The downside is that it means that the iPad mini won't really be "cheap" at all, and Apple will have failed yet again to make an affordable product for the masses and made another high-end toy instead. Apple always has had a blind spot when it comes to pricing though so this is hardly unusual. The upside is that the new mini could and perhaps should have a Retina display in this scenario.
if Apple didn't price the iPad for the masses, then why is there no competition for it at its' current price point?
Agree. Apple has no blind spot when it comes to pricing. They deliver effective end-to-end consumer quality at a price that makes it nearly impossible for this year's competition's tech to match it and make the production investment worth it. They are laser focused on providing value at a cost at or below what others can build, and make a profit that is appropriate for a technology company.
Gazoobee: As you stated 'Yet Again' Please elaborate on the 'failures' for Apple to make an affordable product (affordable meaning: people feel it's worth it to buy it and buy it at quantity vs other products with similar capabilities).? In short, provide references or stop trolling.
The downside is that it means that the iPad mini won't really be "cheap" at all, and Apple will have failed yet again to make an affordable product for the masses and made another high-end toy instead. Apple always has had a blind spot when it comes to pricing though so this is hardly unusual. The upside is that the new mini could and perhaps should have a Retina display in this scenario.
ROTFLMAO.
Yep. Apple will never sell iPods - they're more expensive than the competition. Oh, wait, iPods have something like 80% of the market.
But they'll never sell tablets at their prices. Oh, wait. The iPad is around 60-70% of the market.
Well, they'll certainly never sell iPhones. Oh, wait. The iPhone has been the #1 smart phone on the market for years.
Well, they couldn't possibly sell MacBook Airs. Oh, wait. The MacBook Air has been the top selling ultralight computer for years.
Nope. Apple will never manage to make an affordable product for the masses. /s
Maybe you mean "dirt cheap garbage made up of the cheapest components and assembled by people who wouldn't know quality if it bit them in the rear." I'd agree with that.
Now, if only I were an analyst, I could make front-page news with this. I can't see a mini-iPad coming in cheaper than an iPod Touch. I get the whole Retina display and all but I just don't think it would work.
The 299 touch has 32g. The mini must be a value play, its the whole point about it. I am hoping for something very light at 249$ tops so it feel the needs for a light reading devices at a low price.
Yep. Apple will never sell iPods - they're more expensive than the competition. Oh, wait, iPods have something like 80% of the market.
But they'll never sell tablets at their prices. Oh, wait. The iPad is around 60-70% of the market.
Well, they'll certainly never sell iPhones. Oh, wait. The iPhone has been the #1 smart phone on the market for years.
Well, they couldn't possibly sell MacBook Airs. Oh, wait. The MacBook Air has been the top selling ultralight computer for years.
Nope. Apple will never manage to make an affordable product for the masses. /s
Maybe you mean "dirt cheap garbage made up of the cheapest components and assembled by people who wouldn't know quality if it bit them in the rear." I'd agree with that.
You are just being Mr. Meanie again of course, but what I meant was ...
- Apple makes a good 30-40% average margin on it's products
- Most other computer manufacturers deal with 10-15%
Therefore at any time, anytime they feel like it, they *can* swallow half of the margin on almost any product they like and still be very competitive. They could also afford to lower their overall margins across the board lowering all prices by 5-10% and still make tons and tons of money. I have never maintained that their current strategy is unreasonable in any way, in fact it's a very smart thing that they do with their margins. I'm just saying that anytime they want to they could easily produce a product that is much cheaper than their current pricing and yet still makes them more money than the competition.
They wouldn't make *quite* as much money, but then they are basically swimming in money at the moment anyway.
You of course interpreted my remarks as something else entirely.
Agree. Apple has no blind spot when it comes to pricing. They deliver effective end-to-end consumer quality at a price that makes it nearly impossible for this year's competition's tech to match it and make the production investment worth it. They are laser focused on providing value at a cost at or below what others can build, and make a profit that is appropriate for a technology company.
Gazoobee: As you stated 'Yet Again' Please elaborate on the 'failures' for Apple to make an affordable product (affordable meaning: people feel it's worth it to buy it and buy it at quantity vs other products with similar capabilities).? In short, provide references or stop trolling.
See my reply above. All I meant was that their prices all carry roughly double the margins of other sellers and could easily be reduced considering the overall state of their financials.
"jragosta" is always mis-interpreting me, but since others are also replying I guess I wasn't that clear.
