You're taking the page and cutting it down to half its size. We could pretend it isn't a problem if the pixels were there to handle it, but they're also quartering the pixels. If the text doesn't get any smaller, things need reformatted. If the text gets smaller, it becomes potentially unreadable.
They aren't quartering the pixels. It has the same number of pixels as the iPad 2. It goes from 132 ppi to 163 ppi. Yes, the text gets smaller. Whether it severely impacts readability depends on your vision. Obviously for older folks bigger is better.
Of course they could change the resolution on us completely. /shrug That doesn't seem likely though.
Yes, if they're going the 8GB route just to match some price point. iPod Nano is 16GB, touch is 32GB OR 64GB. Offering an iPad with only 8GB makes no sense. I understand the "premium" for Apple quality/user experience/ecosystem, etc. But 8GB fills up fast. Textbooks and especially magazines take up a lot of space.
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything there and above will have a retina display. This shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display.
As with the 9.7" model, only the entry level model doesn't have the retina display.
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything 16GB and above will have a retina display (this shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display). As with the 9.7" iPad, only the entry level model doesn't have a retina display.
These prices look very plausible, assuming the 8GB model is the only one w/o a retina display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrsnoop
IF this is real, and IF it translates directly into dollars, I think the 249 for 8gb works out well. That makes a good browser/basic apps/reader platform price, and a 50 dollar "premium" for Apple is good. I'm a little surprised by a 100 dollar jump to 16gb though.
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything 16GB and above will have a retina display (this shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display). As with the 9.7" iPad, only the entry level model doesn't have a retina display.
These prices look very plausible, assuming the 8GB model is the only one w/o a retina display.
I think this is just too optimistic, I can't see retina minis until the next years refresh.
I think this is just too optimistic, I can't see retina minis until the next years refresh.
5 pages of comments and so many specifics over a table that someone could easily have faked. Has Apple even announced what the 23 October event is about? Has Apple even confirmed it's happening? All I've seen so far is rumours.
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything 16GB and above will have a retina display (this shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display). As with the 9.7" iPad, only the entry level model doesn't have a retina display.
These prices look very plausible, assuming the 8GB model is the only one w/o a retina display.
I'm thinking exactly the same.
Kind of old iPod touch, new one more expensive with better display, or iPad 2 and the new iPad, or if you think this was only because of keeping old generation hardware, the MacBookPro and the more expensive MacBookPro with retina display, released at the same time, same event.
I have many Apple products including the iPhone, the iPad, and the iMac. I am also a "serious" stockholder.
The Android threat is not perceived; it is real. Generally, I tend to side with Rogifan that an 8GB-device at $250 would be insulting. Apple is entering a new area with this new product, and they need go for the kill early. Not "testing the market" or whatever.
I do not yet know what the iPad mini will offer. I haven't seen it and haven't heard Phil's marketing. I do know what the Nexus offers. So, this is how I am making a judgment on the $250 price.
Like Dick Applebaum says, Apple has to show us what is the purpose of the iPad mini and what it can do.
Apple's strategy is to charge a premium for iOS and the ecosystem, better long-term value, and beautiful design. I seriously hope they aren't focusing on targeting the masses with a $250 price-point.
Today, from the rumors I've heard, a $250 iPad mini with 2-year old hardware and 8GB is a very bad idea.
Some of the pieces are in place: IGZO screens are manufactured by sharp, could mean retina display without the bigger energy consumption, and the A6 soc has the same GPU performance as the A5X that drives the new iPad with retina display.
Maybe not in big volumes, hence the 250$ non retina iPad mini..
The markup for additional flash storage is disgusting. E100 for an extra 8GB - so generous Apple. These must be placeholder prices the retailer has set rather than the actual Apple RRPs...
If not, I see a lot of people getting Nexus 7s and other alternatives instead, especially if they want more than 8GB.
I don't disagree entirely however there are still some unanswered questions that school boards need to understand. Apple is not presenting a comprehensive guideline for implementation which leaves IT managers for school districts with a lot of uncertainty. Do the parents own the device, does the classroom own the device, do the kids have the ability to check out the device for home use, does the device stay with the classroom the next year. Who's Apple ID is used to download content, etc.
What are the educational benefits of laptops/tablets in the elementary thru high school classroom? Are there studies that show significant improvement in test scores and/or knowledge retention? Is it more about saving money on hard-copy textbooks instead of significant learning improvements?
Google has been pushing their Chromebook education initiative since last year, getting 500+ school districts to sign on so far. It even answers most of your post questions. But Google, with all the research they have access to, apparently can't definitively show significant student benefits attributable directly to digital media delivery in the classroom. Perhaps there's some vetted studies out there somewhere that prove the value in both learning improvements and cost savings and just I hadn't found them yet. Please link some if anyone has them.
5 pages of comments and so many specifics over a table that someone could easily have faked. Has Apple even announced what the 23 October event is about? Has Apple even confirmed it's happening? All I've seen so far is rumours.
Microsoft is in a bind. They want to control their own destiny by making hardware as well as software, but can't afford to alienate their entire existing OEM base. It will be interesting to see if they're able to pull it off.
I have many Apple products including the iPhone, the iPad, and the iMac. I am also a "serious" stockholder.
