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

1234568

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 165
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    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?

    Of all the things that are new (read: cost more) floating around I think that is a possibility. I think a lot of things had to line up for what I assume is a very lightweight, one-handed tablet to be a reality so in-cell in stead of separate layers, 32nm instead of 45nm had to possible. However, of those two I think the 32nm is the most important as the smaller process will save a lot more on weight with the smaller battery than the very thin layer of the touch matrix. I think it helps mostly with thickness so it's not a primary factor for making this work

    I also expect an iPod Touch-like look with colors, WiFi-only, A5, and Gorilla Glass 2.


    PS: I can think of several people that would likely be a great fit for this concept but I'm not one of them.
  • Reply 142 of 165
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I think the 32nm is the most important as the smaller process will save a lot more on weight with the smaller battery than the very thin layer of the touch matrix. I think it helps mostly with thickness so it's not a primary factor for making this work

     


    If the extra glass of matrix layer is very thin how does removing it primarily help reduce the thickness?

  • Reply 143 of 165
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    If the extra glass of matrix layer is very thin how does removing it primarily help reduce the thickness?
    Because there is the layer and the protective layer between it and the display. It's not much thickness — I think GG2 and adhering it to the glass does more for making it thin than the in-cell design does — but it does have thickness so this will make it thinner, if they use it.
  • Reply 144 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    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?



    I think that given their emphasis on economies of scale, using in-touch techniques on an iPad Air, even if it not needed, will drive the costs of that panel tech down further and more quickly. But I have no idea how much that layer adds to the cost.

  • Reply 145 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    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?



    Very many consumers will feel the same way as you about a smaller non-Retina iPad. That says a lot about how this product differentiation thing plays out; there simply are different market segments. So, you know, Apple is answering a key question of how to respond to the needs of the total addressable market without undue fragmentation. Someone who must have a Retina iPad may also be someone who needs a rMBP.


     


    I would place a small bet that those who shun MBAs because of the display and power limitations would also shun a non-Retina small iPad. And others, like myself, would choose a smaller, lower-cost notebook in the MBA (to wit, you'll never see a 15" MBA) and a smaller thinner, lower cost non-Retina iPad.


     


    I'd also place a small bet that as the MBA currently outsells MBPs (and will do so even after the 13" MBP ships), an iPad Air will outsell all current models of the 9.7" iPad-for many of the same reasons.

  • Reply 146 of 165
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post



    Very many consumers will feel the same way as you about a smaller non-Retina iPad. That says a lot about how this product differentiation thing plays out; there simply are different market segments. So, you know, Apple is answering a key question of how to respond to the needs of the total addressable market without undue fragmentation. Someone who must have a Retina iPad may also be someone who needs a rMBP.


     


    I would place a small bet that those who shun MBAs because of the display and power limitations would also shun a non-Retina small iPad. And others, like myself, would choose a smaller, lower-cost notebook in the MBA (to wit, you'll never see a 15" MBA) and a smaller thinner, lower cost non-Retina iPad.


     


    I'd also place a small bet that as the MBA currently outsells MBPs (and will do so even after the 13" MBP ships), an iPad Air will outsell all current models of the 9.7" iPad-for many of the same reasons.



    You may be right. For example when the Air was first introduced, it was really expensive and targeted at jet setters. It really did not sell well at all until they stripped it down, plastic non backlit keyboard and lowered the price. Then it started selling well but not to the original target market, but instead mostly as an entry level notebook, especially after they discontinued the plastic MacBook.

  • Reply 147 of 165


    If Apple does not introduce new Mac computers on the 23rd of october, i'm going to buy a Windows computer... I have waited way to long for a iMac upgrade and i'm not sure if i can wait any longer!

  • Reply 148 of 165


    Originally Posted by Husbocken View Post

    If Apple does not introduce new Mac computers on the 23rd of october, i'm going to buy a Windows computer... I have waited way to long for a iMac upgrade and i'm not sure if i can wait any longer!


