Apple 'likely' to unveil 'iPad mini' at event on Oct. 23 - report - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

 

- you put it in the pocket of your hoodie

- if it's raining, you put it under your hoodie and hold it in your hands while they are in the pockets

- you chuck it in your hockey bag

- you put it in your purse

- you put it in the pocket of your skater pants

- you carry it in your hand

- you put it in the inside pocket of your jacket

 

In any case my argument was only that the kids that I know don't actually carry backpacks everywhere with them everywhere.  Also, the plain fact is that a mini iPad would be more portable than the original, so I'm not sure what your point is.  You say "teasingly more portable," but it's still more portable.  The "teasingly" is just in your head.  It may not be in everyone's head. 

 

It's also worth noting that the same argument came up for pretty much every portable device and every smaller iteration of same from the laptop to the iPod touch.  Is the Macbook Air useless simply because it's only slightly more portable than a regular laptop?  Is the iPod nano a waste of time because the iPod is already pretty small in and of itself?  

This is a classic example of why different devices should be applied to distinctly different use cases. The iPhone 5 or 5th Gen iPod Touch both would work perfectly in the cases you described. The iPad Mini would not be appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.

I get your argument, but what about going Retina with the Mini in next year's iteration?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlandd 

I think a high quality non-retina display on the Mini would make perfect sense.  I wouldn't use it for media watching.  There's nothing visually about my current older iPod Touch that gets in the way of its use, except for the size.  Not the screen.  Why would it be stooping or not high quality?

Agreed, but a "compromise" might be them going with IGZO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


Going 2048x1536 with the same PPI as the iPhone and want it to be lightweight, power efficient, and inexpensive? None of those things seem likely to me.

No argument here-still, who knows what they're cooking in the Cupertino kitchens?  My point is that the more likely scenario for this year would be the same resolution as the iPad 2 (with a slightly higher pixel density than the iPad 2). It'll look a little sharper, but perhaps not "true Retina". Also, as I mentioned earlier, IGZO at the same resolution as the iPad 2 might also look really good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carthusia 

Ok, yes, children going to school will have them, but more likely parents aren't sending kids to school with $300 devices in most cases. I guess, yes, in affluent areas. But it's just hard for me to see young children and most teens walking around with tablets-at school yes; in the car, yes.

I was speaking with a person from our local school board just last night and I asked about the iPad in the middle schools. She said that the iPads are left in the classroom however for special projects they can be checked out by the parent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


I think 163 PPI is reasonable for a variety of reasons but that's all board meeting-type determinations. Once they make a prototype they may have found that 163 PPI simply doesn't cut it for a device that will be used the way they want it to be so perhaps they did increase the PPI (and therefore resolution for a given size). But if 132 PPI was fine for the iPad for two generations I'm thinking that a nearly 25% increase for a $249 to $349 device won't be a bad by. At 7.85" we're talking about about 40% more display area of the 7" 16:9 tablets yet likely feeling, looking, and being less functional all around even though the new ones coming out this year will have a little higher PPI than this rumoured iPad mini/iBook.

I did the math in the other thread and 1024x768 is the most viable for the near future.  Doing anything else results in 4 resolution targets of iOS developers over the current three targets (320x480, 320x568 and 1024x768).  

That's not impossible but a significant increase in app layout fragmentation in comparison to the past.

The only other option is to see if a 3x multiple of the iPhone 5 resolution works cleanly but that makes the mini a big iPod touch and not a small iPad.

Originally Posted by Rogifan 
If Apple really wants to own this market they won't skimp on this device and maybe even accept slightly lower profit margins to bring a superior device to market at a competitive price point.

They already own the market, which is why all along I've been so confused at the very idea of this thing.

It's like audiophilism. It's the law of diminishing returns. Apple has 90% of the market right now. To get even half of that other 10%, they have to spend at least as much money as it took them to get the first 90%. The question then becomes: "Is it worth it?" Particularly with the anti-trust lawsuits that will inevitably follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

They already own the market, which is why all along I've been so confused at the very idea of this thing.

 

It's like audiophilism. It's the law of diminishing returns. Apple has 90% of the market right now. To get even half of that other 10%, they have to spend at least as much money as it took them to get the first 90%. The question then becomes: "Is it worth it?" Particularly with the anti-trust lawsuits that will inevitably follow.

You make it sound like people who already have an iPad won't want this one as well.

