We need to think like Apple. If you want the same specs from a 10" iPad in a 7.85" iPad you actually make it considerably more expensive because of that shrinking. That leaves altering your goals for the device.
I think a $7.85 has two primary focuses for Apple. Price and weight. I bet Apple has had this device in development for years now waiting for the right time to make such a device that falls into these primary (and many secondary) categories. The 32nm lithography is key here. Not only will it use less power it will allow for a shrinking of the battery with will lessen its size and weight. That is how Apple will make it the best in category.
With that goal Apple can't put a quad-core (or 16-core) GPU into this device because that clearly wouldn't make it the best in the proper respects if the device is too heavy or doesn't last long enough on a single charge. I see a dual or tri-core GPU being used but I'm favoring dual-core for the reasons of keeping the price envelop and weight down even further per my previous speculation that these are primary concerns.
Apple has stopped using those 132 PPI panels for all their iPhones now. That means they can still utilize that long-ago paid for investment for those panels in a 7.85" iPad mini/iBook (I doubt it will be called that but I really like the name iBook for this device). The 1024x768 on a 7.85" display only becomes Retina for someone with 20/20(6/6) vision when it's held 26" from the face — 3438 * (1/132 PPI ) = 26" — but that's not even close to only the thing that makes a display a great experience. Apple will have a new App Store for it but apps for both the iPad and iPhone will be usable out of the gate, it will likely have a great sRGB and all that jazz, and simply be a treat to use for its price point with a long battery life and th ability to hold it with one hand for a long time.
a6, 1gb ram, iphone like graphics, retina, 7h battery life.
399, 499 or 529 4g.
look at both airs for comparison, for example.
who told you that apple is going for the cheap segment of the 7inch market? What does not make perfect sense here? Please, do not forget how amazing and important the a6 and the lightning port as well as the premium tablet segment are to apple.
I'm not even talking about the possibility of default 32gb in the 10 inch version vs 16 in the 7 version. It all makes sense and apple really needs to change release dates to confuse people.
10inch
a6, 2gb ram, quad graphics, retina, 10h battery life.
499, 629 4g
7inch
a6, 1gb ram, iphone like graphics, retina, 7h battery life.
399, 499 or 529 4g.
look at both airs for comparison, for example.
who told you that apple is going for the cheap segment of the 7inch market? What does not make perfect sense here? Please, do not forget how amazing and important the a6 and the lightning port as well as the premium tablet segment are to apple.
I'm not even talking about the possibility of default 32gb in the 10 inch version vs 16 in the 7 version. It all makes sense and apple really needs to change release dates to confuse people.
You're not thinking it through. You're ignoring what I would call very important aspects of this device. So you think Apple wouldn't leverage any of its tech for a cheaper tablet but would rather just price at the iPad 2 price and above? I certainly don't think so. The market for this class is less expensive. The need for performance is less severe. What seems to be very necessary is weight and cost to make it the best product in it's class.
Also note that at rumoured 7.85" 4:3 it'll have nearly 50% more screen area as the 7" 16:9 tablets. Now do you think that it can be exceptionally heavier than them or will it have to be not only comparably lightweight but also light enough to be held with one hand comfortably for extended periods, which the iPad (3) cannot do. I think it's the latter, as I've not only stated but described in great detail how this would be achieved.
Finally, you keep saying it will have an Retina display and yet not once have you stated what that Retina display resolution will be. The iPhone 5 has a Retina display and yet the resolution is less than the rumoured 1024x768 165 PPI of this iPad mini. You don't do yourself any favours my using a marketing term and then not detailing what you mean by it.
PS: Your question about "who told me" this or that is useless and argumentative. I've clearly stated my opinions here just as you've stated yours about how Apple will make this the best, despite not listing how that could be achieved. Imagine if my retorts were "who told you it would $529?" Makes for a pointless and hostile discussion, don't ya think?
PPS: You also didn't answer any of my questions about how the iPod Touch exists when you claim they only use the best for every product.
I just don't get why they'd update the iPad 3 right now as opposed to in another six months like the release cycle for EVERY iDevice.
The only known history of this was with the iPad 2 which got a mid-cycle replacement of the A5/45nm to A5/32nm. All evidence points to it being a scale test for the 32nm process as they didn't advertise it in any way or change any other aspects of the device.
AnandTech showed a 15.8% increase in battery life.
Why would they have an updated "new iPad" (3rd gen.) with an A6? It doesn't make sense, it would be called iPad 4,1 4,2 4,3..
Apple knows developers are leaking those numbers etc, so don't read too much into it. They could be screwing with folks. The next iPad could be in early prototype testing for next spring, or it could be the alleged Mini, etc.
If this is just prototype testing for the ipad 4th Gen maybe they are using the same processor and are testing more ram, same amount but different speed ram, or the same core processor with a different GPU. thus the same base number as that number is often tied to the processor
Or maybe it's all different and indeed they are just screwing with folks giving an 'old' number to hide the truth
I just don't get why they'd update the iPad 3 right now as opposed to in another six months like the release cycle for EVERY iDevice.
why did they wait 16 months between the iphone 4 and 4s. Some folks will claim there was some kind of issue but I think the reason is that they simply wanted to move it to the Fall.
