1. Achieve maximum supply volume,
2. Place large enough bulk orders to minimize its component costs, and
3. Sap the global 10″ LCD market of supply so that their competitors in the tablet market are forced into constrained supply situations, preventing them from competing with Apple at the iPad’s price points.

On a personal note, I’d be bummed to be right on this one; while FaceTime is quite spiffy, that Retina Display really is the killer iPhone 4 feature for me.

I do believe that Apple perceives a risk behind allowing this particular piece of software “hijack,” as it were, the iPhone user experience, particularly as the Google Voice service will likely become wildly popular amongst the demographic of folks who are attracted to products like iPhones. I must also note that Apple themselves pulled quite a similar customer “hijacking” trick on AT&T with the iPhone.

So if anyone knows the smell of this type of usurpation, it’s Apple. They’re also right to fear it.

I ultimately get exactly why Apple attempted to block it: to paraphrase the late father of a past girlfriend of mine, if you’re not pulling at least one foul per game, you’re just not playing hard enough.

It’s all a game of strategy, folks, and the stakes in the competition for slices of the burgeoning mobile Internet device market are pretty damned high.

Arrington does make one claim, however, that I just can’t get behind. He writes:

[Apple is] jealously guarding control of their users and trying to block Google and other third party developers at every turn from getting their superior applications in front those users.

The first half is spot-on, but the second half is very wrong—they are not fearful of developers offering better software than their apps. Apple doesn’t care, for example, about superior stock tracking, weather, or memo programs.

They do care about Safari, Phone, Contacts, Calendar, Mail, Messages, and iPod, App Store, and iTunes applications: they are the signature apps of the core iPhone user experience.

If Google Voice takes over the dialer, a significant problem is introduced: people may likely start demanding that the phone experience is designed around the Google Voice service. In such a case, Apple will have lost control of the UX of this core component of the product, as they would then have to choose between two paths:

1. chase after the Google Voice UX requirements, OR
2. consciously choosing to ignore it, causing customers that want it evaluate switching to an Android phone.

Apple are specifically looking to control the core user experience of the device, but that’s what Apple does, and what’s more: that’s what we (largely) want them to do! Their passion for that sort of thing is directly attributable for the design excellence of their products.

In any case, the ref is on the field, and we’ll get a call on the game play. The only certainty here is that—whatever call the FCC ultimately makes—the outcome will be interesting.

My call: offensive holding.

Not sure how I’d feel about each app having its own keyboard, but who’s to say which details would make it into the shipping version, and which not?

Are software touchscreen keyboards good for everyone? Certainly not. But this is another aspect of the Apple Way. Apple tries to make things that many people love, not things that all people like. The key is that they’re not afraid of the staunch criticism, and often outright derision, that comes with breaking conventions.

[...]

That the iPhone — or specifically its software touchscreen keyboard — does not appeal to everyone is not a problem. Nothing appeals to everyone. Even if you try to make something that appeals to everyone by adding every single clamored-for feature, you wind up with something like Windows that does not appeal to people with a taste for the elegant and refined.

And so Apple demonstrate mastery of yet another classic showmanship tactic: know your audience.

As a years-long Mac user (since 1991), the decision to purchase a non-Apple computer was not one I settled upon lightly.

Discovering Joy in Software

I have been emphatically happy with the user experience my Macs have provided for me, from day one. I loved that everything just worked. I also loved that Macs started off in a very simple state, but that it allowed you—by leveraging third-party software—to get some advanced level of use from it, with software such as DragThing, QuickKeys, and others.

Sure, there were a number of frustrations involved.

Stability — looking back from the world of OS X — was a big issue, as you’d add more and more software (particularly those lovely extensions) to your Mac. Everyone that had been working with Macs in the 90s will remember the “delights” of having a single app crash and take down the whole bloody system along with it… as if it weren’t painful enough to lose all your unsaved work in Director (anyone remember the days before Flash even existed?), there go all your changes in those Photoshop and BBEdit files. The “upside” of Classic Mac OS’s instability, however, if there can be said to be one, is that I’d developed a habit of typing the cmd-S key combination as if I’d had a nervous twitch, that has remained with me to this day… talk about Pavlovian.

There was also a lack of games, but I didn’t care a bit — I played those on my Playstation, sprawled out on my dorm room floor, in front of my TV.

Clouds Gather

In the late 90s, with my entrance into the world of Web development, I started dealing with UNIX-like operating systems (Linux and Solaris). And I liked what I saw: preemptive multitasking, protected memory, user-specific security policies, and the rest. The more I had opportunity to learn about UNIX, the more it seemed that it was largely just how operating systems should be designed. I tried to muck about with PowerPC Linux on my Mac, but quickly discovered that it took a whole lot of effort to perform the simple daily tasks that seemed so effortless in Mac OS… like installing new apps, or printing.

