Chris,
> Because we know that the Newton 2100 is not out of date speed and spec wise,
> and will not be for 2 more years, especially if they can be reliably
> overclocked.
There is no such pressure. The existing Newt does a certain set of tasks now
very well and will do the same tasks identically well in 20 years time. If
one wants it to do things for which it was not designed, that's something
else.
As you have observed, the issue of recreating the Newt poses some
fundamental questions:
Intellectual property:
I don't think Apple is going allow access to its technologies for two
reasons.
1/. HWR is currently a strategic asset in OS X so no one will ever get their
hands on it. Without really credible HWR is there a product?
2/. Why help a group that can never benefit Apple to create a competitive
product that may conflict with Apple's own plans in the future?
The new group has to assume a clean sheet of paper and ensure is does not
infringe existing IP.
Aims:
Is the ultimate purpose to create a new product for general sale?
This requires pretty formidable resources in R&D, manufacturing, software
and hardware design, marketing and all the rest of the admin necessary to
create a serious presence that will hopefully lead to some profit somewhere
down the line. Are we creating a new computer company?
Design:
To create a new PDA/Tablet is not a matter of just getting off-the-shelf
hardware and OS then pinning a UI on the front of it. The Newton is good
because so much of it is designed for the job from the ground up starting
with the interface and the data store concepts and then building on the
power saving characteristics between the HW and the OS and a language to
allow for development. This requires industrial quantities of money and
people - as Apple will confirm...
Preliminaries:
Any such group needs to decide what the aims are and a credible business
plan to see them into reality. Some people will want a micro-PDA others a
tablet, others a replacement for their existing Newt but the group could
only be expected to produce one design - can there be a consensus?
---So, I'm in agreement in thinking that initially a development fund for those that have the skills to help extend the life of the remaining Newton devices is a very good idea. Under this umbrella a small amount of research could also be done to examine what a replacement might look like, because currently, no one really knows.
The proposed group could start small and relatively cheaply by creating an open source design effort so that people's ideas and desires can be shared freely and assessed The designs evolved by the group might then be licensed to manufacturers for further development to market.
Do what is doable.
Joel.
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries List FAQ/Etiquette/Terms: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jan 01 2003 - 10:01:41 EST