"Competition" isn't all it's cracked up to be. Since the introduction of the iPhone, perhaps even as far back as the original iPod, Apple hasn't been spending a whole lot of time thinking of "the competition". They've just focused on making the best products they can conceive of. At this stage in the game, "the competition" would be more of a distraction for Apple than a motivation to innovate.
I completely agree with this. Focusing too much on what the competition is doing narrows ones field of view. Keeping your eyes looking ahead instead of on the car in front is how the race is won.
Quote:
Apple has enough internal motivation to innovate--and that is the best kind of motivation.
Totally agree with this as well. As an educator, it is the ultimate goal to produce an intrinsically motivated learner. They have a greater potential to sustain life long learning.
I really can't believe that there are those that think that a 7" couldn't be usable or useful for some people.
As a poster mentioned above, maybe it would be used for only a subset of apps, like reading, a movie, a game... and please don't say it couldn't be used as an address book, calender, data aggregator, "organizer" of sorts. And who's to say you "couldn't" even call with it... thing BT headsets. Is it a phone?... is it a tablet?... it could be anything you want it to be.
BTW: Apple has some pretty clever engineers... what about user selectable, or per App resolution. Jeez, the thing already zooms everything else smooth as butter, I doubt UI element size would get in the way "if" Apple wanted to do this, and I'm fully confident they would come up with " forehead-slap" moment of, "how easy and elegant is that?!".
Give it time. As there are with MBP's and iPods, there's a size and price-point in Apple, Made in California, "Post-PC" mobile device... just for you.
I really can't believe that there are those that think that a 7" couldn't be usable or useful for some people.
As a poster mentioned above, maybe it would be used for only a subset of apps, like reading, a movie, a game... and please don't say it couldn't be used as an address book, calender, data aggregator, "organizer" of sorts. And who's to say you "couldn't" even call with it... thing BT headsets. Is it a phone?... is it a tablet?... it could be anything you want it to be.
BTW: Apple has some pretty clever engineers... what about user selectable, or per App resolution. Jeez, the thing already zooms everything else smooth as butter, I doubt UI element size would get in the way "if" Apple wanted to do this, and I'm fully confident they would come up with " forehead-slap" moment of, "how easy and elegant is that?!".
Give it time. As there are with MBP's and iPods, there's a size and price-point in Apple, Made in California, "Post-PC" mobile device... just for you.
So true. By some people's logic, Apple should only sell 17" MBPs, too! After all, it's just as portable as the 13" model because they both fit in briefcase.
Don't get me wrong, the 7" form factor will have a role to play in the future. But with Honeycomb closed off, Android developers and manufacturers falling over each other to come out with anything credible within lower price points, I don't see anything worthwhile coming out in the next six months.
The closing of the Android 3 source won't have any material impact on Android developers, it only removes the anti-Apple argument from FOSS fanatics.
Apple should release iPod Touch with 6-7" screen, then people will perceive 7" tablet as a... non-tablet.
Kill 2 birds with 1 stone IMO.
Maybe add an iPod Touch 5" - same resolution, same interface as the current iPod, just physically bigger. That would make all the on-screen elements bigger, which would be useful for older folks and others with diminished eyesight.
The problem with 7" is that it's too small to be useful, but too big to put in a pocket, unless you wear cargo pants. The same iPod interface elements on a 7" would just be too darn big, but 7" is too small to fit the iPad interface on - the elements would be too itty bitty to be useable.
In reality Apple will likely never make a 5, 6, 7, or 8 inch anything. They've already hit the sweet spots of screen size, and economies of scale are hampered any time you add one more variation.
So true. By some people's logic, Apple should only sell 17" MBPs, too! After all, it's just as portable as the 13" model because they both fit in briefcase.
As soon as apple releases a smaller tablet, those same people will say how brilliant the idea is.
