September launch of 'iPad mini' seen boosting education sales

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 101
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    So? A 7-8" iPad with the same resolution as the iPad 2 would be sharper than a 10" iPad 2 with the same resolution. They're still selling the 10" iPad 2, so why wouldn't they be able to sell a device with the same resolution (so 99% of developers wouldn't have to change their app) but is even sharper?
    I'm not suggesting a greatly inferior product. I'm suggesting a product with essentially the same components as the iPad 2, but smaller. So it would have the same performance as the iPad to, but sharper screen.
    You keep setting up arbitrary decisions and using them to say it won't work. They don't need to use 163 PPI. In fact, I can be pretty certain they won't. That would require a new resolution - and still have a lousy display. If they use the same resolution as the iPad 2, it would have a sharper screen than the iPad 2 - which is still a competitive product. Or, consider that it would have the same resolution as the iPhone 4, but a much larger screen (and also being held at a greater distance). The sharpness would be greater than an iPad 2, but not that much worse than the iPhone 4.
    Outside of the iPad, at least half of the tablets being sold appear to be 7". Even if Apple only sells 1/4 as many 7-8" iPads as their 10" iPad sales, it would still be a very profitable niche.

    You're saying they'll keep the PPI the same as the iPad 2 but they'll keep the resolution the same as the iPad 2 yet it'll somehow be smaller? I hope not because that makes no sense. It's not physically possible.

    What is physically possible and ends up being the cheapest known solution is using the 163 PPI sheets used int the 3GS. At 7.85" 4:3 as the rumour has been suggesting for months and some have argued for years, you get 1024x768 display, the same as the iPad 2 resolution, using the same pixel density they've using for 5 years. Why reinvent the entire widget when you don't have to?
  • Reply 42 of 101
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post




    Intel is going after the education market this year with a 7" ruggedized/waterproof slate design. One potential advantage over what Apple might be willing to offer is the standard USB port which would allow some existing peripherals to be connected. 



     


    Not really an issue when the companies all start making dock connecting models or even just adapters. Heck someone might even figure out that Apple's iPad camera kit USB adapter would work as well and without having to jailbreak etc. 


     


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GS Turn View Post


     


    Who cares about a USB port on an iPad.  What existing peripherals do you want to hook a tablet up to?  




     


    Did you read the article. The answer was right there. 

  • Reply 43 of 101
    gs turngs turn Posts: 30member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    If you read the linked article it explains why a USB port would be useful in a school setting. For your typical retail iPad buyer I'd agree that most wouldn't find it necessary.


     


     


    "With a full-sized USB port, it can accept many of the probes and science tools on the market. LabCam software, with small adapter lenses, can convert the webcam into a portable microscope and front and rear cameras can be used to collect time-lapse data or be triggered by motion to take pictures of events that students might otherwise miss (emerging butterflies or hatching eggs, for example). Statistical data collection software can even show patterns in seemingly Brownian motion (e.g., the movement of ants across pheromone trails).


    While the Learning Series Ecosystem partners are all porting apps to Android, the device also runs Windows, meaning that virtually any x86-compatible hardware and software can be used with the tablet. That’s actually one of the more interesting benefits of the Atom processor. It may not be as fast or as efficient as many ARM-based chips, but schools can leverage existing purchases and software adoption with these tablets. This even includes the countless USB keyboards that schools invariably have sitting in closets, making the lack of an integrated keyboard a true non-issue when typing is necessary (and bigger hands struggle to touch type on the 7? screen)."



     


    I see NO advantages here.  Apple already provides with an iPad a cord that plugs into the iPad and has a full-sized USB plug on the other end of the cord.


     


    Learning Series Ecosystem partners are also porting apps to iOS at a much greater level than Android.


     


    Tablets that run on a x86 processor have been around for 10+ years and have gone no where, they are bulky and hot. Adam processors don't have a very good record.


     


    USB keyboards sitting in closets should be sitting in garbage cans, they are not needed for a tablet. Wireless ones are available if needed.


     


    We are also talking about education here and kids have smaller hands.  Intel is probably using 16:9 Aspect ratio so yes their tablet will be much smaller to.