The 299 touch has 32g. The mini must be a value play, its the whole point about it. I am hoping for something very light at 249$ tops so it feel the needs for a light reading devices at a low price.
I originally thought that the iPad mini would come on short on specs and thus bring it in under $299. But, then that would mean subsequent generations of a mini iPad would either have to stay at specs that were not as good as the iPod or ofter a new price point later if the original mini lacks Retina display, enough memory, etc. and the later minis do not. But, from my little bit of understanding, Apple tends to release a product that, relatively speaking, is on the dry side when it comes to tech specs but later release better versions at the same price point.
Now, if only I were an analyst, I could make front-page news with this. I can't see a mini-iPad coming in cheaper than an iPod Touch. I get the whole Retina display and all but I just don't think it would work.
The Touch comes full featured and fully loaded for $299. I imagine a Mini with less storage and possibly less features could achieve a starting price at the same $299 as the Touch but easily be seen as a completely different device. Likewise an equally equipped Mini would cost $100-200 more than the Touch.
No one actually knows for sure that this year's model won't have a Retina display. The idea that it will be 1024x768 actually just comes from a single, idle "musing" by John Gruber. The blogosphere has picked that up and turned it into an solid expectation but as far as I have heard it isn't confirmed at all.
The way I see it, there are basically two possible strategies:
1) The mini is a cheap, small, and uses last years tech, cutting corners wherever they can.
In this scenario you'd expect it to be dirt cheap. It would have to be priced lower than even last year's iPad as it would not be as capable as last year's iPad. It would be competing head to head with kindle and hopefully in the $200 range. One would expect a plastic housing, non HD cameras, the low res 1024x768 screen, some kind of crap A4x or A5x processor that's "good enough" etc., etc.
Or ... they stop the strategy of selling last year's iPads at all and ...
2) The mini uses this year's tech and is just a smaller version of the current iPad (replacing the need for selling last year's model).
In this scenario, it would have an aluminium back, HD cameras, a Retina display and maybe even an A6 processor, and be priced more in the $300 range.
It looks to me like they are leaning towards option number 2 which is why I think they may be also revamping the current iPad model at the same time.
Think how confusing it will be if they come out with a mini, also come out with a revision to "iPad 3," and also keep selling iPad 2. Would they also keep selling iPad 3? If they do that makes iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 3r, and iPad mini all on sale at the same time. They would also need to change the name of iPad 3 from it's current "the new iPad" so they could use that for iPad 4. Even if they drop the current "new iPad" (iPad 3), for "iPad 3r" (or some new name), that's almost as confusing as the first option.
How do you tell customers that "the new iPad" is actually different from "the new iPad" they were selling in the early part of the same year, and that the old one (now called something else), is the same model, but different? The new revised iPad if it exists, will also look more like iPad 2 than the current "the new iPad." You will have two almost indistinguishable iPads, but with more or less a two year gap in technology between them. Also, what's the point of selling an almost two year old model for cheap (because it's old), when you have a brand new "cheap" iPad (the mini)? And why perpetuate problems by selling either one or two models of the iPad with the 30 pin connector while simultaneously selling two models with the lightning connector?
If you simply throw away all the old models and just say iPad 3r == "iPad," the new mini takes the cheap seats as simply "iPad mini," and that's the whole lineup, period. All of a sudden everything is clear and simple.
The downside is that it means that the iPad mini won't really be "cheap" at all, and Apple will have failed yet again to make an affordable product for the masses and made another high-end toy instead. Apple always has had a blind spot when it comes to pricing though so this is hardly unusual. The upside is that the new mini could and perhaps should have a Retina display in this scenario.
I don't see the sense in them using the latest tech if that means the starting price is going to be $399.
And there is and may always be a market for the iPad 2 in education. Next year Apple could continue selling the iPad 2 for the education market because the tech won't be outdated and it would remain a very lucrative device for education moreso than a Mini.
The so called iPad Mini data cable in your link, looks like the old 30 pin connector. One would think it should be the new lightning type as seen in the mockups photos posted on this web site.
What are the chances of their being a retina model next year?
Production of the smaller iPad is said to already be underway at Apple's overseas suppliers. The device is expected to feature a screen with a lower resolution than the current iPad with Retina display.
I honestly cant imagine Apple releasing this device without retina display. It just doesn't make sense. Apple is migrating all their devices over to the retina display and to release this one without retina, Apple would be hounded and criticized over the lack of development in relation to the screen. I would bet the report is inaccurate.
