All it needs is a voice call feature so that the owners of Notes and Galaxies get jealous to death :-)
I know you're joking, but my co-workers and I were recently discussing the value of a voice call capable iPad. It already has cellular connectivity, why not voice calling?
Because it's too big to hold up to your ear? Many of us are already wearing earphones while using it, or would be willing to plug them in to make/take a call. And how many of us already have Bluetooth mics for our iPhones that would also work just fine with the iPad? Or just use it as a speakerphone using the existing mic and speakers.
Obviously I recognize that there isn't a pressing need (or demand) for an iPad to make voice calls, but I don't really understand the choice to deliberate exclude that capability when 95% of what it takes to do it is already there.
Thirty-four posts and not one reference to the real market for this device, if they do it: kids and education.
Secondarily, people who travel light. Jackets and lab coats will be sold to accommodate it, especially once they put a retina screen on the second generation.
Wouldn't an older generation iPad serve the education market just as well? Smaller does not equate to more durable where kids are concerned. Also, the iPad is not exactly a brick. It is portable by its very design, otherwise people would just use laptops. Plus, how many people have a case for their iPads to protect them? If you bought a case for your mini iPad, then the added bulk of the case would negate the savings in weight and make them too bulky for lab coats. Those coats tend to weight down with anything of significance in the pockets. It would seem awkward to me to have one side of your lab coat weighed down more than the other. If you did not use a case, then everyone would complain on how easily they would scratch like the new iPhones.
I can't believe that after releasing a $299 iPod Touch, there is still an attempt to claim that Apple has an interest in releasing a 7-inch tablet.
It doesn't add up. There is a product slotted into pretty much every price point. The new iPhone and the new Touch address a lot of the concerns expressed by those who crave a more portable companion to the iPad. iPhones are ubiquitous and the Touch fills out the picture.
It's claimed that children have trouble using the current iPad but children, in my experience, absolutely love the iPad. They're not the ones claiming they want something smaller. As for a tablet for commuters, that's what the iPhone is for. If you have an iPhone, especially an iPhone 5 with a larger screen, it really makes buying a mini iPad pointless, if the point is to have something portable to use when on the go. And now the Touch has been dramatically upgraded. For puttering around the house, so to speak, the only thing making the iPad less than ideal is a need to lose some weight. As we have seen with the diet just applied to the iPhone, Apple knows how to shed weight. The next iPad is only a few months away and when it does come to market, it will be noticeably lighter, bank on it. So, what point is there to having an iPad Mini that will in essence be rendered obsolete within the next six months.
Once the larger iPhone/Touch spread and the lighter iPad comes to market, the iPad Mini would be a pointless device and as such, Apple will not bother. Yet, it appears October has to pass before this will become apparent to some. The rest of us have already figured it out.
Because it shouldn't even exist to begin with. Its utterly pointless.
Well, I'm glad you cleared that up for us all....
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009
Lack of a retina screen will be a deal-breaker for this household.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
Retina display on an entry level low end product? You must be kidding... maybe in 2 years but not in 2012 or 2013.
Raise your hand if you think Apple can release a product with a lower rez than several recently announced entrants in this class and sell it well for $50-100 more as most have speculated......
Raise your hand if you think Apple can release a product with a lower rez than several recently announced entrants in this class and sell it well for $50-100 more as most have speculated......
I don't know what they're going to do, of course, but I don't see that as impossible. Apple has done a remarkable job of creating a brand image and building the ecosystem as one of their main selling points rather than specs. Getting $50 more for an iPad doesn't sound that hard at all - even if the resolution is a bit lower.
That said, they're now making retina screens in such large quantity that they very well might not save enough money by going to lower resolution to make it worthwhile.
In addition, it's a matter of market positioning. A lot of people are buying 7" devices - and Apple is losing most of them (only the small number who can be convinced to move up to 10" iPad remain in Apple's hands). Failure to offer a smaller tablet gives Apple's competition a free foot in the door.
Finally, look at the numbers. While it's true that Apple has something like 60% of the tablet sales, if you look at current 7" tablet sales, it looks like there are at least as many 7" tablets being sold as Apple sold of 10" tablets in its first year. So if the market was big enough to launch the 10" iPad a few years ago, it should be big enough to launch a smaller iPad today.
