As I've said they might "make money" but the profit margins will be far lower and the Mini
I very much doubt that. Apple maintains a healthy margin across all of it's products - even the low price ones like the Shuffle and the Nano. I can't see them lowering their margins - they will either have a higher price point or use cheaper components from last year to reduce the BoM. Otherwise they simply wouldn't bother.
In order to buy a 7" tablet today, they'd have to not only choose a different tablet size, but an inferior OS and inferior hardware. Plus, 7" tablet sales have been significant (something like 20% of the entire tablet market). There's no way of knowing how many people would buy a 7" APPLE tablet based on the sales of the existing 7" tablets.
I just said that isn't a concern… did you bother reading my post?
And when the 4th iPad comes out next spring and the iPad 2 is $299, all this 7" crap will peter out.
I hope the 7" discussion (what you kindly call "crap") continues.
I want a smaller form factor, and my desire is not in any way related to price. They could give away the older version for free and it would be too large. And my iPhone is too small.
There are also obviously quite a few people here who want one, too, and discussing it is fun and healthy and harmless. Not to mention what I believe is the purpose of the discussion boards. Whether Apple make then smaller device is an entirely different matter. A few years ago, though, there was no iPad. Out of the blue, they created it and with it, a need. Now that it is out, people start playing with the concept (as they do and have done with Macs for years) and many seem to want a smaller device, and they want to talk about it.
A sarcasm tag. Because saying a responsible business decision is to make a device simply to see if the public will buy it, is a bit silly. When Steve Jobs introduced the original iPad, he spoke of years of internal research determining the optimal size of the device so there would be no compromise in user interface or its varying components. Not to say, Apple hasn't been internally researching a smaller device for future public release, but to argue Apple should release such a device simply to see if it has marketability is silly.
The only time I can think Apple did this in recent history is AppleTV, but that was an admittedly niche product to begin with that shared most of it's R&D budget with the iPhone. Creating a smaller iPad would take considerably more resources given it's a mobile product whose form factor, internal layout, battery life, and heat dissipation are crucial for it to be able to be brought to market (unlike AppleTV).
A sarcasm tag. Because saying a responsible business decision is to make a device simply to see if the public will buy it, is a bit silly. When Steve Jobs introduced the original iPad, he spoke of years of internal research determining the optimal size of the device so there would be no compromise in user interface or its varying components. Not to say, Apple hasn't been internally researching a smaller device for future public release, but to argue Apple should release such a device simply to see if it has marketability is silly.
The only time I can think Apple did this in recent history is AppleTV, but that was an admittedly niche product to begin with that shared most of it's R&D budget with the iPhone. Creating a smaller iPad would take considerably more resources given it's a mobile product whose form factor, internal layout, battery life, and heat dissipation are crucial for it to be able to be brought to market (unlike AppleTV).
Steve Jobs famously said that he never did any market research, he just went on gut instinct. Some would say that is probably why he had just as many failures as successes. But he didn't care about that. If it tanks what the hell at least we tried. What I suggested is EXACTLY what Steve would do. Either you believe in the product or you don't and if he did he would refine it to be the best it can be yes but ultimately he was taking a gamble that it would sell. Sometimes in life you just have to jump in the deep end and hope things work out.
I very much doubt that. Apple maintains a healthy margin across all of it's products - even the low price ones like the Shuffle and the Nano. I can't see them lowering their margins - they will either have a higher price point or use cheaper components from last year to reduce the BoM. Otherwise they simply wouldn't bother.
Yup, we're on the same page. That's what I was saying in my post.
Apple is only going to do it if they sell it at a higher price point than profit losing Android tablets, which would negate a lot of consumers looking for a small = cheap tablet, or they're going to use old components which would look bad as far as PR and disappoint people that want it all: Retina A6 LTE $199 price tag etc.
This is why I have a suspicion that a smaller iPad could be an iPod simply because people expect cheaper components and such in the iPod line. People expect the iPad to remain premium.
Steve Jobs famously said that he never did any market research, he just went on gut instinct. Some would say that is probably why he had just as many failures as successes. But he didn't care about that. If it tanks what the hell at least we tried. What I suggested is EXACTLY what Steve would do. Either you believe in the product or you don't and if he did he would refine it to be the best it can be yes but ultimately he was taking a gamble that it would sell. Sometimes in life you just have to jump in the deep end and hope things work out.
