The point was the iPod Touch is an anathema to an iPod lineup where %75 of the lineup is heavily skewed towards music playback.
Apple could call it whatever they want but at this point the simple question is "What brand is hotter right now..the iPod? brand or the iPad? brand?"
I suspect the iPod name will be left alone and a 7.85" device would be called an iPad mini, if not something altogether different. I also bet that a 7.85" device, with the resolution of an iPad 2 will be a huge success. It will be a much superior gaming platform, and I would argue a better reader. It would be as good for email and many other functions. It will appeal to a younger audience. I would by 2 right out the gate for my kids. Moving on up from iPod touches.
I also think that such a form factor will replace the iPad 2, as already mentioned.
I suspect the iPod name will be left alone and a 7.85" device would be called an iPad mini, if not something altogether different. I also bet that a 7.85" device, with the resolution of an iPad 2 will be a huge success. It will be a much superior gaming platform, and I would argue a better reader. It would be as good for email and many other functions. It will appeal to a younger audience. I would by 2 right out the gate for my kids. Moving on up from iPod touches.
I also think that such a form factor will replace the iPad 2, as already mentioned.
They've used the "mini" designation for both iPod and Mac. iPad mini would be pretty natural IMO.
I'd also buy my son and iPad mini at about $300. The games are cheaper than say getting a higher end Nintendo or Sony game playing device.
There are lots of HW differences, for starters. Even the aspect ratios are different.
On the SW side there are a lot of differences, too. You've only listed apps that have been made for both devices but if you look at the apps they look and feel different when that best effects the user experience.
I've only listed the apps Apple uses on it's own website to market the devices.
So you're saying some apps work better on a larger screen I presume? That would hold true if you made a 5", 6", 7", 8", 9", 10", 12" 52" screen.
The only difference between an iPod Touch and an iPad is that some apps look better on a larger screen.
You can actually see this problem already on Apples iPad website. Why do you think Apple doesn't ship iPad versions of the calculator, the clock, the weather app or the stocks app? Because they wouldn't live up to Apples standards, if you'd just blow them up to the iPads screen. Another example for this is the contacts app. It sure looks good in horizontal mode, but if you rotate the iPad, you're left with ugly black borders on the top and bottom, because they didn't have any content to make use of that space
iPod Touch Safari presents itself as a mobile device for Web sites. iPad presents itself as a full browser.
iPod marketing is about playing back music. I still run into people that don't know iPod Touch can surf the web and do other PDA things
Marketing isn't about date it's about how the customer will perceive your product by appearance and name. Apple has billions pumped into iPod marketing and few people will forget the dancing silhouettes holding their iPod.
Apple can call it whatever they want but the iPad brand is hot right now and calling it an iPod makes very little sense when you're talking about a device that people are less likely to carry around like a music player.
Creating a new product category means educating the public about how this product differs from existing product. That cost a lot of money. It makes more sense to leverage the billions in marketing that you've already paid.
Call it an iPod ..but then people will expect it to be highly portable and focused on music.
Call it and iPad and they'll understand that it's a more general purpose device.
Call it something else and spend millions and hours telling people what exactly the device is and what it's supposed to do only to be told "why didn't you just call it and iPad?"
When was the last time Apple used the dancing silhouette to advertise the iPod Touch?
The current iPod ad is all about iMessages. Recent adverts have focussed on Games, Facetime, HD Video, etc. They are clearly trying to move the perception away from it being just about music playback.
When was the last time Apple used the dancing silhouette to advertise the iPod Touch?
The current iPod ad is all about iMessages. Recent adverts have focussed on Games, Facetime, HD Video, etc. They are clearly trying to move the perception away from it being just about music playback.
First sentence was a non sequitur.
The second pertains to features that cover the entire ecosystem so iPad, iPhones and iPod Touches all enjoy those features and soon Macs.
The foundational piece here is common usage scenario and marketing.
The iPod lineup has been flat or declining in sales/revenue for the most recent quarters while the iPad is exceeding expectations.
