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.
Whoa, lower your weapon... I wasn't trying to challenge you. You regulars sure get worked up easily around here! Damn...
You only mentioned one device, and I was trying not to overquote, I apologize, roll on my back and expose my belly in submission and throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Now will you lighten the hell up? I TOLD you I'm just kickin' around inconsequential ideas. Besides, we're talking phones and tablets here, not infaticide. Yeesh.
Whoa, lower your weapon... I wasn't trying to challenge you. You regulars sure get worked up easily around here! Damn...
You only mentioned one device, and I was trying not to overquote, I apologize, roll on my back and expose my belly in submission and throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Now will you lighten the hell up? I TOLD you I'm just kickin' around inconsequential ideas. Besides, we're talking phones and tablets here, not infaticide. Yeesh.
I asked a question because that is how it read to me when you ask the very question I had already answered and you chose not to address what i had answered. I then answered it again in a different way. Do your adversaries continue to answer your queries with detailed responses?
As for only mentioned one device your comment was that anything with LTE cellular should be able to do voice calls. So either that's true or it isn't. Therefore, you should have either refuted my claim with facts backing up your claim or inquired more about why that is the case to help educate yourself. That's how communication works/ That's how communication is beneficial.
As for only mentioned one device your comment was that anything with LTE cellular should be able to do voice calls. So either that's true or it isn't.
Even re-reading the thread I'm at a loss to figure out how the hell we got from what I said to this, but it doesn't matter.
All I was trying to say is that it would be cool if tablets made phone calls, and said I don't believe it can be all that difficult. So one chip doesn't do it. Obviously there's simply NO WAY ON EARTH anyone could possible come up with ANOTHER chip that does. That would be crazy, and so am I to even be taking this position.
I don't like this game and don't want to play anymore.
Even re-reading the thread I'm at a loss to figure out how the hell we got from what I said to this, but it doesn't matter.
All I was trying to say is that it would be cool if tablets made phone calls, and said I don't believe it can be all that difficult. So one chip doesn't do it. Obviously there's simply NO WAY ON EARTH anyone could possible come up with ANOTHER chip that does. That would be crazy, and so am I to even be taking this position.
I don't like this game and don't want to play anymore.
1) We got there because you said you weren't be adversarial despite making what appeared to me as passive-agressive comments for which I causally mentioned and then you took offense with in your "you regulars' and other comments.
2) In the iPhone 5 it's ONE CHIP. It's also a very efficient chip. That's why it not only gets 8 hours on '3G' but also 8 hours on '4G' LTE. This is 3rd gen LTE chip (2nd gen Qualcomm Gobi chip) and I think only Apple is using them in bulk right now. They are built using the 28nm process instead of 45nm so they are much more power efficient. They also have plenty of other features that help them monitor power. This LTE is considerably more efficient than the iPhone 3G was back in 2008 at it's lower data rate capacity.
3) Here is an AnandTech explaining why no LTE iPhone in 2011 that details the basic chip capabilities.
Fusion is a marketing term that is basically the voice HW on Qualcomm's Snapdragon SoC instead of on the MDM9600. As AT states, it's about chip maturity but the take away is: not all data is the same. Hence, no native voice capabilities on the MDM9600 in the iPad (3).
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.
On this point I unequivocally agree. If Apple were to release a 7" tablet in that price bracket I'm sure that it would sell. My thought was, what's the point? It's just my opinion and my own thoughts on said device. I am definitely NOT stating that they are NOT going to release the aforementioned product.
If said device does get released I will actually be very interested in the numbers this time. I was interested in the numbers once previous. I pre-ordered the first iPad because I thought it was perfect. I was worried at that time that others would not share my view, not purchase them, and the device would be stillborn like most of the tablets that came after. Luckily others did share my view. Many millions of them. I'm very happy about that because I now have the 3rd release and it makes the original product look like a prototype. I equate (volume sold = upgrade). --- As a side note, mine has never achieved higher than room temperature status. Just saying )
The 7" form factor iPad has many more variables to consider.
While I do know (because I'm forward and I ask people) that some people who purchased the 'Fire' did so because they could not afford an iPad. So apparently the 'Fires' sales would drop a little, if not considerably, if there was a lower price point iPad. I also wonder how much of current iPad sales this would eat into. Yes I am aware that Tim likes this type of canabalization.
We will either find out soon as the rumors state, or it will share the same rumor category as the Apple TV (the one with a built in screen).
