[Wrao]

Can we have a discussion about the whole "LCDs are bad for your eyes compared to E-ink" angle that some people have been bringing up (not so much here as elsewhere).

I did some reading about it, but I couldn't really find much info. But what I did find seemed to suggest that, while e-ink "is" superior, that LCDs aren't actually all that bad to stare at, with the biggest problem-area being if there is a major disparity between ambient light levels and display light levels. Some iPad critics are blasting it for using an "eye-killing" display, and thus defeating the purpose if you wanted to use it for ebooks, comics, texts...etc. Arguing that, prolonged usage(> 6 hours) would be bad. But, I don't know if I buy any of that. What do the super-brains here at AN have to say?

[PKIDelirium]

Honestly, I'd rather have a real LCD than the e-ink. Grayscale like that bothers me more than any LCD strain would.

I can read text for a long time at a time on a regular LCD without problems.

[Miko]

Yeah I always thought that eye strain was the main reason that e-Ink was the tech of choice for eReaders?

I know you get a crazy long battery life and the near printed paper quality with the e-Ink displays, but with the slow refresh rate, no color and little to no multimedia, it is pretty much a one trick pony.

What is the main difference regarding eye strain when using LED backlit displays vs traditional LCD displays?

[ezkcdude]

Crazy Face app. Just makes me laugh. I know it's stupid.

[pscates2.0]

How is he demoing this? There aren't any iPads out in the world yet, and it looked pretty real (the iPad itself, not the faces). What am I missing here?

[joveblue]

Could be made out of cardboard with a green screen to drop the screen image in on?

The Home button is not that shiny...

[ezkcdude]

Charlie Rose discusses iPad with Walt Mossberg, Michael Arrington, and David Carr.

[Miko]

Great Interview thanks for the link ezkcdude, touched on all points that have been discussed for the most part. Pretty objective too not all Pro Apple.

[Kickaha]

I want to cut out the front and back of this and paste them onto a spiral bound notebook: http://gizmodo.com/5465902/no-one-ne...our-paper-ipad

[thegeriatric]

Originally Posted by Kickaha I want to cut out the front and back of this and paste them onto a spiral bound notebook: http://gizmodo.com/5465902/no-one-ne...our-paper-ipad

Oh dear.

[chucker]

Is it sad that I've been toying with the idea of making one of those?

[thegeriatric]

Originally Posted by chucker Is it sad that I've been toying with the idea of making one of those?

If you need to ask.............................then

[pscates2.0]

Okay, everyone...don't buy an iPad upon release!

Execs say Apple could lower iPad price if market demands it.

If the market does not respond well to the iPad and its price range of $499 to $829, Apple executives have reportedly said they could be "nimble" on its cost.

Everyone should unite and hold off on any iPad purchase, forcing Apple to knock it down to $349 by August!



But seriously, I think Robo was talking about this very thing the other day. And how, within its first year (or first six months), the iPad might cost less than $499. Especially if they see another G4 Cube or iPod Hi-Fi scenario brewing?

But it's so early to tell. I think once this product gets out there, and others see (and use) it, it'll make its own statement. Right now, it's just all such a big unknown (we didn't even get the full story/details on the 27th, IMO, so it's really up-in-the-air at this point).

But I can imagine this thing having a bunch of early adopters, and then a 6-12 "build" period, where more and more people get a chance to see and use one (their friend or co-worker will bring one around). In that sense, it will be like the iPod and iPhone...both of which started out slow and modest, and then lit a fuse after the first year or so.

The only difference here, of course, is that this isn't radically new, unproven tech (Multi-Touch, third-party app development and distribution, mobile versions of Safari and other things, etc.), so the adoption might come much quicker. There's not a ton of "what's it's basically about" mystery. Everyone knows.

The unknowns are in possible unannounced functions or specs. But that's not a huge thing, IMO.

