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.
I've always wondered why, if the Fire was doing so well, wouldn't Amazon release sales figures? We get figures across the board but never anything just for Kindle Fire. If someone isn't willing to release sales data it makes me skeptical that the product is actually selling well. Techies and wall street analysts are always looking for a idevice "killer". They gave that distinction to the Fire before they had any hard data to support it. Rather than admit they were wrong, they keep pushing this rumor that Apple will release a smaller iPad to compete with the Fire.
Well, like it or not, lot's of people prefer a smaller size iPad, it's just much easier to hold and read stuffs with 1 hand using a 7-8 inch screen than a 10 inch screen, because it's smaller and lighter.
Not producing an iPad mini is leaving money on the table. Steve might not care, but Tim will do it.
Ah but will Jony do it? At the D10 conference Tim made it pretty clear he's not much involved in design and he didn't give a very convincing answer when asked who was the product curator so my guess is it's not him either.
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.
I judge the Kindle Fire to be successfull only on the grounds that it has name recognition. Does it have any buzz relative to the iPad? Nope, nada, not even close, BUT, in relation to other tablets out there, it is in the discussion with people.
Since nobody has Amazon's numbers, none of us can speculate on its sales. And there is no chance that they are close to the iPad, but, the device is known, and Amazon is the closest competitor than can offer a well built, and respected media ecosystem that rivals iTunes.
Within the tablet arena, Amazon is the only company that I can see that would offer Apple any competition. Granted, that competition is similar to the Olympic Basketball Dream Team's closest rival, but considering the seemingly insurmountable lead Apple has, Amazon has done a nice job for itself.
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.
The only thing that matters to Apple is: if they made a 7" iPad would it sell? I think it would.
Let me give you an example: The iPod Nano. Why do we need the Nano when we have the iPod Touch? An yet it sells in the millions. Strange that.
It's exactly the same principle with the iPad Mini. I know lots of people who think the 10" version is too big and heavy to carry around. So they mostly use it at home.
Forget the other 7" tablets - look at the Kindle. That's been a roaring success. I see loads of people using them every day on the train, at lunchtime in the park, on holiday. Why? Coz it fits nicely in a ladies handbag or a coat pocket (maybe not in your jeans pocket but it fits nicely in a coat pocket).
So I think there is definitely a sizeable market for a 7" iPad Mini which is why I'm confident Apple will make one.
At the D10 conference Tim said Apple was going to double down on secrecy also so I doubt you'd get a convincing answer on whether he had breakfast on any given morning.
My biggest problem with an iPad Mini, is how do I rationalize buying one with the wife?
Sadly there comes a time in an Apple-lover's life when the wife just has to go. I'm sure by now she's seen it coming, it's been you and Siri for almost a year now.
I could see Apple introducing a 7 inch ePad with a color e-ink display for schools and e-book readers. Multi-touch but not capable of everything a full blown iPad can do.
But I don't see them releasing a smaller iPad just for the sake of filling screen size gaps.Apple is about user experience and filling needs in markets they feel they can do some good in.
I could see Apple introducing a 7 inch ePad with a color e-ink display for schools and e-book readers. Multi-touch but not capable of everything a full blown iPad can do.
But I don't see them releasing a smaller iPad just for the sake of filling screen size gaps.Apple is about user experience and filling needs in markets they feel they can do some good in.
After putting the 163 PPI TN panels into production since at least 2007 I think that would be a much cheaper way to go than creating an entirely new assembly line with unproven tech. Is anyone using color eInk today?
If we assume that Apple will continue with 3 years of iPhones for each major market, poorer markets not withstanding, then they will be dropping the iPhone 3GS later this year for the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and 6th gen iPhone which will leave a large gap in their 163 PPI TN panel production. It does make sense in many ways for them to continue to utilize this production to their fullest for inexpensive tablets.
Shouldn't the headline read "[I]Some analyst has opinion about Apple, rumor site re-posts[/I] it for click traffic"? Apple hasn't promised anything in September: this is one analyst's speculation.
If the iPad Mini actually exists, I wonder if it's a new device for the future Apple TV - remote control..anyone? But if it is released, I plan to pick one up. I have a Nook Reader and would simply replace it with the iPad Mini. It's form factor/size is easier as a reader. The Mini can also be used as a remote control for your "future" entertainment center. It can control the new Thermostat developed by an ex-Apple engineer - which I may pick up as well. And most importantly most Android Tablets don't offer the robustness of an Apple device. Believe me I've tried several models, and compared to my wife's iPad 2 they cannot duplicate Apples functionality.
Here's a thought, maybe the iPad Mini will be a gaming device with the functionality of the iPad. I'm not much of a gamer but Apple always seems to surprise us.
