User Name
Password

Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
iPad-Mini Rumor
Page 6 of 13 First Previous 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10  Next Last Thread Tools
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2012-05-11, 13:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
Not trying to employe an Appeal to Authority fallacy but when even the WSJ talks about and iPad and Gruber "confirms" that they are "noodling" with smaller designs. I've got to wonder when it's time to punt and just acknowledge that the idea is being tossed around.
Strawman. Nobody is saying that Apple has not "tossed the idea around." I even said earlier that it would be irresponsible for a company with Apple's resources not to whip up some prototypes, just in case the Kindle Fire turned out to be a huge hit and they needed a cheaper iPad yesterday. But that didn't really happen.

I'm guessing Apple tosses around ideas for lots of products they don't end up shipping. In fact, Jobs once quipped that he was as proud of the products Apple didn't ship as he was of the products Apple did. The debate here is whether Apple should ship a scaled-down iPad in the near future, not whether they've ever "noodled" with smaller designs. Nobody is saying that they haven't.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2012-05-11, 19:30

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
No shit. I'm sure there are prototypes, deep in the bowels of Cupertino. The question is whether or not one of them will make it to market.
I guess some of here are betting that it will and some are betting that it won't. I've weighed by sides from my own perspective and see more reasons in favor of a slightly smaller iPad thusly my decision has been made about what side i'm on. I'm eager to see how things play out.


omgwtfbbq
 
thegeriatric
geri to my friends
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Heaven
 
2012-05-12, 04:41

It will. Their I said it!
 
kscherer
Which way is up?
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2012-05-12, 12:06

I'm betting that Apple stays their course and resists the urge on this one. They already make an "iPad Mini". It starts at $200 and I have one in my pocket.

Edit: I didn't read the entire thread, but I'm guessing this argument has already been tried.

- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :)
- Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9)
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-07-05, 13:06

The talk has been increasing the past few days...

I realize it's all just "analyst" speculation, but it's interesting that so much has come about in the past 36-48 hours:

Bloomberg: smaller iPad to launch by year's end.

WSJ: Apple telling supplies to prep for mass production of smaller iPad.

Gruber weighs in.

Twice.

Another analyst.

What's interesting - no, aggravating - is that they're all saying the exact same stuff myself and others here have been saying for over two months (and catching endless grief for it).

Suddenly, however, it's "breaking news" and is now "making sense" to some (because a few big-wig publications or writers finally got around to pointing out the obvious).

Even Robo seems to have come around to the idea a bit, going by his Twitter.

I'm not saying it's a lock or is going to happen (or even has to happen). But the reasons for one to come about suddenly aren't as wild, out there or goofy as it might've once seemed. Competition, pricing, size preferences, etc. all factor in in various ways. If Apple sees the Fire or some of this recent ~$200 stuff as any sort of threat or challenge, and if they think they can put out an attractive, compelling product in that arena (and you know they could), it'll be a move they make. And they'll be successful because if you've already bought into the Apple/iOS way and have your music, apps, etc. all tied up in this approach (and going by sales and popularity, that number seems pretty high and solid), what are the chances you're going to abandon all that in the pursuit of some new, unknown/untested "us too!" device (or OS/store/ecosystem) that undoes all you've already got working for you? It doesn't work that way.

Only propellerheads and spec whores make purchase decisions based solely on numbers and/or feature checklists (and they're a shrinking minority). The real world says "I've got all my stuff working really well with this Apple setup...I can't wait to see what else they come out with!"

It's that simple.

I don't think the Fire is making the dent many believed it would, but maybe Apple wants to move into an area and plant their flag before others do? If tablets and touch-based computing are indeed the post-PC future, then they have to consider various sizes, markets, budgets and approaches - it would be crazy not to - and try to have the big points covered. I'm sure Apple would love to rule the 3.5-4", 7-8" and 9-10" segments, all three of them. Can you honestly imagine them, knowing what we know, sitting there and ceding a potential segment (or cash cow) to Google, Amazon, Microsoft or anyone else? Because I sure can't.