In any case, I thought it was an interesting, funny story...Apple is probably as nervous and unsure about the iPad as any of us, at this point.

"Do we have another iMac or iPod on our hands? Or a Cube?"

[St Bonney]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 But seriously, I think Robo was talking about this very thing the other day. And how, within its first year (or first six months), the iPad might cost less than $499. Especially if they see another G4 Cube or iPod Hi-Fi scenario brewing?

The difference is, when the Cube came out there was already a much cheaper version of the "exact same thing" (The PowerMac G4 tower). Same with the iPod Hi-Fi - there was already a *huge* market of third-party iPod speaker systems with better features, (arguably) better sound, and most importantly - lower prices.

The iPad, essentially, stands alone. It's a totally different product than a netbook, and due solely to it's bigger screen, it's much more than an iPod touch.

[Robo]

Whelp. I personally *don't* think that we'll see a sub-$499 iPad in the forseeable future. I'm sure they'll upgrade it, and drop the price of the 3G option so that it is eventually standard. That will happen long before we see a $399 iPad, IMO.

For the holidays, they might add the camera and drop the price of the 3G option $30 (to $100). For fall 2011, they could make the 3G radio standard. That seems far more doable than a $399 iPad.

[Kickaha]

Agreed. And it follows the usual Apple strategy: keep the price points the same, up the specs.

[Wrao]

That does follow the usual Apple strategy, except, the iPad as a device is kind of unusual in the sense that, it is kind of a curiosity whose appeal substantially improves the lower the price goes. Remember there was that rumor that Steve Jobs wanted the thing to debut at $399, but that was unfeasible for whatever reasons. So, I really wouldn't be surprised either way if there is a price cut within the first 6-9 months of release, or if we have to wait until Rev. 2 before a "value" bump.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman drop the price of the 3G option so that it is eventually standard.

I was going to object, but given it's without a plan, that might not be so bad. As for sub-$399, I found the initial iPhone prices perfectly reasonable, and those quickly went down, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it go down to $399/499/599 32/64/128GB all with 3G within a year. Keeps the competition non-existant.

[Kickaha]

Eh, fair enough - and it does let them ramp up production and infrastructure a bit more slowly. The iPhone did something similar, after all.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Roboman For the holidays, they might add the camera and drop the price of the 3G option $30 (to $100). For fall 2011, they could make the 3G radio standard. That seems far more doable than a $399 iPad.

Unless the $399 version were last year's model *scratches chin*

[torifile]

Originally Posted by chucker I was going to object, but given it's without a plan, that might not be so bad. As for sub-$399, I found the initial iPhone prices perfectly reasonable, and those quickly went down, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it go down to $399/499/599 32/64/128GB all with 3G within a year. Keeps the competition non-existant.

That would be extremely aggressive price cuts. We're talking $330 in a year. I highly doubt that would happen.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by torifile That would be extremely aggressive price cuts. We're talking $330 in a year. I highly doubt that would happen.

That's virtually identical to what they did with the iPhone, so…

[torifile]

Originally Posted by chucker That's virtually identical to what they did with the iPhone, so…

You mean the subsidized phone?

[Robo]

THE DIFFERENCE:

The iPhone was arguably the most anticipated consumer electronics device in history. Apple knew that, at launch, they could basically name their own price, and they did. Anyone who thinks that Apple wasn't planning in advance to drop the price before the holidays is just silly. They just inflated it for all the early adopters, because they knew they couldn't make enough even at $599.

The iPad, on the other hand, is far more sensitive to price. If Apple launched it at $700-1,000, it probably wouldn't take off. That's why I would not expect to see price drops on the iPad like they did on the iPhone -- unless someone starts subsidizing it, of course.

I think we can all agree that the iPhone price dropped remarkably quickly, and that it doesn't necessarily make a "pattern" where other devices should be expected to drop in price similarly fast.