Now, one thing I have to share about myself is that, as willing as I am to take on the most ambitious of tasks, I’m a particular variety of lazy: I absolutely refuse to work any harder than I absolutely have to, to accomplish something.

And so, while Windows 95 (and later 98) offered many of these features, the operating system still hadn’t yet started delivering on an “everything just works” experience (again, largely configuring devices and installing / uninstalling applications), and so I’d continued to dismiss any prospective relevance it may have otherwise offered me.

But by 1998, Apple had declared they were hard at work on a modern successor for Mac OS that would be built on a UNIX-like operating system (one they had acquired from NEXT).

So I waited.

A Patience Rewarded

I was living in Rome when Mac OS X 10.0 finally shipped. This did not, however, prevent me from picking up my copy on its release date—24 March 2000. I’d waited years to have UNIX in my Mac, and I wouldn’t wait a day longer.

Within hours of installation, I knew it’d be a long time before I would seriously look at anyone else’s computers.

I finally had all my work tools on one easy-to-use machine. It ran all the meticulously-crafted Classic Mac OS applications I had been using, as well as the “server side” software I needed for my Web development. It was sluggish, and felt rather like a work in progress, but there was enough there to show me enough of a desireable illustration of where Apple were going to take this thing in the years to come.

I’ve sailed 9 more years since that moment, and am now contently running OS X Leopard on my desktop and laptop computers. Mac OS X Leopard is — in my sincere opinion — the finest consumer-grade operating system ever made, bar none.

But here I am, typing all this on this HP Mini netbook.

Change

A number of factors drove my consideration to get a netbook, largely revolving around conducting my writing activities for Uncarved under a highly mobile context.

Although I own a two year old MacBook Pro laptop, I have simply been leaving it at home if I don’t have a specific reason to bring it along for the day — it’s too large and heavy to arbitrarily decide to carry around, just in case I may wind up using it. It’s also a pain to use in most public transportation situations, including flying (at least, in economy class).

The foremost factors weighing in on my purchase decision were that I wanted something that was:

• notably smaller and lighter than my 15″ MacBook Pro,
• offered a better writing experience than my iPhone, and
• wouldn’t set me back more than $400 US

Apple doesn’t presently have anything that satisfies those criteria, but there was even a bit more to it: after nearly 20 years of exclusively owning Macs (and subsequently-introduced Apple products), I had grown curious to learn what the consumer experience of non-Apple computers looked like in 2009.

It’s the year of change after all, isn’t it?

I also felt some sort of obligation — considering how much reverence I hold for Apple’s products, as well as the frequency with which I praise their quality, both here on Uncarved and to my colleagues and friends — to give a proper and fair look at a product from another manufacturer.

And since I’ve been writing so much about product design (and even, specifically, netbooks), I thought that writing about the experience would make ideal material for some Uncarved posts.

But what would I stand a chance at actually liking?

The Search

I had helped my friend research some netbook options earlier this year. She was similarly looking for something to get some writing done on the go, and had a full-sized iMac at home, which she would continue to use as her primary machine. We took a trip down to J&R, in downtown NYC, on a Saturday afternoon to check some of their netbooks out, and discovered that Jobs and Cook are largely right — most have ridiculously cramped keyboards and feel like pieces of junk.

A handful of these netbooks, however, did stand out.

The Sony netbooks were attractive and seemed well built, but they were all priced well into the MacBook’s neighborhood (at the $1000 threshold), so the compromises on screen real size and keyboard size became extremely unattractive.

Outside of that, the only other netbook on display that carried some feel of quality (both aesthetic and overall feel) were the HP netbooks. And of them, the only one priced in the neighborhood we were hunting for was the HP Mini.

I should note that, although I was hoping to get my hands on some Dell netbooks for showroom comparison, J&R didn’t have any on the floor.

My friend picked the HP Mini a few weeks ahead of me, and had glowing impressions to report after her first couple of weeks of ownership. She mostly raved about the convenience of its portability, reported an “adequate” battery life, and — being a fellow touch-typist — noted that the keyboard felt “big enough” to get used to.

Hardware-wise, I had essentially made up my mind.

But I had no intention to buy a Windows netbook. I make no secret of my contempt for Windows. I’ve used it sporadically over the years, and know it can certainly perform any job one might buy a computer to perform — from web surfing and email, to video editing and 3D modeling. The main problems are that I find simply find it distasteful as an end-user, and poorly built as an engineer.

After some initial research, I was actually entertaining the idea of installing Mac OS X on this thing to bypass the Windows “problem.” The installation procedure would be lengthy, however, and I wasn’t sure I’d be happy at all with the performance once I was done.

