User Name
Password

Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
iPad-Mini Rumor
Page 3 of 13 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next Last Thread Tools
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2012-04-20, 20:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
The part I bolded is important. The 7" size is not a feature. It's a compromise. A cost-cutting measure. It's not very Apple-like historically to create a product in that vein. I think that's what surprises some people.

Like I said earlier, I'm not against it if the margins are there.
Just because a 7" size is a compromise to you, doesn't mean that is is for everyone. Is a 21.5" iMac a compromise? How about an 11" MBA, or a 13" MBP?

There are tons of iPhone users who swear up and down that a 3.5" screen is a feature compared to a 4" screen.

I would like a 7" iPad in addition to my 10" one. Not because it's cheaper, but because there are times/situations where the smaller size would be preferred. Why is that so hard to understand?

Your needs/wants do not reflect everyone's needs/wants.

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2012-04-21, 07:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy View Post
Just because a 7" size is a compromise to you, doesn't mean that is is for everyone. Is a 21.5" iMac a compromise? How about an 11" MBA, or a 13" MBP?
I addressed this already. The MBA was actually *more* expensive when it first came out because it's portability *is* a feature. You're making my point for me. A 7" iPad is not a feature, it's cheaper.

Quote:
There are tons of iPhone users who swear up and down that a 3.5" screen is a feature compared to a 4" screen.
Again, making my point for me. The iPhone is smaller, but *not* cheaper, because the size may actually be seen as a feature by the market (or at least a large segment of the market), or the size difference is not significant enough to have an effect. Not the case with 7" vs. 10" iPad (or any tablet).

Quote:
I would like a 7" iPad in addition to my 10" one. Not because it's cheaper, but because there are times/situations where the smaller size would be preferred. Why is that so hard to understand?
Would you like it enough to pay $499? That's the bottom line. The answer, undoubtedly, is "no". If the 10" iPad was $299, which would you buy in that case?

Quote:
Your needs/wants do not reflect everyone's needs/wants.
It's not about my needs vs. your needs. I'm looking at what the market is already telling us. The 7" iPad is not a feature. It's a compromise.

Doesn't mean it won't sell. But let's not kid ourselves *why* it would sell. It's for cost-sensitive consumers who can't or won't afford to buy the 10" iPad.

The fact that you and other say, "Well, of course, it's cheaper. It's smaller!" No, it's not a given that a smaller thing would necessarily be cheaper. The fact that you think it so obviously should be cheaper reflects your own opinion of it's inherent value.
 
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2012-04-21, 09:33

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
I addressed this already. The MBA was actually *more* expensive when it first came out because it's portability *is* a feature. You're making my point for me. A 7" iPad is not a feature, it's cheaper.
Just like the 21.5" is more expensive than the 27" iMac. Or how the 13" MBP is more expensive than the 15" and that is more expensive than the 17". Oh wait, no they aren't. Those smaller options must be shit compromises eh?

Oh, and a smaller MBA has always been less expensive than a larger MBA.

Your trying to compare 2 different products, and that doesn't make sense. So what if the MBA was more expensive than the MBP - they are different products and can't directly be compared.

A smaller iPad should be cheaper than a larger iPad because some of the most expensive components - screen and battery - are cheaper when they are smaller.

That's usually a very simple truism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Again, making my point for me. The iPhone is smaller, but *not* cheaper, because the size may actually be seen as a feature by the market (or at least a large segment of the market), or the size difference is not significant enough to have an effect. Not the case with 7" vs. 10" iPad (or any tablet).
The iPhone is the size it is because that's what Apple picked and they have stuck with it. It has nothing to do with what the market is dictating. And there are tons of us who would like a larger iPhone (4" or so). I want a bigger screen, but it has to be an iPhone. I don't want an Android or Windows phone. The iOS ecosystem is much more important than screen size to me and many others. If Apple made two different sizes of iPhone, then we'd be able to extrapolate some meaning from the sales numbers. As it is, there is only 1 iPhone size to choose, so we're stuck with that option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Would you like it enough to pay $499? That's the bottom line. The answer, undoubtedly, is "no". If the 10" iPad was $299, which would you buy in that case?
OMG, no that is not the bottom line. Because no one in their right mind has ever argued that it should cost as much as a the 10" iPad. When you are comparing 2 configurations of the same product, you expect that the one with lower specs (in this case, screen size) would be lower because it is cheaper to manufacture. So if someone is not willing to pay the same price for the smaller unit doesn't mean that it doesn't have value, it just means that people recognize that something that costs less to make, should cost less to buy. So if someone would prefer a smaller tablet for their needs, but it costs the same as a larger one, they might assume that they are being gouged and that's off-putting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
It's not about my needs vs. your needs. I'm looking at what the market is already telling us. The 7" iPad is not a feature. It's a compromise.
No, you'e making shit up and forcing everyone to imagine the smaller iPad will cost as much as the bigger one. The market has so far told us that only Apple can make a decent tablet. And that Amazon has a relative hit on it's hands with the Fire. There's not much that can be extrapolated from that yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Doesn't mean it won't sell. But let's not kid ourselves *why* it would sell. It's for cost-sensitive consumers who can't or won't afford to buy the 10" iPad.
Right. Because you say so. Only people who want cheaper items want one of these. Why can't I just accept that 100% absolute fact and move on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
The fact that you and other say, "Well, of course, it's cheaper. It's smaller!" No, it's not a given that a smaller thing would necessarily be cheaper. The fact that you think it so obviously should be cheaper reflects your own opinion of it's inherent value.
When you stick to comparing different sizes of the same item, yes, smaller is usually cheaper. When you start comparing products of different categories, all bets are off. But that would be "fishing" to fit your narrative.

