As a side note- just made a half dozen typos on that paragraph. On my iPhone I make none. While browsing on the iPad rocks- Typing on the iPad sucks- I can't wait for a smaller screen (I'm 6'2 btw- so my fingers aren't little)
Yeah... It seems to have gotten worse. Landscape mode is a disaster for typing, and the split keyboard is a mess. The only clean way to type is portrait mode, and that is a disappointment as well. They need to license some of the dynamic keyboard technology, or just re-align the existing. Spaces, N's, and the delete key seem to be my main nemesis, but the randome spelling "corrections" are driving me insane. (I did actually type "random"!)
Margins first. All other financial metrics are secondary.
Total profits are first. Margins are a means to that end. Margins are especially important when/where capital is scarce, but that is not Apple's situation. They have more capital than they know what to do with.
You don't understand what that means. as anantksundaram stated, less expensive means it has to be inexpensive to make, to maintain margins, and still be an amazing experience for 2+ years. 4.7" is an odd size in terms of iOS Geometries. which leads to the 'why' that dimension, which now we have to ask you... what pixel density do you see for this glass?
To be either Retina or non Retina with current geometries of LED displays, you'd have to make a whole new production line of glass. That's not 'less expensive' OR you would have to make a whole new geometry that is either not Retina or not 'double' some current geometry (doubling allows for the longest transition for apps and OS graphics elements), which would requires a a whole new set of iconography for the device, and that doesn't win you friends, or make apps less expensive.
so, in short, 4.7" would require a new LED glass substrate and/or a new geometry (something other than 3:2, 4:3). Unless there is a compelling reason you know of other than "I think that would be a great size," there are no production or UI drivers to use that size.
Apple always plays the long game. My suspicion is they hope to eliminate the 1024x768 geometry and non Retina Display devices (iPhone 3GS, iPad 1 and 2), before they change the geometry of the phone and iPod to 4ish inches. Hence my conclusion is that the iPad Mini will use iPhone 4 Glass .
My educated guess:
In the fall,
iPad 1 disappears
iPad Mini takes over with RD using iPhone 4glass (so the iPhone 4, 4s, 5 and iPad Mini all use the same glass) at $299 ($249 at the low end)
iPod Touch moves to $149.
In the Spring (2013)
Current iPad RD moves to $399
Next Gen iPad will come in at $499 with the similar features as the iPhone 5 (chipset, LTE, better batteries)
At the same time the iPad Mini gets an upgrade to LTE as well. and the current iPad Mini moves to $199.
In June 2013,
iOS7 is announced and the support for the 3GS/iPad1 is dropped.
In Sept 2013, the new iPhone and iPod Touch are announced at a new geometry at 4.small inches, using a new pixel density/technology.
In Spring 2014, a new iPad is announced at double the geometry of the new iPhone... maybe 9.5"
in June 2014,
1024*768 and the iPad 2 support is dropped in iOS8.
Apple may accelerate this (support for 1024x768 may drop in IOS 7.x) as they have wont to do in the past (killing the iPod Mini), but my guess is given the cost of glass, they will develop a glass foundry and milk it for 4 odd years (3GS glass is what, 5 years old).
My logic in referring to it as a less expensive approach is based on the following logic. The iPad 2 has already been developed and is rolling off assembly lines as we speak. I'm sure Apple recovered development costs on that device a long, long time ago. A price reduction at this time is viable and still Apple will make a lot of money. Yet wouldn't a $349 iPad 2 go a long way towards meeting the challenge of lower-cost 7-inch tablets? For a few dollars more you can have the real thing rather than a heavily compromised imitation that leaves out an important element, namely a large enough screen to give apps enough room to work in an enjoyable fashion. Meanwhile, unless Apple intends to kill off the Touch entirely, developing a new version has got to have been something they have been working on. Fact is, the resolution on the existing Touch is so high that you could retain it, go up in screen size in the range that I;m talking about and still have a device with an excellent screen. As for the number I threw out there, it was just a number I conjured up out of thin air. I'm not an engineer and neither do I know what the ideal size would be. That's Apple's role in this. I'm merely noting that there is room for the iPod Touch to grow while retaining its reason for being, namely to offer a pocketable device that does the work of a small computer.
