« More Acrobat 8 thoughts | Main | Thank you Ambrosia Software »

Well, thanks to a really poorly written article in Smarthouse, the Mac tablet rumors have started up again, and once again, they seem to be based on I'd really like this rather than There's an overarching need for this. As we join the Macalope in pointing out that This would be SO COOL is not in fact a product justification, let's take a look at the Smarthouse article written by David Richards.

Actually, let's take a look at David Richards, since the author's background and previous articles can give you an idea of how reliable a prognosticator of Apple products he is, and how seriously to take him or not. Well, one of his more (in)famous articles was the "60% Of Windows Vista Code To Be Rewritten" bit. Hmm. Yeah, that turned out to be accurate. Wait, no, he was full of crap. However, there is something really funny here, because I remember what Scoble's reaction to this article was. Let's see, where is it. Consult the all-seeing Eye of Agamotto Google aaaaand we get Scoble's reaction, which can neatly be summarized as OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!. Hmm..now he's a source Scoble is quoting. Well, Scoble either forgives and forgets really fast, or he's willing to overlook such things as long as it supports one of his various crusades. However, David's also penned some things that were right, so let's just say that he perhaps got a little too overeager on that one. Still, Scoble quoting him as a source is pretty amusing. Not surprising, since "Scoble" and "research" go together like water and sodium, but amusing nonetheless.

So now, reading the article itself, well, it's a mess. First, Richards can't decide what the hell he's talking about. In the blurb he writes:

Apple researchers have built a full working prototype of a Mac tablet PC and three Companies in Taiwan are now costing a product for a potential launch in mid 2007.

Well, um, okay. Apple having a tablet prototype somewhere is news to no one. I'd imagine they have multiple iPhone prototypes. Doesn't mean they're building one for production. As well, costing a product != full production. It means just that: seeing how much it would cost to build something in a given quantity with certain specs. I can cost almost anything, doesn't mean I'm going to build six million of them, or am even planning to. Again, research and production are not the same.

In the first paragraph though, Richards veers over into the tablet being a big remote:

Several months ago I was told that Apple was exploring a neat new device that is basically a touch screen that links to various source devices including a brand new media centre that Apple is planning to launch next year.

What, it's not a tablet but a big remote? This is reinforced in the first sentence of the second paragraph:

The Mac tablet has been designed to handle third party applications such as home automation software that will allow users to control lighting, audio, entertainment devices and security feeds.

Well, that's kind of dumb. This isn't a Mac, it's an uber remote. Why would Apple build an Uber Remote? That market's saturated, and they're all dumb. When I have a 60" display right in front of me, why do I want to be looking down at a tiny display that needs a manual to use? I like the idea of using the TV/Laptop Screen for my menu display, that way, the bit in my hand can be small, and usable without me bobbing my head between it and the screen like a cracked-out chicken.

But in the next sentence, Richards changes what he's talking about:

It also acts as a full blown PC has wireless linking for a new generation of Wireless Hi Fi speakers that are currently being tested by Apple.

Dude, it's either a Mac, or it isn't. It doesn't "act as one", that's like being a little bit pregnant. As well, nothing about wireless audio is that stunning. I can do that now, and so do hundreds of bands. Wireless audio's been around for a while. But he adds a new requirement:

Also taken into consideration was the use of the device in educational environments where presenters often want to walk around while having access to source material being presented to a screen or auditorium speakers.

Again, you can do that now with existing tech, and anyone who thinks that presenting and diddling with a tablet while walking around is going to be the wave of the future needs to go buy a Tablet PC and try it out for a 90 minute stretch. Still not seeing the compelling reason, at least not in this description of the chimera Richards is creating. (With really bad grammar too. Dude...punctuation marks are your friend. Get cozy with them. Really.)

But now he starts describing things in more detail:

The new MAC tablet has Intel processors as well as a docking station that allows the device to link to screens with HDMI input. The docking station also has additional memo0ry capability so that users can stream content to either the tablet PC or the docking station or directly to a media centre if one is being used.