Now, if only I were an analyst, I could make front-page news with this. I can't see a mini-iPad coming in cheaper than an iPod Touch. I get the whole Retina display and all but I just don't think it would work.
I can't believe this isn't the most sensible, appley pricing structure.
We can see the it coming in below the iPad 2, whether they keep it or not, and the iPad M (mid/mini/meh) getting a storage bump before we get to the iPad proper, giving it room to grow. They also don't undercut the iPod touch and the overlap is sensible.
In terms of the competition, a 16GB 7-incher at $349 is respectable. The whole $199 "market" (if two companies can be called that) is unsustainable nonsense compared to the "actual" market (everything =<16GB) which falls neatly in line with the proposed prices above.
Of course, they could go for an educational model @8GB, or even volume sales (but that would be somewhat unprecedented).
I don't believe Apple would endanger their profit margins that considerably with a cheap model, especailly whilst so deeply undercutting the new iPad. IMO they would also not want to devalue their technology in general, shifting potential customers from both the new touch and this year's iPad. Unsustainable.
Not when books are as large as they are. I actually just see 16 and 32GB models.
Depends: iBooks or just-huge-image-files Adobe-esque "books"?
iBooks for reading assignments could be very small indeed, and most rich media (in UK at least) is already served from school/college intranet sites, moodle etc.
An 8GB iPad "mini" is definitely a long shot, but in education it's the interaction that wins them over, not the portability (ie. presumed WiFi may be practical - iTunes U tools can be used, for interaction purposes portability is obviously maintained)
Not when books are as large as they are. I actually just see 16 and 32GB models.
Depends: iBooks or just-huge-image-files Adobe-esque "books"?
iBooks for reading assignments could be very small indeed, and most rich media (in UK at least) is already served from school/college intranet sites, moodle etc.
An 8GB iPad "mini" is definitely a long shot, but in education it's the interaction that wins them over, not the portability (ie. presumed WiFi may be practical - iTunes U tools can be used, for interaction purposes portability is obviously maintained)
I still like the full sized iPad for education. K through maybe 3rd children's motor skills are not sufficiently developed to use small compact UI which is why all preschool learning apps have really big buttons shaped like fruit or animals. For this purpose the iPad 2 is an ideal device because the apps are not that demanding, the screen size is large enough to accommodate the big UI elements and the price is affordable. Once they get a little further along then the iPad mini might be suitable but I still think the full size is better suited for education as it more closely matches the size of a traditional textbook.
The way I see it, there are basically two possible strategies:
1) The mini is a cheap, small, and uses last years tech, cutting corners wherever they can.
In this scenario you'd expect it to be dirt cheap. It would have to be priced lower than even last year's iPad as it would not be as capable as last year's iPad. It would be competing head to head with kindle and hopefully in the $200 range. One would expect a plastic housing, non HD cameras, the low res 1024x768 screen, some kind of crap A4x or A5x processor that's "good enough" etc., etc.
Or ... they stop the strategy of selling last year's iPads at all and ...
2) The mini uses this year's tech and is just a smaller version of the current iPad (replacing the need for selling last year's model).
In this scenario, it would have an aluminium back, HD cameras, a Retina display and maybe even an A6 processor, and be priced more in the $300 range.
Those are valid & well-thought out options, but think it will be in the middle: A5, HD camera, plastic housing, 16 GB... for $299 (maybe $329). 32 GB for $399. CDMA/LTE extra.
Reason: Apple will not make "crap" but their marketing/sales conclusion is that this price range and physical size caters to a critical addressable market...maybe not massive yet, but it will. I'm guessing that plastic is not only cheaper, but may actually appeal to the potential users of this market who want a lighter/smaller device.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
...
The downside is that it means that the iPad mini won't really be "cheap" at all, and Apple will have failed yet again to make an affordable product for the masses and made another high-end toy instead. Apple always has had a blind spot when it comes to pricing though so this is hardly unusual. The upside is that the new mini could and perhaps should have a Retina display in this scenario.
if Apple didn't price the iPad for the masses, then why is there no competition for it at its' current price point?
Agree. Apple has no blind spot when it comes to pricing. They deliver effective end-to-end consumer quality at a price that makes it nearly impossible for this year's competition's tech to match it and make the production investment worth it. They are laser focused on providing value at a cost at or below what others can build, and make a profit that is appropriate for a technology company.
Gazoobee: As you stated 'Yet Again' Please elaborate on the 'failures' for Apple to make an affordable product (affordable meaning: people feel it's worth it to buy it and buy it at quantity vs other products with similar capabilities).? In short, provide references or stop trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
Only 2 days until we find out if this rumor is true.