I think it would be easier, and smarter, for Apple to try and fail (if 7" ~$200 turns out to be based on mass hysteria and a fever dream...write it off, call it the 2012-2013 iPod HiFi and move on) than to do nothing and then have some world-class dipshits ruling a segment that we all know Apple could've been part of, and setting the bar.

My 3¢ (inflation...two cents doesn't cut it anymore )

Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2012-07-05 at 13:37.
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-07-05, 13:34

Joel Bernstein crunches the numbers on simply scaling 1024x768 to 7.85".

I recall doing this math a few months ago and coming up with different numbers. I think I was assuming 7", not 7.85". The gist of it is that 1024x768 @ 7.85 inches is identical to the pixel density on the iPhone 3GS. Apple would be cutting this screen from the same sheets they cut the iPhone 3GS from, and on-screen elements scaled down from iPad apps would have on-screen elements that were perfectly iPhone sized.

This is important for two reasons. First, using the same display they use on the 3GS saves them money, they've been making that screen for 3 years (maybe even 5 if it's identical to the screen in the first iPhone) so they've optimized the hell out of it and gotten costs way down. Second, it nullifies my primary concern about this thing: that on screen elements would be to small.

I still think they would be a little on the small side because you would hold this further away from your face than you hold an iPhone, but if the primary use case is reading and watching, then on screen elements would not matter as much. It's going to be an absolute bear to type on, but maybe Apple's decided typing isn't as important for this form factor as it is for the iPhone and iPad form factors.

However, I still don't think the "it will make them more money" argument is watertight. If the margin on the iPad 2 at $399 is larger than the margin on the iPad mini at $199, it's possible they will lose money because of lost iPad 2 sales.

I still think it's a bad idea and that Apple should stick with the 9.7" iPad. It's a dilution of the iPad brand I think is unwise at this juncture, since they're trying to pose iPad as the next PC, but 7.85" is too small for general purpose computing. On the other hand, at $199 with 8GB it would put an end to the Fire and the Nexus overnight, and maybe Apple is more scared of the Fire than they are letting on, even though the Fire, by and large, has been a disappointment in the market. (Then again, so was the first Kindle.) At this point, iPad mini or no iPad mini in October wouldn't surprise me either way, but if I were in charge, I wouldn't do it.

But maybe that's why I'm not in charge of anything important

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.

Last edited by Kraetos : 2012-07-05 at 17:37.
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-07-05, 14:03

I get confused on the scaling and resolution stuff myself.

But the economics/logistics make some sense. They're already using those panels, those resolutions, etc. That's a big part of why I said I didn't think it would be a huge ordeal or major undertaking. Things would appear as they already do on several devices over the years, etc.

I don't see it as dilution, in the way you're saying, as I do "they're looking to cover the field".

If this is a true post-PC thing we're talking about, surely one size (or two, if you count the iPhone and iPod touch...and you kinda have to ), isn't all there can be.

We have notebooks from 10"-17", desktops displays from 15" to 27" or whatever (I don't know what all sizes are out there in the non-Apple world, but you get my point). People make part of their purchase decision on what size screen they're comfortable with for the things they're most likely going to do (the way some people can have an 11" or 13" MacBook as their sole computer, while others couldn't imagine owning/using anything less than the 27" iMac).

Same would apply here.

I don't even see typing being that big of an ordeal or issue. It'll be somewhere between the iPhone and iPad, both of which are very easy and comfortable to use (no, I wouldn't want to write a term paper on either, but I'll write e-mails and big posts here on my iPhone all the time, with links, copy/paste, punctuation/capitalization, etc. and it's never a burden or chore. I imagine a ~7" would be no better, or worse, than what millions of us already do. Are you talking about the physical layout or stretch? Because I think it would be a two-hand situation, but not nearly the spread or reach as the iPad. Imagine holding a standard-sized paperback novel (maybe a tad larger) and it would probably be thumb-based approach.