Market research and internal research are two separate beasts, you can do one without the other or do both. And judging that we have direct evidence of a early iPad prototype from approximately 2004, we can safely say Apple did extended internally research and built various prototypes of a "tablet PC" prior to releasing a finished product now called the iPad.
A large business owner (or CEO or high level manager) can go on gut instinct and tell their company to make any mythical product they fancy, but they cede the building of it, the operability of it, the marketing of it to various teams to make it a reality. Those teams don't go on gut instinct to build the product, they go on hard science, architecture and design techniques, and available components to build it. Some companies do market research to determine aesthetic elements, some internal research, most do a bit of both. Apple has the luxury of having design gurus and brilliant decision makers so internal research is all they need to be successful currently.
Yup, we're on the same page. That's what I was saying in my post.
Apple is only going to do it if they sell it at a higher price point than profit losing Android tablets, which would negate a lot of consumers looking for a small = cheap tablet, or they're going to use old components which would look bad as far as PR and disappoint people that want it all: Retina A6 LTE $199 price tag etc.
This is why I have a suspicion that a smaller iPad could be an iPod simply because people expect cheaper components and such in the iPod line. People expect the iPad to remain premium.
Agreed, calling it the new iPod rather than iPad Mini would certainly help to differentiate it from the 10" iPad. I had a sneaky suspicion that they might call it something new like the iPlay but I doubt it.
I agree with your logic, the only doubt I have is that the iPod is so well established in the collective mindset as a small pocket device that it might just confuse people which is why in the end I think they might stick with the iPad name.
If you think about it we have the 11" & 13" MBA, the 13" & 15" MBP, the 21" & 27" iMac so I guess it would not be completely out of left field to simply have a 7" & 10" iPad rather than the iPad and iPad Mini.
I think this year might well be the year they drop the Touch name and just call it the new iPod. Hopefully the iPod Nano will become the iWatch.
Market research and internal research are two separate beasts, you can do one without the other or do both. And judging that we have direct evidence of a early iPad prototype from approximately 2004, we can safely say Apple did extended internally research and built various prototypes of a "tablet PC" prior to releasing a finished product now called the iPad.
A large business owner (or CEO or high level manager) can go on gut instinct and tell their company to make any mythical product they fancy, but they cede the building of it, the operability of it, the marketing of it to various teams to make it a reality. Those teams don't go on gut instinct to build the product, they go on hard science, architecture and design techniques, and available components to build it. Some companies do market research to determine aesthetic elements, some internal research, most do a bit of both. Apple has the luxury of having design gurus and brilliant decision makers so internal research is all they need to be successful currently.
If only it was that simple. I'm sure those experts spent a lot of time on the Mac Cube or the iPod HiFi. In the end it's still a judgement call without any guarantee of success. No amount of internal research or time spent deliberating can guarantee a hit product. If it did there would be no product failures and we would all have betamax players gathering dust in the loft.
What's a miss for Apple is killer numbers for just about anybody else. It's amazing how spoiled everyone has come.
Still, we're so used to Apple putting up video game-like statistics that we now have inevitable Monday Morning Quarterbacking about just what went wrong. In a nutshell:
1. It's the summer! Everyone knows a new iPhone debuts in 60-70 days from now. We used to see this same slackoff in the spring in the "old days" of three years ago. Apple has gotten so predictable with these launches that you don't have to be a wall street analyst to know when to buy an iPhone if you want the latest and greatest.
2. Gross margins are down because iPhones are down...it's a simple as that. The iPhone's profit margin is pretty insane. Any weakness there will end up in the margins number. That being said, most like companies would still kill puppies for that margin they got anyway.
3. Ivy bridge delay. New Ivy Bridge Macs only were sold for 3 weeks out of the quarter. If they had missed the entire quarter, Macs might have had a sales decrease. And that leads to...
4. Watching Apple is a spectator sport. As much as Apple tries to be secret, Apple is beholden to many truths in the market like technology launches by key vendors like Intel, Christmas comes every year on the same day and Back to School is the same time of year, etc. Oh, and iPads come in early Spring. Watching Apple's moves is nothing new...except that there are a ton more people doing it. Probably the only product launch we don't know if the fabled television set, and that product's existence is the worst kept secret in Silicon Valley.
