The important question is "does it matter if some tweener device is a big iPod touch or a small iPad?"
Well if that was your question, perhaps that's what you should have asked rather than making up arguments about the iPad and iPhone having different UIs.
The answer is absolutely. There are iPhone/iPod touch apps and there are iPad apps (and there are "universal" apps that bundle both apps into a single package). The best applications have a different interfaces/work differently on each device. So while the OS UI is almost exactly the same, who cares. No one buys an iPad to scroll back and forth between screens of icons. It's the apps that matter, and the apps most definitely have different UIs. The UI elements are the same, but how they are assembled into an user interface depends on the device.
I'm just saying that if you could take your iPhone and tell it "act like an iPad" (or vice versa), you would find that you wouldn't be very happy with many of your core apps. So would matter how Apple set the "swtich" on a tweener device. Does it act like an "easy reader" version of the iPhone with everything just bigger, or does it act like an iPad with everything a little bit more cramped. It matters.
It really comes down to app developers, not the UI as I pointed out.
I think it's very, very likely that most developers would simply use the iPad apps. A 7.85" iPad Mini is around 66% the area of a 9.7" iPad. That's close enough that it will be fine in most cases. A 3.5" iPhone, OTOH would be only about 20% the size of a 7.85% iPad Mini. That's an entirely different regime.
A few developers might decide differently and they would have the ability to release apps that do that, but my guess is that it wouldn't be a big deal for more than a tiny percentage.
Actually, they do have a risk. If people buy a $299 iPad Mini instead of a $499 iPad, Apple loses $200 in revenue (and the associated margin) per device.
I don't believe that the numbers making that decision would be significant and I believe the number of 7" devices sold would more than make up for lost 10" sales, but there's a risk.
Every $199 Kindle Fire sale that would have been an iPod Touch sale last year is one more user in the Amazon ecosystem and not the iTunes one. A 5-7" iPod Touch at $199 or $249 mitigates this while even further degrading the 7" Android tablet market.
Quote:
????
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but the iPhone and iPad use the same UI. The differences are inconsequential.
Bullshit. Try running the iPad application layout on an iPhone. There's a reason why we need to develop two different UI layouts. a 7" iPad mini is very marginal for many iPad apps to function well.
Quote:
I guess I missed your evidence. Oh, yeah. That's because there isn't any.
Start with the old iPad at $399. Please explain in detail how Apple is going to reduce the cost by almost 40% to hit your $249 price point.
I've already explained how much Apple is likely to be able to save on each component - and nothing comes close to a 40% reduction.
Of course, you could look at it your way (although starting with the iPod Touch for comparison doesn't make as much sense as starting with a 10" iPad). A 7" iPad would be 4 times the size of the iPod Touch. You really think that only amounts to a 20% increase in price? Again, look at it component by component.
The evidence is the $199 iPod Touch and the $199 Kindle Fire. Removing the 3.5" display and adding the Kindle's 7" display is a $60 delta at most...part of which is offset by the lower BOM cost for the iPod Touch over the Fire because the A4 is an older part and Apple has far better contracts for NAND and other iPhone/iPod touch components.
Assuming iSuppli's $201.70 estimate is in the right ballpark then selling the Kindle for $299 is nearly 50% gross margins.
The 2011 iPod Touch is essentially the same as the 2010 model and the BOM for the 3GS was estimated to be $179 in 2009. So the BOM for the iPod touch is probably around the $110-130 mark in 2012.
So $299 for a 7" iPod Touch at 50% gross margins is easy.
$249 is doable at the very lower end of Apple margins (30%) depending on panel costs. Want to bet that Apple can source 7" IPS panels or frankly every single part cheaper than Amazon?
5" is still better IMHO (more portable) but 7" is okay too.
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but the iPhone and iPad use the same UI. The differences are inconsequential.
WTF! That's pretty fraking ignorant. I'm surprised you'd actually think the UIs are the same. Take a look at how an iPhone app renders on an iPad to see it's not the same. COCOATOUCH IS NOT A WINDOWED UI THEREFORE ITS LAYOUT IS DEPENDENT UPON THE DISPLAY SIZE, ASPECT RATIO AND RESOLUTION!!!!
The evidence is the $199 iPod Touch and the $199 Kindle Fire. Removing the 3.5" display and adding the Kindle's 7" display is a $60 delta at most...part of which is offset by the lower BOM cost for the iPod Touch over the Fire because the A4 is an older part and Apple has far better contracts for NAND and other iPhone/iPod touch components.