I think you missed the point on this topic. A large majority of these 7" tablets that you claim we're sold we're actually just given away. Seriously, every time a kindle fire is sold a stockholder cries. If your giving a product away at less than cost, no matter what the reason, some people may get them. Perhaps a lot of people will get one.
Also, we can not "look at the numbers" because almost all who sell that product will not divulge those numbers. We apparently needed a court case to find out how many Tabs were sold.
Lets ask HP how well the 7" form factor sold. Oops! They did sell all of them though, adding to your numbers game.
Lets ask RIMM how we'll the 7" form factor sold. Oops! I don't believe they sold all of them as of this date.
How about Motorola? That's my absolute favorite! They stormed in and put on a big show about what a "real" tablet should be. Did they ever even recoup the money they spent on the Super Bowl add? From what I hear those adds are rather expensive.
So yes, perhaps there were as many 7" tablets "sold" so far as there were iPads sold in the first year but how many of those tablets were sold at a large or even a small (kindle) loss?
Also, I never said I oppose a 7" tablet. I simply stated that I see very little benefit for one.
Your logic of Apple making more than one size on other products also does not fit. In that regard, they make different colored nanos, shuffles, smart covers, cases... I would like a green iPhone. For some reason they are not making one...
I don't think it's a terrible product. The best use that I can see for it would be for students. I know that many have purchased the Wifi only Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire for personal use but they aren't used in the schools. The school system has quite a few iPads now in use. We've had great response from parents and others donating iPads too. The mini if there is such a thing is said to be just shy of 8 inches, which is nicer than 7 inches. If the price is lower and it's as good as the iPad is, that would benefit the many school systems who use them. This mock up shows a camera it looks like? Since no such product has been announced we'll have to wait and see if there is one, and what features it would have.
Raise your hand if you think Apple can release a product with a lower rez than several recently announced entrants in this class and sell it well for $50-100 more as most have speculated......
Probably.
What you can say with absolute certainty is that only geeks like us would base a purchasing decision on a Retina display. Most people don't care. Sure, it's nice and they can see the difference in a side-by-side comparison, but it's not a deal breaker for them. Actually, hang on...
I just went and asked three co-workers who have Gen3 iPads if the absence of Retina display would have influenced their decision to buy. One answered "A retinal what?", one knew it has a Retina display, was aware of that when she bought it, but doesn't really care, and the third said he really likes the retina display, would much rather have it than not, but wouldn't have passed on the purchase if it didn't have it.
Admittedly small sampling and decidedly unscientific, but my gut tells me it's a good indicator that Retina doesn't matter as much to most people as it does to some here.
Because it shouldn't even exist to begin with. Its utterly pointless.
I know people like to mock the S3 et al but I would really, genuinely LIKE an iPhad! A 7" phone would be GREAT for me! Still small enough to carry around, but big enough to accommodate my giant fumble fingers and show me both the keyboard AND more than two lines of an iMessage conversation at the same time! Big enough to be a useful analyzer display in my work (which an iPhone really isn't) while integrating the phone into it so I only have to carry one device instead of two!
Note, not just a 7" tablet though, a 7" phone.
I know, I know, the "experts" among you have already dismissed it. I don't care. I want one.
I know people like to mock the S3 et al but I would really, genuinely LIKE an iPhad! A 7" phone would be GREAT for me! Still small enough to carry around, but big enough to accommodate my giant fumble fingers and show me both the keyboard AND more than two lines of an iMessage conversation at the same time! Big enough to be a useful analyzer display in my work (which an iPhone really isn't) while integrating the phone into it so I only have to carry one device instead of two!
Note, not just a 7" tablet though, a 7" phone.
I know, I know, the "experts" among you have already dismissed it. I don't care. I want one.
No one reasonable would have a problem with you wanting a 7" phone. The problem would arrise if you thought a 7" phone would be a huge hit simply because it fit your specific needs.
I know you're joking, but my co-workers and I were recently discussing the value of a voice call capable iPad. It already has cellular connectivity, why not voice calling?