EDIT: Ha...my dad just e-mailed me with a Yahoo! story linked, asking me about this and "what I've heard".



If regular folks (who don't hang out at Apple-centric sites and forums) are getting wind of this and asking about it, you know the talk is picking up!
 
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-07-05, 15:16

Yeah, people are talking about it, non-tech people. Heck, the rumors of a 7" iPad were talked about on a non-tech radio program on Vancouvers most popular radio station this morning!
 
Bonn89
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
 
2012-07-05, 16:16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Joel Bernstein crunches the numbers on simply scaling 1024x768 to 7.85".

I recall doing this math a few months ago and coming up with different numbers. I think I was assuming 7", not 7.85". The gist of it is that 1024x768 @ 7.85 inches is identical to the pixel density on the iPhone 3GS. Apple would be cutting this screen from the same sheets they cut the iPhone 3GS from, and on-screen elements scaled down from iPad apps would have on-screen elements that were perfectly iPhone sized.
While this all makes perfect sense, and works out in a surprisingly perfect way, I believe there's no way in hell Apple is going to release a mobile device in 2012-2013 without a Retina display.

None.

Not a chance.

What I CAN see them doing, since the math works out so perfectly, is to cut 7.85" displays from the iPhone 4S's sheets of Retina display, and replace the $399 iPad 2 with a $299-$349 iPad mini with Retina display.

If the math works perfectly for a 7.85" iPad mini to have the same display density as the 3GS, it works out that it could have the same display density as the 4S.
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-07-05, 16:24

I'm now at this weird point where I want to accept that it's happening, but I still can't get my head around it. I'm still stuck on the fact that Apple already has a solution for a cheaper iPad—the iPad 2. The iPad 2's margins are only going to get better and better as we move forward. While a 7.85" iPad wouldn't be starting completely from scratch, the "last years model for less" solution is so elegant from an ecosystem and supply-chain standpoint that I just don't see Apple abandoning it.

And I still just don't see the need for it. 7" tablets are dead in the water. Maybe the Nexus 7 will change that, but don't hold your breath. I'd put more faith in the Fire 2 than the Nexus 7 as the product that's going to crack the non-iPad tablet market.

We're about as close to critical mass on the rumor front as we can get without it actually being announced. That's why I'm beginning to think it's real. But it still doesn't make sense to me. It still seems like a unnecessary, corner-cutting, reactionary product, which just isn't Apple's MO.

And when did we slip from $299 to $199? Is that the Nexus 7's doing? What is to become of the iPod touch if iPad mini really costs $199? Surely Apple can't just keep selling it for $199...

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.

Last edited by Kraetos : 2012-07-05 at 16:35.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2012-07-05, 16:36

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn89 View Post

What I CAN see them doing, since the math works out so perfectly, is to cut 7.85" displays from the iPhone 4S's sheets of Retina display, and replace the $399 iPad 2 with a $299-$349 iPad mini with Retina display.

If the math works perfectly for a 7.85" iPad mini to have the same display density as the 3GS, it works out that it could have the same display density as the 4S.
I agree with this. I'm thinking that the cost differential for non-Retina to Retina isn't that much of a divide. I don't think Apple has to go Quad Core like the Nexus 7 because iOS is already pretty efficient in drawing the UI.

Retina has just become too strong of a branding opportunity.

omgwtfbbq
 
wtd
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2012-07-05, 16:46

The problem with Retina and a 7.85" screen is battery. The new iPad had to increase battery size. How thick and heavy would this one have to be to accommodate a 2048x1536 display?
 
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2012-07-05, 16:55

I agree, it would be hard to justify going with such a low-res screen on an iPad Mini. It would be a step backwards with the iPhone, then the iPad, and now the MacBook Pro getting high res screens. At this point I don't think Apple will introduce any new products without high res screens.

