Small nitpick: Gruber says Jobs killed the Newton not out of spite but because his skill is in creating new products, not improving other people's.
But the problem with that is that the original iMac, the product that made Apple relevant again, was conceived before Jobs' return. To be sure, he added his magic to the product that eventually came to market, but it was very much the case of Jobs imroving on someone else's product. (As was the case, more debatably, for the iPod)
The difference wasn't that Jobs dreamt them up from start to finish -- it was that he could take credit for them from start to finish.
About the iMac? I read about it in "iCon", the Steve Jobs biography (much less hostile that its title would seem to indicate), and a couple places on the web if memory serves, but I couldn't tell you where.
There is an interesting question lurking behind this post. If a tablet does materialise, what will make it successful?
Is it something that could have been done much earlier or something enabled by recent (or impending) changes to available technology? Hardware for an iPhone quality smartphone was available a decent prices for a few years before it came out (especially if all you want is a phone that handles music and video pleasantly, not internet & installable apps), but not many.
If Apple comes out with a tablet that succeeds because Apple has figured out the right use-cases & metaphors for it, that might mean that they could have done it ten years ago. That's something.
If a tablet does materialise, what will make it successful?
Being large enough that reading web pages is not a chore, but small enough to be easily held in one hand and poked at with the other.
Many (, many...) elaborations come to mind, but thats the minimum viable product. Its kind of amazing that tablets haven't been more successful. Unless you are actively editing text (not the norm on the web), that keyboard is just there to prop your laptop monitor up at an appropriate angle. And the mouse? Cocoa Touch has made that seem pretty silly outside of pixel editing.
Tech-wise, I don't remember any devices with a 3.5" capacitive touchscreen + multitouch before the iPhone came out. That was imo the most important hardware feature of the iPhone, given that the "accepted" mode of interaction with similar devices was a stylus on a resistive screen.
Similarly, there aren't any shipping devices with a 7-10" capacitive touchscreen. Whether or not any of the various tablets with one announced at CES beats Apple's to market, the kinks in said displays weren't ironed out before this year.
I don't agree with your assessment here. While there wasn't an existing product with the exact same specs as the iPhone in existence there were products that could do everything an iPhone does (Windows Mobile Phones) and there were multi-touch screens out there. What made Apple successful is combining those elements in a way that was attractive to average users.
In that same sense there are Tablet PCs and so called "Slate PCs" out there. What will make Apple successful is creating a package that can appeal to the average user.
> there were products that could do everything an iPhone does (Windows Mobile Phones)
Windows Mobile was never designed to be friendly for the average consumer.
Did it ever occur to the WM designers that wiping the entire handset for a OS upgrade isn't the best experience. iTunes isn't the best program but it's day when compared to the night of a WM upgrade.
"Installing the new software will erase all data on the device."
"All third-party applications and data that remain on the device prior to downloading will be deleted and unretrievable"
There are a few pre-CES shipping devices with 12" capacitive multi-touch screens. The HP TouchSmart TX2 for example. These are more traditional tablet/notebook PCs, but with Win7 they do allow for "iPhone-like" gestures. The TouchSmart in particular is a mix between awesome and frustrating -- the screen is great and the multi-touch is fabulous, but it's too heavy, its battery life is awful, and mine just died for no apparent reason.
> If Apple comes out with a tablet that succeeds because Apple has figured out the right use-cases & metaphors for it, that might mean that they could have done it ten years ago. That's something.
Maybe. If its core functionality is at all tied to the way people use the Internet today, then no.
I don't think it was just the Newton that failed, PDAs all had the same problem of no killer feature, Notes, calendars & contacts were never that really compelling to most people and even if you had one you might not really use it in practice. Another problem with PDAs was that they often had so poor audio support and no significant storage, so they couldn't be used as a iPod replacement.
I've got a iPod Touch now, and the killer feature is the web browser/Email, I don't even have any music or any video stored on it, the web/email is a killer enough feature on it's own. (Music is on my phone, which I always have with me)
What makes me the most happy about Apple launching a tablet years after Microsoft's initiative is that stupid fanboys might finally be forced to stop claiming that Microsoft never innovates, that they just steal other people's ideas.
But the problem with that is that the original iMac, the product that made Apple relevant again, was conceived before Jobs' return. To be sure, he added his magic to the product that eventually came to market, but it was very much the case of Jobs imroving on someone else's product. (As was the case, more debatably, for the iPod)
The difference wasn't that Jobs dreamt them up from start to finish -- it was that he could take credit for them from start to finish.