Rumored 'iPad mini' event to focus on iBooks, report says - Page 3

I never said Apple focuses on spec sheet. But I do think they care about specs in the sense of wanting to create the best product possible. Hey if they can build an 8" tablet with a superior display but lower ppi then I have no problem with that, my concern is building something inferior so they can meet a lower price point and still achieve decent margins. To me Apple competing in a race to the bottom is a mistake.

People might not care about the marketing term retina but they know what they see. If you give someone a retina display device for a week and then force them to go back to a non retina screen they'll certainly know the difference. My parents have a flat screen TV but just a basic cable package. One day they happened to stumble across some HD channels they didn't know they had. Needless to say the only time they watch a SD channel is if there isn't an HD equivalent available.

Whether you realize it or not that was your implication when you ignored the user experience for a given price point.

Tell us all the specs, including weight and price you expect to see. Also include how you think Apple can achieve some of the more magical things you've implied for which I think are highly unrealistic. Make your case.

All im saying is a smaller iPad needs to have as good as or better display than Fire or Nexus 7. Unless they're reslly going to do something radical in this space. But somehow I doubt that. A smaller iPad 2 is just "meh" as far as I'm concerned. It's then basically a defensive product, a Apple is worried about $199 tablets, a product that's about meeting a low price but maintaining margins, not about creating a better product in that space.

 

You are actually arguing that if it doesn't come up to the defined level of a Retina PPI that absolutely no one on the planet will "love the screen" when they pick up the device?  Absolutely ridiculous. 

 

You also missed my main point which is that I have direct experience of exactly the *opposite* of your third claim above.  I know lots of people who use an older iPhone or iPad with the supposedly awful screens, who are as I said, completely aware of the devices around them with "better" screens (because all their friends have iPhone 4 or 4s, duh!), and don't care.  Some of these people actually think the screens (on their supposedly crappy devices) are "beautiful," and in fact they are.   

 

Retina is overplayed IMO.  I see people all the time with $3,000 plus Retina MacBooks and you know what?  They look slightly better than a regular screen.  The main effect is that the dock icons look extra sharp (unless it's an old app then it looks like crap).  

 

Obviously if you can get a Retina screen instead of a non-retina one, why not?  But people salivate over them like dogs without even thinking if they are actually going to be useful or if it really matters that much to their computing experience.  A lot of people would probably fail to even detect which screen was "Retina" in a side by side comparison.  

I'm not ignoring user experience. But both the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7 received very good reviews. People i know that own the Nexus 7 like it a lot. Apple has competition in this space. I think Apple either has to not worry about price and make a truly superior product, or if they are concerned about price then be willing to take a hit on margins so they can offer a superior product at a lower price point. Of course Wall Street would hate that idea.

 

That's only because it's not what I'm arguing and in no way can that be inferred from what I've said.

 

Aware ≠ ownership and use. More often than not you'll see hold-outs upgrade and wonder weeks later why they were foolish enough to have thought they didn't need or want what they have now.

 

 

So… do you know at all why retina is happening?

 

I doubt that, but that's me.

I love my rMBP. I can tell you one benefit that is dramatically better than my previous MBP.

 

When I travel I often need to VNC into my office desktop which has a 30" cinema. On the old MBP you had to zoom in and pan around to be able to read the text on the screen because the cinema has so much higher resolution. With the new retina screen the text is legible even when zoomed out. It really makes a big difference in being able to complete a task without a risk that you might make a mistake because you can't read the text clearly enough.

 

I realize this is an unusual circumstance but the screen really is a pleasure to work with in all normal usages as well. 

 

I think is time for a car analogy: BMW vs Chevrolet. Both nice cars but the BMW has just a better fit and finish, better handling and more luxury. They both get you to and from the grocery store although you get more exercise with the BMW because you park it at the far end of the parking lot.

That is something I think of whenever I log in remotely to work machines on my 13" MBP. It's not a good experience at all. I think people don't realize just how much better 2x the resolution, 4x the pixels, better color gamut, and IPS instead of TN does for a display.

 

Apple doesn't need 163ppi panels anymore unless they explicitly choose to use that resolution for iPad Air. For reasons you mentioned and others, that is a practical decision. But redirecting the 163ppi production capacity to 326 ppi may have its merits. I say with some reservation because 326 ppi does seem unnecessarily high.

