The quoted "developers" are blowing their credibility here. Apple has been warning developers for years now not to make assumptions about screen density, aspect ratios and the like. Anybody with even a limited exposure to Apples tools and documentation should be aware of these warnings.
As to a possible new iPhone I can only guess at what Apple might have in store. The first is that most likely this won't be the "new" iPhone but an addition to the lineup. Second it would be foolish to come out with a new screen that doesn't support at least one of the common HDTV formats well. So I would expect an aspect ratio change. Beyond HDTV a wider screen would greatly enhance text entry and viewing in horizontal mode.
In the end I would suspect that the developers with issues here will be the ones that are impaired with respect to their reading skills. There will be app updates required but to one extent or another that always happens with a new iOS release. This is really not a big deal.
Why does a phone need to support common HDTV formats? It is not a HDTV. In fact I don't even think that HDTV aspect ratio is even considered standard for tablets, lap tops or PC's. The aspect ratio is not useful for most activities on those devices and would prove to be even more awkward on a phone.
I to have asked many times as to why Apple doesnt include a MiniSD slot but the only response you'll get here is buy a model that holds more.
Or, more accurately, you keep ignoring the answers when you get them. Among the answers that have already been given (repeatedly):
- A MicroSD card will be much slower and interfere with the smooth performance of the iDevices
- It adds complexity and weight
- It creates another point of failure - and card readers tend to be significant points of failure
- It requires more battery power (IIRC)
- If they included a microSD slot, they'd get complaints from the people who want CF slots. Or any of the other 100 portable disk formats. Where do you draw the line?
Please pay attention when you ask a question instead of simply denying that your question is answered.
You guys are being total bully's here. This is classic bully behaviour.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Has this forum really got to the state that some kid posts an enthusiastic post and all you think about is pilling on, insulting him/her, belittling him/her etc.
I've been posting at this site off and on for longer than some of you have been moderators (and it's disgusting that some of you are moderators and engage in this kind of behaviour), and I wouldn't dream of doing anything this cheesy and shallow.
The way I read the post, the person sounds like a teenager or a kid. Don't any of you have kids? Do you really fell proud of yourselves making fun of someone for no reason than to make yourselves look better?
Absolutely F*cking DISGUSTING behaviour.
Bravo. What noble men you are.
I dare you to not only apologise, but to give yourselves the same kind of warnings and banning that you so freely hand out to others and cheer when they get them.
Disgusting.
Now it's bullying if one chooses not to read a poorly formatted comment that one can't easy speed read through? I made no comment about the poster or their content. I simply didn't read it because it wasn't easy to read. Have we forgotten that the point of communication is to communicate?
i think it's simpler than that. It's inelegant, convoluted, slow, and only a small subset of users want these slots. Even now when you look at the APR the highest capacity isn't the one being bought over all others.
Well, they ARE more expensive AND less cost effective. I think many folks are simply living with not having enough storage. I'm not poor but I'm not paying for a 64GB iDevice. For the $100 cost delta between 32GB and 64GB I'll go get a Kingston Wi-Drive 32GB for $89 and share the space.
The same argument applies here. Kingston makes more money designing the WiDrive this way vs the Maxell AirStash which is still an annoying $144 and doesn't have bridge mode. Kingston could easily have made an AirStash like device with bridge mode and a SD slot but didn't.
Quote:
Another issue is speed. One of the reasons Apple's devices feel so fast is they aren't going with cheap or slow NAND. AnandTech has made mention of this on several occasions. You simply can't get that with MicroSD cards. As move up in class trying to get close to Apple's NAND speed for a given quantity the costs start to get crazy.
With a high speed SDXC reader it gets 33MB.s read and 8MB//s write.
Quote:
Not the bargain basement prices that some say are proof that Apple is cheating them.
$30-$40 retail for Class 10 (or higher end Class 6) is a lot less than the $100 cost delta.
$89 for 32GB that comes with a 4 hour battery and WiFi is less than the $100 cost delta between 32GB and 64GB or 16GB and 32GB on the iPads and iPhones.
Quote:
And can you imagine if the average user had to manage between two drives in their device the way that Android users have to do? It's ridiculous! The iPhone, iPad and iPod are the most popular and profitable products in all three of their market categories because of the choices Apple has made...not in spite of as some would like you think.
So you're thinking it's too hard for Apple to design UI paradigms more elegant than the way Google does on Android?
How about something as simple as "slot in the card and the movies and photos appear in your album"? As secondary storage a sdhc card would be great and covers what many folks would want more storage for.
There's no real technical reason not to include a SD card slot. There are many valid business reasons for doing so.
I want everyone to note that I restrained myself from telling him what to do with his miniSD cards.
As opposed to doing something useful like pointing him at AirStash? It's annoyingly overpriced and has a major annoying restriction but if you have a stack of SD cards and want to use it on your portable devices wirelessly it's currently the only option out there. Well, other than a netbook or something.
