or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 'Exciting' Sept. could see Apple intro new iPhone, iPad 'mini'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Exciting' Sept. could see Apple intro new iPhone, iPad 'mini'

post #1 of 88
Thread Starter 
Apple is gearing up for what is expected to be an "exciting" September, where the company could launch both its next-generation iPhone, as well as smaller iPad, according to people in the Taiwanese supply chain.

Analyst Brian White with Topeka Capital Markets is in Taipei this week, meeting with local contacts in the supply chain, and attending the 2012 Computex Show that is expected to see 120,000 visitors. While speaking with his supply chain sources, he picked up word that Apple is set to have an "exciting" September.

Specifically, he expects Apple's next-generation iPhone is more likely to launch in the month of September, rather than October. Last year, the iPhone 4S debuted in October, which was a few months later than the iPhone launch window that Apple had utilized in prior years.

People in the Taiwanese supply chain also discussed with White the belief that the next iPhone will feature a unibody aluminum casing manufactured by Foxconn. However, White also said his industry contact was "skeptical" about the prospect of Apple using material from Liquidmetal Technologies, an amorphous metal that Apple has exclusive rights to in consumer electronic products.

Last week, a number of parts allegedly from Apple's next iPhone began to surface online, and one of them showed what appeared to be a largely aluminum back with small pieces of glass at the top and bottom of the device. The component also suggested the next iPhone will be slightly taller, to accommodate a larger 4-inch screen, and would also see the headphone jack moved to the bottom of the device.

iPhone 6


White also believes that Apple could unveil a new iPad "mini" in September. Numerous recent reports have suggested that Apple has been experimenting with a smaller 7.85-inch iPad that would pack in the same 1,024-by-768-pixel screen resolution as the first-generation iPad and iPad 2, allowing applications to run without modification and for the device to be branded a Retina display.

Topeka Capital Markets has a 12-month price target of $1,111 for AAPL stock. White believes Apple's current valuation does not reflect the growth the company has delivered in recent years, nor future growth prospects.
post #2 of 88
My biggest problem with an iPad Mini, is how do I rationalize buying one with the wife?

Thus, there is no halo effect with it regarding a iPad. I think of it as more a cannibalizing product. Price point will be key with it. Would I want one? Sure, but I don't think I could rationalize it at this point. Non iPad owners perhaps.
post #3 of 88
I was hoping for the 'iPhone Mini' a wrist watch that works by using Siri. I'm going to have to put my new detective career on hold till they bring one out.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #4 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
...
Numerous recent reports have suggested that Apple has been experimenting with a smaller 7.85-inch iPad that would pack in the same 1,024-by-768-pixel screen resolution as the first-generation iPad and iPad 2, allowing applications to run without modification and for the device to be branded a Retina display...

 

The "Retina" branding surely is stretchy, if 163 ppi can be branded a "Retina display"... I didn't know the original iPhone had a Retina display too... /s

post #5 of 88
Would suppliers working with Apple dish the dirt on upcoming products to a wall street analyst?
post #6 of 88
These products will be hot and I'll be buying them all. I'm jonesin for new Apple products to buy especially ones with new designs that stand out from the crowds.
post #7 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

My biggest problem with an iPad Mini, is how do I rationalize buying one with the wife?
Thus, there is no halo effect with it regarding a iPad. I think of it as more a cannibalizing product. Price point will be key with it. Would I want one? Sure, but I don't think I could rationalize it at this point. Non iPad owners perhaps.
It's almost as if these analysts are throwing out the iPad mini rumor to justify their earlier predictions that the Kindle Fire would be an "iPad killer" and Apple would be forced to respond. I don't see any evidence that the Fire has taken market share from iPad. If anything it's taken market share from other Android tablets. I'd love to see the stats on how many people were thinking of buying an iPad but chose a Fire (or some other 7" tablet) because of the size and/or price point. My guess is it's not that many.
post #8 of 88
The iPod will get a 4-inch screen ala the next iPhone and that will likely be as close to an iPad Mini as we're gong to get. Looking at it from Apple's perspective, what's the point of having a 7-inch iPad. The 10-inch iPad has positively decimated the 7-inch competitors out there and there is already a pocketable device in Apple's product mix that would be more or less fitting in at around the same price as this rumoured 7-inch iPad.