  • Reply 44 of 101
    kent909kent909 Posts: 710member


    Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

  • Reply 45 of 101
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,209member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    I don't think an e-ink pad would be significant at all. It might appeal to a small number of people, but it's not going to change the world, or even anyone's life. It might be something you want, but in the big picture, it's not something that will be at all important, unless, maybe, and until e-ink, or something very much like it, can offer all the advantages of the current iPad display, and overcome all it's shortcomings. This won't happen in the foreseeable future. Until then, it's not an important technology for Apple to get involved with, except perhaps as an R&D project in a lab.



     


    OK well, we will have to agree to disagree. I know loads of people who have weighed up the pro's and cons of buying an iPad over (or as well as) buying a kindle (in-fact I discussed it with my mother-in-law only an hour ago), and for many people, the kindle is the better choice, even for those with a disposable income.


    I might even buy a kindle myself, and I would buy one for the main reason everyone else I know buys one, which is so they can sit next to the pool or on a beach and read whilst not having to worry about battery drain.

  • Reply 46 of 101
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    Maybe in some contexts, but in all the situations I'm aware of and deal with, the laptop use is identical with the iPad use (i.e. - "class sets" distributed as teaching tools in class and not taken home). 



    I admit I am not involved in primary level education however I imagined that in order for the iPad to be useful in education they would be doing real studying and homework which kind of requires personalization of the device and apps. I suppose you could simply use it to access wikipedia and write down the results but if you are saving any work it has to be your own iPad not a shared iPad. What am I missing?

  • Reply 47 of 101
    gs turngs turn Posts: 30member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    You're saying they'll keep the PPI the same as the iPad 2 but they'll keep the resolution the same as the iPad 2 yet it'll somehow be smaller? I hope not because that makes no sense. It's not physically possible.

    What is physically possible and ends up being the cheapest known solution is using the 163 PPI sheets used int the 3GS. At 7.85" 4:3 as the rumour has been suggesting for months and some have argued for years, you get 1024x768 display, the same as the iPad 2 resolution, using the same pixel density they've using for 5 years. Why reinvent the entire widget when you don't have to?


     


    He was not saying they would keep the PPI the same as the iPad, he said they would keep the resolution the same.  You are the one that does not make since.  They will keep the same resolution as the iPad 2 but increase the PPI to acheive the smaller screen. The PPI will be close to 300 PPI.  Developers write to Aspect Ratio and resolution, they do not write to PPI.  There are dozens of sizes of HD televisions with 1080P resolution, the only difference is the PPI which does not affect anything.  PPI counts do not affect Apps only the quality of the image.  Making a screen smaller by increasing the PPI increases quality, and that is what Apple would be doing by making an iPad Mini.  Apple will not do the cheapest know solution, if they make an iPad Mini it will be a high quality product.

  • Reply 48 of 101
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member


    Quote:



    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    I used to think the chances of Apple making an iPad Mini were slim at best for all the usual reasons everyone gives.


     


    Now I think they will introduce an iPad Mini, and for one reason only: to completely dominate the tablet market. The only Android tablets that are actually selling in quantity are the low-end models. High-end tablets like the Prime and Galaxy have dismal sales. By making an iPad in the $250 range Apple would probably wipe-out the competition at the low end.



    Quote:



    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


     


    they dominate the market already. And there's a danger in gaining that last 10-15%. If you have total strength in the market then folks start yelling about antitrust etc even harder. They assume you had to do something to be so totally winning. That your product is just that much better than the rest is impossible. 


     


    Apple and their one product line takes 85-90% of the market and the other 20 guys with their 50 or so product lines are sharing that other part. It's still a win. Why would Apple, who is already winning in sales, use and mindshare, increase their production costs, decrease the lines that can barely keep up with demand etc to produce a product that they don't really need in order to win. 



     


    This "take over the world" mentality is very common, both with companies and individuals, but I think it really gets in the way when people, most analysts included, try to predict what Apple will do next. Microsoft wanted to "take over the world", Google wants to "take over the world", but I just don't see that as any sort of driving force at Apple at all. If you are a "take over the world" kind of person, or company, it's hard to see things otherwise, but it's like wearing blinders.

  • Reply 49 of 101
    eldernormeldernorm Posts: 232member


    Totally agree with B......  


     


     


     Also, people think $350 is too much for a school but are thinking of their own wallets.