Perhaps they want to move the iPad to the holiday. Fill in the gap with computers. Given that the iPad is becoming an huge thing for the kiddies and laptops are still a big college thing, having laptops as the Spring focus going into that Back to School promo has some logic to it. As does having iPads release before the holiday season rather than after.
You're not thinking it through. You're ignoring what I would call very important aspects of this device. So you think Apple wouldn't leverage any of its tech for a cheaper tablet but would rather just price at the iPad 2 price and above? I certainly don't think so. The market for this class is less expensive. The need for performance is less severe. What seems to be very necessary is weight and cost to make it the best product in it's class.
Also note that at rumoured 7.85" 4:3 it'll have nearly 50% more screen area as the 7" 16:9 tablets. Now do you think that it can be exceptionally heavier than them or will it have to be not only comparably lightweight but also light enough to be held with one hand comfortably for extended periods, which the iPad (3) cannot do. I think it's the latter, as I've not only stated but described in great detail how this would be achieved.
Finally, you keep saying it will have an Retina display and yet not once have you stated what that Retina display resolution will be. The iPhone 5 has a Retina display and yet the resolution is less than the rumoured 1024x768 132 PPI of this iPad mini. You don't do yourself any favours my using a marketing term and then not detailing what you mean by it.
PS: Your question about "who told me" this or that is useless and argumentative. I've clearly stated my opinions here just as you've stated yours about how Apple will make this the best, despite not listing how that could be achieved. Imagine if my retorts were "who told you it would $529?" Makes for a pointless and hostile discussion, don't ya think?
PPS: You also didn't answer any of my questions about how the iPod Touch exists when you claim they only use the best for every product.
I'm just trying to have a nice discussion and figure this out.
First of all, you said that the market for this class is less expensive and the need for performance is less severe. I disagree (to an extent).
Second, your innability to see how apple leverages any of their tech for cheaper devices is both intriguing and wrong.
It's impossible for apple to do a cheaper version of the nexus and other similar devices.. Apple cannot and will never beat companies like samsung on the cheaper segment. Also, even if they could, it would be a mistake.
I will try to explain and share my view about this 2 subjects, that in reality are 1.
Apple makes premium and expensive products that can even outsell cheaper, with less build quality devices like the s3 and other similar junk. So, why doesn't samsung go for it and make an aluminium/magnesium s3 version? Because Apple pretty much OWNS (as you know) said materials, so samsung could never be price-competitive if they fought this war with the same weapons. However, samsung and companies alike totally OWN "plastic" and other materials, and since no matter how great deals apple got, the price of aluminium used for iDevices is still much bigger than plastic, so Apple can only achieve great deals and competitve advantage in products where aluminium is required and used, not plastic (premium segment, more profit).
The same can be said about flash memory vs traditional HDDs. Apple pretty much outmuscles the entire industry in everything related to ssd, but is a little ant against the consortium of hp,samsung, dell, sony, etc when we talk about HDDs, so they do not have an advantage there, and Apple's HDDs will gradually disappear as they bring their own rules for this fight.
Displays? the same thing. Apple is the force of high resolution IPS (i guess) display. Less quality displays?samsung owns it. If apple uses a non retina resolution in their devices, samsung can produce and use the same quality display on their devices and make more profit (iDevice vs sDevice, based on screen) or make a cheaper but equal sDevice.
The same logic can be applied to other components/areas.
Now let's talk about the 7inch market. First of all, it exists because all other companies failed (see previous points) in the premium/high end 10inch segment, so they started a war were they are sure they can beat apple: Price. If they use cheap materials, Apple cannot fight them at all. Apple cannot build a google nexus-like device with 200dollars. If they tried a 200dollar tablet, it would lose on everything at least against 1 opponent (speed, build quality, screen, storage, features, camera, etc). However, a company like samsung already showed that they cannot produce an awesome 7 inch by less than 400 dollars, unless it is done with cheap plastic, shitty oversaturated screen, shitty software, shitty graphics, etc, but apple can.
There's no iOS on the 7inch market and that java thing is built upon non-quality applications, malware and cheaper, uglier versions of real iOS apps. the moment apple enters that market, you will see beautifull and powerfull software designed for the 7inch screen that requires performance (imagine decent gaming, decent photoshop apps, even cad viewers/edit).
Also, you must realize that the only costumers that apple is trully losing (those that are choosing other thing instead of an ipad, not those that are going after the cheap cheap cheap) are those that trully want the smaller form factor and not those that are concerned about price.
This is where the 399 7inch with a6, 1gb ram, retina and iphone graphics enters.
About the ipod... it was and is the best MEDIA player out there and it doesn't have anything to do with an ipad, that is marked as a "better" pc. The ipod is about apple's ecosystem (movies, books, music) where performance is far from being the "big" thing, the ipad is much more than that, so it needs more performance to be a much better device.
