Re-watching Steve Jobs introducing the (first) iPhone at MacWorld 2007, one particular passage grabbed my attention and just wouldn’t let go. In this part of his keynote Jobs is bashing his new competitors in the mobile phone industry by pointing out “the problem” with their user interface:
Well, the problem with them is really sort of in the bottom 40 there. It’s this stuff right there. They all have these keyboards that are there whether or not you need them to be there. And they all have these control buttons that are fixed in plastic and are the same for every application. Well, every application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly optimized set of buttons, just for it. And what happens if you think of a great idea six months from now? You can’t run around and add a button to these things. They’re already shipped. So what do you do? It doesn’t work because the buttons and the controls can’t change. They can’t change for each application, and they can’t change down the road if you think of another great idea you want to add to this product.
(Watch it or read the complete transcript)
With the 3 advantages Jobs mentions, its virtual keyboard can well be seen as one of the greatest improvements the iPhone brings in mobile phone design. But in a way Jobs is also criticizing some of his own product here. Macs and MacBooks don’t have virtual keyboards, so does this mean they are not “optimized”? Does this mean the physical keyboard on the MacBook Pro is old fashioned and in desperate need of improvement?
Jobs strikes me as the kind of CEO who wouldn’t criticize competitors products on their interfaces like this without noticing the paradox. He probably put about as much effort in setting up this keynote as in the development of the iPhone itself, so a red light must have gone off at some point. But what if he had no problems with it because he is actually giving us a hint of what the next MacBook Pro series will look like? It’s a long shot, but let’s explore this idea a little further.
It’s clear that Apple has passionately embraced the multi touch concept, and it’s likely that this technology will at one point or another appear in other products. Theories about Apple releasing a “MacBook Touch” with a touch screen similar to the one on the iPhone, and even a new MacBook Pro with a glass touchpad have been going round for a while. But a mere glass touchpad, isn’t that exactly the half-baked concept Jobs, famous for being the driving force behind Apple’s many innovative products by being extremely demanding, would never accept from his design team?
How about this scenario: the MacBook Pro comes with two facing screens. It’s like a large Nintendo DS, but with two touch screens. The lower screen usually displays a virtual keyboard and trackpad, which can both be changed and optimized for whatever application you are running. Now hold on there for a minute: imagine how this will change the way you use software. Imagine the possibilities this would bring to every piece of software thinkable from basic office applications to graphics programs, movie editing software and digital audio software. In short, it would mean the death of the shortcut key.
Of course the first problem that comes to mind is that typing by pounding on a piece of glass doesn’t seem very comfortable. How this would be solved, I don’t know. Perhaps the keyboard will only be “semi-virtual” like the optimus maximus, which keys are all small individual OLED displays that can show whatever function has been assigned to it. Or maybe Apple will skip this step and jump right to controlling computers with brainwaves. But in my opinion Jobs’ remarks about physical vs. virtual keyboards in his keynote tells us that Apple has at least explored the possibilities of implementing a completely virtual touchpad and/or keyboard on Macs. And considering the giant leaps we know the company can take, we might be looking at a big surprise this Christmas.
Update: Looks like I’m not the only one who thought of this, 100% loaded has a cool image of what the MacBook Pro DS might look like.
Comments