Because it's too big to hold up to your ear? Many of us are already wearing earphones while using it, or would be willing to plug them in to make/take a call. And how many of us already have Bluetooth mics for our iPhones that would also work just fine with the iPad? Or just use it as a speakerphone using the existing mic and speakers.
Obviously I recognize that there isn't a pressing need (or demand) for an iPad to make voice calls, but I don't really understand the choice to deliberate exclude that capability when 95% of what it takes to do it is already there.
You could make that same argument for any device that has cellular chips in it.
My laptop has cellular data so it should make vice calls.
My MiFi has cellular data donut should make voice calls.
My Kindle has cellular data so it should make vice calls.
It just not reasonable to expect everything to make vice calls simply because it can connect to a cellular network in some way. Note that the iPad (3) doesn't even have chips for cellular calls. The Qualomm MDM9xxx baseband chip simply doesn't support it.
Thirty-four posts and not one reference to the real market for this device, if they do it: kids and education.
Secondarily, people who travel light. Jackets and lab coats will be sold to accommodate it, especially once they put a retina screen on the second generation.
7,85 inches diagonal happens to be close to the optimal size for a one-handed slate. Therefore, one who's used to raising the middle finger while extending one's thumb would surely enjoy having one's hand hold a square deal instead of a lingering grudge...
You could make that same argument for any device that has cellular chips in it.
My laptop has cellular data so it should make vice calls.
Yes, one could make such an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It just not reasonable to expect everything to make vice calls simply because it can connect to a cellular network in some way.
Why not? Not to be adversarial or anything and just spit-balling, but it doesn't strike me as much of a stretch to think that something with an "LTE" symbol up in the corner should be able to call your mom. Obviously not if it adds considerably to the cost or otherwise muddies the soup, but I don't think the notion should be automatically dismissed just because it's not the way we're used to thinking about using a phone. We Skype and Facetime with laptops, why NOT plain ol' voice calls?
I think you missed the point on this topic. A large majority of these 7" tablets that you claim we're sold we're actually just given away. Seriously, every time a kindle fire is sold a stockholder cries. If your giving a product away at less than cost, no matter what the reason, some people may get them. Perhaps a lot of people will get one..
It doesn't matter. Kindle sold Millions of Fires at $199. Whether they made money is irrelevant.
If they sold millions at $199 and other companies sold a bunch, too, it's likely that Apple could sell at lot at $249 or so.
Why not? Not to be adversarial or anything and just spit-balling, but it doesn't strike me as much of a stretch to think that something with an "LTE" symbol up in the corner should be able to call your mom. Obviously not if it adds considerably to the cost or otherwise muddies the soup, but I don't think the notion should be automatically dismissed just because it's not the way we're used to thinking about using a phone. We Skype and Facetime with laptops, why NOT plain ol' voice calls?
You purposely remove the part of my comment where I explained why and then say you're trying to adversarial?
If that sentence was too complex to understand then just know this: not all data is the same. Period!
BVoice data currently travels over cellular differently than IP data. Eventually, it will all be IP data over LTE (or better) but for now that is the not the way it works.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
All it needs is a voice call feature so that the owners of Notes and Galaxies get jealous to death :-)
I know you're joking, but my co-workers and I were recently discussing the value of a voice call capable iPad. It already has cellular connectivity, why not voice calling?
Because it's too big to hold up to your ear? Many of us are already wearing earphones while using it, or would be willing to plug them in to make/take a call. And how many of us already have Bluetooth mics for our iPhones that would also work just fine with the iPad? Or just use it as a speakerphone using the existing mic and speakers.
Obviously I recognize that there isn't a pressing need (or demand) for an iPad to make voice calls, but I don't really understand the choice to deliberate exclude that capability when 95% of what it takes to do it is already there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Thirty-four posts and not one reference to the real market for this device, if they do it: kids and education.
Secondarily, people who travel light. Jackets and lab coats will be sold to accommodate it, especially once they put a retina screen on the second generation.
