'Exciting' Sept. could see Apple intro new iPhone, iPad 'mini'

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 88
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Blah blah blah, iPad nano, blah blah blah, television, blah blah blah, iPhone nano…


     


    Same story, different noun. 

  • Reply 22 of 88
    bmason1270bmason1270 Posts: 258member
    Blah blah blah, iPad nano, blah blah blah, television, blah blah blah, iPhone nano…

    Same story, different noun. 

    I believe you are right about the iPad nano and the iPhone nano, but I think you will eat your words on a TV.
  • Reply 23 of 88
    Has anyone thought this rumoured mini iPad is not actually an iPad at all. But a touch screen remote for the rumoured Apple TV coming soon.

    It would make sense. Touch screen input and you give the TV voice commands through Siri via the remote tablet.
  • Reply 24 of 88
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 661member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    according to people in the Taiwanese supply chain.


    Same folks that give DigiTimes all their 'scoops'?

  • Reply 25 of 88
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    Totally agree with you here. I've said the same myself. 7" iPad still too big for most standard pants pockets and iPod touch already priced too close to the iPad, now that Gen 2 is $399.

    What I'd like to see is an iPod touch that's slightly larger than the iPhone., say 5" screen, and drop the current model. That way you would satisfy most people that seem to want a smaller iPad. My better half has the nook simple touch (also a 5" screen). It's form factor and light weight would be perfect for n iOS device. It's screen size was developed to mimic the sme mount of space of. Standard paperback, grocery store book so I would work well for reading and web, since or some reason, all websites annoyingly default to the mobile version of the site in the current iPad.

    Personally, I have both the iPad and iPhone and I can see absolutely no need to own something in-between. Just from listening to some public opinion and in my medium sized group of acquaintances, it seems the majority of users want a 7" iPad for a couple of key reasons. Lighter, most people that first buy an iPad complain it's too heavy. And I agree that the new iPad is noticeably heavier even so. Second is portability. And that primarily comes from women. Most women I've overheard or talked to claim the iPad is too big to fit in most average sized purses. And for the men, a 5" mega-touch would be just small enough to fit in some 501's. Third is gaming. Most people I know that do a lot of gaming on the iPad want something more PSP sized...which is about a 5" screen minus the controller buttons.

    So thats my addition to you comment.

    carmissimo wrote: »
    The iPod will get a 4-inch screen ala the next iPhone and that will likely be as close to an iPad Mini as we're gong to get. Looking at it from Apple's perspective, what's the point of having a 7-inch iPad. The 10-inch iPad has positively decimated the 7-inch competitors out there and there is already a pocketable device in Apple's product mix that would be more or less fitting in at around the same price as this rumoured 7-inch iPad.
    The best aspect of carrying the current iPad form factor and a 4-incher named the iPod Touch is that one could easily imagine a consumer owning a combination of the iPad along with either an iPhone or a Touch. The 7-inch iPad, on the other hand, would more likely be seen by many as an alternative to the current iPad form factor. The net impact would be few additional sales yet millions spent on development. It doesn't add up.
    What the iPad needs is lighter, more efficient technology and that will come. The next iPad is probably going to feature a weight reduction thanks to technology on the way that will deliver high resolution with less demand on the battery. Once that happens, the 7-inch form factor will be rendered pointless. Yet there will always be a place for a small device that fits in most pockets as a companion piece to the standard iPad. I carry a Touch around with me at work but could not bring along my iPad. The 7-inch version would still be too large to carry along in my work environment.
    A lighter iPad next spring and a Touch with a bit larger screen this fall fits perfectly with what I need. I suspect this is the case for a lot of other consumers as well.
  • Reply 26 of 88
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

    I believe you are right about the iPad nano and the iPhone nano, but I think you will eat your words on a TV.


     


    I ain't ridin' this coaster down the hill again. I remember the '90s. Next it'll be bringing back the QuickTake and the LaserWriter. We've already HAD an "Apple will release a standalone camera" rumor this year…


     


    I welcome Apple's annihilation of the existing television metaphor and bankrupting of cable and satellite providers, but that doesn't require a TV to do it right. I can't think of a scenario involving a TV that wouldn't be wrong.