After further investigation, however, I’d learned that HP Mini was also available in its Linux flavor (which, like Mac OS X, is a UNIX-like operating system). HP actually tailored their own software for the device, based on Ubuntu 8.04. HP calls their derivative MIE (Mobile Internet Experience). I’ll describe MIE’s customizations in detail in a future post, but on casual inspection, its software heritage is not at all cosmetically obvious (which is, in my opinion, frankly a good thing), featuring a theme that matches the look and design of its enclosure.

The Sell

I continued poking around and found a couple of reviews about MIE that featured screen shots and even videos of its interface, and I became intrigued — it was no Mac, but neither was it Windows. MIE had its own aesthetic character that was actually pretty… well, nice.

I was intrigued.

Since my intention was specifically to use this netbook for activities involved in writing posts for Uncarved (researching stuff online, as well as the actual writing), I second-guessed the merit of jumping through all the hoops necessary to install Mac OS X.

Besides, it was time to check back in on Linux’s viability as a primary operating system for a computer. It had been about 10 years since the last time I’d given it a sincere go, and I’d felt like the “plug and play” conundrum had become, largely speaking, a “solved problem” for the majority of devices. The product was specifically advertised as working with cameras and printers, and even included its own built-in video camera for video conferencing.

Plus, all I’d be doing is foraging the Web and writing blog posts… and wouldn’t the experience also be perfect material for Uncarved?

And so I was sold.

It’s On

I’ve had this HP Mini for two weeks now, and I gotta say that I am — on the whole — sincerely pleased with its design as a usable and coherent product. That isn’t to say, however, that there aren’t a number of rough edges — I’ll be writing about these in future posts — but I’m pleased to be able to say that this netbook demonstrates to me that Linux has matured into a piece of software that is a perfectly suitable solution for casual consumer’s use.

In the coming weeks, I’ll continue to document various facets of my experiences writing with the HP Mini, ranging from its overall cohesiveness as an electronics product to the degree to which it specifically meets my mobile writing needs.

And I’ll be writing most of those reflections directly on it.

But to be clear, my Macs are in no danger of getting replaced. In terms of tool paradigms, my Mac is my studio, my iPhone is my secretary, and this netbook is the moleskine notebook I carry around in my back pocket.

Let’s start with the easy evidence: Apple hired Richard Teversham from the entertainment division of Microsoft. The 15-year Microsoft vet most recently headed strategy for the Xbox group in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

That’s on the heels of hiring Bob Dreblin, the creator of Nintendo’s Game Cube CPU, from AMD, as well as former top IBM chip design manager Mark Papermaster, and former AMD graphics chip CTO Raja Koduri.

Apple’s has tried at least once to enter the hardware gaming market, and has even made a number of other software attempts, such as Game Sprockets SDK, and even started to sell a handful of games for the “click wheel” iPod, but it wasn’t until the iPhone and its App Store came along that they managed any serious traction.

And with the growing emphasis Apple has been putting on gaming during their iPhone OS new release demonstrations, it’s getting harder to ignore that they’re gearing up to make a big strike here.

The idea is real simple: excitement thrives on suspense and anticipation.

The members of the audience expect to be led through a flight of experience — they want ups, downs, twists, and turns. Nothing is more boring and tedious than a predictable sequence of events that lead to some obvious outcome that had been aniticpated all along. Interestingly, in fact, even when an outcome is known in advance (say, as is the case for a narrative based on historical events), the audience can still find the thrills and delight they seek, if the “show” can offer them something they weren’t necessarily specifically expecting at the start.

The capacity to offer the unexpected boils down to managing reveals.

But this isn’t just a technique for playwrites and novelists; it’s also a powerful tactic that can be leveraged in business. Advertisers use it all the time, in designing ad campaigns aiming to generate business for the clientele.

One of the masters at this game is — you knew this was coming — Apple. Though they have received much criticism at various times through the years over their hallmark practices of tight secrecy, it’s impossible to deny just how much anicipation and frenzied suspense they’re able to stir up — every time. They’ve got the formula down.

This is why I contend that Palm’s recent leaks stand to be so detrimental to the Pre’s success.

The fact is that Palm is entering a battlefield against a very well-situated competitor who is a master of this art. I’ve chosen to go with the “battlefield” metaphor for a very particular reason, too — the Reveal is also a vital tool in strategic engagements. Consider what would have happened if the Achaeans built their stories-tall wooden horse at the foot of Troy’s walls.

Of course, we don’t truly know that these “leaks” have any truth to them.

My instinct — and that’s all it is — is unfortunately telling me that there is. As Tahero had commented yesterday:

[T]he threat of impending doom has a way of making one’s actions irrational…. Palm is just trying to cover its bases while throwing a Hail Mary…. If the Pre or Pixie don’t work for Palm they will probably go out of business.

That’s in perfect harmony with what the majority of industry watchers have been saying. And Palm’s dire situation is exactly what makes me believe they are, in fact, working on this lower-end Pre.

