Just a Thought: Sniffing Around For The Econo Mac
by - May 26th, 2004
We are doing some redecorating, and one of the chores on my list is to paint the ceiling throughout the house. Luckily, my house isn't all that big so the task only requires a few Saturdays getting stupid on paint fumes.
Last Saturday I was prepping the ceiling in the family room. I had on my safety glasses because it seems that I'm one of those guys who always manages to get something in his eyes. Yet, despite my precaution, or perhaps because of it, I wound up with enough junk in my eyes to hold a yard sale.
So, this Saturday I stopped off at my local Home Depot and bought a new set of goggles, the kind they used to make you wear in wood shop in high school.
Do they still have wood shop in high school?
I've always resisted buying those clear plastic goggles because the smell of the plastic was horrendous; I mean it was skunk-gagging bad. You know that nauseating odor you get when you rip open a package containing something made of new plastic? The funk seems to concentrate while being enclosed in the bag, and when you open it the odor hits your nose like a prize winning knock-out punch.
By comparison, the plastic goggle smell has it beat. You can see, or at least smell, why I've resisted buying plastic goggles, but I picked up a fairly inexpensive pair thinking that I could survive a day or two of foulness. I could always toss them once the job was done. I even bought a fairly expensive respirator in an attempt to minimize the stench.
I got home and prepared to do battle with the ceiling, and the goggle-funk; I put on the respirator -- I didn't want to get funk-punched -- then opened the package containing the goggles. I sniffed through the respirator trying to see if the thing would indeed protect my nose. To my relief, I could smell nothing!
Well, that's not entirely true; I got a whiff of something pleasant and familiar. Thinking that it might be a scented filter in the respirator, I shrugged and put on the goggles. I immediately noticed that the smell was stronger; not overpoweringly so, like people who smell like they've bathed in French perfume, but definitely stronger. I took off the goggles and the mask, and sniffed the goggles again. The pleasant aroma, which reminded me of honeysuckle, was coming from my newly purchased plastic eye protection! Not only did I not mind wearing the goggles, I actually enjoyed using them.
If the makers of the goggles (AOSafety Chemical Splash/Impact Goggles from Aearo Company) had continued producing the nasty smelling ones, I would have still purchased them; funky goggles would have been good enough to protect my eyes, but the experience would have been wholly unpleasant, and it would have stuck in my mind as something I should avoid in the future.
That would lead to me resisting buying goggles in the future, possibly blinding myself with eye-junk, and be changed from a productive member of society into a self-pitying shell of the man I am today. Yeah, that's a stretch, but you get the point. As it is, my experience was so positive -- great smell, no eye-junk -- that I'm going to buying a second pair to keep in the garage, and, as I've just done in the preceding vignette, I'm going to recommend those goggles to everyone.
I drug you through that story to illustrate a point: A great user experience can do a lot for a company's bottom line. It seems that some companies, like Aearo Company, get it, while other companies, like Microsoft, have yet to prove that they get anything beyond the fact that they are the current king of the software hill. Microsoft has talked about improving the user experience before and they came up with an animated paperclip that is both distracting and annoying. Recently, Microsoft has said those words again, and while they sound sincere, I'm left wondering if the company truly understands what it is saying. Will we get another animated paperclip?
Now that I've gotten through my gratuitous Microsoft bashing, I should mention that it's not the Gate's Gang I ultimately want to talk about, it's Apple that's in the spotlight this time.
Mac users don't have to worry as much about the inclusion of a good user experience in products from Big Redmond, and we have the folks at the Mac Business Unit to thank for that. Oddly, it is Apple, itself, who seems to be missing the boat on creating an ideal user experience. I'm not referring to the look and feel of OS X, or any of the apps Apple makes, nor am I citing Apple hardware; I happen to think the only thing easier than setting up and using a Mac is breathing.
Let's see: you have air, you suck it into your lungs, hold it for a second, then push it out again. Yep, breathing is easier. Pretty hard to mess that up, but some people still manage to.
But I digress...