$127 with a throwaway 8GB card I guess is better than $144 for the 16GB one.
Or, more accurately, you keep ignoring the answers when you get them.
What? You mean like the UI on the iPad and iPhone being different? Nah...that's different.
Folks aren't stupid. The real answer for why no SD card slot is because economically it doesn't make sense to provide one.
Yes, there are some technical challenges but they are hardly significant given that Apple already has a good design for a sim card slot...although that doesn't get opened as often. But you know, that's okay too given some Android phones have hard to reach micro SD slots.
If Apple could make more money with a SD slot than without they'd solve all the technical issues and we have one.
Today we have dongles, wifi and cloud solutions.
Arguably Apple is offering integrated cloud storage over a SD slot and that's a reasonable design trade.
But lets compare MicroSD card vs iCloud as a technical solution to secondary storage needs (use case: kids in the car):
Quote:
- A MicroSD card will be much slower and interfere with the smooth performance of the iDevices
Vs iCloud, 3G/4G streaming, Wi-Drive, etc? Not so much.
Quote:
- It adds complexity and weight
Yes, adds hardware complexity but Apple is VERY good at solving those. In comparison to the iCloud which adds significant software and infrastructure complexity that Apple has a more spotty track record...
Weight? In a device that is largely aluminum or glass with a huge battery? Yes, adding anything is more weight and space but of the two space is the more critical.
Arguably the need for higher 3G usage using cloud services drives the need for more battery (weight and size) for the same run time vs using local storage.
Quote:
- It creates another point of failure - and card readers tend to be significant points of failure
True. But from a user perspective a lower probability of failure than AT&T or Verizon when trying to access content...
Quote:
- It requires more battery power (IIRC)
In comparison to WiFi or 3G/4G? Doubtful.
Quote:
- If they included a microSD slot, they'd get complaints from the people who want CF slots. Or any of the other 100 portable disk formats. Where do you draw the line?
What? You mean like the UI on the iPad and iPhone being different? Nah...that's different.
The funny thing is that I'm simply quoting Apple and the statement that there's only one iOS UI. I suspect Apple knows a lot more about their UI than you do. There are obviously differences. But that doesn't mean that the UIs are different. Your interaction with the device is identical on an iPad or iPhone. All you've demonstrated is that you don't have any idea what a UI is.
Yes, there are some technical challenges but they are hardly significant given that Apple already has a good design for a sim card slot...although that doesn't get opened as often. But you know, that's okay too given some Android phones have hard to reach micro SD slots.
But Apple doesn't provide junky, kludge solutions. The fact that some Android phones install hard-to-reach microSD slots doesn't mean it's a good idea. And obviously, a microSD slot would be more prone to dirt and other damage than a SIM slot which is used only at the time the phone is first activated for most people.
Arguably Apple is offering integrated cloud storage over a SD slot and that's a reasonable design trade.
But lets compare MicroSD card vs iCloud as a technical solution to secondary storage needs (use case: kids in the car):
Why would we do that? The question was why Apple insisted on on-board memory rather than a microSD slot. Bringing the cloud into the matter is irrelevant - and just the kind of obfuscation you are prone to use. One can use the cloud whether there's a microSD slot or not.
Yes, adds hardware complexity but Apple is VERY good at solving those. In comparison to the iCloud which adds significant software and infrastructure complexity that Apple has a more spotty track record...
You could have just said "yes, you're right".
The fact is that it adds complexity - and that's one of the reasons that it wasn't used. Might there some day be a solution to the complexity problem? Maybe - and if so, Apple will probably change its stance. But we're talking about today's technology.
Weight? In a device that is largely aluminum or glass with a huge battery? Yes, adding anything is more weight and space but of the two space is the more critical.
Apparently, after all this time you don't have any idea how Apple works. Even minor changes are worth doing. Furthermore, you underestimate the difference. Adding a microSD slot not only adds the weight and volume of the slot, but also adds weight and volume in support structures. Every time you put a new hole in the case, you create a weak point - so it would need to be reinforced.
No one said that it added 10 pounds. But it does add weight and size - and for no real purpose.
Arguably the need for higher 3G usage using cloud services drives the need for more battery (weight and size) for the same run time vs using local storage.
True. But from a user perspective a lower probability of failure than AT&T or Verizon when trying to access content...
Once again, we're comparing microSD to on-board storage. AT&T, Verizon, and the cloud have nothing to do with that. You will have the same network limitations no matter what you use for local storage.
What if the extra space was just enough to always show:
Notification Center, OR
iAds, OR
Time, Date, Signal, Etc, OR
something else so that the apps could have 100% of the space they use now, with the new space being utilized by Apple 99% of the time??
I think that would ruin the experience in a lot of apps, especially ones that are full-screen, like games, or Flipboard, or YouTube, etc, or anything in landscape.
Plus, the status bar is currently about 1/4" thick. If the new screen increased from 3.5" to 4" (diagonal) then it would add like ~1/2" to the screen height, too much to simply show a status bar. Good thought tho.