     


    Schools look to spend a million $$ minimum and can get special deals from Apple with machines “leased” with service and a buy at the end kind of package.


    Govt and people….. NOT THE SAME…!!!


    Just a thought,

    en

  • Reply 50 of 101
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    You're saying they'll keep the PPI the same as the iPad 2 but they'll keep the resolution the same as the iPad 2 yet it'll somehow be smaller? I hope not because that makes no sense. It's not physically possible.

    Of course it's not possible - which is why I never said any such thing. Perhaps you ought to pay attention.

    The iPad 2 (at 10") has 1024x768 resolution. If Apple releases a 7" iPad with the same resolution as the iPad 2, it would have greater PPI (or sharpness) while retaining the same resolution so apps wouldn't need to be rewritten..
    solipsismx wrote: »
    What is physically possible and ends up being the cheapest known solution is using the 163 PPI sheets used int the 3GS. At 7.85" 4:3 as the rumour has been suggesting for months and some have argued for years, you get 1024x768 display, the same as the iPad 2 resolution, using the same pixel density they've using for 5 years. Why reinvent the entire widget when you don't have to?

    What makes you think Apple would choose the cheapest thing? Apple would use a high quality screen with the same resolution as the iPad 2 -which is what I've been saying all along. They could do that without going back 2 generations in display technology.
  • Reply 51 of 101
    ulfoafulfoaf Posts: 175member


    I like iPod Touch Maxi.

  • Reply 52 of 101
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member


    To all the doubters who don't think Apple would make a smaller, lighter, cheaper version of a successful product like the iPad I have just 2 words to say:


     


    iPod Nano

     

  • Reply 53 of 101
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

    To all the doubters who don't think Apple would make a smaller, lighter, cheaper version of a successful product like the iPad I have just 2 words to say:


     


    iPod Nano



     


    To all believers who think that Apple would make a smaller, lighter, cheaper version of a successful product like the iPad I have just 2 words to say:


     


    iPhone nano.

  • Reply 54 of 101
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gs turn wrote: »
    You are the one that does not make since.
    One time is a typo but doing it repeatedly is ignorance.
     They will keep the same resolution as the iPad 2 but increase the PPI to acheive the smaller screen.
    Which is what I've been saying.
    The PPI will be close to 300 PPI.
    Now you're thinking even less. I've already ran the numbers for you and yet you've failed to realize that 10224x768 7.85" is 163 PPI... just like the 3GS. This is rudimentary mathematics here!
    Developers write to Aspect Ratio and resolution, they do not write to PPI.
    Is it really that difficult to understand that you alter the SIZE of the items when you alter the SIZE of the items. It's a 1 to fraking 1 ratio we're talking about. You reduce the SIZE by x% you reduce the SIZE by x%. This should not be a difficult concept to understand!
    There are dozens of sizes of HD televisions with 1080P resolution, the only difference is the PPI which does not affect anything.
    I'm also not using my fingers to touch my TV display. For frak's sake is it really possible there are people that don't realize the display is the primary INPUT, not just the OUTPUT?
    PPI counts do not affect Apps only the quality of the image.
    It doesn't affect the apps and yet Apple waited a long time to get double the resolution in the iPhone and had to make a lot of exceptions to get double the resolution in the iPad when your logic is they could have increased the PPI slowly and steadily without any negative affect in the apps and with small qualitative upgrades to the images as they did it. Yet they didn't which should tell you something about your logic and about how Apple operates.
    Making a screen smaller by increasing the PPI increases quality
    WTF!?! Increasing the PPI does not make a display smaller? I seriously hope you didn't mean to use the preposition 'by'.
    ...and that is what Apple would be doing by making an iPad Mini.  Apple will not do the cheapest know solution, if they make an iPad Mini it will be a high quality product.
    Cost and quality are not the same thing. Apple has a 15 year history (much thanks to Tim Cook) in making high quality products at a lo cost from not wasting money where they don't need to which is why the 163 1024x768 PPI 7.85" display makes a great deal of since.
  • Reply 55 of 101
    bmason1270bmason1270 Posts: 258member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    I personally doubt this. More likely an even cheaper iPad 2 for education. The form factor, as is, is perfect for Apple's iBooks in education. Being any smaller would make it a pain to use. Having used a Kindle Fire I can see why they are declining.