What I'm talking about here has to do with the more general experience of owning a Mac. I just don't believe that what can easily be argued as the best software and hardware user experience on the planet is enough to attract more people to the Mac platform. If you think back to my good smelling goggles, the question that we should ask is: Would I have bought the honeysuckle-scented goggles if they cost twice as much as the stinky ones?
After thinking about it briefly I can safely say that I would likely have stuck with my first thought and ignored the pleasant smelling eye-gear and bought the cheaper, foul smelling goggles with the thought of tossing them after my need was fulfilled. They would have been 'good enough' after all.
And that's the point I think Steve Jobs is missing: It has nothing to do with Fords versus BMWs, it has everything to do with stinky goggles versus honeysuckle scented eyewear. People won't bother to even looking at the nice smelling Mac because it cost far more than what they would pay for 'good enough'.
Further, I contend that while the eMac is a great piece of hardware and is relatively cheap, its form factor is not what many people, folks used to doing things differently, want. I'm not suggesting that Apple should start pumping out crud-ware, I don't think anyone, with the possible exception of Michael Dell, would want that. I would rather that Apple find a way to offer Macs that can be configured in a way that would make them a bit more accessible to those thinking of switching, and while they are at it; make Macs so that they can be used however we what to use them.
This is not a concept that is foreign to Apple, indeed, Apple has insured that many of its products allow you to do what you want, however you want to do it, within reason of course. But that concept does not carry throughout Apple's product line. I have no easy, fairly inexpensive way to put a Mac on my kitchen counter, for instance. The eMac is way too big and the iMac is too pricey. iBooks get close, but even the low end iBook is a few hundred bucks more than I would pay for what should be little more than a smart terminal. Computing should happen where I need it to happen, not where Apple, or Dell, or HP tells me it should happen.
I'm not alone in my belief that Apple needs to figure out a way to offer less expensive Macs. Analysts both famous and infamous, and TMO's own Bryan Chaffin can agree on at least one point; Apple would do well to offer cheaper Macs.
I think Apple is listening. I have no clear indication if this, no insider info to divulge, but several occurrences recently has led me to believe that the cries for cheaper Macs have not fallen on deaf ears.
The most obvious indication that Apple is paying attention is the recent eMac price reduction. The eMac is a great computer made better with a US$799 price tag.
Another, more subtle indication that Apple is not asleep at the wheel is the very recent, and very public creation of a Mac division within Apple. The iPod is currently getting a lot of attention, but Macs are Apple's bread and butter; giving each some breathing room and dedicated attention is a good move. For Mac users and watchers, it means that Apple can now apply dedicated resources towards creating and promoting Mac products.
Finally, there's not been a refresh of the iMac line for quite sometime. While the LCD iMac is a wonderful machine, it has not enjoyed the runaway success of its CRT predecessor, and that's got to have Apple wondering why.
So, somewhere in some dark lab, behind heavily guarded vault doors, in some underground cave, the location of which is known only to a hand-picked few, Apple engineers are likely putting the final touches on the new consumer Mac. Will it be an all-in-one unit, or be sold in pieces? Will it sport a G5, or a pair of G4s? Will it even be called an iMac? Perhaps Mr. Jobs has gotten tired of the "i" and is looking for a new letter or number to slap in front of this new techno-wonder.
Whatever the new Mac is, you know its going to smell great, but its got to excite the masses, too. Right now, the only way I see Apple doing that is to give the people what they want; great smells and better prices.
is a writer who currently lives in Orlando, FL. He's been a Mac fan since Atari Computers folded, but has worked with computers of nearly every type for 20 years.
You can send your comments directly to me, or you can also post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From Just A Thought
- Apple's New Cards: Aces and Kings? - September 14th
- Power to the People - September 1st
- Too Soon To Zune - August 28th
The Just A Thought Archives
Observer Comments
Small, nice form that will fit anywhere, sorta toaster like, quiet, so maybe no fan, hmmm bring back the cube maybe? Better yet how about something like the cube just a bit taller with a built in display, like, oh I dunno' a 9" CRT. Call it a Mac SE/G4.
The point is that the ideas are there. Apple just has to decide to do it.