I'm confident the new screen will have the exact same aspect ratio.
The funny thing is that I'm simply quoting Apple and the statement that there's only one iOS UI. I suspect Apple knows a lot more about their UI than you do.
I've quoted Apple stating differently from the iOS HIG. I'm pretty sure those are public links and not just for devs.
"Most individual UI elements are available on both devices, but overall the layout differs dramatically."
There are obviously differences. But that doesn't mean that the UIs are different. Your interaction with the device is identical on an iPad or iPhone. All you've demonstrated is that you don't have any idea what a UI is.
Except that your interaction with the device differs because important UI elements exist in the iPad and not the iPhone.
Quote:
Which is a circular argument. Why doesn't it make sense to provide one? I gave you all the answers.
Nope. It doesn't make sense to provide one because Apple makes more money without out one than with one. They can offer an entry level iPhone/iPad with limited storage and upsell to the middle or upper models while still meeting their desired entry level price point.
Otherwise most folks would just buy the lowest model and insert a SD card.
Quote:
But Apple doesn't provide junky, kludge solutions. The fact that some Android phones install hard-to-reach microSD slots doesn't mean it's a good idea. And obviously, a microSD slot would be more prone to dirt and other damage than a SIM slot which is used only at the time the phone is first activated for most people.
As secondary storage for large media it doesn't have to be easily accessible. By putting in a tray it reduces the opportunity for lint and dirt to get into the slot.
Quote:
Which doesn't negate the fact that there are technical issues.
Technical issues that are very secondary to design and economics.
Quote:
Why would we do that? The question was why Apple insisted on on-board memory rather than a microSD slot. Bringing the cloud into the matter is irrelevant - and just the kind of obfuscation you are prone to use. One can use the cloud whether there's a microSD slot or not.
Because it's not about specs but meeting user needs. Something that a self-proclaimed Apple expert like you should understand. Apple chooses to meet user needs in different ways than other manufacturers typically choosing wireless or cleaner/thinner/more asthetic options.
What is the user need being met by a microSD slot? More storage for movies, books, documents, etc.
What is the user need being met by cloud storage? More storage for movies, books, documents, etc.
All of the "technical reasons" you choose to reject microSD applies equally to the technical solution selected by Apple.
Quote:
The fact is that it adds complexity - and that's one of the reasons that it wasn't used. Might there some day be a solution to the complexity problem? Maybe - and if so, Apple will probably change its stance. But we're talking about today's technology.
So you're stating that Apple is incapable of solving the complexity of a SD slot? Really?
Quote:
Apparently, after all this time you don't have any idea how Apple works. Even minor changes are worth doing. Furthermore, you underestimate the difference. Adding a microSD slot not only adds the weight and volume of the slot, but also adds weight and volume in support structures. Every time you put a new hole in the case, you create a weak point - so it would need to be reinforced.
No one said that it added 10 pounds. But it does add weight and size - and for no real purpose.
No real purpose? For the very real purpose that folks need additional storage for movies, music, photos, documents, books, etc.
No SD slot means solving that need in some other way. If it is not with cloud storage then pray tell what is Apple's strategy to fill this need? If it is cloud storage then you can compare the two technical solutions to meet this need.
If it's more or less a wash...as in both have advantages and disadvantages in common scenarios...then the selection of which technical solution to pursue is not based on technical merits but other considerations. Foremost for most companies that want to stay in business is economics.
Why is it so hard for some folks to simply admit that Apple makes certain technical decisions simply because it makes better business sense? One of the reasons they are so successful is because they carefully manage design, technical and economic factors in every product and more importantly where EACH product lives in the lineup in relation to others. The reason that Apple can afford to offer a $399 16GB iPad 2 and $499 16GB iPad 3 (whatever) is specifically because it does not include a SD card slot so that sufficient 32GB and 64GB models are sold to maintain the ASP at the desired level ($558...which means sufficient 32GB and 64GB models are sold to offset the $399 iPad 2s).
Any time you look at a prospective change in any iDevice you have to look at the impact to the carefully choreographed lineup.
Throw around your insults all you want but the only one that has demonstrated a lack of understanding about Apple in what they write here is you. Your arrogance in this matter is sorely misplaced. To assert that Apple is incapable of an elegant solution for including a SD slot in any iDevice if they desired to do so ignores Apple's proven track record in industrial and technical design. If it's not there it's not because they can't but because they choose not to do so.
Except that your interaction with the device differs because important UI elements exist in the iPad and not the iPhone.
That is my link. Apple refers to a single iOS UI. The fact that the lay out may differ slightly doesn't mean the UI is different.
Since Apple refers to it as the iOS UI, that's all the proof that is needed. Nowhere in their documentation do they EVER refer to an iPad or iPhone UI as being a different matter.
That is my link. Apple refers to a single iOS UI. The fact that the lay out may differ slightly doesn't mean the UI is different.