5. And yes, the worldwide economy sucks. Given the headwinds here and especially in Europe, I'm surprised its not worse. But Apple's customer base is not as price sensitive so they've largely been spared from the Great Recession. But they are not completely immune.
Agreed, calling it the new iPod rather than iPad Mini would certainly help to differentiate it from the 10" iPad. I had a sneaky suspicion that they might call it something new like the iPlay but I doubt it.
I agree with your logic, the only doubt I have is that the iPod is so well established in the collective mindset as a small pocket device that it might just confuse people which is why in the end I think they might stick with the iPad name.
If you think about it we have the 11" & 13" MBA, the 13" & 15" MBP, the 21" & 27" iMac so I guess it would not be completely out of left field to simply have a 7" & 10" iPad rather than the iPad and iPad Mini.
I think this year might well be the year they drop the Touch name and just call it the new iPod. Hopefully the iPod Nano will become the iWatch.
I can see the sense of having a 7 inch & 10 inch iPad with similar specs, but the 7 inch model would probably be $299 at the least which wouldn't help Apple compete with the likes of Amazon or Google on price, which it seems is what many tech writers want.
As far as a bigger iPod not being pocketable, I think the term pocketable has changed meaning today versus 10 years ago. Today the Nexus 7 and Galaxy Note are considered "pocket sized" versus 10 years ago anything bigger than an iPod was considered too big.
And I'm right there with you on a connected watch type concept for the next Nano. Big market there.
Of course the latter, since any time anyone says Apple will do something and they don't, there's no recognition thereof. This has nothing to do with integrity or chutzpah whatsoever. I see no logical reason for the existence of a smaller iPad, just as I saw no logical reason for the existence of a smaller iPhone. If Apple thinks there is one, they're welcome to try. They've been quite wrong about a desire/market/purpose for some products before.
I'm pretty sure Apple had been wrong much less than you have, and I don't recall in recent memory where they've been wrong about a major product and its market. Also, the fact that you're making an equivocation between a smaller iPad and a smaller iPhone is mind-numbingly idiotic, and I'm sure everyone on this board realizes that except you. They're different products with different variables. You don't need to see a 'logical reason' for anything- fact is, if Apple comes out with this (and they probably will) and subsequent sell tens/hundreds of millions of units (which they probably will), and it becomes one of their most successful products, your 'logic' is irrelevant. But I have no doubt even at that point you'll keep jabbering about how its such a bad idea, because you've shown you're incredibly consistent in that what actually happens in reality has little regard on your thinking and conclusions.
The issue is around the concept of a "price umbrella". At a $399 entry point, the problem is that Apple created a tablet market and competitors finally figured out that they can come in at the lower price points (now at $199 with the Nexus 7) and capture market share without competing with Apple. It was one thing when there was no traction for the other products, but Apple can't realistically leave that segment unanswered because it will just dilute the iPad's domination of the tablet market - or at least make it look diluted when you look at market share numbers.
I'm not suggesting Apple would enter that segment just to be in that segment. I firmly believe Apple doesn't enter a market or segment unless it feels it is going to field the best product in that segment. But if they are confident of their product offering, they aren't going to fail to make the right business decision out of some allegiance to a past stated "rule".
Stop believing every article John Gruber provides a link for. A iPad mini is a little too " me too" ish for Apple.
No, you haven't even begun to get it: there's no purpose for a smaller one.
So says you. The Christmas Quarter will see Apple face new challenges in the form of a well reviewed cheap Google tablet, and updated Amazon Fires. The only place these competitors can hurt Apple is at the low end of the market, which in this economy might be popular. I personally will buy the smaller iPad if released. I don't want to spend $500 dollars, and don't need the screen to be so large.
The Christmas Quarter will see Apple face new challenges in the form of a well reviewed cheap Google tablet, and updated Amazon Fires. The only place these competitors can hurt Apple is at the low end of the market, which in this economy might be popular.
Ho-hum. "Competitors" come up every quarter. "This economy sucks" every quarter. Four years running. Apple doesn't seem to even exist in that plane.