What impetus would exist for Apple to attach a 7.85" tablet to the iPod brand that happens to be declining in both sales and revenue?
The only difference between an iPod Touch and an iPad is that some apps look better on a larger screen.
Come on, man, you're smarter than that!
You really can't see how the HW in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?
You really can't see how the UI in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?
You can't see that one has a 3:2 display and the other 4:3 display? I use this example because it affects both the HW and UI. I've detailed how the icons don't even use the same number of pixels.
Here is another one that directly shows that scaling the OS without considering the user experience is not an option:
The iPad icons are larger in both size and pixels and have more space between them. I'd say the icons would be too small if everything was simply adjusted down without concern for usability as we've seen with vendors using Android. They might even be smaller than on the iPhone but with more space between them (I'll have to run the numbers). This means that they would need to adjust the spacing to idealize the contents for the primary I/O and form factor.
iPhone app icons are 57x57 px and 114x114 px. iPad apps icons are 72x72 px. That means iPhone icons are 0.34"x0.34" and iPad icons are 0.55"x0.55" in size. To shrink the iPad down to 7" with the 1024x768 display you get 0.39"x0.39" icons. That's actually doable being that close to the iPhone icon sizes yet being 4x the display area and having all that extra space between icons is not how Apple would release a UI. It will be idealized or I'll short the company.
Taking the 960x640 resolution of the iPod Touch and making that 7" reduces the PPI back to what it was on the original iPod at 480x320 which really isn't a bad thing in a tablet because you do hold it farther from your face, especially when you consider that such a move would be to capture the lower-end of the market. It would be 165 PPI which would make the icons 0.44"x0.44" which is right between what they are on the iPod Touch and iPad. That actually make this sounds reasonable as many aspects of the UI would fall in-line unlike doing a shrink of the iPad UI making it easier for Apple and devs. BTW, the Kindle Fire and Nook Color displays are 169 PPI.
So if the only difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that "some" apps look different then why do we have so much effort taken just with the number of pixels and spacing of icons used on these otherwise exactly the same devices? The only rational answer is that these devices are not identical, not made to be identical, and that a lot of effort was taken to idealize the HW and SW to maximize the user experience.
Really? Not many words contain the set of phonemes that make up "siri". I think it would be fairly easy to parse.
And Apple could always give us the option to give Siri her own name.
There is serious. Remember it's the audible similarity, not the spelling that will trigger such a system.
Also, what I'm talking about Siri and it decides to start doing what it does. At that point we should start calling it Voldemorte so we can refer to it as He Who Must Not Be Named.
You've seen the smart TV on 30 Rock, right? You don't want your car radio to start telling your digital personal assistance what to do.
FWIW Garmins's newer voice-controlled GPS models are always listening for commands, using a wake-up phrase of the user's choice to get it's attention. I haven't seen any complaints about it.
Fine, a single button on the steering wheel for Siri. No buttons anywhere else in the car. Steve Jobs-level simplicity.
He does and yet all iDevices have that physical Home Button when they could have easily gone with a virtual Home Button. Even outside the logistics of Siri there is something psychological and useful about having certain physical buttons.
Same goes for the volume buttons. Even if a car gets Siri expect there to be a button that can adjust the volume even if there is a virtual method for doing so.
He does and yet all iDevices have that physical Home Button when they could have easily gone with a virtual Home Button.
Always gotta have a hardware 'out'.
Quote:
Same goes for the volume buttons. Even if a car gets Siri expect there to be a button that can adjust the volume even if there is a virtual method for doing so.
You really can't see how the HW in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?
You really can't see how the UI in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?
You can't see that one has a 3:2 display and the other 4:3 display? I use this example because it affects both the HW and UI. I've detailed how the icons don't even use the same number of pixels.