Since Apple refers to it as the iOS UI, that's all the proof that is needed. Nowhere in their documentation do they EVER refer to an iPad or iPhone UI as being a different matter.
1) Apple saying dramatically but you restate their words to say slightly. That is disingenuous.
2) The layout is the UI. They use the same elements when possible as this helps provide unity and uniformity for developers and users alike but the UI are not the same! This is why there is not a single iPad UI that will run on an iPhone and why iPhone apps look like crap when put on the iPad. They are not the same UI like they are between the iPhone and iPod Touch; if they were then there wouldn't need to be a single line of code to allow for the development tools to know that you plan to develop for Universal UIs.
I do not see any point in increasing size without increasing resolution.
The only reason I need my screen bigger is to have more information available (less zooming and scrolling in Safari, more details and no black bars for HD content)
And I just can't believe Apple will do such a gimmick move that is "You needed a bigger screen here it is... It's not as sharp as on iPhone-4 but still qualifies for Retina". It is not Apple-like at all.
What you're saying makes no sense. A small increase in screen size will make no difference in sharpness, or how difficult it is to see the pixels. If you can't see the pixel's, you can't put more info on the screen.
I can't see the pixels on my new iPad, and the Rez there is much lower than it would be on a 4" screen with the current Rez. And that's at 12". I dare you to prove that you can see better.
It's not a gimmick. Because even though the screen is incredibly sharp. Text can be so small, that it's still hard to read. And making the screen a bit larger will make it that much easier to type on.
Hopefully, the rumors of 16:9 screens are wrong. If all you do is to watch video, then it might matter, but most of us do much more, and for all that, a 16;9 screen sucks.
I can't see the pixels on my new iPad, and the Rez there is much lower than it would be on a 4" screen with the current Rez. And that's at 12". I dare you to prove that you can see better.
...
It depends on eyesight. I am not able to see pixels even at 250 ppi, even though I consider my eyesight to be decent. However there are still people who claim that anything below 300 is sub-par.
(I always assume a natural viewing distance of about half-extended arm; I don't accept the argument that "it's Retina if you look from further away", unless there is a specific use case when one would be holding the device consistently at a larger distance).
It depends on eyesight. I am not able to see pixels even at 250 ppi, even though I consider my eyesight to be decent. However there are still people who claim that anything below 300 is sub-par.
(I always assume a natural viewing distance of about half-extended arm; I don't accept the argument that "it's Retina if you look from further away", unless there is a specific use case when one would be holding the device consistently at a larger distance).
I see a lot of people holding their phones closer than your half an arm distance when the text is small.. That's not the most comfortable distance for everyone. But much closer is difficult because of focus issues. The average person can only focus to about 10", and holding that distance is tiring. A couple of inches further is easier. If text is just a bit bigger, people will automatically hold the phone at the more comfortable distance.
I know people who claim that even 326ppi isn't enough for a retina display, but that's total nonsense. I've had my new iPad since the first day, and quite a few people have now seen, or used it. I ask everyone to look as closely as possible to try to see the pixels, and not a single one has been able to, including my 20 year old daughter's friends, who shouldn't have focus problems. Even under weak magnification (1.5x), the pixels are difficult to discern.
There's a difference between what we can theoretically see, and what we can actually see due to contrast and color issues. This is never taken into account in most discussions, but it's critical. In addition, there is subpixel rendering on the text which makes it much sharper than most people realize.
That is my link. Apple refers to a single iOS UI. The fact that the lay out may differ slightly doesn't mean the UI is different.
Since Apple refers to it as the iOS UI, that's all the proof that is needed. Nowhere in their documentation do they EVER refer to an iPad or iPhone UI as being a different matter.
There are many instances where they state "On iPhone do X" and "On iPad do Y". I can't help that you can't accept reality but the user interaction between the two formats differ greatly primarily because of the addition of split pane and popover but also because there are two specific screen dimensions for iOS devices that app developers code against: 320x480 points and 768x1024 points.
Every iOS developer that designs for both the iPhone and iPad understands this. The UI design for most apps are different on the two device families.
Except that your interaction with the device differs because important UI elements exist in the iPad and not the iPhone.
Nope. It doesn't make sense to provide one because Apple makes more money without out one than with one. They can offer an entry level iPhone/iPad with limited storage and upsell to the middle or upper models while still meeting their desired entry level price point.
Otherwise most folks would just buy the lowest model and insert a SD card.
As secondary storage for large media it doesn't have to be easily accessible. By putting in a tray it reduces the opportunity for lint and dirt to get into the slot.
Technical issues that are very secondary to design and economics.
Because it's not about specs but meeting user needs. Something that a self-proclaimed Apple expert like you should understand. Apple chooses to meet user needs in different ways than other manufacturers typically choosing wireless or cleaner/thinner/more asthetic options.
What is the user need being met by a microSD slot? More storage for movies, books, documents, etc.
