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.
Knowing what you meant doesn't mean it's not still impossible to accomplish. It's up to you to make write as clearly and professionally as possible yo get your point across, not everyone else to decipher what you meant and invent arguments to support a position you yourself haven't yet fully considered.
You're still failing to understand as you do state you want the PPI to stay the same but fail to realize that with a smaller display the resolution would then be different.
I'm just trying to have a nice discussion and figure this out.
...
best regards.
I enjoyed your posts. Nice to have well reasoned discussion from someone without an axe to grind. And kudos for ruffling a few feathers.. I'm not sure why iPad pricing is such an emotional issue.
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear now that the iPad mini is going to cost 399 and replace the iPad 2, which was likely just a placeholder to maintain support for the original resolution. I don't think apple is going to price it the same or lower than the entry level price of the new iPod Touch (299). Also, I don't think Apple has much incentive to price it any lower, at least for now. As much as I'd like to see them be more "price competitive" to further annihilate the competition in terms of market share, this is not necessary, as has already been pointed out.
Also, I don't think Apple has much incentive to price it any lower, at least for now. As much as I'd like to see them be more "price competitive" to further annihilate the competition in terms of market share, this is not necessary, as has already been pointed out.
Hope I remember to come back to try to parse this tomorrow. Something here just doesn't jive. It's too late to do it now and I've wretched memory.
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.
Are you serious? Those that really want/need a 7" see the size of it as it main advantage, not some sort disadvantage. See the 11vs13 macbook air. It's exactly the same situation even if you can get the "same" specs but end up paying pretty much the same. Half of air-buyers think that having 30% less battery life and lesser screen real estate is a great deal! And it is! My point is.. People will not buy the 7" because it's cheaper (common sense is needed on this part), they will buy it because it's a much better tablet for their needs. Even with half the ram (if half=1gb), this 7" would be a better tablet for lots of people. Much lighter, more comfortable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
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.
Exactly. With the a6, it's pretty clear that apple found what they were looking for. This cheap represents the future, just like the new dock connector. It must be implemented as soon as possible.
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?
Common sense jragosta. For me, the 13inch pro is much better than the 15inch. why? both are very powerful for my needs, but the 13" is much lighter, smaller.. it's a better laptop (again, for me). Price must be considered to an extent, obviously.
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.
The new 7" iPad can have the same PPI as the 9.7, so it needs a new resolution. However, since the screen won't be so demanding and apple have less space to work with, there's no need for that much GPU power. Also, it can have pretty much the same specs with a smaller battery, but the impact wouldn't be that catastrophic if it had less GPU power. So, 7 to 8 hours instead of 10 seem great to me. All this is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate
I enjoyed your posts. Nice to have well reasoned discussion from someone without an axe to grind. And kudos for ruffling a few feathers.. I'm not sure why iPad pricing is such an emotional issue.
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear now that the iPad mini is going to cost 399 and replace the iPad 2, which was likely just a placeholder to maintain support for the original resolution. I don't think apple is going to price it the same or lower than the entry level price of the new iPod Touch (299). Also, I don't think Apple has much incentive to price it any lower, at least for now. As much as I'd like to see them be more "price competitive" to further annihilate the competition in terms of market share, this is not necessary, as has already been pointed out.
Thank you. I share your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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?
Sorry for the delay... I wasn't with my mac this weekend.
1) Link. Really. I see no evidence that Apple can go for the segment of cheap tablets (the segment where apple's existing tech and expertise are pretty much useless. Plastic matters, not aluminum. Sub 250 dollars) and beat companies like Asus and Samsung to the punch. Apple cannot beat the nexus 7 kind of tablet on price. They can't even make an iPod touch at that price (while keeping their profit margin).
2)
Same (more or less) PPI as the 9,7inch. New resolution, obviously. If they do the right thing (in my opinion this is only valid if my view of this new tablet becomes correct) and axe the iPad 2 and the 3gs, That's less resolutions to work with and high PPI is apple's future. Special deals of this new tablets for education.
Because (compared to apple's 2012 offerings and the fact that screen resolution and quality are the main (besides ecosystem) selling points of the 9.7inch as well as other apple products) such display is only good enough for a really low end tablet. Retina is Apple's magic word and it needs some power (a6).
Because performance was not a main requisite for that media/entertainment device (at that price point). The ecosystem was. It was the ecosystem that made him so high end. However, with tablets is a different story.. If they want us to see more than a media device on the iPad, apple must provide enough power and other physical advantages for it to be true. Remember, on ipod touch: Music, video, occasional browsing, occasional game. On iPad: video/music/cad editing, "office"/iWork, plus all of you can do on the ipod touch.
You are showing some sort of "complex" behind a new resolution (when 2 of them can easily disappear) and you do not understand the fact that people want a 7inch iPad just because the 10inch is too big, but they still need similar power. Obviously battery life can suffer.. But it will be lighter too. Those that want the cheapest possible alternative are not apple's target.
