Rumor: Video of alleged 'iPad mini' Wi-Fi-only mockup hits the web - Page 2

 

I know you're joking, but my co-workers and I were recently discussing the value of a voice call capable iPad.  It already has cellular connectivity, why not voice calling?

 

Because it's too big to hold up to your ear?  Many of us are already wearing earphones while using it, or would be willing to plug them in to make/take a call.  And how many of us already have Bluetooth mics for our iPhones that would also work just fine with the iPad?  Or just use it as a speakerphone using the existing mic and speakers.

 

Obviously I recognize that there isn't a pressing need (or demand) for an iPad to make voice calls, but I don't really understand the choice to deliberate exclude that capability when 95% of what it takes to do it is already there.

 

Wouldn't an older generation iPad serve the education market just as well?  Smaller does not equate to more durable where kids are concerned.   Also, the iPad is not exactly a brick.  It is portable by its very design, otherwise people would just use laptops.  Plus, how many people have a case for their iPads to protect them?  If you bought a case for your mini iPad, then the added bulk of the case would negate the savings in weight and make them too bulky for lab coats. Those coats tend to weight down with anything of significance in the pockets.  It would seem awkward to me to have one side of your lab coat weighed down more than the other.  If you did not use a case, then everyone would complain on how easily they would scratch like the new iPhones.

And the new 9 pin connector port is way to big. this is a total faked mock up.

 

That's the definition of mock-up, yes.

So where do I sand my fingers again?

 

Apparently, Apple realizes that there IS a market for the ~7" tablets.

 

I guess Steve Jobs (bless his heart) was wrong on this one (again).

 

Yes, because they sell a 7" tablet.

OH WAIT.

I can't believe that after releasing a $299 iPod Touch, there is still an attempt to claim that Apple has an interest in releasing a 7-inch tablet.

 

It doesn't add up. There is a product slotted into pretty much every price point. The new iPhone and the new Touch address a lot of the concerns expressed by those who crave a more portable companion to the iPad. iPhones are ubiquitous and the Touch fills out the picture. 

 

It's claimed that children have trouble using the current iPad but children, in my experience, absolutely love the iPad. They're not the ones claiming they want something smaller. As for a tablet for commuters, that's what the iPhone is for. If you have an iPhone, especially an iPhone 5 with a larger screen, it really makes buying a mini iPad pointless, if the point is to have something portable to use when on the go. And now the Touch has been dramatically upgraded. For puttering around the house, so to speak, the only thing making the iPad less than ideal is a need to lose some weight. As we have seen with the diet just applied to the iPhone, Apple knows how to shed weight. The next iPad is only a few months away and when it does come to market, it will be noticeably lighter, bank on it. So, what point is there to having an iPad Mini that will in essence be rendered obsolete within the next six months. 

 

Once the larger iPhone/Touch spread and the lighter iPad comes to market, the iPad Mini would be a pointless device and as such, Apple will not bother. Yet, it appears October has to pass before this will become apparent to some. The rest of us have already figured it out. 

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up for us all....

 

 

Raise your hand if you think Apple can release a product with a lower rez than several recently announced entrants in this class and sell it well for $50-100 more as most have speculated......

I don't know what they're going to do, of course, but I don't see that as impossible. Apple has done a remarkable job of creating a brand image and building the ecosystem as one of their main selling points rather than specs. Getting $50 more for an iPad doesn't sound that hard at all - even if the resolution is a bit lower.

That said, they're now making retina screens in such large quantity that they very well might not save enough money by going to lower resolution to make it worthwhile.

I think you missed the point on this topic. A large majority of these 7" tablets that you claim we're sold we're actually just given away. Seriously, every time a kindle fire is sold a stockholder cries. If your giving a product away at less than cost, no matter what the reason, some people may get them. Perhaps a lot of people will get one.

Also, we can not "look at the numbers" because almost all who sell that product will not divulge those numbers. We apparently needed a court case to find out how many Tabs were sold.

Lets ask HP how well the 7" form factor sold. Oops! They did sell all of them though, adding to your numbers game.

Lets ask RIMM how we'll the 7" form factor sold. Oops! I don't believe they sold all of them as of this date.

How about Motorola? That's my absolute favorite! They stormed in and put on a big show about what a "real" tablet should be. Did they ever even recoup the money they spent on the Super Bowl add? From what I hear those adds are rather expensive.

So yes, perhaps there were as many 7" tablets "sold" so far as there were iPads sold in the first year but how many of those tablets were sold at a large or even a small (kindle) loss?

Also, I never said I oppose a 7" tablet. I simply stated that I see very little benefit for one.

