or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple launches new high-capacity 128GB Retina display iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple launches new high-capacity 128GB Retina display iPad - Page 5

post #161 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I have a 64GB iPad and I use like 4GB. I've done this every time because "it's just $100 and what if i need that space" I tell myself. They've got me where they want me.

 

4GB?  That's like 4 of my kid's games.

post #162 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCProfessor View Post

O.K. not being sarcastic, then teach me. Maybe the cards and cloud are slower and screws with the file management system. But at 43, I don't care about running PacMan v. 157 requiring 15GB (that's poor sarcasm). 

 

I guess the philosophical issue is 128 to 256 to 512... When does it stop? I was critical when Jobs and Apple dropped 3.5 drives, CDs, DVDs and so on. But the logic is sound and should apply to memory as well. Execute a flawless icloud system that can interface with other OSs, and memory becomes wasted plastic. The same could be said of displays. Why do I have to look at my iPad to get the content. Why can't my car navi or TV or a projection on a wall give me content?

Bolded part isn't happening unless LTE access becomes unimaginably cheaper. Yes wifi works but this is inherently a mobile device and people want their data on the go and don't want to kill their data plans for it. iCloud is not meant to be a replacement for storage from Apple's side (would have to start charging high service fees on more storage per user) or from the consumer's side (previously stated data plan limits). It is to work in conjunction. People need to come to that realization.

You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #163 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

I didn't mean anything personal by the snobery comment and I hope you didn't take too much offence.  I would say this is definitely not a use that most people want or care about though so to me it's still not a good reason for keeping the classic around given that so few people would actually want to do this.  

No worries-nothing personal taken. My reply simply was to argue that the home music server use case is not fringe. Many people, myself included, appreciate the the Classic's ability to serve as a simple-to-use, familiar music server for a home audio system or with portable speakers. I have been to many homes and offices where the Classic does the heavy lifting of a complete music server. Far fewer people, in my experience, want to fiddle with desktop iTunes/NAS/media server/Mac mini simply to access content from their iTunes music library.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #164 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Medical images is another need for large storage.  A couple of the most interesting uses suggested by Apple were 3D CAD and Drafting/Blueprints...

I found it interesting in the Apple announcement that they highlighted three business use examples:

 

AutoCad, music recording, and football. The football example I get because you are on the sidelines watching the video taken in the previous plays of the day. 

 

 

The AutoCad and music examples have me baffled. If you are at a construction site it might make sense to be able to view the plans on an iPad but why on earth would you make edits to them? All edits to the building CAD files should be done back at the architect's office on the master copy otherwise you have multiple versions floating around. The music one is nonsensical to me as well because in order to do professional recording you need a truck load of equipment like mics, stands, cords, instruments, etc. Why is a small portable device like an iPad a benefit when you are toting around a drum kit and a piano? You would probably be better off with the full desktop version of the app on a MBP

 

 

On the drafting, consider:

  • The contractor is on the construction site
  • Likely, there is no reliable WiFi or cellular available
  • It is a hostile or cumbersome environment for a laptop
  • The architect, builder and/or client detects that changes are necessary

 

Today, the architect will likely pull out his [hopefully] up-to-date copy of the blueprints and draw some lines and annotations describing the changes.  Later, these hard copy blueprints are taken back to the office where they are used to update the master copy and 3D renderings.  The updated "prints" and 3D renderings are returned to the site for builder and client review. This may take several days -- especially if the site is remote... and there is no guarantee that the changes will be acceptable.

 

Now, if the architect could update the "prints" immediately, on site, and generate a 3D rendering -- he could assure that changes will satisfy the builder and the client before updating the master prints and eliminate the [possibly unsuccessful] turn around delay.

 

It is kind of interesting that after many years absence, AutoDesk has returned to the Mac and has some iPad apps:

 

'Our AutoCAD WS app for iOS was designed to give customers seamless access to their designs anywhere, anytime," Amy Bunszel, vice president of AutoCAD products for Autodesk, said in a statement. "These files are often large and highly detailed, so having [extra capacity] is a real advantage for iPad users to view, edit and share their AutoCAD data.'

 

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/128gb-ipad-from-myth-to-reality-in-24-hours/

 

 

On the music:

 

iPads are currently being used as musical instruments, sheet music display, music composition, mixer controllers, instrument effects controllers/generators, and editing the music.

 

Some of these things can be done better on a laptop, but many of them can only be done on an iPad.