Now for those negative people that can't wait to call me an Apple Fanboy..rest easy. My cell phone is the First Generation Droid, My wife has the HTC Rhyme, I plan to upgrade (in a few month) to either the Samsung G3 or possibly the Sony Xperia S - if it's ever released for Verizon with Ice Cream 4.0.
Sadly there comes a time in an Apple-lover's life when the wife just has to go. I'm sure by now she's seen it coming, it's been you and Siri for almost a year now.
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.
Agreed. A 5" iPod Touch would be awesome...especially if it had a 4G option. The 7" Fire sorta fits in my wife's purse (purse is big enough, just not with the Fire AND all the existing stuff that's in there) but a 5" would be better. Especially after you add a cover to keep all the other crap from scratching the hell out of it.
A 4-5" iPod touch with a single or dual core A5 at the current resolution would sell very well IMHO. I bought the fire instead of the iPod Touch because it was faster and bigger.
I have to side with TS on this one. Steve talked of changing Television, not THE television. That's content and that doesn't require a tv to do it. Apple's about leaving things to the folks that do it best. So yeah they will likely leave the tv sets to the boys that have it figured out.
I can see an Apple AV receiver paired with a display that was nothing but power, airplay and a HDMI jack or two. All the smarts would be in the AVR or iOS device paired with the display. In the most minimalist install the display has only one cord attached to it for power. The Apple AVR would connect to the cable box, blu-ray player, etc.
I've always wondered why, if the Fire was doing so well, wouldn't Amazon release sales figures? We get figures across the board but never anything just for Kindle Fire. If someone isn't willing to release sales data it makes me skeptical that the product is actually selling well. Techies and wall street analysts are always looking for a idevice "killer". They gave that distinction to the Fire before they had any hard data to support it. Rather than admit they were wrong, they keep pushing this rumor that Apple will release a smaller iPad to compete with the Fire.
Amazon pretty much only releases the bare minimum of numbers they're required to for being a public company. I think they're afraid if they started putting actual facts out there that there is no rational way to justify their stock price's markup, and it would instantly lose half its value. If they started releasing sales numbers for Kindles people might want to know details about their actual profitable products!
These products will be hot and I'll be buying them all. I'm jonesin for new Apple products to buy especially ones with new designs that stand out from the crowds.
I think you meant designs that will blend in with other Samsung devices
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.
Have you heard of the Amazon Kindle? It's the same size as a paperback, making it quite convenient to pop into a hand bag and read on the train.
The iPad on the other hand, is much larger, and so much less convenient for people who are primarily interested in reading.
Even if the Nook Simple Touch is a good device, how does that negate anything I said?
A 5" device is very different than a tablet.
First, I never said it was a good device, however, it does work great for its intended purpose. And I'm not trying to negate anything you've said. I just think differently about the matter. I was merely pointing out that the nook's 5" screen size, aspect ratio and form factor would make a better device than the touch, and would provide a smaller form factor alternative to the 10" iPad, based on my experience. And I state that argument because I don't see the need for 3 form factors between the rumored 4" screen and 10" screen. So that was my alternative, to drop the 3.5" (or rumored 4") touch in favor of a bigger screen, and (with a smaller side bezels) create a new form factor that would provide more portability/pocketability yet still be big enough for practical use. That would leave the iPhone with the smallest screen. But in all reality the two devices , despite their size and OS, do have entirely different uses/user-groups, and I have very rarely seen someone who owns both. Unless you're the type that must own EVERYTHING APPLE MAKES yet only use about 2 or 3 devices on a regular basis.
Think of it is way...just for kicks. If you're out and about anywhere where you have enough time to use a device bigger than even the current touch/phone, you'll probably have a bag with you or a place to store the device while on commute (bag, glove box, etc.). Like many have said, the #1 reason most people want a smaller iPad is price. Just read these forums enough and one can see that's the most important reality is that most people considering the iPad, can't justify th cash and would settle on a smaller one and sacrifice a little usability for affordability. Of course more portability is good too, but if the iPad was $299, lets be honest here, I really doubt we would have nearly AS MANY people complaining it was too big or not portable enough.
For me, I've never been out anywhere for any length of time where I wish I had my iPad over my iPhone. Well mainly because of the fact that i dont see the need to pay for two 3g bills and then id have two devices with me, and only one makes calls to anyone on the go. Sure I take my iPad on trips (plane/car/train/hotel) and to a freind's house. But i either have a bag with me, or I put it in my glovebox or he passenger seat while on commute or it sits in the hotel as an alternative to a laptop.
And yes, part of me wishes I had a little bit bigger screen than my iPhone. So I am touting the argument a bit subjectively, but I do think from a economy of scale POV, having two well designed form factors is better than 3, just to have 3 sizes...mainly because of what I said about cannibalization.
