Marking it here in this thread. As in years past, Slate/Tablet PCs are going to be a failure this year, but perhaps on a spectacular level. All the new stuff shown and announced at CES? Headed for the pooper.

If Apple announces such a product, which I'm still not sure of, they'll do something (whatever it is) to redefine their segment and will likely make it (again, whatever it is) a success. So they're excluded from the above CES-related future failures.

And I firmly believe that Steve Balmer's only reason for using term "Slate" and showing off the HP tablet during the keynote was due to the rumors surrounding Apple and the "iSlate" domain name.

Aha, I was waiting for the complete pass given to Apple. Before they even release an imaginary product you're already giving them a prediction of success against the failure of the entire market.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the Slate. It's garbage. And yes, so are all the other tablets that were shown off this week. But I'm continuously amazed by the buzz around a product that is imaginary.

Would you like my prediction? If Apple releases a device in the "tablet" category, it will fail too, regardless of whether it's done well or not.

Regardless of whether it could be successful or not (I don't think it could) I at least wish that Microsoft had actually released the Courier. If nothing else it would have at least been interesting, and not junk like that HP hideousness.

Imaginary or not, the mere thought of Apple making an iSlate has the rest of the industry scrambling. I think that fact alone helps to justify at least a slight pass for Apple, though I am curious how exactly they will position such a device. The AppleTV is a good example of their most recent "meh", and I'm sure that has impacted decisions on future products to try and avoid that problem again.

Why?

That doesn't say anything about Apple's [imaginary] product. It only says something about the industry.

And let me repeat myself: I didn't say the product wouldn't be good. I said that it will be a commercial failure. I happen to like the AppleTV very much**, and everyone considers that a failed product. And lets not talk about the Hi-Fi. I just think that there's no market for tablet computers. We already have a successful tablet: it's called the iPod Touch.


**well, I like the AppleTV aside from Apple's hideous codec limitaions, which have caused me, on several occasions, to loose my f***ing mind.


*edit*
And when I say "there's no market," I mean there's no iPod- or iPhone-sized market, and that's the manner the industry is reacting in.

I don't think Apple will release a tablet that's anything like any product that's been shown at CES. It wouldn't make any sense. That type of product is destined for failure and I'm sure everyone at Apple in a position to influence the product knows this.

So part of the reason I excluded them is because I'm confident their product will be something that is completely unlike what's been seen before. Only because people expect it to be a tablet did I even have to include that exception in my post, because personally, I have no idea what it is. They may not release a tablet at all.

And, an exclusion is not a pass - I'm not making predictions on how well I think Apple will do. I'm simply excluding them from my failure prediction for everything else. Because if they do take off and become a huge success, I don't want someone saying _ aha Bruno, you said tablets were gong to fail! and Apple proved you wrong."

Any failures of Apple TV are firmly within Apple's control. Had thi sproduct not been relegated to "hobby" status I'm sure it would be a flying success. It's not terribly difficult to make it into such a success, especially this year. But they're hell bent on trying to shape it into something people don't actually want nor need yet - a content-buying box. This is too niche and the product is too low-spec to matter much. I'm sure they're not losing money on it though.

That all sounds fair. I'll be just as tuned in to hear what Apple will be talking about at their next event. I still stand by my prediction, though. I'm sure it won't be exactly like the tablet products that everyone else is releasing right now, no. But I suppose my prediction takes your statement, Bruno, and broadens it to include an entire form factor.

Anyway, I guess when it comes down to it, none of us know what will happen with Apple, so it's all a bit moot.

At least I think we're all in agreement that tablets, as seen this week, are stupid

Still...I wish the courier were real. I probably would have been one of 37 people to buy that thing

If/when Apple makes a tablet, it will be like a bigger iPhone (or iTouch).
And all existing iPhone apps will be runable on it.

That's my prediction.

I don't think I'd be receptive to a tablet that is "locked in" like the iPhone.

edit: Especially if it came with a monthly bandwidth charge like the iPhone.