By the way, I see no reason to kill the iPad 2, at least in principle. Building a lower-spec tablet for the lower end of the market that is still quite usable is a great idea. I bought one when the new iPad came out and have found it to be a marvellous device. Not everyone needs the latest and greatest. If you have a good product that can hit a certain price point, what's not to like. I could see the device given modest upgrades over time to remain part of the product mix. As well, in terms of killing iPad 2 support in less than two years time, have you really thought this through. Apple is selling the iPad 2 as we speak and has not announced plans to stop selling it any time soon. Do you really think that Apple would sell someone a new iPad 2 let's say in October 2012 and then stop supporting the device 20 months later. Never.
I agree with your first part part but not the second regarding a stylus. Steve Jobs will be haunting anyone making a decision like that for a long time to come. I just don't see it (a stylus) happening especially on a larger screen where you have the real estate and resolution to magnify an area to work on it (a small portion at a time). Sorry but although I might agree on a larger touch screen (I think it is more likely in an OS X iMac type product) but have a hard time seeing it on any Apple device in the near future.
The stylus is simply an after thought I added for very detailed work on the likes of CAD/CAM not for normal use nor absolutely necessary.
Why only 16GB? I was pretty excited about a 7" ipad, and I've already got my cash set aside to buy one (even if it's the SAME price as the 10" version), but I won't buy it if it's only 16GB.
I firmly believe that Apple should keep the price exactly the same, and the specs as close as possible, just reduce the screen size.
The stylus is simply an after thought I added for very detailed work on the likes of CAD/CAM not for normal use nor absolutely necessary.
I think that the ability to use a stylus would be a huge addition to the iPad line-up... larger, smaller or current. As you say, it's "in addition to"... not a restrictive necessity.
Total profits are first. Margins are a means to that end. Margins are especially important when/where capital is scarce, but that is not Apple's situation. They have more capital than they know what to do with.
Total profits. The bottom line. That is the goal.
You don't understand Apple at all.
Apple is not "about the profits" or "about the sales" or anything like that. The essential difference between Apple and most other companies is that they haven't swallowed that Ideological Extreme Capitalist BS that it's "all about the money" in the end.
Apple is not a charity, they don't make products that don't sell or don't make money but those who think it is their "goal" to make money couldn't be more wrong.
- Apple makes great products, that is their goal.
- The single most important economic consideration in terms of whether they decide to sell a product is in fact the margin.
- If the product is good and the margin is good they sell the product.
- Profit is built into the margin (kind of why they call it "the margin")
- If the product doesn't sell they remove it from the market.
Apple doesn't strategise to increase it's profits, or focus on profit to drive it's strategy. Apple builds the profit into each product, and the product is the strategy.
Apple does care about profit but it's approach is a little different, at least when Jobs was running the show. The reasoning is that if you make a product that consumers will love to use over time, you can charge more and sell a lot of them for a great profit.
Apple is known for making stuff that people love to use. This is the key to Apple's stunning success these past few years. People complain that Apple's products are pricey and some whine about specific missing components or capabilities (Flash, floppy drives, that sort of thing). Yet it is generally the view of the majority that on the whole, Apple makes the best stuff. You can't go wrong buying an Apple device. They just work and are beautifully designed.
So if Apple is going to release a product, the thought process it goes through is, does the proposed product produce the optimal user experience. Apple could have opted for a 7-inch tablet right from the start. It would have been cheaper than the current iPad and so much easier to engineer with inherent advantages in terms of weight and ease of handling for prolonged use. They could have been less aggressive in engineering out weight and still had a lighter device. The reason the 7-inch iPad didn't happen is that Ive and Jobs decided the 10-inch iPad was just that much more enjoyable to use. That was especially important at the time because the tablet market, really, didn't exist yet. So to get the market going, the device Apple offered had to be both affordable and a pleasure to use. The iPad was (is) and the rest is history.