Here is another one that directly shows that scaling the OS without considering the user experience is not an option:
The iPad icons are larger in both size and pixels and have more space between them. I'd say the icons would be too small if everything was simply adjusted down without concern for usability as we've seen with vendors using Android. They might even be smaller than on the iPhone but with more space between them (I'll have to run the numbers). This means that they would need to adjust the spacing to idealize the contents for the primary I/O and form factor.
iPhone app icons are 57x57 px and 114x114 px. iPad apps icons are 72x72 px. That means iPhone icons are 0.34"x0.34" and iPad icons are 0.55"x0.55" in size. To shrink the iPad down to 7" with the 1024x768 display you get 0.39"x0.39" icons. That's actually doable being that close to the iPhone icon sizes yet being 4x the display area and having all that extra space between icons is not how Apple would release a UI. It will be idealized or I'll short the company.
Taking the 960x640 resolution of the iPod Touch and making that 7" reduces the PPI back to what it was on the original iPod at 480x320 which really isn't a bad thing in a tablet because you do hold it farther from your face, especially when you consider that such a move would be to capture the lower-end of the market. It would be 165 PPI which would make the icons 0.44"x0.44" which is right between what they are on the iPod Touch and iPad. That actually make this sounds reasonable as many aspects of the UI would fall in-line unlike doing a shrink of the iPad UI making it easier for Apple and devs. BTW, the Kindle Fire and Nook Color displays are 169 PPI.
So if the only difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that "some" apps look different then why do we have so much effort taken just with the number of pixels and spacing of icons used on these otherwise exactly the same devices? The only rational answer is that these devices are not identical, not made to be identical, and that a lot of effort was taken to idealize the HW and SW to maximize the user experience.
To paraphrase "The difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that the icons are further apart". You're clutching at straws there lol.
I'm not taking the Mickey I'm just saying that fundamentally the iPod Touch and the iPad are basically the same. They use the same processor, same OS, same basic UI. The only real difference is the screen size and how the UI and apps utilise that difference to maximise the respective user experience.
Why would Apple make life hard for themselves by making them so radically different. Just means more man hours to update them. Makes no sense. Economies of scale and all that.
To paraphrase "The difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that the icons are further apart". You're clutching at straws there lol.
I'm not taking the Mickey I'm just saying that fundamentally the iPod Touch and the iPad are basically the same. They use the same processor, same OS, same basic UI. The only real difference is the screen size and how the UI and apps utilise that difference to maximise the respective user experience.
I gave you several examples of things Apple could have just not even had bothered with because they are minor and somehow you read the only additional difference is the spacing between icons? I ran the numbers. I did the math. I showed that Apple doesn't act sloppy with the UI and proved that the iPad is not just a large iPod Touch.
Quote:
Why would Apple make life hard for themselves by making them so radically different. Just means more man hours to update them. Makes no sense. Economies of scale and all that.
So it's dumb for them to spend time on a unique UI for a different size device YET THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID WITH THE iPAD. They uses iOS and they used CocoaTouch, but the UI is completely redesigned for the 9.7" 4:3 display.
Back to icons: if made no sense economically to idealize the UI for the device THEN WHY DID they alter them? As I pointed out they are clearly different pixel sizes. Developers have to include 3 different icon sizes today with Universal apps and on Wednesday it will be 4. So again, if they would never do it then why did they do it? The answer is in the proof. The iPad is only tablet worth getting because it's the only one that thought about the user experience.
It could use iPod Touch-grade HW instead of iPad-grade HW thus making it less expensive and therefore fitting into a lower price point.
It could use a 3:2 display, like the Touch, which is between 4:3 and 16:10/16:9.
Exactly. In product/marketing terms it's called Product Rejuvenation. This is where a product is in the decline phase of its Product Life Cycle. In order to boost sales you seek to reinvent the product with a new form factor, new features, a new target market, etc.
In this case Apple could seek to shift the focus of the iPod Touch from music to games and eBooks both of which are exploding at the moment.
Exactly. In product/marketing terms it's called Product Rejuvenation. This is where a product is in the decline phase of its Product Life Cycle. In order to boost sales you seek to reinvent the product with a new form factor, new features, a new target market, etc.
In this case Apple could seek to shift the focus of the iPod Touch from music to games and eBooks both of which are exploding at the moment.