 

Quote:

Edit: Also I forgot to mention that in almost every medical image setting you store the images on a server (PACS) and use an app to view them instead of saving them to the computer/iPad. In some instances we do share the images as a runtime Windows executable for doctors who don't have the native application, but in that case it doesn't run on an iPad anyway. It might make sense to save png files if you were going to make some Keynote presentations which included clinical cases but otherwise the large tiff of bmp files stay on the server. There is one nice Mac/iPad x-ray viewer. http://www.osirix-viewer.com

 

I think the iPad use for doctors is mainly for patient interaction during rounds or office visits.  It may be practical to interact with the patient with lower resolution images than necessary for diagnosis.  As needed these could be streamed to the iPad.  Keep in mind that the iPad retina can display 2K (and even 4K) images and video.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #165 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

And the MBA has anywhere from 103GB to 113GB left on a 128GB SSD.

That means the MBA has less usable space than this new iPad. Hopefully this node jump means 256GB will be the minimum standard for Macs at the next release.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The iPad mini screams for the cellular modem.  I bet a good number of LTE iPad minis sold.

I bet that's a big part of it. Plus, at $429 and $529 I don't think it's as hard to sell the higher capacity iPad mini to customers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

4GB?  That's like 4 of my kid's games.

Yep. I even keep my TomTom app on it. I have no music. I have about 1.5GB in books. If I think I might want some video I'll move them over but that's rare. Perhaps that will change once I get my iMac and my iPad becomes my goto portable computer.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #166 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

So you are using the Apogee mic for an acoustical guitar? I have an electric guitar. The only recording I have done was with a band where we mic everything. I suppose the Apogee works for a single instrument but wouldn't you need at least one more mic if you were doing singer songwriter stuff? And you are carrying around a mic stand and headphones, cables and stuff. It starts to add up to a lot of gear. I'm happy it works for you. I built a studio in my basement a number of years ago with sound proofing etc, but I don't play much anymore.

 

I don't play a single instrument and my singing could be compared to a cat in heat. I used those items as an example of what someone COULD do.

 

I've worked as a studio and FOH engineer for many years and have used everything from portable 4 channel mixers up to the big consoles from Midas or SSL. You use what works for the task at hand. I laugh when I come across "recording snobs" who think in-expensive gear is somehow useless. Everyone starts somewhere, and right now the iPad is the best thing out there for budding musicians who want to get into recording. It's also very useful for professionals.

 

Years ago musicians used to carry around cheap portable tape recorders (some even carried those office memo recorders). If you had an idea while on the road you could quickly record something. The quality was horrible,but it was enough so that when you went into the studio you had something to listen to from that late night recording you made when you had some "creative spark". Today the iPad is ideal for this. People laugh at Garageband but they completely miss the point. You're not going to record a song with Garageband, but it's ideal for laying down a few tracks and making up a quick demo of an idea you had. It's like the old tape recorder x1000.

 

The App they talked about during the announcement was Auria. I bought it for my kids who, unlike me, are very musically talented. I also got them a few other items this Christmas for recording with the iPad. They are 6 and 9 years old and they already understand the concepts of multitrack recording. They'll record piano first. Then they'll sing along and if they make mistakes they know how to go back and re-record the part they messed up. Then they might add some percussion or bass. They play with levels to make it sound good. They try out reverb and effects. Then they mix it all together to produce the final song. Now I've got them learning about MIDI and they're experimenting with using a MIDI controller/keyboard with Animoog, iPolysix and iMS-20. Free from any pre-concieved ideas they're coming up with some pretty cool stuff.

 

I suggest anyone interested check out the Youtube reviews of Auria to see what it can do. Or check out all the Audiobus videos to see how people are multitasking several Apps at once to produce recordings on the iPad. But don't bother if you hate Apple/love Android. You'll ikely be dis-appointed at just how much you can do with an iPad.

post #167 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCProfessor View Post

[...] Execute a flawless icloud system that can interface with other OSs, and memory becomes wasted plastic.

 

I can see how a cloud system might mitigate storage requirements somewhat, but it doesn't reduce the amount of memory the system needs to run efficiently. I don't understand that statement.

 

As for storage, there are a couple reasons I'd still rather have lots on-board.

 

First, I spend most of my life in places where WiFi is not available and cell data is weak, slow and intermittent. Cloud storage is simply not accessible most of the time. That's probably not true for most people, but I'll bet a lot of people, especially those not living in major cities, face slow and/or periodically inaccessible cloud storage.