I don't really care about "pocketable." But just because it doesn't fit in your pocket doesn't mean a smaller sized iPad (or larger Touch) isn't practical. I ride a transit train to work every day, and for all of the millions of iPads Apple has sold in the last year, do you know how many I've seen on my commute? Three. And every time it was someone who got a seat and they were resting it on their lap to use it. And the other times I've seen people with one (in person and commentators using them on TV), they are cradling it in the forearm, not holding it by the bezel. On a crowded, moving train, it could be difficult to hold an iPad securely (both from a dropping and theft stand-point).
The point is, portability is more than just fitting in your pocket. It's how usable it is in varying environments and conditions. Something smaller and lighter than can be more easily grasped would be useful in many circumstances.
The iPad 2 is both thinner and lighter, which should pretty much solve that issue. If you've hefted a 7" Galaxy Tab, you'll know that it basically has the same issue as iPad 1. Of course the only true remedy is a phone sized device or none at all.
When the iPad was first announced a bunch of(foolish) people said that it was a niche product. Apple thought it had a good design for mass adoption. Apple was clearly right. It looks like a 7" tablet is actually the niche product. I'm sure it makes sense for some but not enough to justify the cost, at this point anyway.
The people who want a 7" tablet aren't crazy for wanting a tablet that size, but your judgement of how successful it would be seems to be clouded by your desire.
As for actual numbers, Apple had nearly 100% of the tablet market a year ago. This year its dropped to the 80's. How's that for numbers for you. I think that the Samsung Tab had nipped some of that market share from Apple. Not bad for a 'clearly inferior' product. I expect it to drop to the 60's within a year. iPad will continue to sell well. As the competition gets ramped up, so will the competition.
1) Apple had ZERO percent of the tablet market a year ago.
2) Each sale will nip some of the market, but you?re conveniently ignoring Apple?s role in redefining the market that gave the Tab and others a chance to hang onto Apple?s coat tails.
3) You erroneous assume that any marketshare the iPad doesn?t have is marketshare the Tab has because it?s the only non-iPad tablet you know of.
The other day, I saw a Samsung Tab in the wild for the first time. It looked absolutely the right size for me. Small enough to be portable and large enough to be more useful than a smartphone size small screen. I only wished it were less expensive.
Amazon is making a move with its App Store. I believe Amazon will be offering a comprehensive Android ecosystem alternative to iTunes shortly. That will be one less reason why Android is allegedly not equal to iOS. Amazon will have a chance to sell more music, video, books and apps. How's that for competition? I would like to see Amazon capture a greater share of the music sales away from Apple. Amazon has great pricing.
As for actual numbers, Apple had nearly 100% of the tablet market a year ago. This year its dropped to the 80's. How's that for numbers for you. I think that the Samsung Tab had nipped some of that market share from Apple. Not bad for a 'clearly inferior' product. I expect it to drop to the 60's within a year. iPad will continue to sell well. As the competition gets ramped up, so will the competition.
Yes, yes, we all know Apple is an abject failure as a tech company. You've told us that a thousands times already. We just forgot. Thanks for reminding us again.\
I've got to say, the success of the Kindle has been a real surprise to me. I remember thinking Electronic Paper sounded cool when they started talking about it, but after seeing it in action, I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. The battery life is great, but by every other measure it falls far short of LED displays as even an e-book reader.
The first thing I noticed about the Kindle, of course, was the uselessly small size of the screen—so I'd already mentally said "Next!" before I noticed its other shortcomings (the low resolution and nonexistent contrast ratio). An e-book reader needs to be 6" x 9", or 5.5" x 8.5" at least, so as to preserve the layout of the book—just a few lines of plaintext fitted onto a page is not going to do the job.
So the screen size of the Kindle is just exactly the reason I would never buy one. Note that this is not a defense of the iPad, because I need something that will display my HTML, PDF, and DjVu files from a folder structure at least 6 layers deep—therefore the iPad is useless to me as well. (EDIT: As an e-book reader, I mean.)
Note that this is not a defense of the iPad, because I need something that will display my HTML, PDF, and DjVu files from a folder structure at least 6 layers deep—therefore the iPad is useless to me as well.
