Apple 'likely' to unveil 'iPad mini' at event on Oct. 23 - report

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    How in the world can Apple expect to sell a device for $300-$350 with specs that are inferior to a $199 device? Now I have no idea what the specs will be for a smaller iPad, just going off others speculations that they will be iPad 2-like. I'm not suggesting Apple give up on the market or price it at $199. What I am suggesting is releasing a device that has superior specs to kindle and nexus 7. And display is a big part of that since a lot of people use their iPads for reading and watching video. I think Apple can easily create a superior device that justifies the higher price tag.




    It won't be inferior to a $199 device.  I apologize if I wasn't clear.  I'm saying that it won't be superior to a Galaxy Tab & at the high offering of $400+.


    You used the word superior, but now that I read your: "...speculations that they will be iPad 2-like." I realize that you and I basically agree on the level of quality/features.


    So, yes, it should be superior to Nexus 7 (and definitely superior to Kindle)...but not by a whole lot...in order to keep price low enough to sway consumers who were originally interested in the Nexus/Kindle, to spend a little more & "upgrade" their buying decision to an iPad Mini.  And the wonderful integration of hardware/software (& UX) will influence even more iPad Mini purchases.

  • Reply 122 of 165


    Are we there yet?

  • Reply 123 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post


     


    Are you kidding?  Show me a US school aged child that does not carry around a backback 5 days a week.


     


    THEY don't shun cell contracts.  PARENTS shun cell contracts because of cost.  My kid wants netflix in the car.  That means either me hotspotting my phone or him using his own via a family plan.


     


    The family data plans kinda sorta suck but kinda sorta don't.  A little cheaper and they would have been a boon.



    Ok, yes, children going to school will have them, but more likely parents aren't sending kids to school with $300 devices in most cases. I guess, yes, in affluent areas. But it's just hard for me to see young children and most teens walking around with tablets-at school yes; in the car, yes.


     


    I live in New York and took my 14-year-old-nephew to a concert where the line literally ran around the entire block. Every kid had an iPhone or Android smartphone texting in line and on FB and Instagram. There was a sea of phones taking video inside the venue. I couldn't imagine any of them wanting to lug around a 7" tablet and paying for LTE data. Kids riding around on skateboards or the subway-I can't see that either. What I'm saying is that I really can't see most kids having their own for use outside of school that much, but maybe more than teens. Most teens would prefer a pocketable device that does not need a cell contract. If they want/can afford a cell contract, my sense is that they'd sooner get an actual iPhone rather than two distinct devices.


     


    But you have experience as a parent of school age kids, so what you're saying makes sense, too.

  • Reply 124 of 165
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    drewys808 wrote: »

    It won't be inferior to a $199 device.  I apologize if I wasn't clear.  I'm saying that it won't be superior to a Galaxy Tab & at the high offering of $400+.
    You used the word superior, but now that I read your: "...speculations that they will be iPad 2-like." I realize that you and I basically agree on the level of quality/features.
    So, yes, it should be superior to Nexus 7 (and definitely superior to Kindle)...but not by a whole lot...in order to keep price low enough to sway consumers who were originally interested in the Nexus/Kindle, to spend a little more & "upgrade" their buying decision to an iPad Mini.  And the wonderful integration of hardware/software (& UX) will influence even more iPad Mini purchases.
    Yep sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm expecting it to be superior spec wise to the fire and nexus 7. Then with design/build quality and ecosystem Apple can easily sell it for more than $199. What I'm really looking for is for Apple to make those devices look cheap (and not in a good deal kind of way).
  • Reply 125 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    - 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?  



    This is a classic example of why different devices should be applied to distinctly different use cases. The iPhone 5 or 5th Gen iPod Touch both would work perfectly in the cases you described. The iPad Mini would not be appropriate.

  • Reply 126 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    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 get your argument, but what about going Retina with the Mini in next year's iteration?

  • Reply 127 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post




    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?



    Agreed, but a "compromise" might be them going with IGZO.

  • Reply 128 of 165
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    carthusia wrote: »
    I get your argument, but what about going Retina with the Mini in next year's iteration?

    Going 2048x1536 with the same PPI as the iPhone and want it to be lightweight, power efficient, and inexpensive? None of those things seem likely to me.
  • Reply 129 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Going 2048x1536 with the same PPI as the iPhone and want it to be lightweight, power efficient, and inexpensive? None of those things seem likely to me.