I can see the sense of having a 7 inch & 10 inch iPad with similar specs, but the 7 inch model would probably be $299 at the least which wouldn't help Apple compete with the likes of Amazon or Google on price, which it seems is what many tech writers want.
As far as a bigger iPod not being pocketable, I think the term pocketable has changed meaning today versus 10 years ago. Today the Nexus 7 and Galaxy Note are considered "pocket sized" versus 10 years ago anything bigger than an iPod was considered too big.
And I'm right there with you on a connected watch type concept for the next Nano. Big market there.
I disagree with the price issue. Sure the competitor products are going for two hundred dollars, but there is a big difference between two hundred dollars and four hundred dollars. However, a hundred dollars more doesn't sound like a lot, and I think most people would go with a slightly higher priced Apple product than the competitors offerings. Further, the mini would be a popular gift for others, where as people might be more inclined to buy the larger model for themselves. Finally, I don't get the impression Apple wants to give Google a foothold in the tablet market at all.
Ho-hum. "Competitors" come up every quarter. "This economy sucks" every quarter. Four years running. Apple doesn't seem to even exist in that plane.
Yes, except Amazon's product did do exceptionally well. It didn't sustain its momentum after the holidays, but rumor is it has a big line up planned for the holidays. Further, Apple hasn't faced a tablet competitor with well lined pockets like Google yet. Google's product is also getting good reviews. Many people will find its $199 price tag appealing.
Jobs once famously said if somebody is going to cannibalize your sales it is best to do it yourself. I think Apple will introduce a less capable iPad for around $299. This puts the hurt on Google and Amazon, but also makes the product more affordable to companies and institutions. I can see places like banks giving them away to open accounts, like some banks did with the iPod Touch.
My only question is timing. It would be odd to see Apple introduce two major products in the same quarter. However, if Apple were to release a smaller iPad it seems crazy to introduce it at some time other than the holiday quarter, which seems to be when the iPhone will be released.
How do you know is!? Is that pulled out of.... thin air, or can you back that up?
Kindle Fire, for one. And while we don't know exact numbers, the statistics we've seen suggest anywhere from 10-20% of the overall tablet market is going to someone other than Apple. I'm not doomsaying. The iPad IS the tablet market right now. But if Apple feels it has an excellent product for the smaller form factor segment (actually, I should say "middle size" because the iPod Touch is the smaller form factor) then its unlikely they will cede market share to the also rans.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
As I've said they might "make money" but the profit margins will be far lower and the Mini
I very much doubt that. Apple maintains a healthy margin across all of it's products - even the low price ones like the Shuffle and the Nano. I can't see them lowering their margins - they will either have a higher price point or use cheaper components from last year to reduce the BoM. Otherwise they simply wouldn't bother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In order to buy a 7" tablet today, they'd have to not only choose a different tablet size, but an inferior OS and inferior hardware. Plus, 7" tablet sales have been significant (something like 20% of the entire tablet market). There's no way of knowing how many people would buy a 7" APPLE tablet based on the sales of the existing 7" tablets.
I just said that isn't a concern… did you bother reading my post?
Put out a NEW iPhone every 6 months
Apple has to be analyzing this internally.
They must be assessing if the release of a NEW iPhone model every 6 month's may address
what Tim Cook said might be affecting iPhone sales:
"there is "incredible anticipation" for future products that has affected sales, though the exact impact is "difficult to sort out."
I know Apple knows tons better than I do but, I am just saying
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And when the 4th iPad comes out next spring and the iPad 2 is $299, all this 7" crap will peter out.
I hope the 7" discussion (what you kindly call "crap") continues.
I want a smaller form factor, and my desire is not in any way related to price. They could give away the older version for free and it would be too large. And my iPhone is too small.
There are also obviously quite a few people here who want one, too, and discussing it is fun and healthy and harmless. Not to mention what I believe is the purpose of the discussion boards. Whether Apple make then smaller device is an entirely different matter. A few years ago, though, there was no iPad. Out of the blue, they created it and with it, a need. Now that it is out, people start playing with the concept (as they do and have done with Macs for years) and many seem to want a smaller device, and they want to talk about it.
May they continue to make their voices heard!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
What? /s?