Palm seems to have, so far (and to their credit), remained silent on the issue, and I sure hope they don’t change that; this news has to be stonewalled, and the team working on this thing — if it truly is in production — need to be silenced. They must be made to understand that continuing to leak this stuff may land them jobless.

The remaining difficultly, however, is that if this lower-tier Pre really is in production, there’s also just so much Palm will be able to do to control information about it from leaking further.

With or without this story, Palm has already been looking at an uphill battle: they’ve been teetering on the verge of collapse, having survived only by the virtue of some venture capitalists; they’re coming to market with a new, unproven product against competitor whose product and services are not only powerful and established, but this competitor is furthermore in the process of ascending with accelerating momentum; and they’re partnering with Sprint (at least in the US) to do it.

Ashok Kumar, an analyst with Collins Stewart, has expressed doubts of his own about the Pre’s chances at market success (though unrelated to the potential existence of this lower-tier phone). John Biggs, of TechCrunch, wrote an article responding to Kumar’s assessments, concluding:

Not to go all fanboy, but the Palm Pre is a compelling phone. Unless they completely fail in manufacturing, they can’t do much to break the momentum they’ve thus far gained.

While I do agree emphatically that the Pre is a compelling phone, I must disagree with the latter part of John’s statement; there’s plenty Palm can do to break their momentum. Let’s hope the Pre team keep on their game.

As I’d advised yesterday: poker faces as you enter the battlefield, gentleman.

adding the finder would make it far too macbook-ey, and I think they’d want to keep that distinction [from becoming] blurry; neither a macbook nor an iPhone, something else entirely. By that token I wonder if the “hybrid mode” is realistic, since it reduces the need to have a macbook…

Now, I’d given this matter some consideration myself, but I don’t see any real danger of that.

The “iBook” [again, a name I personally resurrected for it] is clearly neither iPhone nor an iPod Touch: it’s not pocket-sized and doesn’t place or receive calls. In fact, as I thought about the iPhone in relation to this device, I wondered if maybe “tether” mode might have as much to do with this new device, as with MacBook users.

With respect to resembling the MacBooks or iMacs, this machine will be comparatively underpowered and simply won’t have the software (read: no iLife). Additionally, there will be a huge difference with respect to display; this new device will likely not offer an external display connector of any sort, either. I believe display size alone may be enough to incentivize a consumer capable of affording the extra cash towards an alternative system.

So, while it’s fair to expect there will certainly be some cannibalization, I don’t foresee it happening to any greater degree than the extent to which the iPhone cannibalized iPod sales, or the iPod Touch cannibalized iPhone sales.

And, as Steve Jobs once himself said: if someone’s going to cannibalize Apple’s sales, better that it’s Apple.

Plus, with as well as the App Store has performed for Apple, I would venture to guess that whatever they might lose in minor cannibalization will likely be more than compensated for on the app sales side of the unit purchase.

Speaking of apps, another commenter to my original post, Richard Monson-Haefel, writes:

It’s my theory – and that’s all it is – that the 10” screen will be a new video platform. Where the iPod came to dominate music players and the iPhone has become a seemingly unstoppable force in the mobile phone industry, the 10” mystery device will be Apple’s foray into a portable video game and video movie players. [...] And I tell you another thing: the 10” tablet is not intended for productivity applications any more than the iPhone was meant for word processing.

I sure have to agree with respect to the media and gaming opportunities on this thing; in fact, I’m willing to wager that games will port over from the iPhone relatively easily (at least as compared with many of the other apps), as they tend to use customized UIs largely based on CoreAnimation and OpenGL.

I must, however, disagree with the argument that a 10″ screen would be unsuitable for productivity apps, as the Eee PC 10″ models—now in its third generation—are performing well with respect to sales (and even sell units with 9″ and even 7″ screens. I’m confident that 10″—particularly with a good pixel density—will be fine for rudimentary productivity needs.

Having a Mac Pro at home, I’d personally opt to trade my MacBook in for this hypothetical hybrid device.

Relatedly, my skepticism about a June announcement may prove overly-conservative, as Apple is apparently taking bids for the manufacture of this device; that’s not something that can happen until all the hardware decisions are locked down.

That said, it seems increasingly likely that Apple will reveal a new product intended to compete in the netbook product space in the near future, with the world largely expecting an announcement at this year’s WWDC in June.

Steve Jobs was famously quoted in 2008 as saying:

We don’t know how to build a sub-$500 computer that is not a piece of junk.

Indeed many pundits in the tech media have criticized Apple’s lack of a netbook offering.

A number of critics have even cited Apple’s absence from this market space as evidence of their inability to recognize market trends, or complete disconnect from the realities of consumer tastes… because there’s no company in the world with quite as poor a sense of trends and consumer tastes as Apple.