The best aspect of carrying the current iPad form factor and a 4-incher named the iPod Touch is that one could easily imagine a consumer owning a combination of the iPad along with either an iPhone or a Touch. The 7-inch iPad, on the other hand, would more likely be seen by many as an alternative to the current iPad form factor. The net impact would be few additional sales yet millions spent on development. It doesn't add up.

What the iPad needs is lighter, more efficient technology and that will come. The next iPad is probably going to feature a weight reduction thanks to technology on the way that will deliver high resolution with less demand on the battery. Once that happens, the 7-inch form factor will be rendered pointless. Yet there will always be a place for a small device that fits in most pockets as a companion piece to the standard iPad. I carry a Touch around with me at work but could not bring along my iPad. The 7-inch version would still be too large to carry along in my work environment.

A lighter iPad next spring and a Touch with a bit larger screen this fall fits perfectly with what I need. I suspect this is the case for a lot of other consumers as well.
post #9 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

It's almost as if these analysts are throwing out the iPad mini rumor to justify their earlier predictions that the Kindle Fire would be an "iPad killer" and Apple would be forced to respond. I don't see any evidence that the Fire has taken market share from iPad. If anything it's taken market share from other Android tablets. I'd love to see the stats on how many people were thinking of buying an iPad but chose a Fire (or some other 7" tablet) because of the size and/or price point. My guess is it's not that many.

Right, and I contend that people are buying the Fire based more on the Amazon ecosystem more than as a Android Tablet. The Fire is marketed as a media device unlike other Android tablets that focus on specs and being as good or better than the iPad.

The Fire is as much about the Amazon experience as the iPad is about iTunes and the Apple ecosystem. That is what is swaying customers, not whether it is 7 inches or not.
post #10 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

My biggest problem with an iPad Mini, is how do I rationalize buying one with the wife?
Thus, there is no halo effect with it regarding a iPad. I think of it as more a cannibalizing product. Price point will be key with it. Would I want one? Sure, but I don't think I could rationalize it at this point. Non iPad owners perhaps.

I agree. Similar to my view that the purchase of this years' iPad was not needed; the 1st Gen I have is working perfectly fine, and although photography is my thing, I don't care much for the added pixels. Nice to have, but not really worth the € 899 I paid...
post #11 of 88

I keep on telling you guys...first shipments out of China are in August....

post #12 of 88

The rear of that phone is ug-lee!

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #13 of 88

An iPad for all sizes...

I have always thought of the iPod Touch as a "mini iPad". Couldn't Apple position it that way? If small size is what the consumer wants, a repositioned iPod Touch might actually be "better".

 

I believe that iPads should be available in any size (range) that a consumer might desire. Of course, developers/development must be kept in mind so as not to cause a mess. So, 4 inch, 7 inch, 10 inch - why not. Maybe even less portable 13, 15, and larger. We all use screens with sizes through 60 inches, won't they all be "powered" in the future. Why not iPad/Apple?

 

I look forward to Sept!

 

Go AAPL! BTW, nice projected valuation, Brian $1,111.

post #14 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

Right, and I contend that people are buying the Fire based more on the Amazon ecosystem more than as a Android Tablet. The Fire is marketed as a media device unlike other Android tablets that focus on specs and being as good or better than the iPad.
The Fire is as much about the Amazon experience as the iPad is about iTunes and the Apple ecosystem. That is what is swaying customers, not whether it is 7 inches or not.

I'm not sure that's the case. For many people, it was simply the price. For less than half of the cost of an iPad, they could have a tablet which would do many of the things they wanted to do. And size had quite a bit to do with that.

I think it's a mistake to ignore the fact that not everyone has the same needs, price point, wishes, etc. When Apple first launched the iPad, it was in a field of its own and the market accepted a single device since there was no real alternative. You either bought an iPad or nothing. Now that there's a wide range of products at a wide spread of price points, people have the ability to choose the one that works best for them. It's not surprising that some people pick the full-featured iPad and others pick a somewhat limited device at half the price.

I don't know too many people who bought into the Fire because of Amazon's ecosystem. Most people who simply wanted an eReader would have bought one of the less expensive devices.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #15 of 88

I have always thought of the iPod Touch as a "mini iPad". Couldn't Apple position it that way? If small size is what the consumer wants, a repositioned iPod Touch might actually be "better".