I'm eager to find out too. Still betting no- but hoping yes.
ROTFLMAO.
Yep. Apple will never sell iPods - they're more expensive than the competition. Oh, wait, iPods have something like 80% of the market.
But they'll never sell tablets at their prices. Oh, wait. The iPad is around 60-70% of the market.
Well, they'll certainly never sell iPhones. Oh, wait. The iPhone has been the #1 smart phone on the market for years.
Well, they couldn't possibly sell MacBook Airs. Oh, wait. The MacBook Air has been the top selling ultralight computer for years.
Nope. Apple will never manage to make an affordable product for the masses. /s
Maybe you mean "dirt cheap garbage made up of the cheapest components and assembled by people who wouldn't know quality if it bit them in the rear." I'd agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DethByUngaBunga
The market seems thrilled about this new iPad Mini. Sure wish I had not cancelled that sell order at ~695.
I think the market is waiting for confirmation. Its still all rumors.
I did had option put's to protect my longs but i am still under even with that. would be nice to get a rebound soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCPA
Not that it matters... my prediction:
iPod Shuffle - $49
iPod Nano - $149
iPod Touch Fourth Generation - $199
iPod Touch - $299
iPad Mini - $349
iPad 2nd Generation - $399
iPad 3rd Generation - $499
Now, if only I were an analyst, I could make front-page news with this. I can't see a mini-iPad coming in cheaper than an iPod Touch. I get the whole Retina display and all but I just don't think it would work.
The 299 touch has 32g. The mini must be a value play, its the whole point about it. I am hoping for something very light at 249$ tops so it feel the needs for a light reading devices at a low price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
ROTFLMAO.
Yep. Apple will never sell iPods - they're more expensive than the competition. Oh, wait, iPods have something like 80% of the market.
But they'll never sell tablets at their prices. Oh, wait. The iPad is around 60-70% of the market.
Well, they'll certainly never sell iPhones. Oh, wait. The iPhone has been the #1 smart phone on the market for years.
Well, they couldn't possibly sell MacBook Airs. Oh, wait. The MacBook Air has been the top selling ultralight computer for years.
Nope. Apple will never manage to make an affordable product for the masses. /s
Maybe you mean "dirt cheap garbage made up of the cheapest components and assembled by people who wouldn't know quality if it bit them in the rear." I'd agree with that.
You are just being Mr. Meanie again of course, but what I meant was ...
- Apple makes a good 30-40% average margin on it's products
- Most other computer manufacturers deal with 10-15%
Therefore at any time, anytime they feel like it, they *can* swallow half of the margin on almost any product they like and still be very competitive. They could also afford to lower their overall margins across the board lowering all prices by 5-10% and still make tons and tons of money. I have never maintained that their current strategy is unreasonable in any way, in fact it's a very smart thing that they do with their margins. I'm just saying that anytime they want to they could easily produce a product that is much cheaper than their current pricing and yet still makes them more money than the competition.
They wouldn't make *quite* as much money, but then they are basically swimming in money at the moment anyway.
You of course interpreted my remarks as something else entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
Agree. Apple has no blind spot when it comes to pricing. They deliver effective end-to-end consumer quality at a price that makes it nearly impossible for this year's competition's tech to match it and make the production investment worth it. They are laser focused on providing value at a cost at or below what others can build, and make a profit that is appropriate for a technology company.
Gazoobee: As you stated 'Yet Again' Please elaborate on the 'failures' for Apple to make an affordable product (affordable meaning: people feel it's worth it to buy it and buy it at quantity vs other products with similar capabilities).? In short, provide references or stop trolling.
See my reply above. All I meant was that their prices all carry roughly double the margins of other sellers and could easily be reduced considering the overall state of their financials.
"jragosta" is always mis-interpreting me, but since others are also replying I guess I wasn't that clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
The 299 touch has 32g. The mini must be a value play, its the whole point about it. I am hoping for something very light at 249$ tops so it feel the needs for a light reading devices at a low price.