  • Reply 27 of 88
    bmason1270bmason1270 Posts: 258member
    Has anyone thought this rumoured mini iPad is not actually an iPad at all. But a touch screen remote for the rumoured Apple TV coming soon.
    It would make sense. Touch screen input and you give the TV voice commands through Siri via the remote tablet.

    Thought of it? Sure, but it seems unlikely to make a limited dedicated device like that when an App, similar to the existing Apple TV app that currently exists. The lack of infrared on the current crop of devices is the only shortcoming, and this lends the most credit to your theory.
  • Reply 28 of 88
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    bmason1270 wrote: »
    Certainly many people purchased the Fire because it was a inexpensive tablet but many chose the Amazon Ecosytem because they were perhaps already embedded. While there are other e-readers at a cheaper price, they wanted a tablet. This in spite of the fact that they could have purchased a better equipped iPad for just a $100 more. Not unreachable if you are patient and really wanted it.
    The Fire was successfull as much for it's Brand Name as it was for its form factor. There are other similarly priced Android Tablets as the Fire, but the Amazon Brand was the distinguishing difference.
    The iPad has many competitors on specs and price points yet it dominates for many reasons, but the main reason is the Apple Brand/Ecosystem. Why would a choice for the Amazon Fire be based on different reason? Does Amazon not maintain customer loyalty? Ask Borders that question.

    That could be true, but everyone I talked to who bought a Fire bought it because it was "just like an iPad but half the price". I don't know anyone who bought it because it was a "better Kindle". The reported high return rates and the fact that sales fell through the floor after the first month or two bears that out.
    antkm1 wrote: »
    Totally agree with you here. I've said the same myself. 7" iPad still too big for most standard pants pockets and iPod touch already priced too close to the iPad, now that Gen 2 is $399.
    What I'd like to see is an iPod touch that's slightly larger than the iPhone., say 5" screen, and drop the current model. That way you would satisfy most people that seem to want a smaller iPad.
    Personally, I have both the iPad and iPhone and I can see absolutely no need to own something in-between. Just from listening to some public opinion and in my medium sized group of acquaintances, it seems the majority of users want a 7" iPad for a couple of key reasons. Lighter, most people that first buy an iPad complain it's too heavy. And I agree that the new iPad is noticeably heavier even so. Second is portability. And that primarily comes from women. Most women I've overheard or talked to claim the iPad is too big to fit in most average sized purses. And for the men, a 5" mega-touch would be just small enough to fit in some 501's. Third is gaming. Most people I know that do a lot of gaming on the iPad want something more PSP sized...which is about a 5" screen minus the controller buttons.
    So thats my addition to you comment.

    I don't see a 5" as suitable as a tablet. A tablet is entirely different than an iPod Touch. Different markets, different customer base, etc. I could see increasing the size of the iPod Touch slightly, but even if they went to 5", there's still a HUGE gap between 5" and 10". And considering that most of the successful competitors are at 7", that seems to be the sweet spot.
  • Reply 29 of 88
    bmason1270bmason1270 Posts: 258member
    I ain't ridin' this coaster down the hill again. I remember the '90s. Next it'll be bringing back the QuickTake and the LaserWriter. We've already HAD an "Apple will release a standalone camera" rumor this year…

    I welcome Apple's annihilation of the existing television metaphor and bankrupting of cable and satellite providers, but that doesn't require a TV to do it right. I can't think of a scenario involving a TV that wouldn't be wrong.

    Haha.