I think everyone keeps talking about 7.85" because of pixel scaling, but we have already seen in the new iPad pixel scaling by PPI isn't proportional...since the new iPad's PPI is different from the iPhone. Plus the current iPad is actually a 9.7" screen. So to make an 7.85" display, IMO is just not enough smaller to justify. Actually, 6.85" would be exactly 1/2 between 4" and 9.7".
If any device is released with a screen between the touch and the iPad, I'd be very willing to bet money, there will still be complaints that it's not the size he/she desires. Which was another argument for something slightly smaller than 7.85" and bigger than 3.5".
[SIZE=4]ok, now I feel like a huge dope. The nook's screen size is actually 6" not 5". But I still hold to my argument that a 6" touch, after dropping the current one, is still better than a 7.85" iPad.[/SIZE]
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
I've always wondered why, if the Fire was doing so well, wouldn't Amazon release sales figures? We get figures across the board but never anything just for Kindle Fire. If someone isn't willing to release sales data it makes me skeptical that the product is actually selling well. Techies and wall street analysts are always looking for a idevice "killer". They gave that distinction to the Fire before they had any hard data to support it. Rather than admit they were wrong, they keep pushing this rumor that Apple will release a smaller iPad to compete with the Fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever
Well, like it or not, lot's of people prefer a smaller size iPad, it's just much easier to hold and read stuffs with 1 hand using a 7-8 inch screen than a 10 inch screen, because it's smaller and lighter.
Not producing an iPad mini is leaving money on the table. Steve might not care, but Tim will do it.
Ah but will Jony do it? At the D10 conference Tim made it pretty clear he's not much involved in design and he didn't give a very convincing answer when asked who was the product curator so my guess is it's not him either.
I judge the Kindle Fire to be successfull only on the grounds that it has name recognition. Does it have any buzz relative to the iPad? Nope, nada, not even close, BUT, in relation to other tablets out there, it is in the discussion with people.
Since nobody has Amazon's numbers, none of us can speculate on its sales. And there is no chance that they are close to the iPad, but, the device is known, and Amazon is the closest competitor than can offer a well built, and respected media ecosystem that rivals iTunes.
Within the tablet arena, Amazon is the only company that I can see that would offer Apple any competition. Granted, that competition is similar to the Olympic Basketball Dream Team's closest rival, but considering the seemingly insurmountable lead Apple has, Amazon has done a nice job for itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
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.
The only thing that matters to Apple is: if they made a 7" iPad would it sell? I think it would.
Let me give you an example: The iPod Nano. Why do we need the Nano when we have the iPod Touch? An yet it sells in the millions. Strange that.
It's exactly the same principle with the iPad Mini. I know lots of people who think the 10" version is too big and heavy to carry around. So they mostly use it at home.
Forget the other 7" tablets - look at the Kindle. That's been a roaring success. I see loads of people using them every day on the train, at lunchtime in the park, on holiday. Why? Coz it fits nicely in a ladies handbag or a coat pocket (maybe not in your jeans pocket but it fits nicely in a coat pocket).
So I think there is definitely a sizeable market for a 7" iPad Mini which is why I'm confident Apple will make one.
At the D10 conference Tim said Apple was going to double down on secrecy also so I doubt you'd get a convincing answer on whether he had breakfast on any given morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
My biggest problem with an iPad Mini, is how do I rationalize buying one with the wife?
Sadly there comes a time in an Apple-lover's life when the wife just has to go. I'm sure by now she's seen it coming, it's been you and Siri for almost a year now.
I could see Apple introducing a 7 inch ePad with a color e-ink display for schools and e-book readers. Multi-touch but not capable of everything a full blown iPad can do.
But I don't see them releasing a smaller iPad just for the sake of filling screen size gaps.Apple is about user experience and filling needs in markets they feel they can do some good in.
After putting the 163 PPI TN panels into production since at least 2007 I think that would be a much cheaper way to go than creating an entirely new assembly line with unproven tech. Is anyone using color eInk today?
If we assume that Apple will continue with 3 years of iPhones for each major market, poorer markets not withstanding, then they will be dropping the iPhone 3GS later this year for the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and 6th gen iPhone which will leave a large gap in their 163 PPI TN panel production. It does make sense in many ways for them to continue to utilize this production to their fullest for inexpensive tablets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi
…ePad with a color e-ink display…
I'm not sure I have a reaction image for this.
Quote:
Multi-touch but not capable of everything a full blown iPad can do.
So what's the point?
If the iPad Mini actually exists, I wonder if it's a new device for the future Apple TV - remote control..anyone? But if it is released, I plan to pick one up. I have a Nook Reader and would simply replace it with the iPad Mini. It's form factor/size is easier as a reader. The Mini can also be used as a remote control for your "future" entertainment center. It can control the new Thermostat developed by an ex-Apple engineer - which I may pick up as well. And most importantly most Android Tablets don't offer the robustness of an Apple device. Believe me I've tried several models, and compared to my wife's iPad 2 they cannot duplicate Apples functionality.