The fact that I think it should be cheaper reflects that I think it would cost them less to make. That doesn't make it any less desirable or useful. Then the portability becomes a compelling feature.

It could fit in a purse. Fit in the inside pocket of a suit coat. Be more portable for kids. Be easier to read one handed when lying down, on the bus, subway. And yes, even cheaper is a feature because it would make it easier to buy multiple units for a family.

You may not mean to be, but your "I know why everyone buys what they buy regardless of what they might say" attitude is incredibly condescending.

Why is it so hard to accept that someone might actually want a smaller iPad? And just because they may not be willing to pay a premium for it, doesn't mean that it doesn't have value. We just want it to be fairly priced in it's product line. And we would expect that fair price - leaving Apple a worthwhile margin - would be somewhere south of the larger iPad.

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!

Last edited by zippy : 2012-04-21 at 10:05.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2012-04-21, 09:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
I enjoyed this very much. Kind of remind me of the recent Sheryl Sandberg story regarding the incredulity of an Exec leaving before
6pm to be with her young children.

I think the harm done by spending too many hours on something for no reason is a kissing cousin of having too many choices. One saps your motivation
for productivity and the other causes analysis paralysis.

omgwtfbbq
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-04-21, 10:44

Guys. You cannot compare the iOS lineup to the Mac lineup. You just can't, because iOS ≠ OS X. It's that simple.

iOS apps depend on the screen being an exact size. OS X apps are windowed, they do not depend on the screen being an exact size. If iOS devices ran OS X, then zippy/pscates would be right on the money. A 7" iPad (and a 5" iPhone, for that matter) would be a sure thing, because all iOS software would run on said iPad right out of the box.

But iOS devices run iOS, and therefore, zippy's analysis doesn't hold water. Everything you guys have been going back and forth on for the past page and a half is 100% irrelevant because nobody besides robo and I seem to care at all about the fact that Apps would have to be totally redesigned to fit a 7" screen. A 7" screen means developers have to target yet a third screen size (and an awkward third screen size, at that) when they should be making the 3.5" and 9.7" apps they have even better. One of the biggest complaints about Android is that because developers have to support so many screen sizes, UI design is harder than it needs to be.

Put simply: if you change the screen size of a Mac, it's still a Mac. If you change the screen size of an iPod, it's still an iPod. But if you change the screen size of an iOS device, it's no longer the same iOS device. iOS software is 100% dependent on knowing the exact size of the screen.

And all this, for what? A 6-month stopgap before the component costs of the iPad 2 drop to below $200 or so?

I know you all think that it's not a big deal to add a third screen size, but as someone who has dabbled in, and keeps up with, iOS development, you're wrong. Is 7" big smartphone territory, or is it small tablet territory? Does this UI rely on panes or popovers? All the Android 7" tablets have taken the "large smartphone" route, at which point, the question becomes, what's the damn point? If it has the UI limitations of a smartphone, but it doesn't have the portability of a smartphone, why even bother? If changing the screen size of an iOS device was something to be taken lightly, don't you think we've have seen a bigger iPhone or iPod touch a long time ago?

The iPad experience would not translate to 7". 70% of what I do on my iPad is through the browser, and 9.7" is the absolute lower threshold for "desktop class" web browsing. Browsing the web on a Kindle Fire is like browsing the web on a slow, oversized iPhone. Browsing the web on an iPad is like browsing the web on a MacBook Pro. Remember folks: Apple isn't trying to make the ultimate consumption device. Apple is trying to kill the PC. 7" is too small to kill the PC. 7" is fine for books and movies, but it doesn't cut it for web and productivity.