Whatever Apple does next, I hope the company stays focused on the same sort of process. It works so why wouldn't Apple keep going down the same path.
I think that the ability to use a stylus would be a huge addition to the iPad line-up... larger, smaller or current. As you say, it's "in addition to"... not a restrictive necessity.
Then you must be thrilled about how you have been able to use a stylus since the first iPhone came out
Then you must be thrilled about how you have been able to use a stylus since the first iPhone came out
It's hardly the same thing as Samsung's Note stylus. The ones for iPhones and iPad's, even the new Galaxy3 smartphone styli, are more or less just "pointy fingers".
Then you must be thrilled about how you have been able to use a stylus since the first iPhone came out
Oh... that's great! I didn't know that Apple was providing software APIs for true touch sensitivity in iOS. Could you point me to software that provides exactly that.
Then you must be thrilled about how you have been able to use a stylus since the first iPhone came out
To further detail the difference, you are referring to a capacitance stylus which is just like what your fingers are. What the Note has (and what I hope future Apple products have) is a Wacom digitizer in addition to the capacitance matrix.
As shown with many videos and screen shots the capacitance matrix isn't very precise, especially when it comes to slow moving objects. On the other hand a digitizer is very precise thus allowing for creation that is not currently possible with the iPad's HW.
There is nothing wrong with buying the product that already does what you wish it to do. To wait on the "hopefully down the road" product based on rumors is just a bag of frustration. If you need a feature and form factor just buy the damn thing that does what you need and move on with your life.
They make an 8gb iPod touch for $199. Why not- 2 full years later, be able to make a $199 7"? Particularly if they use old 3GS non-retinas (which the touch is). I think it'll be retina and $249-$299 if they release, but $199 is easily profitable.
The estimates for the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet all suggest slim margins at best, even if you assume economies of scale. Less expensive tablets on the market cut a lot of corners. Apple can do better by virtue of even greater economies of scale and better supply chain management, but I doubt they're going to charge less than $250, $300 being a more realistic expectation.
Apple doesn't strategise to increase it's profits, or focus on profit to drive it's strategy. Apple builds the profit into each product, and the product is the strategy.
Really? So what's with all the forced obsolescence on products that are still covered by Apple Care? Margin not large enough to support past the warranty period? Or products that still function perfectly as the day they were purchased, but Apple chooses to leave them behind? Mountain Lion is going to leave behind a huge number of Macs, some of which are barely 3 years old. That's not strategizing to increase its profits?
Comments
Yeah... It seems to have gotten worse. Landscape mode is a disaster for typing, and the split keyboard is a mess. The only clean way to type is portrait mode, and that is a disappointment as well. They need to license some of the dynamic keyboard technology, or just re-align the existing. Spaces, N's, and the delete key seem to be my main nemesis, but the randome spelling "corrections" are driving me insane. (I did actually type "random"!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Apple's never about generating 'sales.'
Margins first. All other financial metrics are secondary.
Total profits are first. Margins are a means to that end. Margins are especially important when/where capital is scarce, but that is not Apple's situation. They have more capital than they know what to do with.
Total profits. The bottom line. That is the goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
'less expensive'...
You don't understand what that means. as anantksundaram stated, less expensive means it has to be inexpensive to make, to maintain margins, and still be an amazing experience for 2+ years. 4.7" is an odd size in terms of iOS Geometries. which leads to the 'why' that dimension, which now we have to ask you... what pixel density do you see for this glass?
To be either Retina or non Retina with current geometries of LED displays, you'd have to make a whole new production line of glass. That's not 'less expensive' OR you would have to make a whole new geometry that is either not Retina or not 'double' some current geometry (doubling allows for the longest transition for apps and OS graphics elements), which would requires a a whole new set of iconography for the device, and that doesn't win you friends, or make apps less expensive.
so, in short, 4.7" would require a new LED glass substrate and/or a new geometry (something other than 3:2, 4:3). Unless there is a compelling reason you know of other than "I think that would be a great size," there are no production or UI drivers to use that size.