A sarcasm tag. Because saying a responsible business decision is to make a device simply to see if the public will buy it, is a bit silly. When Steve Jobs introduced the original iPad, he spoke of years of internal research determining the optimal size of the device so there would be no compromise in user interface or its varying components. Not to say, Apple hasn't been internally researching a smaller device for future public release, but to argue Apple should release such a device simply to see if it has marketability is silly.
The only time I can think Apple did this in recent history is AppleTV, but that was an admittedly niche product to begin with that shared most of it's R&D budget with the iPhone. Creating a smaller iPad would take considerably more resources given it's a mobile product whose form factor, internal layout, battery life, and heat dissipation are crucial for it to be able to be brought to market (unlike AppleTV).
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
A sarcasm tag. Because saying a responsible business decision is to make a device simply to see if the public will buy it, is a bit silly. When Steve Jobs introduced the original iPad, he spoke of years of internal research determining the optimal size of the device so there would be no compromise in user interface or its varying components. Not to say, Apple hasn't been internally researching a smaller device for future public release, but to argue Apple should release such a device simply to see if it has marketability is silly.
The only time I can think Apple did this in recent history is AppleTV, but that was an admittedly niche product to begin with that shared most of it's R&D budget with the iPhone. Creating a smaller iPad would take considerably more resources given it's a mobile product whose form factor, internal layout, battery life, and heat dissipation are crucial for it to be able to be brought to market (unlike AppleTV).
Steve Jobs famously said that he never did any market research, he just went on gut instinct. Some would say that is probably why he had just as many failures as successes. But he didn't care about that. If it tanks what the hell at least we tried. What I suggested is EXACTLY what Steve would do. Either you believe in the product or you don't and if he did he would refine it to be the best it can be yes but ultimately he was taking a gamble that it would sell. Sometimes in life you just have to jump in the deep end and hope things work out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
I very much doubt that. Apple maintains a healthy margin across all of it's products - even the low price ones like the Shuffle and the Nano. I can't see them lowering their margins - they will either have a higher price point or use cheaper components from last year to reduce the BoM. Otherwise they simply wouldn't bother.
Yup, we're on the same page. That's what I was saying in my post.
Apple is only going to do it if they sell it at a higher price point than profit losing Android tablets, which would negate a lot of consumers looking for a small = cheap tablet, or they're going to use old components which would look bad as far as PR and disappoint people that want it all: Retina A6 LTE $199 price tag etc.
This is why I have a suspicion that a smaller iPad could be an iPod simply because people expect cheaper components and such in the iPod line. People expect the iPad to remain premium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Steve Jobs famously said that he never did any market research, he just went on gut instinct. Some would say that is probably why he had just as many failures as successes. But he didn't care about that. If it tanks what the hell at least we tried. What I suggested is EXACTLY what Steve would do. Either you believe in the product or you don't and if he did he would refine it to be the best it can be yes but ultimately he was taking a gamble that it would sell. Sometimes in life you just have to jump in the deep end and hope things work out.
Market research and internal research are two separate beasts, you can do one without the other or do both. And judging that we have direct evidence of a early iPad prototype from approximately 2004, we can safely say Apple did extended internally research and built various prototypes of a "tablet PC" prior to releasing a finished product now called the iPad.
A large business owner (or CEO or high level manager) can go on gut instinct and tell their company to make any mythical product they fancy, but they cede the building of it, the operability of it, the marketing of it to various teams to make it a reality. Those teams don't go on gut instinct to build the product, they go on hard science, architecture and design techniques, and available components to build it. Some companies do market research to determine aesthetic elements, some internal research, most do a bit of both. Apple has the luxury of having design gurus and brilliant decision makers so internal research is all they need to be successful currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
Yup, we're on the same page. That's what I was saying in my post.
Apple is only going to do it if they sell it at a higher price point than profit losing Android tablets, which would negate a lot of consumers looking for a small = cheap tablet, or they're going to use old components which would look bad as far as PR and disappoint people that want it all: Retina A6 LTE $199 price tag etc.
This is why I have a suspicion that a smaller iPad could be an iPod simply because people expect cheaper components and such in the iPod line. People expect the iPad to remain premium.
