CDMA iPhone, AMD-powered Apple TV with iOS, 7-inch iPad rumored - Page 5

They were just guesses by us though, not part of a Digitimes report.

They could do this:

16GB 7" iPad $399.
32GB 10" iPad $499.
64GB 10" iPad $599.

Add $130 for 3G.

Never pursued it... I went to work for IBM and got married-- there was little time for hobbies.

Bonanza... Nice. My Dad's boss had a V-tail that he flew out from Minnesota a couple of times. He would land at Long Beach. He let me take control and I really enjoyed it.

Yeah, I can see where the iPad is just too big to be useful while flying. Something about half the size would be the sweet spot. Keep the aspect ratio and pixel count and reduce the size in half-- be mid way between an iPhone and an iPad-- fairly easy to compensate up or down for iPhone and iPad apps.

.

Couldn't this also be that both Sprint and Verizon will get the iPhone?

unless they want to give tv over to android they have to do something...it is such an obvious jump point i can't imagine apple isn't working on a LED TV with ios built in.

You needed Gruber to point that out for you? That's common sense. Fuck Gruber.

Nightmare for developers? The screen res is the exact same, they wouldn't need to change a thing.

Making the iPad heavier is no solution for anyone.

For what the Kindle is; an e-ink book reader, it's doing very well. I just bought one in fact. I would love if the Kindle had a touch screen keyboard though.

It will have to be touch e-ink for Apple to do it. Touch keyboard etc. I have my doubts though.

What company are you talking about? Apple makes stuff for the consumer.

The size of the icons on the iPad are already different to the size of the icons on the iPhone, they'd only be closer to the size of the icons on the iPhone, if not around the exact same size. Like I was saying, if they do this device they will just make the 10" iPad this new pixels-per-inch count.

The Wii is a great example of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. It changed the paradigm by changing from 'faster GPU, more pixels = better" to "fun to play with mediocre screen appearance". Ought to be a good lesson for all the people claiming "Apple product x is going to fail because it doesn't have feature y".


Not a chance. Apple rarely drops price when they update a product. Rather, they add more features and keep the price constant.

I'm waiting specifically for a smaller iPad. For reading books, InstaPaper, etc. -- which is mainly what I want an iPad to do -- I would prefer one that is slightly smaller and slightly lighter than the current model.

I doubt we'll see a $100 price cut coming at this point as there doesn't seem to be any data suggesting Apple needs to do it. Isn't it more likely Apple would up the specs at the current prices, such as...

32GB (10") for $499
64GB (10") for $599
and maybe:
128GB (10") for $699 ?

Frankly, I'm surprised Apple even came out with a 16GB version considering the latest generation iPod Touch has 32GB minimum. Must have been to get the entry point below that magic $500 figure.

And that leads to what could be a 7" model... 16 GB or 32GB for $399 ?? Who knows?

I have to disagree with you here based on my personal experience. While I do agree that America lacks in data speeds in the cellphone arena I think the opposite is the case for broadband. I live primarily in the US but also have an apartment in France as well as one in Germany. In both of my apartments in the EU I have 2Mb service in which each costs more than double my 50 Mb service in the US. I can up the ante to 10MB, which is the maximum, in my apartments but the cost would be astronomical to do so.

Well, at least Gruber is reporting on Google's and Verizon's plan to turn the Internet into a set of tiered services that broadband providers will control. So far, AI is rather quiet on the issue.

I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. Look at Super Mario Galaxy 2 for example. No iOS game has visuals anywhere near that quality. (and at 60fps too)

Forty percent of iPad buyers have an income over $100,000.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1532...lo_effect.html

They really need to bring the price down to increase sales to Joe Consumer although admittedly right now they're selling every single unit they manufacture, due to tight supply constraints.

Nothing Apple needs to panic over right now, just something they want to think about for the future (I'm sure they already have a product roadmap with anticipated pricing over the next three years).

Think Nintendo Wii

It may not be the cost of the iPad that has shown the average buyer to be more affluent. Remember, the rumored consensus was closer to double the price than what twas announced in January. I'd say the most jawdropping part of that event was the unbelievably low introductory price.

I think what those surveys are showing is what most said after the event: Why do I need this when I have a smartphone and a PC? You don't. It's not a neccesity the way we view and see those other computers and clearlyn designed as an accessory conputer so it was bound to be adopted by those with more disposable income.

The other real surprise seems to be much older users flocking to this device without the scare and confusion a PC offers and with a large enough display and lack of contract that takes smartphones out of the running.

Also, let's not forget the elephant in the room. It's only been out since April. I'd wager that people with more disposable income are more unlikely to adopt a new product out d the gate over those with less money.

Finally, can we trust the survey? It seems like people like to inject their goals, not reality, even when it's anonymous.

True. Nintendo and Apple have a similar design philosophy in some respects. Both companies make the user experience at the core of their business. I do think nintendo is in trouble though if their next offering can't produce an xbox like online experience with a more streamlined app store like virtual marketplace.