Okay, this is a minor niggle, but it's "Mac" not "MAC". MAC is an acronym, Mac is an Apple product. Anyway, this just doesn't make any sense as a reason for a docking station. First, Apple is hardcore into dealing with wires and portables not by using docking stations to hide the mess, but by getting rid of wires. Wireless networking, excellent Bluetooth support. If all you need to connect is a power cable that a 2 year old can use and a single HDMI cable, there's no need for a dock. Really. Besides, isn't he now describing the iTV? He kind of is. So this tablet would directly compete with the iTV? That's a Microsoft move, not an Apple move. Apple products compliment each other far better than this. The "WTF" factor in this paragraph is his "docking station with additional memo0ry"[sic] line. Dude, streaming is CPU - bound FAR more than memory bound. A MacBook can stream data across a network just fine. Streaming is not a real RAM - intensive operation. But even more confusing...the user can stream content to the tablet, the docking station or the media center, (iTV???) if one is being used? Stream from what? Even worse, stream to a docking station? What, the docking station is also a media center? If it is, then why do I need the tablet? Just use the docking station. If it isn't, then I'm not streaming to the docking station, am I? David, a hint: people really like it when your statements make sense. Just a thought.

Okay, now that I've reset myself from the David Richards Feedback Loop...the rest of the article is using patents and iPhone sillieness to justify Richards' ever-changing product. Which is inane, since patents no more indicate a shipping product than prototypes or costing do.

Really, if this is what people are using to say "Apple is shipping a Tablet in 2007", they need to pull their heads out.

But let's assume that Apple is considering this. Where are the advantages? Well, we'll have to assume a few things for this to make sense:

1. That David Richards' prediction is actually as bottom of the beer-barrel as it seems. It's too much of a mish-mash of a product to be something Steve Jobs would sign off on. It has no focus.


2. That Apple is not going to repeat the mistakes of ever Tablet PC to date, and create something that's either so underpowered that it's only good for you if your entire computing experience consists of short notes taken in odd postures, or something that has similar specs to a modern laptop, but with a $400 or more price premium so you can write on the screen.


3. That Apple is not going to sacrifice the form factor of the current MacBook (Pro) line, and create a new laptop that's clunky and ugly just to have a tablet. That will be a neat trick with hinge complications a tablet introduces, but Unca Steve has surprised us before, so it's not impossible. Just because Wintel boxes skew ugly doesn't make that a requirement.

So now, where are the advantages of a Tablet? Well, let's look at what the Tablet people like to say, and see if they have any use.

1. Graphic Designers will love them. Scoble and the rest love to push this one. The problem is, current Tablet PC hardware blows ass for a designer. The average screen size on them is 12.1". Yeah, you just go ahead and spend all day in CS 2 with that screen. Sure, you can use an external monitor, but now you have just paid a rather large premium for a desktop with an external tablet. If I have to sacrifice the mobility to get a usable screen size, then where's the advantage of the Tablet? For short doodles? I'm gonna pay $400 bucks for short doodles? I think not. Now, if you take a MacBook (Pro) and add tablet functionality, so that I can run Photshop or Painter with a 15" or 17" direct input area, and not give up the features that make a MacBook (Pro) rock and not hit me with a $400 or more premium, well, then I imagine the Graphic Design crowd is all in favor of it. Hell, at that point, it's attractive to everyone


2. They're better for writing. Why do people keep saying this? It won't make it true. They're not better for writing, they're better for jotting down notes. But not much better, unless you need to jot while standing. If you think that writing lots of content via longhand, (and the magic of handwriting recognition aside, what you're doing on a tablet in this case is writing in longhand. Only with a crappy pen, that fixes your crappier penmanship), is better than typing, you either can't type, or you don't write lots of long articles, reports, etc. A decent typist can smoke, and I mean brutally smoke anyone writing longhand speed-wise. There's no contest.

