What is Apple going to announce on Sept. 9th?

apriusfan... do you have any idea how big an 8 inch diagonal is? Lets use a 3:4 aspect ratio... That'll mean the device is 4.8 x 6.4 inches. In contrast, the iPhone is 4.5x2.4. The device you're talking about is about 3 times bigger than an iPhone! All iPods have 2 things in common: First, they play music/video. Second, they're small enough to fit in your pocket (with some being smaller than others).

A device like the one you're talking about is no longer an iPod - it's too big to serve that basic functionality - which was the point i was trying to get across earlier. If produced in that screen range, it's more qualified as a netbook than anything else - closer in most regards to a laptop than an iPod. In fact, Son'y netbook has an 8 inch diagonal screen. Further, including a full version of Snow Leopard would make it even more computer and less iPod...

The basic line is that the tablet is NOT going to be part of the iPod line, and as such it would be pretty rediculous to expect it next week when they refresh that line. If anything, it will probably be considered part of their laptop line - with a decent sized screen and enough power to run most applications, it will benefit from the same hardware upgrades (new processors, graphics chips, etc) that the rest of their laptop line does.

 

Are you seriously still insisting the upcoming tablet is going to be marketed as an iPod and thus released with the rest of the iPods? 5x7 is HUGE in comparison to the rest of the iPod line - 3 times bigger than the iPod Touch - and serves radically different purposes than regular iPods. iPods of all varieties are built around one function: being a highly portable music/movie player. Everything you've described about what you want from the tablet goes against that, the very basis of the iPod. You want it big... thus it's not extremely portible like every iPod is. You want it to run a full version of OSX, unlike every iPod. You want it's primary functionality to center around websurfing, unlike every iPod. When is an iPod not an iPod? When you insist on calling something one even though it isn't!

 

When it's an iPad. A mini hand-held touchscreen iMac would be awesome. Not that it has anything to do with what's coming out next week...

 

As to no. 1, I've seen a review for an app that consolidates social network feeds.

As to no. 2, you can have that with mobileme on either an iphone or ipod touch. You can also set up a workplace MSexchange account on an iphone or ipod touch (and/or sync it with mobileme).

On a Mac, the new operating system (Snow Leopard) also has exchange support built in.

 

8 inches is just one inch less than my Asus netbook. If it came in at just one pound, yes, I would buy it, providing that virtual keyboard was manageable. The one on the Touch is too small for me. But that one lb has got to be with the (external?) ethernet included, because some hotels have wi-fi and some have ethernet, and not all have both.

But I agree with Eagle that such a device would probably be marketed as a netbook or mini tablet computer, not as an enhanced iPod, since iPod is a pocket-sized music device. 8-inch screen would mean probably 9 or 10 inch diagonal frame, which is netbook size, not iPod size.

And what I want is not another iPod. My iPod works fine. I want a one-lb netbook.

 

No, they wouldn't call it that. Apple names have mac or i at the beginning. So, it would be either MacDonkeySh!t or iAss.

 

That'd be iPood.

 

Could this be it????
Is AT&T losing its grip on the iPhone? - CNN.com

 

I would settle for an Ipod that charges when docked in my Bose. The new Nano scrubbed that notion.

 

A 120GB iPod touch...for $299.

 

Hey, if Apple opened the iPhone to Verizon I'd have to take another look at it. I really have no need for an iPhone, and my cell phone just sits in the car waiting for an emergency, or the rare case when I want to make a call while away from home, and I don't like the un-telephoneline size and shape; but it's a cool gadget, and if it was not locked in to the telephone equivalent of Microsoft, I'd consider it again.

I agree with the above posters who think the Sept 9 hoopla is probably a new gadget, and not a new carrier for the phone; but the writer of that article seem to think this will happen within the year.

What would have been the logic for Apple in limiting the iPhone to AT&T in the first place???

 

I highly doubt they would offer it on Verizon now... as the article points out,

A hardware change like that would require retooling on their production line, and they would use it for about a year. I fully expect next year they'll come out with a 4G iPhone, at which point switching carriers is trivial, as all of them operate on the same technology.

I definitely do agree with the analysis in the article, however - the iPhone will be opened up to multiple carriers in the future, most likely in the next year. Not only will it be more profitable for Apple, but governments around the world are moving towards requiring it, saying exclusive deals like this are anti-competitive and thus illegal. It doesn't matter too much - Apple got what it wanted. A carrier to subsidize the high cost of the phone for the first few high-cost production runs while they ramped up the volume. Now that they have sufficient volume, the cost has come down so they don't need the subsidies.