Wed May 26, 2004 10:49 am Subject: Technically, the lowest-priced new Mac is...
...the Education-only "dumb client" eMac model, for $599:
1GHz PowerPC G4
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
The only problem is, of course, that it doesn't include an optical drive at all (not even a CD-ROM); it's designed for network installs (computer labs, etc.).
For $50 more, you get the same model with a CD-ROM (but no modem).
I have no idea what Apple's profit margin is on these Educational-priced systems, but it seems to me that they should be able to drop the standard entry-level eMac (the $799 commercial model) down to the $699 price point without too much pain involved.
Let's assume that they're currently making, say, a 15% margin on the eMac ( their average profit margin per quarter is around 24%, I believe, so I assume that the PowerMac/PowerBook line averages it up). If this is close, that means that they have about $120 to play with. Dropping $100 of this would leave the entry-level model with around a 2.5% profit--essentially a loss leader.
The question is, would dropping from the $800 price point to the $700 price point--thus losing perhaps $10 million in profit/quarter (assuming 100,000 eMacs sold)--be justified by increased sales and improved price perception?
Wed May 26, 2004 11:07 am Subject: Headless iMac/eMac
Don't want the monitor. Don't need the monitor. The monitor is a waste. Stop trying to make me buy a monitor to get a cheap Mac. Just make a cheap Mac sans monitor so I can afford to give the thing as a gift.
But, then again, we're talking about a company that won't produce a mouse suitable for 9-5 graphic/web production work.
Or offer an ergodynamic keyboard.
Love Apple, hate the Orwellian product matrix.
QuoteBlueDjinn wrote:
...the Education-only "dumb client" eMac model, for $599:
1GHz PowerPC G4
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
Make it a "really" dumb client; yank out the hard drive. I've never seen anything wrong with the "network computer" concept. With gigabit ethernet and a G5 xServe, you ought to be able to run OSX remotely and concurrently on several client machines. This solves configuration problems, to start with; everyone has the same setup and can't screw around with it.
{Dons Nomex} OK, now tell me what's wrong with it.
Edit: I realize this does nothing for an econo single Mac, so perhaps it's hijacking the thread. I'm just curious, though...
Wed May 26, 2004 11:32 am Subject: Mac in the kitchen
I, too, am hoping for a solution here to the "Mac in the kitchen" problem. I already have an eMac, iMac and iBook, and none of them really work in a kitchen environment. A "kMac" needs to be splashproof, small, and unobtrusive... it has to be that "extra" Mac appliance that isn't the household's primary computer. Maybe it only gets used for recipes or "iGrocery" lists, but it can't dominate the room (or counter space!).
Though it'd be hard to reach a low price point in that form factor, an under-the-cabinet unit, w/ a fold-down LCD screen and wireless iBook-esque small keyboard would be the perfect thing. If Apple added AV capabilities to it, so you could watch TV or listen to the radio too, they'd have a hit on their hands.
If it wasn't restricted to ONLY under-the-cabinet use, Apple could also market it (just by flipping it upside down!) as a small desktop unit to anyone who had a small apartment or dorm room. If they repurposed a lot of iBook parts for this new device, then the dev costs would be minimal. It wouldn't have to have the ruggedness of a portable, so they could cut some corners there too to bring it in at a $599-$799 starting price.
That's it. Just an idea...and a wish. *I* would buy one for sure! The essential point for Apple is that it can't just be a stripped down cheap Mac-- it has to be something DIFFERENT, and be marketed as a unique solution to a need (like the iPod) that consumers didn't know they had!
-Ken P (still waiting for a "home edition" of the xServe too!)
I would love to have a "Mac" in the kitchen; by that, I mean a 12" (or smaller) display, speakers, remote control, and something for text entry (until speech entry comes along).
It should be wirelessly connected to the Web and to my "computer/server" located somewhere else (in a cabinet or in another room). It would allow me to watch/listen to the information (news, sports, music, weather, cooking) channels I select, or to buy things from online stores. I should be able to view my photos or videos, listen to my music, check my email and calendar, and chat online. But I wouldn't be editing video or photos on this display.