    Exactly. Apple designed iBook Author for exclusive use for the iPad. It does not work or scale to the iPhone or iPod Touch. With this software Apple kind of declared the current iPad form factor as the one to move forward with.


     


    To create another device would actually hider schools to spend large chunks of change on a fickle company.


     


    The iPad Mini aint gonna happen. The iPod Touch is meant to be portable first and formost. There is no more room in my pocket for seven more inches.

  • Reply 56 of 101
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    To all believers who think that Apple would make a smaller, lighter, cheaper version of a successful product like the iPad I have just 2 words to say:


     


    iPhone nano.



     


    Do you have some inside knowledge to state that the iPhone Nano will never happen? No? I didn't think so. I prefer to talk about things Apple have actually done in the past as a reasonable indicator of what they might do in the future rather than pure speculation.


     


    I don't see anyone asking for an iPhone Nano but I see lots of people asking for an iPad Mini.


     


    In the meantime the iPhone 3GS covers the market segment much better than an iPhone Nano ever would and come Oct it will be both smaller and cheaper than the iPhone 5.

  • Reply 57 of 101
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

    Do you have some inside knowledge to state that the iPhone Nano will never happen? No? I didn't think so.


     


    Of course I do. 3.5" is "too small" for a phone. Apple won't be making a smaller one. Both sides of the argument can't be taken simultaneously.


     


    Quote:


    I prefer to talk about things Apple have actually done in the past as a reasonable indicator of what they might do in the future rather than pure speculation.



     


    And I prefer to reference things they didn't do in the past when people try to claim the same thing will happen in the future.


     


    Quote:


    I don't see anyone asking for an iPhone Nano but I see lots of people asking for an iPad Mini.



     


    I didn't see anyone asking for an iPad mini in 2008, either.


     


    Quote:


    In the meantime the iPhone 3GS covers the market segment much better than an iPhone Nano ever would and come Oct it will be both smaller and cheaper than the iPhone 5.



     


    Six. But yes, exactly.

  • Reply 58 of 101
    negafoxnegafox Posts: 480member


    Something I might like to see is Apple bump up the display size of the iPod Touch to around 5" to act as an in-between model. I would not want a 5" display phone, but a 5" iPod Touch, I could see that working nicely.

  • Reply 59 of 101
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Of course I do. 3.5" is "too small" for a phone. Apple won't be making a smaller one. Both sides of the argument can't be taken simultaneously.


     


     


    And I prefer to reference things they didn't do in the past when people try to claim the same thing will happen in the future.


     


     


    I didn't see anyone asking for an iPad mini in 2008, either.


     


     


    Six. But yes, exactly.



     


    How can you reference things Apple haven't done? That make no sense.


     


    It makes more sense to look at what they have done in the past and ask the question will they follow that same logic again in the future.


     


    Apple had a very successful product in the iPod but they still chose to release a smaller, lighter, cheaper model in the iPod Nano. Why did they do that? Simple because they recognised that the MP3 player marketplace had become fragmented and they wanted to make sure they had a device in each segment so they could dominate the marketplace across the board (hence the iPod Classic, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle).


     


    It's why we have 3 iPhones to chose from and 3 MBPs and 2 MBAs, etc, etc.


     


    It's called product diversification and Apple have a long history of doing it so it's logical to assume that they will also do it with the iPad. Personally I don't think they will stop with an iPad Nano, in a year or two when they can make it we will see a larger iPad as well.

  • Reply 60 of 101
    bmason1270bmason1270 Posts: 258member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


     


    Do you have some inside knowledge to state that the iPhone Nano will never happen? No? I didn't think so. I prefer to talk about things Apple have actually done in the past as a reasonable indicator of what they might do in the future rather than pure speculation.


     


    I don't see anyone asking for an iPhone Nano but I see lots of people asking for an iPad Mini.


     


    In the meantime the iPhone 3GS covers the market segment much better than an iPhone Nano ever would and come Oct it will be both smaller and cheaper than the iPhone 5.



    When the new larger iPhone comes out and they continue to sell the 4S as the "bargain phone" then you will have your iPhone Nano.

Sign In or Register to comment.