You miss the entire point of the post. It's not about price points. It's about size form and varied uses. Just like some people need a 17" Macbook and others need a 13", iOS users do not all need the same size device. There are many people for whom carrying around the full size iPad is not practical. It may be too big, too heavy, take up too much space, require additional cases/bags to carry etc. Those people would benefit from a smaller form factor.
Once has only to travel mass transit to see the far superior numbers of smaller e-devices that people can put in a jacket or coat pocket or slip into the side pocket of their case etc.
So if it's not about price then you'd be happy with Toshiba's strategy of releasing a 7" and 10" at roughly the same price? If it's simply about having the choice of a smaller form factor then price should be irrelevant.
Unfortunately, it's not. You see so many Kindles and such on mass transit because they're at fairly low price points. A $79 Kindle is the price of 4 hardcover books. It's at an "impulse buy" price point. People on these boards who say "hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad" really mean they'd buy it at a price between $200 and $299. So it really is about price.
The world is not America-centric. Apple's international revenues are already approaching 70%. Most people in this world don't commute in their own cars. They use public transport. I was just in Seoul for 10 days and saw a ton of 7~8" tablets and 5" Galaxy Notes in subway trains and buses. I'm in China now and see tons of phones that are 4" and up. To a lot of people here, the 3.5" iPhone is too small and the 10" iPad is too big.
I live in LA but travel all over Asia and Europe on business nearly half the time. Where I live, the iPhone and the iPad are perfect and I don't see the need for a "tweener" at all at home, but getting around in cities like Seoul, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, Paris. Beijing, Rome, and Jakarta, I think I'd prefer some tweener type of device for the daily commutes in crowded subway trains and buses.
Eventually, Apple will care a lot more about the international markets than the US and I think that's happening already. The US is Apple's home base and still the most important market in terms of mindshare, but that's changing fast. It won't be long before 80% or more of Apple's revenues and profits are generated from outside of the US. Apple is thinking about consumers in cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai, New Delhi, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, etc.
You miss the entire point of the post. It's not about price points. It's about size form and varied uses. Just like some people need a 17" Macbook and others need a 13", iOS users do not all need the same size device. There are many people for whom carrying around the full size iPad is not practical. It may be too big, too heavy, take up too much space, require additional cases/bags to carry etc. Those people would benefit from a smaller form factor.
So the answer to the question "What could a smaller iPad do that the real iPad cannot?" is "be small". That's not nearly enough justification for its existence, particularly with all the tradeoffs.
So if it's not about price then you'd be happy with Toshiba's strategy of releasing a 7" and 10" at roughly the same price? If it's simply about having the choice of a smaller form factor then price should be irrelevant.
Unfortunately, it's not. You see so many Kindles and such on mass transit because they're at fairly low price points. A $79 Kindle is the price of 4 hardcover books. It's at an "impulse buy" price point. People on these boards who say "hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad" really mean they'd buy it at a price between $200 and $299. So it really is about price.
Hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad... but you're right, price should be a factor- just as a 36" TV should cost more than a 50"- because of the price of hardware to build it. I know the argument is- If I have an iPad- I won't buy a 7". Or- some people might pick a 7" instead of a 10" which- even if the % of margins are the same, 50% of $500 is more than 50% of $300 (or whatever number). But I don't see a 7" as being competition to the 10" iPad- I look at it as a Touch replacement. Time will tell....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So the answer to the question "What could a smaller iPad do that the real iPad cannot?" is "be small". That's not nearly enough justification for its existence, particularly with all the tradeoffs.
Seriously?
What can the iPod Touch do that the iPhone can't?
What can the iPod Nano do that the iPod classic can't?
What can the 13" Macbook Pro do that the 17" Macbook Pro can't?
What can the 21.5" iMac do that the 27" iMac can't?
What can the 11" MacBook Air do that the 13" Macbook Air can't?
Interesting fact about that is that GM came very close to dropping the Corvette in the 50's because of low sales (and the fact that the originals really were crap... although nice looking crap.)
One engineer apparently was able to make the case that having the Corvette in the line-up added panache to the whole line and would (and did) drive downmarket sales.
So Apple may very well introduce a 'beginners' tablet, but not for the same reason that GM kept the Vette.