 

I believe that iPads should be available in any size (range) that a consumer might desire. Of course, developers/development must be kept in mind so as not to cause a mess. So, 4 inch, 7 inch, 10 inch - why not. Maybe even less portable 13, 15, and larger. We all use screens with sizes through 60 inches, won't they all be "powered" in the future. Why not iPad/Apple?

 

I look forward to Sept!

 

Go AAPL! BTW, nice projected valuation, Brian $1,111.

post #16 of 88
The best place for this 7" iPad would be if Apple customized it a little bit for the school kids. It has been mentioned that the current memory would be to expensive for most typical kids because they would probably have to purchase the 64 Gigs for all the virtual books needed.
Apple could put a smaller battery (only on this dedicated model), since kids don't need more than 7-8 hrs of battery life. They would also not need the most sophisticated cameras
since the current ones would be enough.
They could make a special chip with 64-100 gigs for all that is needed for school work. They could put the price at about $250 or so. That way they could completely blow the Amazon and all the other Tablets about to appear at that price point. And do it solely for 'Education'. Giving them an excuse to go back on S. Jobs words, about not doing a small Tablet.
post #17 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I'm not sure that's the case. For many people, it was simply the price. For less than half of the cost of an iPad, they could have a tablet which would do many of the things they wanted to do. And size had quite a bit to do with that.
I think it's a mistake to ignore the fact that not everyone has the same needs, price point, wishes, etc. When Apple first launched the iPad, it was in a field of its own and the market accepted a single device since there was no real alternative. You either bought an iPad or nothing. Now that there's a wide range of products at a wide spread of price points, people have the ability to choose the one that works best for them. It's not surprising that some people pick the full-featured iPad and others pick a somewhat limited device at half the price.
I don't know too many people who bought into the Fire because of Amazon's ecosystem. Most people who simply wanted an eReader would have bought one of the less expensive devices.

Certainly many people purchased the Fire because it was a inexpensive tablet but many chose the Amazon Ecosytem because they were perhaps already embedded. While there are other e-readers at a cheaper price, they wanted a tablet. This in spite of the fact that they could have purchased a better equipped iPad for just a $100 more. Not unreachable if you are patient and really wanted it.

The Fire was successfull as much for it's Brand Name as it was for its form factor. There are other similarly priced Android Tablets as the Fire, but the Amazon Brand was the distinguishing difference.

The iPad has many competitors on specs and price points yet it dominates for many reasons, but the main reason is the Apple Brand/Ecosystem. Why would a choice for the Amazon Fire be based on different reason? Does Amazon not maintain customer loyalty? Ask Borders that question.
post #18 of 88
There is no reason for Apple to not go after this market if technically possible. With the iPod touch, Apple has produced a machine which is as good as the iPhone for $199. There isn't any possible way any competition can compete. Also there is the iTunes ecosystem to compete with.

Despite the ticker price of the iPods cheapest model, the average margins on iPod touches are much higher, indicating that people are attracted by the low price but buy the mid range. On average. ( that , or half of people buy the top level model, and half the bottom)

However the lower level stops all competition.

Imagine, then , a $250 iPad. With 100,000 apps. Destroying the competition , but the entry level will be hobbled by low memory. So next time, you save , and get an iPad 10". This is standard land grab. An iPad mini will scare the opposition.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #19 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I agree. Similar to my view that the purchase of this years' iPad was not needed; the 1st Gen I have is working perfectly fine, and although photography is my thing, I don't care much for the added pixels. Nice to have, but not really worth the € 899 I paid...
YMMV, but I consider the new iPad a completely different device than the first generation unit. The camera and screen change a lot of things. Great for video conferencing, photos, reading, etc. my wife's first generation iPad looks like a toy in comparison.
post #20 of 88

The allure of the 7" ipad for me is definitely the size, not the price. I'd buy one even if they were the exact same price as the 10: model.

post #21 of 88
What about a 13" iPad? Too soon? I already feel cramped with some of the stuff available for the current iPad... Not sure how going smaller would be feasible unless all you wanted is an eReader.
post #22 of 88

Blah blah blah, iPad nano, blah blah blah, television, blah blah blah, iPhone nano…

 

Same story, different noun. 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #23 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Blah blah blah, iPad nano, blah blah blah, television, blah blah blah, iPhone nano…

Same story, different noun. 