At least we agree on this. I still question the validity of adding the complexity of a new size at this point but I still think that adding it to the iPod line over the iPad line seems like the better route for a multitude of reasons.
I gave you several examples of things Apple could have just not even had bothered with because they are minor and somehow you read the only additional difference is the spacing between icons? I ran the numbers. I did the math. I showed that Apple doesn't act sloppy with the UI and proved that the iPad is not just a large iPod Touch.
So it's dumb for them to spend time on a unique UI for a different size device YET THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID WITH THE iPAD. They uses iOS and they used CocoaTouch, but the UI is completely redesigned for the 9.7" 4:3 display.
Back to icons: if made no sense economically to idealize the UI for the device THEN WHY DID they alter them? As I pointed out they are clearly different pixel sizes. Developers have to include 3 different icon sizes today with Universal apps and on Wednesday it will be 4. So again, if they would never do it then why did they do it? The answer is in the proof. The iPad is only tablet worth getting because it's the only one that thought about the user experience.
Do they both use the same processor - yes or no?
Do they both use the same operating system - yes or no?
Is the UI optimised for the respective screen size - yes or no?
Apple could make a 25" iPad and it would basically be the same. The ONLY difference is that the UI is optimised for the screen size. That is because the the OS is not capable of scaling itself to match the screen size. That's why you have to buy the same app twice if you want it on your iPod and iPad.
That however does not make them fundamentally different products in the same way that an iPad and a MacBook are different products.
Comments
The point was the iPod Touch is an anathema to an iPod lineup where %75 of the lineup is heavily skewed towards music playback.
Apple could call it whatever they want but at this point the simple question is "What brand is hotter right now..the iPod? brand or the iPad? brand?"
I suspect the iPod name will be left alone and a 7.85" device would be called an iPad mini, if not something altogether different. I also bet that a 7.85" device, with the resolution of an iPad 2 will be a huge success. It will be a much superior gaming platform, and I would argue a better reader. It would be as good for email and many other functions. It will appeal to a younger audience. I would by 2 right out the gate for my kids. Moving on up from iPod touches.
I also think that such a form factor will replace the iPad 2, as already mentioned.
I suspect the iPod name will be left alone and a 7.85" device would be called an iPad mini, if not something altogether different. I also bet that a 7.85" device, with the resolution of an iPad 2 will be a huge success. It will be a much superior gaming platform, and I would argue a better reader. It would be as good for email and many other functions. It will appeal to a younger audience. I would by 2 right out the gate for my kids. Moving on up from iPod touches.
I also think that such a form factor will replace the iPad 2, as already mentioned.
They've used the "mini" designation for both iPod and Mac. iPad mini would be pretty natural IMO.
I'd also buy my son and iPad mini at about $300. The games are cheaper than say getting a higher end Nintendo or Sony game playing device.
There are lots of HW differences, for starters. Even the aspect ratios are different.
On the SW side there are a lot of differences, too. You've only listed apps that have been made for both devices but if you look at the apps they look and feel different when that best effects the user experience.
I've only listed the apps Apple uses on it's own website to market the devices.
So you're saying some apps work better on a larger screen I presume? That would hold true if you made a 5", 6", 7", 8", 9", 10", 12" 52" screen.
The only difference between an iPod Touch and an iPad is that some apps look better on a larger screen.
You can actually see this problem already on Apples iPad website. Why do you think Apple doesn't ship iPad versions of the calculator, the clock, the weather app or the stocks app? Because they wouldn't live up to Apples standards, if you'd just blow them up to the iPads screen. Another example for this is the contacts app. It sure looks good in horizontal mode, but if you rotate the iPad, you're left with ugly black borders on the top and bottom, because they didn't have any content to make use of that space
iPod Touch Safari presents itself as a mobile device for Web sites. iPad presents itself as a full browser.
iPod marketing is about playing back music. I still run into people that don't know iPod Touch can surf the web and do other PDA things
Marketing isn't about date it's about how the customer will perceive your product by appearance and name. Apple has billions pumped into iPod marketing and few people will forget the dancing silhouettes holding their iPod.