Owning 90% of a market does not mean the market is saturated. How many billion people are there on the planet? Having another form factor is a good thing. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the mini outsells the full size iPad eventually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


I've stated in the past, well before the iPad mini seemed like it could happen that Apple should "suck all the oxygen out of the room" by creating an environment where it owns the tablet market the way it owns the PMP market. It took them a long time to wrangle the PMP unit market share even though they were the only ones making profit for much longer but with the tablet market they had control of both out of the gate. With these cheap 7' tablets hitting the market they will lose unit market share which could, over a long period, chip away at their profits if the OS ad ecosystem on these devices become good enough.
To me, this means that they should do everything they can to make this tablet market an iPad market for the foreseeable future. With 32nm and the 163 PPI display tech they aren't using I think it's possible to create a cost effective mini tablet — hopefully called iBook — that will only keep the Apple haters from buying one over a KIndle Fire or Galaxy S#17.
PS: I'd say Amazon is the biggest long term threat here because of their low profit margin, popularity as an online store and media ecosystem. We can laugh that they barely profit from quarter to quarter but this is a major threat to Apple who might not be able to compete with Amazon on HW products even though Apple can leverage so much expertise and existing tech to make a product much, much lower than Amazon. Apple might actually have to reduce their profit margins in order to crush them. We don't often see that from Apple.

I'm becoming more fond of the "iPad Air" moniker, especially since the focus, ostensibly, will be on thin, light, portable, and powerful. Some are saying that not adopting a Retina display in a smaller iPad would be a step back, as Apple is moving to Retina across al its mobile devices. They fail to note, however, that the MacBook Air has not adopted Retina. It is Apple's entry-level notebook, and a very, very good one-better than any one else's entry-level notebook. It could be quite a while before the MBA gets Retina, as the current display is good enough for its uses. App developers, design pros, and photo and video editors are getting Mac Pros, rMBPs or in some cases even iMacs If some one wants a better display and is willing to sacrifice weight/thickness and/or battery life, there's some other product for that. 

I'm continually amazed by how some Apple-savvy tech bloggers state that Apple does not design around a price point. Such statements fly in the face of the reality of how Apple has structured their product class lineups. Apple knows what people are willing to pay for products given well-defined feature sets. They also understand the trade-offs that consumers are willing to accept if they know they are getting a best-in-class product. The cost of Retina on a MBA would simply be too high to hit a sub-$1,000 price point. Not to mention, the battery would need to be bigger, and thus the notebook would be a bit heavier. The perceived drawback of a missing feature (Retina) on the MBA is a win in that it demonstrates different use cases and allows for better differentiation between it and the MBP. Air owners have good reasons for not getting a MBP. There will be even more differentiation after the 13" MBP is released.

The problem with the iBook moniker is largely, IMHO, that it would be perceived in the market not as a full-fledge iPad, but as a gimped eReader tablet. Apple is in the middle of a profoundly complex and precarious product transition across mobile devices. They are trying hard both to differentiate their product lineup while also providing as much functionality as possible within specific product classes. The MacBook Air achieves that with regard to the Retina MacBook Pro; an iPad Air will achieve that with respect to the iPad. A MBA or MBP and iPad Air or iPad would be a stroke of marketing genius, reflecting Apple's unique ability to reduce consumer confusion about its products and its drive to (re)emphasize simplicity in product offerings and naming schemes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carthusia 
The MacBook Air achieves that with regard to the Retina MacBook Pro; an iPad Air will achieve that with respect to the iPad. A MBA or MBP and iPad Air or iPad would be a stroke of marketing genius, reflecting Apple's unique ability to reduce consumer confusion about its products and its drive to (re)emphasize simplicity in product offerings and naming schemes.

I can agree with that. If they named it Air then it could be built to lower specs and less expensive but it would likely not be a product I would buy. Personally I want an iPad exactly like the new one I already own just smaller.

If the emphasis is on light weight, would you think they would go with in cell touch to eliminate a layer of glass?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


I think the 32nm is the most important as the smaller process will save a lot more on weight with the smaller battery than the very thin layer of the touch matrix. I think it helps mostly with thickness so it's not a primary factor for making this work
 

If the extra glass of matrix layer is very thin how does removing it primarily help reduce the thickness?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I can agree with that. If they named it Air then it could be built to lower specs and less expensive but it would likely not be a product I would buy. Personally I want an iPad exactly like the new one I already own just smaller.

 

If the emphasis is on light weight, would you think they would go with in cell touch to eliminate a layer of glass?

I think that given their emphasis on economies of scale, using in-touch techniques on an iPad Air, even if it not needed, will drive the costs of that panel tech down further and more quickly. But I have no idea how much that layer adds to the cost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I can agree with that. If they named it Air then it could be built to lower specs and less expensive but it would likely not be a product I would buy. Personally I want an iPad exactly like the new one I already own just smaller.

 

If the emphasis is on light weight, would you think they would go with in cell touch to eliminate a layer of glass?

Very many consumers will feel the same way as you about a smaller non-Retina iPad. That says a lot about how this product differentiation thing plays out; there simply are different market segments. So, you know, Apple is answering a key question of how to respond to the needs of the total addressable market without undue fragmentation. Someone who must have a Retina iPad may also be someone who needs a rMBP.