Here's a thought, maybe the iPad Mini will be a gaming device with the functionality of the iPad. I'm not much of a gamer but Apple always seems to surprise us.
Now for those negative people that can't wait to call me an Apple Fanboy..rest easy. My cell phone is the First Generation Droid, My wife has the HTC Rhyme, I plan to upgrade (in a few month) to either the Samsung G3 or possibly the Sony Xperia S - if it's ever released for Verizon with Ice Cream 4.0.
Ok, may the negative comments begin......
Hahahaha!!!!!
She loves Apple too though
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
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.
Agreed. A 5" iPod Touch would be awesome...especially if it had a 4G option. The 7" Fire sorta fits in my wife's purse (purse is big enough, just not with the Fire AND all the existing stuff that's in there) but a 5" would be better. Especially after you add a cover to keep all the other crap from scratching the hell out of it.
A 4-5" iPod touch with a single or dual core A5 at the current resolution would sell very well IMHO. I bought the fire instead of the iPod Touch because it was faster and bigger.
Primary use is games and movies for the kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
I have to side with TS on this one. Steve talked of changing Television, not THE television. That's content and that doesn't require a tv to do it. Apple's about leaving things to the folks that do it best. So yeah they will likely leave the tv sets to the boys that have it figured out.
I can see an Apple AV receiver paired with a display that was nothing but power, airplay and a HDMI jack or two. All the smarts would be in the AVR or iOS device paired with the display. In the most minimalist install the display has only one cord attached to it for power. The Apple AVR would connect to the cable box, blu-ray player, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I've always wondered why, if the Fire was doing so well, wouldn't Amazon release sales figures? We get figures across the board but never anything just for Kindle Fire. If someone isn't willing to release sales data it makes me skeptical that the product is actually selling well. Techies and wall street analysts are always looking for a idevice "killer". They gave that distinction to the Fire before they had any hard data to support it. Rather than admit they were wrong, they keep pushing this rumor that Apple will release a smaller iPad to compete with the Fire.
Amazon pretty much only releases the bare minimum of numbers they're required to for being a public company. I think they're afraid if they started putting actual facts out there that there is no rational way to justify their stock price's markup, and it would instantly lose half its value. If they started releasing sales numbers for Kindles people might want to know details about their actual profitable products!
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksodos
These products will be hot and I'll be buying them all. I'm jonesin for new Apple products to buy especially ones with new designs that stand out from the crowds.
I think you meant designs that will blend in with other Samsung devices
This thing looks like doodoo. Not to mention that a 16:9 screen would make 700,000 apps useless...
I do not understand how can websites post those pictures...
So lame and ugly.
Its lame just to think that a 16:9 iPhone is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
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.
Have you heard of the Amazon Kindle? It's the same size as a paperback, making it quite convenient to pop into a hand bag and read on the train.
The iPad on the other hand, is much larger, and so much less convenient for people who are primarily interested in reading.
Think of it is way...just for kicks. If you're out and about anywhere where you have enough time to use a device bigger than even the current touch/phone, you'll probably have a bag with you or a place to store the device while on commute (bag, glove box, etc.). Like many have said, the #1 reason most people want a smaller iPad is price. Just read these forums enough and one can see that's the most important reality is that most people considering the iPad, can't justify th cash and would settle on a smaller one and sacrifice a little usability for affordability. Of course more portability is good too, but if the iPad was $299, lets be honest here, I really doubt we would have nearly AS MANY people complaining it was too big or not portable enough.
For me, I've never been out anywhere for any length of time where I wish I had my iPad over my iPhone. Well mainly because of the fact that i dont see the need to pay for two 3g bills and then id have two devices with me, and only one makes calls to anyone on the go. Sure I take my iPad on trips (plane/car/train/hotel) and to a freind's house. But i either have a bag with me, or I put it in my glovebox or he passenger seat while on commute or it sits in the hotel as an alternative to a laptop.
And yes, part of me wishes I had a little bit bigger screen than my iPhone. So I am touting the argument a bit subjectively, but I do think from a economy of scale POV, having two well designed form factors is better than 3, just to have 3 sizes...mainly because of what I said about cannibalization.
I think everyone keeps talking about 7.85" because of pixel scaling, but we have already seen in the new iPad pixel scaling by PPI isn't proportional...since the new iPad's PPI is different from the iPhone. Plus the current iPad is actually a 9.7" screen. So to make an 7.85" display, IMO is just not enough smaller to justify. Actually, 6.85" would be exactly 1/2 between 4" and 9.7".
If any device is released with a screen between the touch and the iPad, I'd be very willing to bet money, there will still be complaints that it's not the size he/she desires. Which was another argument for something slightly smaller than 7.85" and bigger than 3.5".
There...did that clarify for you?