By next year a 7" 16GB iPad at $399 would be as profitable as the 10" 16GB at $499 is now. Perhaps even more profitable. So that's not the price cut it looks like. It merely stops people who want a smaller, "lighter" tablet from looking elsewhere - from Apple's POV.

And by keeping the 7" version at 16GB that pushes people who want higher storage to go for the more expensive, larger model.

these are not even rumors. AI is just writing fiction.

I'm thinking this will all change for Verizon with their Google deal.

I also see it having to do with China and not Verizon getting a CDMA custom chip phone.

Yes, Apple would need a good reason to change the screen size.

If they do change it, then they'd have to rename the iPod Touch as the "iPad Nano" wouldn't they?
ie: 3 different size iPads... they currently have 2.


You could just scale it down, but it does affect usability, often significantly. At this point of the game, Apple isn't sacrificing usability if they can avoid it.



Yes it would be interesting.



I'd be surprised if Apple hasn't gone through at least 5 quite different next-gen "AppleTVs" with very different styles, to see what kind of possibilities it can open up.

I'm surprised that AMD is in there, I would think ARM is more likely - but just as functionally there are many options the hardware within is also an open question. And it probably comes down to what Apple can mass produce cost effectively - developers will have to compile specifically for AppleTV no matter what processor it has.

One possibility I can see is presenting AppleTV as a "peripheral" to your iPhone (or iPad or iPad Touch). Make it as cheap as possible, and integrate the iPhone into the whole interaction experience. Flick photos from your phone onto the TV, flick music. Order a movie rental on the phone to watch on the big screen (order on the train as you come home and have it download at home).

I like the cut of your jib son. Welcome to team Firefly.

I hadn't really considered that they might make a VERY powerful gaming platform.
Is that likely?


We don't really want Apple to create a Wii though... or do we?

I agree that we need Apple to help re-invent television... and buying every episode for $3 (HD) is not going to redefine television. But getting the TV studios to agree is the problem.

Perhaps a subscription plan can do that to some degree.

I really think that to make it happen, Apple might have to make their service look so much like a PVR (to start with) to make the networks and channels happy. For example -
1) start offering all shows on the local ABC this week, with the same ads and the ability to fast forward. (ie: download, but looks an feels similar to a PVR - without the pre-scheduling)
2) integrate with selling older episodes (ie: same as iTunes sales)
(so far... surely no-one can really complain at that, can they?)
3) Then add (slowly) all the previous episodes of any series - with some form of ads while watching, which make money for whoever owns the rights to the older episodes. (ie: as if they were linking to Hulu)
4) optionally replace the ads of new shows with FEWER ads but targeted directly at the viewer. Customised to our interests, and for those of us in big cities that will mean seeing ads for shops in our suburb that haven't appeared in a very long time.
5) offer a rental option equivalent to the money they make from the ads (about 50c)

The networks don't know how to succeed with IPTV. GoogleTV's strength is that it wants to just help people get access to the content, wherever it is.


As I said in a previous post, I think AppleTV could even be presented as a peripheral to the iPhone. This makes the aTV cheaper, and removes a remote. It also means the AppleTV interface & control functions can assume there is ALWAYS a touch pad of some sort available as a control (rather than making an iPod Touch an OPTIONAL remote) so it's integral to everything in the device. And it markets directly to a huge iPhone market (which is a better idea IF they can't get traction with the TV companies!)

Whether they do that or not, integrated AppleTV/iPhone gaming could be a lot of fun. I'd like to play a racing game on my iPhone against someone else also in the room, while the TV reports and shows "highlights" of the race. 1st person shooters could be played on each iPhone while the TV shows a 3D overview. Head-cam replays from "angry birds". We know how the iPad plays scrabble so that would work similarly.

It's going to have to favor consumption over creation. It doesn't make sense to mess up the experience 90% of the time just to make the last 10% easier.

So, I would say by default you'll just have an on-screen keyboard that you select keys on (just like the Wii) using whatever Apple come up with as a Wiimote clone... but you would have an option of syncing up an iDevice as an optional keyboard (if it happen to be that important to you)

A smaller size is not a nightmare for developers. It is pretty easy to design interfaces that can handle smaller sizes or different aspect ratios. There is no difference between this and desktop apps where windows can be resized. In fact many iPad apps can already handle dynamically changing screen layouts as they support both landscape and portrait modes.

A controller without tactile feedback would suck. iPhones and iPads work because you are looking at the screen you are touching. However, if the game is displayed on your TV you do not want to be continually looking down at the controller to find the jump button.

I just hope Apple can come up with a revolutionary way to handle input (just like they revolutionized user input with the iPhone). Currently no one has a good system for navigating web pages (or anything else more complex than a very simple menu) whilst sitting on the sofa. GoogleTV did not solve this problem; maybe Apple will.

Bingo. Touch controls aren't great for TV.



I don't think they need to revolutionize anything. They just need to take the Wiimote, clone it, then create a decent UI that uses it. The Wiimote is actually a perfect all round controller for the TV. It essentially gives you a 10ft finger and turns your TV into a something like a touch screen.