Thing is, the goal of any small tablet seems to be to save money. It's how Android tablets have attempted to compete with the iPad. When you're looking at a $500 Android tablet vs. a $500 iPad, most people will pick the iPad. Even I would probably take the iPad and I'm an Android user. So you have to compete on price instead. It's part of why the iPad has been so successful - Apple was actually price competitive for once, with most competing 10" tablets costing the same as the iPad but offering less quality.

I have a Kindle Fire. Not because I think it's a superior product but because at $200 it's amazing for the money. And I'm not willing to spend $500 on ANY tablet, iPad or not.

Anyway, you're coming into this wanting to cut costs in order to reach an attractive price point. And I agree with hmurchison that this could easily come from the CPU. Android straight up needs better hardware than iOS, and iOS users are less concerned with raw performance numbers. So if you lose on CPU power but win on screen resolution, they'll see that as a win overall.

Besides, any iPad Mini will probably end up costing more than the Nexus 7 by at least $50 (depending on available storage space). And it would look bad if the iPad Mini was more expensive and worse in every measurable way. So I'd say the screen has got to be high resolution. The Nexus 7's screen is 800x1280 and I'm sure they can beat that.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2012-07-05, 17:24

Quote:
Originally Posted by wtd View Post
The problem with Retina and a 7.85" screen is battery. The new iPad had to increase battery size. How thick and heavy would this one have to be to accommodate a 2048x1536 display?
IGZO display technology would help power consumption

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Misek
Also, we believe that Apple and Sharp together have a modified IGZO (indium, gallium, zinc) technology to achieve 330 dpi, which is sufficient for an HD display while not using IPS nor having to include dual-bar LED backlighting. In our view, this should lead to several design advantages, namely the device can be thinner, battery life should be longer, and the overall experience for users should be meaningfully improved.
Let's hope Sharp can deliver.
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-07-05, 17:27

But think about how convoluted this is now getting. Apple could cut all the corners (A5, no retina, 8GB) and hit $199. (No A5x means no retina, the point of the x is to drive the extra pixels, so no, Apple can't keep one and skip the other, they're a package deal.) But when was the last time Apple released a product like that? A new product that is a step back spec-wise in order to hit a specific price point? Maybe you could argue the 11" Air is like that, but there hasn't been a clear cut product like that since the iPod mini in 2004. (I'd argue the iPod nano was a step forwards due to flash.)

Or Apple could not cut corners and go with A5x, retina, and 16GB, and sell it for $249, more likely $299. Okay, now what? If were talking about October then there could be an iPad 2 for $299 within 5 months of release. And keep in mind that selling an older model is much, much better for Apple's profits and the iPad ecosystem.

Again, we seem to be at the point where everyone is sure it's happening, in October, no less. I'm not quite sure how we got to this point, but here we are. I'm still struggling to see how it fits into the lineup with iPod touch for $199 on one side of it and a potential iPad 2 for $299 on the other side. Does the iPod touch get a spec bump and stay the same price? And now we have two iOS devices at $199, one bigger and less powerful, one smaller and more powerful? Or does the iPod touch drop to $149 or less?

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.

Last edited by Kraetos : 2012-07-05 at 18:24.
 
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2012-07-06, 00:36

Google and Amazon have an interest in selling $199 tablets with nary a profit because one wants all your data and the other wants to sell you content. Apple's in the business of maintaining their insane 45% hardware margins on iDevices.

If Apple does release smaller, cutdown iPad it will mark a pretty significant shift in their philosophy.
 
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-07-06, 09:52

They'll need something to replace the iPad 2 once production stops. A cheaper, lighter iPad makes sense as a way of funneling more people into the iApp ecosystem. Options are good for everyone. Enterprise, consumers, Asian girls... whatever keeps people out of the Amazon and Android marketplace and into iOS.

.........................................
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-07-06, 11:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
They'll need something to replace the iPad 2 once production stops.
The third gen iPad?