I believe you are right about the iPad nano and the iPhone nano, but I think you will eat your words on a TV.
post #24 of 88
Has anyone thought this rumoured mini iPad is not actually an iPad at all. But a touch screen remote for the rumoured Apple TV coming soon.

It would make sense. Touch screen input and you give the TV voice commands through Siri via the remote tablet.
post #25 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

according to people in the Taiwanese supply chain.

Same folks that give DigiTimes all their 'scoops'?

post #26 of 88
Totally agree with you here. I've said the same myself. 7" iPad still too big for most standard pants pockets and iPod touch already priced too close to the iPad, now that Gen 2 is $399.

What I'd like to see is an iPod touch that's slightly larger than the iPhone., say 5" screen, and drop the current model. That way you would satisfy most people that seem to want a smaller iPad. My better half has the nook simple touch (also a 5" screen). It's form factor and light weight would be perfect for n iOS device. It's screen size was developed to mimic the sme mount of space of. Standard paperback, grocery store book so I would work well for reading and web, since or some reason, all websites annoyingly default to the mobile version of the site in the current iPad.

Personally, I have both the iPad and iPhone and I can see absolutely no need to own something in-between. Just from listening to some public opinion and in my medium sized group of acquaintances, it seems the majority of users want a 7" iPad for a couple of key reasons. Lighter, most people that first buy an iPad complain it's too heavy. And I agree that the new iPad is noticeably heavier even so. Second is portability. And that primarily comes from women. Most women I've overheard or talked to claim the iPad is too big to fit in most average sized purses. And for the men, a 5" mega-touch would be just small enough to fit in some 501's. Third is gaming. Most people I know that do a lot of gaming on the iPad want something more PSP sized...which is about a 5" screen minus the controller buttons.

So thats my addition to you comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

The iPod will get a 4-inch screen ala the next iPhone and that will likely be as close to an iPad Mini as we're gong to get. Looking at it from Apple's perspective, what's the point of having a 7-inch iPad. The 10-inch iPad has positively decimated the 7-inch competitors out there and there is already a pocketable device in Apple's product mix that would be more or less fitting in at around the same price as this rumoured 7-inch iPad.
The best aspect of carrying the current iPad form factor and a 4-incher named the iPod Touch is that one could easily imagine a consumer owning a combination of the iPad along with either an iPhone or a Touch. The 7-inch iPad, on the other hand, would more likely be seen by many as an alternative to the current iPad form factor. The net impact would be few additional sales yet millions spent on development. It doesn't add up.
What the iPad needs is lighter, more efficient technology and that will come. The next iPad is probably going to feature a weight reduction thanks to technology on the way that will deliver high resolution with less demand on the battery. Once that happens, the 7-inch form factor will be rendered pointless. Yet there will always be a place for a small device that fits in most pockets as a companion piece to the standard iPad. I carry a Touch around with me at work but could not bring along my iPad. The 7-inch version would still be too large to carry along in my work environment.
A lighter iPad next spring and a Touch with a bit larger screen this fall fits perfectly with what I need. I suspect this is the case for a lot of other consumers as well.

Edited by antkm1 - 6/4/12 at 7:31am
post #27 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post
I believe you are right about the iPad nano and the iPhone nano, but I think you will eat your words on a TV.

 

I ain't ridin' this coaster down the hill again. I remember the '90s. Next it'll be bringing back the QuickTake and the LaserWriter. We've already HAD an "Apple will release a standalone camera" rumor this year…

 

I welcome Apple's annihilation of the existing television metaphor and bankrupting of cable and satellite providers, but that doesn't require a TV to do it right. I can't think of a scenario involving a TV that wouldn't be wrong.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #28 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by uk-macaddict View Post

Has anyone thought this rumoured mini iPad is not actually an iPad at all. But a touch screen remote for the rumoured Apple TV coming soon.
It would make sense. Touch screen input and you give the TV voice commands through Siri via the remote tablet.