Now, I'm convinced that a "new" 9.7 is also a possibility, and it makes a lot of sense in every aspect. a6 (we all know how important this chip is for apple, we all read about it), new connector (are they really keep selling millions and millions of old ports/adaptors?) etc.
This is what makes sense. If i had to bet, this would be it. what you said (you can be righ, i can be wrong) makes no sense (to me!).
I'm just trying to have a nice discussion and figure this out.
First of all, you said that the market for this class is less expensive and the need for performance is less severe. I disagree (to an extent).
Second, your innability to see how apple leverages any of their tech for cheaper devices is both intriguing and wrong.
It's impossible for apple to do a cheaper version of the nexus and other similar devices.. Apple cannot and will never beat companies like samsung on the cheaper segment. Also, even if they could, it would be a mistake.
I will try to explain and share my view about this 2 subjects, that in reality are 1.
Apple makes premium and expensive products that can even outsell cheaper, with less build quality devices like the s3 and other similar junk. So, why doesn't samsung go for it and make an aluminium/magnesium s3 version? Because Apple pretty much OWNS (as you know) said materials, so samsung could never be price-competitive if they fought this war with the same weapons. However, samsung and companies alike totally OWN "plastic" and other materials, and since no matter how great deals apple got, the price of aluminium used for iDevices is still much bigger than plastic, so Apple can only achieve great deals and competitve advantage in products where aluminium is required and used, not plastic (premium segment, more profit).
The same can be said about flash memory vs traditional HDDs. Apple pretty much outmuscles the entire industry in everything related to ssd, but is a little ant against the consortium of hp,samsung, dell, sony, etc when we talk about HDDs, so they do not have an advantage there, and Apple's HDDs will gradually disappear as they bring their own rules for this fight.
Displays? the same thing. Apple is the force of high resolution IPS (i guess) display. Less quality displays?samsung owns it. If apple uses a non retina resolution in their devices, samsung can produce and use the same quality display on their devices and make more profit (iDevice vs sDevice, based on screen) or make a cheaper but equal sDevice.
The same logic can be applied to other components/areas.
Now let's talk about the 7inch market. First of all, it exists because all other companies failed (see previous points) in the premium/high end 10inch segment, so they started a war were they are sure they can beat apple: Price. If they use cheap materials, Apple cannot fight them at all. Apple cannot build a google nexus-like device with 200dollars. If they tried a 200dollar tablet, it would lose on everything at least against 1 opponent (speed, build quality, screen, storage, features, camera, etc). However, a company like samsung already showed that they cannot produce an awesome 7 inch by less than 400 dollars, unless it is done with cheap plastic, shitty oversaturated screen, shitty software, shitty graphics, etc, but apple can.
There's no iOS on the 7inch market and that java thing is built upon non-quality applications, malware and cheaper, uglier versions of real iOS apps. the moment apple enters that market, you will see beautifull and powerfull software designed for the 7inch screen that requires performance (imagine decent gaming, decent photoshop apps, even cad viewers/edit).
Also, you must realize that the only costumers that apple is trully losing (those that are choosing other thing instead of an ipad, not those that are going after the cheap cheap cheap) are those that trully want the smaller form factor and not those that are concerned about price.
This is where the 399 7inch with a6, 1gb ram, retina and iphone graphics enters.
About the ipod... it was and is the best MEDIA player out there and it doesn't have anything to do with an ipad, that is marked as a "better" pc. The ipod is about apple's ecosystem (movies, books, music) where performance is far from being the "big" thing, the ipad is much more than that, so it needs more performance to be a much better device.
Now, I'm convinced that a "new" 9.7 is also a possibility, and it makes a lot of sense in every aspect. a6 (we all know how important this chip is for apple, we all read about it), new connector (are they really keep selling millions and millions of old ports/adaptors?) etc.
This is what makes sense. If i had to bet, this would be it. what you said (you can be righ, i can be wrong) makes no sense (to me!).
best regards.
1) Apple already beats pretty much every one else on making a less expensive product because they leverage their existing tech and expertise so well. That's why can offer a competively priced product that is highly profitable while nearly everyone else is is either sinking or struggling to break even.
2) Before I continue any more conversion on this matter with you you''ll need to answer three of the questions I asked many posts ago...
Define Retina Display on this 7.85" iPad.
Describe why the 1024x768 165 PPI display rumour is wrong (note that by saying the rumour is wrong is also showing you don't understand how Apple might leverage these existing machines to their advantage).
Describe how the 4th gen iPod Touch with an A4 chip and TN panel was so "high-end" and "premium during the 5th gen iPhone with the A5 and IPS panel reign and how the 5th gen iPod Touch with the A5 is so "high-end" and "premium" during the 6th gen iPhone with the A6?
10inch
a6, 2gb ram, quad graphics, retina, 10h battery life.
499, 629 4g
7inch
a6, 1gb ram, iphone like graphics, retina, 7h battery life.