 

Second, I pay once for on-board storage. Cloud access costs me money every time I use it, because I pay for the data traffic required to constantly retrieve files from the server.

 

Even in cases where online access is not an issue there's still the issue of time spent waiting for larger files to download.

 

I very much appreciate the cloud as a means of convenient device sync when a signal is available, but not as a substitute for the reliability and speed of having what I want or need on-hand when I want or need it.

post #168 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

The App they talked about during the announcement was Auria. 

Auria is a nice app, I have it.

post #169 of 240

With 812.11ac coming along this year, I can see a big push into the living room with a 128 GB iPad. The 128 GB iPad, with faster Airport routers serving that content to the Apple TV makes it very, very easy to order that TV episode while on the sofa thinking of what to watch. The value proposition of that TV series become more compelling when it is always right there with you.

 

Yes, Apple may intend TV content to be stored in the cloud, but primarily on iDevices. But there will be no larger capacity Apple TV. There will be better Airplay and Airplay Mirroring, etc from local storage. My bet is Apple is going hard with a vision of television that includes few native Apple TV apps, no significant local content storage on the Apple TV, and no actual TV monitor.

 

They want faster Wifi for better networked iPads, iPhones, and iPods-all to easily consume even more iTunes content. You want Season 1 of Girls? Buy it and store it on your iPad, watch it on the plane or train, and finish it at home over Wifi. It's really not about TV; it's about an end-to-end home media service via Apple TV, portable devices, iCloud, and superfast wireless routers.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #170 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

But don't bother if you hate Apple/love Android. You'll ikely be dis-appointed at just how much you can do with an iPad.

That is true. Android can not do music at all. There is this horrible and disgusting latency which exists in Android, making it totally unusable for musical purposes.

post #171 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mesomorphicman View Post

Sooooo... are they still going to release an iPad "5" in April or so, or does this news eliminate that possibility and the iPad "5" will in October-ish? Now, I'm confused if I should wait for April or just buy now cuz the "5" isn't for 8-9 months! Any thoughts or insight from anyone? Thanks.

Secondly, I hope the iPad "5" they do some innovation on the OS this year, spruce up multi-tasking, add some new features -- not just make it thinner with changed corners and new back.

If I were to ask you what you expect in a new iOS software release, what would you say? You already know the answer to the multitasking question ("No"), so what "new features" do you want? Do you expect change for the sake of change, new for the sake of new? I mean, as consumers we're taught to expect "New and Improved!" on everything, including our laundry detergent.

 

First, the answer to the multitasking question is "yes"... the user's ability to participate in multitasking is what is limited.  There are system background tasks running all the time.  There are some situations where user apps can multitask to an extent.

 

I can see Apple:

  • easing the restriction on some types of multitasking
  • expanding inter-app communication and execution
  • adding a more accessible file system while preserving transparency and ease of use
  • adding the ability to share files among apps
  • adding more granular UI interface with an instant on/off loupe to allow usage of small controls, text, etc.
  • adding support for pressure sensitive stylus with "computed" higher resolution than available with a passive touch screen

 

Some of these things will open the iPad to much more robust apps for CAD, AV Editing, Drawing/Painting...

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #172 of 240
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post
I'm not sure I see a strong market for a 128GB iPad.

 

640k ought to be enough cliche for anyone.


…moving in the other direction with the lighter smaller iPad mini.

 

And how does this say anything about capacity?


Originally Posted by SCProfessor View Post

Fifty years from today, will a single device come closer to zero in memory or petabytes or fragments for each device (like phones, washing machines, etc,) that will into feed under a grand scheme of user needs/wants.

 

In 2050, we'll still be limited to 2GB a month. Nothing will change.

post #173 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickk28 View Post

Does anyone else find it really weird that no other site at all including apple's is even speaking of this? Legit much?

 

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/01/29Apple-Increases-iPad-with-Retina-Display-to-128GB.html

 

They just have not updated all their pages yet for whatever reason. 

post #174 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


If I were to ask you what you expect in a new iOS software release, what would you say? You already know the answer to the multitasking question ("No"), so what "new features" do you want? Do you expect change for the sake of change, new for the sake of new? I mean, as consumers we're taught to expect "New and Improved!" on everything, including our laundry detergent.

The iOS file structure or lack of it needs to be addressed.  When you have 100s or 1000s of pdfs, pictures etc.  you need to be able to organize them in a structured manner.   iBooks allows a few different categories but it isn't sufficient for large numbers of documents.  Adding another 64Gb of storage is only going to make it worse. 

post #175 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCProfessor View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

To stick it into a Samsung device? Realy, if you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND, well, then you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND.
 