What, nobody else has downloaded books from Project Gutenberg (largely HTML because they're illustrated), manybooks.net (if a book is text-only might as well let them handle the PDF conversion), Google Books (PDF, of course, and all scanned, so a plaintext display like the Kindle's is useless), or the Internet Archive (all DjVu because of its inherent superiority to PDF, coupled with smaller file size)? I guess the "number downloaded" on all those books are fictional?
As for the 6-layer file structure, a finder window with 6000 lines behaves badly (actually, it starts screwing up at about 1400). Putting them all in a flat file (by author, I guess) would give me what, 500 pages on the iPad. Can you even have 500 pages?
So, yeah, I'm saving up for a MacBook Air for my e-reader needs, but a smaller device that would work right would be nice.
Apple should release iPod Touch with 6-7" screen, then people will perceive 7" tablet as a... non-tablet.
Kill 2 birds with 1 stone IMO.
I agree. If there were a larger iPod Touch, using the same resolution as the iPhone 4 it would be great.
Due to my aging eyes, there are plenty of things that I have on my iPhone that would be better on the 6 to 7 inch screen. Email, videos, web and ebooks come to mind. Sure, I could bring my iPad everywhere, but I don't.
Other apps, like Garageband, I'd use only on the iPad.
I really can't believe that there are those that think that a 7" couldn't be usable or useful for some people.
BTW: Apple has some pretty clever engineers... what about user selectable, or per App resolution.
That's right, user-selectable resolution and user-selectable iOS: switch between iPad and iPod instantly in one device.
7" is a perfect size for eMail, video, gaming, light web browsing, ebook reading, light note taking, FaceTiming, as fancy remote control, as large cell phone (with blutooth), and as car dash-mounted computer.
7" may not fit into a pocket but it will fit into purse/small messenger bag and most importantly can be comfortably held by one hand.
10" iPad2 is still too heavy to be held comfortably by one hand without support.
Maybe add an iPod Touch 5" - same resolution, same interface as the current iPod, just physically bigger. That would make all the on-screen elements bigger, which would be useful for older folks and others with diminished eyesight.
The problem with 7" is that it's too small to be useful, but too big to put in a pocket, unless you wear cargo pants. The same iPod interface elements on a 7" would just be too darn big, but 7" is too small to fit the iPad interface on - the elements would be too itty bitty to be useable.
In reality Apple will likely never make a 5, 6, 7, or 8 inch anything. They've already hit the sweet spots of screen size, and economies of scale are hampered any time you add one more variation.
5", 5.5", 6", 6.5", whatever. The point is a pocket-book size device (including thin bezel) light enough to hold on one hand for a long period, has comparable battery performance (say 8 hrs.) & around $120 cheaper has a market. I may not buy one but my wife definitely will. (even I would love to have one just for watching video/TV on the bed) If Apple won't make one, They will leave a sizable market for their competitors to roam freely.
The iPad 2 is both thinner and lighter, which should pretty much solve that issue. If you've hefted a 7" Galaxy Tab, you'll know that it basically has the same issue as iPad 1. Of course the only true remedy is a phone sized device or none at all.
Perhaps. I have not yet had a chance to be hands-on with an iPad 2; but yes, the flatter back should help the "grippability". One of the reasons given for the large bezel on the iPad was so you could hook your thumb around it to hold it. If you can reduce the size to the point you don't need to hook a finger around it to hold it, then you can use more space for the screen itself because you'd have a small bezel. Granted, 7" is likely too big for even that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
If you're gonna have a 7" display, you might as well use a cell phone. I don't find it useful except for eReaders.
Have you seen the size of some of the Android smart phones? There is some sort of demand for those size devices. I think they are way too large for a phone. But I also think the iPhone's screen isn't good for very many tasks that take more than a few seconds to complete. It's just too small.
Don't get me wrong, the iPad is a great sized device. But if I want/need something smaller, my only choice is a device which is severely constrained by it's need to be a phone? Making it a phone cripples Apple's ability to improve it (size-wise) because a phone nees to be portable enough to be a take-it-everywhere device.