Comments
Knowing what you meant doesn't mean it's not still impossible to accomplish. It's up to you to make write as clearly and professionally as possible yo get your point across, not everyone else to decipher what you meant and invent arguments to support a position you yourself haven't yet fully considered.
You're still failing to understand as you do state you want the PPI to stay the same but fail to realize that with a smaller display the resolution would then be different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
I'm just trying to have a nice discussion and figure this out.
...
best regards.
I enjoyed your posts. Nice to have well reasoned discussion from someone without an axe to grind. And kudos for ruffling a few feathers.. I'm not sure why iPad pricing is such an emotional issue.
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear now that the iPad mini is going to cost 399 and replace the iPad 2, which was likely just a placeholder to maintain support for the original resolution. I don't think apple is going to price it the same or lower than the entry level price of the new iPod Touch (299). Also, I don't think Apple has much incentive to price it any lower, at least for now. As much as I'd like to see them be more "price competitive" to further annihilate the competition in terms of market share, this is not necessary, as has already been pointed out.
Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate
Also, I don't think Apple has much incentive to price it any lower, at least for now. As much as I'd like to see them be more "price competitive" to further annihilate the competition in terms of market share, this is not necessary, as has already been pointed out.
Hope I remember to come back to try to parse this tomorrow. Something here just doesn't jive. It's too late to do it now and I've wretched memory.
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.
Are you serious? Those that really want/need a 7" see the size of it as it main advantage, not some sort disadvantage. See the 11vs13 macbook air. It's exactly the same situation even if you can get the "same" specs but end up paying pretty much the same. Half of air-buyers think that having 30% less battery life and lesser screen real estate is a great deal! And it is! My point is.. People will not buy the 7" because it's cheaper (common sense is needed on this part), they will buy it because it's a much better tablet for their needs. Even with half the ram (if half=1gb), this 7" would be a better tablet for lots of people. Much lighter, more comfortable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
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.
Exactly. With the a6, it's pretty clear that apple found what they were looking for. This cheap represents the future, just like the new dock connector. It must be implemented as soon as possible.
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?
Common sense jragosta. For me, the 13inch pro is much better than the 15inch. why? both are very powerful for my needs, but the 13" is much lighter, smaller.. it's a better laptop (again, for me). Price must be considered to an extent, obviously.
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.
The new 7" iPad can have the same PPI as the 9.7, so it needs a new resolution. However, since the screen won't be so demanding and apple have less space to work with, there's no need for that much GPU power. Also, it can have pretty much the same specs with a smaller battery, but the impact wouldn't be that catastrophic if it had less GPU power. So, 7 to 8 hours instead of 10 seem great to me. All this is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate
I enjoyed your posts. Nice to have well reasoned discussion from someone without an axe to grind. And kudos for ruffling a few feathers.. I'm not sure why iPad pricing is such an emotional issue.
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear now that the iPad mini is going to cost 399 and replace the iPad 2, which was likely just a placeholder to maintain support for the original resolution. I don't think apple is going to price it the same or lower than the entry level price of the new iPod Touch (299). Also, I don't think Apple has much incentive to price it any lower, at least for now. As much as I'd like to see them be more "price competitive" to further annihilate the competition in terms of market share, this is not necessary, as has already been pointed out.
Thank you. I share your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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?
Sorry for the delay... I wasn't with my mac this weekend.
1) Link. Really. I see no evidence that Apple can go for the segment of cheap tablets (the segment where apple's existing tech and expertise are pretty much useless. Plastic matters, not aluminum. Sub 250 dollars) and beat companies like Asus and Samsung to the punch. Apple cannot beat the nexus 7 kind of tablet on price. They can't even make an iPod touch at that price (while keeping their profit margin).
2)
Same (more or less) PPI as the 9,7inch. New resolution, obviously. If they do the right thing (in my opinion this is only valid if my view of this new tablet becomes correct) and axe the iPad 2 and the 3gs, That's less resolutions to work with and high PPI is apple's future. Special deals of this new tablets for education.
Because (compared to apple's 2012 offerings and the fact that screen resolution and quality are the main (besides ecosystem) selling points of the 9.7inch as well as other apple products) such display is only good enough for a really low end tablet. Retina is Apple's magic word and it needs some power (a6).
Because performance was not a main requisite for that media/entertainment device (at that price point). The ecosystem was. It was the ecosystem that made him so high end. However, with tablets is a different story.. If they want us to see more than a media device on the iPad, apple must provide enough power and other physical advantages for it to be true. Remember, on ipod touch: Music, video, occasional browsing, occasional game. On iPad: video/music/cad editing, "office"/iWork, plus all of you can do on the ipod touch.
You are showing some sort of "complex" behind a new resolution (when 2 of them can easily disappear) and you do not understand the fact that people want a 7inch iPad just because the 10inch is too big, but they still need similar power. Obviously battery life can suffer.. But it will be lighter too. Those that want the cheapest possible alternative are not apple's target.