O.K. not being sarcastic, then teach me. Maybe the cards and cloud are slower and screws with the file management system. But at 43, I don't care about running PacMan v. 157 requiring 15GB (that's poor sarcasm). 

 

I guess the philosophical issue is 128 to 256 to 512... When does it stop? I was critical when Jobs and Apple dropped 3.5 drives, CDs, DVDs and so on. But the logic is sound and should apply to memory as well. Execute a flawless icloud system that can interface with other OSs, and memory becomes wasted plastic. The same could be said of displays. Why do I have to look at my iPad to get the content. Why can't my car navi or TV or a projection on a wall give me content?

 

The SD cards are lower quality, slower and likely will wear out sooner.  Then there is the whole hassle of:

  • carrying around those pesky little cards in their little carrying cases
  • spanning/segmenting large files across multiple cards
  • storing and locating multiple small files on a single card
  • backup
  • creating, maintaining and storing some sort of index to keep track of all the bits and pieces stored on those cards

 

Anyway... the whole fiddliness of SD cards defeats the "grab and go" convenience of mobile devices, IMO.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 1/29/13 at 12:39pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #176 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I'm not sure I see a strong market for a 128GB iPad. Based at least on what sales are showing people seem to be moving in the other direction with the lighter smaller iPad mini. I'm not sure max storage is a factor with the iPad. I can't find the source however last year I read where the mid range 32gb iPad 3 was the most popular at the time of the survey with 49%.

I am sure numbers have shifted all over the place with the intro of the Mini and the iPad 4.

At that price point I don't see a huge market either but as you can see from this thread alone it's taking a good amount of the tech news today.

I think it's likely the new process node is being utilized and even if this just an attempt to pull attention from the Surface Pro that we will also likely see a doubling of capacity at the current price points for the next major iPad revision with the caveat that 16GB will not be on the iPad (5) so they can go back to the 3 tier capacity options.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #177 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

The SD cards are lower quality, slower and likely will wear out sooner.  Then there is the whole hassle of:

  • carrying around those pesky little cards in their little carrying cases
  • spanning/segmenting large files across multiple cards
  • storing and locating multiple small files on a single card
  • backup
  • creating, maintaining and storing some sort of index to keep track of all the bits and pieces stored on those cards

 

Anyway... the whole fiddliness of SD cards defeats the "grab and go" convenience of mobile devices, IMO.

SD cards significantly cheaper than what Apple charges for internal memory.  IIRC the ipad teardown gave the cost for the 16GB memory as $5 or there abouts so Apple could certainly reduce the price points for larger memory.  With reasonable priced internal memory the SD issue would largely go away.  The issue of file organization still exists with iOS.  SD cards do offer an easy way to keep data seperated by category bu,t if possible, changes to iOS would be the best way to address the current file system limitations.

post #178 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Now they need to increase iCloud storage from 5GB to at least 10GB.
Agreed.
Edited by THEMAC1NT0SH - 1/29/13 at 1:48pm
post #179 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

The SD cards are lower quality, slower and likely will wear out sooner.

 

You think? Recent generations of low-end pro / upper-end prosumer video cameras are moving to Class 10 SD for storage, and that's for 50Mb/s streams. The higher-end cameras still use dedicated systems like P2 and SxS, but it's starting to look like the trend is towards the cheap/small consumer formats. That makes me wonder how much of a speed and reliability loss there is compared to on-board storage.

 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

[...] Then there is the whole hassle of:

  • carrying around those pesky little cards in their little carrying cases
  • spanning/segmenting large files across multiple cards
  • storing and locating multiple small files on a single card
  • backup
  • creating, maintaining and storing some sort of index to keep track of all the bits and pieces stored on those cards

 

There's no reason to span across multiple cards, is there? One slot, one card. File management directs "system" files to on-board storage, user files to either on-board or removable. File indexing may add an additional layer of complexity but it can't be that daunting, is it?

 

Managing multiple small files shouldn't be any more or less difficult on removable storage than on built-in, right? Same with backup? Asks the guy with no understanding of file systems! :)

post #180 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

Jesus Christ. This is simply an additional capacity option for their current models. Apple isn't marketing this as the 5th gen iPad, nor did they make a keynote for it, it isn't even advertised on their fucking homepage. What exactly is it about the existence of this product that offends you? Were you expecting the iPad line to be completely overhauled silently in January, when it was last updated in October? The level of baseless, self-righteous faux outrage with you is nauseating. Next time Apple issues a a software bug fix for something, be sure to come here shrieking about the lack of innovation in the maintenance update. 