That's a China knockoff product of the iPad 1. The mini will look like the new iPod touch. Check the apple site what the touch looks like and look at the aluminum buttons and how precision made it is.
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.
This is where you made your mistake. Even I thought you were ridiculing him.
You also happened to pick the most beautiful mind on this site to do so with. He's also been rather passionate the last couple of months so I kind of expected a response. Actually, I looked for it!
Notice how he educated you with each incremental post even though you somewhat 'dissed' him?
I say fair game...
Also, some of these "regulars" that you mentioned have more than one name here. They play 'fox & hound'. Very interesting if you can figure it out. Sol is NOT one of them.
That's a China knockoff product of the iPad 1. The mini will look like the new iPod touch. Check the apple site what the touch looks like and look at the aluminum buttons and how precision made it is.
I both agree and disagree. How is that possible? Well...
I disagree that it's an iPad 1 knock off. Even Samsung stopped copying that well over a year ago...
I agree that the finished tolerances, even in a prototype would be substantially better than what is depicted. Even if it is a prototype, you still order it so you can see finished tolerances. They at least look inferior in the pictures that are provided.
This is where you made your mistake. Even I thought you were ridiculing him.
Y'know, I've got the same problem at work: my emails seem to convey "attitude" I genuinely don't intend. I think it's because the cheeky grin evident while I'm typing it doesn't travel with the text. I really, honest to goodness, didn't mean any disrespect to Solipsism, but confess I did become frustrated when he steered the discussion towards isolating individual statements and qualifying arguments. I felt like he was trying to draw me into a debate in which I had to "defend" my position of thinking it can't be that hard. Maybe he did that because he thought I was being an asshole on purpose. For the record, I wasn't. If I was an asshole, it was by accident!
I'm sure he's right, it's probably a stupid and unrealistic idea. To me it really doesn't matter if it is or it isn't -- I was just sorta kickin' the thought around -- but it just makes me crazy when people focus on why things CAN'T be done instead of imagining how they COULD be done, that's all.
No hard feelings on this side. Hopefully I haven't pissed off S-X too much.
Y'know, I've got the same problem at work: my emails seem to convey "attitude" I genuinely don't intend. I think it's because the cheeky grin evident while I'm typing it doesn't travel with the text. I really, honest to goodness, didn't mean any disrespect to Solipsism, but confess I did become frustrated when he steered the discussion towards isolating individual statements and qualifying arguments. I felt like he was trying to draw me into a debate in which I had to "defend" my position of thinking it can't be that hard. Maybe he did that because he thought I was being an asshole on purpose. For the record, I wasn't. If I was an asshole, it was by accident!
I'm sure he's right, it's probably a stupid and unrealistic idea. To me it really doesn't matter if it is or it isn't -- I was just sorta kickin' the thought around -- but it just makes me crazy when people focus on why things CAN'T be done instead of imagining how they COULD be done, that's all.
No hard feelings on this side. Hopefully I haven't pissed off S-X too much.
You're British! That's cool!
No, no, no! I actually agree. I think it would be cool if the hardware allowed it. It simply doesn't. I would love Siri to actually call my brother over 'speaker phone' on the iPad when I asked her to. Instead I get "I can't make phone calls for you on this device Vadania, but you can make a face time call." I understand your point and I think it would be awesome.
I may be overstepping myself here, but I believe his background (or fervent hobby) is in wireless communications, so not only did you diss him, but you dissed him on his area of expertise. I doubt you made him angry. He seems too intelligent for that. If anything he just hit the ignore button... I'm probably on a lot of ignore lists so, no worry!
Again, it's a good idea. It's just not supported yet on the hardware side. However if you did read his responses, there should be no reason for that feature not to exist in the future! You see? Every cloud has a silver lining! )
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.
While it sounds ridiculous to use an iPad for voice calls, the availability of voice dialing and bluetooth handsets makes it possible. I probably wouldn't personally use it that way, but I can see how it might be practical for some people to avoid buying two devices (which, of course, is what Apple would prefer).
I both agree and disagree. How is that possible? Well...
I disagree that it's an iPad 1 knock off. Even Samsung stopped copying that well over a year ago...
I agree that the finished tolerances, even in a prototype would be substantially better than what is depicted. Even if it is a prototype, you still order it so you can see finished tolerances. They at least look inferior in the pictures that are provided.
felt like he was trying to draw me into a debate in which I had to "defend" my position of thinking it can't be that hard. Maybe he did that because he thought I was being an asshole on purpose. For the record, I wasn't. If I was an asshole, it was by accident!