   As well, when you're typing, you can multitask far better than when you're writing longhand. That's because typing is a tactile function that is not dependent on keyboard location, whereas writing is a visual function that is quite dependent on pen location. When you know how to type, you don't have to look at the keys. So you can talk to people, read, etc. Even a modest typist can pay attention to what someone is saying while typing notes, and they can do this for a long period of time. You try writing notes for a 90 minute meeting longhand without spending a lot of time staring at your screen. Good luck with that. As well, I can type and type, and my hand position has nothing to do with where the cursor is. When you're writing on the screen, you have to pay a lot of attention to visual boundaries, or you're no longer taking notes, you're writing in a different window, or jotting on a menu. Longhand writing is a visual, single-tasking experience, typing is a tactile, multi-tasking experience. True, you can handle a lot of this by writing only in a specific "input area" on the screen, but then you're changing everything you've learned, conscious and not, about writing. You're now trying to change a rather fundamental behavior solely to use that behavior on a computer. That's kind of counterintuitive, and again, you're not gaining any real advantage over typing, barring you doing this standing up in an impromptu meeting. While those happen, are they justification enough for a tablet? So far, sales figures indicate "no".

   On the meeting thing. Scoble loves to say "Well, a tablet is less obtrusive in a meeting than a laptop." As usual, he's partially right, but you have to think about things more than he does. This is not hard to do. Initially a tablet is less intrusive. However, there's the eye contact issue. If i'm writing a lot of notes longhand, I'm looking at the screen. What's that mean for the poor schlub running the meeting? That if he has a room full of tablet users, he's looking at the tops of their heads a lot. That means little eye contact, and much less verbal and other interaction. I've run meetings full of Blackberry addicts, and it sucks. You get very little feedback from the top of someone's head. With a laptop, I can type, and look at the person. I may occasionally glance at the screen, but I can spend far more time looking at and talking to the person running the meeting. Typing is less modal than writing over time, and the increased multitasking typing allows for quickly outstrips the initial advantage of longhand.



3. They're better for vertical markets, like medical, construction, and factory use. Yes they are. No argument there. None. Like any product, there are places that Tablets kick ass, and those are three of them. Places where you need to do most of your input/output while mobile. Not just at a desk in between spurts of mobility, but while you're actively mobile. Tablets rule. Places like a factory floor, outside work, or construction, where a keyboard is going to get beaten up, gunked up, or just destroyed? Oh hell yeah, tablets rule there too. However, in all of these cases, we're talking specific - use, short input. No one in these cases is standing around writing long reports. We're talking quick notes and taps on controls on a screen. Tablets are pretty much designed for this. But is that a reason for Apple to build a tablet? Based on Apple's primary, and even secondary markets, no. Success in vertical markets requires intimate knowledge of those markets, and Apple is really too small of a company to pull that off. Besides, if they wanted to go after those, they could have at any time in the last ten years. It's not like they didn't create the first really solid and popular handwriting based platform...oh wait, yes, they did. Never mind.

Look, I'm not saying that there's no need for a laptop with tablet features, or that pen - based input sucks in all cases. But it's not a damned magic spell. It's a technology with good and bad points, and people need to evaluate it as such. If Apple can come out with a MacBook (Pro) tablet that doesn't sacrifice existing features or form, and doesn't hit the wallet for more than the price of a separate tablet, then booyah, it'll probably rock, and I'll bet the Wintel tablets will suddenly get a lot better just to keep up. That would be good for everyone.

David Richards' article is not a sober analysis of a product, it's a spaghetti test, and when you really read it, none of it stuck. As far as Scoble goes, you couldn't get him to critically analyze tablets any more than you can get him to think critically about anything he's on a tear about. (I'm beginning to doubt that he's physically or psychologically capable of critical analysis. He seems to be only capable of religious cheerleading or castigation.) Tablets, HDTV, Blogging, etc. He's a large myna bird with crusading tendencies. Not the stuff that makes for critical thought.

Anyone taking Richards' article, as written, seriously, needs to be slapped with their Tablet PC.

Technorati Tags: Apple, Apple Hardware, MacBook Pro, Scoble, Tablet PCs

Comments