But when Apple’s COO, Tim Cook, was more recently asked about whether Apple had plans to ship a netbook, during Apple’s Q1 2009 conference call, he responded:

We’re watching that space, but right now from our point of view, the products in there are principally based on hardware that’s much less powerful than we think customers want, software technology that is not good, cramped keyboards, small displays.

We don’t think people will be pleased with those products. It’s a category we watch, we’ve got some ideas here, but right now we think the products are inferior and will not provide an experience to customers they’re happy with.

While some critics have interpreted Cook’s statement as further evidence that Apple is altogether snubbing the product category, it seems to me instead that Tim is rather simply stating that they’re not competing in that space because they’re working on fixing everything that sucks about the products presently in the category.

And with news that Apple has placed an order for a batch of 10-inch LCD screens from Wintek, it seems like they may feel like they’re on the verge of solving these problems since nothing on their current product line utilizes that screen size.

And so I strongly anticipate a new Apple product that will occupy a slot between the MacBook and the iPhone / iPod Touch.

But what will it look like?

The Speculation Framework

Now, I’ve long been itching to speculate about Apple’s rumored “netbook” product here on Uncarved, so I’m going to sketch out the product that I think Apple should—and, just as importantly, could—make. I’ll keep the sketch within the confines of hardware and software technologies that Apple is known already to have (many of them part of the iPhone OS 3.0 announcements).

I’d also like to mention that the compilation of thoughts that follow have been fleshed out by drawing on various facts, rumors, and ideas from conversations I’ve had with colleagues and friends.

At least, most of the time.

Finally, let me also briefly state that I will be going by the naming framework for Apple’s software stack that I put together last month. Specifically, I’ll be using the following terms: OS X Variant, Desktop OS X, and Touch OS X.

Speaking of names, let’s start by giving this new product a name: iBook.

I don’t want to spend time justifying this choice, but I will simply say that it feels right because this device will be about the size of a book, and because the name iBook is no longer in use (their consumer grade laptops are now called MacBooks). To be clear, I am not predicting this to be the name under which the product ships (though I could frankly imagine it); it’s simply the name I’ll use to refer to it throughout this post.

Product Overview

Unlike other “netbook” computers, I suspect the iBook will not be designed after the laptop-inspired clamshell form factor. I rather expect that iBook will likely be iPhone-meets-iMac.

I don’t think it’s useful to speculate with too much detail on the form factor, but I will make the following hardware predictions:

• This new product will be modeled after a tablet form factor.
• It’ll have the same capacitive touch glass surface the iPhone does.
• Unlike the iPhone, its primary orientation will be landscape, rather than portrait (please keep this orientation in mind whenever you find me talking about what might be “above” or “below” the screen).
• Like the iMac, it will have an iSight above the screen, as well as a built-in mic.
• I can go either way on the “home” button, but for simplicity will predict that the iBook will have one, too.
• No physical keyboard.
• Its only data port will be the “dock connector,” which will be located below the display (remember the predicted orientation”)
• It will have built-in stereo speakers
• There will be a headphone jack that supports the playback controls and mic found on the Apple’s in-ear headphones.
• Ambient light sensors will be mounted somewhere on the front side, to allow the iBook to adjust its screen’s brightness according to room lighting levels.

Before I proceed with what I would say are the more interesting bits of my prediction, let’s take a quick look at the general picture, so far:

But so far, we kind of just have a “big iPhone,” which frankly doesn’t make for a compelling netbook.

The Netbook Value Proposition

The netbook is essentially meant to fill in as a super light-weight laptop. People expect to be able to surf the Web, deal with their email, IM their friends, read their PDFs, take notes in class, and type research papers and/or letters. They might likely also want to occasionally print something they’ve written or found, copy files to or from a network drive, or unload stuff from their digital camera or Flip.

Ideally, the device should have an hours-long battery life, and if the device could connect to the internet over the cellular network, all the better.

Most of all, it’s gotta have a small physical footprint.

Nobody expects to be editing their next feature length film on their netbook, nor to be pwning n00bs in some MMORPG (that’s gamer speak).

iPhones Make Poor Netbooks

There are a number of physical problems to attempting to create a netbook-like device that is simply an enlarged iPhone, since the latter is specifically designed to meet a handheld usage context. Everything about it—from the hardware form factor to the implementation of its touch screen gestural UI—was meticulously crafted to perform in that handheld use case.

Netbooks, by contrast, will see a significantly greater amount of typing activity.

One major shortcoming in this regard for the product I’ve described so far is the anticipated lack of a physical keyboard. While a phone can largely get away with it, such an omission would kill a netbook class device, which are largely intended to be replacements for laptops, and so must live up to writing longer-form material.