    I agree with you that the Apple TV that you want, I want and everyone hopes for will NOT be made. But I think a TV in some form will be made.
  • Reply 30 of 88
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post



    The iPod will get a 4-inch screen ala the next iPhone and that will likely be as close to an iPad Mini as we're gong to get. Looking at it from Apple's perspective, what's the point of having a 7-inch iPad. The 10-inch iPad has positively decimated the 7-inch competitors out there and there is already a pocketable device in Apple's product mix that would be more or less fitting in at around the same price as this rumoured 7-inch iPad.The best aspect of carrying the current iPad form factor and a 4-incher named the iPod Touch is that one could easily imagine a consumer owning a combination of the iPad along with either an iPhone or a Touch. The 7-inch iPad, on the other hand, would more likely be seen by many as an alternative to the current iPad form factor. The net impact would be few additional sales yet millions spent on development. It doesn't add up.   What the iPad needs is lighter, more efficient technology and that will come. The next iPad is probably going to feature a weight reduction thanks to technology on the way that will deliver high resolution with less demand on the battery. Once that happens, the 7-inch form factor will be rendered pointless. Yet there will always be a place for a small device that fits in most pockets as a companion piece to the standard iPad. I carry a Touch around with me at work but could not bring along my iPad. The 7-inch version would still be too large to carry along in my work environment.A lighter iPad next spring and a Touch with a bit larger screen this fall fits perfectly with what I need. I suspect this is the case for a lot of other consumers as well.


     


    I think this is an excellent analysis. The real improvement that is necessary for the iPad to continue to be a hit is really the reduction in weight and bulk.  


     


    Apple needs to continue to increase the speed and the overall experience for gamers on the iPhone and iPod touch, but leave the iPad alone (horsepower-wise) and focus primarily on making it lighter and thinner.  

  • Reply 31 of 88
    conrailconrail Posts: 489member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


     


    The "Retina" branding surely is stretchy, if 163 ppi can be branded a "Retina display"... I didn't know the original iPhone had a Retina display too... /s



    That's because "retina display" is marketing hype as opposed to an actual standard.

  • Reply 32 of 88
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post



    ... 7" iPad still too big for most standard pants pockets ...


     


    Just to play devil's advocate here ... this is just the male side of the equation.  


     


    7" tablets are pretty much the perfect size for the average purse, so given the 50/50 split in gender, arguments about "pocket size" are kind of canceled out.  One could even argue that since (in most countries) today it's okay for men to carry purse's now, that the pocket argument doesn't really work at all anymore. 


     


    I don't believe the 7" tablet is very likely either however, for other reasons than this.  


     


    If it happens at all I think it will be a niche device like the Galaxy Note or a bigger iPod touch gaming device or something similar. 

  • Reply 33 of 88
    ryukryuk Posts: 29member
    I'm hopeing for a summer intro before AT&T follow Verizon lead with that shared data plan... & I still have no fait in the iPad mini
  • Reply 34 of 88
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    While going with the current display panels they've been using since 2007 with the original iPhone would be a huge reduction in component costs for Apple would these would also be TN panels, not IPS panels that are key to what has made the iPad's display so great. I understand the math used to get the 7.85" size and how it can reduce costs considerably to compete with Amazon's below-cost product but the Kindle Fire uses IPS so either Apple will sell a visually inferior product or this math-based assumption of how Apple could do it is all just speculative.

    conrail wrote: »
    That's because "retina display" is marketing hype as opposed to an actual standard.

    Except that you're ignoring that it's based on actual math. If you had a 60" HDTV that was 164 PPI you honestly wouldn't think it's just to call it a Retina Display? Bullshit! That's over 4x the pixel density of current HDTVs and you'd be 2 feet away from the set and not be able to determine pixels with any human eyesight.

    Here's is a little secret: 3438 x 1/x = y

    That's the simple equation that tells you how how many inches your eyes need to be away from the display of a particular PPI for 20/20 vision to get the Retina Display effect. There is no trickery here. There is no fuzzy math.
  • Reply 35 of 88
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    That's because "retina display" is marketing hype as opposed to an actual standard.



     


    Not really true.  You exaggerate here.  


     


    It's a marketing term (not hype, per se), that does have an actual definition.  


     


    It's not an actual standard that anyone else uses at the moment but that's irrelevant to whether the term has meaning. 

  • Reply 36 of 88
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    ... I can't think of a scenario involving a TV that wouldn't be wrong for me.



     


    There, fixed it for you. :-)

  • Reply 37 of 88


    Well, I assume that this also means a new iPod Touch, seeing as if there is a new screen size for the iPhone, they wouldn't design the same app but smaller for the iPod Touch, correct?