This is why it would be abysmally stupid to EOL the Mac Pro and 17" MacBook.
Such a move would turn Apple into a gadget company that sells stylish computers but has no presence in serious computing environments. That is a sure way to kill sales on "consumer" model computers.
Yeah, a bunch of arguments that are either completely wrong or prove my point.
Your point? Your point was that just being smaller isn't enough justification to create a product. Everything I mentioned shows Apple disagrees with you.
A 7" iPad would rock. Portable, light, and great for lighter tasks. I've got a nookColor that I use primarily for reading, for which a current iPad is heavy overkill. For reading, bigger and heavier is often a disadvantage. Also, when I bought the nookColor it had a higher pixel density than the iPad. The Retina displays really shine for reading text, so a 7" iPad makes perfect sense. I'd buy one the second it came out. The ability to wirelessly sync my library would be worth the price alone. The nookColor SHOULD be able to do this, but inexplicably I must plug it into my computer and navigate deep into the file hierarchy to load books onto it. And yes it's a rooted nookColor, there's still no way to wirelessly move files onto it, at least not with Mac OS X.
Yeah, a bunch of arguments that are either completely wrong or prove my point.
Snark much?
I agree that the Touch/iphone doesn't really work since they are hired to be fundamentally different devices (even though there is massive functionality overlap). Nano and classic isn't perfect either but for most users, form factor is a deciding point since many people can fit their entire library on either device now (@16GB for the Nano).
However, why are the MacBook, iMac and MBA options invalid? They are all examples of smaller and cheaper devices hired to do the same jobs as the larger more expensive ones with clear tradeoffs in usability (pro and con). Is that not what the claim for the iPad mini is? There is plenty of good documentary evidence on this thread of valid mainstream use cases for which the smaller/cheaper device works and a basic understanding of customer segmentation tells us that you will sell more if you create different value propositions at different price points. Apple are good at creating trade-offs between models... excluding and including features so that buying the smaller/cheaper one has some clear disadvantages. I see no reason why Apple wouldn't do the same thing for the iPad and net higher sales and revenue at high margins. I think this is classic opportunity for Apple to flex its supply chain and brand to dominate the market for tablets in a way that the telcos would never let them do in phones (even if they wanted to).
They are all examples of smaller and cheaper devices hired to do the same jobs as the larger more expensive ones with clear tradeoffs in usability (pro and con).
Ah, but with this I disagree. There's no usability tradeoff in smaller sizes of Mac. The UI and means of interaction don't change.
So if it's not about price then you'd be happy with Toshiba's strategy of releasing a 7" and 10" at roughly the same price? If it's simply about having the choice of a smaller form factor then price should be irrelevant.
Unfortunately, it's not. You see so many Kindles and such on mass transit because they're at fairly low price points. A $79 Kindle is the price of 4 hardcover books. It's at an "impulse buy" price point. People on these boards who say "hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad" really mean they'd buy it at a price between $200 and $299. So it really is about price.
Too simplistic. Obviously the price of an 8" is going to be lower than the 10". However, it does not have to be a huge difference. Yes, low price point of the Kindle is a factor, but many people I know that use them on public transit also have an iPad. They just don't bring it along because of size and weight. They've already spent the money for the iPad.
Just ask a graphic designer if there is no usability or functional difference between a 17" Macbook Pro and a 13" one.
What exactly does this have to do with a 7" iPad?
Some of the tasks done with an iPad don't require a larger size, or actually require a smaller size, like reading. Trying reading in bed while holding up a 1 1/2 pound iPad. I know most Americans either can't read or choose not to read, but those who do tend to be more educated and wealthier, and once they get hooked on a 7" iPad many of them will decide to buy a Mac and maybe an iPhone. These are best kind of Mac users from Apple's perspective, since using an iPad to read means using it every day, so they're grow attached to Apple products and become loyal customers.
I do it every night. I know most Americans need to toughen up.
Now there's a winning marketing campaign strategy:
Quote:
"The new Apple iPad. 1.5 pounds light! It's not too heavy, you're just a wussy!"
That's great that it's not too heavy for you, but I still suspect you would be happier with something even lighter. In any event, for those who aren't Apple fan boys, given the choice between reading on a 1.5 pound eReader and a sub 1 pound eReader, they will choose the lighter eReader. I you can't understand this, nothing I can say will help you.