There is certainly a case to be made on how Apple could do it but so far there is very little evidence to support this notion that 1) Apple has to try to mirror every potential product that a competitor might come up with, and 2) will own a market's profits by trying to jump into every price and quality tier that exists.
There is certainly a case to be made on how Apple could do it but so far there is very little evidence to support this notion that 1) Apple has to try to mirror every potential product that a competitor might come up with, and 2) will own a market's profits by trying to jump into every price and quality tier that exists.
From the perspective of a parent that buys electronic devices for their kids the $199 iPod Touch isn't as good as the $139 (refurb) Kindle Fire for video, books and games.
So the reason I keep calling it an iPod Touch are because of several reasons:
1) the iPhone UI app layouts are better for 5-7" displays than the iPad UI app layouts.
2) the iPod touch needs a refresh and adding a larger form factor make it more competitive
3) Apple has stated for a full featured tablet 7" is too small and I agree. Rather than water down the iPad branding it seems smarter to me to revitalize the iPod branding.
Apple isn't afraid of cannibalizing it's own products and they certainly don't want Amazon to do so. If the iPod Touch stops being as effective an entry device for the iOS ecosystem that's a problem for Apple and a bigger iPod Touch for $249 goes a long way to fix that. $199 would be better but you can keep the current 3.5" at that price.
Maybe its the age of my kids but I see a lot more Kindle Fires than iPod Touches. For every couple iPads there's usually a Kindle Fire, 3-4 iPhones pressed into kid duty and zero iPod Touches. My nieces and nephews used to own iPod Touches but moved up to iPads now that they are late high school and college.
Given the portability issue I think a 5" iPod Touch to be in a good sweet spot. Slightly lower than retina but bigger viewing area, keeps the same resolution so all iPhone apps work and still fits in a pocket. More or less.
Well if that was your question, perhaps that's what you should have asked rather than making up arguments about the iPad and iPhone having different UIs.
It really comes down to app developers, not the UI as I pointed out.
There are two different XCode targets. You build different XIBs for the two targets even for a universal app.
Quote:
I think it's very, very likely that most developers would simply use the iPad apps. A 7.85" iPad Mini is around 66% the area of a 9.7" iPad. That's close enough that it will be fine in most cases. A 3.5" iPhone, OTOH would be only about 20% the size of a 7.85% iPad Mini. That's an entirely different regime.
A few developers might decide differently and they would have the ability to release apps that do that, but my guess is that it wouldn't be a big deal for more than a tiny percentage.
No, it's what Apple decides. A 1024x768 7" device will use the iPad target. A 7" iPod Touch with 640x960 resolution will use the iPhone XIBs.
As a developer I disagree with what you've written. The iPad really is on the lower end of usability for content creation apps. 7" is far more suitable for content consumption and far more limited apps that you'd see on the iPhone. For any app with a lot of user interaction I'd favor using our existing iPhone layout over our existing iPad one.
Comments
Well if that was your question, perhaps that's what you should have asked rather than making up arguments about the iPad and iPhone having different UIs.
It really comes down to app developers, not the UI as I pointed out.
I think it's very, very likely that most developers would simply use the iPad apps. A 7.85" iPad Mini is around 66% the area of a 9.7" iPad. That's close enough that it will be fine in most cases. A 3.5" iPhone, OTOH would be only about 20% the size of a 7.85% iPad Mini. That's an entirely different regime.
A few developers might decide differently and they would have the ability to release apps that do that, but my guess is that it wouldn't be a big deal for more than a tiny percentage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Actually, they do have a risk. If people buy a $299 iPad Mini instead of a $499 iPad, Apple loses $200 in revenue (and the associated margin) per device.
I don't believe that the numbers making that decision would be significant and I believe the number of 7" devices sold would more than make up for lost 10" sales, but there's a risk.
Every $199 Kindle Fire sale that would have been an iPod Touch sale last year is one more user in the Amazon ecosystem and not the iTunes one. A 5-7" iPod Touch at $199 or $249 mitigates this while even further degrading the 7" Android tablet market.
Quote:
????
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but the iPhone and iPad use the same UI. The differences are inconsequential.
Bullshit. Try running the iPad application layout on an iPhone. There's a reason why we need to develop two different UI layouts. a 7" iPad mini is very marginal for many iPad apps to function well.
Quote:
I guess I missed your evidence. Oh, yeah. That's because there isn't any.
Start with the old iPad at $399. Please explain in detail how Apple is going to reduce the cost by almost 40% to hit your $249 price point.
I've already explained how much Apple is likely to be able to save on each component - and nothing comes close to a 40% reduction.
