I rarely see kids with backpacks loitering at the mall, or doing drugs under the railway bridge, or inhaling vast quantities of McDonalds, or drinking beer at the beach, etc. etc.
These are the occasions when a lighter, smaller iPad will come in handy. :-)
Why? Can't put it in a pocket, so it's only teasingly more portable than the real iPad. They're still carrying something in their hand as they walk around; they may as well carry an iPad.
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Are you suggesting the iPad Mini would be $399?
Yep. I'd say brace yourself for that and for not seeing the number 2 anywhere in the price.
Also, I don't see them holding over more than 1 extra generation of the iPad. Move to iPad 4, keep teh 3 at $100 less.
Really? Why? They kept three generations of iPhone (because it's generations, right? Generations of iPhone. That's what a different release of hardware means: generation. Right?) at once, allowing it to hit free on contract. Why not keep three generations of iPad around, allowing the iPad to hit that magical $299 price, since that's what people buying smaller (and other) tablets really care about.
Really? Why? They kept three generations of iPhone (because it's generations, right? Generations of iPhone. That's what a different release of hardware means: generation. Right?) at once, allowing it to hit free on contract. Why not keep three generations of iPad around, allowing the iPad to hit that magical $299 price, since that's what people buying smaller (and other) tablets really care about.
B/c they won't have to keep a 3rd version of the full size ipad around w/the Mini already in that price point. The iPad won't follow the exact model the iPhone follows b/c we don't have contracts w/the iPad and no subsidies. iPad 3 $499. iPd 2 $399. iPad Mini/iPod Touch $299. I actually see a lot less need for the 2 in that scenario given that you get less storage and the only boost will be the bigger screen. I don't think that trade is worth $100, but they will likely keep it as is b/c (unlike Ireland) I don't think they are going to kill the iPad 2 mid-cycle like this.. Now when the iPad 4 comes out, if they keep the iPad 3 at $399 then that $100 gets you a jump up to Retina, which would be a lot more compelling.
I really don't understand this logic regarding the iPad 3. How is it half assed? They had to ever so slightly thicken it to put enough battery in to kep the hour count the same for the Retina display. And? I prefer the thickness of the iPad 3 to the iPad 2. It always felt too thin compared to my wife's original iPad in Apple case. The iPad is smaller than a legal pa and is still less heavy than most hardback novels. I really don't see the issue.
My understanding is that they couldn't get the thinner screen they wanted with the lower power requirements and so at the last minute needed to increase the size of the battery as a result. It's significantly heavier than the iPad 2. It's so heavy that it's weight is it's defining factor and more or less the first thing you notice.
The "proof" of it's placeholder status, is the widely expected, mid-year release (possibly at the same event as the mini), of a "corrected" version of the iPad 3, with a better screen, a smaller battery and a thinner profile.
I'm thinking you just don't use your iPad that much if you don't notice the weight or perhaps you only use it when it's lying on a table or something?
The "iPhone nano" doesn't exist for many reasons, one of which being the regular iPhone can fill its market by sticking around at a lower price.
Why couldn't the same be true of the iPad?
They could of course, but it's a choice of one or the other strategy isn't it?
Flip the argument around ("Why couldn't there be a cheap off-contract iPhone nano instead of re-selling last year's iPhone models?"), and it works against you.
The only thing that would make no sense is doing both strategies at once.
Why? Can't put it in a pocket, so it's only teasingly more portable than the real iPad. They're still carrying something in their hand as they walk around; they may as well carry an iPad.
...
- you put it in the pocket of your hoodie
- if it's raining, you put it under your hoodie and hold it in your hands while they are in the pockets
- you chuck it in your hockey bag
- you put it in your purse
- you put it in the pocket of your skater pants
- you carry it in your hand
- you put it in the inside pocket of your jacket
In any case my argument was only that the kids that I know don't actually carry backpacks everywhere with them everywhere. Also, the plain fact is that a mini iPad would be more portable than the original, so I'm not sure what your point is. You say "teasingly more portable," but it's still more portable. The "teasingly" is just in your head. It may not be in everyone's head.
It's also worth noting that the same argument came up for pretty much every portable device and every smaller iteration of same from the laptop to the iPod touch. Is the Macbook Air useless simply because it's only slightly more portable than a regular laptop? Is the iPod nano a waste of time because the iPod is already pretty small in and of itself?