That's great that it's not too heavy for you, but I still suspect you would be happier with something even lighter. In any event, for those who aren't Apple fan boys, given the choice between reading on a 1.5 pound eReader and a sub 1 pound eReader, they will choose the lighter eReader. I you can't understand this, nothing I can say will help you.
The "I know what you need better than you do" arguments work both ways. I have a 2nd-gen Kindle on my nightstand that has served me very well as a coaster since I purchased my iPad. My choice to read on the iPad has more to do with usability than weight alone. For example, I enjoy the ability to research facts and events in non-fiction books on the web, something I can't do on the Kindle. I will take the Kindle with me on vacations, along with the iPad, for beach or pool-side reading. But you aren't going to sell me on how I "need" a lighter/smaller device.
That's great that it's not too heavy for you, but I still suspect you would be happier with something even lighter. In any event, for those who aren't Apple fan boys, given the choice between reading on a 1.5 pound eReader and a sub 1 pound eReader, they will choose the lighter eReader. I you can't understand this, nothing I can say will help you.
Because if there's one thing we know, it's that people certainly love single function devices.
Explains why the iPad has over 70% marketshare, I guess. Because people sure do love those e-readers that are only e-readers.
But then again, if you can't understand this, well…
Because if there's one thing we know, it's that people certainly love single function devices.
Explains why the iPad has over 70% marketshare, I guess. Because people sure do love those e-readers that are only e-readers.
But then again, if you can't understand this, well…
My point is simply that there would be a market for 7" iPad, and many buyers would like a smaller, lighter iPad for reading. Where do you get this nonsense about a single function device?
Quote:
The "I know what you need better than you do" arguments work both ways. I have a 2nd-gen Kindle on my nightstand that has served me very well as a coaster since I purchased my iPad. My choice to read on the iPad has more to do with usability than weight alone. For example, I enjoy the ability to research facts and events in non-fiction books on the web, something I can't do on the Kindle. I will take the Kindle with me on vacations, along with the iPad, for beach or pool-side reading. But you aren't going to sell me on how I "need" a lighter/smaller device.
That's great that you use your iPad, I'm happy for you. I wasn't arguing that people would prefer a lighter Kindle to an iPad (although many would), I was saying that some people (not all) would prefer a lighter 7" iPad for reading. And Apple doesn't need to sell YOU on a 7" iPad, they only need to sell a few hundred thousand other people on it to make it worth their while to produce.
I'd go so far as to argue for two more iPad sizes for a total of three models:
7" iPad Go
9.7" iPad
~14" iPad Pro
The 7" iPad would be great for those who want ultimate portability, and the 15" for fat-arsed couch potatoes who use it for surfing and pr0n. Maybe even slap an Ivy Bridge CPU (or comparably powerful) in the Pro and offer it with a wireless sketch tablet and it may become a Photoshop/Illustrator monster. Market the 10" iPad to average consumers and gimp the 7" enough so it doesn't eat into the 10" version's sales. For many people, an iPad is enough to fulfill all their computing needs.
I do it every night. I know most Americans need to toughen up.
I realize that is probably meant slightly tongue in cheek but it is a prima face case of your personal opinion being worth basically nothing in terms of predicting market needs, desires, price points or elasticity.
I too manage to hold my iPad for hours (usually employing some kind of fingers stuffed into the rolled up smartcover) but doesn't mean millions wouldn't appreciate something lighter. My mum can read her iPhone and would have no problem reading a 7.85" iPad at either XGA or 2xXGA. What she doesn't like is holding her iPad for long periods. It quickly gets propped up on the coffee table.
Ah, but with this I disagree. There's no usability tradeoff in smaller sizes of Mac. The UI and means of interaction don't change.
Of course there is - usability is not down to UI alone - weight, portability, screen real-estate, built in features ALL impact usability. Your narrow definition around UI does your argument a disservice.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J
You miss the entire point of the post. It's not about price points. It's about size form and varied uses. Just like some people need a 17" Macbook and others need a 13", iOS users do not all need the same size device. There are many people for whom carrying around the full size iPad is not practical. It may be too big, too heavy, take up too much space, require additional cases/bags to carry etc. Those people would benefit from a smaller form factor.