That's what I would want for about $499 (includes the display, processor, remote, etc.).
Wed May 26, 2004 11:40 am Subject: Build your own Mac?
Wed May 26, 2004 11:57 am Subject: Kitchen counter Mac?
I will have to buy a new iMac in whatever form it takes for the family. The question is what do I buy for myself? I want the fastest machine with big RAM and big storage--a pro unit. But I don't need expansion as much as I need a small footprint. I don't care if its form is similar to the Cube or first/second iMac. I don't care about the price so long as I get max performance (read longevity) out of the unit.
So, please make mine a mini-tower with maxi-power.
I think it's funny that I bought a G5 as soon as they came out, and the naysayers told me that it would be immediately replaced. That was in October, and I still have the fastest computer on the Mac block, and for web design, it will probably carry some degree of longevity. At least in some form or another, this machine will be around for a long time, server, MacMAME machine, media center appliance. Who knows. I just know it's a solid machine who's only drawbacks are noise & size.
At this point I need to buy yet another G5, but I am huddled a bit into the "naysayer" category myself... wondering when that promised G5 3ghz machine will come out. When's the next launch everybody?
The cheapest way to do a headless mac would be to take the mobo from an existing mac model and stick it in a box. like, the eMac, or 12" iBook. Rig with a power supply, fan, standard components.
Problem is, we hit our heads right away against 2 brick walls:
1. in the cheap-vanilla-generic wintel world, Dell is the best at reliable 4 cheap. But Dell is a unique case -- not even the other wintel OEM's can match Dell's work there. (They come close in price, but lose money doing so.) Apple is unlikely to manage the feat.
2: Apple enjoys (according to Jobs) an average 28% markup on their hardware. This is far above what the eMachines, Dell, and HPaq can manage. This is why Apple makes money even selling so few (relatively speaking) computers. I imagine that this 28% figure, as an average across the whole product line, is more like 35% on the top of the line models, and more like 20% on the eMac, iBook line at the bottom.
So take the eMac. Sells for $800. now we do without that CRT, how much do we save if we are Apple? $90? let's say $100 (though that must be high). Now our headless eMac goes out the door for $700 (but it probably costs Apple more than the eMac without the CRT--it will need a fan. But forget that for now--)
$700 is still too high, you say? Well, that includes our 20% markup (it's probably less than 20%, but what do I know?).
Which means (80% of $700) the headless mac here costs apple $560 to make. Ten percent markup will give us $616.
In doing this, Apple cannibalizes some of their (higher-markup) sales. Let's compare to our theoretical 20% markup eMac: for every eMac sale lost to a headless-economac, Apple loses 20% of $800 -- $160. But they earn 10% of $616 -- $56. (I know the math isn't perfect, it's only for illustration.) At these figures Apple will have to sell THREE economacs to make up for every ONE eMac sale lost...
The road out of all this is not to race to the bottom, but to continue on the high end, high revenue model path. For the first time in a long time, Apple can offer significant performance competition with the g5.
The upcoming (when?) all-64 bit OS, which I nickname "OS 64X" will boost that performance jag even higher.
Apple would do well just to get rid of the eMac/iMac distinction of their consumer line. What would sell for a consumer machine is a unit without the monitor and a perceptively affordable. The unit doesn't need expansion slots, but there should be a way for a user to change the video card. Of course, since Apple "prefers" a user to just purchase a new Mac, I don't see that happening... With a more cube-like appearance, such a Mac would go beyond the consumer distinction and enter the business market where all they really want are fancy typewriters...
The eMac was the iMac CRT replacement, the flat panel iMac was the Cube replacement so it hasn't done so badly. Apple messed up by increasing the price for a few months, I think they should have taken the short term hit on the profit margin.
I too believe a headless low end Mac would be successful indeed I may have already bought one. The cost of a G5 plus updating software to be compatible has prevented me replacing my four year old G4 400. Not that it is flawed in any way, just the images I need to manipulate are bigger and now I have to wait for the progress bars.