That makes sense to me. If the build and materials were equal to the current iPad, with retina, that would be the right price. $100 less than iPad because it is smaller. Of course you have to completely ignore any competitive price model and just sell on quality alone. So Amazon and Google want to give away their devices, so what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Also, I don't see them holding over more than 1 extra generation of the iPad. Move to iPad 4, keep teh 3 at $100 less. $100 or $150 below that is the Mini.
I think there should always be at least one full size iPad at $299 for education.
Lots of interesting possibilities. If AAPL wants to Kill It, they could price an iPad mini at $199 and destroy any competitors. Might not be a pleasing thing for shareholders to hear, as I can see AAPL losing money on each. (Yeah, I know...make it up in the volume.) But at that price could they make enough? They might be looking at higher prices simply to keep the deliveries doable.
The new iPoad nano is clearly a nod to abandon the smart watch, at least for now. But the new nano form does sort of lend itself to being a new consumer device as well. If it ran full up iOS, would people carry them...like a phone without voice capability? Ask the kids these days...who talks on a phone anymore?
They could of course, but it's a choice of one or the other strategy isn't it?
It's not that simple. One involves millions in R&D and new manufacturing lines, plus testing, boxing, marketing, etc.
The other involves a new price tag.
Flip the argument around ("Why couldn't there be a cheap off-contract iPhone nano instead of re-selling last year's iPhone models?"), and it works against you.
No, it just brings into play the other reasons for not doing a smaller iPhone, such as UX, UI, and hardware power, in addition to the ones I brought up earlier. All these were outweighed for the iPhone; I don't see why they wouldn't be for the iPad.
It's not that simple. One involves millions in R&D and new manufacturing lines, plus testing, boxing, marketing, etc.
The other involves a new price tag.
No, it just brings into play the other reasons for not doing a smaller iPhone, such as UX, UI, and hardware power, in addition to the ones I brought up earlier. All these were outweighed for the iPhone; I don't see why they wouldn't be for the iPad.
Your just mixing stuff up here and changing the ground of the argument as usual. The decision to make a new product does indeed involve some of the things you've mentioned. The decision to re-sell the old product involves different factors unique to that choice (more than just a new price tag). It's still a choice of one strategy or the other.
You are arguing that one strategy (the one you prefer) is simpler and a better choice than the other. You may be right, you may be wrong. It's still a choice of one strategy or the other. In fact, you know no more and no less than anyone else on the forum about which strategy would be best or which they would choose, but you still spend all your time brow-beating anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your assessment and making snarky comments to that effect. You were acting and speaking as if the one choice was simply ridiculous or that it wasn't valid in some way when in fact each is a valid option.
My understanding is that they couldn't get the thinner screen they wanted with the lower power requirements and so at the last minute needed to increase the size of the battery as a result. It's significantly heavier than the iPad 2. It's so heavy that it's weight is it's defining factor and more or less the first thing you notice.
The "proof" of it's placeholder status, is the widely expected, mid-year release (possibly at the same event as the mini), of a "corrected" version of the iPad 3, with a better screen, a smaller battery and a thinner profile.
I'm thinking you just don't use your iPad that much if you don't notice the weight or perhaps you only use it when it's lying on a table or something?
1) The iPad 3 vs iPad 2 weight: 8.68% or 0.115 lbs or 1.84oz heavier. Since when is that "significantly" for something the size of a hardback book?
2) Who was widely expecting that? I don't recall any serious talk of that from anyone reliable. Was this some Digitimes claim? There was never ANY chance of Apple completely revamping the iPad 3 months after its launch and anyone who said that has a bridge to sell you
3)Actually I use my iPad around the house in many different rooms and I don't have a case or cover for it yet, so I'm not just leaning it up places. The weight is a non-issue for me and always has been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
That makes sense to me. If the build and materials were equal to the current iPad, with retina, that would be the right price. $100 less than iPad because it is smaller. Of course you have to completely ignore any competitive price model and just sell on quality alone. So Amazon and Google want to give away their devices, so what?
Alright, now what if the new iPad Mini is NOT Retina. I would expect a higher cost for Retina at the smaller size. I would expect the $249 or $299 for the 1024x768 that has been pretty much the only talked about resolution all this time.
…but you still spend all your time brow-beating anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your assessment and making snarky comments to that effect. You were acting and speaking as if the one choice was simply ridiculous or that it wasn't valid in some way when in fact each is a valid option.
Right, that's obviously the case.
How, again, is millions in R&D, manufacturing, testing, boxing, marketing, and software a better solution that just changing the price and dialing back yield?
Alright, now what if the new iPad Mini is NOT Retina. I would expect a higher cost for Retina at the smaller size. I would expect the $249 or $299 for the 1024x768 that has been pretty much the only talked about resolution all this time.