Apple can call it whatever they want but the iPad brand is hot right now and calling it an iPod makes very little sense when you're talking about a device that people are less likely to carry around like a music player.
Creating a new product category means educating the public about how this product differs from existing product. That cost a lot of money. It makes more sense to leverage the billions in marketing that you've already paid.
When was the last time Apple used the dancing silhouette to advertise the iPod Touch?
The current iPod ad is all about iMessages. Recent adverts have focussed on Games, Facetime, HD Video, etc. They are clearly trying to move the perception away from it being just about music playback.
When was the last time Apple used the dancing silhouette to advertise the iPod Touch?
The current iPod ad is all about iMessages. Recent adverts have focussed on Games, Facetime, HD Video, etc. They are clearly trying to move the perception away from it being just about music playback.
First sentence was a non sequitur.
The second pertains to features that cover the entire ecosystem so iPad, iPhones and iPod Touches all enjoy those features and soon Macs.
The foundational piece here is common usage scenario and marketing.
The iPod lineup has been flat or declining in sales/revenue for the most recent quarters while the iPad is exceeding expectations.
What impetus would exist for Apple to attach a 7.85" tablet to the iPod brand that happens to be declining in both sales and revenue?
The only difference between an iPod Touch and an iPad is that some apps look better on a larger screen.
Come on, man, you're smarter than that!
You really can't see how the HW in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?
You really can't see how the UI in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?
You can't see that one has a 3:2 display and the other 4:3 display? I use this example because it affects both the HW and UI. I've detailed how the icons don't even use the same number of pixels.
Here is another one that directly shows that scaling the OS without considering the user experience is not an option:
The iPad icons are larger in both size and pixels and have more space between them. I'd say the icons would be too small if everything was simply adjusted down without concern for usability as we've seen with vendors using Android. They might even be smaller than on the iPhone but with more space between them (I'll have to run the numbers). This means that they would need to adjust the spacing to idealize the contents for the primary I/O and form factor.
iPhone app icons are 57x57 px and 114x114 px. iPad apps icons are 72x72 px. That means iPhone icons are 0.34"x0.34" and iPad icons are 0.55"x0.55" in size. To shrink the iPad down to 7" with the 1024x768 display you get 0.39"x0.39" icons. That's actually doable being that close to the iPhone icon sizes yet being 4x the display area and having all that extra space between icons is not how Apple would release a UI. It will be idealized or I'll short the company.
Taking the 960x640 resolution of the iPod Touch and making that 7" reduces the PPI back to what it was on the original iPod at 480x320 which really isn't a bad thing in a tablet because you do hold it farther from your face, especially when you consider that such a move would be to capture the lower-end of the market. It would be 165 PPI which would make the icons 0.44"x0.44" which is right between what they are on the iPod Touch and iPad. That actually make this sounds reasonable as many aspects of the UI would fall in-line unlike doing a shrink of the iPad UI making it easier for Apple and devs. BTW, the Kindle Fire and Nook Color displays are 169 PPI.
So if the only difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that "some" apps look different then why do we have so much effort taken just with the number of pixels and spacing of icons used on these otherwise exactly the same devices? The only rational answer is that these devices are not identical, not made to be identical, and that a lot of effort was taken to idealize the HW and SW to maximize the user experience.
What impetus would exist for Apple to attach a 7.85" tablet to the iPod brand that happens to be declining in both sales and revenue?
It could rejuvenate the iPod line.
It could use iPod Touch-grade HW instead of iPad-grade HW thus making it less expensive and therefore fitting into a lower price point.
It could use a 3:2 display, like the Touch, which is between 4:3 and 16:10/16:9.
I think we are a long way off from an always-on system that listens to your voice and knows when you are addressing it.
Really? Not many words contain the set of phonemes that make up "siri". I think it would be fairly easy to parse.
And Apple could always give us the option to give Siri her own name.
Really? Not many words contain the set of phonemes that make up "siri". I think it would be fairly easy to parse.