 

 

But you are ignoring one perspective - if they really believe the iPad Air will sell 10M in the Christmas quarter and, say, 20 M in the other three quarters, then they may be able to decrease costs of 326 ppi panels because of increase production volume and (potentially) efficiency. That could lead to greater margins for iPhone 4, 4S and 5. In theory, that's a net gain for Apple if they have make zero profit off the iPad Air (but I am not for a moment suggesting they will not profit from this).

 

 

Cost is an issue and I do not have a good answer except, to repeat, this can increase margins for iPhone 5, etc. As for weight, consider this: The Retina Display iPad has a mass of 650g, just 37g more than the non-RP iPad 2, and 30g less than the original iPad. Furthermore, the iPhone gained all of 2g when it went from the non-RP 3GS to the RP version 4. The arithmetic is nonlinear but it is clear that there is no history or simple formula that says weight must increase significantly with Retina Display. So I believe there are good arguments to say that 326 ppi is indeed feasible. But perhaps it's not likely.

 

Finally, the 7.85" rumor originated from the assumed use of 163ppi panels. With the ceased production of 3GS, I believe the foundation of that rumor is weakened.

 

But, as I said, the strongest case seems to be 163ppi. This does make the iPad Air resolution noticeably lower than others out of the gate, which is an uncommon tactic for Apple, even if we argue they are not a spec-driven company.

 

With all due respect, unless you have used the rMBP first hand for a period of time, you simply have no ground to stand on in arguing that the main benefit is better dock icons. That's just baseless.

I'm ignoring nothing and have previously addressed that issue. You're ignoring or nor realizing that there is a ceiling to economies of scale and if you force this mthical 326 PPI 2048x1536 display on the rumoured iPad mini you will increased costs across the board. You get the highly profitable iPhone which is mostly paid by carriers when subsidized now being put on this iPad mini with a much lower yield rate because it's 4.27x larger and you need more machines to produce them which can be problematic if you are already getting all viable vendors making the machines that to supply enough displays. You make it sound as if Apple can pull a lever and they can simply speed up some conveyer belt in a Wonka factory. The reality simply isn't like that.

Take the original iPad display. Why did they use the 132 PPI display when they were already using 163 PPI displays for years*. If your hypothesis is correct they would have simply cut larger panels of the 18% higher pixel density iPhone displays rather than using the lower resolution display that came with the iPad. The GPU could have handled 18% more pixels if they made it the same, 9.7" size or they could have made it 7.85". The path is much different for the clear reasons stated previously.

Again, they gain nothing by having to short their iPhone 5 production to push the quoted 10 million units of iPad minis this quarter. That's 42.7 million iPhone 5 displays!!!! If they are short on iPhone 5 displays now what makes you think they can produce ones that are 4.27x the size at a rate of 10 million for their first quarter. This makes absolutely no sense from a logistical standpoint. "We can't produce enough of these so let's create new products that use them to cut down on price." Do you work for the gov't?

So Apple invested in all this tech and you think it's cheaper for them to send the machines off for scraps instead of leveraging their investments and expertise? That makes no sense.

* I asked you or someone else a series of questions earlier to get the ol' grey matter thinking but I didn't get any replies. Here's another one: If Apple wouldn't go with a lesser PPI then when why did the 2010 iPad have a lower PPI than the 2007 iPhone?

I conceded some points and proposed others that are quite reasonable. You are assuming that they are short on iPhone 5 displays - i.e. you pay credence to rumors that support your point but heap disdain on others that conflict with your view. Regardless, if unjustified condescension is required for you to emphasize your points, then they are pointless.

Anything with a smaller screen then a iPad would be a pain to read on. 

You might be on to something there. I've recently had a look at the iFixit breakdown of the new iPod Touch, where they mention that the display (while having the same 326ppi as the iPhone 5) is a much simpler and cheaper unit. So why not use a scaled up version of that cheaper display at the iPad (3) 264ppi for the iPad Mini. High-res enough to compete with the latest near-retina displays of the latest Amazon and Barnes & Noble tablets, yet still relatively cheap to produce.

You remind me of the way people were talking before the first iPad came out. They couldn't imagine what it would be good for. The favorite word at the time, before it came out, was my least favorite word in recent history, the most narcissistic word in all history: "meh."