What is the user need being met by cloud storage? More storage for movies, books, documents, etc.
All of the "technical reasons" you choose to reject microSD applies equally to the technical solution selected by Apple.
So you're stating that Apple is incapable of solving the complexity of a SD slot? Really?
No real purpose? For the very real purpose that folks need additional storage for movies, music, photos, documents, books, etc.
No SD slot means solving that need in some other way. If it is not with cloud storage then pray tell what is Apple's strategy to fill this need? If it is cloud storage then you can compare the two technical solutions to meet this need.
If it's more or less a wash...as in both have advantages and disadvantages in common scenarios...then the selection of which technical solution to pursue is not based on technical merits but other considerations. Foremost for most companies that want to stay in business is economics.
Why is it so hard for some folks to simply admit that Apple makes certain technical decisions simply because it makes better business sense? One of the reasons they are so successful is because they carefully manage design, technical and economic factors in every product and more importantly where EACH product lives in the lineup in relation to others. The reason that Apple can afford to offer a $399 16GB iPad 2 and $499 16GB iPad 3 (whatever) is specifically because it does not include a SD card slot so that sufficient 32GB and 64GB models are sold to maintain the ASP at the desired level ($558...which means sufficient 32GB and 64GB models are sold to offset the $399 iPad 2s).
Any time you look at a prospective change in any iDevice you have to look at the impact to the carefully choreographed lineup.
Throw around your insults all you want but the only one that has demonstrated a lack of understanding about Apple in what they write here is you. Your arrogance in this matter is sorely misplaced. To assert that Apple is incapable of an elegant solution for including a SD slot in any iDevice if they desired to do so ignores Apple's proven track record in industrial and technical design. If it's not there it's not because they can't but because they choose not to do so.
Seagate 500 gig portable WiFi media server. Problem solved. It serves three iDevices at once. It creates it's own WiFi network and has a range of thirty feet. If all you need is movies in the car. You can shove your Micro SD
Seagate 500 gig portable WiFi media server. Problem solved. It serves three iDevices at once. It creates it's own WiFi network and has a range of thirty feet. If all you need is movies in the car. You can shove your Micro SD
Until the recent firmware upgrade it didn't have bridge mode which is why I prefer the Wi-Drive. Plus it's bulky in comparison and is a spinning platter and there are a bunch of 1 star reviews on Amazon from Mac users.
And you need to read the thread because I don't state that the iPad needs a MicroSD slot. Just that the reason it's not there isn't technical but economic.
Comments
Why does a phone need to support common HDTV formats? It is not a HDTV. In fact I don't even think that HDTV aspect ratio is even considered standard for tablets, lap tops or PC's. The aspect ratio is not useful for most activities on those devices and would prove to be even more awkward on a phone.
Or, more accurately, you keep ignoring the answers when you get them. Among the answers that have already been given (repeatedly):
- A MicroSD card will be much slower and interfere with the smooth performance of the iDevices
- It adds complexity and weight
- It creates another point of failure - and card readers tend to be significant points of failure
- It requires more battery power (IIRC)
- If they included a microSD slot, they'd get complaints from the people who want CF slots. Or any of the other 100 portable disk formats. Where do you draw the line?
Please pay attention when you ask a question instead of simply denying that your question is answered.
Now it's bullying if one chooses not to read a poorly formatted comment that one can't easy speed read through? I made no comment about the poster or their content. I simply didn't read it because it wasn't easy to read. Have we forgotten that the point of communication is to communicate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
i think it's simpler than that. It's inelegant, convoluted, slow, and only a small subset of users want these slots. Even now when you look at the APR the highest capacity isn't the one being bought over all others.
Well, they ARE more expensive AND less cost effective. I think many folks are simply living with not having enough storage. I'm not poor but I'm not paying for a 64GB iDevice. For the $100 cost delta between 32GB and 64GB I'll go get a Kingston Wi-Drive 32GB for $89 and share the space.
http://www.amazon.com/Kingston-Wi-Drive-Portable-WID-32GBZ/dp/B00576APEI
The same argument applies here. Kingston makes more money designing the WiDrive this way vs the Maxell AirStash which is still an annoying $144 and doesn't have bridge mode. Kingston could easily have made an AirStash like device with bridge mode and a SD slot but didn't.
Quote:
Another issue is speed. One of the reasons Apple's devices feel so fast is they aren't going with cheap or slow NAND. AnandTech has made mention of this on several occasions. You simply can't get that with MicroSD cards. As move up in class trying to get close to Apple's NAND speed for a given quantity the costs start to get crazy.
Patriot Class 10 32 GB micro SDHC: $30.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220547
Don't like patriot?
Samsung Class 10 32GB micro SDHC $38.50
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-MicroSDHC-Komputerbay-Adapter-MobileMate/dp/B00768ZS4W/ref=pd_cp_e_0
SanDisk Class 10 32GB micro SDHC $44.99
http://www.cellphoneshop.net/32san10clas.html
That last one is sketchy though...that's probably the Class 6 card that SanDisk makes. $30.59
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Mobile-Ultra-microSDHC-SDSDQY-032G-U46/dp/B005SZ4X28
With a high speed SDXC reader it gets 33MB.s read and 8MB//s write.