Once has only to travel mass transit to see the far superior numbers of smaller e-devices that people can put in a jacket or coat pocket or slip into the side pocket of their case etc.
So if it's not about price then you'd be happy with Toshiba's strategy of releasing a 7" and 10" at roughly the same price? If it's simply about having the choice of a smaller form factor then price should be irrelevant.
Unfortunately, it's not. You see so many Kindles and such on mass transit because they're at fairly low price points. A $79 Kindle is the price of 4 hardcover books. It's at an "impulse buy" price point. People on these boards who say "hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad" really mean they'd buy it at a price between $200 and $299. So it really is about price.
The world is not America-centric. Apple's international revenues are already approaching 70%. Most people in this world don't commute in their own cars. They use public transport. I was just in Seoul for 10 days and saw a ton of 7~8" tablets and 5" Galaxy Notes in subway trains and buses. I'm in China now and see tons of phones that are 4" and up. To a lot of people here, the 3.5" iPhone is too small and the 10" iPad is too big.
I live in LA but travel all over Asia and Europe on business nearly half the time. Where I live, the iPhone and the iPad are perfect and I don't see the need for a "tweener" at all at home, but getting around in cities like Seoul, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, Paris. Beijing, Rome, and Jakarta, I think I'd prefer some tweener type of device for the daily commutes in crowded subway trains and buses.
Eventually, Apple will care a lot more about the international markets than the US and I think that's happening already. The US is Apple's home base and still the most important market in terms of mindshare, but that's changing fast. It won't be long before 80% or more of Apple's revenues and profits are generated from outside of the US. Apple is thinking about consumers in cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai, New Delhi, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J
You miss the entire point of the post. It's not about price points. It's about size form and varied uses. Just like some people need a 17" Macbook and others need a 13", iOS users do not all need the same size device. There are many people for whom carrying around the full size iPad is not practical. It may be too big, too heavy, take up too much space, require additional cases/bags to carry etc. Those people would benefit from a smaller form factor.
So the answer to the question "What could a smaller iPad do that the real iPad cannot?" is "be small". That's not nearly enough justification for its existence, particularly with all the tradeoffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable
So if it's not about price then you'd be happy with Toshiba's strategy of releasing a 7" and 10" at roughly the same price? If it's simply about having the choice of a smaller form factor then price should be irrelevant.
Unfortunately, it's not. You see so many Kindles and such on mass transit because they're at fairly low price points. A $79 Kindle is the price of 4 hardcover books. It's at an "impulse buy" price point. People on these boards who say "hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad" really mean they'd buy it at a price between $200 and $299. So it really is about price.
Hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad... but you're right, price should be a factor- just as a 36" TV should cost more than a 50"- because of the price of hardware to build it. I know the argument is- If I have an iPad- I won't buy a 7". Or- some people might pick a 7" instead of a 10" which- even if the % of margins are the same, 50% of $500 is more than 50% of $300 (or whatever number). But I don't see a 7" as being competition to the 10" iPad- I look at it as a Touch replacement. Time will tell....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So the answer to the question "What could a smaller iPad do that the real iPad cannot?" is "be small". That's not nearly enough justification for its existence, particularly with all the tradeoffs.
Seriously?
What can the iPod Touch do that the iPhone can't?
What can the iPod Nano do that the iPod classic can't?
What can the 13" Macbook Pro do that the 17" Macbook Pro can't?
What can the 21.5" iMac do that the 27" iMac can't?
What can the 11" MacBook Air do that the 13" Macbook Air can't?
Get the point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Seriously?
What can the iPod Touch do that the iPhone can't?
What can the iPod Nano do that the iPod classic can't?
What can the 13" Macbook Pro do that the 17" Macbook Pro can't?
What can the 21.5" iMac do that the 27" iMac can't?
What can the 11" MacBook Air do that the 13" Macbook Air can't?
Get the point?
Yeah, a bunch of arguments that are either completely wrong or prove my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
Interesting fact about that is that GM came very close to dropping the Corvette in the 50's because of low sales (and the fact that the originals really were crap... although nice looking crap.)
One engineer apparently was able to make the case that having the Corvette in the line-up added panache to the whole line and would (and did) drive downmarket sales.
So Apple may very well introduce a 'beginners' tablet, but not for the same reason that GM kept the Vette.