7" tablets exist because Apple's competitors don't have Tim Cook's supply chain acumen. That's it. As soon as material costs for tablets make 9.7" $299 tablets feasible, everyone and their mother (including Apple) will be making one and the 7" tablet will fade into the mists of history.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone here that Apple is where it is today because of ruthless, company wide, laser-beam-like focus. Does a device with a UI in no-mans-land and hardware conceived purely as a cost cutting measure sound like something that a company with Apple's level of focus will do?

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

Last edited by Kraetos : 2012-04-21 at 10:55.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2012-04-21, 10:56

Material costs are an anathema, at some point there are enough people that would like a smaller lighter tablet with "modern" componentry. Some people "do" want a smaller tablet. The Kindle Fire sold in the millions because it as cheap but it's also small and leverages Amazon's store.


The biggest amount of confusion seems to come from people who should know better. Resolution and tappable areas are abstract from each other. A smaller iPad does in fact mean smaller drawn artwork but it does not mean the tappable area in an app needs to also shrink. They can be modified independently of each other.

The developer impact is minimal which is why the 7.85 rumors are growing because it provides a smaller tablet without incurring additional fragmentation (resolution wise)

This is all academic however. Apple is a publicly traded company so whether we fee like they should or should not do this they will generally. The gravitational pull of Wall Street means that whether they like it or not Apple has to protect it's flanks from smaller tablets and other devices or their value on Wall St declines.

omgwtfbbq
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2012-04-21, 11:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
Material costs are an anathema, at some point there are enough people that would like a smaller lighter tablet with "modern" componentry. Some people "do" want a smaller tablet. The Kindle Fire sold in the millions because it as cheap but it's also small and leverages Amazon's store.


.
Disagree. Given the choice between a 7" tablet and a 10" tablet for the same price, virtually ever consumer will buy the larger tablet. They take the smaller tablet because it is cheaper. That's how the market works.


If you could buy a Bentley for the same price as a Hyundai, most people would get the Bentley. So you ain't gonna convince me people prefer the Hyundai because it's smaller.
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-04-21, 11:09

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
The developer impact is minimal which is why the 7.85 rumors are growing because it provides a smaller tablet without incurring additional fragmentation (resolution wise)
The developer impact is not minimal. It's just not. If you're insinuating that iPad mini would simply run the same apps, shrunk, then you clearly haven't used a Kindle Fire. The UI on that thing is absolutely infuriating because everything is so small. I miss my tap target when I use it all the damn time. Combine with a sluggish processor for a real nightmare, because you don't know if you've tapped the wrong button for what seems like an eternity.

If you're insinuating that developing natively for a third screen size would incur minimal impact, then you're just wrong. 50% more work due to 50% more screen sizes is not minimal no matter how you slice it.

The Kindle Fire is not as good as an iPad. Period. Apple, as a company, has repeatedly stated that they do not enter a market unless they know they can make the best product in that market. Apple could never make the best tablet at 7" because they already make the best tablet at 9.7".

The iPad experience cannot be replicated at 7". I own an iPad, I own a Fire. I am telling you, it can't be done. For all this talk about how "some people would prefer a smaller tablet," I've yet to see any of the iPad mini proponents take a real swing at solving the UI constraints, past superficial observations like "Angry Birds would scale just fine" and "just shrink it!"

7" is not a good size for a general purpose tablet. Period. It's fine for a consumption-oriented tablet, but not for general purpose computing. In fact, I'm pretty sure that 9.7" is the absolute minimum for general purpose computing. We'll see a bigger iPad before we see a smaller one.

With iPad, Apple is chasing the PC, not the Kindle. A 7" iPad would be great for books, movies, and games. Cool. But books, movies, and games is not Apple's ultimate target for the iPad. The PC is.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2012-04-21, 11:09

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post

7" tablets exist because Apple's competitors don't have Tim Cook's supply chain acumen. That's it. As soon as material costs for tablets make 9.7" $299 tablets feasible, everyone and their mother (including Apple) will be making one and the 7" tablet will fade into the mists of history.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone here that Apple is where it is today because of ruthless, company wide,
Even when this occurs, there will still be a lower price point where even more cost-sensitive consumers will opt for the smaller, cheaper tablet.

It works that way for practically every product in our economy, from $2 cups of coffee to Bentleys. The only question is what is the margin and is it worth it to Apple to be in that market.
 
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2012-04-21, 11:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Disagree. Given the choice between a 7" tablet and a 10" tablet for the same price, virtually ever consumer will buy the larger tablet. They take the smaller tablet because it is cheaper. That's how the market works.


If you could buy a Bentley for the same price as a Hyundai, most people would get the Bentley. So you ain't gonna convince me people prefer the Hyundai because it's smaller.
And of course there is really nothing different between a Hyundai and a Bentley other than size.
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-04-21, 11:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Even when this occurs, there will still be a lower price point where even more cost-sensitive consumers will opt for the smaller, cheaper tablet.
This is very true. But such a tablet won't come from Apple. It will likely come from Amazon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy View Post
And of course there is really nothing different between a Hyundai and a Bentley other than size.
There's plenty different about a Hyundai and a Bentley other than size. That was exactly ezk's point! The iPad is a high end tablet. The Fire is a low end tablet. Apple doesn't make low-end stuff. They sell low-end products, but they're always last year's high-end product!

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2012-04-21, 11:20

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Disagree. Given the choice between a 7" tablet and a 10" tablet for the same price, virtually ever consumer will buy the larger tablet. They take the smaller tablet because it is cheaper. That's how the market works.


If you could buy a Bentley for the same price as a Hyundai, most people would get the Bentley. So you ain't gonna convince me people prefer the Hyundai because it's smaller.
Yes but the x-factor is that we're dealing with real world costs in materials and labor. Reducing the price of the 10" iPad is great but it only meets those who are constrained by price and doesn't meet the needs of those who are constrained by weight/size issues (think eBook fans who really prefer small and light)

A smaller tablet covers both nicely without having to wait for BoM cost to come down enough on the current 10" tablets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
The developer impact is not minimal. It's just not. If you're insinuating that iPad mini would simply run the same apps, shrunk, then you clearly haven't used a Kindle Fire. The UI on that thing is absolutely infuriating because everything is so small. I miss my tap target when I use it all the damn time. Combine with a sluggish processor for a real nightmare, because you don't know if you've tapped the wrong button for what seems like an eternity.

If you're insinuating that developing natively for a third screen size would incur minimal impact, then you're just wrong. 50% more work due to 50% more screen sizes is not minimal no matter how you slice it.

The Kindle Fire is not as good as an iPad. Period. Apple, as a company, has repeatedly stated that they do not enter a market unless they know they can make the best product in that market. Apple could never make the best tablet at 7" because they already make the best tablet at 9.7".

The iPad experience cannot be replicated at 7". I own an iPad, I own a Fire. I am telling you, it can't be done. For all this talk about how "some people would prefer a smaller tablet," I've yet to see any of the iPad mini proponents take a real swing at solving the UI constraints, past superficial observations like "Angry Birds would scale just fine" and "just shrink it!"
The Kindle fire proved what many of us already knew. You cannot just throw together a glossy interface and expect it to have the appeal of an iPad. People don't want tablets ...they want iPads.

The Fire also makes what I believe to be a cardinal sin. It employs a 16x9 ratio which mean that in landscape mode your vertical is smaller than ever and from what i've seen with iPad users the use landscape mode more often than not. A 4x3 ratio tablet is going to give acceptable vertical height in landscape.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Even when this occurs, there will still be a lower price point where even more cost-sensitive consumers will opt for the smaller, cheaper tablet.

It works that way for practically every product in our economy, from $2 cups of coffee to Bentleys. The only question is what is the margin and is it worth it to Apple to be in that market.
I think a smaller tablet could share a platform that is more closely tied to the iPhone (meaning lower lithography parts like the newer Qualcomm stuff) which helps economies of scales and of course power consumption and size.

omgwtfbbq
 
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2012-04-21, 11:26

From Apples Developer guidelines
Quote:
The display of an iOS-based device is at the heart of the user’s experience. Not only do people view beautiful text, graphics, and media on the display, they also physically interact with the Multi-Touch screen to drive their experience (even when they can’t see the screen).

Although displays of different dimensions and resolutions can have different effects on user experience with an app, some effects apply to all iOS-based devices:

The comfortable minimum size of tappable UI elements is 44 x 44 points.
The quality of app artwork is very apparent.
The user’s focus is on the content.
And separately

Quote:
Points Versus Pixels
In iOS, all coordinate values and distances are specified using floating-point values in units referred to as points. The measurable size of a point varies from device to device and is largely irrelevant. The main thing to understand about points is that they provide a fixed frame of reference for drawing.

Table 1-1 lists the screen dimensions (measured in points) for different types of iOS-based devices in a portrait orientation. The width dimension is listed first, followed by the height dimension of the screen. As long as you design your interface to these screen sizes, your views will display correctly on the corresponding type of device.

Table 1-1 Screen dimensions for iOS-based devices
Device
Screen dimensions (in points)
iPhone and iPod touch
320 x 480
iPad
768 x 1024
The point-based measuring system used for each type of device defines what is known as the user coordinate space. This is the standard coordinate space you use for nearly all of your code. For example, you use points and the user coordinate space when manipulating the geometry of a view or calling Core Graphics functions to draw the contents of your view. Although coordinates in the user coordinate space sometimes map directly to the pixels on the device’s screen, you should never assume that this is the case. Instead, you should always remember the following:

One point does not necessarily correspond to one pixel on the screen.
At the device level, all coordinates you specify in your view must be converted to pixels at some point. However, the mapping of points in the user coordinate space to pixels in the device coordinate space is normally handled by the system. Both UIKit and Core Graphics use a primarily vector-based drawing model where all coordinate values are specified using points. Thus, if you draw a curve using Core Graphics, you specify the curve using the same values, regardless of the resolution of the underlying screen.
I'm no developer.

But as I read this, they say the minimal target size of a button should be 44x44 points. The end result of the button size is different, depending on which device is being used since as they state, pixel size and point size are not necessarily 1 to 1. So a 44x44 button on the iPhone will be smaller than a 44x44 button on an iPad. The smaller button on the iPhone is still very usable.

So why would a 44x44 button that falls somewhere in between an iPhone sized icon and an iPad sized icon suddenly be so unusable?

I encounter much, much smaller buttons on my iPhone when browsing the web, as do others, and we do just fine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos
The Kindle Fire is not as good as an iPad. Period. Apple, as a company, has repeatedly stated that they do not enter a market unless they know they can make the best product in that market. Apple could never make the best tablet at 7" because they already make the best tablet at 9.7".

The iPad experience cannot be replicated at 7". I own an iPad, I own a Fire. I am telling you, it can't be done. For all this talk about how "some people would prefer a smaller tablet," I've yet to see any of the iPad mini proponents take a real swing at solving the UI constraints, past superficial observations like "Angry Birds would scale just fine" and "just shrink it!"

7" is not a good size for a general purpose tablet. Period. It's fine for a consumption-oriented tablet, but not for general purpose computing. In fact, I'm pretty sure that 9.7" is the absolute minimum for general purpose computing. We'll see a bigger iPad before we see a smaller one.
I really don't think that the failure of other companies to create a 7" tablet has anything to do with Apples ability to create one. After all, everyone has failed to even make a decent 10" tablet - except Apple.

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
 
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2012-04-21, 11:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
This is very true. But such a tablet won't come from Apple. It will likely come from Amazon.



There's plenty different about a Hyundai and a Bentley other than size. That was exactly ezk's point! The iPad is a high end tablet. The Fire is a low end tablet. Apple doesn't make low-end stuff. They sell low-end products, but they're always last year's high-end product!
We are not comparing the Fire to the iPad though. We are comparing a hypothetical Apple 7" tablet to the existing iPad. I would expect any Apple 7" tablet to be a similarly superior product. Why is that even in question.

Apple won't do a half baked product. I absolutely agree with that point.

I just think Apple can do a 7" model without all the sacrifices that other manufactures have to make. (Frankly, most of them don't know how to do a superior product regardless of price.)

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
 
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-04-21, 11:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
Yes but the x-factor is that we're dealing with real world costs in materials and labor. Reducing the price of the 10" iPad is great but it only meets those who are constrained by price and doesn't meet the needs of those who are constrained by weight/size issues (think eBook fans who really prefer small and light)
eBook fans who prefer small and light should buy a Kindle. Apple doesn't have to make everything for everyone.

Quote:
A smaller tablet covers both nicely without having to wait for BoM cost to come down enough on the current 10" tablets.
That cost will come down much, much faster than you think. Here, hop in my time travel device, go back in time three years, and ask everyone at AN what they think a device with:

- A 2048x1536 9.7" LED IPS panel.
- Dual core 1GHz CPU.
- Quad core GPU.
- 1 GB RAM
- 16 GB NAND flash
- Dual cameras
- Wifi, pentaband 3G, and 4G LTE built in

will cost in 2012. If you told them "$629," 3-years-ago us (myself included) would think you're off your rocker. If you think I'm full of shit, keep in mind that then, the current iPhone was the iPhone 3G, which had a 480x320 3.5 LED PVA panel, 400 MHz single core CPU, single core GPU, 256 MB RAM, 8GB NAND flash, one camera, Wifi and dual-band 3G, and cost $20 more.