     


    That's complete nonsense. Buy an iMac available now. There's no reason or explanation for buying Windows, particularly with 8 existing, when you can just get an iMac.

  • Reply 149 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Husbocken View Post


    If Apple does not introduce new Mac computers on the 23rd of october, i'm going to buy a Windows computer... I have waited way to long for a iMac upgrade and i'm not sure if i can wait any longer!



    I am sure they will rush the iMacs out the door just for you. 


     


    Buy a windblows machine, good rid dens 

  • Reply 150 of 165
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    They're not supposed to be for the same people. That's not a question to be asked.



    Not the point I was trying to make, which is that at $299 the Touch is too close to a smart phone in price and it's capabilities (minus the phone, obviously) while the Mini is offering something different.  At this point even school kids have smartphones.  If they need a better pocket sized media player it's unlikely they'll consider the new Touch an option.  It does more than they need for twice they need to pay.  If someone needs what it does the first thing they'll likely think is "I can spend a bit more and get a ton more for it".  I'd think the niche for the new Touch (for what it does at that price) is far smaller than that of the iPad mini which is looking to be the closest thing in price among iPods and iPads.


     


    I don't question Apple's venturing into a smaller sub $350 iPad in the least.  To me it's no-brainer/nothing to lose deal.  I do think putting out a $299 iPod Touch at this juncture is a pretty dubious call.

  • Reply 151 of 165
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post


    I'm becoming more fond of the "iPad Air" moniker,


     



     


    Yah, that is a lot better than the iPad Mini.


     


     


    Quote:





    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. 





     


    Oh yeah.  Apple's lineup is as carefully engineered as their products and price is a significant factor.


     


    In any case, looking at the iPod lineup clearly demonstrates that Apple can and will design to a price point with smaller and less capable devices.

  • Reply 152 of 165
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    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.


     



     


    For fun I tried fitting my Kindle Fire in my jeans pocket.  I'm not small but also not a fatty (34 waist) and it fits.  It's certainly not something you're going to do but it's perfectly reasonable for a jacket or sweatshirt pocket.


     


    So it's a LOT more portable than the "real" iPad, especially if as thin as the iPod touch.

  • Reply 153 of 165


    Originally Posted by nht View Post

    It's certainly not something you're going to do…


     


    Exactly. There you go. You've just answered it.


     


    This iPad mini? It's even wider than a Kindle. It's not going anywhere except in your hand.

  • Reply 154 of 165
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Exactly. There you go. You've just answered it.


     


    This iPad mini? It's even wider than a Kindle. It's not going anywhere except in your hand.



     


    You have a hard time accepting reality.  


     


    Fact: neither the PSP nor 3DS really fits in jeans pockets either but kids carry them around everywhere anyway in jackets, sweatshirts, backpacks, and yes even in their hands if they have to.


    Fact: 7" tablets fit in many pockets.


    Fact: 7" tablets fit in purses better than 10" tablets.


     


    Opinion: 7" tablets are better for movies and gaming than smartphone sized devices. 


     


    Prediction: a 7" iPad Air will sell like gangbusters at whatever price Apple sets proving you wrong yet again.


     


    Don't put words in my mouth.

  • Reply 155 of 165
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    nht wrote: »
    You have a hard time accepting reality.  

    Fact: neither the PSP nor 3DS really fits in jeans pockets either but kids carry them around everywhere anyway in jackets, sweatshirts, backpacks, and yes even in their hands if they have to.
    Fact: 7" tablets fit in many pockets.
    Fact: 7" tablets fit in purses better than 10" tablets.

    Opinion: 7" tablets are better for movies and gaming than smartphone sized devices. 

    Prediction: a 7" iPad Air will sell like gangbusters at whatever price Apple sets proving you wrong yet again.

    Don't put words in my mouth.

    You can't simply use a diagonal measure to indicate a standard width. Most 7" tablets are 16:9, the iPad is 4:3 so even at 7" it's wider than the completion but going to 7.85 makes it much wider.