Apple always plays the long game. My suspicion is they hope to eliminate the 1024x768 geometry and non Retina Display devices (iPhone 3GS, iPad 1 and 2), before they change the geometry of the phone and iPod to 4ish inches. Hence my conclusion is that the iPad Mini will use iPhone 4 Glass .
My educated guess:
In the fall,
iPad 1 disappears
iPad Mini takes over with RD using iPhone 4glass (so the iPhone 4, 4s, 5 and iPad Mini all use the same glass) at $299 ($249 at the low end)
iPod Touch moves to $149.
In the Spring (2013)
Current iPad RD moves to $399
Next Gen iPad will come in at $499 with the similar features as the iPhone 5 (chipset, LTE, better batteries)
At the same time the iPad Mini gets an upgrade to LTE as well. and the current iPad Mini moves to $199.
In June 2013,
iOS7 is announced and the support for the 3GS/iPad1 is dropped.
In Sept 2013, the new iPhone and iPod Touch are announced at a new geometry at 4.small inches, using a new pixel density/technology.
In Spring 2014, a new iPad is announced at double the geometry of the new iPhone... maybe 9.5"
in June 2014,
1024*768 and the iPad 2 support is dropped in iOS8.
Apple may accelerate this (support for 1024x768 may drop in IOS 7.x) as they have wont to do in the past (killing the iPod Mini), but my guess is given the cost of glass, they will develop a glass foundry and milk it for 4 odd years (3GS glass is what, 5 years old).
My logic in referring to it as a less expensive approach is based on the following logic. The iPad 2 has already been developed and is rolling off assembly lines as we speak. I'm sure Apple recovered development costs on that device a long, long time ago. A price reduction at this time is viable and still Apple will make a lot of money. Yet wouldn't a $349 iPad 2 go a long way towards meeting the challenge of lower-cost 7-inch tablets? For a few dollars more you can have the real thing rather than a heavily compromised imitation that leaves out an important element, namely a large enough screen to give apps enough room to work in an enjoyable fashion. Meanwhile, unless Apple intends to kill off the Touch entirely, developing a new version has got to have been something they have been working on. Fact is, the resolution on the existing Touch is so high that you could retain it, go up in screen size in the range that I;m talking about and still have a device with an excellent screen. As for the number I threw out there, it was just a number I conjured up out of thin air. I'm not an engineer and neither do I know what the ideal size would be. That's Apple's role in this. I'm merely noting that there is room for the iPod Touch to grow while retaining its reason for being, namely to offer a pocketable device that does the work of a small computer.
By the way, I see no reason to kill the iPad 2, at least in principle. Building a lower-spec tablet for the lower end of the market that is still quite usable is a great idea. I bought one when the new iPad came out and have found it to be a marvellous device. Not everyone needs the latest and greatest. If you have a good product that can hit a certain price point, what's not to like. I could see the device given modest upgrades over time to remain part of the product mix. As well, in terms of killing iPad 2 support in less than two years time, have you really thought this through. Apple is selling the iPad 2 as we speak and has not announced plans to stop selling it any time soon. Do you really think that Apple would sell someone a new iPad 2 let's say in October 2012 and then stop supporting the device 20 months later. Never.
The stylus is simply an after thought I added for very detailed work on the likes of CAD/CAM not for normal use nor absolutely necessary.
Why only 16GB? I was pretty excited about a 7" ipad, and I've already got my cash set aside to buy one (even if it's the SAME price as the 10" version), but I won't buy it if it's only 16GB.
I firmly believe that Apple should keep the price exactly the same, and the specs as close as possible, just reduce the screen size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
The stylus is simply an after thought I added for very detailed work on the likes of CAD/CAM not for normal use nor absolutely necessary.
I think that the ability to use a stylus would be a huge addition to the iPad line-up... larger, smaller or current. As you say, it's "in addition to"... not a restrictive necessity.
