I'd like Apple to lower the price of the iPad 2 to $399 this Christmas.
And then in 2012 (March?) keep the 16GB iPad 2 around, and sell the iPad 3 in 32 GB and 64 GB options at $599 & $699. The 32 GB iPad 3 would be the best seller of the pack, but people who only have $399 to spend could still buy an iPad.
Just knock $100 off a device that no one else can directly compete with on price and that Apple can't sell enough of as is? What's the point for Apple because making $100 less net profit per device, which could all the profit they make per device?
Possibly the 7 inch iPad is not for humans but for one's car. As others have written, an iPad in your car with Siri voice control and your music in the cloud could be an awesome accessory.
Possibly the 7 inch iPad is not for humans but for one's car. As others have written, an iPad in your car with Siri voice control and your music in the cloud could be an awesome accessory.
That sounds like a like a lot of cross-licensing to get the 7" display integrated with your car's console. As great as that would be Apple has no history of working that closely to automotive companies outside allowing a 30-pin connector in a glove-box that can connect to the car's built-in system.
PS: I really hate that 30-pin connector in the glove box. I want my iPhone to be standing up in a charger on the center console where I can place it or grab easily. The glove box setup only works for an iPod you've loaded and left in the glovebox. They can remove the ashtray/cointray and make that into a iPhone dock. Do it, BMW! DO IT!
My prediction (issued with a guarantee), is that by the time the damn thing is released everyone will be so hyped and will have so miserably failed at managing their (unreasonable) expectations that they will be utterly disappointed and proclaim the ip3 a failure.
It will also outsell all other tablets put together.
This is the truest thing I have ever read on the internet.
The last thing Apple should be doing is legitimizing those mutant abominations. It's like a homo sapiens and a homo floresienses mating to produce a middle-sized offspring.
What I don't get is that if Samsung, LG and Sharp are each making displays for a future iPad, how is consistency maintained between the screens supplied by different manufacturers?
They can't be exactly the same without violating each others patents.
Well, I see three types of lock down that Apple makes part of the iPad ecosystem.
1) apps can't get at the filesystem in an open manner; there's no finder, there's no expectation that one app can or should be able to get at another application's files. There's no reasonable file hierarchy exposed to the user (as seen with no nested folders.) This kind of sharing is integral to powerful apps from image and audio apps to text editors.
2) Apple restricts the type of content: If they decide your app duplicates functionality already in the store, they'll refuse it. So much for competition. If they find your app to be unacceptable, for instance it might contain sexual or cultural references Apple doesn't like, then they'll refuse it. So much for making up your own mind about what is good or bad.
3) Apps can't be purchased from anywhere but Apple's app store. This has serious consequences because with '2', above, in effect, not only can you not find these things in the app store, you can't have them at all. Apple thinks and acts like it's your mommie. Your prudish, middle-American, brain-dead, judeo-xian myth believing, mommie. Kind of unfortunate for the Americans who are over the age of 20 and whose actual mommies have decided they are ok to make decisions for themselves.
What I meant by additional restrictions is that given Apple's history here, they may decide not to allow apps for other reasons, reasons we're not able to anticipate at this time. An example of this kind of behavior is under way right now in the venue of the OSX app store, where Apple is VERY ill-advisedly planning on implementing a "sandbox" for all apps in the store, which will create an environment within OSX that is blind and deaf to other applications, and consequently cause those apps to become less powerful and less useful. A concern presently within the OSX community is that the sandbox for app store may expand to become a requirement for the OS as well; where it would not run applications that are not signed, sand-boxed, or otherwise interfered with.
there's no expectation that one app can or should be able to get at another application's files.
I expect no third-party application to be able to access any other application's files. You really want some piece of trash app to run code in the background that deletes all your other third-party apps' files?
I understand the functionality you want out of such an arrangement, but Apple already provides that. If each photo app had its own camera roll, that'd be nonsense. Apple allows access to all photos taken on the device in each app.
They've not done this for documents yet, as far as I know. I have a potential reason for this. Mind, I don't work for Apple, so if this is the reason, it's by chance.
To have a common dumping area for documents created on the device, Apple would have to (or force all third-party apps to) track by which app each document was created. Once each document has an 'app created by' tag, it could then be put in the dumping area and made visible to, though neither editable nor deletable by, other apps on the device that can read those filetypes.