 

My point was for $400 dollars more, I'd expect a bit more than just 64 GB of cheap memory. 

 

I cannot wait until they release the Ipad 5 in March with pretty much the same hardware as the 4, but with much more rounded corners and a milimeter thinner, 1.5x the speed of its predecessor which the human eye can't tell, and call that a complete overhaul and innovation like the previous versions of all their gadgets.

post #181 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yojimbo007 View Post

Is there a market for this size? I thought i have a lot in my ipad 64.. Lots of map and games and other appl.. 700 songs and lots of pics.. Yet i only used 32gb...
Who would need 128... What kind of apps and usaage requiers this much storage?

My 64GB iOS devices are so chock full that I can't even hit "Update All" on the App Update page without it telling me I don't have enough space. I end up doing it in batches of 10 App updates at a time. And that's with just a fraction of my music, photos, and videos uploaded on them.

 

Can't wait for the 128GB (I'll sell off my 64GB).

post #182 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Wow. So much discussion over Apple offering more storageon the iPad.

 

 

Based on the number of comments I would have guessed this to be an article about Apple winning another case against Samsung.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

LOL!. You're right. I've no idea why a simple storage increase prompts over 130 posts in less than a day. Maybe nothing else to talk about?

By that token, you two sound like the real losers..... posting to say that there's not much about which to post!?lol.gif

post #183 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Have you noticed you often answer a question wiith a question? We are talking about real life application in 2013 when it comes to the iPad. If the most popular iPad sold is the 32gb model then what percentage of the population would benefit or consider buying a 128gb iPad? If you don't have at least an educated guess to that question then why bother replying?

"We believe 10-inch screen is minimum necessary."

I guy named Steve Jobs made the above quote and he is still the king at flip flopping. So we can cut Bill Gates some slack.


I never even remotely made the comment that no one would use 128gb on an iPad I simply stated that I don't see a large market for that amount of storage and I will add even more so at that price point.

Lets remember Apple still keeps the iPod Classic and I don't see that flying of the shelves hasn't been updated in 1238 days. Mac Pro that is so outdated it may actually only have 640k. So just because something is for sale doesn't mean it will sell well.

Fixed it for you.
post #184 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingChael View Post

 

My point was for $400 dollars more, I'd expect a bit more than just 64 GB of cheap memory. 

 

I cannot wait until they release the Ipad 5 in March with pretty much the same hardware as the 4, but with much more rounded corners and a milimeter thinner, 1.5x the speed of its predecessor which the human eye can't tell, and call that a complete overhaul and innovation like the previous versions of all their gadgets.

 

$799 - $499 = $299 and NOT $399

 

To your point it is $100 more for an additional 64 GB of memory....$699 for 64 GB model plus $100 for additional 64 GB = $799.

post #185 of 240
Well these now match my prediction that a new device would be released with IOS 6.1 . Hay it is good that 16 gb is being dropped and then 128 gb is coming.
post #186 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

$799 - $499 = $299 and NOT $399

Actually, it's neither, but never mind.

post #187 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxMacCary View Post



OK, I get that.

But will Apple be agiling the iPad 5 in March oder Oktober?

I mean this is the THIRD f***ing version of iPad 3 in less than a year!!!!

Can't they be putting all of that energy into a fourth generation iPad, FFS?!?

Jesus ....

I'm sick & f***ing tired of looking at my iPad 2 already ....

LET'S GO, APPLE!!!

1) It's not an iPad (3), it's an iPad (4).

2) If you can't stand your iPad 2 and neither the iPad (3) or (4) appeal to you then why would you expect any future models to be appealing? It seems that many who have newer iPads had older models that they enjoyed using hence their desire to upgrade.

3) Not sure about the rest of your comments but it all sounds a bit crazy.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #188 of 240

That is baloney.   The only reason to buy anything other than the base product is to get more storage, that is flash.   Any other point of view is just pandering to Apples marketing department or trying to rationalize a messed up pricing scheme.   

 

You can try to justify the tiering Apple has in place however you want but the fact remains you pay through the noise for tiny amounts of flash in Apples iOS devices.    Unless you get the cell option that is the only thing you are paying for.  You get nothing else, no extra RAM, same old processor and the same screen.   The only way to look at this is that you are buying flash at highly inflated prices. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You're not buying flash, you're buying a product.
post #189 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

640k ought to be enough cliche for anyone.