Agreed, calling it the new iPod rather than iPad Mini would certainly help to differentiate it from the 10" iPad. I had a sneaky suspicion that they might call it something new like the iPlay but I doubt it.
I agree with your logic, the only doubt I have is that the iPod is so well established in the collective mindset as a small pocket device that it might just confuse people which is why in the end I think they might stick with the iPad name.
If you think about it we have the 11" & 13" MBA, the 13" & 15" MBP, the 21" & 27" iMac so I guess it would not be completely out of left field to simply have a 7" & 10" iPad rather than the iPad and iPad Mini.
I think this year might well be the year they drop the Touch name and just call it the new iPod. Hopefully the iPod Nano will become the iWatch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Market research and internal research are two separate beasts, you can do one without the other or do both. And judging that we have direct evidence of a early iPad prototype from approximately 2004, we can safely say Apple did extended internally research and built various prototypes of a "tablet PC" prior to releasing a finished product now called the iPad.
A large business owner (or CEO or high level manager) can go on gut instinct and tell their company to make any mythical product they fancy, but they cede the building of it, the operability of it, the marketing of it to various teams to make it a reality. Those teams don't go on gut instinct to build the product, they go on hard science, architecture and design techniques, and available components to build it. Some companies do market research to determine aesthetic elements, some internal research, most do a bit of both. Apple has the luxury of having design gurus and brilliant decision makers so internal research is all they need to be successful currently.
If only it was that simple. I'm sure those experts spent a lot of time on the Mac Cube or the iPod HiFi. In the end it's still a judgement call without any guarantee of success. No amount of internal research or time spent deliberating can guarantee a hit product. If it did there would be no product failures and we would all have betamax players gathering dust in the loft.
What's a miss for Apple is killer numbers for just about anybody else. It's amazing how spoiled everyone has come.
Still, we're so used to Apple putting up video game-like statistics that we now have inevitable Monday Morning Quarterbacking about just what went wrong. In a nutshell:
1. It's the summer! Everyone knows a new iPhone debuts in 60-70 days from now. We used to see this same slackoff in the spring in the "old days" of three years ago. Apple has gotten so predictable with these launches that you don't have to be a wall street analyst to know when to buy an iPhone if you want the latest and greatest.
2. Gross margins are down because iPhones are down...it's a simple as that. The iPhone's profit margin is pretty insane. Any weakness there will end up in the margins number. That being said, most like companies would still kill puppies for that margin they got anyway.
3. Ivy bridge delay. New Ivy Bridge Macs only were sold for 3 weeks out of the quarter. If they had missed the entire quarter, Macs might have had a sales decrease. And that leads to...
4. Watching Apple is a spectator sport. As much as Apple tries to be secret, Apple is beholden to many truths in the market like technology launches by key vendors like Intel, Christmas comes every year on the same day and Back to School is the same time of year, etc. Oh, and iPads come in early Spring. Watching Apple's moves is nothing new...except that there are a ton more people doing it. Probably the only product launch we don't know if the fabled television set, and that product's existence is the worst kept secret in Silicon Valley.
5. And yes, the worldwide economy sucks. Given the headwinds here and especially in Europe, I'm surprised its not worse. But Apple's customer base is not as price sensitive so they've largely been spared from the Great Recession. But they are not completely immune.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Agreed, calling it the new iPod rather than iPad Mini would certainly help to differentiate it from the 10" iPad. I had a sneaky suspicion that they might call it something new like the iPlay but I doubt it.
I agree with your logic, the only doubt I have is that the iPod is so well established in the collective mindset as a small pocket device that it might just confuse people which is why in the end I think they might stick with the iPad name.
If you think about it we have the 11" & 13" MBA, the 13" & 15" MBP, the 21" & 27" iMac so I guess it would not be completely out of left field to simply have a 7" & 10" iPad rather than the iPad and iPad Mini.
I think this year might well be the year they drop the Touch name and just call it the new iPod. Hopefully the iPod Nano will become the iWatch.
I can see the sense of having a 7 inch & 10 inch iPad with similar specs, but the 7 inch model would probably be $299 at the least which wouldn't help Apple compete with the likes of Amazon or Google on price, which it seems is what many tech writers want.