I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.
I really-really hope they're also going to use this event to introduce an upgraded iPad 3 with A6, HD Facetime camera, upgraded 4G cellular chip for international markets and of course the new Lightning connector. I've been holding out on purchasing an iPad 3 for those reasons. But disappointment is also a real possibility, we'll see...
I really-really hope they're also going to use this event to introduce an upgraded iPad 3 with A6, HD Facetime camera, upgraded 4G cellular chip for international markets and of course the new Lightning connector. I've been holding out on purchasing an iPad 3 for those reasons. But disappointment is also a real possibility, we'll see...
Why would they do that? That's an iPad 4, not an iPad 3. It's only six months old.
I really-really hope they're also going to use this event to introduce an upgraded iPad 3 with A6, HD Facetime camera, upgraded 4G cellular chip for international markets and of course the new Lightning connector. I've been holding out on purchasing an iPad 3 for those reasons. But disappointment is also a real possibility, we'll see...
but if it were at $299, at the price of the iPod Touch, doesn't mean both couldn't be successful. The two can serve different purposes.
They maybe can serve two different purposes, but it still makes for a crowded niche of the price point/two similar widgets. With the iPod at $299 I've given up hope that it'll come in that low. Maybe they can cripple it enough to still be worthwhile and allow the iPod to retain a modicum of purpose and desirability, but I would have preferred Apple ceded the $299 market to the Mini and not bothered to put out the new iPod.
Who who has an iPhone is going to consider getting the iPod? The MIni, on the other hand...(spoken by someone who loves his previous gen wifi only, no phone iPod and figures this is the end of the line after owning several generations.)
I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.
I think a high quality non-retina display on the Mini would make perfect sense. I wouldn't use it for media watching. There's nothing visually about my current older iPod Touch that gets in the way of its use, except for the size. Not the screen. Why would it be stooping or not high quality?
I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.
The iPad 2 is the younger brother to the New iPad. The iPad Mini will be taking what everyone loved about the iPad 2, shrinking it down more, making it even lighter and thinner and selling it for even cheaper. It isn't supposed to be the top of the line product again. Look at the iPhone vs iPod Touch. The Touch has an older processor, the Mini will have an older resolution. I see many similarities and it won't be backsliding, it will be making a product to suit a market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why would they do that? That's an iPad 4, not an iPad 3. It's only six months old.
Precisely! If they change the iPad 3 at all, they will change the connector. Have there been any process shrinks available for the processor they are using? I haven't heard of any. According to the wikipedia entry for the A5, samsung won't have their 28nm factory up and running till the latter half of 2013. So no process shrink has occurred and we still have a 45nm processor in the A5X. If we had 28nm available, I could see them swapping the new proc scale in and touting new power savings.
Comments
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I rarely see kids with backpacks loitering at the mall, or doing drugs under the railway bridge, or inhaling vast quantities of McDonalds, or drinking beer at the beach, etc. etc.
These are the occasions when a lighter, smaller iPad will come in handy. :-)
Why? Can't put it in a pocket, so it's only teasingly more portable than the real iPad. They're still carrying something in their hand as they walk around; they may as well carry an iPad.
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Are you suggesting the iPad Mini would be $399?
Yep. I'd say brace yourself for that and for not seeing the number 2 anywhere in the price.
Also, I don't see them holding over more than 1 extra generation of the iPad. Move to iPad 4, keep teh 3 at $100 less.
Really? Why? They kept three generations of iPhone (because it's generations, right? Generations of iPhone. That's what a different release of hardware means: generation. Right?) at once, allowing it to hit free on contract. Why not keep three generations of iPad around, allowing the iPad to hit that magical $299 price, since that's what people buying smaller (and other) tablets really care about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Really? Why? They kept three generations of iPhone (because it's generations, right? Generations of iPhone. That's what a different release of hardware means: generation. Right?) at once, allowing it to hit free on contract. Why not keep three generations of iPad around, allowing the iPad to hit that magical $299 price, since that's what people buying smaller (and other) tablets really care about.
B/c they won't have to keep a 3rd version of the full size ipad around w/the Mini already in that price point.
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
B/c they won't have to keep a 3rd version of the full size ipad around w/the Mini already in that price point.
The "iPhone nano" doesn't exist for many reasons, one of which being the regular iPhone can fill its market by sticking around at a lower price.
Why couldn't the same be true of the iPad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
...
