause with the protestors?

Will you be hung, like Saddam? Will you spend the rest of your life behind bars? Will men spit as they say your name?

Where will you hide?

If you believe there is justice in Islam, then understand it will come back upon you, for you have disgraced it.

digging in for a long-term struggle

While there might still be a slim chance for a resolution that would allow Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to save face, and a somewhat greater chance of him being turned out by the Assembly (Council) of Experts, at this point the most likely outcome of the current crisis in Iran appears to be a protracted, mainly clandestine struggle against a government that has squandered its last shred of legitimacy.

It's time for contingency plans for setting up refugee camps to be dusted off, and time to alert the ex-pat Iranian community to be ready to take in those who choose to flee, to keep the number who remain vulnerable along the borders small.

It's time for those within the country to start thinking about damage containment and organizing themselves for a long-term struggle, including such details as what they might use as detention centers for the Basij, when the time comes for that. More immediately, capturing small groups, subjecting them to criticism, and leaving them handcuffed, using the same sort of plastic straps that are commonly used in construction, strikes me as a useful tactic, to get across to the Basij that some people think they are the bad guys, deserving of punishment.

It's time for outsiders, such as ourselves, to shelve plans for destabilization and redirect our efforts to exercising a bit of control over the manner in which the Iranian government crumbles, as much as possible mitigating collateral damage.

an American President with gravitas, how inconvenient

Inconvenient, that is, for the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad, whose abrasive manner now comes off as mere impertinence by comparison, despite the thousands of thugs ready to do his bidding. That this pathetic shell of a man, whose thugs have heaped abuse upon truehearted Iranians for protesting obviously, indefensibly fraudulent election results, should criticize Obama for expressing outrage beggars belief. Snakes have more integrity!

contextual succession shock

After the discussion with P.W. Singer, I set to work on a much delayed programming project, with some progress to show for it at this point, but not without a week or so of fairly serious disorientation, as I basically forced myself to switch modes.

Frankly, while programming is something that comes pretty easy for me, the tuning out of most else doesn't, and I have to take frequent breaks from that, so progress comes in fits and starts, as I'm able to concentrate on the task at hand.

I gather there's something quite interesting and both hopeful and disturbing happening in Iran, but I really don't understand it, how it sorts out into sides with differing agendas. Nevertheless, I hope for a peaceful resolution that at least a majority of Iranians would term just, and that the rest can live with until the next election.

Peace be with you, all of my misguided brethren; the sun will rise again tomorrow, whether we can see it or not.