Your logic of Apple making more than one size on other products also does not fit. In that regard, they make different colored nanos, shuffles, smart covers, cases... I would like a green iPhone. For some reason they are not making one...
Edited by Vadania - 9/29/12 at 3:21pm

 

Probably.

 

What you can say with absolute certainty is that only geeks like us would base a purchasing decision on a Retina display.  Most people don't care.  Sure, it's nice and they can see the difference in a side-by-side comparison, but it's not a deal breaker for them.  Actually, hang on...

 

I just went and asked three co-workers who have Gen3 iPads if the absence of Retina display would have influenced their decision to buy.  One answered "A retinal what?", one knew it has a Retina display, was aware of that when she bought it, but doesn't really care, and the third said he really likes the retina display, would much rather have it than not, but wouldn't have passed on the purchase if it didn't have it.

 

Admittedly small sampling and decidedly unscientific, but my gut tells me it's a good indicator that Retina doesn't matter as much to most people as it does to some here.

 

I know people like to mock the S3 et al but I would really, genuinely LIKE an iPhad!  A 7" phone would be GREAT for me!  Still small enough to carry around, but big enough to accommodate my giant fumble fingers and show me both the keyboard AND more than two lines of an iMessage conversation at the same time!  Big enough to be a useful analyzer display in my work (which an iPhone really isn't) while integrating the phone into it so I only have to carry one device instead of two!

 

Note, not just a 7" tablet though, a 7" phone.

 

I know, I know, the "experts" among you have already dismissed it.  I don't care.  I want one.

No one reasonable would have a problem with you wanting a 7" phone. The problem would arrise if you thought a 7" phone would be a huge hit simply because it fit your specific needs.

 

That would be silly, wouldn't it?

 

It is the return of the 17" MacBook Pro that will be a huge hit.  The fact that it fits my specific needs is a coincidence.

 

;)

You could make that same argument for any device that has cellular chips in it.

My laptop has cellular data so it should make vice calls.
My MiFi has cellular data donut should make voice calls.
My Kindle has cellular data so it should make vice calls.

It just not reasonable to expect everything to make vice calls simply because it can connect to a cellular network in some way. Note that the iPad (3) doesn't even have chips for cellular calls. The Qualomm MDM9xxx baseband chip simply doesn't support it.

7,85 inches diagonal happens to be close to the optimal size for a one-handed slate. Therefore, one who's used to raising the middle finger while extending one's thumb would surely enjoy having one's hand hold a square deal instead of a lingering grudge...

 

Yes, one could make such an argument.

 

 

 

 

Why not?  Not to be adversarial or anything and just spit-balling, but it doesn't strike me as much of a stretch to think that something with an "LTE" symbol up in the corner should be able to call your mom.  Obviously not if it adds considerably to the cost or otherwise muddies the soup, but I don't think the notion should be automatically dismissed just because it's not the way we're used to thinking about using a phone.  We Skype and Facetime with laptops, why NOT plain ol' voice calls?

It doesn't matter. Kindle sold Millions of Fires at $199. Whether they made money is irrelevant.

If they sold millions at $199 and other companies sold a bunch, too, it's likely that Apple could sell at lot at $249 or so.

You purposely remove the part of my comment where I explained why and then say you're trying to adversarial?

If that sentence was too complex to understand then just know this: not all data is the same. Period!

BVoice data currently travels over cellular differently than IP data. Eventually, it will all be IP data over LTE (or better) but for now that is the not the way it works.

 

Whoa, lower your weapon... I wasn't trying to challenge you.  You regulars sure get worked up easily around here!  Damn...

 

You only mentioned one device, and I was trying not to overquote, I apologize, roll on my back and expose my belly in submission and throw myself on the mercy of the court.

 

Now will you lighten the hell up?  I TOLD you I'm just kickin' around inconsequential ideas.  Besides, we're talking phones and tablets here, not infaticide.  Yeesh.

I asked a question because that is how it read to me when you ask the very question I had already answered and you chose not to address what i had answered. I then answered it again in a different way. Do your adversaries continue to answer your queries with detailed responses?

As for only mentioned one device your comment was that anything with LTE cellular should be able to do voice calls. So either that's true or it isn't. Therefore, you should have either refuted my claim with facts backing up your claim or inquired more about why that is the case to help educate yourself. That's how communication works/ That's how communication is beneficial.
Edited by SolipsismX - 9/29/12 at 8:03pm

 

Even re-reading the thread I'm at a loss to figure out how the hell we got from what I said to this, but it doesn't matter.

