But even that is not too important. I will be surprised if Android tablets don't follow the same development curve like Android phones. I don't think iPad will keep hardware advantage for long, but then, I don't think that loosing raw performance edge will hurt iPad either; I don't think too many people will be buying tablet based on raw performance anyway.
If you think that, then you are missing the key drivers behind Android's success. Without the massive carrier push (to balance against Apple) it would be nowhere. Nerds see the Evos and Atrixes of the world but forget that most of the Android sales are in cheaper handsets and the millions sold in China without a Google OS on them. The phones that actually compete with premium iPhones sell in much smaller numbers combined than the current iPhone.
There is no correlation to the tablet market. The carriers are not really in the mix, the OEMs cannot address Apple's economies of scale, most suck at retail distribution (except Samsung) and the OS is another beta with no app support. The benefits to the tablets of Android's phone apps is marginal. Unlike the iPhone, the iPad is not at the premium end of the market. It is slap bang in the middle of the consumer market. When Apple decides to own the mass market in a product category, look out. Like the iPod. How did the competition do then?
That reminded me of a funny response I got when asking friends about their thoughts about the pocketability of even the iPhone. One friend said her husband would sometimes ask her to carry his iPhone in her purse because, even as small as the iPhone is, it's still too big sometimes if all you need with you at the time is a phone.
Well, below 7" we see Apple succeeding without any "race to the bottom", with the iPod and iPhone. So 7" per se is not an issue in terms of profits, etc.
Right. In terms of the iPod and iPhone, there was no "race to the bottom" because Apple practically created the categories in which they reside. Yes, of course there are other smart phones, but they don't have the ecosystem that Apple/iOS has. Instead they have "interchangeable covers" (collect all six colours!!)
Quote:
Definitely. I think the 7" has scope, it's just that no one is really coming out with any iPad-killer at ANY form factor, so Apple can tinker with their 7" prototypes for quite a while longer.
The thing that Apple gets, that, so far, no one else seems to is user experience. More than 10 years ago, Apple figured out that the key to success is "building the whole widget"; tightly integrating the software and hardware, rather than farming out any of those bits to some other party. And despite the criticism of Apple's "walled garden" approach their App Store approval process, it does mean that apps you download to your device--and now, to your Mac--will work and won't crash--or worse, destroy--your machine. "Freedom" and "openness" are good in the political realm, but dangerous when it comes to complex electronics.
I'm not saying a sub seven inch device is a replacement for iPad but rather it is an alternative. A lot of people don't seem to grasp that on these forums, but for many uses the iPad is simply too big. On the flip side id love to see a bigger iPad along the size of a clipboard, or about 13-14" in size.
It is pretty simple really; look at the Nook and the amazon pads, they are almost an ideal size for reading documents and being handy enough to have with you all the time. You can't say that with iPad.
Apple may have a point in that a smaller iPad might not be as useful as the current one but who cares? That is like saying the Touch isn't useful because of it's size. Interestingly enough I'm seeing more and more people carrying around Touches as PDAs than ever before. These users don't use them for music or media and instead use them for mail, calendar, and the ocassional web access. Think about the people that carried Daytimers and the like around constantly.
Somebody wants a 6"
Somebody wants an 11"
Somebody wants a 5.5"
Somebody wants a 12"
Seriously? You think we don't understand that somebody somewhere wants a different size something?
Here is why I think Apple has chosen not to make such a product...
An iPad interface, scaled down to a smaller screen size, becomes too small for convenient interaction. While not everyone cares, a significant percentage of users do. They want the interface to be the right size for finger based interaction.
Custom interfaces could be used for each screen size but that results in a fractured platform. This is why Apple likely chose such a ludicrously high resolution for the iPhone4. A slightly lower resolution would have been cheaper and quite sufficient. However, it would have resulted in a splintered platform on which apps perform strangely on various devices. An even multiple of screen resolution kept the platform unified. Pixel doubling looks a bit rough but is much better than any other form of scaling.
So right now devs need to target two screen sizes with one of those sizes possibly being pixel-doubled/halved. That's pretty easy.
As the market for these devices expands, the balancing point will change. But until then, a more unified platform seems desirable. With that in mind, Apple chose a tablet screen size that the majority of people would find optimal. Not everyone, but the majority.
Keep in mind that eReader interaction is different. eReaders are not being constantly interacted with. On screen interface elements are rarely present. The text rendering engine is what user are looking at 99% of the time. Text rendering scales nicely and doesn't require finger based manipulation. In other words, multiple screen sizes and resolutions don't pose the same problem for eReader platforms as they do for general purpose tablet platforms.