Who cares if YOU are not impressed by the IDEA of a particular device? Do you think your discriminatory powers are so much better than Ive's or Schiller's or Cook's or Apple's that your limp-wristed "meh" has any meaning to the world?

Actually it does have meaning to the world. It's depressing. Depressing that you don't remember that they can pull stuff off that YOU will never dream of from your position as an basement product strategist. Of course they're going to do something radical in this space.

Isn't that what Tim Cook said? "We're going to innovate like crazy in this space."

You are forgetting the parent market, the kid market, the school market, the purse and jacket market, the China market. You are only remembering the yuppie "I want my retina" market.

 

And you're forgetting the "expectation of quality" market.

 

All the ones you've listed are either nonexistent or can be filled by the iPad as it is. 

I totally agree with this. And this is the heart of your point which is getting lost in semantics and rumored specs.

Lest we forget there is no evidence for any of the specs being tossed around. 7.85", 163 ppi? It all sounds convincing if any of it were true. Whatever the actual specs end up being, it's inconsequential as long as the screen looks more "gorgeous" than the other tablets available in that space.

Bottom line, Apple has a stated a philosophy of not competing in the low-end market space unless they feel they can offer something superior to what's already there.

The iPad was dismissed as a big iPhone, until people used it and realized it was anything but. But the 7" tablet already exists, and Apple panned it well before any hit the streets. Now perhaps Apple has had a change of heart since Jobs died, but more likely Apple will look to offer something none of us has thought of, thus once again leaving their competition scrambling. I mean why else would eh do it?

Almost everyone is discussing this thing like a low end iPad or a big iPod Touch, an assumption based on its similarity to those devices, but seemingly forgetting that even though the iPad looked like a big iPhone, it ended up being revolutionary. So I seriously doubt Apple would make this fundamental mistake with a 7" tablet in a power grab to be the king of the bargain bin. if all Apple is doing is creating a the best looking 7" tablet on the market and using the sucess of the iPad to leverage their dominance in the market, well putting lipstick on a pig is still a pig, and that's simply not Apple's M.O.
Edited by Mac_128 - 10/13/12 at 2:31pm

Um, Jony Ive has said on numerous occasions that Apple's philosophy is to make the best possible products they can. How is making a smaller iPad that is inferior to other products on the market making the best product they can? I'm not arguing against a smaller iPad, I'm arguing against a smaller iPad that is a compromise in order to reach a certain price point but yet still have healthy margins. If Apple can't make a device that is better than the Kindle Fire HD or Nexus 7 (and I'm using those as benchmark because they're the best reviewed/selling smaller tablets out there) then they should abandon the idea all together.

Exactly. Here Apple is entering a market where there are products that don't suck, so "good enough" won't necessarily be better than what's out there.

And yet you still haven't answered my question as why the iPod Touch which ships well after the iPhone has repeatedly had such inferior components despite your claims that Apple has to trump itself with disparate product releases. You haven't answered my question as to why the iPad only had a 132 PPI display in 2010 despite the 2007 iPhone had 163 PPI display.

Making a baseless statement but then ignoring all the evidence that goes against your statement isn't being reasonable or objective. There are plenty of arguments one could make to support your "idea"of an iPad mini but nothing you've argued backs that up in any regard.
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/13/12 at 6:29pm

Hey checkout my video on it where i basically give a few specs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwiNJudAp2Q

Biggest reason is, the iPod Touch is part of the iPod line up not part of the iPhone line up. iPod Touch = $299, iPhone  = $650 (approx) . That should explain it well enough. In the case of the iPad mini if it is indeed part of the iPad line up it should share similarities with the other models in that category. For example when you look at the MBP you see only differences in CPU speed, screen size, memory and storage not a completely different architecture.

Edited by mstone - 10/13/12 at 7:18pm

I don't care about what Apple has done in the past. I don't care about the iPod vs. the iPhone. I'm not talking about Apple trumping itself. It's obvious why the iPod touch is inferior to the iPhone. I wouldn't expect a smaller iPad to be superior to its bigger brother. But if Apple releases a smaller iPad it will be compared to the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7. Those are the devices I think it needs to best. Both of them have received quite good reviews and the Nexus 7 supposedly has had decent sales. When the first iPad came out there really wasn't any competition, it was basically a new category. In the smaller tablet space there is competition. I wouldn't think it terribly difficult for Apple to build a smaller iPad that bests the competition, I don't think they'd get into that space if they didn't think they could do something better.