    The only solution would be to assume a 16:9 like the new iPod Touch with would result in icons about the same size upscaled as the 7.85" 4:3 tablet downscaled from the current iPad.
  • Reply 156 of 165


    Originally Posted by nht View Post

    You have a hard time accepting reality.


     


    Really? You know how the iPad mini fits into pockets since you've tried out all the 4:3 7.85" tablets on the market? All none of them, that is.


     



    …yes even in their hands if they have to.



     


    Sounds like the iPad right now, then.


     



    Prediction: a 7" iPad Air will sell like gangbusters at whatever price Apple sets proving you wrong yet again.



     


    I'm not sure how I can be proven wrong through its sales. Sales ? quality, or even a situationally subjective 'best' solution.

  • Reply 157 of 165
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    You can't simply use a diagonal measure to indicate a standard width. Most 7" tablets are 16:9, the iPad is 4:3 so even at 7" it's wider than the completion but going to 7.85 makes it much wider.

    The only solution would be to assume a 16:9 like the new iPod Touch with would result in icons about the same size upscaled as the 7.85" 4:3 tablet downscaled from the current iPad.


     


    A blue ray case is wider than the kindle and fits too.  Standard jeans...nothing special about these pockets.


     


    The point is that the assertion that a 7" tablet is no more portable than a 10" tablet is clearly false.  It fits in a lot more pockets and is a lot more portable.

  • Reply 158 of 165


    Originally Posted by nht View Post

    The point is that the assertion that a 7" tablet is no more portable than a 10" tablet is clearly false.  It fits in a lot more pockets and is a lot more portable.


     


    It isn't "clearly" false!


     


    "I have to carry this in my hand, just like the big one."

    "Wear a jacket. Fits in a jacket."

    "This is Dallas, and it's June."

    "Wear a jacket. Fits in a jacket."


     


    "I have to carry this in my hand, just like the big one."


    "Put it in your purse."


    "I'm a guy."


    "Put it in your purse."


     


    Alternatively: 


     


    "My purse isn't big enough for it. I like the purse I have."


    "Put it in your purse."


     


    'Wear more clothes' is not an acceptable solution to the problem of portability.

  • Reply 159 of 165
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Really? You know how the iPad mini fits into pockets since you've tried out all the 4:3 7.85" tablets on the market? All none of them, that is.



     


    I've shown that 7" tablets are generally pocketable in a variety of pockets including jeans pockets.  It is up to you to show that the iPad Air is not more pocketable than a full sized iPad.  


     


    Which you can't.


     


    I can show that the iPad Air can be about the same size as the Kindle Fire.


     


    Step 1:  Go here and download the paper template for the iPad Mini:  http://www.macstories.net/news/get-a-sense-of-what-a-7-85-ipad-mini-would-be-like/


    Step 2:  Trim the side bezels to 1/8" which results in a 7.85" iPad Air that is about 5" x 7.75". Or about a 1/4" wider and 1/4" taller than the Kindle Fire.  For reference, a Blu-Ray case is wider than the iPad Air mockup by 3/8" (and of course much shorter).


     


    If it is as thin as the iPod Touch (i.e. much thinner than the Fire) then it would likely fit in my pocket as well or better than the Fire.   


     


     


    It also looks pretty much like a 16:9 7" tablet.  In portrait mode I can hold my Kindle Fire one handed and not actually touch the top of the screen in any way.  So thin side bezels are viable just like on the phone (1/8" to edge of the glass on the iPhone 4..a little more to the edge of the phone.  My iPhone 5 is in a case and harder to measure).


     


    Cut one out for yourself.


     


    Quote:


    Sounds like the iPad right now, then.




     


    Stop being an jerk and repeatedly taking my words out of context.  Either refute them or bugger off.

  • Reply 160 of 165


    Originally Posted by nut View Post

    …refute them…


     


    You're agreeing with me. What would I refute?

Sign In or Register to comment.