Of course, you could look at it your way (although starting with the iPod Touch for comparison doesn't make as much sense as starting with a 10" iPad). A 7" iPad would be 4 times the size of the iPod Touch. You really think that only amounts to a 20% increase in price? Again, look at it component by component.
The evidence is the $199 iPod Touch and the $199 Kindle Fire. Removing the 3.5" display and adding the Kindle's 7" display is a $60 delta at most...part of which is offset by the lower BOM cost for the iPod Touch over the Fire because the A4 is an older part and Apple has far better contracts for NAND and other iPhone/iPod touch components.
Assuming iSuppli's $201.70 estimate is in the right ballpark then selling the Kindle for $299 is nearly 50% gross margins.
http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/Amazon-Kindle-Fire-Costs-$201-70-to-Manufacture.aspx
The 2011 iPod Touch is essentially the same as the 2010 model and the BOM for the 3GS was estimated to be $179 in 2009. So the BOM for the iPod touch is probably around the $110-130 mark in 2012.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/teardown-of-new-ipod-touch-reveals-few-changes-if-any/
So $299 for a 7" iPod Touch at 50% gross margins is easy.
$249 is doable at the very lower end of Apple margins (30%) depending on panel costs. Want to bet that Apple can source 7" IPS panels or frankly every single part cheaper than Amazon?
5" is still better IMHO (more portable) but 7" is okay too.
WTF! That's pretty fraking ignorant. I'm surprised you'd actually think the UIs are the same. Take a look at how an iPhone app renders on an iPad to see it's not the same. COCOATOUCH IS NOT A WINDOWED UI THEREFORE ITS LAYOUT IS DEPENDENT UPON THE DISPLAY SIZE, ASPECT RATIO AND RESOLUTION!!!!
There is certainly a case to be made on how Apple could do it but so far there is very little evidence to support this notion that 1) Apple has to try to mirror every potential product that a competitor might come up with, and 2) will own a market's profits by trying to jump into every price and quality tier that exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There is certainly a case to be made on how Apple could do it but so far there is very little evidence to support this notion that 1) Apple has to try to mirror every potential product that a competitor might come up with, and 2) will own a market's profits by trying to jump into every price and quality tier that exists.
From the perspective of a parent that buys electronic devices for their kids the $199 iPod Touch isn't as good as the $139 (refurb) Kindle Fire for video, books and games.
So the reason I keep calling it an iPod Touch are because of several reasons:
1) the iPhone UI app layouts are better for 5-7" displays than the iPad UI app layouts.
2) the iPod touch needs a refresh and adding a larger form factor make it more competitive
3) Apple has stated for a full featured tablet 7" is too small and I agree. Rather than water down the iPad branding it seems smarter to me to revitalize the iPod branding.
Apple isn't afraid of cannibalizing it's own products and they certainly don't want Amazon to do so. If the iPod Touch stops being as effective an entry device for the iOS ecosystem that's a problem for Apple and a bigger iPod Touch for $249 goes a long way to fix that. $199 would be better but you can keep the current 3.5" at that price.
Maybe its the age of my kids but I see a lot more Kindle Fires than iPod Touches. For every couple iPads there's usually a Kindle Fire, 3-4 iPhones pressed into kid duty and zero iPod Touches. My nieces and nephews used to own iPod Touches but moved up to iPads now that they are late high school and college.
Given the portability issue I think a 5" iPod Touch to be in a good sweet spot. Slightly lower than retina but bigger viewing area, keeps the same resolution so all iPhone apps work and still fits in a pocket. More or less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Well if that was your question, perhaps that's what you should have asked rather than making up arguments about the iPad and iPhone having different UIs.
It really comes down to app developers, not the UI as I pointed out.
There are two different XCode targets. You build different XIBs for the two targets even for a universal app.
Quote:
I think it's very, very likely that most developers would simply use the iPad apps. A 7.85" iPad Mini is around 66% the area of a 9.7" iPad. That's close enough that it will be fine in most cases. A 3.5" iPhone, OTOH would be only about 20% the size of a 7.85% iPad Mini. That's an entirely different regime.
A few developers might decide differently and they would have the ability to release apps that do that, but my guess is that it wouldn't be a big deal for more than a tiny percentage.
No, it's what Apple decides. A 1024x768 7" device will use the iPad target. A 7" iPod Touch with 640x960 resolution will use the iPhone XIBs.
As a developer I disagree with what you've written. The iPad really is on the lower end of usability for content creation apps. 7" is far more suitable for content consumption and far more limited apps that you'd see on the iPhone. For any app with a lot of user interaction I'd favor using our existing iPhone layout over our existing iPad one.