64G iPod touch is 399 USD. 64G unlocked iPhone is $849. Obviously the iPod touch will be a step below the iPhone. Especially since, as you say it's not part of the iPhone family. I would assume a smaller iPad would be part of the iPad family as thus should be spec'd accordingly.

It doesn't because the comments were very clear about Apple having to make a lesser product be better than a larger one in every way. We don't even see that within the history of the iPod.

So you think it should be similar in price? It should have similar PPI and resolution (which then means it has a similar display size)? You have take some things away for it to fit within the requirements for that device. Surely you know that. If they want it to be 7.85" it will have a 163 PPI display in 2012.


You absolutely do care what they have done in the past because your comments have stated (incorrectly) that they wont make it a certain way because of what they have done in the past. You can't have it both ways.

Since when has Apple focused on trumping a competitor in raw specs over user experience? The iPad has a "watered down OS" that surely meant it was doomed. The iPhone had "no physical keyboard" which surely meant it was doomed. None have a removable battery or SD card slot which surely meant they were doomed. And on and on and on and on.

The bottom line is you can't look at the PPI of the Kindle Fire and say that Apple will offer the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 resolution just because that is already on the market. It doesn't work that way! You or someone else has stated that they can simply make more displays which will make it cheaper. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

Whatever idea you et al. have for a smaller Apple tablet what has been stated in these recent threads are not viable. I have no personal interest in the smaller, cheaper iPad (nor a smaller, grossly more expensive iPad as some have stated based on the specs they expect) but I do see how Apple can leverage their investments and skill sets to make a competitive tablet with the 163 PPI displays that will effectively close out the bottom end of the market from gaining any real traction.

And the iPod mini came out after the iPod (Classic) and it was inferior in capacity, performance, screen resolution, etc. and yet only $50 cheaper. It's claim was that it was much smaller than the other iPod and it was a huge success despite the same arguments you and others have put forth as to why no one will want an iPod that can hold less songs than the very first iPod three years earlier in 2001.

This isn't difficult stuff to wrap your heads around. You simply can't put everything in the iPad (3) into 60% the display area 6 months later and not expect it to be considerably more expensive and thicker, and too heavy for its intended us.

I really don't think think you can extrapolate the characteristics of the iPod history or current iPod line up to make assumptions about the iPad line up. The iPod line has many various models so there is more allowance for diversity. Not so much with the iPad brand which is more adult oriented, they have one model. If they introduce another model that is completely different there will be consumer confusion. Perhaps over time they will get over it but at first introduction which is very important in the Christmas season there will be some indecisiveness which is not the desired response in this tight release timeframe.

I think that is the problem. You et al. are putting all the characteristics that Apple focused on for the original iPad into one that is rumoured to be designed for the lower end, education and business markets.

The only customer confusion I see would be to make the iPad mini with a 326 PPI 2048x1536 display that is the same performance as the iPad (3) and yet somehow in the same price ballpark but with lower margins. That would not only cause confusion but be a product travesty.


edit: What about the MBA? It wasn't faster than the MBP and yet came after it and it's a huge success that everyone is now following. It's also more expensive than the MBP for a given size and capacity despite the limited performance and feature set. Clearly Apple has released products that doesn't outs-pec another device in the same general category.
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/13/12 at 7:53pm

Who knows? Perhaps Tim inherited the RDF from Steve and they can make people believe less is more.

There is noting about the iPad mini rumours that are geared toward it being "more" than the iPad (3) in any way. I know we all want Apple to release something groundbreaking every day but they simply can't. Sometimes it's about releasing something smaller, cheaper, and simpler to capture the lower end of the market once the tech and saturation make it viable. As previously noted, we've seen them do this with the iPod line up.

You keep bringing up user experience. Well let me tell you as a user of an iPad the quality of the display is something I care about and I would consider that part of a superior user experience. In my opinion for a smaller iPad to be competitive (especially since there's a 99% chance it will be more expensive than Fire or Nexus 7) it has to have an equal or better display.

Also as I mentioned earlier the Nexus 7 has gotten very good reviews. I haven't seen one review that complained about the user experience. Both hardware and software got good reviews.