You being an asshole never crossed my mind. I just wanted you to clarify and focus your position.
I'm sure he's right, it's probably a stupid and unrealistic idea. To me it really doesn't matter if it is or it isn't -- I was just sorta kickin' the thought around -- but it just makes me crazy when people focus on why things CAN'T be done instead of imagining how they COULD be done, that's all.
No hard feelings on this side. Hopefully I haven't pissed off S-X too much.
I didn't think your question was stupid. There is absolutely no reason anyone not familiar with cellular technology to think otherwise. I was annoyed that you removed my answer to your query just to ask it again. That seems passive-aggressive to me. As you can surely tell I'm not passive. I also only post to educate and to learn. I learned a great deal of my cellular data knowledge from AI poster winterspan many years ago.
Now, I disagree with the mass market viability of your initial comment about an iPad phone but that's a different discussion. If you think it would be a hit then make an argument for it. Discussing a topic and formulating a convincing position helps to weed out bugs. It's like beta testing ideas. A good debater can make the case for both sides. If you know how people will address an opposing view you can better address those concerns in your initial comment.
Based on the info I provided earlier a 7-8" iPad Mini will likely be using the same (or better) Qualcomm baseband chip if it has cellular connectivity. That means that that standard, as in non-VoIP, voice calls aren't going to be an issue like with the iPad (3). Now I don't think an iPad Mini is very likely to have cellular even though I hope it does because shared data plans are becoming commonplace (at least in the States). I also don't think that if it does have cellular connectivity and uses a chip that natively supports voice that it will as I think it's not a viable usage for the mass market.
So make an case for this device. Would it be for people without a phone? Would it allow for server-side number syncing so you can answer either device (like how iMessages get sent to all synced devices)? Would it have any a standard mic and speaker for using like a traditional phone up to your ear or would you have to use a headset of some sort? Where does this fit in? Make us see what you see.
It just not reasonable to expect everything to make vice calls simply because it can connect to a cellular network in some way.
We Skype and Facetime with laptops, why NOT plain ol' voice calls?
The reason that the iPad came with cellular data and no voice is so you do not need a contract and there is no subsidy. That was a marketing decision by Apple, probably an agreement with AT&T as well. As you mentioned, you can make a Skype call and if you want to buy Skype premium or pay to have a Skype phone number it will work almost exactly like a regular cell phone. If that is your desire to have a tablet phone you can do it. It just wasn't something that Apple wanted to sell. Face it they artificially disable certain features on each device to persuade you to buy multiple products. They want you to buy an iPhone, an iPad and an iPad mini. Might as well throw in an iPod and a MBP for good measure.
The reason that the iPad came with cellular data and no voice is so you do not need a contract and there is no subsidy. That was a marketing decision by Apple, probably an agreement with AT&T as well. As you mentioned, you can make a Skype call and if you want to buy Skype premium or pay to have a Skype phone number it will work almost exactly like a regular cell phone. If that is your desire to have a tablet phone you can do it. It just wasn't something that Apple wanted to sell. Face it they artificially disable certain features on each device to persuade you to buy multiple products. They want you to buy an iPhone, an iPad and an iPad mini. Might as well throw in an iPod and a MBP for good measure.
Imagine if they offered voice calls but in order to get a cellular contract you couldn't just pay for data but had to also pay for a separate voice call account, too, like you have to with cellphones, regardless of whether you are in or out of a contract.
I think once LTE has VoIP and CDMA and GSM/UMTS is severely deprecated we might finally have a single cellphone charge for the amount of data regardless of how it's derived with the Telcos still providing QoS for their voice calls, but that's many, many years out.
I have to agree with Tallest Skill on this. I have spent months wondering what I would use a smaller iPad for and whether or not I would purchase one given the availability to do so. ...
An interesting analysis, but I think the part I highlighted is where it all goes wrong for me.
It's a great insight into you and your needs/opinions, but that's all it is. It doesn't tell me whether or not the iPad mini is a good idea, it just tells me whether it's a good idea for you. I'm hoping there is an iPad mini in the offing because for me, it would be the perfect device, but whether I love it and you hate it is irrelevant to whether the thing is actually going to appear.
For counter arguments I would say two things:
1) - and you kind of mention this yourself - pretty much every tablet out there besides the iPad that is popular is a 7" tablet, used primarily for reading and priced between $150-$250. that alone seems sufficient reason for me to make an iPad mini assuming the price point is roughly the same. I don't know about you but all I see on the train is iPads, and people with kindle/nook readers.