 

All I was trying to say is that it would be cool if tablets made phone calls, and said I don't believe it can be all that difficult.  So one chip doesn't do it.  Obviously there's simply NO WAY ON EARTH anyone could possible come up with ANOTHER chip that does.  That would be crazy, and so am I to even be taking this position.

 

I don't like this game and don't want to play anymore.

1) We got there because you said you weren't be adversarial despite making what appeared to me as passive-agressive comments for which I causally mentioned and then you took offense with in your "you regulars' and other comments.

2) In the iPhone 5 it's ONE CHIP. It's also a very efficient chip. That's why it not only gets 8 hours on '3G' but also 8 hours on '4G' LTE. This is 3rd gen LTE chip (2nd gen Qualcomm Gobi chip) and I think only Apple is using them in bulk right now. They are built using the 28nm process instead of 45nm so they are much more power efficient. They also have plenty of other features that help them monitor power. This LTE is considerably more efficient than the iPhone 3G was back in 2008 at it's lower data rate capacity.

3) Here is an AnandTech explaining why no LTE iPhone in 2011 that details the basic chip capabilities.

• http://www.anandtech.com/show/4925/why-no-lte-iphone-5-blame-28nm-maturity

Fusion is a marketing term that is basically the voice HW on Qualcomm's Snapdragon SoC instead of on the MDM9600. As AT states, it's about chip maturity but the take away is: not all data is the same. Hence, no native voice capabilities on the MDM9600 in the iPad (3).

On this point I unequivocally agree. If Apple were to release a 7" tablet in that price bracket I'm sure that it would sell. My thought was, what's the point? It's just my opinion and my own thoughts on said device. I am definitely NOT stating that they are NOT going to release the aforementioned product.

If said device does get released I will actually be very interested in the numbers this time. I was interested in the numbers once previous. I pre-ordered the first iPad because I thought it was perfect. I was worried at that time that others would not share my view, not purchase them, and the device would be stillborn like most of the tablets that came after. Luckily others did share my view. Many millions of them. I'm very happy about that because I now have the 3rd release and it makes the original product look like a prototype. I equate (volume sold = upgrade). --- As a side note, mine has never achieved higher than room temperature status. Just saying :o)

The 7" form factor iPad has many more variables to consider.

While I do know (because I'm forward and I ask people) that some people who purchased the 'Fire' did so because they could not afford an iPad. So apparently the 'Fires' sales would drop a little, if not considerably, if there was a lower price point iPad. I also wonder how much of current iPad sales this would eat into. Yes I am aware that Tim likes this type of canabalization.

We will either find out soon as the rumors state, or it will share the same rumor category as the Apple TV (the one with a built in screen).


--- With lov...

That's a China knockoff product of the iPad 1. The mini will look like the new iPod touch. Check the apple site what the touch looks like and look at the aluminum buttons and how precision made it is.

This is where you made your mistake. Even I thought you were ridiculing him.

You also happened to pick the most beautiful mind on this site to do so with. He's also been rather passionate the last couple of months so I kind of expected a response. Actually, I looked for it!

Notice how he educated you with each incremental post even though you somewhat 'dissed' him?

I say fair game...

Also, some of these "regulars" that you mentioned have more than one name here. They play 'fox & hound'. Very interesting if you can figure it out. Sol is NOT one of them.

I both agree and disagree. How is that possible? Well...

I disagree that it's an iPad 1 knock off. Even Samsung stopped copying that well over a year ago...

I agree that the finished tolerances, even in a prototype would be substantially better than what is depicted. Even if it is a prototype, you still order it so you can see finished tolerances. They at least look inferior in the pictures that are provided.

 

Y'know, I've got the same problem at work: my emails seem to convey "attitude" I genuinely don't intend.  I think it's because the cheeky grin evident while I'm typing it doesn't travel with the text.  I really, honest to goodness, didn't mean any disrespect to Solipsism, but confess I did become frustrated when he steered the discussion towards isolating individual statements and qualifying arguments.  I felt like he was trying to draw me into a debate in which I had to "defend" my position of thinking it can't be that hard.  Maybe he did that because he thought I was being an asshole on purpose.  For the record, I wasn't.  If I was an asshole, it was by accident! :)

 

I'm sure he's right, it's probably a stupid and unrealistic idea. To me it really doesn't matter if it is or it isn't -- I was just sorta kickin' the thought around -- but it just makes me crazy when people focus on why things CAN'T be done instead of imagining how they COULD be done, that's all.

 

No hard feelings on this side.  Hopefully I haven't pissed off S-X too much.

You're British! That's cool!