It says more about Apple. They have a very proven track record (since Jobs came back) compared to most other companies in the industry. When Apple releases a product, it has a much higher chance for success then products from other companies. And the reason is because of how Apple operates. They don't take a scatergun approach to a market segment hoping for a few hits with tons of misses. They take a carefully aimed shot that usually hits the mark.

With all the rumblings about an Apple iSlate device lately, I think it's pretty much going to happen at some point soon. It's gone from generic rumors and speculation up to much more, similar to the lead up before the iPhone announcement.

If you go back and look at the iPhone predictions vs. the reality, the predictions were often wildly off the mark. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple debuts something genuinely interesting.

(I also wouldn't be surprised if the thing is far less than the hype has built it up to be.)

Oh, I also don't think 3D TVs will move very far this year. I don't believe the mass-market has any interest in wearing glasses to watch TV.

Agreed. The actual content of the rumors is mostly worthless. The only one I've somewhat believed is the iSlate name, mostly due to how it was discovered, and the similarities to the iPhone trademark also being hidden away in a Delaware holding company prior to announcement.

Agreed. It's little more than the TV manufacturers being addicted to selling us all $2500 TVs. It won't last forever. I wonder, in their minds, what they plan to do once everyone has a 3D TV. What's next?

And I have a question that I haven't seen answered anywhere, so maybe someone here knows. For 3D TVs, on average, does 2D image processing suffer at all? I really know little about how the tech works.

Anyway, I agree, nobody wants the glasses. I've heard the glasses-less TVs actually looked pretty darn good at CES, but apparently there are exactly 8 viewing angles where it works. My question is, how dead-on do you have to be? Do I have to keep my head motionless, lest I move an inch and suddenly everything looks like crap? And on all this 3D stuff, what's the viewing angle? My favorite seat is on the far left, at about 45 degrees.

more Wireless (wHDMI etc), OLED, and 4K resolution. And I'm sure plenty more down the road.

As for the 3D side, 2D image quality should be the exact same on any display requiring glasses. The only difference for 3D is that 2 different images are rapidly alternated between, with the glasses taking care of blocking one of the two images for each eye. For the ones that don't require glasses, some 2D issues may crop up, since it would still likely have to present 2 independent, but identical images.

Viewing angle matters on the TVs that don't require glasses because they still have to present unique images to each eye. I'm not sure of the specific tech used these days, but past attempts have used [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_lens]Lenticular lenses[/url] directly on the screen.

Here's a scary thought. Imagine Jay Leno in 3D...

I saw glassless 3D at CES in person in 2005. It was neat, but I didn't think I'd enjoy watching a whole movie like that. I imagine the tech today is a lot better, but I'm still not sold. Not everything needs to be 3D.

One big issue with the models using glasses is that you'll need multiple sets of $100+ glasses. Ouch.

I'm in the market for an HDTV at at this point I still don't know what I'm going to get. I really like the idea of the super wide 21:9 displays and it would be "super awesome" if they became standard - however I doubt it will happen. Perfect for watching movies and other content while maintaining a constant (or near constant) frame height. You'd get pillar boxes on current 16:9 TV content and of course on old 4:3 content (just like at the theater where the screen is masked by a curtain for different aspect films).

I was interested in 3D televisions until I read that they're still using the flickering LCD shutter glasses. Ick.

I wish they'd just figure out how to put polarization on alternating pixels or scan lines on the LCD itself, so that you could use inexpensive glasses that don't need batteries and don't flicker.

I won't hold my breath, though.

I already wear glasses to watch TV. Unless they can do prescription 3D glasses, that leaves me in the cold.

I'd be surprised if they weren't designed this way.

I got a new TV recently, and it has some sort of port to support 3D. It has an nVidia logo on the manual or box or somewhere. This was not a selling point for me, if you can't tell. But I might be able to answer some questions, if no one else has a 3D-capable TV.