Obviously you wouldn't have multi-touch, but with gyros/accelerometers you have added movement in 3D space that could be used. For example, in place of pinch-to-zoom you could click and move the controller toward the TV to zoom in, and away from the TV to zoom out.



I don't know why you've made that assumption already when it's not even out yet!

All Logitech have said is that they are creating an "intuitive controller thats been designed to take full advantage of everything the Google TV platform offers".

There is no hint of what that controller will be or how it will work.

Admittedly Logitech have an interest in maintaining the status quo however, so my guess is that they are more likely to simply release a Harmony remote with a slide-out keyboard, but still, we should wait until it's released before writing them off.

More details on the patent filed last year for a Wiimote clone.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._apple_tv.html


I'm wondering if that tiny LCD screen from a while back had anything to do with this. It seemed like just the right size for a touch button that goes on top of a Apple "wand".

What I can't fathom is why Apple would not do it. I hate browsing on the Touch. If you have a smartphone, then browsing via the iPhone/Touch form factor is quite acceptable. It's not great but, hey, what can you expect considering you're trying to browse on a phone. But the Touch is not a phone and my thought is, why does this pocket computer have such a small screen?

From a marketing point of view, if you release a new Touch retaining the same form factor as the current Touch, I as a Touch owner have little incentive to buy the new one. But a Touch with a larger screen? I'd be all over it. I could even imagine some folks owning both an iPhone and the Touch because they would be different enough.

Down the road, for that matter, would it be farfetched to imagine Apple developing a phone based on the larger Touch form factor? Not everyone would be put off by having a larger smartphone, especially considering some folks don't even have the phone up to their ear all that often, using it instead as a pocket computer, for texting, and so on and so on.

Either I'm missing something here or the next logical move for Apple is a 5" Touch. On the other hand, I can think of a lot of reasons to not bring out a 7" iPad. No inside info, just thinking in terms of what seems to make sense.

It's the same price points, but they slide things down a notch. This has happened MANY times in the past. Slide the products down the chart so they can have a new top end item. This could be a 128GB iPod Touch or it could mean they are opening space for a 7" iPad to fit in that slot.

Have they? The iPhone is the only product I can recall that did exactly that, and its a unique case due to the required contract. Most other items they sell get essentially discontinued with their remains ending up on the refurb section of the store at prices that typically dont really make it worth not getting the latest model, IMO.

I thought the device was to be stand alone, meaning you could buy it for your Samsung. I really don't believe Apple will start offering FSTVs.


Because of e-ink, battery life and price.


Far as I can see, the biggest barrier is Apple's ability (or otherwise) to make enough of 'em...

I don't actually like the Wiimote. It is too fiddly when trying to point to things on screen. Because it is like a 10ft finger very small hand movements translate into massive on-screen movements.

Sony move is pretty cool and might work well. There are some nice demos where they create and manipulate 3D objects using two move controllers. But waving your hands around might get tiring after a while.


All they've said is GoogleTVs will feature remotes with qwerty keyboards. Maybe they do have a better solution than a Harmony remote with a slide-out keyboard. I'm not going to write them off. In fact I'm pretty positive about GoogleTV; putting apps on TV could spark a revolution just like apps on the iPhone did. However, as yet there is no evidence Google has solved the controller issue that has plagued every previous attempt to combine TV and the web.

Keep in mind, the iPod Touch is, first and foremost, an iPod and not a hand-held computer for browsing. Whatever Apple does or doesn't do to change this offering I think will be driven by it's #1 function as an iPod (music).

That's not what Apple says about the Touch. Last year when minimal changes were made, Apple made a big fuss over how the Touch had become a pocket computer. Go to the company's web site today and the first two items you'll find listed in the iPod Touch section are:

"A great portable game player" followed by "A great pocket computer".

Those are Apple's words, not mine.

Remember that Apple developed a virtual store expressly to provide content for the Touch and of course the iPhone. It's not called the Music Store. It's called the App Store. Now what do you suppose they sell out of the App Store? Perhaps you've come across all those ads that declare, "There's an app for that."

I'm not the one who came up with the idea of the Touch having morphed into a pocket computer/game player/iPod. Apple is marketing the heck out of that notion.

Even under the iPod portion of that equation, seems to me that if included in that is presenting Movies and TV shows, clearly the bigger the screen the better.

If the Touch becomes somewhat larger but the price remains unaltered, how many complaints do you think Apple will be fielding? It would have to become so large that portability was significantly impacted for more than an insignificant minority, for there to be a downside.

I have to tell you that if Apple thinks the Touch is perfect as is, they're deluding themselves. It's far from a perfect browser and it's far inferior to a typical e-reader as a reader. Up to this point it has been, basically, the only game in town but in the next year or so the market will be flooded with touchscreen devices. many of which will, by virtue of a larger screen, give the Touch a good run. But if Apple addresses the device's one significant flaw, that slams the door shut.

Then again, maybe my preference for something more than a 3.5" screen is not something that many share. If so, I can understand that Apple isn't in the business of building products expressly for me.

As for the Touch being primarily a music player, frankly if what you want the device for is playing music, save your money and buy a Nano instead or better still, a Shuffle.