Oh man, those first four hundred bites of dirt were not so good. Maybe the next one will be better. -
Stinkoman
I just got back from meeting with a buddy who was telling me how his organization is getting ready to outsource tens of thousands of internal email accounts to Google ... or maybe MSN, they haven't decided yet. We spent a fair amount of time and beer discussing why this is a bad idea, mainly because of privacy, accountability, control, and responsiveness. But it doesn't matter. The people making the decision are blinded by the bottom line and can't perceive the hidden costs.
It occurred to me that this whole "Web 2.0 software as a service" outsourcing craze is remarkably similar to the labor outsourcing craze that hit during the last decade. The people holding the purse strings so desperately wanted to assume that they could outsource their unskilled labor and everything would continue to work exactly as it did in house... they'd just pay less. It's unskilled labor, what difference does it make who does it, right? They should know better, there's no free lunch! When you outsource, you're sacrificing layers of control and adding layers of complexity. And because of that, sometimes the end result is toy trains painted with lead.
Programming, the creation of new software, has already been through this. Now with Web 2.0, technology infrastructure is next on the auction block. Internal corporate email isn't a profit center, so let's outsource it! But the result is going to be the same.
Does it make a difference that the outsourcing is going to be domestic this time? No, not really. In the Internet world of SMTP hops and server logs, the number of hops, and the number of administrative layers, matters more than geography.
"As Macworld approaches, reports of an ultraportable MacBook are following patterns of previously expected products that eventually materialized," analyst Gene Munster wrote in a note to clients. "We believe these reports are legitimate and continue to expect Apple to introduce a MacBook with a significantly smaller form factor."
- Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster
One might assume that Piper Jaffray has an "inside source" at Apple. And maybe they do. But another thing that these analysts do is watch the supply chains. The individual components of a new computer product have to be ordered months in advance, so by watching who is buying what in what quantities, predictions can be made.
If you consider the individual components that might go into a "Macbook Mini" or might go into an "iTablet", there's actually a fair amount of overlap. So here's to hoping they've read the tea leaves wrong, and we get something less "Macbook Mini" and more "iTablet".
Why?
For starters, the UMPC market already has several offerings, and even though they are neat little devices, I don't see a lot of people ditching their traditional laptops for one. So if you were jonesing for such a device, they're here now, but it's a niche market. It's not stealing global marketshare from traditional laptops. Since OS X is already considered a niche market itself, a UMPC running OS X would be targeting a niche of a niche. If you're a one-man startup, "niche of a niche" smells like opportunity, but if you're already a multi-billion-dollar company, it smells like a poor return.
What's more, I think Bill Manning is on target when he says that UMPCs have "a cool factor of 10" but ultimately they aren't practical. He's touting the Macbook as his laptop of choice, but his criticisms of UMPCs apply in general.
An Apple UMPC just wouldn't be much to shout about.
A true tablet computer, on the other hand... that's my wish. At the end of my work day I want to get away from my office and away from my keyboard, but darn it, I'm a nerd and I still have leisure activities that involve a computer. I'd like to kick back in my recliner and read some mail or read some Apple ][ History or play a web game, and do it reclined and do it without pounding keyboard.
An iTablet would address all of Bill Manning's gripes about UMPCs. It would have a larger screen, but still be small and light, because you omit the keyboard half of the computer. It won't mess with your muscle memory of your work keyboard, because there is no keyboard. It could have the virtual keyboard, or handwriting recognition via Inkwell, or hey why not both? At this point both types of software are completed products.
My perfect iTablet would have flash-based storage only, and would treat CPU power as secondary to cooling and battery life. The perfect iTablet must run quiet and cool, because who can really keep their laptop in their lap anymore, much less hold it in their hands.
Now imagine this: if you own an iTablet, and you also own a Mac, it gets better. The iTablet itself has a cool, low power CPU. But the computational power of your iTablet actually goes UP when it can contact your Mac, without running any hotter. How is such magic possible? Oh dear, everyone has forgotten XGrid.