Enter iPhone OS’s new External Accessory framework, whose functionality Apple explains as follows:

Using the new External Accessory framework, your application can now communicate with “Made for iPod” hardware accessories attached to iPhone or iPod touch through either the 30-pin dock connector or wirelessly using Bluetooth.

The feature was introduced during the iPhone OS 3.0 media event by showcasing integration with medical equipment (specifically a blood sugar reader for diabetics, accompanied by an app that displayed and recorded its readings).

While that most certainly is inspiringly cool, there’s a much more basic set of devices this opens the door to: a bluetooth keyboard. Perhaps even one with a trackpad-like gestural surface area (more on this later).

But even with a physical keyboard, a tablet-like device would be a pain to use in the library, or at the coffee shop.

Tablets, you see, like to lay on their backs.

This would make it very difficult to look at the screen while typing, as it would require the user to take an uncomfortable position to be able to look down upon it. Holding such a position will become painful before long; something is still missing, so let’s finish painting the picture for the iBook.

The Hybrid Machine

This new iBook will come with a base (or dock of some sort), which will allow it to be propped perpendicularly to a table top surface.

A profile view of the idea might look like this:

Of course, Apple would never ship anything with lines like that. The idea, naturally, is that there would be some accessory that serves this perpendicular mount function for the iBook. In fact, the base may instead take a tripod-like form factor, or maybe even an “arm” that hoists the device (imagine a tiny little echo of an iMac).

Having a dock connector, this accessory would also be able to provide power to the iBook, as well as provide additional ports (say, a few USB ports to connect hard drives and other devices).

Now, imagine a keyboard and mouse on the surface in front of it.

So let’s take a moment to review what’s been concocted thus far. The iBook will be a tablet form factor device with a touch screen interface, allowing people to surf the net, check their email, and apply the finishing touches to their term paper on the subway ride to class, or while soaking up rays before class in the quad.

When a more conventional surface is available, its users will also be able to cradle it on a dock of some sort, along with a keyboard.

The Software

Naturally, this new device will be running some OS X variant. Because of the consumer success of the iPhone, I anticipate this product will offer a Cocoa Touch for its user interface. Apple’s touch interface implementation is particularly well-suited to devices with smaller screen sizes, since it has obviated the need for many conventional types of UI controls like scroll bars (to navigate a document), magnification sliders, next / previous buttons, and others.

Fewer pixels devoted to such UI controls leaves more pixels on the screen available to display the content you’re actually engaging with: photos, a web page, the powerpoint attachment in the email your boss sent this morning, or the blog post you’re writing.

With the expected 10″ LCD screen size this device is expected to have, every last pixel of screen real estate will count.

That said, the iPhone OS—as is—exhibits a number of shortcomings when examined as a prospective solution for a netbook-like device.

A Pain in the Neck

If I’m correct about this “table top” mode of use, however, there will necessarily need to be some differences—or, at least some additional interaction modes—in the iBook’s touch interface implementation, because prolonged direct-to-screen gestural interactions with the device in this mode will result quickly in fatigue and muscle strain.

Try it yourself. Extend your arm towards your screen and hold that pose for 30 seconds. It’s tougher than it initially seems, isn’t it?

Frankly, I’m not sure how Apple would solve this. Perhaps some of the more basic gestural interactions (swiping to scroll, pinching to zoom, etc) can be implemented by including a trackpad-like touch surface on the keyboard, much the way it’s been implemented on modern MacBooks trackpads.

Multitasking

Another departure from the iPhone user experience that I’m expecting is for this device to be capable of running multiple applications concurrently. This is something that the iPhone currently does not allow for third-party applications, due to concerns over battery life. Because the device will be larger, however, I expect that Apple will be able to find the internal space to accommodate a large enough battery to work around this concern.

In any case, I suspect that any product designed to compete in the netbook category cannot be without this capability.

But if that’s the case, it’ll need some sort of mechanism to allow its user to switch between applications. Desktop OS X has the Dock and the application switcher (triggered by pressing ⌘-Tab).

It Looks Good, But It Feels a Little Tight

As I’d mentioned in an earlier post, I had been strongly expecting the announcements made during the iPhone OS 3.0 event to reveal a collection of features that screamed: Hey, this will be running your next netbook!

But Apple has a record (and talent, really) for delivering extremely clear messages.

Instead, Apple (wisely) focused on framing the iPhone as the baddest smart phone in the market, and iPhone OS as the best software platform for mobile phones. They delivered long-awaited features such as robust system-wide cut and paste, undo, landscape mode for apps like Mail, voice recording, cross-application search, a third-party device API, and in-app purchasing capabilities, to name a few.

But there were no overt hints at netbook-like features in iPhone OS 3.0.

On the other hand, every one of those features does also have potential utility in the context of a netbook platform.