  • Reply 38 of 88
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

    There, fixed it for you. :-)


     


    Fine, explain what an HDTV can do that an Apple TV cannot. 


     


    Still waiting for an answer.



     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by THEMAC1NT0SH View Post

    …if there is a new screen size for the iPad, they wouldn't design the same app but smaller for the iPhone, correct?



     


    Not to be ignored. I'm not saying anything about the iPod touch, a lack thereof, or anything else, but you have to take the above into account.


     


    If anything, I think the "iPhone 5" designs we saw last year was the redesigned iPod touch. I can't believe no one else said that, particularly since the case was half the thickness of the iPhone and people actually thought an iPhone battery would be able to fit in that thing.

  • Reply 39 of 88
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    jragosta wrote: »
    That could be true, but everyone I talked to who bought a Fire bought it because it was "just like an iPad but half the price". I don't know anyone who bought it because it was a "better Kindle". The reported high return rates and the fact that sales fell through the floor after the first month or two bears that out.
    I don't see a 5" as suitable as a tablet. A tablet is entirely different than an iPod Touch. Different markets, different customer base, etc. I could see increasing the size of the iPod Touch slightly, but even if they went to 5", there's still a HUGE gap between 5" and 10". And considering that most of the successful competitors are at 7", that seems to be the sweet spot.

    Have you experienced a device with a 4:3, 5" screen? The Nook simple touch is the best comparison. See my edited post for more detail. After using my GF's, I could easily see this as "the new iPod Touch", just loosE the massive bezel that the nook has. It' would be small enough to pocket and big enough for everything else adequately and even better than he current touch.

    I don't see 3 form factors between 4" and 10" as a good solution, one will ultimately cannibalize the other like the iPod nano is doing o the shuffle and the classic.
  • Reply 40 of 88
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post





    Certainly many people purchased the Fire because it was a inexpensive tablet but many chose the Amazon Ecosytem because they were perhaps already embedded. While there are other e-readers at a cheaper price, they wanted a tablet. This in spite of the fact that they could have purchased a better equipped iPad for just a $100 more. Not unreachable if you are patient and really wanted it.

    The Fire was successfull as much for it's Brand Name as it was for its form factor. There are other similarly priced Android Tablets as the Fire, but the Amazon Brand was the distinguishing difference.

    The iPad has many competitors on specs and price points yet it dominates for many reasons, but the main reason is the Apple Brand/Ecosystem. Why would a choice for the Amazon Fire be based on different reason? Does Amazon not maintain customer loyalty? Ask Borders that question.


     


    I agree that most Fire purchases are based on brand name and the association with Amazon.  Especially with older users who just want to keep reading books but see a value in going digital, they want to "stay with Amazon" (although that fact makes me want to slap them), and just get a good eReader.  These people are unlikely to want or be in the market for anything more than an eReader and would not normally buy the iPad anyway.  


     


    However I think you are making a couple of assumptions here that are simply not in evidence.  First, there is really no evidence at all the the Fire is "successful" and sells in anything like reasonable numbers.  There is on the other hand much anecdotal evidence that it's a very unsuccessful product and that customer experience with it is awful and that the return rates are high.  Amazon purposely never releases sales figures in order to mask situations like this.  Without the facts, perception is king, and while the perception is that the Fire is a "competitor" and "does well" this is in fact pure speculation from reviewers operating completely in the dark.  


     


    Secondly, You are assuming that the Fire is a better, more popular choice than the basic Kindle, for which all the arguments you make for the Fire can also be made.  Again, facts are few and far between but the information that has leaked out so far would seem to indicate that the original Kindles do better than the Fire's and are more popular overall.  


     


    The Fire 2.0 might do better, but literally all actual evidence on the matter shows the 1.0 version to be a slow, clunky, hard to use, error-prone POS that doesn't actually sell well at all and hasn't cannibalised any markets or put any competing products on the ropes etc. It's to Amazon's credit that they can work the propaganda machine to the point that most people actually believe the exact opposite of this, because it isn't really true at all.  

Sign In or Register to comment.