399, 499 or 529 4g.
look at both airs for comparison, for example.
who told you that apple is going for the cheap segment of the 7inch market? What does not make perfect sense here? Please, do not forget how amazing and important the a6 and the lightning port as well as the premium tablet segment are to apple.
I'm not even talking about the possibility of default 32gb in the 10 inch version vs 16 in the 7 version. It all makes sense and apple really needs to change release dates to confuse people.
Nope. Far too little price difference to justify the 7". For that price, you can get a 10" iPad 2.
You're suggesting that a 20% difference in price would justify 1/2 the screen area, 1/2 the RAM, 1/2 the graphics performance and 30% less battery life? Not for very many people. While the specs you cited may not be far off the mark, it would have to be around $299 to get significant sales.
10inch
a6, 2gb ram, quad graphics, retina, 10h battery life.
499, 629 4g
7inch
a6, 1gb ram, iphone like graphics, retina, 7h battery life.
399, 499 or 529 4g.
look at both airs for comparison, for example.
who told you that apple is going for the cheap segment of the 7inch market? What does not make perfect sense here? Please, do not forget how amazing and important the a6 and the lightning port as well as the premium tablet segment are to apple.
I'm not even talking about the possibility of default 32gb in the 10 inch version vs 16 in the 7 version. It all makes sense and apple really needs to change release dates to confuse people.
Apple is all holistic. They optimize a hand-held tablet under mind-bending constraints. Performance, ease-of-use/comfort, sturdiness, power usage, esthetics, integration, all elements that cannot be taken in isolation from one another. You can sum it all up in one word: design, ...Apple-type design.
Steve Jobs' specter from beyond:
"Can we ship by the early days of November a 7,85" one-handed premium tablet? Something mind-blowing that you could grasp between middle-finger and thumb, hold without fatigue, and that you could tickle to death with the hand that's still at rest...? Well, all right...I'll give you the specs... Hope you can handle the job as well as the mini can handle the specs...
1/2 pound weight, 16-hours battery life, 163 dpi, 1/4 of a Grand, connected 360 degrees, talking iOS6-straight to your ears, thinking a6- quick on your feet...and gotta be of course quite a sight to see...
In short, ...2010 redux... Do it just for the spect...!"
It would be nice to have an A6 in the iPad Mini. Why limit it the device? Game makers will find a use for all that power. The A5x was an interim processor until the A6 could be polished and shipped.
It would be nice to have an A6 in the iPad Mini. Why limit it the device? Game makers will find a use for all that power. The A5x was an interim processor until the A6 could be polished and shipped.
If there is no reason to limit any device if additional performance can be utilized then why does the 2012 iPod Touch only have an A5, and why does the previous gen iPod Touch, still on sale only have an A4 and a vastly inferior display compared to the iPhone released just before it?
Nope. Far too little price difference to justify the 7". For that price, you can get a 10" iPad 2.
You're suggesting that a 20% difference in price would justify 1/2 the screen area, 1/2 the RAM, 1/2 the graphics performance and 30% less battery life? Not for very many people. While the specs you cited may not be far off the mark, it would have to be around $299 to get significant sales.
To be frank, I don't agree (if this occurs) with Apple fragmenting their iPad devices with two different specs. If Apple wants to release a 7 inch version of the iPad, it should have the exact same specs at the 10 inch version. And it's not exactly a hard pill to swallow for Apple. Most breakdowns of any modern tablets always show the display as being the costliest part of the device so the savings should already be abundant just in the smaller form.
I'm ok with a 7 inch iPad sporting an A6 with 2gb of ram, but the next iteration of the 10inch model should have the exact same setup. For game makers, app developers it will at least create some consistency and not trying to design for the lowest common denominator (thus rendering the higher specs on iproducts moot) aka: android.
How messy does Apple want their product line to be? When the iPad 2 introduced the A5 I felt like that was the right way to do it. Why not have your flagship tablet product introduce the new chips into the market? Consumers should of course demand more performance out of tablets than phones. Now we're in some sort of backwards thing where the iPhone sets the bar for chip design and the iPad eventually catches up with a few graphics tweaks. Having my phone be 2x than my iPad at the moment strikes me as an odd way to do it. And now we have the iPad 7 inch which again, will support either the A6 or the A5. If it takes the A6, we have a cheaper device now faster than the current 10 inch iPad, or an old chipset that will support a lower price but now developers have to take that into account if it grabs significant market share while the upcoming iPad 10 inch (march?) will likely have the A6.
Or we get a refresh for both iPad's now and going forward, iPhone hits in October, iPads in November. If that's the case, looks like I need to start cleaning my iPad 3rd gen and getting it ready for Ebay.
To be frank, I don't agree (if this occurs) with Apple fragmenting their iPad devices with two different specs. If Apple wants to release a 7 inch version of the iPad, it should have the exact same specs at the 10 inch version. And it's not exactly a hard pill to swallow for Apple. Most breakdowns of any modern tablets always show the display as being the costliest part of the device so the savings should already be abundant just in the smaller form.