As far as a bigger iPod not being pocketable, I think the term pocketable has changed meaning today versus 10 years ago. Today the Nexus 7 and Galaxy Note are considered "pocket sized" versus 10 years ago anything bigger than an iPod was considered too big.
And I'm right there with you on a connected watch type concept for the next Nano. Big market there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Of course the latter, since any time anyone says Apple will do something and they don't, there's no recognition thereof. This has nothing to do with integrity or chutzpah whatsoever. I see no logical reason for the existence of a smaller iPad, just as I saw no logical reason for the existence of a smaller iPhone. If Apple thinks there is one, they're welcome to try. They've been quite wrong about a desire/market/purpose for some products before.
I'm pretty sure Apple had been wrong much less than you have, and I don't recall in recent memory where they've been wrong about a major product and its market. Also, the fact that you're making an equivocation between a smaller iPad and a smaller iPhone is mind-numbingly idiotic, and I'm sure everyone on this board realizes that except you. They're different products with different variables. You don't need to see a 'logical reason' for anything- fact is, if Apple comes out with this (and they probably will) and subsequent sell tens/hundreds of millions of units (which they probably will), and it becomes one of their most successful products, your 'logic' is irrelevant. But I have no doubt even at that point you'll keep jabbering about how its such a bad idea, because you've shown you're incredibly consistent in that what actually happens in reality has little regard on your thinking and conclusions.
Stop believing every article John Gruber provides a link for. A iPad mini is a little too " me too" ish for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, you haven't even begun to get it: there's no purpose for a smaller one.
So says you. The Christmas Quarter will see Apple face new challenges in the form of a well reviewed cheap Google tablet, and updated Amazon Fires. The only place these competitors can hurt Apple is at the low end of the market, which in this economy might be popular. I personally will buy the smaller iPad if released. I don't want to spend $500 dollars, and don't need the screen to be so large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
The Christmas Quarter will see Apple face new challenges in the form of a well reviewed cheap Google tablet, and updated Amazon Fires. The only place these competitors can hurt Apple is at the low end of the market, which in this economy might be popular.
Ho-hum. "Competitors" come up every quarter. "This economy sucks" every quarter. Four years running. Apple doesn't seem to even exist in that plane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...iTunes Store launched in over 12 countries...
Over 12 countries... so that would be, what, 13?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
I can see the sense of having a 7 inch & 10 inch iPad with similar specs, but the 7 inch model would probably be $299 at the least which wouldn't help Apple compete with the likes of Amazon or Google on price, which it seems is what many tech writers want.
As far as a bigger iPod not being pocketable, I think the term pocketable has changed meaning today versus 10 years ago. Today the Nexus 7 and Galaxy Note are considered "pocket sized" versus 10 years ago anything bigger than an iPod was considered too big.
And I'm right there with you on a connected watch type concept for the next Nano. Big market there.
I disagree with the price issue. Sure the competitor products are going for two hundred dollars, but there is a big difference between two hundred dollars and four hundred dollars. However, a hundred dollars more doesn't sound like a lot, and I think most people would go with a slightly higher priced Apple product than the competitors offerings. Further, the mini would be a popular gift for others, where as people might be more inclined to buy the larger model for themselves. Finally, I don't get the impression Apple wants to give Google a foothold in the tablet market at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ho-hum. "Competitors" come up every quarter. "This economy sucks" every quarter. Four years running. Apple doesn't seem to even exist in that plane.
Yes, except Amazon's product did do exceptionally well. It didn't sustain its momentum after the holidays, but rumor is it has a big line up planned for the holidays. Further, Apple hasn't faced a tablet competitor with well lined pockets like Google yet. Google's product is also getting good reviews. Many people will find its $199 price tag appealing.
Jobs once famously said if somebody is going to cannibalize your sales it is best to do it yourself. I think Apple will introduce a less capable iPad for around $299. This puts the hurt on Google and Amazon, but also makes the product more affordable to companies and institutions. I can see places like banks giving them away to open accounts, like some banks did with the iPod Touch.
My only question is timing. It would be odd to see Apple introduce two major products in the same quarter. However, if Apple were to release a smaller iPad it seems crazy to introduce it at some time other than the holiday quarter, which seems to be when the iPhone will be released.