Selling a base model for $399 is way harder on Apple's margins than selling the 3G'd model for $499, because there's no way a 3G radio costs Apple $130 (and it will cost even less eighteen months after launch).

[bassplayinMacFiend]

The 3G radio doesn't cost much, it's the patent licensing fees that make up most of that $130. Guesstimates I've read online put the patent fees between $80-100 for each 3G unit.

[pscates2.0]

Just a little tidbit of interest...do you know how many times in the past two weeks I've been called or e-mailed and asked about the iPad?

And, for the most part, from people I never would expect to get such calls or e-mails.

I seek to stay neutral and even-handed (because the device isn't out yet and there's no "real-world" yardsticks to cheerlead (or caution) for. But I think it's interesting in my little neck of the woods, surrounded by people who aren't tech-hounds and gadget-freaks, how many of them have said some variation on the "I think that's kinda all I need" statement.

I've got three people - all Windows users - specifically holding off on a notebook (netbook, in two of the cases) purchase, until they can get their hands on this and hear more in-depth analysis and reviews come March-April.

That's significant. Think about what that means, when you distill it down: people I know are putting off "here and now" $300-400 purchases (of a familiar OS/setup they already know and use...which might be the problem ) to wait two months on a $500 item from Apple they've not even seen in real life yet! A company can't pay for, or create out of thin air, that sort of reputation and clout. That's the iPod and iPhone (and, in some cases, the iMac, Mac mini and MacBook). That's people who normally don't give two damns about all this stuff realizing "hey, Apple has hit a home run with everything they've done in this field lately; and I do love my iPod, so...".

Kinda blows my mind when I think of it in those terms.

I hope I spend all my March and April going with folks to buy their iPads and getting them all set up and running. I love doing that (I just helped someone with their iPod touch this weekend).

Once they get a few months of that under their belt, they're going to be really hard-pressed to not look at a Mac mini, MacBook or iMac on their next "real computer" purchase.

I say all the above because I just got an e-mail about 20 minutes ago...from the absolute last person on Earth I thought I'd ever hear from on such a thing. And she was asking so many (good) questions. "Okay, the world has officially spun off its axis because if I'm hearing from her about the iPad, then I know everyone else must be thinking about it!"

[turbulentfurball]

I wonder if the iPod touch will ever get renamed iPad Nano. That's pretty much what it is now considering the iPad's publicity. It's a small iPad, not a touchscreen iPod.

[Kickaha]

I think it'll depend on what iPhone OS 4.0 brings, and how many of those things scale down to the smaller form factor. If they all, or the vast majority, do, then that's an opportunity for renaming. If the experience is very different though... I think it'll stay the iPod touch. (Which I think it will. )

[pscates2.0]

Yeah, I think it confuses people when they just up and change a product's name like that. It's bad enough trying to keep all the existing versions of the same family straight (MacBooks, iMacs, iPod nano, etc.). No need to make it impossible by switching an entire family's name, and then try to help someone over the phone a year or so later...

"Okay, so what do you have?"

"The iPad touch".

"You mean iPod touch?"

"Well, it's big."

"How big?"

"I don't know...like five inches."

"That's not big. What does it say on the back?"

"iPod"

"iPod what?"

"iPod...made by Apple in California?"

"Can you hold it in one hand?"

"Hahahaha...I don't know, ask your Mom!"

"Listen, jackass...you called me, remember?"

"Wait...I think it's a Zune. It's brown. Sorry...".



Uh, no.

iPod = small, handheld. "Pad" implies larger, tablet-y/notebook-sized.

To me, anyway. And Steve just called me about all this a few days ago, and we've already cleared it up.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by turbulentfurball I wonder if the iPod touch will ever get renamed iPad Nano. That's pretty much what it is now considering the iPad's publicity. It's a small iPad, not a touchscreen iPod.

I think most people still buy the iPod touch for the iPod functionality above anything else.

I think eventually (possibly this year) it might lose the "touch" moniker and just be "iPod".