Quote:
Not the bargain basement prices that some say are proof that Apple is cheating them.
$30-$40 retail for Class 10 (or higher end Class 6) is a lot less than the $100 cost delta.
$89 for 32GB that comes with a 4 hour battery and WiFi is less than the $100 cost delta between 32GB and 64GB or 16GB and 32GB on the iPads and iPhones.
Quote:
And can you imagine if the average user had to manage between two drives in their device the way that Android users have to do? It's ridiculous! The iPhone, iPad and iPod are the most popular and profitable products in all three of their market categories because of the choices Apple has made...not in spite of as some would like you think.
So you're thinking it's too hard for Apple to design UI paradigms more elegant than the way Google does on Android?
How about something as simple as "slot in the card and the movies and photos appear in your album"? As secondary storage a sdhc card would be great and covers what many folks would want more storage for.
There's no real technical reason not to include a SD card slot. There are many valid business reasons for doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
I want everyone to note that I restrained myself from telling him what to do with his miniSD cards.
As opposed to doing something useful like pointing him at AirStash? It's annoyingly overpriced and has a major annoying restriction but if you have a stack of SD cards and want to use it on your portable devices wirelessly it's currently the only option out there. Well, other than a netbook or something.
$127 with a throwaway 8GB card I guess is better than $144 for the 16GB one.
http://www.amazon.com/Maxell-AirStash-Expandable-Capacity-Wireless/dp/B006473T9M/ref=pd_cp_e_2
My use case (but not my kids):
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or, more accurately, you keep ignoring the answers when you get them.
What? You mean like the UI on the iPad and iPhone being different? Nah...that's different.
Folks aren't stupid. The real answer for why no SD card slot is because economically it doesn't make sense to provide one.
Yes, there are some technical challenges but they are hardly significant given that Apple already has a good design for a sim card slot...although that doesn't get opened as often. But you know, that's okay too given some Android phones have hard to reach micro SD slots.
If Apple could make more money with a SD slot than without they'd solve all the technical issues and we have one.
Today we have dongles, wifi and cloud solutions.
Arguably Apple is offering integrated cloud storage over a SD slot and that's a reasonable design trade.
But lets compare MicroSD card vs iCloud as a technical solution to secondary storage needs (use case: kids in the car):
Quote:
- A MicroSD card will be much slower and interfere with the smooth performance of the iDevices
Vs iCloud, 3G/4G streaming, Wi-Drive, etc? Not so much.
Quote:
- It adds complexity and weight
Yes, adds hardware complexity but Apple is VERY good at solving those. In comparison to the iCloud which adds significant software and infrastructure complexity that Apple has a more spotty track record...
Weight? In a device that is largely aluminum or glass with a huge battery? Yes, adding anything is more weight and space but of the two space is the more critical.
Arguably the need for higher 3G usage using cloud services drives the need for more battery (weight and size) for the same run time vs using local storage.
Quote:
- It creates another point of failure - and card readers tend to be significant points of failure
True. But from a user perspective a lower probability of failure than AT&T or Verizon when trying to access content...
Quote:
- It requires more battery power (IIRC)
In comparison to WiFi or 3G/4G? Doubtful.
Quote:
- If they included a microSD slot, they'd get complaints from the people who want CF slots. Or any of the other 100 portable disk formats. Where do you draw the line?
This is just stupid.
The funny thing is that I'm simply quoting Apple and the statement that there's only one iOS UI. I suspect Apple knows a lot more about their UI than you do. There are obviously differences. But that doesn't mean that the UIs are different. Your interaction with the device is identical on an iPad or iPhone. All you've demonstrated is that you don't have any idea what a UI is.
Which is a circular argument. Why doesn't it make sense to provide one? I gave you all the answers.
But Apple doesn't provide junky, kludge solutions. The fact that some Android phones install hard-to-reach microSD slots doesn't mean it's a good idea. And obviously, a microSD slot would be more prone to dirt and other damage than a SIM slot which is used only at the time the phone is first activated for most people.
Which doesn't negate the fact that there are technical issues.
Why would we do that? The question was why Apple insisted on on-board memory rather than a microSD slot. Bringing the cloud into the matter is irrelevant - and just the kind of obfuscation you are prone to use. One can use the cloud whether there's a microSD slot or not.
As above, that's a silly point. We're comparing microSD to on board memory.
You could have just said "yes, you're right".
The fact is that it adds complexity - and that's one of the reasons that it wasn't used. Might there some day be a solution to the complexity problem? Maybe - and if so, Apple will probably change its stance. But we're talking about today's technology.