Quote:
...whatever keeps people out of the Amazon and Android marketplace and into iOS.
At the expense of profit margins?
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2012-07-06, 12:02

Cloud technology is really about selling SAAS features.

Soon there will be a suite of services that leverage cloud and that's where the money in the ecosystem is going to come from.

omgwtfbbq
 
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2012-07-06, 12:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
Cloud technology is really about selling SAAS features.
First of all, I'm sure VMware, Amazon.com, etc. would disagree, and second, that's hardly Apple's business model.
 
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-07-06, 12:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
The third gen iPad?



At the expense of profit margins?
Sales on the app store would more than make up for the reduced profit margin, IMHO. A 7" iPad would be cheaper to make, but not by much mind you. I very much doubt a $199 price tag, but it could take a $249-$399 price and fall into the place of the iPad 2.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2012-07-06, 12:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
First of all, I'm sure VMware, Amazon.com, etc. would disagree, and second, that's hardly Apple's business model.
It will be on a smaller area. SAAS likely isn't the proper word but I can see eventually the actual need and benefit of buying more iCloud storage for Backup, Photo storage and more.

omgwtfbbq
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-07-06, 12:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
It will be on a smaller area. SAAS likely isn't the proper word but I can see eventually the actual need and benefit of buying more iCloud storage for Backup, Photo storage and more.
Apple already sells extra iCloud space and it's not a profit center, just like MobileMe, .Mac, and iTools were not and never meant to be profit centers.

In 35 years Apple's business model has not changed: they sell hardware for a 20%-45% margin. That's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
Sales on the app store would more than make up for the reduced profit margin, IMHO.
Okay, but Apple's literally never done anything like that, ever. The mini and the nano weren't about driving iTunes Music Store sales. They were about selling more iPods.

Quote:
I very much doubt a $199 price tag, but it could take a $249-$399 price and fall into the place of the iPad 2.
Why would Apple do that when they can just keep selling the iPad 2? They already know how to make the iPad 2 for cheap, apps are already the right size on the iPad 2, cases, accessories, etc...

Replacing iPad 2 with iPad mini seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Remember, the 2 got a die shrink when the 3 came out. They're still putting engineering resources into it. Why would they do that if they only intended to sell it for 8 months? I suspect the iPad 2 will continue to be sold through March 2014.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.

Last edited by Kraetos : 2012-07-06 at 13:41.
 
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2012-07-06, 13:48

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
Sales on the app store would more than make up for the reduced profit margin, IMHO.
Wha? Apple uses software to drive hardware sales, not vice versa. That's why their software is dirt cheap — Mountain Lion for $19, iWork apps for $19 apiece, etc.

What compelling reason do they have to change that?
 
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-07-06, 15:54

I'm not going to guess at the price. This is more a question of providing hardware options. iPad 2 is the current budget offering, but it has that air of "classic" old-gen tech. People buy it for the cheaper iOS option. If the people want a smaller iPad, maybe a 7" model is a good way to give them both the smaller and cheaper option, rolled into one, especially if it's cheaper for Apple to make. Now the customer gets a sexy high tech (even smaller/lighter) new generation device for their dollar, instead of "old" generation product...

.........................................
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-07-06, 16:04

I'll goon the record right now, with no fear of contradiction or swallowing my words, that IF Apple releases a 7" iPad under $300, it'll sell as much, if not more than, the full-size models.

So there.

Price and small/cute counts for a lot. This alleged new iPad would probably cover both those areas nicely. It's Apple, so don't expect a $199 model. But people will $50-100 more for quality and a proven winner, and to own the real thing (and not some "us too!", second-rate knockoff).