 

Historical note:    Gates never said that 640K was all anyone would ever need.  What happened was that many years later he was addressing a group of university students, and he was talking about how even the best planning sometimes went wrong. 

 

He told them that back when they were expanding the PC memory access, the planners had thought that increasing from 64K up to 640K would be enough for the next ten years.   As it turned out, he said, 640K was only good enough for about five years.   The story was meant as an amusing anecdote, but parts were taken out of context.  Still, it applies now to the iPad as well.  There's never enough memory :-)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

The SD cards are lower quality, slower and likely will wear out sooner.  Then there is the whole hassle of:

  • carrying around those pesky little cards in their little carrying cases
  • ...

 

As gwmac pointed out, nowadays most people just buy the extra memory to put in once and use it.   It's never taken out again, except perhaps to go into a newer device... or sometimes to plug directly into a computer to do a quicker transfer of all the data to a backup disk.

 

(If Apple tries to sell a far less expensive phone, I think this is the biggest issue they'll have.  People in the sub $200 phone market aren't going to pay a couple of hundred MORE dollars to Apple just to get a few tens of dollars' worth of memory.)

 

As to slower, not necessarily.  The internal NAND flash that Apple buys for its devices has transfer speeds from 10 to 50 MBps.  (I checked the data sheets.)  The Ultra High Speed microSD cards match that.

 

As for wearing out sooner, the NAND that Apple uses has only a 5,000 to 10,000 write cycle lifetime.  MicroSD cards match that, too.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Realy, if you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND, well, then you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND.

 

I can help describe some of the benefits of using built-in NAND to him.  The multi-million dollar electronic casino gaming system that we built back in the early 1990s used Flash memory chips.  I wrote the code to use them, and I've tried to keep up with the latest Flash controller news in case I ever go back into the embedded world.

 

  1. It was far, far easier for Apple's iOS developers to NOT have to deal with the situation where a card is removed or swapped, and that helps naive users as well.
  2. It was cheaper to build a device that didn't have a memory card socket.
  3. Apple could put boot code in a flash section and protect it, yet still change it later if wished.
  4. Back in 2007, it was probably faster to use onboard Flash.
  5. Apple already bought a ton of Flash for their iPods.  This just further leveraged that supply chain.
  6. Let's face it, it forces buyers to pay Apple huge amounts for the upgrade.

 

OTOH, it's a real pain and slow to make the CPU and OS spend a lot of time directly dealing with the onboard flash. Somewhere along the line, I'm not sure when, Apple added a flash controller to handle those chores. (MicroSD cards already have one.)

 

Anything else?

 

Cheers!

post #190 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxMacCary View Post

Wrong.
It's an iPad 3 [Retina Display+Lightning Port] with extra storage.
Apple themselves say there's nothing else different about it.
If your car had a bigger gastank, would you call it "next gen"?

If it had a new and improved engine I would… which is why it's an iPad (4) and not an iPad (3) with a new connector.
Quote:
Because, I expect iPad 5 [let's just call it that, OK?] to have the capability of iPad 3 plus a little bit more [advanced CPU & GPU]
minus the thickness & weight -- 2 setbacks that'll be cured by IGZO screens.

2) The iPad (4) has a more advanced ASIC but you've decided that it's not the 4th generation unless it's lighter and thinner. First of all, while those would be nice changes that is not what determines a generational change or you'd have to argue that the iPad (3) and (4) is generation 1.5 since it's weight and thickness is between the original and iPad 2. Secondly, you've contradicted yourself by saying you're waiting for the iPad 5 thus acknowledging it's the 4th gen iPad.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #191 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

That is baloney.   The only reason to buy anything other than the base product is to get more storage, that is flash.   Any other point of view is just pandering to Apples marketing department or trying to rationalize a messed up pricing scheme.   

You can try to justify the tiering Apple has in place however you want but the fact remains you pay through the noise for tiny amounts of flash in Apples iOS devices.    Unless you get the cell option that is the only thing you are paying for.  You get nothing else, no extra RAM, same old processor and the same screen.   The only way to look at this is that you are buying flash at highly inflated prices. 

Or, you're buying the cheaper models at highly reduced prices. Again, you're coming at this with the low-end model being some market ideal and everything else is just raping you. It's very simple. They sell a product called the iPad and they want to sell as many as possible for the higher APR and profit margin as possible. This means they need to stagger the models. It means the low-end makes less profit than the high-end.