Eco friendly solvent free paints are available:
http://www.ecospaints.com/
The question with the goggles is has the noxious (probably mildly toxic) odour been eliminated or is it just being masked by the also probably mildly toxic pleasant odour.
I would like to have a powerful Mac in my home office so I can manipulate video, photos, music, numbers, text, and graphics, when I need to. And I would like much less powerful systems to allow my family to access select Internet channels including news, music, email, and chat, and to be entertained by digital content on networked LCD display/TVs in the family room, bedroom, and kitchen.
Could I get by with just one PowerMac dual G5 serving the local system and the three other displays? Or would I need the power of both a PowerMac dual G5 and a $2000 Xserve-like dual G5, working in tandem (Xgrid style) to serve the local system and the three other displays?
Wed May 26, 2004 1:48 pm Subject: I'd rather pay lost profit than retail for what I don't need
Apple could save the consumer money by eliminating the CRT. It's not so much the $90. It's the WASTE. It's senseless.
Apple could save the consumer money by producing a two button mouse that a consumer is likely to want.
Apple could save the consumer money by offering an ergodynamic keyboard as an option.
Or, it could combine the savings of those two and allow you to order a computer without either the useless keyboard and useless mouse that they do ship. Now we're up to about $150 in savings (in reality, we're at about $210 if I have to buy yet another keyboard and mouse). And Apple is out $30. Seems like a small sacrifice. $650 vs. $860. 32% difference. Yeah, that matters.
Now, to make that $30 up they've got to sell 6 computers instead of 5.
You know what? I'd rather pay the $30 premium direct to Apple than have to pay full price for a keyboard, mouse, and monitor that I don't need.
Maybe, and here's a brand new never-before-heard thought: they could market this new machine! Then people would know about it. Better yet, they could also market their OS! Oh, the novelty!
I KNOW that Vern and Bryan are anti-"headless" Mac, but there are many of us who ALREADY have more than one spare CRT in the house that's just gathering dust. If pros can buy a G5 without the monitor, why can't Apple release a similar arrangement for the average consumer?
While they're at it, make the mouse and keyboard optional too (I've got a few of those around here somewhere too!). With a stripped-down base model, Apple could hit a low price point purely for marketing purposes, and let the customer decide whether to buy a whole package from Apple, or piece together their own peripherals. With VGA and USB widespread standards now, letting the customer plug in his/her own keyboard/mouse/monitor is a no-brainer and wouldn't hurt the user's Mac experience-- or Apple's reputation-- a bit!
I realize that Apple wants to wow everyone with a carefully coordinated package of wonderfully designed components (and as a designer I can appreciate that), but a lot of people could care less... a low price tag is what will get them to buy a Mac. Besides, the all-metal G5 doesn't even match the lucite aesthetic of the displays, keyboard, or mouse anymore (tho I expect that to change shortly!), so what's the problem?
Until the iMac came around, almost ALL of Apple's computers were offered sans CRT, so I don't know where all this resistence to a headless Mac comes from. And despite Steve's very premature proclimation of the death of the CRT, none my OWN spare displays are dead yet, and could easily get a new lease on life hooked up to a new Mac!
-Ken
Quotepyxl8 wrote:
I KNOW that Vern and Bryan are anti-"headless" Mac, but there are many of us who ALREADY have more than one spare CRT in the house that's just gathering dust. If pros can buy a G5 without the monitor, why can't Apple release a similar arrangement for the average consumer?
-Ken
What? If there's any Mac guy who's a bigger promoter of headless Macs than me I'd like to know who he is. I've written several times about Apple producing headless Macs and even hinted at such a device in this article. Byran, too, has mention his support of headless Macs. So, I'm not sure how you would "KNOW" that we are against them.
Vern Seward
Thu May 27, 2004 12:39 pm Subject: Re-introduce licensing?
Here's an idea. Obviously, Apple isn't big on offering all kinds of computers to all kinds of needs. So how about they let someone like HP or IBM offer a specific type of computer. Not one for competition, but one for expanding the market. The problem with licensing before was the fact that the other companies were simply producing cheaper hacks of the Apple Macs.