No, no, no! I actually agree. I think it would be cool if the hardware allowed it. It simply doesn't. I would love Siri to actually call my brother over 'speaker phone' on the iPad when I asked her to. Instead I get "I can't make phone calls for you on this device Vadania, but you can make a face time call." I understand your point and I think it would be awesome.

I may be overstepping myself here, but I believe his background (or fervent hobby) is in wireless communications, so not only did you diss him, but you dissed him on his area of expertise. I doubt you made him angry. He seems too intelligent for that. If anything he just hit the ignore button... I'm probably on a lot of ignore lists so, no worry!

Again, it's a good idea. It's just not supported yet on the hardware side. However if you did read his responses, there should be no reason for that feature not to exist in the future! You see? Every cloud has a silver lining! :o)

Hmm, I like the size of this baby, but she seems difficult to hold than her bigger sister. My thumbs are pretty big though.

While it sounds ridiculous to use an iPad for voice calls, the availability of voice dialing and bluetooth handsets makes it possible. I probably wouldn't personally use it that way, but I can see how it might be practical for some people to avoid buying two devices (which, of course, is what Apple would prefer).

That's because it's a mockup, not a prototype.


Apparently, 17" sales were insufficient to justify keeping the product. I also preferred the 17", but we're in a minority.

You being an asshole never crossed my mind. I just wanted you to clarify and focus your position.

I didn't think your question was stupid. There is absolutely no reason anyone not familiar with cellular technology to think otherwise. I was annoyed that you removed my answer to your query just to ask it again. That seems passive-aggressive to me. As you can surely tell I'm not passive. I also only post to educate and to learn. I learned a great deal of my cellular data knowledge from AI poster winterspan many years ago.

Now, I disagree with the mass market viability of your initial comment about an iPad phone but that's a different discussion. If you think it would be a hit then make an argument for it. Discussing a topic and formulating a convincing position helps to weed out bugs. It's like beta testing ideas. A good debater can make the case for both sides. If you know how people will address an opposing view you can better address those concerns in your initial comment.


Based on the info I provided earlier a 7-8" iPad Mini will likely be using the same (or better) Qualcomm baseband chip if it has cellular connectivity. That means that that standard, as in non-VoIP, voice calls aren't going to be an issue like with the iPad (3). Now I don't think an iPad Mini is very likely to have cellular even though I hope it does because shared data plans are becoming commonplace (at least in the States). I also don't think that if it does have cellular connectivity and uses a chip that natively supports voice that it will as I think it's not a viable usage for the mass market.

So make an case for this device. Would it be for people without a phone? Would it allow for server-side number syncing so you can answer either device (like how iMessages get sent to all synced devices)? Would it have any a standard mic and speaker for using like a traditional phone up to your ear or would you have to use a headset of some sort? Where does this fit in? Make us see what you see.
Edited by SolipsismX - 9/30/12 at 7:15am

The reason that the iPad came with cellular data and no voice is so you do not need a contract and there is no subsidy. That was a marketing decision by Apple, probably an agreement with AT&T as well. As you mentioned, you can make a Skype call and if you want to buy Skype premium or pay to have a Skype phone number it will work almost exactly like a regular cell phone. If that is your desire to have a tablet phone you can do it. It just wasn't something that Apple wanted to sell. Face it they artificially disable certain features on each device to persuade you to buy multiple products. They want you to buy an iPhone, an iPad and an iPad mini. Might as well throw in an iPod and a MBP for good measure.

Imagine if they offered voice calls but in order to get a cellular contract you couldn't just pay for data but had to also pay for a separate voice call account, too, like you have to with cellphones, regardless of whether you are in or out of a contract.

I think once LTE has VoIP and CDMA and GSM/UMTS is severely deprecated we might finally have a single cellphone charge for the amount of data regardless of how it's derived with the Telcos still providing QoS for their voice calls, but that's many, many years out.

 

 

By that same discussion, I feel that an iPad is not significantly more portable than a 11.6" macbook air.

 

Therefore, everyone should just forget the ipad and buy a macbookair, based upon my preconceptions on what everyone needs.

Poor web, must be painful to be hit with a mockup video...

This video clearly demonstrates how useless it will be to hold in portrait mode.  This person's thumb rests clearly across the side bezel and the screen at the same time in portrait mode. I can see this as a problem because it will cause many accidental taps to the screen.  I already have this problem with the current iPad and it's bezel is twice as wide as this mock-up.  And it didn't look comfortable at all when this person held the device single-handed.  With all focus (at the iP5 event) about logically using the taller screen with one hand, I would be surprised if they released a device like this that you can't even comfortably use in portrait mode with even 2 hands.