I would place a small bet that those who shun MBAs because of the display and power limitations would also shun a non-Retina small iPad. And others, like myself, would choose a smaller, lower-cost notebook in the MBA (to wit, you'll never see a 15" MBA) and a smaller thinner, lower cost non-Retina iPad.

I'd also place a small bet that as the MBA currently outsells MBPs (and will do so even after the 13" MBP ships), an iPad Air will outsell all current models of the 9.7" iPad-for many of the same reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carthusia 

Very many consumers will feel the same way as you about a smaller non-Retina iPad. That says a lot about how this product differentiation thing plays out; there simply are different market segments. So, you know, Apple is answering a key question of how to respond to the needs of the total addressable market without undue fragmentation. Someone who must have a Retina iPad may also be someone who needs a rMBP.

 

I would place a small bet that those who shun MBAs because of the display and power limitations would also shun a non-Retina small iPad. And others, like myself, would choose a smaller, lower-cost notebook in the MBA (to wit, you'll never see a 15" MBA) and a smaller thinner, lower cost non-Retina iPad.

 

I'd also place a small bet that as the MBA currently outsells MBPs (and will do so even after the 13" MBP ships), an iPad Air will outsell all current models of the 9.7" iPad-for many of the same reasons.

You may be right. For example when the Air was first introduced, it was really expensive and targeted at jet setters. It really did not sell well at all until they stripped it down, plastic non backlit keyboard and lowered the price. Then it started selling well but not to the original target market, but instead mostly as an entry level notebook, especially after they discontinued the plastic MacBook.

If Apple does not introduce new Mac computers on the 23rd of october, i'm going to buy a Windows computer... I have waited way to long for a iMac upgrade and i'm not sure if i can wait any longer!

Originally Posted by Husbocken 
If Apple does not introduce new Mac computers on the 23rd of october, i'm going to buy a Windows computer... I have waited way to long for a iMac upgrade and i'm not sure if i can wait any longer!

That's complete nonsense. Buy an iMac available now. There's no reason or explanation for buying Windows, particularly with 8 existing, when you can just get an iMac.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Husbocken 

If Apple does not introduce new Mac computers on the 23rd of october, i'm going to buy a Windows computer... I have waited way to long for a iMac upgrade and i'm not sure if i can wait any longer!

I am sure they will rush the iMacs out the door just for you. 

Buy a windblows machine, good rid dens 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

They're not supposed to be for the same people. That's not a question to be asked.

Not the point I was trying to make, which is that at $299 the Touch is too close to a smart phone in price and it's capabilities (minus the phone, obviously) while the Mini is offering something different.  At this point even school kids have smartphones.  If they need a better pocket sized media player it's unlikely they'll consider the new Touch an option.  It does more than they need for twice they need to pay.  If someone needs what it does the first thing they'll likely think is "I can spend a bit more and get a ton more for it".  I'd think the niche for the new Touch (for what it does at that price) is far smaller than that of the iPad mini which is looking to be the closest thing in price among iPods and iPads.

I don't question Apple's venturing into a smaller sub $350 iPad in the least.  To me it's no-brainer/nothing to lose deal.  I do think putting out a $299 iPod Touch at this juncture is a pretty dubious call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carthusia 

I'm becoming more fond of the "iPad Air" moniker,

 

Yah, that is a lot better than the iPad Mini.

Oh yeah.  Apple's lineup is as carefully engineered as their products and price is a significant factor.

In any case, looking at the iPod lineup clearly demonstrates that Apple can and will design to a price point with smaller and less capable devices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Why? Can't put it in a pocket, so it's only teasingly more portable than the real iPad. They're still carrying something in their hand as they walk around; they may as well carry an iPad.

 

For fun I tried fitting my Kindle Fire in my jeans pocket.  I'm not small but also not a fatty (34 waist) and it fits.  It's certainly not something you're going to do but it's perfectly reasonable for a jacket or sweatshirt pocket.

So it's a LOT more portable than the "real" iPad, especially if as thin as the iPod touch.

Originally Posted by nht 
It's certainly not something you're going to do…

Exactly. There you go. You've just answered it.

This iPad mini? It's even wider than a Kindle. It's not going anywhere except in your hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Exactly. There you go. You've just answered it.

 

This iPad mini? It's even wider than a Kindle. It's not going anywhere except in your hand.

You have a hard time accepting reality.  

Fact: neither the PSP nor 3DS really fits in jeans pockets either but kids carry them around everywhere anyway in jackets, sweatshirts, backpacks, and yes even in their hands if they have to.

Fact: 7" tablets fit in many pockets.