I'm ok with a 7 inch iPad sporting an A6 with 2gb of ram, but the next iteration of the 10inch model should have the exact same setup. For game makers, app developers it will at least create some consistency and not trying to design for the lowest common denominator (thus rendering the higher specs on iproducts moot) aka: android.
That doesn't make any sense. By that standard, the 21" iMac should have the same specs as the 27". And the 13" MBP should have the same specs as the 15". And why make different storage capacities? Why not make everything 64 GB?
A 7" iPad with the same resolution as the 10" might not be possible at all - and even if it is possible, it would be pointless. Once you get above a certain resolution, further resolution enhancements are pointless. So why waste the money on a super-high-density screen, multiple backlights, extra GPUs and then suffer from the reduced battery life caused by those things?
That doesn't make any sense. By that standard, the 21" iMac should have the same specs as the 27". And the 13" MBP should have the same specs as the 15". And why make different storage capacities? Why not make everything 64 GB?
A 7" iPad with the same resolution as the 10" might not be possible at all - and even if it is possible, it would be pointless. Once you get above a certain resolution, further resolution enhancements are pointless. So why waste the money on a super-high-density screen, multiple backlights, extra GPUs and then suffer from the reduced battery life caused by those things?
Its impossible to have the exact same specs the way he stated it. If it's a 7" tablet it has a 7" display, which is smaller on the diagonal and in area than a 10" iPad display. It would also extra weight added to make it the same weight, and dimensions to match the specs of the 10' iPad, which isn't going to happen.
Also, it you have the same the PPI you can't same resolution and vice versa for different display sizes. It's literally impossible. I know koop didn't think it through if he responds with anything that states that isn't what he meant because he did say the exact same specs.
I have no idea why people want this 7.85" iPad to be considerably more expensive. Again, they aren't saying this but they are implying it when they want it to have all the iPad (3) specs put into an enclosure that's about half th size and make it considerably lighter. I'm not sure it's even possible in 2012, but it's certainly not feasible as it would be considerably more costly than the current iPad.
That doesn't make any sense. By that standard, the 21" iMac should have the same specs as the 27". And the 13" MBP should have the same specs as the 15". And why make different storage capacities? Why not make everything 64 GB?
A 7" iPad with the same resolution as the 10" might not be possible at all - and even if it is possible, it would be pointless. Once you get above a certain resolution, further resolution enhancements are pointless. So why waste the money on a super-high-density screen, multiple backlights, extra GPUs and then suffer from the reduced battery life caused by those things?
I'm talking about the specs that matter to developers. And the PPI should be roughly the same between the devices. Obviously the smaller device would have a smaller resolution. And i'm not talking about the Mac market, i'm talking about the iOS market. Those are two completely different devices from a usability and developer perspective.
Its impossible to have the exact same specs the way he stated it. If it's a 7" tablet it has a 7" display, which is smaller on the diagonal and in area than a 10" iPad display. It would also extra weight added to make it the same weight, and dimensions to match the specs of the 10' iPad, which isn't going to happen.
Also, it you have the same the PPI you can't same resolution and vice versa for different display sizes. It's literally impossible. I know koop didn't think it through if he responds with anything that states that isn't what he meant because he did say the exact same specs.
I have no idea why people want this 7.85" iPad to be considerably more expensive. Again, they aren't saying this but they are implying it when they want it to have all the iPad (3) specs put into an enclosure that's about half th size and make it considerably lighter. I'm not sure it's even possible in 2012, but it's certainly not feasible as it would be considerably more costly than the current iPad.
If you knew what I meant, then why continue to argue something I didn't mean? I know the resolution is different between different screen sizes i'm not a moron. See if someone posted something along the lines of 'I want the specs to be the same, especially from a developer standpoint' I'm really not going to nitpick if they're talking about screen resolution or size of the internal memory. I'm going to assume they're talking about the processor, the ram, the gpu, the ppi, the aspect ratio etc...things that should stay consistent between devices.
Edit: Also this is all just speculation obviously. I have no clue what the iPad Mini will actually be as a final product. The moral of my story is that Apple should do it's best to keep the Mini, the iPad 10 and the iPhone are very similar turf for the sanity of devs and users.
Why are people still talking about the A6 in this thread? It has been said more than once that an ARMv7 is not necessarily an A6, so what's the point of speculating over that? The iPad Mini will most likely have exactly the same specs as the iPad 2. The iPad3,6 is most likely an iPad revision to resolve the heat issues and add a Lightning Connector to the third-generation iPad. I also find it odd that people expect consistency from Apple, not that there would be any reason to claim inconsistency here, considering that the third-generation iPad is still current-gen and the iPad Mini won't replace it. Most likely they just want to update their entire high-end product line to use the Lightning Connector in order to encourage its adoption, which is why new iPods were released, too.
Comments
10inch
a6, 2gb ram, quad graphics, retina, 10h battery life.
499, 629 4g
7inch
a6, 1gb ram, iphone like graphics, retina, 7h battery life.