The iPod Touch doesn't have that limitation, which is why I think we'll see a larger Touch before we see smaller iPad. And that's fine by me, as long as Apple adds the single iPad feature I'd like to see in the Touch...photo import. Other than UI gimmickery, I think that's the only functional difference between the two devices.
Comments
No. And No.
OK... since your begging to be prodded: "care to extrapolate"... please Mr. Ireland?
"Competition" isn't all it's cracked up to be. Since the introduction of the iPhone, perhaps even as far back as the original iPod, Apple hasn't been spending a whole lot of time thinking of "the competition". They've just focused on making the best products they can conceive of. At this stage in the game, "the competition" would be more of a distraction for Apple than a motivation to innovate.
I completely agree with this. Focusing too much on what the competition is doing narrows ones field of view. Keeping your eyes looking ahead instead of on the car in front is how the race is won.
Apple has enough internal motivation to innovate--and that is the best kind of motivation.
Totally agree with this as well. As an educator, it is the ultimate goal to produce an intrinsically motivated learner. They have a greater potential to sustain life long learning.
As a poster mentioned above, maybe it would be used for only a subset of apps, like reading, a movie, a game... and please don't say it couldn't be used as an address book, calender, data aggregator, "organizer" of sorts. And who's to say you "couldn't" even call with it... thing BT headsets. Is it a phone?... is it a tablet?... it could be anything you want it to be.
BTW: Apple has some pretty clever engineers... what about user selectable, or per App resolution. Jeez, the thing already zooms everything else smooth as butter, I doubt UI element size would get in the way "if" Apple wanted to do this, and I'm fully confident they would come up with " forehead-slap" moment of, "how easy and elegant is that?!".
Give it time. As there are with MBP's and iPods, there's a size and price-point in Apple, Made in California, "Post-PC" mobile device... just for you.
I really can't believe that there are those that think that a 7" couldn't be usable or useful for some people.
As a poster mentioned above, maybe it would be used for only a subset of apps, like reading, a movie, a game... and please don't say it couldn't be used as an address book, calender, data aggregator, "organizer" of sorts. And who's to say you "couldn't" even call with it... thing BT headsets. Is it a phone?... is it a tablet?... it could be anything you want it to be.
BTW: Apple has some pretty clever engineers... what about user selectable, or per App resolution. Jeez, the thing already zooms everything else smooth as butter, I doubt UI element size would get in the way "if" Apple wanted to do this, and I'm fully confident they would come up with " forehead-slap" moment of, "how easy and elegant is that?!".
Give it time. As there are with MBP's and iPods, there's a size and price-point in Apple, Made in California, "Post-PC" mobile device... just for you.
So true. By some people's logic, Apple should only sell 17" MBPs, too! After all, it's just as portable as the 13" model because they both fit in briefcase.
Don't get me wrong, the 7" form factor will have a role to play in the future. But with Honeycomb closed off, Android developers and manufacturers falling over each other to come out with anything credible within lower price points, I don't see anything worthwhile coming out in the next six months.
The closing of the Android 3 source won't have any material impact on Android developers, it only removes the anti-Apple argument from FOSS fanatics.
Apple should release iPod Touch with 6-7" screen, then people will perceive 7" tablet as a... non-tablet.
Kill 2 birds with 1 stone IMO.
Maybe add an iPod Touch 5" - same resolution, same interface as the current iPod, just physically bigger. That would make all the on-screen elements bigger, which would be useful for older folks and others with diminished eyesight.
The problem with 7" is that it's too small to be useful, but too big to put in a pocket, unless you wear cargo pants. The same iPod interface elements on a 7" would just be too darn big, but 7" is too small to fit the iPad interface on - the elements would be too itty bitty to be useable.
In reality Apple will likely never make a 5, 6, 7, or 8 inch anything. They've already hit the sweet spots of screen size, and economies of scale are hampered any time you add one more variation.
So true. By some people's logic, Apple should only sell 17" MBPs, too! After all, it's just as portable as the 13" model because they both fit in briefcase.
As soon as apple releases a smaller tablet, those same people will say how brilliant the idea is.