What’s largely missing from Touch OS X, really, is some way to switch between applications that are running concurrently; relaying through the home screen is just too clumsy a solution for copying text from a web page into the essay you’re writing, or jumping into your IM application to answer your friend.

Well, that and a non-modal notification system of some sort.

The Right Touch

Now, I’ve already long since abandoned caution in my predictions so far, so I’m going to just commit to the reckless abandon and predict that there will be a new OS X variant introduced with the arrival of the iBook, which will be another form OS X Touch.

With that, I present a revised summary of OS X variants, as follows:

• Desktop OS X (Macs, iMacs, Macbooks, etc)
• Touch OS X
  • Handheld OS X (iPhone, iPod Touch)
  • Tablet OS X
• Media OS X (Apple TV)

Apps

I don’t expect apps written for the iPhone to work on the iBook (or vice versa). I am, however, expecting that iPhone developers will have a greater head start on writing apps for this new product than Desktop OS X developers.

I believe that Apple will create a separate iBook App Store, but not immediately.

Pricing

The final consideration I’ve yet to address is the price; the majority of the netbooks presently on the market are all priced below $500. Certainly this device would have to sport a competitive sticker price.

Frankly, I have no idea what it’ll cost.

I can, however, point to the fact that the component technology would be the same as in the iPhone. The device itself wouldn’t need any more equipment than it’s got (and doesn’t even frankly need the 3G antenna and associated chipset).

The iPhone itself retails for $599 and $699 US without a plan (and therefore without subsidy by AT&T), which is a reasonable starting point for inferring the potential price of such an iBook. Part of the cost for its components comes down to size: “tiny” is expensive; you can be that Apple’s paying a bit of a premium for it.

Given that a larger device offers more interior room to play with, it’s reasonable to assume that Apple can find comparable larger components at a cheaper price point to help drive down material costs.

But then the screen is larger, and they may decide to spring for a little extra juice.

It’s really hard to tell, and Apple will likely offer one or two different models, at different price points, but it’s not tough to imagine that they may be able to land in an appropriately competitive price range. Plus, if Apple does decide to include the 3G hardware, they could leverage the opportunity for subsidies, and land this thing at $400 US, like Orange is attempting to do with MacBooks in the UK, and AT&T is doing with the Acer Aspire One.

Wrap Up

So that’s it. I’ve basically described the product I wish existed, and that Apple could build with the technologies it already has in place; one that occupies the slot between iPhone and MacBook Air.

We all know that whatever Apple does ultimately announce will end up making the product I’ve described utterly pedestrian; that’s just what they do. This has definitely been fun, though.

To review, I’m betting Apple’s upcoming netbook product will have a tablet-like form factor, offer purely gestural and touch-based user interface for “on the road” usage contexts, offer a more iMac-like experience in table-top usage contexts (with the addition of a dock to allow it stand vertically, as well as a bluetooth keyboard for extended typing sessions). It’ll run a modified Touch OS X, largely resembling that of the iPhone OS, but with additional capabilities to offer application switching and improved notification capabilities.

All that’s left is to wait and see.

21 Apr @ 21:26: I’ve posted a small follow-up, after some feedback from friends and readers.

Although Apple’s revenues are driven largely by hardware sales, it’s the software running on that hardware that actually delivers the value. After all, Apple doesn’t have exclusive access to any hardware components that aren’t also available, in some form, to their competitors. Sure, there are some chips they create in-house, but these components certainly have direct competitors in the market. A variety of vendors produce comparable touch-screen technology, graphics chip sets, and the rest.

Apple has long touted software quality as their products’ key differentiator, and they’ve been aggressively developing their operating system (I’ll delve deeper into this particular term later on) as the centerpiece of their software ecosystem.

This common software code base is presently powering Macs, iPhones, iPod Touch, and even Apple TV.

This is brilliant.

For one, the approach can be very cost-effective, for both Apple and the third-party developers creating applications and accessory devices for their products.

For Apple — in their role of being responsible to maintain the various products they bring to market — being able to devote their resources to a single code base that is shared across a variety of products allows them to, say, make a single performance enhancement that will ultimately benefit every product that uses the code in question.

For third-party developers, shared APIs mean that time and effort invested learning to create their own products around one Apple product can potentially yield returns in efforts towards entering markets for Apple’s other products.

As such, a common code base acts much like a fulcrum.

I’m glossing over a lot of stuff, but I think it’s pretty clear how software commonalities between Apple’s products can benefit everyone involved.

On the other hand, each product needs variations to its software that make it more suitable to its usage. Imagine, for example, trying to shoehorn the software that runs a Mac onto an iPhone. Apart from severe processor power and memory constraints, imagine trying to use Photoshop on the iPhone’s screen… you’d find yourself in a world of utter suck.

So, there’s a threshold; there must necessarily be differences in the software that run each product, so that it each can fully live up to the uses they are designed to fulfill.