    No argument here-still, who knows what they're cooking in the Cupertino kitchens?  My point is that the more likely scenario for this year would be the same resolution as the iPad 2 (with a slightly higher pixel density than the iPad 2). It'll look a little sharper, but perhaps not "true Retina". Also, as I mentioned earlier, IGZO at the same resolution as the iPad 2 might also look really good.

  • Reply 130 of 165
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post


    Ok, yes, children going to school will have them, but more likely parents aren't sending kids to school with $300 devices in most cases. I guess, yes, in affluent areas. But it's just hard for me to see young children and most teens walking around with tablets-at school yes; in the car, yes.



    I was speaking with a person from our local school board just last night and I asked about the iPad in the middle schools. She said that the iPads are left in the classroom however for special projects they can be checked out by the parent.

  • Reply 131 of 165
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    carthusia wrote: »
    No argument here-still, who knows what they're cooking in the Cupertino kitchens?  My point is that the more likely scenario for this year would be the same resolution as the iPad 2 (with a slightly higher pixel density than the iPad 2). It'll look a little sharper, but perhaps not "true Retina". Also, as I mentioned earlier, IGZO at the same resolution as the iPad 2 might also look really good.

    I think 163 PPI is reasonable for a variety of reasons but that's all board meeting-type determinations. Once they make a prototype they may have found that 163 PPI simply doesn't cut it for a device that will be used the way they want it to be so perhaps they did increase the PPI (and therefore resolution for a given size). But if 132 PPI was fine for the iPad for two generations I'm thinking that a nearly 25% increase for a $249 to $349 device won't be a bad by. At 7.85" we're talking about about 40% more display area of the 7" 16:9 tablets yet likely feeling, looking, and being less functional all around even though the new ones coming out this year will have a little higher PPI than this rumoured iPad mini/iBook.
  • Reply 132 of 165
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I think 163 PPI is reasonable for a variety of reasons but that's all board meeting-type determinations. Once they make a prototype they may have found that 163 PPI simply doesn't cut it for a device that will be used the way they want it to be so perhaps they did increase the PPI (and therefore resolution for a given size). But if 132 PPI was fine for the iPad for two generations I'm thinking that a nearly 25% increase for a $249 to $349 device won't be a bad by. At 7.85" we're talking about about 40% more display area of the 7" 16:9 tablets yet likely feeling, looking, and being less functional all around even though the new ones coming out this year will have a little higher PPI than this rumoured iPad mini/iBook.


     


    I did the math in the other thread and 1024x768 is the most viable for the near future.  Doing anything else results in 4 resolution targets of iOS developers over the current three targets (320x480, 320x568 and 1024x768).  


     


    That's not impossible but a significant increase in app layout fragmentation in comparison to the past.


     


    The only other option is to see if a 3x multiple of the iPhone 5 resolution works cleanly but that makes the mini a big iPod touch and not a small iPad.

  • Reply 133 of 165
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    nht wrote: »
    I did the math in the other thread and 1024x768 is the most viable for the near future.  Doing anything else results in 4 resolution targets of iOS developers over the current three targets (320x480, 320x568 and 1024x768).  

    That's not impossible but a significant increase in app layout fragmentation in comparison to the past.

    The only other option is to see if a 3x multiple of the iPhone 5 resolution works cleanly but that makes the mini a big iPod touch and not a small iPad.

    Thanks for bringing up the HIG and icon size. I had ran those numbers 6(?) months ago but couldn't find my post on it (but I'm certain you crunching of those numbers are easier to follow than mine). The 163 PPI iPad would put it about halfway between the iPhone and iPad icon size, which makes a lot of sense from a usability aspect. Apple will still idealize everything but it won't be the hurdle of having to try to recreate everything from scratch.


    edit: I found a post of yours from June 5th talking about this: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150488/september-launch-of-ipad-mini-seen-boosting-education-sales/40#post_2121464
  • Reply 134 of 165
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    If Apple really wants to own this market they won't skimp on this device and maybe even accept slightly lower profit margins to bring a superior device to market at a competitive price point.
  • Reply 135 of 165


    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

    If Apple really wants to own this market they won't skimp on this device and maybe even accept slightly lower profit margins to bring a superior device to market at a competitive price point.