I don't really care about "pocketable." But just because it doesn't fit in your pocket doesn't mean a smaller sized iPad (or larger Touch) isn't practical. I ride a transit train to work every day, and for all of the millions of iPads Apple has sold in the last year, do you know how many I've seen on my commute? Three. And every time it was someone who got a seat and they were resting it on their lap to use it. And the other times I've seen people with one (in person and commentators using them on TV), they are cradling it in the forearm, not holding it by the bezel. On a crowded, moving train, it could be difficult to hold an iPad securely (both from a dropping and theft stand-point).
The point is, portability is more than just fitting in your pocket. It's how usable it is in varying environments and conditions. Something smaller and lighter than can be more easily grasped would be useful in many circumstances.
The iPad 2 is both thinner and lighter, which should pretty much solve that issue. If you've hefted a 7" Galaxy Tab, you'll know that it basically has the same issue as iPad 1. Of course the only true remedy is a phone sized device or none at all.
The people who want a 7" tablet aren't crazy for wanting a tablet that size, but your judgement of how successful it would be seems to be clouded by your desire.
As for actual numbers, Apple had nearly 100% of the tablet market a year ago. This year its dropped to the 80's. How's that for numbers for you. I think that the Samsung Tab had nipped some of that market share from Apple. Not bad for a 'clearly inferior' product. I expect it to drop to the 60's within a year. iPad will continue to sell well. As the competition gets ramped up, so will the competition.
1) Apple had ZERO percent of the tablet market a year ago.
2) Each sale will nip some of the market, but you?re conveniently ignoring Apple?s role in redefining the market that gave the Tab and others a chance to hang onto Apple?s coat tails.
3) You erroneous assume that any marketshare the iPad doesn?t have is marketshare the Tab has because it?s the only non-iPad tablet you know of.
The other day, I saw a Samsung Tab in the wild for the first time. It looked absolutely the right size for me. Small enough to be portable and large enough to be more useful than a smartphone size small screen. I only wished it were less expensive.
Amazon is making a move with its App Store. I believe Amazon will be offering a comprehensive Android ecosystem alternative to iTunes shortly. That will be one less reason why Android is allegedly not equal to iOS. Amazon will have a chance to sell more music, video, books and apps. How's that for competition? I would like to see Amazon capture a greater share of the music sales away from Apple. Amazon has great pricing.
As for actual numbers, Apple had nearly 100% of the tablet market a year ago. This year its dropped to the 80's. How's that for numbers for you. I think that the Samsung Tab had nipped some of that market share from Apple. Not bad for a 'clearly inferior' product. I expect it to drop to the 60's within a year. iPad will continue to sell well. As the competition gets ramped up, so will the competition.
Yes, yes, we all know Apple is an abject failure as a tech company. You've told us that a thousands times already. We just forgot. Thanks for reminding us again.
The first thing I noticed about the Kindle, of course, was the uselessly small size of the screen—so I'd already mentally said "Next!" before I noticed its other shortcomings (the low resolution and nonexistent contrast ratio). An e-book reader needs to be 6" x 9", or 5.5" x 8.5" at least, so as to preserve the layout of the book—just a few lines of plaintext fitted onto a page is not going to do the job.
So the screen size of the Kindle is just exactly the reason I would never buy one. Note that this is not a defense of the iPad, because I need something that will display my HTML, PDF, and DjVu files from a folder structure at least 6 layers deep—therefore the iPad is useless to me as well. (EDIT: As an e-book reader, I mean.)
Note that this is not a defense of the iPad, because I need something that will display my HTML, PDF, and DjVu files from a folder structure at least 6 layers deep—therefore the iPad is useless to me as well.
That is a very specific need.
That is a very specific need.
What, nobody else has downloaded books from Project Gutenberg (largely HTML because they're illustrated), manybooks.net (if a book is text-only might as well let them handle the PDF conversion), Google Books (PDF, of course, and all scanned, so a plaintext display like the Kindle's is useless), or the Internet Archive (all DjVu because of its inherent superiority to PDF, coupled with smaller file size)? I guess the "number downloaded" on all those books are fictional?