Let another company produce a nice kitchen Mac, or a cheap headless Mac. Or whatever else that Apple is refusing to give us. That's one of the big problems we Macheads face. We don't have choice in the Mac market. We have to take whatever Apple gives us. Drives me nuts. Their software is out of this world, but their hardware is no home-run for me. I'd love a cheap headless Mac. Give licensing for specific product lines only, and we can all be happy.
Thu May 27, 2004 4:52 pm Subject: Re: re-introduce licensing?
Iggyb- That's actually a great idea. Apple already has a relationship with HP sharing the iPod, so why not remove some of the resistence to buying something with an actual Apple logo on it by creating computer-esque friendly consumer "appliances" under a different name? And yes, that name DOES have to be associated with quality already. As you pointed out, that was part of the reason for the Mac clones' failure.
I haven't forgotten that lot of companies are skittish, having already gotten badly burned trying to market a cheap Internet appliance, but none of them ever did it CORRECTLY... it's a rare talent at which Apple excels.
Interesting food for thought here-- how would Apple make a Mac that's even SIMPLER to use?!! OS-X Lite? Or perhaps this "kMac" or "aMac" is a dumb terminal that's slaved to the user's main Mac and/or home network? Hmmmm.....
-Ken P
Thu May 27, 2004 6:45 pm Subject: iPod as a Headless mac???
There is an interesting Windoze device making a splash lately. You can check it out at:
http://www.oqo.com/hardware/specs/
As to the question of how cheap it is, that is still up in the air. But the reason I mention it is the idea of connecting it to desktop peripherals when at a desk and then disconnecting it as a portable. I would really like to see something similar from Apple. You might even have something like an iPod as the "headless" Mac which connects to desktop peripherals when at a desk.
By the way, one of the designers for this product worked for Apple for awhile.
Quoterkfoster wrote:
There is an interesting Windoze device making a splash lately. You can check it out at:
http://www.oqo.com/hardware/specs/
As to the question of how cheap it is, that is still up in the air. But the reason I mention it is the idea of connecting it to desktop peripherals when at a desk and then disconnecting it as a portable. I would really like to see something similar from Apple. You might even have something like an iPod as the "headless" Mac which connects to desktop peripherals when at a desk.
By the way, one of the designers for this product worked for Apple for awhile.
Now, YHAT is cool! The OQO is a very interesting idea. You folks should check out the video (in QuickTime).
Vern
[/quote]
Now, YHAT is cool! The OQO is a very interesting idea. You folks should check out the video (in QuickTime).
Vern[/quote]
Anyone else notice that the last two items in the OQO video's "history of computer evolution" segment were both Macs (a Cube and a Powerbook). Was that an off-handed compliment to Apple?
The site sez the OQO's price will be about $2K at release, which they now say is this Fall (and it's been "coming soon for 4 years now!). Neat as it looks, at that price we've strayed WAY off topic! We were talking CHEAP solutions! For 2 grand I should be able to buy a 3-pack of these mythical Mac appliances to scatter around the house and still have some change in my pocket!
-Ken
I've been saying this for a while. Forget yanking out the monitor. Yank out the drives and the a few of the extra ports (1 USB, 1 or none FireWire, no modem, Giga-ethernet, no extrenal monitor port), perhaps have a good/better/best model with a few more ports and/or a CD-burner, but keep it simple.
Hook up the dumb beasts to an xServe and xRaid and off you go. Get some grid computing going as well to harness some power from those CPUs when idle. It's a computer lab, it's an office desktop, it's a computer for every student in a school that can afford laptops or where the kids are too young to handle them without breaking them (elementary schools, etc.).
QuoteThe reason the price is so high is that this device is a full-fledged portable computer. For a headless Mac you wouldn't need the onboard screen or keyboard. IBM also demonstrated a similar concept last year some time with a device that looked sort of like a removable hard disk that slid into a dock with desktop peripherals attached. A small device of this type could also work in Corporate environments that need thin-client terminals to access Xwindows/Unix servers, Citrix servers, and legacy terminal emulation.pyxl8 wrote:
The site sez the OQO's price will be about $2K at release, which they now say is this Fall (and it's been "coming soon for 4 years now!). Neat as it looks, at that price we've strayed WAY off topic!