2) - Personally, I think the iPad mini could end up being the "iPad Pro." As someone who uses an iPad a lot and does lots of writing and other content creation on it, I would prefer the smaller form factor as it would make the typing go a lot faster and the one thing the current iPad is not good at is typing.
I think the purported iPad mini is a better size and better form factor than the original iPad and I often used to argue before the iPad was revealed that this was the form factor they must go with. I now see that this would have been a failure in that a lot of folks would have trouble with the small size at the same time as they are learning the whole multi-touch thing and it would have been immensely frustrating for most users. Additionally, you can't properly use a keyboard case with an iPad mini (although I'm sure a lot of crazy people will try), meaning that the single most popular way of using an iPad wouldn't have really been possible if they launched with a tablet this small.
I feel that they started off with the bigger iPad simply to make the platform "catch on" as a possible computer replacement, and that now it's done that, they can move to the smaller form factor that should really have been there all along. As I said, I think the mini is really the new "pro." It would be lighter, easier to carry, easier to type on and just be generally all around better.
This video clearly demonstrates how useless it will be to hold in portrait mode. This person's thumb rests clearly across the side bezel and the screen at the same time in portrait mode. I can see this as a problem because it will cause many accidental taps to the screen. I already have this problem with the current iPad and it's bezel is twice as wide as this mock-up. And it didn't look comfortable at all when this person held the device single-handed. With all focus (at the iP5 event) about logically using the taller screen with one hand, I would be surprised if they released a device like this that you can't even comfortably use in portrait mode with even 2 hands.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
Whoa, lower your weapon... I wasn't trying to challenge you. You regulars sure get worked up easily around here! Damn...
You only mentioned one device, and I was trying not to overquote, I apologize, roll on my back and expose my belly in submission and throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Now will you lighten the hell up? I TOLD you I'm just kickin' around inconsequential ideas. Besides, we're talking phones and tablets here, not infaticide. Yeesh.
I asked a question because that is how it read to me when you ask the very question I had already answered and you chose not to address what i had answered. I then answered it again in a different way. Do your adversaries continue to answer your queries with detailed responses?
As for only mentioned one device your comment was that anything with LTE cellular should be able to do voice calls. So either that's true or it isn't. Therefore, you should have either refuted my claim with facts backing up your claim or inquired more about why that is the case to help educate yourself. That's how communication works/ That's how communication is beneficial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
As for only mentioned one device your comment was that anything with LTE cellular should be able to do voice calls. So either that's true or it isn't.
Even re-reading the thread I'm at a loss to figure out how the hell we got from what I said to this, but it doesn't matter.
All I was trying to say is that it would be cool if tablets made phone calls, and said I don't believe it can be all that difficult. So one chip doesn't do it. Obviously there's simply NO WAY ON EARTH anyone could possible come up with ANOTHER chip that does. That would be crazy, and so am I to even be taking this position.
I don't like this game and don't want to play anymore.
1) We got there because you said you weren't be adversarial despite making what appeared to me as passive-agressive comments for which I causally mentioned and then you took offense with in your "you regulars' and other comments.
2) In the iPhone 5 it's ONE CHIP. It's also a very efficient chip. That's why it not only gets 8 hours on '3G' but also 8 hours on '4G' LTE. This is 3rd gen LTE chip (2nd gen Qualcomm Gobi chip) and I think only Apple is using them in bulk right now. They are built using the 28nm process instead of 45nm so they are much more power efficient. They also have plenty of other features that help them monitor power. This LTE is considerably more efficient than the iPhone 3G was back in 2008 at it's lower data rate capacity.
3) Here is an AnandTech explaining why no LTE iPhone in 2011 that details the basic chip capabilities.
Fusion is a marketing term that is basically the voice HW on Qualcomm's Snapdragon SoC instead of on the MDM9600. As AT states, it's about chip maturity but the take away is: not all data is the same. Hence, no native voice capabilities on the MDM9600 in the iPad (3).
On this point I unequivocally agree. If Apple were to release a 7" tablet in that price bracket I'm sure that it would sell. My thought was, what's the point? It's just my opinion and my own thoughts on said device. I am definitely NOT stating that they are NOT going to release the aforementioned product.
If said device does get released I will actually be very interested in the numbers this time. I was interested in the numbers once previous. I pre-ordered the first iPad because I thought it was perfect. I was worried at that time that others would not share my view, not purchase them, and the device would be stillborn like most of the tablets that came after. Luckily others did share my view. Many millions of them. I'm very happy about that because I now have the 3rd release and it makes the original product look like a prototype. I equate (volume sold = upgrade). --- As a side note, mine has never achieved higher than room temperature status. Just saying
The 7" form factor iPad has many more variables to consider.