That's a fairly hideous solution, but it's the best way to protect a user's data from deletion by unauthorized apps. You give any app the ability to create, edit, and delete documents in a common document dumping area, you'll see apps that wipe out users' entire document areas without so much as a howdy-do.
Quote:
If they decide your app duplicates functionality already in the store, they'll refuse it.
I don't believe that at all. There are hundreds of flashlight apps. And that's just one of many 'duplicated' function app kinds.
Quote:
If they find your app to be unacceptable, for instance it might contain sexual or cultural references Apple doesn't like, then they'll refuse it.
From Apple's point of view, it's better to be completely unable to be liable for some kid seeing naked people before its parents deem it ready to understand that people can be naked than to be potentially liable.
Now, granted, if you're not putting parental controls on app purchases, it's your own freaking fault your kid was exposed to the 'horror' of the naked body. Americans are all touchy about nudity. If we had PROPER education about the subject, kids would be smarter overall, period. Anyway, it's a liability issue.
Quote:
Apps can't be purchased from anywhere but Apple's app store.
Prevents malware. Prevents data theft. Prevents device slowdown. Prevents crashing. Protects battery life. Protects device integration. Protects Apple's aesthetic. Improves strength of brand name. Improves mindshare.
Quote:
A concern presently within the OSX community is that the sandbox for app store may expand to become a requirement for the OS as well
Such a requirement would mean the death of the operating system. Apple is not stupid enough to do such a silly thing, particularly with the lack of ease with which some things can be done in Xcode right now.
After the death of OS X, Cocoa, and all related things, it's likely that we WILL see a fully-sandboxed OS XI with far-improved API support and a much easier means by which to create powerful, integrated applications out of the box. But, again, it would be suicide if Apple went fully-sandboxed with OS X; a platform on which people are accustomed to doing their own thing.
Your rationalizations as to why don't change the fact that these limits exist and are enforced by Apple, or that additional limits may be coming down the pike. Nor does it change the fact that some of us don't want them, don't need them, and don't appreciate them.
Also, just as a PS, you should look into the current app store submission guidelines and rules. There are some surprises in there for you re submitting yet another flashlight app.
I expect no third-party application to be able to access any other application's files.
Yes, because editing an application's settings has never been useful to anyone. Likewise, no one has ever patched a bug in someone else's executable. And of course, poking around a device out of curiosity is bad. As are customizing start-up bitmaps, wrapping one app with another in order to provide it with an altered environment, adding your own plug-ins, creating apps of your own, and OMFG disassembly of other people's code...
...yeah, who would want to do any of THAT stuff.
You latecomers to the computing world always amuse me with your pathologically limited outlook on what one should be able to do with a device. It's yours; you bought it. All bets are off after that.
I think this is all pretty much what we can expect, altho I think they will make 32GB the base iPad 3 w/128GB at the top end. I don't think dropping the iPad down to 8GB for a cheaper model will work as well as on the iPhone, so I expect 16GB will be the smallest size for any iPad. If they are really wanting to put more pressure on the smaller tablet market they would drive the iPad 2 model down to $300 or $350, but $400 is certainly the more likely option in my mind. Extending their price range downward like was done w/the iPhone makes a lot of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC
However I'm trying to wrap my brain around the exact importance of a 10" Retina display and why it's so valuable. Yes, you can say your screen resolution and quality surpass all your competitors, that's a decent selling point. Yes, you can further penetrate into specialty niche fields like medicine and aviation. All good, fine. I'm missing something I think, I think we all are. Apple has been pushing this hard for a while now. AFAIK, nobody else is pursuing this or even trying to.
Factor in Siri. Siri makes displays less important actually. When you can have a natural conversation with your computer to accomplish tasks that traditionally require an awkward interface and a display, you don't really need visual output for alot of things. Headless computers that are voice only become more feasible. The next ipad will almost certainly have Siri built in.
The 2048x1536 screen will double current resolution and boost the PPI all the way up to about 264, which is still shy of retina status, but it's a much sharper image. Sharper images make text less blurry, improving it's capabilities as a reading device, not to mention for medical purposes. The flight books for airplanes are being replaced by iPads as well and more resolution is always helpful there. Games can be played at higher resolutions, video and audio editing takes a lot of screen real estate as well.