I really don't understand this logic regarding the iPad 3. How is it half assed? They had to ever so slightly thicken it to put enough battery in to kep the hour count the same for the Retina display. And? I prefer the thickness of the iPad 3 to the iPad 2. It always felt too thin compared to my wife's original iPad in Apple case. The iPad is smaller than a legal pa and is still less heavy than most hardback novels. I really don't see the issue.
My understanding is that they couldn't get the thinner screen they wanted with the lower power requirements and so at the last minute needed to increase the size of the battery as a result. It's significantly heavier than the iPad 2. It's so heavy that it's weight is it's defining factor and more or less the first thing you notice.
The "proof" of it's placeholder status, is the widely expected, mid-year release (possibly at the same event as the mini), of a "corrected" version of the iPad 3, with a better screen, a smaller battery and a thinner profile.
I'm thinking you just don't use your iPad that much if you don't notice the weight or perhaps you only use it when it's lying on a table or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The "iPhone nano" doesn't exist for many reasons, one of which being the regular iPhone can fill its market by sticking around at a lower price.
Why couldn't the same be true of the iPad?
They could of course, but it's a choice of one or the other strategy isn't it?
Flip the argument around ("Why couldn't there be a cheap off-contract iPhone nano instead of re-selling last year's iPhone models?"), and it works against you.
The only thing that would make no sense is doing both strategies at once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why? Can't put it in a pocket, so it's only teasingly more portable than the real iPad. They're still carrying something in their hand as they walk around; they may as well carry an iPad.
...
- you put it in the pocket of your hoodie
- if it's raining, you put it under your hoodie and hold it in your hands while they are in the pockets
- you chuck it in your hockey bag
- you put it in your purse
- you put it in the pocket of your skater pants
- you carry it in your hand
- you put it in the inside pocket of your jacket
In any case my argument was only that the kids that I know don't actually carry backpacks everywhere with them everywhere. Also, the plain fact is that a mini iPad would be more portable than the original, so I'm not sure what your point is. You say "teasingly more portable," but it's still more portable. The "teasingly" is just in your head. It may not be in everyone's head.
It's also worth noting that the same argument came up for pretty much every portable device and every smaller iteration of same from the laptop to the iPod touch. Is the Macbook Air useless simply because it's only slightly more portable than a regular laptop? Is the iPod nano a waste of time because the iPod is already pretty small in and of itself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Are you suggesting the iPad Mini would be $399?
That makes sense to me. If the build and materials were equal to the current iPad, with retina, that would be the right price. $100 less than iPad because it is smaller. Of course you have to completely ignore any competitive price model and just sell on quality alone. So Amazon and Google want to give away their devices, so what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Also, I don't see them holding over more than 1 extra generation of the iPad. Move to iPad 4, keep teh 3 at $100 less. $100 or $150 below that is the Mini.
I think there should always be at least one full size iPad at $299 for education.
The new iPoad nano is clearly a nod to abandon the smart watch, at least for now. But the new nano form does sort of lend itself to being a new consumer device as well. If it ran full up iOS, would people carry them...like a phone without voice capability? Ask the kids these days...who talks on a phone anymore?
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
They could of course, but it's a choice of one or the other strategy isn't it?
It's not that simple. One involves millions in R&D and new manufacturing lines, plus testing, boxing, marketing, etc.
The other involves a new price tag.
Flip the argument around ("Why couldn't there be a cheap off-contract iPhone nano instead of re-selling last year's iPhone models?"), and it works against you.
No, it just brings into play the other reasons for not doing a smaller iPhone, such as UX, UI, and hardware power, in addition to the ones I brought up earlier. All these were outweighed for the iPhone; I don't see why they wouldn't be for the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's not that simple. One involves millions in R&D and new manufacturing lines, plus testing, boxing, marketing, etc.
The other involves a new price tag.
No, it just brings into play the other reasons for not doing a smaller iPhone, such as UX, UI, and hardware power, in addition to the ones I brought up earlier. All these were outweighed for the iPhone; I don't see why they wouldn't be for the iPad.
Your just mixing stuff up here and changing the ground of the argument as usual. The decision to make a new product does indeed involve some of the things you've mentioned. The decision to re-sell the old product involves different factors unique to that choice (more than just a new price tag). It's still a choice of one strategy or the other.
You are arguing that one strategy (the one you prefer) is simpler and a better choice than the other. You may be right, you may be wrong. It's still a choice of one strategy or the other. In fact, you know no more and no less than anyone else on the forum about which strategy would be best or which they would choose, but you still spend all your time brow-beating anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your assessment and making snarky comments to that effect. You were acting and speaking as if the one choice was simply ridiculous or that it wasn't valid in some way when in fact each is a valid option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
My understanding is that they couldn't get the thinner screen they wanted with the lower power requirements and so at the last minute needed to increase the size of the battery as a result. It's significantly heavier than the iPad 2. It's so heavy that it's weight is it's defining factor and more or less the first thing you notice.