It could very well be the iPod mini or nano to the iPad's full-size classic. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-07-06, 16:13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
I'm not going to guess at the price. This is more a question of providing hardware options. iPad 2 is the current budget offering, but it has that air of "classic" old-gen tech. People buy it for the cheaper iOS option. If the people want a smaller iPad, maybe a 7" model is a good way to give them both the smaller and cheaper option, rolled into one, especially if it's cheaper for Apple to make. Now the customer gets a sexy high tech (even smaller/lighter) new generation device for their dollar, instead of "old" generation product...
Being "classic" hasn't slowed the 3GS down one bit. Why am I the only person in this entire thread that seems to be aware of the 3GS? Why is everyone acting like selling an older model is somehow "un-Apple" even though Apple's been doing it since 2009?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
I'll goon the record right now, with no fear of contradiction or swallowing my words, that IF Apple releases a 7" iPad under $300, it'll sell as much, if not more than, the full-size models.

So there.
Less expensive product sells more than more expensive product! News at 11.

The question isn't if $299 iPad mini would sell better than a $399 iPad 2. Of course it would. The question is if a $299 iPad mini would make more profit than a $299 iPad 2. I do not think it would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
It could very well be the iPod mini or nano to the iPad's full-size classic. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.
Apple's cheaper iProduct strategy appears to have changed drastically since the last time a new iPod model was released in 2006. Apple has trended towards keeping older models around at lower prices ever since we entered the iPhone era.

In 2004 we had the mini. In 2006 we had the nano. That was six years ago. Since then, we had the $99 3G in 2009, the $99 3GS in 2010, the $0/$99 3GS/4 in 2011, and the $399 iPad 2 in 2012. They haven't released a shrunken iOS device ever, and iOS is now as old as iPod was when iPod nano was released.

The time to segment the iOS ecosystem with smaller devices was in 2009 when they released the 3G instead of the iPhone mini for $99 in 2009. They seem to have now decided that "iOS device n-1" works better for the price sensitive buyer. It's better for the iOS ecosystem, it's better for Apple's bottom line. I simply do not see Apple abandoning it.

Again, we are at the point where there is so much evidence that even I am beginning to think its happening. But I am immensely curious how Apple is going to fit it into the lineup.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.

Last edited by Kraetos : 2012-07-06 at 16:52.
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-07-06, 16:26

It's not "news at 11" when it runs counter to what so many have spent two years saying (that there can/should only be one size iPad, and the one that exists now is the only size to consider). It would come as a shock/surprise to many, I believe. It would turn around a lot of heads.
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-07-06, 16:49

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
It's not "news at 11" when it runs counter to what so many have spent two years saying (that there can/should only be one size iPad, and the one that exists now is the only size to consider). It would come as a shock/surprise to many, I believe. It would turn around a lot of heads.
Okay, but nobody is saying that a cheaper iPad wouldn't sell well, because of course it would. The question is how make a cheaper iPad. For the record, I do not think this hypothetical iPad mini will flop! To the contrary, I think it'll be a huge success when it comes out! But not because it's smaller. Because it's cheaper.

And to be clear, I don't at all think there should be one size of iPad. Having owned an iPhone for 5 years and an iPad for 2, I think that 9.7" is the absolute minimum for the real iPad experience. Any smaller and it's more like an iPod. For consumption, not creation.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
 
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2012-07-06, 17:13

Smaller tablets can be nice though. They're lighter and thus more comfortable for reading and stuff, and it's actually easier to type on them because you can reach the entire keyboard.

That and the lower price, obviously.

One thing I've noticed, though, is that I'm using my Kindle Fire less and less ever since I got a Galaxy Nexus. When your phone has a 4.65" screen, moving up to a device with a 7" screen (that actually has a lower resolution!) feels kinda pointless. These days I use my KF mostly for reading, so I'd be better off with an E Ink reader instead to get even less weight, more battery life, and less eye strain.
 
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 6 of 13 First Previous 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10  Next Last

Closed

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rumor: New Mac Mini Coming to Macworld 2009 MacMan05 Speculation and Rumors 3 2008-12-16 15:07
WHAT IS A RUMOR & SPECULATION.. surjones General Discussion 3 2005-04-12 09:42


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova