Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||
Veteran Member
|
Quote:
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 |
|
Lovable Bastard
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
|
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. |
Veteran Member
|
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 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Lovable Bastard
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
|
Quote:
|
|
Lovable Bastard
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Veteran Member
|
Quote:
A smaller tablet covers both nicely without having to wait for BoM cost to come down enough on the current 10" tablets. 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. Quote:
omgwtfbbq |
|||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
|
From Apples Developer guidelines
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents! |
|||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
|
Quote:
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! |
|
Lovable Bastard
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
|
Quote:
Quote:
- 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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
|
Quote:
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! |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Quote:
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... |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
|
Quote:
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! |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
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...
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
That's even worse. |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Sub-PowerBook Lobbyist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Washington, DC
|
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. |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
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 |
Page 3 of 13 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next Last |
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 |