And so the catch is that’s a really hard thing to pull off.

This is why Apple was compelled to devote an entire major release cycle of Mac OS X to optimizing the OS and its APIs, at the expense of adding the types of shiny new user-facing features (like fancy new iChat capabilities) that demo really well. They focused the majority of their engineering efforts on pulling this tremendous feat off.

Different, but the Same

All the products I’d mentioned above run variations of a code base that started its (recent) life as Mac OS X. That is, they are all a BSD Unix powered by a Mach kernel, share a number of system services (like launchd), and offer a number of the same APIs.

The differences enter the picture with respect to what hardware a particular variant of the software needs to run on, the apps it needs to run (iPhone apps won’t run directly on your Mac without an emulator, nor any Mac app run on your iPhone), and what the whole experience needs to “feel” like for the user.

Since each difference becomes yet another thing to “keep in mind” or “learn,” it’s naturally important attempt to minimize them, as they begin to offset the commonalities Apple is working so hard to create.

The design process is about tradeoffs, after all.

Apple must therefore aim to introduce differences only when truly necessary to meet the design requirements of the product in question.

The topics I’m interested in exploring boil down to design, and since that will entail discussing specific decisions about each product. And since the heart of these (and many other) products is the software that runs them, I’ll frequently be comparing and contrasting the software running each device.

What’s in a Name?

In writing out some thoughts about how this software stack relates to these products, however, I quickly began to encounter difficulty in my attempts to coherently contrast and compare the variations in these products (say, in comparing major UI differences between Macs and iPhones).

You see, I tried comparing the software that runs Macs to the software that runs iPhones using the same names Apple uses in its marketing materials (as the lay person is most likely to be familiar with those names).

But I quickly ran into problems.

Apple calls the software that runs on Macs Mac OS X, and the one that runs on iPhone and iPod Touch iPhone OS.

Firstly, there’s nothing taxonomical about these names. That’s a nerdy way of saying that the names of these pieces of software do not allude to their having anything at all in common. There’s also no “marketing name” that refers to the commonality, although Apple has described them both as being “OS X” to their engineering audience (as opposed to their consumer audience).

Second, iPhone OS runs on iPhones… and iPod Touch devices. The iPod Touch is not an iPhone, yet it runs “iPhone OS.” I’m going to classify that as another taxonomical failure (meta, innit?). Sure, these devices are quite similar, especially by outward appearances, but there are also many things that can be done on the iPhone that — due to differences in available hardware — simply cannot be done on iPod Touch devices, including taking photos, proper GPS services, and sending SMS messages. Both devices are “handheld multi-touch devices,” though I’ll readily concede that “Handheld Multi-touch OS” is a total fucking yawner.

Finally, Apple TV’s OS doesn’t seem to have an official “marketing” name.

I’d therefore like to propose a naming practice that I hope will help make discussion about these things significantly more coherent.

The OS X Software Stack

For lack of any better ideas, I’m simply going to call this shared software the “OS X Software Stack,” or simply “OS X” for short.

I will define the “OS X” software stack as consisting of:

1. Darwin (the Mach-based BSD operating system), as well as its low-level UNIX-like APIs (stdlib, BSD sockets, etc);
2. Apple’s various “Kit” and “Core” APIs (I/O Kit, Web Kit, Core Image, Core Data, etc); and
3. the various higher-level object-oriented Cocoa APIs

Note that since I’m identifying the operating system as a component of the OS X software stack, I will also avoid referring to Mac OS X and iPhone OS as being different “operating systems.” Rather, each will be understood to be running the same operating system.

I understand the room for debate there, but for the context in which I intend to compare them, the simplification shouldn’t introduce any problems.

But so how to refer to these discrete software entities?

OS X Variants

I will describe the differing versions of it that ship on the Apple’s different devices “variants” of OS X; Mac OS X and iPhone OS are each therefore “OS X variants” under this model.

The formal list of OS X Variants that can be recognized, as of this writing, are as follows:

1. Desktop OS X (Macs, iMacs, Macbooks, etc)
2. Touch OS X (iPhone, iPod Touch)
3. Media OS X (Apple TV)

Since user experience of Mac OS X is designed to a human-computer interface paradigm called the desktop metaphor (featuring files, folders, and of course a “Desktop”), I’ll be referring to it as Desktop OS X.

By contrast, iPhone OS is designed to deliver a multi-touch human-computer interface, and so I’ll settle on calling this variant Touch OS X.

Finally, for the sake of being complete, let’s just go ahead and classify the Apple TV’s software as Media OS X.

Please note that I’ve drawn up these OS X Variants based strictly on information about products that are available presently in the market, at the time of this writing. Which is to say that they may need some refinement if, say, another device ships that’s largely like Touch OS X, making it necessary to qualify the Variant’s naming in a more meaningful way.