Siri makes having to open your browser to find information less needed, but you still have to look at the results. Siri makes the downside of the non-physical keyboard less of an issue. I fully expect the iPad 3 will get a better camera, probably not jumping to the 8MP from the iPhone 4S, but at least jumping to the iPhone 4's 5MP. Higher quality front camera and more screen real estate could mean improvements to video conferencing and allowing you to chain more people in and see everyone easily.
There are plenty of ways for the better screen to be used.
Your rationalizations as to why don't change the fact that these limits exist and are enforced by Apple, or that additional limits may be coming down the pike. Nor does it change the fact that some of us don't want them, don't need them, and don't appreciate them.
So don't buy iOS products. You're less than 10% of the market.
Quote:
There are some surprises in there for you re submitting yet another flashlight app.
I'm sure there are.
That's one third of page one of who knows how many. This 'restriction' doesn't matter in the slightest and certainly doesn't appear to be in effect. The only instances (all of which I can barely remember as they're years-old) of 'blocking because of duplicate functionality' are in the case of Apple apps. And that's not even relevant anymore since other browsers are in the App Store and plenty of apps duplicate Apple's other functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz
Yes, because editing an application's settings has never been useful to anyone.
What do application settings have to do with the point that I made?
Quote:
Likewise, no one has ever patched a bug in someone else's executable.
Let's say you've written an app. So you're okay with random people just messing with your app's code? And you're okay with other apps deleting documents created with your app?
Quote:
And of course, poking around a device out of curiosity is bad. As are customizing start-up bitmaps, wrapping one app with another in order to provide it with an altered environment, adding your own plug-ins, creating apps of your own, and disassembly of other people's code...
I love that you think you're making a point here. I gave an explanation for document creation sandboxing. I spoke nothing of anything beyond that. This is laughable.
Quote:
...yeah, who would want to do any of THAT stuff.
You are the 0.000000001%. Enjoy Linux.
Quote:
You latecomers to the computing world always amuse me with your pathologically limited outlook on what one should be able to do with a device.
You're quite the comedian. I love that you think you can claim to state anything about me as a computer user, when I began using it, and what I believe about device use.
I offered a possible explanation for Apple's document sandboxing and you turn it into a battle of ideologies based on absolutely ludicrous nonsense and zero fact, going so far as to insinuate the type of user I am with no evidence as to your position. I think we're done here. I'm certainly done replying.
Comments
I'd like Apple to lower the price of the iPad 2 to $399 this Christmas.
And then in 2012 (March?) keep the 16GB iPad 2 around, and sell the iPad 3 in 32 GB and 64 GB options at $599 & $699. The 32 GB iPad 3 would be the best seller of the pack, but people who only have $399 to spend could still buy an iPad.
Just knock $100 off a device that no one else can directly compete with on price and that Apple can't sell enough of as is? What's the point for Apple because making $100 less net profit per device, which could all the profit they make per device?
Possibly the 7 inch iPad is not for humans but for one's car. As others have written, an iPad in your car with Siri voice control and your music in the cloud could be an awesome accessory.
That sounds like a like a lot of cross-licensing to get the 7" display integrated with your car's console. As great as that would be Apple has no history of working that closely to automotive companies outside allowing a 30-pin connector in a glove-box that can connect to the car's built-in system.
PS: I really hate that 30-pin connector in the glove box. I want my iPhone to be standing up in a charger on the center console where I can place it or grab easily. The glove box setup only works for an iPod you've loaded and left in the glovebox. They can remove the ashtray/cointray and make that into a iPhone dock. Do it, BMW! DO IT!
My prediction (issued with a guarantee), is that by the time the damn thing is released everyone will be so hyped and will have so miserably failed at managing their (unreasonable) expectations that they will be utterly disappointed and proclaim the ip3 a failure.
It will also outsell all other tablets put together.
The last thing Apple should be doing is legitimizing those mutant abominations. It's like a homo sapiens and a homo floresienses mating to produce a middle-sized offspring.
Don't talk about Snooki that way.
They can't be exactly the same without violating each others patents.
Mind explaining what you mean by "lock down"?
Well, I see three types of lock down that Apple makes part of the iPad ecosystem.
1) apps can't get at the filesystem in an open manner; there's no finder, there's no expectation that one app can or should be able to get at another application's files. There's no reasonable file hierarchy exposed to the user (as seen with no nested folders.) This kind of sharing is integral to powerful apps from image and audio apps to text editors.
