Apple Computer  presumably is planning to unvail a tablet computer which in fact may be more  than a breakthrough in the technology of consumer devices. This new device may also make tablet computers a standard part of the business computing  toolbox.

Although tablet have been used in business for many years. I have to say the quality of the user experience has been a bit lacking. Handwriting recognition, a key for many business applications, has been very sore point.

I don’t think Apple will solve that problem. Its been stated that the new Apple device will not do hand writing.  In all actuality I think the new Apple device will be a  consumer product with the same business applications as the iPhone but optimized for the larger screen.

Over time, tablet-specific business apps will be developed and some enterprises may find Apple’s tablet a cost-effective replacement (or enhancement) to what they are currently using. The Apple tablet is likely to cause developers to take a serious look at developing specific vertical market applications that don’t exist for the iPhone.

This will definitely be another case where Apple didn’t invent something ie.like MP3 players or smartphones… and as usual they seem to always find a way to humanize and popularize thier devices.

There is said to be features that may be included or excluded from the tablet that will make business adoption easier or more difficult. Obviously at this point we do not know. Just for example … if the tablet lacks decent battery life, it will be hard for business users to carry it around with them.

I am not expecting a 3G tablet, though the idea of a giant iPhone is intriguing and might improve its adoption by businesses, especially for the types of mobile applications that tablets are used for today.

We are not saying that the tablet will be a run – away business success, but just as users have accepted business applications for their iPhones, the tablet will be most  likely be accepted. It will also be somewhat  interesting to see the sorts of business apps that will be developed specifically for the larger screen and whatever capabilities Apple builds around it.

Finally, I am very much counting on Apple to create the tablet that consumers will want and expecting that business use will naturally follow.

Its very likely that the Apple tablet may give a boost to PC laptop tablets and other current and future form factors.

Related articles by Zemanta

• What Would a 10-Inch Apple ‘iSlate’ Look Like? (bits.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Bits: Why Have Tablets Flopped? Here Are Five Reasons (bits.blogs.nytimes.com)
• How would an Apple Tablet change the IT market? (techburgh.com)

The Apple tablet is real, and someone claims they’ve actually seen the thing. Well, so goes the latest rumor anyway. After months of speculation,  someone finally found an anonymous source not willing to go on the record who claims to have first-hand knowledge of the storied Apple tablet. This morning’s rumor comes from the anonymous “A. Veteran Analyst,” who says they’ve actually held a prototype for Apple’s next wonder device in their own hands, according to Barron’s.

Apple Tablet Prototype ?

Mr. Analyst says Apple is going to have a final design ready in the next six weeks, and the device would then be announced in September for a November launch. The Apple tablet may also break your bank, costing you a whopping $699 to $799. But for those big bucks you’d get a device that would be able to, among other things, play high-definition video. While other features might be nice, it sounds like the Apple tablet’s video capability is the feature to beat. The anonymous source says the device’s video quality “is better than the average movie experience.”

So the 10-inch Apple tablet is a better movie experience than staring at a giant screen with surround sound or watching a DVD at home? That must be some mythical device.

Computer Industry Scared Stiff

While Apple is busy creating its next super device to replace the multiplex, everyone else in the computer industry is reportedly so nervous about the Apple tablet they’re waiting to see what the product looks like before imitating or ripping it off. That’s a smart move considering how one guy was left with a warehouse full of iPhony Nanos after this year’s MacWorld Expo. By the way, if you’re looking for a fully non-functioning mini-iPhone drop me a line.

Apple Tablet: the Rumor That Keeps on Giving

Apple tablet mania has been heating up in recent weeks. Earlier this month, another rumor came out saying the Apple tablet might be available through Verizon with a multiyear service contract. An arrangement like that would subsidize the heavy cost of the device, and with a price of almost $800 it’s not hard to see why that would make sense.

Late last week, there was also a rumor the Apple tablet would launch with a secret software project codenamed Cocktail. The software is rumored to be a development in conjunction with the major music labels, and would be “a new type of interactive album, which will combine photos, lyrics sheets, video clips, and liner notes, all gathered into an interactive booklet.”

That sounds like an interesting concept, but software is one of the big questions hanging over the Apple tablet. As Barron’s writer Tiernan Ray says, no one knows if this device will be attached to the iPhone App Store or will have a software model closer to Apple’s MacBook line. As I’ve said before, I think tying a tablet to the App Store could be a mistake since it would virtually guarantee a less-functional device. But we may have to wait until next month’s supposed announcement before we’ll know for sure how this device will work.

Assuming of course, that this yet-to-be-proven device exists. As PC World’s Michael Scalisi pointed out last week, the rumored Apple tablet, despite all they hype, could end up being a flop given the poor track record of past tablet devices. So would Apple risk its iPhone mojo on an unproven device that nobody may want, or are we truly at the point where the world will just go nuts for anything Apple comes out with? If the rumors are correct, we may know the answer to that question very soon.

Gizmo5’s interface is compact and rectangular, with tabs on the top just below the Menu bar and a series of  commands like Chat and Add Contact available at the bottom. There are very few differences between Gizmo’s design and its biggest competitor’s, and a little originality could’ve gone a long way here.

Also similar to Skype, Gizmo provides free VoIP for computer-to-computer voice chatting as well as text chatting. It also allows for computer-to-telephone voice chatting for both mobile phones and landlines. It has one feature that Skype lacks: it lets you conference call with multiple PCs by entering in a random, shared number. Overall, the sound clarity and quality was excellent, with no lagging nor echoing. Gizmo also says it provides asymmetrical chat-client VoIP, so you can use Gizmo and your headset to talk to somebody on Windows Live or Google Talk. We couldn’t get that feature to work, but it’s a smart idea and we hope it gets debugged soon.

Overall, Gizmo’s got some good stuff and some room for improvement. If you despise Skype or are just interested in alternatives, you might want to give this one a try, but otherwise we’d recommend holding off.

The Gizmo5 team now joins Google Voice, enabling it to become a stand-alone phone service — like Skype. Skype is gaining momentum as an alternative to traditional telcos and wireless carriers in international calling situations. Skype has 480 million users around the world. For example, Skype with WiFi on my iPod Touch turns it into a phone. I spend $2.95 per month to make unlimited calls in the US and Canada. But I can easily switch my account online to cover Europe or the entire world for a very modest increase over that fee.

Expect a similar suite of calling plans and services to roll out from Google Voice, making the traditional telcos quite grumpy. Arguably Google has the capacity to popularize VoIP calling across networks in ways that even Skype cannot. Previously the Google Voice service required an underlying account and telephone  number from a traditional telco. Now it doesn’t need one.