Apparently, after all this time you don't have any idea how Apple works. Even minor changes are worth doing. Furthermore, you underestimate the difference. Adding a microSD slot not only adds the weight and volume of the slot, but also adds weight and volume in support structures. Every time you put a new hole in the case, you create a weak point - so it would need to be reinforced.
No one said that it added 10 pounds. But it does add weight and size - and for no real purpose.
Once again, we're comparing microSD to on-board storage. AT&T, Verizon, and the cloud have nothing to do with that. You will have the same network limitations no matter what you use for local storage.
See above. You seem to always want to change the argument when you don't have a real argument.
Great summary of your entire post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philtuttle
What if the extra space was just enough to always show:
Notification Center, OR
iAds, OR
Time, Date, Signal, Etc, OR
something else so that the apps could have 100% of the space they use now, with the new space being utilized by Apple 99% of the time??
I think that would ruin the experience in a lot of apps, especially ones that are full-screen, like games, or Flipboard, or YouTube, etc, or anything in landscape.
Plus, the status bar is currently about 1/4" thick. If the new screen increased from 3.5" to 4" (diagonal) then it would add like ~1/2" to the screen height, too much to simply show a status bar. Good thought tho.
I'm confident the new screen will have the exact same aspect ratio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The funny thing is that I'm simply quoting Apple and the statement that there's only one iOS UI. I suspect Apple knows a lot more about their UI than you do.
I've quoted Apple stating differently from the iOS HIG. I'm pretty sure those are public links and not just for devs.
"Most individual UI elements are available on both devices, but overall the layout differs dramatically."
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/MobileHIG/AppDesign/AppDesign.html
Where's your link?
Quote:
There are obviously differences. But that doesn't mean that the UIs are different. Your interaction with the device is identical on an iPad or iPhone. All you've demonstrated is that you don't have any idea what a UI is.
Except that your interaction with the device differs because important UI elements exist in the iPad and not the iPhone.
Quote:
Which is a circular argument. Why doesn't it make sense to provide one? I gave you all the answers.
Nope. It doesn't make sense to provide one because Apple makes more money without out one than with one. They can offer an entry level iPhone/iPad with limited storage and upsell to the middle or upper models while still meeting their desired entry level price point.
Otherwise most folks would just buy the lowest model and insert a SD card.
Quote:
But Apple doesn't provide junky, kludge solutions. The fact that some Android phones install hard-to-reach microSD slots doesn't mean it's a good idea. And obviously, a microSD slot would be more prone to dirt and other damage than a SIM slot which is used only at the time the phone is first activated for most people.
As secondary storage for large media it doesn't have to be easily accessible. By putting in a tray it reduces the opportunity for lint and dirt to get into the slot.
Quote:
Which doesn't negate the fact that there are technical issues.
Technical issues that are very secondary to design and economics.
Quote:
Why would we do that? The question was why Apple insisted on on-board memory rather than a microSD slot. Bringing the cloud into the matter is irrelevant - and just the kind of obfuscation you are prone to use. One can use the cloud whether there's a microSD slot or not.
Because it's not about specs but meeting user needs. Something that a self-proclaimed Apple expert like you should understand. Apple chooses to meet user needs in different ways than other manufacturers typically choosing wireless or cleaner/thinner/more asthetic options.
What is the user need being met by a microSD slot? More storage for movies, books, documents, etc.
What is the user need being met by cloud storage? More storage for movies, books, documents, etc.
All of the "technical reasons" you choose to reject microSD applies equally to the technical solution selected by Apple.
Quote:
The fact is that it adds complexity - and that's one of the reasons that it wasn't used. Might there some day be a solution to the complexity problem? Maybe - and if so, Apple will probably change its stance. But we're talking about today's technology.
So you're stating that Apple is incapable of solving the complexity of a SD slot? Really?
Quote:
Apparently, after all this time you don't have any idea how Apple works. Even minor changes are worth doing. Furthermore, you underestimate the difference. Adding a microSD slot not only adds the weight and volume of the slot, but also adds weight and volume in support structures. Every time you put a new hole in the case, you create a weak point - so it would need to be reinforced.
No one said that it added 10 pounds. But it does add weight and size - and for no real purpose.
No real purpose? For the very real purpose that folks need additional storage for movies, music, photos, documents, books, etc.
No SD slot means solving that need in some other way. If it is not with cloud storage then pray tell what is Apple's strategy to fill this need? If it is cloud storage then you can compare the two technical solutions to meet this need.
If it's more or less a wash...as in both have advantages and disadvantages in common scenarios...then the selection of which technical solution to pursue is not based on technical merits but other considerations. Foremost for most companies that want to stay in business is economics.
Why is it so hard for some folks to simply admit that Apple makes certain technical decisions simply because it makes better business sense? One of the reasons they are so successful is because they carefully manage design, technical and economic factors in every product and more importantly where EACH product lives in the lineup in relation to others. The reason that Apple can afford to offer a $399 16GB iPad 2 and $499 16GB iPad 3 (whatever) is specifically because it does not include a SD card slot so that sufficient 32GB and 64GB models are sold to maintain the ASP at the desired level ($558...which means sufficient 32GB and 64GB models are sold to offset the $399 iPad 2s).