2) Apple restricts the type of content: If they decide your app duplicates functionality already in the store, they'll refuse it. So much for competition. If they find your app to be unacceptable, for instance it might contain sexual or cultural references Apple doesn't like, then they'll refuse it. So much for making up your own mind about what is good or bad.
3) Apps can't be purchased from anywhere but Apple's app store. This has serious consequences because with '2', above, in effect, not only can you not find these things in the app store, you can't have them at all. Apple thinks and acts like it's your mommie. Your prudish, middle-American, brain-dead, judeo-xian myth believing, mommie. Kind of unfortunate for the Americans who are over the age of 20 and whose actual mommies have decided they are ok to make decisions for themselves.
What I meant by additional restrictions is that given Apple's history here, they may decide not to allow apps for other reasons, reasons we're not able to anticipate at this time. An example of this kind of behavior is under way right now in the venue of the OSX app store, where Apple is VERY ill-advisedly planning on implementing a "sandbox" for all apps in the store, which will create an environment within OSX that is blind and deaf to other applications, and consequently cause those apps to become less powerful and less useful. A concern presently within the OSX community is that the sandbox for app store may expand to become a requirement for the OS as well; where it would not run applications that are not signed, sand-boxed, or otherwise interfered with.
HTH.
there's no expectation that one app can or should be able to get at another application's files.
I expect no third-party application to be able to access any other application's files. You really want some piece of trash app to run code in the background that deletes all your other third-party apps' files?
I understand the functionality you want out of such an arrangement, but Apple already provides that. If each photo app had its own camera roll, that'd be nonsense. Apple allows access to all photos taken on the device in each app.
They've not done this for documents yet, as far as I know. I have a potential reason for this. Mind, I don't work for Apple, so if this is the reason, it's by chance.
To have a common dumping area for documents created on the device, Apple would have to (or force all third-party apps to) track by which app each document was created. Once each document has an 'app created by' tag, it could then be put in the dumping area and made visible to, though neither editable nor deletable by, other apps on the device that can read those filetypes.
That's a fairly hideous solution, but it's the best way to protect a user's data from deletion by unauthorized apps. You give any app the ability to create, edit, and delete documents in a common document dumping area, you'll see apps that wipe out users' entire document areas without so much as a howdy-do.
If they decide your app duplicates functionality already in the store, they'll refuse it.
I don't believe that at all. There are hundreds of flashlight apps. And that's just one of many 'duplicated' function app kinds.
If they find your app to be unacceptable, for instance it might contain sexual or cultural references Apple doesn't like, then they'll refuse it.
From Apple's point of view, it's better to be completely unable to be liable for some kid seeing naked people before its parents deem it ready to understand that people can be naked than to be potentially liable.
Now, granted, if you're not putting parental controls on app purchases, it's your own freaking fault your kid was exposed to the 'horror' of the naked body. Americans are all touchy about nudity. If we had PROPER education about the subject, kids would be smarter overall, period. Anyway, it's a liability issue.
Apps can't be purchased from anywhere but Apple's app store.
Prevents malware. Prevents data theft. Prevents device slowdown. Prevents crashing. Protects battery life. Protects device integration. Protects Apple's aesthetic. Improves strength of brand name. Improves mindshare.
A concern presently within the OSX community is that the sandbox for app store may expand to become a requirement for the OS as well
Such a requirement would mean the death of the operating system. Apple is not stupid enough to do such a silly thing, particularly with the lack of ease with which some things can be done in Xcode right now.
After the death of OS X, Cocoa, and all related things, it's likely that we WILL see a fully-sandboxed OS XI with far-improved API support and a much easier means by which to create powerful, integrated applications out of the box. But, again, it would be suicide if Apple went fully-sandboxed with OS X; a platform on which people are accustomed to doing their own thing.
Also, just as a PS, you should look into the current app store submission guidelines and rules. There are some surprises in there for you re submitting yet another flashlight app.
Cheers.
I expect no third-party application to be able to access any other application's files.
Yes, because editing an application's settings has never been useful to anyone. Likewise, no one has ever patched a bug in someone else's executable. And of course, poking around a device out of curiosity is bad. As are customizing start-up bitmaps, wrapping one app with another in order to provide it with an altered environment, adding your own plug-ins, creating apps of your own, and OMFG disassembly of other people's code...