Off topic, but I just saw a Dutch advertisement for the 3Gs: € 12.00 x 24 months. Advertised as 'Back from the past'
When are we going to see the parts photos?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Off topic, but I just saw a Dutch advertisement for the 3Gs: € 12.00 x 24 months. Advertised as 'Back from the past'
Forward to the Past.
No one would buy it. It's smaller; therefore it has to be cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Total profits are first. Margins are a means to that end. Margins are especially important when/where capital is scarce, but that is not Apple's situation. They have more capital than they know what to do with.
Total profits. The bottom line. That is the goal.
You don't understand Apple at all.
Apple is not "about the profits" or "about the sales" or anything like that. The essential difference between Apple and most other companies is that they haven't swallowed that Ideological Extreme Capitalist BS that it's "all about the money" in the end.
Apple is not a charity, they don't make products that don't sell or don't make money but those who think it is their "goal" to make money couldn't be more wrong.
- Apple makes great products, that is their goal.
- The single most important economic consideration in terms of whether they decide to sell a product is in fact the margin.
- If the product is good and the margin is good they sell the product.
- Profit is built into the margin (kind of why they call it "the margin")
- If the product doesn't sell they remove it from the market.
Apple doesn't strategise to increase it's profits, or focus on profit to drive it's strategy. Apple builds the profit into each product, and the product is the strategy.
Apple does care about profit but it's approach is a little different, at least when Jobs was running the show. The reasoning is that if you make a product that consumers will love to use over time, you can charge more and sell a lot of them for a great profit.
Apple is known for making stuff that people love to use. This is the key to Apple's stunning success these past few years. People complain that Apple's products are pricey and some whine about specific missing components or capabilities (Flash, floppy drives, that sort of thing). Yet it is generally the view of the majority that on the whole, Apple makes the best stuff. You can't go wrong buying an Apple device. They just work and are beautifully designed.
So if Apple is going to release a product, the thought process it goes through is, does the proposed product produce the optimal user experience. Apple could have opted for a 7-inch tablet right from the start. It would have been cheaper than the current iPad and so much easier to engineer with inherent advantages in terms of weight and ease of handling for prolonged use. They could have been less aggressive in engineering out weight and still had a lighter device. The reason the 7-inch iPad didn't happen is that Ive and Jobs decided the 10-inch iPad was just that much more enjoyable to use. That was especially important at the time because the tablet market, really, didn't exist yet. So to get the market going, the device Apple offered had to be both affordable and a pleasure to use. The iPad was (is) and the rest is history.
Whatever Apple does next, I hope the company stays focused on the same sort of process. It works so why wouldn't Apple keep going down the same path.
Then you must be thrilled about how you have been able to use a stylus since the first iPhone came out
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Then you must be thrilled about how you have been able to use a stylus since the first iPhone came out
It's hardly the same thing as Samsung's Note stylus. The ones for iPhones and iPad's, even the new Galaxy3 smartphone styli, are more or less just "pointy fingers".
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Then you must be thrilled about how you have been able to use a stylus since the first iPhone came out
Oh... that's great! I didn't know that Apple was providing software APIs for true touch sensitivity in iOS. Could you point me to software that provides exactly that.
To further detail the difference, you are referring to a capacitance stylus which is just like what your fingers are. What the Note has (and what I hope future Apple products have) is a Wacom digitizer in addition to the capacitance matrix.
As shown with many videos and screen shots the capacitance matrix isn't very precise, especially when it comes to slow moving objects. On the other hand a digitizer is very precise thus allowing for creation that is not currently possible with the iPad's HW.
There is nothing wrong with buying the product that already does what you wish it to do. To wait on the "hopefully down the road" product based on rumors is just a bag of frustration. If you need a feature and form factor just buy the damn thing that does what you need and move on with your life.
The estimates for the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet all suggest slim margins at best, even if you assume economies of scale. Less expensive tablets on the market cut a lot of corners. Apple can do better by virtue of even greater economies of scale and better supply chain management, but I doubt they're going to charge less than $250, $300 being a more realistic expectation.