Wouldn't an older generation iPad serve the education market just as well? Smaller does not equate to more durable where kids are concerned. Also, the iPad is not exactly a brick. It is portable by its very design, otherwise people would just use laptops. Plus, how many people have a case for their iPads to protect them? If you bought a case for your mini iPad, then the added bulk of the case would negate the savings in weight and make them too bulky for lab coats. Those coats tend to weight down with anything of significance in the pockets. It would seem awkward to me to have one side of your lab coat weighed down more than the other. If you did not use a case, then everyone would complain on how easily they would scratch like the new iPhones.
Originally Posted by FlashmanBurgess
this is a total faked mock up.
That's the definition of mock-up, yes.
So where do I sand my fingers again?
Apparently, Apple realizes that there IS a market for the ~7" tablets.
I guess Steve Jobs (bless his heart) was wrong on this one (again).
Originally Posted by Galbi
Apparently, Apple realizes that there IS a market for the ~7" tablets.
Yes, because they sell a 7" tablet.
OH WAIT.
I can't believe that after releasing a $299 iPod Touch, there is still an attempt to claim that Apple has an interest in releasing a 7-inch tablet.
It doesn't add up. There is a product slotted into pretty much every price point. The new iPhone and the new Touch address a lot of the concerns expressed by those who crave a more portable companion to the iPad. iPhones are ubiquitous and the Touch fills out the picture.
It's claimed that children have trouble using the current iPad but children, in my experience, absolutely love the iPad. They're not the ones claiming they want something smaller. As for a tablet for commuters, that's what the iPhone is for. If you have an iPhone, especially an iPhone 5 with a larger screen, it really makes buying a mini iPad pointless, if the point is to have something portable to use when on the go. And now the Touch has been dramatically upgraded. For puttering around the house, so to speak, the only thing making the iPad less than ideal is a need to lose some weight. As we have seen with the diet just applied to the iPhone, Apple knows how to shed weight. The next iPad is only a few months away and when it does come to market, it will be noticeably lighter, bank on it. So, what point is there to having an iPad Mini that will in essence be rendered obsolete within the next six months.
Once the larger iPhone/Touch spread and the lighter iPad comes to market, the iPad Mini would be a pointless device and as such, Apple will not bother. Yet, it appears October has to pass before this will become apparent to some. The rest of us have already figured it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Because it shouldn't even exist to begin with. Its utterly pointless.
Well, I'm glad you cleared that up for us all....
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009
Lack of a retina screen will be a deal-breaker for this household.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
Retina display on an entry level low end product? You must be kidding... maybe in 2 years but not in 2012 or 2013.
Raise your hand if you think Apple can release a product with a lower rez than several recently announced entrants in this class and sell it well for $50-100 more as most have speculated......
I don't know what they're going to do, of course, but I don't see that as impossible. Apple has done a remarkable job of creating a brand image and building the ecosystem as one of their main selling points rather than specs. Getting $50 more for an iPad doesn't sound that hard at all - even if the resolution is a bit lower.
That said, they're now making retina screens in such large quantity that they very well might not save enough money by going to lower resolution to make it worthwhile.
I think you missed the point on this topic. A large majority of these 7" tablets that you claim we're sold we're actually just given away. Seriously, every time a kindle fire is sold a stockholder cries. If your giving a product away at less than cost, no matter what the reason, some people may get them. Perhaps a lot of people will get one.
Also, we can not "look at the numbers" because almost all who sell that product will not divulge those numbers. We apparently needed a court case to find out how many Tabs were sold.
Lets ask HP how well the 7" form factor sold. Oops! They did sell all of them though, adding to your numbers game.
Lets ask RIMM how we'll the 7" form factor sold. Oops! I don't believe they sold all of them as of this date.
How about Motorola? That's my absolute favorite! They stormed in and put on a big show about what a "real" tablet should be. Did they ever even recoup the money they spent on the Super Bowl add? From what I hear those adds are rather expensive.
So yes, perhaps there were as many 7" tablets "sold" so far as there were iPads sold in the first year but how many of those tablets were sold at a large or even a small (kindle) loss?
Also, I never said I oppose a 7" tablet. I simply stated that I see very little benefit for one.
Your logic of Apple making more than one size on other products also does not fit. In that regard, they make different colored nanos, shuffles, smart covers, cases... I would like a green iPhone. For some reason they are not making one...