     


    They already own the market, which is why all along I've been so confused at the very idea of this thing.


     


    It's like audiophilism. It's the law of diminishing returns. Apple has 90% of the market right now. To get even half of that other 10%, they have to spend at least as much money as it took them to get the first 90%. The question then becomes: "Is it worth it?" Particularly with the anti-trust lawsuits that will inevitably follow.

  • Reply 136 of 165
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    They already own the market, which is why all along I've been so confused at the very idea of this thing.

    It's like audiophilism. It's the law of diminishing returns. Apple has 90% of the market right now. To get even half of that other 10%, they have to spend at least as much money as it took them to get the first 90%. The question then becomes: "Is it worth it?" Particularly with the anti-trust lawsuits that will inevitably follow.

    I've stated in the past, well before the iPad mini seemed like it could happen that Apple should "suck all the oxygen out of the room" by creating an environment where it owns the tablet market the way it owns the PMP market. It took them a long time to wrangle the PMP unit market share even though they were the only ones making profit for much longer but with the tablet market they had control of both out of the gate. With these cheap 7' tablets hitting the market they will lose unit market share which could, over a long period, chip away at their profits if the OS ad ecosystem on these devices become good enough.

    To me, this means that they should do everything they can to make this tablet market an iPad market for the foreseeable future. With 32nm and the 163 PPI display tech they aren't using I think it's possible to create a cost effective mini tablet — hopefully called iBook — that will only keep the Apple haters from buying one over a KIndle Fire or Galaxy S#17.


    PS: I'd say Amazon is the biggest long term threat here because of their low profit margin, popularity as an online store and media ecosystem. We can laugh that they barely profit from quarter to quarter but this is a major threat to Apple who might not be able to compete with Amazon on HW products even though Apple can leverage so much expertise and existing tech to make a product much, much lower than Amazon. Apple might actually have to reduce their profit margins in order to crush them. We don't often see that from Apple.
  • Reply 137 of 165
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    They already own the market, which is why all along I've been so confused at the very idea of this thing.


     


    It's like audiophilism. It's the law of diminishing returns. Apple has 90% of the market right now. To get even half of that other 10%, they have to spend at least as much money as it took them to get the first 90%. The question then becomes: "Is it worth it?" Particularly with the anti-trust lawsuits that will inevitably follow.



    You make it sound like people who already have an iPad won't want this one as well.


     


    Owning 90% of a market does not mean the market is saturated. How many billion people are there on the planet? Having another form factor is a good thing. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the mini outsells the full size iPad eventually.

  • Reply 138 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I've stated in the past, well before the iPad mini seemed like it could happen that Apple should "suck all the oxygen out of the room" by creating an environment where it owns the tablet market the way it owns the PMP market. It took them a long time to wrangle the PMP unit market share even though they were the only ones making profit for much longer but with the tablet market they had control of both out of the gate. With these cheap 7' tablets hitting the market they will lose unit market share which could, over a long period, chip away at their profits if the OS ad ecosystem on these devices become good enough.

    To me, this means that they should do everything they can to make this tablet market an iPad market for the foreseeable future. With 32nm and the 163 PPI display tech they aren't using I think it's possible to create a cost effective mini tablet — hopefully called iBook — that will only keep the Apple haters from buying one over a KIndle Fire or Galaxy S#17.

    PS: I'd say Amazon is the biggest long term threat here because of their low profit margin, popularity as an online store and media ecosystem. We can laugh that they barely profit from quarter to quarter but this is a major threat to Apple who might not be able to compete with Amazon on HW products even though Apple can leverage so much expertise and existing tech to make a product much, much lower than Amazon. Apple might actually have to reduce their profit margins in order to crush them. We don't often see that from Apple.


    I'm becoming more fond of the "iPad Air" moniker, especially since the focus, ostensibly, will be on thin, light, portable, and powerful. Some are saying that not adopting a Retina display in a smaller iPad would be a step back, as Apple is moving to Retina across al its mobile devices. They fail to note, however, that the MacBook Air has not adopted Retina. It is Apple's entry-level notebook, and a very, very good one-better than any one else's entry-level notebook. It could be quite a while before the MBA gets Retina, as the current display is good enough for its uses. App developers, design pros, and photo and video editors are getting Mac Pros, rMBPs or in some cases even iMacs If some one wants a better display and is willing to sacrifice weight/thickness and/or battery life, there's some other product for that. 