...yeah, who would want to do any of THAT stuff.
You latecomers to the computing world always amuse me with your pathologically limited outlook on what one should be able to do with a device. It's yours; you bought it. All bets are off after that.
lol
… 2048x1536…
16GB iPad 2: $399
16GB iPad 3: $499
32GB iPad 3: $599
64GB iPad 3: $699
I think this is all pretty much what we can expect, altho I think they will make 32GB the base iPad 3 w/128GB at the top end. I don't think dropping the iPad down to 8GB for a cheaper model will work as well as on the iPhone, so I expect 16GB will be the smallest size for any iPad. If they are really wanting to put more pressure on the smaller tablet market they would drive the iPad 2 model down to $300 or $350, but $400 is certainly the more likely option in my mind. Extending their price range downward like was done w/the iPhone makes a lot of sense.
However I'm trying to wrap my brain around the exact importance of a 10" Retina display and why it's so valuable. Yes, you can say your screen resolution and quality surpass all your competitors, that's a decent selling point. Yes, you can further penetrate into specialty niche fields like medicine and aviation. All good, fine. I'm missing something I think, I think we all are. Apple has been pushing this hard for a while now. AFAIK, nobody else is pursuing this or even trying to.
Factor in Siri. Siri makes displays less important actually. When you can have a natural conversation with your computer to accomplish tasks that traditionally require an awkward interface and a display, you don't really need visual output for alot of things. Headless computers that are voice only become more feasible. The next ipad will almost certainly have Siri built in.
The 2048x1536 screen will double current resolution and boost the PPI all the way up to about 264, which is still shy of retina status, but it's a much sharper image. Sharper images make text less blurry, improving it's capabilities as a reading device, not to mention for medical purposes. The flight books for airplanes are being replaced by iPads as well and more resolution is always helpful there. Games can be played at higher resolutions, video and audio editing takes a lot of screen real estate as well.
Siri makes having to open your browser to find information less needed, but you still have to look at the results. Siri makes the downside of the non-physical keyboard less of an issue. I fully expect the iPad 3 will get a better camera, probably not jumping to the 8MP from the iPhone 4S, but at least jumping to the iPhone 4's 5MP. Higher quality front camera and more screen real estate could mean improvements to video conferencing and allowing you to chain more people in and see everyone easily.
There are plenty of ways for the better screen to be used.
Your rationalizations as to why don't change the fact that these limits exist and are enforced by Apple, or that additional limits may be coming down the pike. Nor does it change the fact that some of us don't want them, don't need them, and don't appreciate them.
So don't buy iOS products. You're less than 10% of the market.
There are some surprises in there for you re submitting yet another flashlight app.
I'm sure there are.
That's one third of page one of who knows how many. This 'restriction' doesn't matter in the slightest and certainly doesn't appear to be in effect. The only instances (all of which I can barely remember as they're years-old) of 'blocking because of duplicate functionality' are in the case of Apple apps. And that's not even relevant anymore since other browsers are in the App Store and plenty of apps duplicate Apple's other functionality.
Yes, because editing an application's settings has never been useful to anyone.
What do application settings have to do with the point that I made?
Likewise, no one has ever patched a bug in someone else's executable.
Let's say you've written an app. So you're okay with random people just messing with your app's code? And you're okay with other apps deleting documents created with your app?
And of course, poking around a device out of curiosity is bad. As are customizing start-up bitmaps, wrapping one app with another in order to provide it with an altered environment, adding your own plug-ins, creating apps of your own, and disassembly of other people's code...
I love that you think you're making a point here. I gave an explanation for document creation sandboxing. I spoke nothing of anything beyond that. This is laughable.
...yeah, who would want to do any of THAT stuff.
You are the 0.000000001%. Enjoy Linux.
You latecomers to the computing world always amuse me with your pathologically limited outlook on what one should be able to do with a device.
You're quite the comedian. I love that you think you can claim to state anything about me as a computer user, when I began using it, and what I believe about device use.
I offered a possible explanation for Apple's document sandboxing and you turn it into a battle of ideologies based on absolutely ludicrous nonsense and zero fact, going so far as to insinuate the type of user I am with no evidence as to your position. I think we're done here.