Maybe it's wrong or naive for me to want a product that people will see and go "Wow! Top that Google, Amazon!", but that's what I want. I think Apple can do it but I don't know if they will. The bean counters might decide to go the cheaper route assuming they can milk the iPad brand.

Then make an actual case that is very specific in detail as to how you think this device should be created and how it could be created to reach a price, performance, and profit margin range that is reasonable.

So far all you've implied is that the PPI has to be higher than the Nexus 7 without actually saying what being slightly lower will matter if the display tech is better, if the display is 40% larger and yet the device is overall lighter. I've very clearly stated why I think weight and cost are imperative to this product market if it's going to work and you've done nothing but imply things that would not only make it as expensive as the current iPad but more expensive.

Again I've said I think a smaller iPad would need to best the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7. I don't think that requires 3rd gen iPad specs does it? I fully expect the smaller iPad to be more expensive than either of those devices regardless of what the specs are. Apple will need to demonstrate why said device is worth an extra $50-$100. Now maybe they'll do it with a super thin and light design and amazing battery life. Or maybe the device will use the in cell technology they're using with the iPhone 5. Maybe it will be LTE. But it's going to need something to justify the higher price.

I don't care about ppi I care about what my eyes see on the screen. If Apple can build a device that has lower ppi but is visually equal or better than what's already out there than great. We already have that with iPhone 5 don't we? The S3, One X and Lumia 920 all have more ppi but iPhone 5 display is equal to or superior to all of them.

1) So now you're saying that Apple can use a lower PPI and offer a better user experience? Let me refresh what you have said previously, "You keep bringing up user experience. Well let me tell you as a user of an iPad the quality of the display is something I care about and I would consider that part of a superior user experience. In my opinion for a smaller iPad to be competitive (especially since there's a 99% chance it will be more expensive than Fire or Nexus 7) it has to have an equal or better display." Sure seems like you care about the raw specs over the user experience to me.

2) S3 as in the Samsung Galaxy SIII with the PenTile display with the RGBG subpixel layout? That's what you classify as superior?

You're right, I was forgetting about that expectation-of-quality market, which is us, who have had that category calibrated to newest iPhones and retina iPads and now retina Macbooks.. But this is not for them—us—it's for the people whom Eddy Cue saw would like this size.

So this device category is about "form factor." Apple is selling a size as their first feature, again. They've done it before with iPods. This time they are following someone else's first cheap exploitation of the size-market (out of tablet and ecosystem competition with Apple, notice). These first exploiters whom Apple is following became the bar-setters when it comes to price--Amazon and now Google—but that's not a bad thing for the intended mark—er, market—parents and "educators." The predicted market, that is.

No one knows how they'll sell this one, just like no one saw what the first iPad, the first cheap and usable, slick touch tablet, was before they defined it in their design and marketing. So marketing has become visible as part of the design process, and that means screens will now be calibrated to levels like Baby's First Screen for marketing (through device design) reasons. This is probably the Dick and Jane, first-reader screen.

But then there's the world-dominating Chinese market, which values small and artfully desgined devices, combined with the unspec-conscious but jewel-conscious aesthetic/utilitarian market. People will carry this as a note pad, fact-checker and reader, along with their phone, where they wouldn't carry an iPad: to dinner, to the Academy Awards, to the stupid game, the conference, where they would be embarrassed or afraid to carry an iPad for fear of leaving it at the table or the bar or the condiments counter at Starbucks.

They will make it jewel-like by comparison with the competition, watch. Game over. The size category is co-opted by precision case-making and its equivalent in software. It's all in the case and the software and the competence in connectivity at this point. The screen brilliance that comes as such a cost before the tooling for the size is paid for will have to wait. I wish not, but I expect it's true, It's about size and price and competence and tactile quality this time around, like with the first iPod in 2001. Or so it seems to me.
Edited by Flaneur - 10/14/12 at 3:39am

 

 

You need magnifier glass for sure

Um, did I not say that I thought the iPhone 5 display was equal or superior? For me display quality is part of the user experience. When I first got my new iPad the Nook app wasn't updated for retina. Reading books on it was a real pain. But once they upgraded their app it was a far superior experience.

That's what you think is EQUAL TO the iPhone 5 display?!