Fact: 7" tablets fit in purses better than 10" tablets.

Opinion: 7" tablets are better for movies and gaming than smartphone sized devices. 

Prediction: a 7" iPad Air will sell like gangbusters at whatever price Apple sets proving you wrong yet again.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by nht 
You have a hard time accepting reality.

Really? You know how the iPad mini fits into pockets since you've tried out all the 4:3 7.85" tablets on the market? All none of them, that is.

Sounds like the iPad right now, then.

I'm not sure how I can be proven wrong through its sales. Sales ≠ quality, or even a situationally subjective 'best' solution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


You can't simply use a diagonal measure to indicate a standard width. Most 7" tablets are 16:9, the iPad is 4:3 so even at 7" it's wider than the completion but going to 7.85 makes it much wider.
The only solution would be to assume a 16:9 like the new iPod Touch with would result in icons about the same size upscaled as the 7.85" 4:3 tablet downscaled from the current iPad.

A blue ray case is wider than the kindle and fits too.  Standard jeans...nothing special about these pockets.

The point is that the assertion that a 7" tablet is no more portable than a 10" tablet is clearly false.  It fits in a lot more pockets and is a lot more portable.

Originally Posted by nht 
The point is that the assertion that a 7" tablet is no more portable than a 10" tablet is clearly false.  It fits in a lot more pockets and is a lot more portable.

It isn't "clearly" false!

"I have to carry this in my hand, just like the big one."
"Wear a jacket. Fits in a jacket."
"This is Dallas, and it's June."
"Wear a jacket. Fits in a jacket."

"I have to carry this in my hand, just like the big one."

"Put it in your purse."

"I'm a guy."

"Put it in your purse."

Alternatively: 

"My purse isn't big enough for it. I like the purse I have."

"Put it in your purse."

'Wear more clothes' is not an acceptable solution to the problem of portability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Really? You know how the iPad mini fits into pockets since you've tried out all the 4:3 7.85" tablets on the market? All none of them, that is.

I've shown that 7" tablets are generally pocketable in a variety of pockets including jeans pockets.  It is up to you to show that the iPad Air is not more pocketable than a full sized iPad.  

Which you can't.

I can show that the iPad Air can be about the same size as the Kindle Fire.

Step 1:  Go here and download the paper template for the iPad Mini:  http://www.macstories.net/news/get-a-sense-of-what-a-7-85-ipad-mini-would-be-like/

Step 2:  Trim the side bezels to 1/8" which results in a 7.85" iPad Air that is about 5" x 7.75". Or about a 1/4" wider and 1/4" taller than the Kindle Fire.  For reference, a Blu-Ray case is wider than the iPad Air mockup by 3/8" (and of course much shorter).

If it is as thin as the iPod Touch (i.e. much thinner than the Fire) then it would likely fit in my pocket as well or better than the Fire.   

It also looks pretty much like a 16:9 7" tablet.  In portrait mode I can hold my Kindle Fire one handed and not actually touch the top of the screen in any way.  So thin side bezels are viable just like on the phone (1/8" to edge of the glass on the iPhone 4..a little more to the edge of the phone.  My iPhone 5 is in a case and harder to measure).

Cut one out for yourself.

Stop being an jerk and repeatedly taking my words out of context.  Either refute them or bugger off.

Originally Posted by nut 
…refute them…

You're agreeing with me. What would I refute?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

It isn't "clearly" false!

 

"I have to carry this in my hand, just like the big one."
"Wear a jacket. Fits in a jacket."
"This is Dallas, and it's June."
"Wear a jacket. Fits in a jacket."

 

"I have to carry this in my hand, just like the big one."

"Put it in your purse."

"I'm a guy."

"Put it in your purse."

 

Alternatively: 

 

"My purse isn't big enough for it. I like the purse I have."

"Put it in your purse."

 

'Wear more clothes' is not an acceptable solution to the problem of portability.

Are you deliberately being dense?  Showing instances where something is not true is not the same as showing that something is always not true.

Airplanes are clearly faster than cars.

"But flying to <some very close city> takes longer than just driving there because of airport security" (that's not a function of aircraft vs car speed)

"But the ThrustSSC goes 760MPH which is clearly faster than many airplanes" (that's because it's a freaking jet on the ground)

A 7" tablet is clearly more portable than a 10" tablet EVEN if you can find SOME cases where this increased portability doesn't matter as much.  There are many cases where this increased portability is desirable and very useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

You're agreeing with me. What would I refute?

I'm not agreeing with you.  You are trollishly twisting my words.  Are you fishing for an infraction?  Because if that's all you are doing I'll gladly call you an asshole and you can give me a point or a ban and be done with it because this reminds me of those asinine games that folks play in AO to get someone to step over the line and get a ban.

This is why mods should be seen and not heard.