As for the 6-layer file structure, a finder window with 6000 lines behaves badly (actually, it starts screwing up at about 1400). Putting them all in a flat file (by author, I guess) would give me what, 500 pages on the iPad. Can you even have 500 pages?
So, yeah, I'm saving up for a MacBook Air for my e-reader needs, but a smaller device that would work right would be nice.
Apple should release iPod Touch with 6-7" screen, then people will perceive 7" tablet as a... non-tablet.
Kill 2 birds with 1 stone IMO.
I agree. If there were a larger iPod Touch, using the same resolution as the iPhone 4 it would be great.
Due to my aging eyes, there are plenty of things that I have on my iPhone that would be better on the 6 to 7 inch screen. Email, videos, web and ebooks come to mind. Sure, I could bring my iPad everywhere, but I don't.
Other apps, like Garageband, I'd use only on the iPad.
I really can't believe that there are those that think that a 7" couldn't be usable or useful for some people.
BTW: Apple has some pretty clever engineers... what about user selectable, or per App resolution.
That's right, user-selectable resolution and user-selectable iOS: switch between iPad and iPod instantly in one device.
7" is a perfect size for eMail, video, gaming, light web browsing, ebook reading, light note taking, FaceTiming, as fancy remote control, as large cell phone (with blutooth), and as car dash-mounted computer.
7" may not fit into a pocket but it will fit into purse/small messenger bag and most importantly can be comfortably held by one hand.
10" iPad2 is still too heavy to be held comfortably by one hand without support.
Maybe add an iPod Touch 5" - same resolution, same interface as the current iPod, just physically bigger. That would make all the on-screen elements bigger, which would be useful for older folks and others with diminished eyesight.
The problem with 7" is that it's too small to be useful, but too big to put in a pocket, unless you wear cargo pants. The same iPod interface elements on a 7" would just be too darn big, but 7" is too small to fit the iPad interface on - the elements would be too itty bitty to be useable.
In reality Apple will likely never make a 5, 6, 7, or 8 inch anything. They've already hit the sweet spots of screen size, and economies of scale are hampered any time you add one more variation.
5", 5.5", 6", 6.5", whatever. The point is a pocket-book size device (including thin bezel) light enough to hold on one hand for a long period, has comparable battery performance (say 8 hrs.) & around $120 cheaper has a market. I may not buy one but my wife definitely will. (even I would love to have one just for watching video/TV on the bed) If Apple won't make one, They will leave a sizable market for their competitors to roam freely.
The iPad 2 is both thinner and lighter, which should pretty much solve that issue. If you've hefted a 7" Galaxy Tab, you'll know that it basically has the same issue as iPad 1. Of course the only true remedy is a phone sized device or none at all.
Perhaps. I have not yet had a chance to be hands-on with an iPad 2; but yes, the flatter back should help the "grippability". One of the reasons given for the large bezel on the iPad was so you could hook your thumb around it to hold it. If you can reduce the size to the point you don't need to hook a finger around it to hold it, then you can use more space for the screen itself because you'd have a small bezel. Granted, 7" is likely too big for even that.
If you're gonna have a 7" display, you might as well use a cell phone. I don't find it useful except for eReaders.
Have you seen the size of some of the Android smart phones? There is some sort of demand for those size devices. I think they are way too large for a phone. But I also think the iPhone's screen isn't good for very many tasks that take more than a few seconds to complete. It's just too small.
Don't get me wrong, the iPad is a great sized device. But if I want/need something smaller, my only choice is a device which is severely constrained by it's need to be a phone? Making it a phone cripples Apple's ability to improve it (size-wise) because a phone nees to be portable enough to be a take-it-everywhere device.
The iPod Touch doesn't have that limitation, which is why I think we'll see a larger Touch before we see smaller iPad. And that's fine by me, as long as Apple adds the single iPad feature I'd like to see in the Touch...photo import. Other than UI gimmickery, I think that's the only functional difference between the two devices.