Any time you look at a prospective change in any iDevice you have to look at the impact to the carefully choreographed lineup.
Throw around your insults all you want but the only one that has demonstrated a lack of understanding about Apple in what they write here is you. Your arrogance in this matter is sorely misplaced. To assert that Apple is incapable of an elegant solution for including a SD slot in any iDevice if they desired to do so ignores Apple's proven track record in industrial and technical design. If it's not there it's not because they can't but because they choose not to do so.
That is my link. Apple refers to a single iOS UI. The fact that the lay out may differ slightly doesn't mean the UI is different.
Since Apple refers to it as the iOS UI, that's all the proof that is needed. Nowhere in their documentation do they EVER refer to an iPad or iPhone UI as being a different matter.
1) Apple saying dramatically but you restate their words to say slightly. That is disingenuous.
2) The layout is the UI. They use the same elements when possible as this helps provide unity and uniformity for developers and users alike but the UI are not the same! This is why there is not a single iPad UI that will run on an iPhone and why iPhone apps look like crap when put on the iPad. They are not the same UI like they are between the iPhone and iPod Touch; if they were then there wouldn't need to be a single line of code to allow for the development tools to know that you plan to develop for Universal UIs.
What you're saying makes no sense. A small increase in screen size will make no difference in sharpness, or how difficult it is to see the pixels. If you can't see the pixel's, you can't put more info on the screen.
I can't see the pixels on my new iPad, and the Rez there is much lower than it would be on a 4" screen with the current Rez. And that's at 12". I dare you to prove that you can see better.
It's not a gimmick. Because even though the screen is incredibly sharp. Text can be so small, that it's still hard to read. And making the screen a bit larger will make it that much easier to type on.
Hopefully, the rumors of 16:9 screens are wrong. If all you do is to watch video, then it might matter, but most of us do much more, and for all that, a 16;9 screen sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
...
I can't see the pixels on my new iPad, and the Rez there is much lower than it would be on a 4" screen with the current Rez. And that's at 12". I dare you to prove that you can see better.
...
It depends on eyesight. I am not able to see pixels even at 250 ppi, even though I consider my eyesight to be decent. However there are still people who claim that anything below 300 is sub-par.
(I always assume a natural viewing distance of about half-extended arm; I don't accept the argument that "it's Retina if you look from further away", unless there is a specific use case when one would be holding the device consistently at a larger distance).
I see a lot of people holding their phones closer than your half an arm distance when the text is small.. That's not the most comfortable distance for everyone. But much closer is difficult because of focus issues. The average person can only focus to about 10", and holding that distance is tiring. A couple of inches further is easier. If text is just a bit bigger, people will automatically hold the phone at the more comfortable distance.
I know people who claim that even 326ppi isn't enough for a retina display, but that's total nonsense. I've had my new iPad since the first day, and quite a few people have now seen, or used it. I ask everyone to look as closely as possible to try to see the pixels, and not a single one has been able to, including my 20 year old daughter's friends, who shouldn't have focus problems. Even under weak magnification (1.5x), the pixels are difficult to discern.
There's a difference between what we can theoretically see, and what we can actually see due to contrast and color issues. This is never taken into account in most discussions, but it's critical. In addition, there is subpixel rendering on the text which makes it much sharper than most people realize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That is my link. Apple refers to a single iOS UI. The fact that the lay out may differ slightly doesn't mean the UI is different.
Since Apple refers to it as the iOS UI, that's all the proof that is needed. Nowhere in their documentation do they EVER refer to an iPad or iPhone UI as being a different matter.
There are many instances where they state "On iPhone do X" and "On iPad do Y". I can't help that you can't accept reality but the user interaction between the two formats differ greatly primarily because of the addition of split pane and popover but also because there are two specific screen dimensions for iOS devices that app developers code against: 320x480 points and 768x1024 points.
Every iOS developer that designs for both the iPhone and iPad understands this. The UI design for most apps are different on the two device families.
Seagate 500 gig portable WiFi media server. Problem solved. It serves three iDevices at once. It creates it's own WiFi network and has a range of thirty feet. If all you need is movies in the car. You can shove your Micro SD
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
Seagate 500 gig portable WiFi media server. Problem solved. It serves three iDevices at once. It creates it's own WiFi network and has a range of thirty feet. If all you need is movies in the car. You can shove your Micro SD
Until the recent firmware upgrade it didn't have bridge mode which is why I prefer the Wi-Drive. Plus it's bulky in comparison and is a spinning platter and there are a bunch of 1 star reviews on Amazon from Mac users.
And you need to read the thread because I don't state that the iPad needs a MicroSD slot. Just that the reason it's not there isn't technical but economic.
definitely ! bigger screen means less restriction !