This is why it would be abysmally stupid to EOL the Mac Pro and 17" MacBook.
Such a move would turn Apple into a gadget company that sells stylish computers but has no presence in serious computing environments. That is a sure way to kill sales on "consumer" model computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, a bunch of arguments that are either completely wrong or prove my point.
Your point? Your point was that just being smaller isn't enough justification to create a product. Everything I mentioned shows Apple disagrees with you.
A 7" iPad would rock. Portable, light, and great for lighter tasks. I've got a nookColor that I use primarily for reading, for which a current iPad is heavy overkill. For reading, bigger and heavier is often a disadvantage. Also, when I bought the nookColor it had a higher pixel density than the iPad. The Retina displays really shine for reading text, so a 7" iPad makes perfect sense. I'd buy one the second it came out. The ability to wirelessly sync my library would be worth the price alone. The nookColor SHOULD be able to do this, but inexplicably I must plug it into my computer and navigate deep into the file hierarchy to load books onto it. And yes it's a rooted nookColor, there's still no way to wirelessly move files onto it, at least not with Mac OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, a bunch of arguments that are either completely wrong or prove my point.
Snark much?
I agree that the Touch/iphone doesn't really work since they are hired to be fundamentally different devices (even though there is massive functionality overlap). Nano and classic isn't perfect either but for most users, form factor is a deciding point since many people can fit their entire library on either device now (@16GB for the Nano).
However, why are the MacBook, iMac and MBA options invalid? They are all examples of smaller and cheaper devices hired to do the same jobs as the larger more expensive ones with clear tradeoffs in usability (pro and con). Is that not what the claim for the iPad mini is? There is plenty of good documentary evidence on this thread of valid mainstream use cases for which the smaller/cheaper device works and a basic understanding of customer segmentation tells us that you will sell more if you create different value propositions at different price points. Apple are good at creating trade-offs between models... excluding and including features so that buying the smaller/cheaper one has some clear disadvantages. I see no reason why Apple wouldn't do the same thing for the iPad and net higher sales and revenue at high margins. I think this is classic opportunity for Apple to flex its supply chain and brand to dominate the market for tablets in a way that the telcos would never let them do in phones (even if they wanted to).
Maybe I lost what your point was?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob
They are all examples of smaller and cheaper devices hired to do the same jobs as the larger more expensive ones with clear tradeoffs in usability (pro and con).
Ah, but with this I disagree. There's no usability tradeoff in smaller sizes of Mac. The UI and means of interaction don't change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, but with this I disagree. There's no usability tradeoff in smaller sizes of Mac. The UI and means of interaction don't change.
Just ask a graphic designer if there is no usability or functional difference between a 17" Macbook Pro and a 13" one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable
So if it's not about price then you'd be happy with Toshiba's strategy of releasing a 7" and 10" at roughly the same price? If it's simply about having the choice of a smaller form factor then price should be irrelevant.
Unfortunately, it's not. You see so many Kindles and such on mass transit because they're at fairly low price points. A $79 Kindle is the price of 4 hardcover books. It's at an "impulse buy" price point. People on these boards who say "hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad" really mean they'd buy it at a price between $200 and $299. So it really is about price.
Too simplistic. Obviously the price of an 8" is going to be lower than the 10". However, it does not have to be a huge difference. Yes, low price point of the Kindle is a factor, but many people I know that use them on public transit also have an iPad. They just don't bring it along because of size and weight. They've already spent the money for the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J
Just ask a graphic designer if there is no usability or functional difference between a 17" Macbook Pro and a 13" one.
What exactly does this have to do with a 7" iPad?
Some of the tasks done with an iPad don't require a larger size, or actually require a smaller size, like reading. Trying reading in bed while holding up a 1 1/2 pound iPad. I know most Americans either can't read or choose not to read, but those who do tend to be more educated and wealthier, and once they get hooked on a 7" iPad many of them will decide to buy a Mac and maybe an iPhone. These are best kind of Mac users from Apple's perspective, since using an iPad to read means using it every day, so they're grow attached to Apple products and become loyal customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Trying reading in bed while holding up a 1 1/2 pound iPad.
I do it every night. I know most Americans need to toughen up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I do it every night. I know most Americans need to toughen up.