Apple's continued growth only means that the economy of scale advantage will increase. I don't think it's a stretch at all to assume that the iPad 2 will be available for $299 as of next March. Why would I? The iPhone 3GS cost dropped from $649 to $375 in the exact same timeframe. What I'm proposing is actually less drastic than what has already happened!

Quote:
The Kindle fire proved what many of us already knew. You cannot just throw together a glossy interface and expect it to have the appeal of an iPad. People don't want tablets ...they want iPads.
Maybe they want iPads because the 9.7" screen is a huge part of what makes an iPad an iPad. I see the "people don't want tablets, they want iPads" line all the time, yet somehow everyone thinks this will hold true regardless of how you mutilate the iPad.

I don't understand how you can say "people don't want tablets, they want iPads," proceed to throw out one of iPads defining characteristics, and assume the axiom will hold.

Quote:
The Fire also makes what I believe to be a cardinal sin. It employs a 16x9 ratio which mean that in landscape mode your vertical is smaller than ever and from what i've seen with iPad users the use landscape mode more often than not. A 4x3 ratio tablet is going to give acceptable vertical height in landscape.
Taller is better for smaller devices. The bigger the screen, the more beneficial wider becomes. Maybe 16x9 is ideal for 7", and maybe 4x3 is ideal for 9.7", because maybe 16x9 is ideal for consumption (it better replicates movie screens, widescreen TVs, and books) and 4x3 is ideal for general purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy View Post
But as I read this, they say the minimal target size of a button should be 44x44 points. The end result of the button size is different, depending on which device is being used since as they state, pixel size and point size are not necessarily 1 to 1. So a 44x44 button on the iPhone will be smaller than a 44x44 button on an iPad. The smaller button on the iPhone is still very usable.
Because you hold an iPhone closer to your face, and therefore it about evens out. But nobody is going to be holding a 7" screen at phone-screen's length. And I have to say I really don't understand the 7.85" rumor. Two inches? All this over two measly inches! Give it 10 months and the iPad 2 component costs will be there. Rumors are for more often wrong than right, it's amusing to me that this one has managed to set the Appleverse on fire. I guess people really want that $299 iPad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy View Post
I just think Apple can do a 7" model without all the sacrifices that other manufactures have to make. (Frankly, most of them don't know how to do a superior product regardless of price.)
7" is a sacrifice. This isn't about specs or speed or any of that nonsense. This is about what you can fit on the screen. A 7" screen is too cramped for popovers and floaters. It can't do general purpose computing, it would have to be a consumption device, which is exactly the rut Apple doesn't want the iPad to get stuck in. It would have to be all pane-based, like the iPhone. At which point, you don't have an iPad mini. You have an iPod touch XL.

I am actually much more receptive to the idea of a 5" iPod than I am to the idea of a 7" iPad. I think that 3.5" and 9.7" are the absolute minimum sizes for the two form factors. I also suspect that neither you nor hmurch don't actually own an iPad (I know that pscates doesn't) because you seem to be operating on the assumption that an iPad's UI is the same as the iPhone UI, just bigger. And that's why you think the iPad can scale down, no problem.

But that is a faulty assumption. The iPad UI puts more on screen at once than the iPhone UI does. It lets you do more at the same time. This is why it breaks the "consumption device" mold. A 7" iPad wouldn't have that luxury, it would simply be a faster Kindle Fire. Which is why Apple won't do it. Eventually the Kindle Fire will get faster on it's own, and Apple can't go head-to-head with Amazon on sheer content. If Apple can't do it the best, they won't do it at all.

Again, I remain convinced that a 15.4" iPad Pro is far more likely that a 7.85" iPad mini. I am not opposed to changing the size of the iPad—I'm simply opposed to doing it for the wrong reasons.

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

Last edited by Kraetos : 2012-04-21 at 13:00.
 
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2012-04-21, 13:54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
I am actually much more receptive to the idea of a 5" iPod than I am to the idea of a 7" iPad. I think that 3.5" and 9.7" are the absolute minimum sizes for the two form factors. I also suspect that neither you nor hmurch don't actually own an iPad (I know that pscates doesn't) because you seem to be operating on the assumption that an iPad's UI is the same as the iPhone UI, just bigger. And that's why you think the iPad can scale down, no problem.
Wrong assumption. I pre-ordered the original iPad as soon as it was possible and have loved it ever since.

Then again, you and ezkcdude keep making assumptions about everyone else's needs, wants, purchase decisions, etc. so why change that now, amiright?

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2012-04-21, 14:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy View Post

Then again, you and ezkcdude keep making assumptions about everyone else's needs, wants, purchase decisions, etc. so why change that now, amiright?
Instead of making assumptions, should we just pretend like nothing is knowable and all choices are equally possible? Is that the world you live in?
 