The "proof" of it's placeholder status, is the widely expected, mid-year release (possibly at the same event as the mini), of a "corrected" version of the iPad 3, with a better screen, a smaller battery and a thinner profile.
I'm thinking you just don't use your iPad that much if you don't notice the weight or perhaps you only use it when it's lying on a table or something?
1) The iPad 3 vs iPad 2 weight: 8.68% or 0.115 lbs or 1.84oz heavier. Since when is that "significantly" for something the size of a hardback book?
2) Who was widely expecting that? I don't recall any serious talk of that from anyone reliable. Was this some Digitimes claim? There was never ANY chance of Apple completely revamping the iPad 3 months after its launch and anyone who said that has a bridge to sell you
3)Actually I use my iPad around the house in many different rooms and I don't have a case or cover for it yet, so I'm not just leaning it up places. The weight is a non-issue for me and always has been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
That makes sense to me. If the build and materials were equal to the current iPad, with retina, that would be the right price. $100 less than iPad because it is smaller. Of course you have to completely ignore any competitive price model and just sell on quality alone. So Amazon and Google want to give away their devices, so what?
Alright, now what if the new iPad Mini is NOT Retina. I would expect a higher cost for Retina at the smaller size. I would expect the $249 or $299 for the 1024x768 that has been pretty much the only talked about resolution all this time.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
…but you still spend all your time brow-beating anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your assessment and making snarky comments to that effect. You were acting and speaking as if the one choice was simply ridiculous or that it wasn't valid in some way when in fact each is a valid option.
Right, that's obviously the case.
How, again, is millions in R&D, manufacturing, testing, boxing, marketing, and software a better solution that just changing the price and dialing back yield?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Alright, now what if the new iPad Mini is NOT Retina. I would expect a higher cost for Retina at the smaller size. I would expect the $249 or $299 for the 1024x768 that has been pretty much the only talked about resolution all this time.
I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.
Originally Posted by 1983
I really-really hope they're also going to use this event to introduce an upgraded iPad 3 with A6, HD Facetime camera, upgraded 4G cellular chip for international markets and of course the new Lightning connector. I've been holding out on purchasing an iPad 3 for those reasons. But disappointment is also a real possibility, we'll see...
Why would they do that? That's an iPad 4, not an iPad 3. It's only six months old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac-user
$349
but if it were at $299, at the price of the iPod Touch, doesn't mean both couldn't be successful. The two can serve different purposes.
They maybe can serve two different purposes, but it still makes for a crowded niche of the price point/two similar widgets. With the iPod at $299 I've given up hope that it'll come in that low. Maybe they can cripple it enough to still be worthwhile and allow the iPod to retain a modicum of purpose and desirability, but I would have preferred Apple ceded the $299 market to the Mini and not bothered to put out the new iPod.
Who who has an iPhone is going to consider getting the iPod? The MIni, on the other hand...(spoken by someone who loves his previous gen wifi only, no phone iPod and figures this is the end of the line after owning several generations.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.
I think a high quality non-retina display on the Mini would make perfect sense. I wouldn't use it for media watching. There's nothing visually about my current older iPod Touch that gets in the way of its use, except for the size. Not the screen. Why would it be stooping or not high quality?
Originally Posted by jlandd
Who who has an iPhone is going to consider getting the iPod?
They're not supposed to be for the same people. That's not a question to be asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.
The iPad 2 is the younger brother to the New iPad. The iPad Mini will be taking what everyone loved about the iPad 2, shrinking it down more, making it even lighter and thinner and selling it for even cheaper. It isn't supposed to be the top of the line product again. Look at the iPhone vs iPod Touch. The Touch has an older processor, the Mini will have an older resolution. I see many similarities and it won't be backsliding, it will be making a product to suit a market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why would they do that? That's an iPad 4, not an iPad 3. It's only six months old.
Precisely! If they change the iPad 3 at all, they will change the connector. Have there been any process shrinks available for the processor they are using? I haven't heard of any. According to the wikipedia entry for the A5, samsung won't have their 28nm factory up and running till the latter half of 2013. So no process shrink has occurred and we still have a 45nm processor in the A5X. If we had 28nm available, I could see them swapping the new proc scale in and touting new power savings.