Now there's a winning marketing campaign strategy:
Quote:
"The new Apple iPad. 1.5 pounds light! It's not too heavy, you're just a wussy!"
That's great that it's not too heavy for you, but I still suspect you would be happier with something even lighter. In any event, for those who aren't Apple fan boys, given the choice between reading on a 1.5 pound eReader and a sub 1 pound eReader, they will choose the lighter eReader. I you can't understand this, nothing I can say will help you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
That's great that it's not too heavy for you, but I still suspect you would be happier with something even lighter. In any event, for those who aren't Apple fan boys, given the choice between reading on a 1.5 pound eReader and a sub 1 pound eReader, they will choose the lighter eReader. I you can't understand this, nothing I can say will help you.
The "I know what you need better than you do" arguments work both ways. I have a 2nd-gen Kindle on my nightstand that has served me very well as a coaster since I purchased my iPad. My choice to read on the iPad has more to do with usability than weight alone. For example, I enjoy the ability to research facts and events in non-fiction books on the web, something I can't do on the Kindle. I will take the Kindle with me on vacations, along with the iPad, for beach or pool-side reading. But you aren't going to sell me on how I "need" a lighter/smaller device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
That's great that it's not too heavy for you, but I still suspect you would be happier with something even lighter. In any event, for those who aren't Apple fan boys, given the choice between reading on a 1.5 pound eReader and a sub 1 pound eReader, they will choose the lighter eReader. I you can't understand this, nothing I can say will help you.
Because if there's one thing we know, it's that people certainly love single function devices.
Explains why the iPad has over 70% marketshare, I guess. Because people sure do love those e-readers that are only e-readers.
But then again, if you can't understand this, well…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because if there's one thing we know, it's that people certainly love single function devices.
Explains why the iPad has over 70% marketshare, I guess. Because people sure do love those e-readers that are only e-readers.
But then again, if you can't understand this, well…
My point is simply that there would be a market for 7" iPad, and many buyers would like a smaller, lighter iPad for reading. Where do you get this nonsense about a single function device?
Quote:
The "I know what you need better than you do" arguments work both ways. I have a 2nd-gen Kindle on my nightstand that has served me very well as a coaster since I purchased my iPad. My choice to read on the iPad has more to do with usability than weight alone. For example, I enjoy the ability to research facts and events in non-fiction books on the web, something I can't do on the Kindle. I will take the Kindle with me on vacations, along with the iPad, for beach or pool-side reading. But you aren't going to sell me on how I "need" a lighter/smaller device.
That's great that you use your iPad, I'm happy for you. I wasn't arguing that people would prefer a lighter Kindle to an iPad (although many would), I was saying that some people (not all) would prefer a lighter 7" iPad for reading. And Apple doesn't need to sell YOU on a 7" iPad, they only need to sell a few hundred thousand other people on it to make it worth their while to produce.
I'd go so far as to argue for two more iPad sizes for a total of three models:
7" iPad Go
9.7" iPad
~14" iPad Pro
The 7" iPad would be great for those who want ultimate portability, and the 15" for fat-arsed couch potatoes who use it for surfing and pr0n. Maybe even slap an Ivy Bridge CPU (or comparably powerful) in the Pro and offer it with a wireless sketch tablet and it may become a Photoshop/Illustrator monster. Market the 10" iPad to average consumers and gimp the 7" enough so it doesn't eat into the 10" version's sales. For many people, an iPad is enough to fulfill all their computing needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I do it every night. I know most Americans need to toughen up.
I realize that is probably meant slightly tongue in cheek but it is a prima face case of your personal opinion being worth basically nothing in terms of predicting market needs, desires, price points or elasticity.
I too manage to hold my iPad for hours (usually employing some kind of fingers stuffed into the rolled up smartcover) but doesn't mean millions wouldn't appreciate something lighter. My mum can read her iPhone and would have no problem reading a 7.85" iPad at either XGA or 2xXGA. What she doesn't like is holding her iPad for long periods. It quickly gets propped up on the coffee table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, but with this I disagree. There's no usability tradeoff in smaller sizes of Mac. The UI and means of interaction don't change.
Of course there is - usability is not down to UI alone - weight, portability, screen real-estate, built in features ALL impact usability. Your narrow definition around UI does your argument a disservice.