While I do know (because I'm forward and I ask people) that some people who purchased the 'Fire' did so because they could not afford an iPad. So apparently the 'Fires' sales would drop a little, if not considerably, if there was a lower price point iPad. I also wonder how much of current iPad sales this would eat into. Yes I am aware that Tim likes this type of canabalization.
We will either find out soon as the rumors state, or it will share the same rumor category as the Apple TV (the one with a built in screen).
--- With lov...
This is where you made your mistake. Even I thought you were ridiculing him.
You also happened to pick the most beautiful mind on this site to do so with. He's also been rather passionate the last couple of months so I kind of expected a response. Actually, I looked for it!
Notice how he educated you with each incremental post even though you somewhat 'dissed' him?
I say fair game...
Also, some of these "regulars" that you mentioned have more than one name here. They play 'fox & hound'. Very interesting if you can figure it out. Sol is NOT one of them.
I both agree and disagree. How is that possible? Well...
I disagree that it's an iPad 1 knock off. Even Samsung stopped copying that well over a year ago...
I agree that the finished tolerances, even in a prototype would be substantially better than what is depicted. Even if it is a prototype, you still order it so you can see finished tolerances. They at least look inferior in the pictures that are provided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania
This is where you made your mistake. Even I thought you were ridiculing him.
Y'know, I've got the same problem at work: my emails seem to convey "attitude" I genuinely don't intend. I think it's because the cheeky grin evident while I'm typing it doesn't travel with the text. I really, honest to goodness, didn't mean any disrespect to Solipsism, but confess I did become frustrated when he steered the discussion towards isolating individual statements and qualifying arguments. I felt like he was trying to draw me into a debate in which I had to "defend" my position of thinking it can't be that hard. Maybe he did that because he thought I was being an asshole on purpose. For the record, I wasn't. If I was an asshole, it was by accident!
I'm sure he's right, it's probably a stupid and unrealistic idea. To me it really doesn't matter if it is or it isn't -- I was just sorta kickin' the thought around -- but it just makes me crazy when people focus on why things CAN'T be done instead of imagining how they COULD be done, that's all.
No hard feelings on this side. Hopefully I haven't pissed off S-X too much.
You're British! That's cool!
No, no, no! I actually agree. I think it would be cool if the hardware allowed it. It simply doesn't. I would love Siri to actually call my brother over 'speaker phone' on the iPad when I asked her to. Instead I get "I can't make phone calls for you on this device Vadania, but you can make a face time call." I understand your point and I think it would be awesome.
I may be overstepping myself here, but I believe his background (or fervent hobby) is in wireless communications, so not only did you diss him, but you dissed him on his area of expertise. I doubt you made him angry. He seems too intelligent for that. If anything he just hit the ignore button... I'm probably on a lot of ignore lists so, no worry!
Again, it's a good idea. It's just not supported yet on the hardware side. However if you did read his responses, there should be no reason for that feature not to exist in the future! You see? Every cloud has a silver lining!
Hmm, I like the size of this baby, but she seems difficult to hold than her bigger sister. My thumbs are pretty big though.
While it sounds ridiculous to use an iPad for voice calls, the availability of voice dialing and bluetooth handsets makes it possible. I probably wouldn't personally use it that way, but I can see how it might be practical for some people to avoid buying two devices (which, of course, is what Apple would prefer).
That's because it's a mockup, not a prototype.
Apparently, 17" sales were insufficient to justify keeping the product. I also preferred the 17", but we're in a minority.
You being an asshole never crossed my mind. I just wanted you to clarify and focus your position.
I didn't think your question was stupid. There is absolutely no reason anyone not familiar with cellular technology to think otherwise. I was annoyed that you removed my answer to your query just to ask it again. That seems passive-aggressive to me. As you can surely tell I'm not passive. I also only post to educate and to learn. I learned a great deal of my cellular data knowledge from AI poster winterspan many years ago.
Now, I disagree with the mass market viability of your initial comment about an iPad phone but that's a different discussion. If you think it would be a hit then make an argument for it. Discussing a topic and formulating a convincing position helps to weed out bugs. It's like beta testing ideas. A good debater can make the case for both sides. If you know how people will address an opposing view you can better address those concerns in your initial comment.
