Originally Posted by chadbag
Most people are not pushing the iPad CPU/GPU that hard at the moment anyway.
I believe Dick Applebaum's argument to be, at the very least, partially valid (and probably entirely so). I remember myself early benchmarks that intimated the same thing. So can (or have you, and I've missed it) you explain why you are ignoring his points?
But it would look mighty stupid to have an iPhone with Lightning but no iPad companion for it.
And to make it compelling and look like a reasonable update, and because they can, they put the A6 (in A6X guise)
Nope. Try again. There was no "guise". There is no "make it look". A6X is an A6 with far better graphics. It's no different than variances within a single family of Intel chips, for example.
The iPad 2 is an existing product. Putting Lightning on that makes no sense.
Really? That's funny. So why did it "make sense" to put Lightning on the "existing product" that was the iPad 3? Because according to you, the iPad 4 is just a gussied up iPad 3, pushed out with (and for the sole purpose of) a new connector.
Why didn't Apple update their entire computer line simultaneously when they started shipping Thunderbolt? They must have looked "really stupid" making available a laptop with the new port when you couldn't buy a desktop with the same. You can say this about any feature, you know; 802.11n, Bluetooth 4.0…
And iPod Classic? Really? Is this a serious question?
Yes, as it is not the "old product" and has no "coverage" otherwise. Every modern model of iPod received Lightning except for it. Why, if Lighting was the "only reason" for the update?
If you look at Apple's MO, they update the product line (iOS line) once a year. iPhone once a year. iPad once a year (I bet we don't see an iPad mini until Fall and a large format iPad in the Spring…
Thing about Apple is: they like to keep people guessing. I'd've said the exact same until the most recent event (in fact, I absolutely did ). Now, what with that having been a 6 month update (and a proper, full update, despite what some pretend), I don't think we can say they're still on the one-per-year cycle anymore. At least until we have more than one data point with which to play.
…it is a lot easier to manage once a year transitions. It is less confusing for the customer and the customer does not put of purchases wondering if a new better device is coming out, and it allows them to realize better margins (and hence better average margins over the lifetime of a given product). But in general I expect Apple to keep on the same MO they had been since the iPhone and iPad came out with about yearly updates to each device. It makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, a resource expenditure standpoint, a profit and margin standpoint, and an inventory control standpoint.
I'm in total agreement! I think the one-per-year strategy, in the face of their competitors churning out all the crap they possibly can every three months, is the best strategy. But again, they could very well be changing that. We can't know yet.