399, 499 or 529 4g.
look at both airs for comparison, for example.
who told you that apple is going for the cheap segment of the 7inch market? What does not make perfect sense here? Please, do not forget how amazing and important the a6 and the lightning port as well as the premium tablet segment are to apple.
I'm not even talking about the possibility of default 32gb in the 10 inch version vs 16 in the 7 version. It all makes sense and apple really needs to change release dates to confuse people.
I just don't get why they'd update the iPad 3 right now as opposed to in another six months like the release cycle for EVERY iDevice.
You're not thinking it through. You're ignoring what I would call very important aspects of this device. So you think Apple wouldn't leverage any of its tech for a cheaper tablet but would rather just price at the iPad 2 price and above? I certainly don't think so. The market for this class is less expensive. The need for performance is less severe. What seems to be very necessary is weight and cost to make it the best product in it's class.
Also note that at rumoured 7.85" 4:3 it'll have nearly 50% more screen area as the 7" 16:9 tablets. Now do you think that it can be exceptionally heavier than them or will it have to be not only comparably lightweight but also light enough to be held with one hand comfortably for extended periods, which the iPad (3) cannot do. I think it's the latter, as I've not only stated but described in great detail how this would be achieved.
Finally, you keep saying it will have an Retina display and yet not once have you stated what that Retina display resolution will be. The iPhone 5 has a Retina display and yet the resolution is less than the rumoured 1024x768 165 PPI of this iPad mini. You don't do yourself any favours my using a marketing term and then not detailing what you mean by it.
PS: Your question about "who told me" this or that is useless and argumentative. I've clearly stated my opinions here just as you've stated yours about how Apple will make this the best, despite not listing how that could be achieved. Imagine if my retorts were "who told you it would $529?" Makes for a pointless and hostile discussion, don't ya think?
PPS: You also didn't answer any of my questions about how the iPod Touch exists when you claim they only use the best for every product.
The only known history of this was with the iPad 2 which got a mid-cycle replacement of the A5/45nm to A5/32nm. All evidence points to it being a scale test for the 32nm process as they didn't advertise it in any way or change any other aspects of the device.
AnandTech showed a 15.8% increase in battery life.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
…as they didn't advertise it in any way or change any other aspects of the device.
Right, and yet people will whine and be disappointed when the third iPad doesn't get updated…
Apple knows developers are leaking those numbers etc, so don't read too much into it. They could be screwing with folks. The next iPad could be in early prototype testing for next spring, or it could be the alleged Mini, etc.
If this is just prototype testing for the ipad 4th Gen maybe they are using the same processor and are testing more ram, same amount but different speed ram, or the same core processor with a different GPU. thus the same base number as that number is often tied to the processor
Or maybe it's all different and indeed they are just screwing with folks giving an 'old' number to hide the truth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I just don't get why they'd update the iPad 3 right now as opposed to in another six months like the release cycle for EVERY iDevice.
why did they wait 16 months between the iphone 4 and 4s. Some folks will claim there was some kind of issue but I think the reason is that they simply wanted to move it to the Fall.
Perhaps they want to move the iPad to the holiday. Fill in the gap with computers. Given that the iPad is becoming an huge thing for the kiddies and laptops are still a big college thing, having laptops as the Spring focus going into that Back to School promo has some logic to it. As does having iPads release before the holiday season rather than after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You're not thinking it through. You're ignoring what I would call very important aspects of this device. So you think Apple wouldn't leverage any of its tech for a cheaper tablet but would rather just price at the iPad 2 price and above? I certainly don't think so. The market for this class is less expensive. The need for performance is less severe. What seems to be very necessary is weight and cost to make it the best product in it's class.
Also note that at rumoured 7.85" 4:3 it'll have nearly 50% more screen area as the 7" 16:9 tablets. Now do you think that it can be exceptionally heavier than them or will it have to be not only comparably lightweight but also light enough to be held with one hand comfortably for extended periods, which the iPad (3) cannot do. I think it's the latter, as I've not only stated but described in great detail how this would be achieved.
Finally, you keep saying it will have an Retina display and yet not once have you stated what that Retina display resolution will be. The iPhone 5 has a Retina display and yet the resolution is less than the rumoured 1024x768 132 PPI of this iPad mini. You don't do yourself any favours my using a marketing term and then not detailing what you mean by it.
PS: Your question about "who told me" this or that is useless and argumentative. I've clearly stated my opinions here just as you've stated yours about how Apple will make this the best, despite not listing how that could be achieved. Imagine if my retorts were "who told you it would $529?" Makes for a pointless and hostile discussion, don't ya think?
PPS: You also didn't answer any of my questions about how the iPod Touch exists when you claim they only use the best for every product.
I'm just trying to have a nice discussion and figure this out.
First of all, you said that the market for this class is less expensive and the need for performance is less severe. I disagree (to an extent).
Second, your innability to see how apple leverages any of their tech for cheaper devices is both intriguing and wrong.
It's impossible for apple to do a cheaper version of the nexus and other similar devices.. Apple cannot and will never beat companies like samsung on the cheaper segment. Also, even if they could, it would be a mistake.