-Ken
QuoteOnly as long as none of the licensed products is a full-fledged computer that's cheaper than a real Mac. Anything, whether a cheap knock-off or a quality non-Apple Mac, that can run OS X natively for cheaper than Apple's products will have the exact same effects that the clones did.pyxl8 wrote:
Iggyb- That's actually a great idea. Apple already has a relationship with HP sharing the iPod, so why not remove some of the resistence to buying something with an actual Apple logo on it by creating computer-esque friendly consumer "appliances" under a different name? And yes, that name DOES have to be associated with quality already. As you pointed out, that was part of the reason for the Mac clones' failure.
Dell has already beaten everyone else at the low-price/high-volume game. Low-price/low-volume does not make money. Therefore, no matter how many people would like to see them make a Mac that cost no more than a Dell, Apple remains a high-price/low-volume company.
Quotepyxl8 wrote:
Interesting food for thought here-- how would Apple make a Mac that's even SIMPLER to use?!! OS-X Lite? Or perhaps this "kMac" or "aMac" is a dumb terminal that's slaved to the user's main Mac and/or home network? Hmmmm.....
-Ken P
Mix some of the ideas, with the tablet-like format - not a Tablet Mac, just one with something like a graphics tablet or pen input (think "touch screen" that's wipeable.)
Not for *writing* - but if I want a flip-down reference in the kitchen (or living room, with iSights checking on the kids, or to check TV listings... remember the "digital hub") I just need something to point at and "click."
12" LCD size screen... sort of a MegaNewton, I suppose, networked to the "real" Mac via Airport.
Just a thought.
Comments are currently closed. Please email the author instead.
Recent Headlines - Updated February 9th
- Tue, 6:27 PM
- iPad - Apple Job Posting Hints at a Camera in Future iPads
- 6:22 PM
- Product News - Apple Releases Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 3.0
- 6:18 PM
- Product News - Apple Updates iLife ‘09 with Aperture 3 Support, Slideshow Performance
- 4:53 PM
- News - Google Introduces “Buzz” Social Information Sharing Service
- 4:19 PM
- Just a Thought - iPad: A Reason For Being
- 3:28 PM
- News - Google Lowers Nexus One “Equipment Recovery Fee” to $150
- 2:27 PM
- Deal Brothers - Refurbished 13” MacBook 2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo: $749
- 1:31 PM
- Jeff Gamet's Blog - Macworld Expo: It’s Our Show, Not Apple’s
- 10:38 AM
- Quick Look Review - Texas Tea for the iPhone and iPod touch
- 10:25 AM
- News - Apple Rolls Out Aperture 3 Video Tutorials
- 10:00 AM
- Hot Forum Topic - Backing Up Your iPhoto Library
- 9:35 AM
- Product News - Notebook, iThoughts Add TextExpander touch Support
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
- TypeStyler For Mac OS X is Now Shipping! Download The Free Fully Functional 60 Day Tryout at www.typestyler.com
RamJet Memory: Mac Pro 8GB Kit $275.99, Mac Pro 4GB Kits $145.99! Sale on MacBook and MacBook Pro 8GB kits $459.99! MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac Mac mini 4GB Kits for $113.99! 1TB SATA Hard Drives for $109.99! Click here- If you own a car, you need CarMD! Catch problems, estimate repairs and more. Now for Mac. $98.99 at www.CarMD.com Save $10 with code TMO1.
If you're using a Mac, then you've gotta check out Full Tilt Poker for Mac. This Full Tilt Poker bonus code does the unthinkable, it actually rewards!For the latest Apple products use Ciao, a price comparison website, to find laptops like MacBook Air. Then find the best prices on MP3 players and use our comparison tool to evaluate mobile phones like the Apple iPhone.
Laptop Hardware Provided by TechRestore - Overnight Mac & iPod Repairs.