And Apple could always give us the option to give Siri her own name.
There is serious. Remember it's the audible similarity, not the spelling that will trigger such a system.
Also, what I'm talking about Siri and it decides to start doing what it does. At that point we should start calling it Voldemorte so we can refer to it as He Who Must Not Be Named.
You've seen the smart TV on 30 Rock, right? You don't want your car radio to start telling your digital personal assistance what to do.
There is serious.
I read that and thought, "Yeah, I said that." But of course I'd edited my post without me remembering it and hadn't said it.
That's about it though.
You've seen the smart TV on 30 Rock, right? You don't want your car radio to start telling your digital personal assistance what to do.
Fine, a single button on the steering wheel for Siri. No buttons anywhere else in the car. Steve Jobs-level simplicity.
Fine, a single button on the steering wheel for Siri. No buttons anywhere else in the car. Steve Jobs-level simplicity.
He does and yet all iDevices have that physical Home Button when they could have easily gone with a virtual Home Button. Even outside the logistics of Siri there is something psychological and useful about having certain physical buttons.
Same goes for the volume buttons. Even if a car gets Siri expect there to be a button that can adjust the volume even if there is a virtual method for doing so.
First sentence was a non sequitur.
The second pertains to features that cover the entire ecosystem so iPad, iPhones and iPod Touches all enjoy those features and soon Macs.
The foundational piece here is common usage scenario and marketing.
The iPod lineup has been flat or declining in sales/revenue for the most recent quarters while the iPad is exceeding expectations.
What impetus would exist for Apple to attach a 7.85" tablet to the iPod brand that happens to be declining in both sales and revenue?
Merda taurorum animas conturbit. Absit invidia.
He does and yet all iDevices have that physical Home Button when they could have easily gone with a virtual Home Button.
Always gotta have a hardware 'out'.
Same goes for the volume buttons. Even if a car gets Siri expect there to be a button that can adjust the volume even if there is a virtual method for doing so.
Or one of those light-dimming sliders, even.
Come on, man, you're smarter than that!
You really can't see how the HW in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?
You really can't see how the UI in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?
You can't see that one has a 3:2 display and the other 4:3 display? I use this example because it affects both the HW and UI. I've detailed how the icons don't even use the same number of pixels.
Here is another one that directly shows that scaling the OS without considering the user experience is not an option:
The iPad icons are larger in both size and pixels and have more space between them. I'd say the icons would be too small if everything was simply adjusted down without concern for usability as we've seen with vendors using Android. They might even be smaller than on the iPhone but with more space between them (I'll have to run the numbers). This means that they would need to adjust the spacing to idealize the contents for the primary I/O and form factor.
iPhone app icons are 57x57 px and 114x114 px. iPad apps icons are 72x72 px. That means iPhone icons are 0.34"x0.34" and iPad icons are 0.55"x0.55" in size. To shrink the iPad down to 7" with the 1024x768 display you get 0.39"x0.39" icons. That's actually doable being that close to the iPhone icon sizes yet being 4x the display area and having all that extra space between icons is not how Apple would release a UI. It will be idealized or I'll short the company.
Taking the 960x640 resolution of the iPod Touch and making that 7" reduces the PPI back to what it was on the original iPod at 480x320 which really isn't a bad thing in a tablet because you do hold it farther from your face, especially when you consider that such a move would be to capture the lower-end of the market. It would be 165 PPI which would make the icons 0.44"x0.44" which is right between what they are on the iPod Touch and iPad. That actually make this sounds reasonable as many aspects of the UI would fall in-line unlike doing a shrink of the iPad UI making it easier for Apple and devs. BTW, the Kindle Fire and Nook Color displays are 169 PPI.
So if the only difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that "some" apps look different then why do we have so much effort taken just with the number of pixels and spacing of icons used on these otherwise exactly the same devices? The only rational answer is that these devices are not identical, not made to be identical, and that a lot of effort was taken to idealize the HW and SW to maximize the user experience.
To paraphrase "The difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that the icons are further apart". You're clutching at straws there lol.