JohnnyTheA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2012-04-21, 15:13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
The developer impact is not minimal. It's just not. If you're insinuating that iPad mini would simply run the same apps, shrunk, then you clearly haven't used a Kindle Fire. The UI on that thing is absolutely infuriating because everything is so small. I miss my tap target when I use it all the damn time. Combine with a sluggish processor for a real nightmare, because you don't know if you've tapped the wrong button for what seems like an eternity.

If you're insinuating that developing natively for a third screen size would incur minimal impact, then you're just wrong. 50% more work due to 50% more screen sizes is not minimal no matter how you slice it.
A 7" iPad is very doable. The first way I would do it would be to use the same size of matrix as the original iPad scaled down to the 7" size. That way, there would be NO impact at all to developers because they have the same 1024 × 768 matrix they are used to developing for. If that display is not available, then you could use chips to scale another size to the standard. Again, this would involve NO impact to developers. This is why iPhone apps run on the iPad without any modification at all. The hardware scales up (interpolates, whatever) so the developer doesn't have to.

Either way, there is absolutely NO impact to developers at all. The only argument would be if the UI is too small to use iPad apps that are scaled down somewhat. I think the answer is NO. Most of the iPad apps I use already have very large controls. Developers don't run out of space and make "just big enough" controls on the iPad (like they do on the iPhone). its a HUGE display, they tend to oversize things to make them fit the whole screen. There is room to shrink somewhat. Your "50%" reduction is skewed somewhat. Two dimensional areas grow geometrically not linearly. 50% is a lot for a single dimension of growth but not much for an area. Most people wouldn't say that their iPad is over 8 times as big as their iPhone.

If Apple doesn't do it, it will not be because of the reason you state. It will be because of profit margins or market share analysis, both of which we, on this board, we can only guess about completely. I think it is possible because "at some point" Apple will be forced to really start crushing the competition. If there IS a market for smaller tablets (and there appears to be one when I go into Barnes and Noble and look at the crowds of people playing with those) they very well might consider playing in it. Jobs is gone, they have shareholders to satisfy and if they want to inflate the value of their stock even higher they will have to crush their competitors at some point...
 
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2012-04-21, 15:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Instead of making assumptions, should we just pretend like nothing is knowable and all choices are equally possible? Is that the world you live in?
I don't think we should take our personal motivations and assume they apply to everyone and then state them as facts. But that seems to be the world you live in.


Those of us arguing for the possibility of a 7.85" iPad do so because we think it's doable and we think tons of people would want want one. We are open to the possibility and see where it might make sense.

Those of you opposed all seem to know nobody wants one and know Apple can't make a decent one.

/shrug/ I guess if you are so absolutely sure about everything, then kudos for your omniscience.

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2012-04-21, 15:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy View Post
I don't think we should take our personal motivations and assume they apply to everyone and then state them as facts. But that seems to be the world you live in.


Those of us arguing for the possibility of a 7.85" iPad do so because we think it's doable and we think tons of people would want want one. We are open to the possibility and see where it might make sense.

Those of you opposed all seem to know nobody wants one and know Apple can't make a decent one.

/shrug/ I guess if you are so absolutely sure about everything, then kudos for your omniscience.
So, you do make assumptions. That's what I thought.

You see how this goes right? We both believe certain things. It's not that I'm making assumptions and you aren't. I hope you see that now.
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2012-04-21, 15:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA View Post
This is why iPhone apps run on the iPad without any modification at all. The hardware scales up (interpolates, whatever) so the developer doesn't have to.
Have you actually used an iPhone app on an iPad? It's confined to either a window the sizeof the iPhone or it's blown up to the size of the iPad but horribly pixelated.
 
JohnnyTheA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2012-04-21, 16:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Have you actually used an iPhone app on an iPad? It's confined to either a window the sizeof the iPhone or it's blown up to the size of the iPad but horribly pixelated.
Yes, a LOT of apps I use are still not available as iPad-only. They work just well. If you don't like the pixelation (which I don't find a big deal at all), you can reduce it down to the iPhone size. Its a choice. Look at it in the reverse case, would you want ALL iPhone-only apps to not work on the iPad. That would be foolish. The point is, that there is no impact to the developer. Folks that had iPhone apps on the App Store instantly had an additional target for their wares the day the iPad was released without having to write a single line of code. Thats pretty cool...
 
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2012-04-21, 16:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
So, you do make assumptions. That's what I thought.