Thought of it? Sure, but it seems unlikely to make a limited dedicated device like that when an App, similar to the existing Apple TV app that currently exists. The lack of infrared on the current crop of devices is the only shortcoming, and this lends the most credit to your theory.
post #29 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

Certainly many people purchased the Fire because it was a inexpensive tablet but many chose the Amazon Ecosytem because they were perhaps already embedded. While there are other e-readers at a cheaper price, they wanted a tablet. This in spite of the fact that they could have purchased a better equipped iPad for just a $100 more. Not unreachable if you are patient and really wanted it.
The Fire was successfull as much for it's Brand Name as it was for its form factor. There are other similarly priced Android Tablets as the Fire, but the Amazon Brand was the distinguishing difference.
The iPad has many competitors on specs and price points yet it dominates for many reasons, but the main reason is the Apple Brand/Ecosystem. Why would a choice for the Amazon Fire be based on different reason? Does Amazon not maintain customer loyalty? Ask Borders that question.

That could be true, but everyone I talked to who bought a Fire bought it because it was "just like an iPad but half the price". I don't know anyone who bought it because it was a "better Kindle". The reported high return rates and the fact that sales fell through the floor after the first month or two bears that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Totally agree with you here. I've said the same myself. 7" iPad still too big for most standard pants pockets and iPod touch already priced too close to the iPad, now that Gen 2 is $399.
What I'd like to see is an iPod touch that's slightly larger than the iPhone., say 5" screen, and drop the current model. That way you would satisfy most people that seem to want a smaller iPad.
Personally, I have both the iPad and iPhone and I can see absolutely no need to own something in-between. Just from listening to some public opinion and in my medium sized group of acquaintances, it seems the majority of users want a 7" iPad for a couple of key reasons. Lighter, most people that first buy an iPad complain it's too heavy. And I agree that the new iPad is noticeably heavier even so. Second is portability. And that primarily comes from women. Most women I've overheard or talked to claim the iPad is too big to fit in most average sized purses. And for the men, a 5" mega-touch would be just small enough to fit in some 501's. Third is gaming. Most people I know that do a lot of gaming on the iPad want something more PSP sized...which is about a 5" screen minus the controller buttons.
So thats my addition to you comment.

I don't see a 5" as suitable as a tablet. A tablet is entirely different than an iPod Touch. Different markets, different customer base, etc. I could see increasing the size of the iPod Touch slightly, but even if they went to 5", there's still a HUGE gap between 5" and 10". And considering that most of the successful competitors are at 7", that seems to be the sweet spot.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #30 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I ain't ridin' this coaster down the hill again. I remember the '90s. Next it'll be bringing back the QuickTake and the LaserWriter. We've already HAD an "Apple will release a standalone camera" rumor this year…

I welcome Apple's annihilation of the existing television metaphor and bankrupting of cable and satellite providers, but that doesn't require a TV to do it right. I can't think of a scenario involving a TV that wouldn't be wrong.

Haha.

I agree with you that the Apple TV that you want, I want and everyone hopes for will NOT be made. But I think a TV in some form will be made.
post #31 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

The iPod will get a 4-inch screen ala the next iPhone and that will likely be as close to an iPad Mini as we're gong to get. Looking at it from Apple's perspective, what's the point of having a 7-inch iPad. The 10-inch iPad has positively decimated the 7-inch competitors out there and there is already a pocketable device in Apple's product mix that would be more or less fitting in at around the same price as this rumoured 7-inch iPad.The best aspect of carrying the current iPad form factor and a 4-incher named the iPod Touch is that one could easily imagine a consumer owning a combination of the iPad along with either an iPhone or a Touch. The 7-inch iPad, on the other hand, would more likely be seen by many as an alternative to the current iPad form factor. The net impact would be few additional sales yet millions spent on development. It doesn't add up.   What the iPad needs is lighter, more efficient technology and that will come. The next iPad is probably going to feature a weight reduction thanks to technology on the way that will deliver high resolution with less demand on the battery. Once that happens, the 7-inch form factor will be rendered pointless. Yet there will always be a place for a small device that fits in most pockets as a companion piece to the standard iPad. I carry a Touch around with me at work but could not bring along my iPad. The 7-inch version would still be too large to carry along in my work environment.A lighter iPad next spring and a Touch with a bit larger screen this fall fits perfectly with what I need. I suspect this is the case for a lot of other consumers as well.

 

I think this is an excellent analysis. The real improvement that is necessary for the iPad to continue to be a hit is really the reduction in weight and bulk.  

 

Apple needs to continue to increase the speed and the overall experience for gamers on the iPhone and iPod touch, but leave the iPad alone (horsepower-wise) and focus primarily on making it lighter and thinner.  

post #32 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

 

The "Retina" branding surely is stretchy, if 163 ppi can be branded a "Retina display"... I didn't know the original iPhone had a Retina display too... /s

That's because "retina display" is marketing hype as opposed to an actual standard.

post #33 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

... 7" iPad still too big for most standard pants pockets ...