I will try to explain and share my view about this 2 subjects, that in reality are 1.
Apple makes premium and expensive products that can even outsell cheaper, with less build quality devices like the s3 and other similar junk. So, why doesn't samsung go for it and make an aluminium/magnesium s3 version? Because Apple pretty much OWNS (as you know) said materials, so samsung could never be price-competitive if they fought this war with the same weapons. However, samsung and companies alike totally OWN "plastic" and other materials, and since no matter how great deals apple got, the price of aluminium used for iDevices is still much bigger than plastic, so Apple can only achieve great deals and competitve advantage in products where aluminium is required and used, not plastic (premium segment, more profit).
The same can be said about flash memory vs traditional HDDs. Apple pretty much outmuscles the entire industry in everything related to ssd, but is a little ant against the consortium of hp,samsung, dell, sony, etc when we talk about HDDs, so they do not have an advantage there, and Apple's HDDs will gradually disappear as they bring their own rules for this fight.
Displays? the same thing. Apple is the force of high resolution IPS (i guess) display. Less quality displays?samsung owns it. If apple uses a non retina resolution in their devices, samsung can produce and use the same quality display on their devices and make more profit (iDevice vs sDevice, based on screen) or make a cheaper but equal sDevice.
The same logic can be applied to other components/areas.
Now let's talk about the 7inch market. First of all, it exists because all other companies failed (see previous points) in the premium/high end 10inch segment, so they started a war were they are sure they can beat apple: Price. If they use cheap materials, Apple cannot fight them at all. Apple cannot build a google nexus-like device with 200dollars. If they tried a 200dollar tablet, it would lose on everything at least against 1 opponent (speed, build quality, screen, storage, features, camera, etc). However, a company like samsung already showed that they cannot produce an awesome 7 inch by less than 400 dollars, unless it is done with cheap plastic, shitty oversaturated screen, shitty software, shitty graphics, etc, but apple can.
There's no iOS on the 7inch market and that java thing is built upon non-quality applications, malware and cheaper, uglier versions of real iOS apps. the moment apple enters that market, you will see beautifull and powerfull software designed for the 7inch screen that requires performance (imagine decent gaming, decent photoshop apps, even cad viewers/edit).
Also, you must realize that the only costumers that apple is trully losing (those that are choosing other thing instead of an ipad, not those that are going after the cheap cheap cheap) are those that trully want the smaller form factor and not those that are concerned about price.
This is where the 399 7inch with a6, 1gb ram, retina and iphone graphics enters.
About the ipod... it was and is the best MEDIA player out there and it doesn't have anything to do with an ipad, that is marked as a "better" pc. The ipod is about apple's ecosystem (movies, books, music) where performance is far from being the "big" thing, the ipad is much more than that, so it needs more performance to be a much better device.
Now, I'm convinced that a "new" 9.7 is also a possibility, and it makes a lot of sense in every aspect. a6 (we all know how important this chip is for apple, we all read about it), new connector (are they really keep selling millions and millions of old ports/adaptors?) etc.
This is what makes sense. If i had to bet, this would be it. what you said (you can be righ, i can be wrong) makes no sense (to me!).
best regards.
Originally Posted by charlituna
why did they wait 16 months between the iphone 4 and 4s.
< 1 year ? > 1 year…
1) Apple already beats pretty much every one else on making a less expensive product because they leverage their existing tech and expertise so well. That's why can offer a competively priced product that is highly profitable while nearly everyone else is is either sinking or struggling to break even.
2) Before I continue any more conversion on this matter with you you''ll need to answer three of the questions I asked many posts ago...
Nope. Far too little price difference to justify the 7". For that price, you can get a 10" iPad 2.
You're suggesting that a 20% difference in price would justify 1/2 the screen area, 1/2 the RAM, 1/2 the graphics performance and 30% less battery life? Not for very many people. While the specs you cited may not be far off the mark, it would have to be around $299 to get significant sales.
Steve Jobs' specter from beyond:
"Can we ship by the early days of November a 7,85" one-handed premium tablet? Something mind-blowing that you could grasp between middle-finger and thumb, hold without fatigue, and that you could tickle to death with the hand that's still at rest...? Well, all right...I'll give you the specs... Hope you can handle the job as well as the mini can handle the specs...
1/2 pound weight, 16-hours battery life, 163 dpi, 1/4 of a Grand, connected 360 degrees, talking iOS6-straight to your ears, thinking a6- quick on your feet...and gotta be of course quite a sight to see...
In short, ...2010 redux... Do it just for the spect...!"
If there is no reason to limit any device if additional performance can be utilized then why does the 2012 iPod Touch only have an A5, and why does the previous gen iPod Touch, still on sale only have an A4 and a vastly inferior display compared to the iPhone released just before it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Nope. Far too little price difference to justify the 7". For that price, you can get a 10" iPad 2.
You're suggesting that a 20% difference in price would justify 1/2 the screen area, 1/2 the RAM, 1/2 the graphics performance and 30% less battery life? Not for very many people. While the specs you cited may not be far off the mark, it would have to be around $299 to get significant sales.