I originally thought that the iPad mini would come on short on specs and thus bring it in under $299. But, then that would mean subsequent generations of a mini iPad would either have to stay at specs that were not as good as the iPod or ofter a new price point later if the original mini lacks Retina display, enough memory, etc. and the later minis do not. But, from my little bit of understanding, Apple tends to release a product that, relatively speaking, is on the dry side when it comes to tech specs but later release better versions at the same price point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCPA
Not that it matters... my prediction:
iPod Shuffle - $49
iPod Nano - $149
iPod Touch Fourth Generation - $199
iPod Touch - $299
iPad Mini - $349
iPad 2nd Generation - $399
iPad 3rd Generation - $499
Now, if only I were an analyst, I could make front-page news with this. I can't see a mini-iPad coming in cheaper than an iPod Touch. I get the whole Retina display and all but I just don't think it would work.
The Touch comes full featured and fully loaded for $299. I imagine a Mini with less storage and possibly less features could achieve a starting price at the same $299 as the Touch but easily be seen as a completely different device. Likewise an equally equipped Mini would cost $100-200 more than the Touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
No one actually knows for sure that this year's model won't have a Retina display. The idea that it will be 1024x768 actually just comes from a single, idle "musing" by John Gruber. The blogosphere has picked that up and turned it into an solid expectation but as far as I have heard it isn't confirmed at all.
The way I see it, there are basically two possible strategies:
1) The mini is a cheap, small, and uses last years tech, cutting corners wherever they can.
In this scenario you'd expect it to be dirt cheap. It would have to be priced lower than even last year's iPad as it would not be as capable as last year's iPad. It would be competing head to head with kindle and hopefully in the $200 range. One would expect a plastic housing, non HD cameras, the low res 1024x768 screen, some kind of crap A4x or A5x processor that's "good enough" etc., etc.
Or ... they stop the strategy of selling last year's iPads at all and ...
2) The mini uses this year's tech and is just a smaller version of the current iPad (replacing the need for selling last year's model).
In this scenario, it would have an aluminium back, HD cameras, a Retina display and maybe even an A6 processor, and be priced more in the $300 range.
It looks to me like they are leaning towards option number 2 which is why I think they may be also revamping the current iPad model at the same time.
Think how confusing it will be if they come out with a mini, also come out with a revision to "iPad 3," and also keep selling iPad 2. Would they also keep selling iPad 3? If they do that makes iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 3r, and iPad mini all on sale at the same time. They would also need to change the name of iPad 3 from it's current "the new iPad" so they could use that for iPad 4. Even if they drop the current "new iPad" (iPad 3), for "iPad 3r" (or some new name), that's almost as confusing as the first option.
How do you tell customers that "the new iPad" is actually different from "the new iPad" they were selling in the early part of the same year, and that the old one (now called something else), is the same model, but different? The new revised iPad if it exists, will also look more like iPad 2 than the current "the new iPad." You will have two almost indistinguishable iPads, but with more or less a two year gap in technology between them. Also, what's the point of selling an almost two year old model for cheap (because it's old), when you have a brand new "cheap" iPad (the mini)? And why perpetuate problems by selling either one or two models of the iPad with the 30 pin connector while simultaneously selling two models with the lightning connector?
If you simply throw away all the old models and just say iPad 3r == "iPad," the new mini takes the cheap seats as simply "iPad mini," and that's the whole lineup, period. All of a sudden everything is clear and simple.
The downside is that it means that the iPad mini won't really be "cheap" at all, and Apple will have failed yet again to make an affordable product for the masses and made another high-end toy instead. Apple always has had a blind spot when it comes to pricing though so this is hardly unusual. The upside is that the new mini could and perhaps should have a Retina display in this scenario.
I don't see the sense in them using the latest tech if that means the starting price is going to be $399.
And there is and may always be a market for the iPad 2 in education. Next year Apple could continue selling the iPad 2 for the education market because the tech won't be outdated and it would remain a very lucrative device for education moreso than a Mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighlee
rumor to announce on Oct. 10th? is it for sure? i can't wait. BTW, found that ipad mini parts have already been leaked.
http://www.etradesupply.com/apple/ipad/apple-ipad-mini.html
The so called iPad Mini data cable in your link, looks like the old 30 pin connector. One would think it should be the new lightning type as seen in the mockups photos posted on this web site.
Originally Posted by Aizmov
What are the chances of their being a retina model next year?
Production of the smaller iPad is said to already be underway at Apple's overseas suppliers. The device is expected to feature a screen with a lower resolution than the current iPad with Retina display.
I honestly cant imagine Apple releasing this device without retina display. It just doesn't make sense. Apple is migrating all their devices over to the retina display and to release this one without retina, Apple would be hounded and criticized over the lack of development in relation to the screen. I would bet the report is inaccurate.