I don't think it's a terrible product. The best use that I can see for it would be for students. I know that many have purchased the Wifi only Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire for personal use but they aren't used in the schools. The school system has quite a few iPads now in use. We've had great response from parents and others donating iPads too. The mini if there is such a thing is said to be just shy of 8 inches, which is nicer than 7 inches. If the price is lower and it's as good as the iPad is, that would benefit the many school systems who use them. This mock up shows a camera it looks like? Since no such product has been announced we'll have to wait and see if there is one, and what features it would have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
Raise your hand if you think Apple can release a product with a lower rez than several recently announced entrants in this class and sell it well for $50-100 more as most have speculated......
Probably.
What you can say with absolute certainty is that only geeks like us would base a purchasing decision on a Retina display. Most people don't care. Sure, it's nice and they can see the difference in a side-by-side comparison, but it's not a deal breaker for them. Actually, hang on...
I just went and asked three co-workers who have Gen3 iPads if the absence of Retina display would have influenced their decision to buy. One answered "A retinal what?", one knew it has a Retina display, was aware of that when she bought it, but doesn't really care, and the third said he really likes the retina display, would much rather have it than not, but wouldn't have passed on the purchase if it didn't have it.
Admittedly small sampling and decidedly unscientific, but my gut tells me it's a good indicator that Retina doesn't matter as much to most people as it does to some here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Because it shouldn't even exist to begin with. Its utterly pointless.
I know people like to mock the S3 et al but I would really, genuinely LIKE an iPhad! A 7" phone would be GREAT for me! Still small enough to carry around, but big enough to accommodate my giant fumble fingers and show me both the keyboard AND more than two lines of an iMessage conversation at the same time! Big enough to be a useful analyzer display in my work (which an iPhone really isn't) while integrating the phone into it so I only have to carry one device instead of two!
Note, not just a 7" tablet though, a 7" phone.
I know, I know, the "experts" among you have already dismissed it. I don't care. I want one.
No one reasonable would have a problem with you wanting a 7" phone. The problem would arrise if you thought a 7" phone would be a huge hit simply because it fit your specific needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] The problem would arrise if you thought a 7" phone would be a huge hit simply because it fit your specific needs.
That would be silly, wouldn't it?
It is the return of the 17" MacBook Pro that will be a huge hit. The fact that it fits my specific needs is a coincidence.
You could make that same argument for any device that has cellular chips in it.
My laptop has cellular data so it should make vice calls.
My MiFi has cellular data donut should make voice calls.
My Kindle has cellular data so it should make vice calls.
It just not reasonable to expect everything to make vice calls simply because it can connect to a cellular network in some way. Note that the iPad (3) doesn't even have chips for cellular calls. The Qualomm MDM9xxx baseband chip simply doesn't support it.
7,85 inches diagonal happens to be close to the optimal size for a one-handed slate. Therefore, one who's used to raising the middle finger while extending one's thumb would surely enjoy having one's hand hold a square deal instead of a lingering grudge...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You could make that same argument for any device that has cellular chips in it.
My laptop has cellular data so it should make vice calls.
Yes, one could make such an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It just not reasonable to expect everything to make vice calls simply because it can connect to a cellular network in some way.
Why not? Not to be adversarial or anything and just spit-balling, but it doesn't strike me as much of a stretch to think that something with an "LTE" symbol up in the corner should be able to call your mom. Obviously not if it adds considerably to the cost or otherwise muddies the soup, but I don't think the notion should be automatically dismissed just because it's not the way we're used to thinking about using a phone. We Skype and Facetime with laptops, why NOT plain ol' voice calls?
It doesn't matter. Kindle sold Millions of Fires at $199. Whether they made money is irrelevant.
If they sold millions at $199 and other companies sold a bunch, too, it's likely that Apple could sell at lot at $249 or so.
You purposely remove the part of my comment where I explained why and then say you're trying to adversarial?
If that sentence was too complex to understand then just know this: not all data is the same. Period!
BVoice data currently travels over cellular differently than IP data. Eventually, it will all be IP data over LTE (or better) but for now that is the not the way it works.