You see how this goes right? We both believe certain things. It's not that I'm making assumptions and you aren't. I hope you see that now.
Yes, but I know my assumptions are assumptions and my opinions are opinions. You seem to think that all of yours are absolute truths.
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2012-04-21, 16:35

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA View Post
Yes, a LOT of apps I use are still not available as iPad-only. They work just well. If you don't like the pixelation (which I don't find a big deal at all), you can reduce it down to the iPhone size. Its a choice. You don't have to do market research to know that very few iPad users p
Look at it in the reverse case, would you want ALL iPhone-only apps to not work on the iPad. That would be foolish. The point is, that there is no impact to the developer. Folks that had iPhone apps on the App Store instantly had an additional target for their wares the day the iPad was released without having to write a single line of code. Thats pretty cool...
Wow, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Thought maybe you didn't know that the iPhone apps look terrible on an iPad. Apparently, you do know and you don't think it makes a difference.

That's even worse.
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2012-04-21, 16:36

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy View Post
Yes, but I know my assumptions are assumptions and my opinions are opinions. You seem to think that all of yours are absolute truths.
No, but I do think my assumptions are a lot better than yours in regards to this issue.
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-04-21, 17:53

Anyone care to make it interesting? Let's drag some cash into it!

Just kidding. Figured as long as we were going in circles, with nobody likely to budge, we may as well spice it up. If only to keep it interesting...
 
JohnnyTheA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2012-04-21, 22:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude View Post
Wow, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Thought maybe you didn't know that the iPhone apps look terrible on an iPad. Apparently, you do know and you don't think it makes a difference.

That's even worse.
Its not a huge difference. If it was, I wouldn't be buying iPhone Apps (no longer use my iPod-touch) for my iPad. But YES, apps designed for the iPad are going to be better than iPhone Apps, but given the choice of not running them at all, I am fine with iPhone apps if the iPad ones are not available.

The point IS that IF Apple decides to go to a smaller form-factor iPad, there is no way they are going to have any impact on developers worrying about sizing their UI for each model. Developers will target the normal iPad and those apps will work for the smaller one without any cropping. That was the main point I was making in response to Kraetos. Their best bet would be a matrix the size of the original iPad. There would be no pixelation effect at all... Even if you wanted to run the new double resolution apps coming out, a 2:1 scaling of pixels would be very clean because it would be an integer number of reduction. Pixelation starts getting nasty when you scale from 1024 to 480 for example.... Going from 2048 to 1024 would be very very clean looking and the display would still look sharper (larger dpi) than the iPad 2.

Again, we don't have all the data that would be driving a decision to go to 7" or not for sure. So arguing about it makes as much sense as arguing about where you think their stock price will be in six months. Its just an opinion. I am just saying it is very very possible to make a very good iPad in a smaller form factor.
 
Escher
Sub-PowerBook Lobbyist
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Washington, DC
 
2012-04-24, 22:29

I would likely be tempted to purchase an iPad mini, e.g. with a 7-inch screen, instead of or in addition to the iPad 1 (handed down to the kids) and iPad 3 I have now.

As others have pointed out above, a 7-inch iPad would be a lot more pocketable than a 10-inch iPad. For my personal use, I would love to have a 7-inch iPad mini as an in-car media and navigation system.

The screen on my iPhone is just too small for mapping purposes. Even my 4S's Retina Display is almost as useless as my old Garmin. And the current 10-inch iPad is kind of big for dash-mounted use, although it's still much better than any laptop, including my 11-inch MBA. OTOH, with a 7-inch iPad mini, 3rd party manufacturers could easily come up with a double-DIN mounting system, which would fit right where many cars' OEM stereos do.

I've been waiting for a true sub-PowerBook for more than 10 years. The 11-inch MacBook Air finally delivers on all counts! It beats the hell out of both my PowerBook 2400c and my 12-inch PowerBook G4 -- no contest whatsoever.
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2012-04-24, 22:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Escher View Post

As others have pointed out above, a 7-inch iPad would be a lot more pocketable than a 10-inch iPad.
Do you have clown pockets?
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-04-24, 22:47

Why, are you a clownist? Haven't we moved past that sad phase of this nation's history where we judge a person on their big red nose and oversized shoes?



Not to get too hung up on the "pocketable" thing (again), but I do have cargo pants and jackets with big roomy pockets and pouches, and I've slid larger-than-iPhones/smaller-than-iPad items into them (digest-sized magazine, brochure, a map/guidebook or a user manual of some sort).

He probably meant easier to carry (smaller/lighter)...like toting a Kindle around vs. an iPad. I don't think anyone here is realistically talking about jeans or shirt pocket storage or carrying.

Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2012-04-24 at 22:57.
 
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 3 of 13 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  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 08:01.


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