     


    I'm continually amazed by how some Apple-savvy tech bloggers state that Apple does not design around a price point. Such statements fly in the face of the reality of how Apple has structured their product class lineups. Apple knows what people are willing to pay for products given well-defined feature sets. They also understand the trade-offs that consumers are willing to accept if they know they are getting a best-in-class product. The cost of Retina on a MBA would simply be too high to hit a sub-$1,000 price point. Not to mention, the battery would need to be bigger, and thus the notebook would be a bit heavier. The perceived drawback of a missing feature (Retina) on the MBA is a win in that it demonstrates different use cases and allows for better differentiation between it and the MBP. Air owners have good reasons for not getting a MBP. There will be even more differentiation after the 13" MBP is released.


     


    The problem with the iBook moniker is largely, IMHO, that it would be perceived in the market not as a full-fledge iPad, but as a gimped eReader tablet. Apple is in the middle of a profoundly complex and precarious product transition across mobile devices. They are trying hard both to differentiate their product lineup while also providing as much functionality as possible within specific product classes. The MacBook Air achieves that with regard to the Retina MacBook Pro; an iPad Air will achieve that with respect to the iPad. A MBA or MBP and iPad Air or iPad would be a stroke of marketing genius, reflecting Apple's unique ability to reduce consumer confusion about its products and its drive to (re)emphasize simplicity in product offerings and naming schemes.

  • Reply 139 of 165
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    carthusia wrote: »
    I'm becoming more fond of the "iPad Air" moniker, especially since the focus, ostensibly, will be on thin, light, portable, and powerful. Some are saying that not adopting a Retina display in a smaller iPad would be a step back, as Apple is moving to Retina across al its mobile devices. They fail to note, however, that the MacBook Air has not adopted Retina. It is Apple's entry-level notebook, and a very, very good one-better than any one else's entry-level notebook. It could be quite a while before the MBA gets Retina, as the current display is good enough for its uses. App developers, design pros, and photo and video editors are getting Mac Pros, rMBPs or in some cases even iMacs If some one wants a better display and is willing to sacrifice weight/thickness and/or battery life, there's some other product for that. 

    I'm continually amazed by how some Apple-savvy tech bloggers state that Apple does not design around a price point. Such statements fly in the face of the reality of how Apple has structured their product class lineups. Apple knows what people are willing to pay for products given well-defined feature sets. They also understand the trade-offs that consumers are willing to accept if they know they are getting a best-in-class product. The cost of Retina on a MBA would simply be too high to hit a sub-$1,000 price point. Not to mention, the battery would need to be bigger, and thus the notebook would be a bit heavier. the perceived drawback of a missing feature Retina) on the MBA is a win in that it demonstrates different use cases and allows for better differentiation between it and the MBP. Air owners have good reasons for not getting a MBP. There will be even more differentiation after the 13" MBA is released.

    The problem with the iBook moniker is largely, IMHO, that it would be perceived in the market not as a full-fledge iPad, but as a gimped eReader tablet. Apple is in the middle of a profoundly complex and precarious product transition across mobile devices. They are trying hard both to differentiate their product lineup while also providing as much functionality as possible within specific product classes. The MacBook Air achieves that with regard to the Retina MacBook Pro; an iPad Air will achieve that with respect to the iPad. A MBA or MBP and iPad Air or iPad would be a stroke of marketing genius, reflecting Apple's unique ability to reduce consumer confusion about its products and its drive to (re)emphasize simplicity in product offerings and naming schemes.

    I agree with even reasoned comment you made. I like iPad Air better then iPad mini but like iBook even more, but I do agree that it could send the wrong message to buyers.
  • Reply 140 of 165
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

    The MacBook Air achieves that with regard to the Retina MacBook Pro; an iPad Air will achieve that with respect to the iPad. A MBA or MBP and iPad Air or iPad would be a stroke of marketing genius, reflecting Apple's unique ability to reduce consumer confusion about its products and its drive to (re)emphasize simplicity in product offerings and naming schemes.


    I can agree with that. If they named it Air then it could be built to lower specs and less expensive but it would likely not be a product I would buy. Personally I want an iPad exactly like the new one I already own just smaller.


     


    If the emphasis is on light weight, would you think they would go with in cell touch to eliminate a layer of glass?

Sign In or Register to comment.