I'm not taking the Mickey I'm just saying that fundamentally the iPod Touch and the iPad are basically the same. They use the same processor, same OS, same basic UI. The only real difference is the screen size and how the UI and apps utilise that difference to maximise the respective user experience.
Why would Apple make life hard for themselves by making them so radically different. Just means more man hours to update them. Makes no sense. Economies of scale and all that.
To paraphrase "The difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that the icons are further apart". You're clutching at straws there lol.
I'm not taking the Mickey I'm just saying that fundamentally the iPod Touch and the iPad are basically the same. They use the same processor, same OS, same basic UI. The only real difference is the screen size and how the UI and apps utilise that difference to maximise the respective user experience.
I gave you several examples of things Apple could have just not even had bothered with because they are minor and somehow you read the only additional difference is the spacing between icons? I ran the numbers. I did the math. I showed that Apple doesn't act sloppy with the UI and proved that the iPad is not just a large iPod Touch.
Why would Apple make life hard for themselves by making them so radically different. Just means more man hours to update them. Makes no sense. Economies of scale and all that.
So it's dumb for them to spend time on a unique UI for a different size device YET THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID WITH THE iPAD. They uses iOS and they used CocoaTouch, but the UI is completely redesigned for the 9.7" 4:3 display.
Back to icons: if made no sense economically to idealize the UI for the device THEN WHY DID they alter them? As I pointed out they are clearly different pixel sizes. Developers have to include 3 different icon sizes today with Universal apps and on Wednesday it will be 4. So again, if they would never do it then why did they do it? The answer is in the proof. The iPad is only tablet worth getting because it's the only one that thought about the user experience.
It could rejuvenate the iPod line.
It could use iPod Touch-grade HW instead of iPad-grade HW thus making it less expensive and therefore fitting into a lower price point.
It could use a 3:2 display, like the Touch, which is between 4:3 and 16:10/16:9.
Exactly. In product/marketing terms it's called Product Rejuvenation. This is where a product is in the decline phase of its Product Life Cycle. In order to boost sales you seek to reinvent the product with a new form factor, new features, a new target market, etc.
In this case Apple could seek to shift the focus of the iPod Touch from music to games and eBooks both of which are exploding at the moment.
Exactly. In product/marketing terms it's called Product Rejuvenation. This is where a product is in the decline phase of its Product Life Cycle. In order to boost sales you seek to reinvent the product with a new form factor, new features, a new target market, etc.
In this case Apple could seek to shift the focus of the iPod Touch from music to games and eBooks both of which are exploding at the moment.
At least we agree on this. I still question the validity of adding the complexity of a new size at this point but I still think that adding it to the iPod line over the iPad line seems like the better route for a multitude of reasons.
I gave you several examples of things Apple could have just not even had bothered with because they are minor and somehow you read the only additional difference is the spacing between icons? I ran the numbers. I did the math. I showed that Apple doesn't act sloppy with the UI and proved that the iPad is not just a large iPod Touch.
So it's dumb for them to spend time on a unique UI for a different size device YET THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID WITH THE iPAD. They uses iOS and they used CocoaTouch, but the UI is completely redesigned for the 9.7" 4:3 display.
Back to icons: if made no sense economically to idealize the UI for the device THEN WHY DID they alter them? As I pointed out they are clearly different pixel sizes. Developers have to include 3 different icon sizes today with Universal apps and on Wednesday it will be 4. So again, if they would never do it then why did they do it? The answer is in the proof. The iPad is only tablet worth getting because it's the only one that thought about the user experience.
Do they both use the same processor - yes or no?
Do they both use the same operating system - yes or no?
Is the UI optimised for the respective screen size - yes or no?
Apple could make a 25" iPad and it would basically be the same. The ONLY difference is that the UI is optimised for the screen size. That is because the the OS is not capable of scaling itself to match the screen size. That's why you have to buy the same app twice if you want it on your iPod and iPad.
That however does not make them fundamentally different products in the same way that an iPad and a MacBook are different products.