Based on the info I provided earlier a 7-8" iPad Mini will likely be using the same (or better) Qualcomm baseband chip if it has cellular connectivity. That means that that standard, as in non-VoIP, voice calls aren't going to be an issue like with the iPad (3). Now I don't think an iPad Mini is very likely to have cellular even though I hope it does because shared data plans are becoming commonplace (at least in the States). I also don't think that if it does have cellular connectivity and uses a chip that natively supports voice that it will as I think it's not a viable usage for the mass market.
So make an case for this device. Would it be for people without a phone? Would it allow for server-side number syncing so you can answer either device (like how iMessages get sent to all synced devices)? Would it have any a standard mic and speaker for using like a traditional phone up to your ear or would you have to use a headset of some sort? Where does this fit in? Make us see what you see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
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.
We Skype and Facetime with laptops, why NOT plain ol' voice calls?
The reason that the iPad came with cellular data and no voice is so you do not need a contract and there is no subsidy. That was a marketing decision by Apple, probably an agreement with AT&T as well. As you mentioned, you can make a Skype call and if you want to buy Skype premium or pay to have a Skype phone number it will work almost exactly like a regular cell phone. If that is your desire to have a tablet phone you can do it. It just wasn't something that Apple wanted to sell. Face it they artificially disable certain features on each device to persuade you to buy multiple products. They want you to buy an iPhone, an iPad and an iPad mini. Might as well throw in an iPod and a MBP for good measure.
Imagine if they offered voice calls but in order to get a cellular contract you couldn't just pay for data but had to also pay for a separate voice call account, too, like you have to with cellphones, regardless of whether you are in or out of a contract.
I think once LTE has VoIP and CDMA and GSM/UMTS is severely deprecated we might finally have a single cellphone charge for the amount of data regardless of how it's derived with the Telcos still providing QoS for their voice calls, but that's many, many years out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania
I have to agree with Tallest Skill on this. I have spent months wondering what I would use a smaller iPad for and whether or not I would purchase one given the availability to do so. ...
An interesting analysis, but I think the part I highlighted is where it all goes wrong for me.
It's a great insight into you and your needs/opinions, but that's all it is. It doesn't tell me whether or not the iPad mini is a good idea, it just tells me whether it's a good idea for you. I'm hoping there is an iPad mini in the offing because for me, it would be the perfect device, but whether I love it and you hate it is irrelevant to whether the thing is actually going to appear.
For counter arguments I would say two things:
1) - and you kind of mention this yourself - pretty much every tablet out there besides the iPad that is popular is a 7" tablet, used primarily for reading and priced between $150-$250. that alone seems sufficient reason for me to make an iPad mini assuming the price point is roughly the same. I don't know about you but all I see on the train is iPads, and people with kindle/nook readers.
2) - Personally, I think the iPad mini could end up being the "iPad Pro." As someone who uses an iPad a lot and does lots of writing and other content creation on it, I would prefer the smaller form factor as it would make the typing go a lot faster and the one thing the current iPad is not good at is typing.
I think the purported iPad mini is a better size and better form factor than the original iPad and I often used to argue before the iPad was revealed that this was the form factor they must go with. I now see that this would have been a failure in that a lot of folks would have trouble with the small size at the same time as they are learning the whole multi-touch thing and it would have been immensely frustrating for most users. Additionally, you can't properly use a keyboard case with an iPad mini (although I'm sure a lot of crazy people will try), meaning that the single most popular way of using an iPad wouldn't have really been possible if they launched with a tablet this small.
I feel that they started off with the bigger iPad simply to make the platform "catch on" as a possible computer replacement, and that now it's done that, they can move to the smaller form factor that should really have been there all along. As I said, I think the mini is really the new "pro." It would be lighter, easier to carry, easier to type on and just be generally all around better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
I just truly feel that a iPad Mini is not significantly more portable than a regular iPad.
By that same discussion, I feel that an iPad is not significantly more portable than a 11.6" macbook air.
Therefore, everyone should just forget the ipad and buy a macbookair, based upon my preconceptions on what everyone needs.
This video clearly demonstrates how useless it will be to hold in portrait mode. This person's thumb rests clearly across the side bezel and the screen at the same time in portrait mode. I can see this as a problem because it will cause many accidental taps to the screen. I already have this problem with the current iPad and it's bezel is twice as wide as this mock-up. And it didn't look comfortable at all when this person held the device single-handed. With all focus (at the iP5 event) about logically using the taller screen with one hand, I would be surprised if they released a device like this that you can't even comfortably use in portrait mode with even 2 hands.