To be frank, I don't agree (if this occurs) with Apple fragmenting their iPad devices with two different specs. If Apple wants to release a 7 inch version of the iPad, it should have the exact same specs at the 10 inch version. And it's not exactly a hard pill to swallow for Apple. Most breakdowns of any modern tablets always show the display as being the costliest part of the device so the savings should already be abundant just in the smaller form.
I'm ok with a 7 inch iPad sporting an A6 with 2gb of ram, but the next iteration of the 10inch model should have the exact same setup. For game makers, app developers it will at least create some consistency and not trying to design for the lowest common denominator (thus rendering the higher specs on iproducts moot) aka: android.
How messy does Apple want their product line to be? When the iPad 2 introduced the A5 I felt like that was the right way to do it. Why not have your flagship tablet product introduce the new chips into the market? Consumers should of course demand more performance out of tablets than phones. Now we're in some sort of backwards thing where the iPhone sets the bar for chip design and the iPad eventually catches up with a few graphics tweaks. Having my phone be 2x than my iPad at the moment strikes me as an odd way to do it. And now we have the iPad 7 inch which again, will support either the A6 or the A5. If it takes the A6, we have a cheaper device now faster than the current 10 inch iPad, or an old chipset that will support a lower price but now developers have to take that into account if it grabs significant market share while the upcoming iPad 10 inch (march?) will likely have the A6.
Or we get a refresh for both iPad's now and going forward, iPhone hits in October, iPads in November. If that's the case, looks like I need to start cleaning my iPad 3rd gen and getting it ready for Ebay.
That doesn't make any sense. By that standard, the 21" iMac should have the same specs as the 27". And the 13" MBP should have the same specs as the 15". And why make different storage capacities? Why not make everything 64 GB?
A 7" iPad with the same resolution as the 10" might not be possible at all - and even if it is possible, it would be pointless. Once you get above a certain resolution, further resolution enhancements are pointless. So why waste the money on a super-high-density screen, multiple backlights, extra GPUs and then suffer from the reduced battery life caused by those things?
Its impossible to have the exact same specs the way he stated it. If it's a 7" tablet it has a 7" display, which is smaller on the diagonal and in area than a 10" iPad display. It would also extra weight added to make it the same weight, and dimensions to match the specs of the 10' iPad, which isn't going to happen.
Also, it you have the same the PPI you can't same resolution and vice versa for different display sizes. It's literally impossible. I know koop didn't think it through if he responds with anything that states that isn't what he meant because he did say the exact same specs.
I have no idea why people want this 7.85" iPad to be considerably more expensive. Again, they aren't saying this but they are implying it when they want it to have all the iPad (3) specs put into an enclosure that's about half th size and make it considerably lighter. I'm not sure it's even possible in 2012, but it's certainly not feasible as it would be considerably more costly than the current iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That doesn't make any sense. By that standard, the 21" iMac should have the same specs as the 27". And the 13" MBP should have the same specs as the 15". And why make different storage capacities? Why not make everything 64 GB?
A 7" iPad with the same resolution as the 10" might not be possible at all - and even if it is possible, it would be pointless. Once you get above a certain resolution, further resolution enhancements are pointless. So why waste the money on a super-high-density screen, multiple backlights, extra GPUs and then suffer from the reduced battery life caused by those things?
I'm talking about the specs that matter to developers. And the PPI should be roughly the same between the devices. Obviously the smaller device would have a smaller resolution. And i'm not talking about the Mac market, i'm talking about the iOS market. Those are two completely different devices from a usability and developer perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Its impossible to have the exact same specs the way he stated it. If it's a 7" tablet it has a 7" display, which is smaller on the diagonal and in area than a 10" iPad display. It would also extra weight added to make it the same weight, and dimensions to match the specs of the 10' iPad, which isn't going to happen.
Also, it you have the same the PPI you can't same resolution and vice versa for different display sizes. It's literally impossible. I know koop didn't think it through if he responds with anything that states that isn't what he meant because he did say the exact same specs.
I have no idea why people want this 7.85" iPad to be considerably more expensive. Again, they aren't saying this but they are implying it when they want it to have all the iPad (3) specs put into an enclosure that's about half th size and make it considerably lighter. I'm not sure it's even possible in 2012, but it's certainly not feasible as it would be considerably more costly than the current iPad.
If you knew what I meant, then why continue to argue something I didn't mean? I know the resolution is different between different screen sizes i'm not a moron. See if someone posted something along the lines of 'I want the specs to be the same, especially from a developer standpoint' I'm really not going to nitpick if they're talking about screen resolution or size of the internal memory. I'm going to assume they're talking about the processor, the ram, the gpu, the ppi, the aspect ratio etc...things that should stay consistent between devices.
Edit: Also this is all just speculation obviously. I have no clue what the iPad Mini will actually be as a final product. The moral of my story is that Apple should do it's best to keep the Mini, the iPad 10 and the iPhone are very similar turf for the sanity of devs and users.