Comments
But even that is not too important. I will be surprised if Android tablets don't follow the same development curve like Android phones. I don't think iPad will keep hardware advantage for long, but then, I don't think that loosing raw performance edge will hurt iPad either; I don't think too many people will be buying tablet based on raw performance anyway.
If you think that, then you are missing the key drivers behind Android's success. Without the massive carrier push (to balance against Apple) it would be nowhere. Nerds see the Evos and Atrixes of the world but forget that most of the Android sales are in cheaper handsets and the millions sold in China without a Google OS on them. The phones that actually compete with premium iPhones sell in much smaller numbers combined than the current iPhone.
There is no correlation to the tablet market. The carriers are not really in the mix, the OEMs cannot address Apple's economies of scale, most suck at retail distribution (except Samsung) and the OS is another beta with no app support. The benefits to the tablets of Android's phone apps is marginal. Unlike the iPhone, the iPad is not at the premium end of the market. It is slap bang in the middle of the consumer market. When Apple decides to own the mass market in a product category, look out. Like the iPod. How did the competition do then?
That reminded me of a funny response I got when asking friends about their thoughts about the pocketability of even the iPhone. One friend said her husband would sometimes ask her to carry his iPhone in her purse because, even as small as the iPhone is, it's still too big sometimes if all you need with you at the time is a phone.
...Ahhh... the nudists' phone...
...I wonder where, er, how...
Well, below 7" we see Apple succeeding without any "race to the bottom", with the iPod and iPhone. So 7" per se is not an issue in terms of profits, etc.
Right. In terms of the iPod and iPhone, there was no "race to the bottom" because Apple practically created the categories in which they reside. Yes, of course there are other smart phones, but they don't have the ecosystem that Apple/iOS has. Instead they have "interchangeable covers" (collect all six colours!!)
Definitely. I think the 7" has scope, it's just that no one is really coming out with any iPad-killer at ANY form factor, so Apple can tinker with their 7" prototypes for quite a while longer.
The thing that Apple gets, that, so far, no one else seems to is user experience. More than 10 years ago, Apple figured out that the key to success is "building the whole widget"; tightly integrating the software and hardware, rather than farming out any of those bits to some other party. And despite the criticism of Apple's "walled garden" approach their App Store approval process, it does mean that apps you download to your device--and now, to your Mac--will work and won't crash--or worse, destroy--your machine. "Freedom" and "openness" are good in the political realm, but dangerous when it comes to complex electronics.
I'm not saying a sub seven inch device is a replacement for iPad but rather it is an alternative. A lot of people don't seem to grasp that on these forums, but for many uses the iPad is simply too big. On the flip side id love to see a bigger iPad along the size of a clipboard, or about 13-14" in size.
It is pretty simple really; look at the Nook and the amazon pads, they are almost an ideal size for reading documents and being handy enough to have with you all the time. You can't say that with iPad.
Apple may have a point in that a smaller iPad might not be as useful as the current one but who cares? That is like saying the Touch isn't useful because of it's size. Interestingly enough I'm seeing more and more people carrying around Touches as PDAs than ever before. These users don't use them for music or media and instead use them for mail, calendar, and the ocassional web access. Think about the people that carried Daytimers and the like around constantly.
Somebody wants a 6"
Somebody wants an 11"
Somebody wants a 5.5"
Somebody wants a 12"
Seriously? You think we don't understand that somebody somewhere wants a different size something?
Here is why I think Apple has chosen not to make such a product...
An iPad interface, scaled down to a smaller screen size, becomes too small for convenient interaction. While not everyone cares, a significant percentage of users do. They want the interface to be the right size for finger based interaction.
Custom interfaces could be used for each screen size but that results in a fractured platform. This is why Apple likely chose such a ludicrously high resolution for the iPhone4. A slightly lower resolution would have been cheaper and quite sufficient. However, it would have resulted in a splintered platform on which apps perform strangely on various devices. An even multiple of screen resolution kept the platform unified. Pixel doubling looks a bit rough but is much better than any other form of scaling.
So right now devs need to target two screen sizes with one of those sizes possibly being pixel-doubled/halved. That's pretty easy.
As the market for these devices expands, the balancing point will change. But until then, a more unified platform seems desirable. With that in mind, Apple chose a tablet screen size that the majority of people would find optimal. Not everyone, but the majority.
Keep in mind that eReader interaction is different. eReaders are not being constantly interacted with. On screen interface elements are rarely present. The text rendering engine is what user are looking at 99% of the time. Text rendering scales nicely and doesn't require finger based manipulation. In other words, multiple screen sizes and resolutions don't pose the same problem for eReader platforms as they do for general purpose tablet platforms.