So true. As far as I've got:
iPod N : £129 (16GB) $149
iPod 4 : £169 (16GB) $199
iPod 4 : £199 (32GB) $249
iPod 5 : £249 (32GB) $299
iPod 5 : £329 (64GB) $399
iPad M : £299 (16GB) $349
iPad M : £379 (32GB) $449
iPad M : £459 (64GB) $549
iPad 2 : £329 (16GB) $399
iPad 3 : £399 (16GB) $499
iPad 3 : £479 (32GB) $599
iPad 3 : £559 (64GB) $699
I can't believe this isn't the most sensible, appley pricing structure.
We can see the it coming in below the iPad 2, whether they keep it or not, and the iPad M (mid/mini/meh) getting a storage bump before we get to the iPad proper, giving it room to grow. They also don't undercut the iPod touch and the overlap is sensible.
In terms of the competition, a 16GB 7-incher at $349 is respectable. The whole $199 "market" (if two companies can be called that) is unsustainable nonsense compared to the "actual" market (everything =<16GB) which falls neatly in line with the proposed prices above.
Of course, they could go for an educational model @8GB, or even volume sales (but that would be somewhat unprecedented).
I don't believe Apple would endanger their profit margins that considerably with a cheap model, especailly whilst so deeply undercutting the new iPad. IMO they would also not want to devalue their technology in general, shifting potential customers from both the new touch and this year's iPad. Unsustainable.
Originally Posted by TimmyDax
Of course, they could go for an educational model @8GB, or even volume sales (but that would be somewhat unprecedented).
Not when books are as large as they are. I actually just see 16 and 32GB models.
Depends: iBooks or just-huge-image-files Adobe-esque "books"?
iBooks for reading assignments could be very small indeed, and most rich media (in UK at least) is already served from school/college intranet sites, moodle etc.
An 8GB iPad "mini" is definitely a long shot, but in education it's the interaction that wins them over, not the portability (ie. presumed WiFi may be practical - iTunes U tools can be used, for interaction purposes portability is obviously maintained)
Originally Posted by TimmyDax
Depends: iBooks or just-huge-image-files Adobe-esque "books"?
Both, I guess, if you're implying the Adobe ones are also huge. A single chapter of an iBook textbook is over a gigabyte.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not when books are as large as they are. I actually just see 16 and 32GB models.
Depends: iBooks or just-huge-image-files Adobe-esque "books"?
iBooks for reading assignments could be very small indeed, and most rich media (in UK at least) is already served from school/college intranet sites, moodle etc.
An 8GB iPad "mini" is definitely a long shot, but in education it's the interaction that wins them over, not the portability (ie. presumed WiFi may be practical - iTunes U tools can be used, for interaction purposes portability is obviously maintained)
I still like the full sized iPad for education. K through maybe 3rd children's motor skills are not sufficiently developed to use small compact UI which is why all preschool learning apps have really big buttons shaped like fruit or animals. For this purpose the iPad 2 is an ideal device because the apps are not that demanding, the screen size is large enough to accommodate the big UI elements and the price is affordable. Once they get a little further along then the iPad mini might be suitable but I still think the full size is better suited for education as it more closely matches the size of a traditional textbook.
WTF!?! That's either incredibly graphically and media-rich or incredibly stupid.
These books, they're mainly text, right? Books of text should not be that big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The way I see it, there are basically two possible strategies:
1) The mini is a cheap, small, and uses last years tech, cutting corners wherever they can.
In this scenario you'd expect it to be dirt cheap. It would have to be priced lower than even last year's iPad as it would not be as capable as last year's iPad. It would be competing head to head with kindle and hopefully in the $200 range. One would expect a plastic housing, non HD cameras, the low res 1024x768 screen, some kind of crap A4x or A5x processor that's "good enough" etc., etc.
Or ... they stop the strategy of selling last year's iPads at all and ...
2) The mini uses this year's tech and is just a smaller version of the current iPad (replacing the need for selling last year's model).
In this scenario, it would have an aluminium back, HD cameras, a Retina display and maybe even an A6 processor, and be priced more in the $300 range.
Those are valid & well-thought out options, but think it will be in the middle: A5, HD camera, plastic housing, 16 GB... for $299 (maybe $329). 32 GB for $399. CDMA/LTE extra.
Reason: Apple will not make "crap" but their marketing/sales conclusion is that this price range and physical size caters to a critical addressable market...maybe not massive yet, but it will. I'm guessing that plastic is not only cheaper, but may actually appeal to the potential users of this market who want a lighter/smaller device.