If you honestly feel that a $20 (or whatever) cost difference is the only fair value then tell me why they should change the low-end 16GB model to be $749 so that there is a $20 stepping for each doubling of RAM? You can't because you've deemed that $499 is some magical fair price point which is absurd.


PS: If you none of that convinces you note that gwmac gave your last common a thumbs up. If that doesn't make you honk twice about your comment I don't know what will.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #192 of 240

Yeah what was wrong with the iDisk concept anyways?   iCloud works for some things ok but for the most part it is a big fail.  Of course it would help is Apples own iWork programs used the same files.    

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Better yet, go back to the old iDisk method where I can store ALL my data on iDisk and have it mirrored automatically to my hard disk.

Apple would do well to create a mirrored directory system across all devices.    One of the big problems with iOS is every app out there delivers a directory browser in a different way, this goes hand in hand with the mirroring and file handling issue.  Frankly the lack of a standard file browser even for app private files is a significant IOS short coming.  

post #193 of 240
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Historical note:    Gates never said that 640K was all anyone would ever need.  What happened was that many years later he was addressing a group of university students, and he was talking about how even the best planning sometimes went wrong. 

 

He told them that back when they were expanding the PC memory access, the planners had thought that increasing from 64K up to 640K would be enough for the next ten years.   As it turned out, he said, 640K was only good enough for about five years.   The story was meant as an amusing anecdote, but parts were taken out of context.  Still, it applies now to the iPad as well.  There's never enough memory :-)

 

Thanks, but I said nothing about Bill Gates. Never even implied it. Nice try jamming that Pro-Anyone-But-Apple bias in there. 

 

We already have GatorGuy. We don't need another one.

post #194 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Thanks, but I said nothing about Bill Gates. Never even implied it. Nice try jamming that Pro-Anyone-But-Apple bias in there. 

 

Sorry if you were offended.

 

I wasn't trying to imply anything.  Just telling a interesting story, using your comment as a jumping off point.

 

You really need to get away from here more often.  People are NOT out to get you.

 

Well, okay, maybe some are 1biggrin.gif,  just not me.

post #195 of 240

You are having a really difficult time grasping this.   The base price isn't the issue, it is the excessively high  price you pay for extra flash.   You keep trying to turn this into a discussion about something it isn't about.  Frankly I don't know why, as Apples tiering makes the discussion pretty damn simple.   The simple reality is that 128 GB of flash, even in a SSD, isn't that expensive these days.     

 

If you don't believe me go over to newegg.com and price SSDs in the 128Gb range.  Many come in around $100.    That is for a complete drive at retail prices.   Now Apple will be sourcing the parts for far cheaper and more importantly they need fewer of those parts. 

 

Since you seemed tone preoccupied with the base machine price of $499, how much more do you think one should pay for a 128GB machine over that base price.   Keep in mind that manufactures are making a profit on the 128GB drives.    So what is it $599, $699 or something else.  

 

I'm not being unreasonable here, in fact I'd be the first to acknowledge that Apple is likely using the news technology flash chips to keep power usage in check.  This in and of itself would be more expensive so it might be worth $200.    So maybe that 128 GB iPad ought to sell in the +$700 range.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Or, you're buying the cheaper models at highly reduced prices. Again, you're coming at this with the low-end model being some market ideal and everything else is just raping you. It's very simple. They sell a product called the iPad and they want to sell as many as possible for the higher APR and profit margin as possible. This means they need to stagger the models. It means the low-end makes less profit than the high-end.

If you honestly feel that a $20 (or whatever) cost difference is the only fair value then tell me why they should change the low-end 16GB model to be $749 so that there is a $20 stepping for each doubling of RAM? You can't because you've deemed that $499 is some magical fair price point which is absurd.


PS: If you none of that convinces you note that gwmac gave your last common a thumbs up. If that doesn't make you honk twice about your comment I don't know what will.

It really doesn't matter who agrees with me, the defect is on your end.   You really need to reflect on this a bit and ask yourself why you should put up with such a fleecing.   The way I see it, this is an example of Apple making the same position mistakes that they made in the past with the Mac.    Mistakes that Cook and company have public ally stated that they would not repeat.  

 

This is a huge problem and frankly any investor should be seriously worried that Apple will position themselves in such a way that the competition will have freedom of operation against them.  Gouging will quickly lead to customers looking elsewhere even if they have to compromise on functionality.  At that point Apple will find themselves repeating history wondering why only a few Apple zealots are buying their hardware.  