 

Just to play devil's advocate here ... this is just the male side of the equation.  

 

7" tablets are pretty much the perfect size for the average purse, so given the 50/50 split in gender, arguments about "pocket size" are kind of canceled out.  One could even argue that since (in most countries) today it's okay for men to carry purse's now, that the pocket argument doesn't really work at all anymore. 

 

I don't believe the 7" tablet is very likely either however, for other reasons than this.  

 

If it happens at all I think it will be a niche device like the Galaxy Note or a bigger iPod touch gaming device or something similar. 

post #34 of 88
I'm hopeing for a summer intro before AT&T follow Verizon lead with that shared data plan... & I still have no fait in the iPad mini
post #35 of 88
While going with the current display panels they've been using since 2007 with the original iPhone would be a huge reduction in component costs for Apple would these would also be TN panels, not IPS panels that are key to what has made the iPad's display so great. I understand the math used to get the 7.85" size and how it can reduce costs considerably to compete with Amazon's below-cost product but the Kindle Fire uses IPS so either Apple will sell a visually inferior product or this math-based assumption of how Apple could do it is all just speculative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

That's because "retina display" is marketing hype as opposed to an actual standard.

Except that you're ignoring that it's based on actual math. If you had a 60" HDTV that was 164 PPI you honestly wouldn't think it's just to call it a Retina Display? Bullshit! That's over 4x the pixel density of current HDTVs and you'd be 2 feet away from the set and not be able to determine pixels with any human eyesight.

Here's is a little secret: 3438 x 1/x = y

That's the simple equation that tells you how how many inches your eyes need to be away from the display of a particular PPI for 20/20 vision to get the Retina Display effect. There is no trickery here. There is no fuzzy math.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

That's because "retina display" is marketing hype as opposed to an actual standard.

 

Not really true.  You exaggerate here.  

 

It's a marketing term (not hype, per se), that does have an actual definition.  

 

It's not an actual standard that anyone else uses at the moment but that's irrelevant to whether the term has meaning. 

post #37 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

... I can't think of a scenario involving a TV that wouldn't be wrong for me.

 

There, fixed it for you. :-)

post #38 of 88

Well, I assume that this also means a new iPod Touch, seeing as if there is a new screen size for the iPhone, they wouldn't design the same app but smaller for the iPod Touch, correct?

post #39 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post
There, fixed it for you. :-)

 

Fine, explain what an HDTV can do that an Apple TV cannot. 

 

Still waiting for an answer.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMAC1NT0SH View Post
…if there is a new screen size for the iPad, they wouldn't design the same app but smaller for the iPhone, correct?

 

Not to be ignored. I'm not saying anything about the iPod touch, a lack thereof, or anything else, but you have to take the above into account.

 

If anything, I think the "iPhone 5" designs we saw last year was the redesigned iPod touch. I can't believe no one else said that, particularly since the case was half the thickness of the iPhone and people actually thought an iPhone battery would be able to fit in that thing.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #40 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That could be true, but everyone I talked to who bought a Fire bought it because it was "just like an iPad but half the price". I don't know anyone who bought it because it was a "better Kindle". The reported high return rates and the fact that sales fell through the floor after the first month or two bears that out.
I don't see a 5" as suitable as a tablet. A tablet is entirely different than an iPod Touch. Different markets, different customer base, etc. I could see increasing the size of the iPod Touch slightly, but even if they went to 5", there's still a HUGE gap between 5" and 10". And considering that most of the successful competitors are at 7", that seems to be the sweet spot.

Have you experienced a device with a 4:3, 5" screen? The Nook simple touch is the best comparison. See my edited post for more detail. After using my GF's, I could easily see this as "the new iPod Touch", just loosE the massive bezel that the nook has. It' would be small enough to pocket and big enough for everything else adequately and even better than he current touch.

I don't see 3 form factors between 4" and 10" as a good solution, one will ultimately cannibalize the other like the iPod nano is doing o the shuffle and the classic.
Edited by antkm1 - 6/4/12 at 8:10am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 'Exciting' Sept. could see Apple intro new iPhone, iPad 'mini'