 

When the iPad originally came out Apple literally broke the mold and priced the machine aggressively based on the technology of the day.    Time has passed now and frankly technology has marched on, the iPads should have been updated flash capacity wise by now to reflect the fact that more capacity is available at a reasonable price.  This simply to maintain the market aggressiveness they started out with.  

post #196 of 240
@ wizard69,

One last time. Why do you think the $499 16GB model is the ideal for their profit margin and APR that anything else is just price gouging? If you can correctly answer that you may finally understand warped your thinking is on this.

This is basic economics. You have so many items to sell within a range and you divvy up your product to maximize sales. The low-end end brings in less profit than desired but you make it up at the high-end. The end result is the product has an overall desired effect so long as the high-end isn't too far away from or too close to the low end to get too many going to the top tier or too few.

If you can show me one earnings report where Apple has broken the iPad segment by different capacity models I'll lay off you for saying they are ripping you off, price gouging, ass raping or whatever other color terms you want to use to describe the most common thing in business for selling a tiered product.
Edited by SolipsismX - 1/29/13 at 4:02pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #197 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It really doesn't matter who agrees with me, the defect is on your end.   You really need to reflect on this a bit and ask yourself why you should put up with such a fleecing.   The way I see it, this is an example of Apple making the same position mistakes that they made in the past with the Mac.    Mistakes that Cook and company have public ally stated that they would not repeat.  

 

This is a huge problem and frankly any investor should be seriously worried that Apple will position themselves in such a way that the competition will have freedom of operation against them.  Gouging will quickly lead to customers looking elsewhere even if they have to compromise on functionality.  At that point Apple will find themselves repeating history wondering why only a few Apple zealots are buying their hardware.  

 

When the iPad originally came out Apple literally broke the mold and priced the machine aggressively based on the technology of the day.    Time has passed now and frankly technology has marched on, the iPads should have been updated flash capacity wise by now to reflect the fact that more capacity is available at a reasonable price.  This simply to maintain the market aggressiveness they started out with.  

 

The line up is carefully positioned to provide a low cost option with too little flash memory for the upsell to the mid tier model.  Folks that need a lot more than that pay a lot more vs the base model although proportionally less per GB.  The lowest cost model pushes the price umbrella down as much as Apple is willing to do.  The 128GB model is priced sufficiently well that any MBA cannibalization is not of any concern.  It also provides a higher top end model for folks who need the space for work and are less price conscious.  

 

I have no idea why you think this is a huge problem given they are supply constrained.  If they weren't supply constrained then you could make the argument that the products are priced too high.

 

I also have no idea why you think you know product positioning better than Cook.  This isn't the 90s, Apple is executing pretty well with the exception of the iMacs.

post #198 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

@ wizard69,

One last time. Why do you think the $499 16GB model is the ideal for their profit margin and APR that anything else is just price gouging?

 

If you mean ASP then I agree.  $499 probably gets them the margins they want but not the ASPs.  Moving the base iPad to 32GB has a negative effect on ASPs because 16GB is simply too small for today where games and textbooks weigh in at 2GB+ a shot.   32GB is reasonable enough that a lot of folks won't spring for a $599 64GB model.

 

$499 is the best value followed by $699.  I bought the $599 one (actually the $729 verizon one).

post #199 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlm8283 View Post

128 GB is great, but the cost is gonna keep me away. I can afford it don't get me wrong, but why pay for something that in about 6 months it will be obsolete with the new new iPad.

That's a humble brag -- don't worry we won't get you wrong, we all know you're financially set. Guess you never buy a new car or TV or anything, what's the point they'll just have a new model or upgrade out in 6-10 months. And it'll be obsolete - not allowing anyone to use it - it'll just lock and never work again.
post #200 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

I guess it was obvious that the very first moment the iPod touches reached the same capacity as the Classic, that some other excuse would pop up.  1rolleyes.gif

 

- the iPod classic will never be updated with SSD

- they will never really make another Volkswagen Beetle

- Vinyl records won't be making a comeback

- Bluejeans have actually been out of style for many years. 

 

In short, nothing is forever. 

They are making another Volkswagen Beetle…

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/beetle-nf/home?ppc=vw+beetle

Vinyl records have made a comeback…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577184973290800632.html

And denim jeans are a timeless style icon…

http://en.vogue.fr/fashion/fashion-inspiration/diaporama/style-icons-jeans/7804

Apart from that, good points 1wink.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple launches new high-capacity 128GB Retina display iPad