The Android threat is not perceived; it is real. Generally, I tend to side with Rogifan that an 8GB-device at $250 would be insulting. Apple is entering a new area with this new product, and they need go for the kill early. Not "testing the market" or whatever.
I do not yet know what the iPad mini will offer. I haven't seen it and haven't heard Phil's marketing. I do know what the Nexus offers. So, this is how I am making a judgment on the $250 price.
Like Dick Applebaum says, Apple has to show us what is the purpose of the iPad mini and what it can do.
Apple's strategy is to charge a premium for iOS and the ecosystem, better long-term value, and beautiful design. I seriously hope they aren't focusing on targeting the masses with a $250 price-point.
Today, from the rumors I've heard, a $250 iPad mini with 2-year old hardware and 8GB is a very bad idea.
That's ridiculous. The Nexus 7 is $249 for 8 GB. So if Apple matches the competitor's price, that's insulting? Even though Apple has a better ecosystem, better customer satisfaction, and a better OS? For years, we hear about how evil Apple is when their products are more expensive than the competition, but now they're evil (or, at least, insulting) if they match the competition?
Yes, there are cheaper tablets out there, but most of them are junk compared to the iPad. Apple isn't competing with Etch-a-sketch, either.
I really wish the whiners would disappear. Nothing Apple could ever do would make them happy.
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything 16GB and above will have a retina display (this shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display). As with the 9.7" iPad, only the entry level model doesn't have a retina display.
These prices look very plausible, assuming the 8GB model is the only one w/o a retina display.
It's possible that they use the same 326 PPI panels from the touch in the $349 mini but I'd be concerned about yields. They're likely to be volume constrained this XMas for at least one of the product lines. They are currently running a 2 week delay on the iPods as is. Given the choice I would constrain the iPod yields and max out the iPad mini builds.
$299 for the 32GB touch to the $349 16GB iPad makes sense as does a $250 entry model. The only other concern is whether the stock A5 is going to be fast enough to drive a retina iPad. They may opt for the A5 from the iPod in the $250 model and the A5X in any retina ones.
That's one hell of a price drop from the iPad 3 at $499 to the iPad mini at $349 and in a smaller form factor. Possible but I'd expect a huge margin hit and a much earlier iPad 4 refresh with an A6 to justify the price premium and no mini refresh until 2014 to get back into the iPad cycle.
That's ridiculous. The Nexus 7 is $249 for 8 GB. So if Apple matches the competitor's price, that's insulting?
$199 but a $50 premium is an easy sell IMHO. $100 premium fir the 16GB a little harder but still viable. What would be tough is if the 32GB Nexus 7 replaces the 16GB at $250 as rumored.
What people miss is this. Google can subsidise cheap manufactured products with its search sales, Apple is a manufacturing company.
It can subsidise however, it subsidises the low end models with the higher end. For a tiny amount of extra memory you spend 100 dollars. And again. And again. People of moderate income go for the middle range, people of higher income buy the top range. The rest of us buy the lower end models. The margins are somewhere in the middle, and healthy enough. This can mean - although they rarely do this - that they can forgo all margins on the lower end device and still make margin overall.
Does the size matter? Not as much as some would suggest. As a consumption device all tablets have too little memory. You cant save more than a few HD movies even on the top end device. What people are forgetting is that Apple seem to have allowed streaming of Video in the latest iTunes - which will probably be also announced to ship at the 23rd - at the launch of the iPhone, they demoed that you can start on the iPad, and finish on the Mac, or Mac to Mac.
With iCloud, you can access your content on all your devices. And now, when you buy an album, song, movie, or TV show on any device, it’s instantly accessible in your iTunes library on your Mac or PC. Just double-click to play. Or if you’re going offline — say, taking your notebook on a plane — click the new Download button and bring a copy with you.
Thats worded so that something bought - and downloaded - on a "Device" can then be played on a Mac, or PC.
I would guess that they will announce on the 23rd that it also works the other way, start to - or maybe finish - a download on a Mac and you can stream on an iPad. Which means that any downloaded purchased can then be streamed anywhere else, so load up on the Mac before you travel, and keep space for some you may download on the go. It would mean you could download the entire season two of Homeland on a Mac, and then its available on the iPad.
The only reason why not would be it might reduce the consumer desire for higher end models, which means they may have other differentiators, like retina on some models, 3G, LTE on others. Which is what we are seeing. That iTunes announcement, missed by most people apparently, is very important.
FYI the 8GB Nexus7 is $199, The 32GB Nexus will probably be the closest in price to the 8GB iPad Mini, in the $250-$275 range.. Of course prices for either are yet to be confirmed.
Like Dick Applebaum says, Apple has to show us what is the purpose of the iPad mini and what it can do.
When you give a 10" iPad to a kid, it's clear what the benefit of an 8" tablet is:
If it comes in $150 cheaper than the $399 iPad 2, it's a much bigger incentive for budget consumers who just want to read their kids digital books, play basic games or movies to keep them entertained.
They can be used as in-car 'DVD players' too without any additional effort. Just put a holder in the car and slot it in. It can charge off the cigarette lighter when needed but would last a long time on battery anyway. You can load it up with kids TV shows.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You're taking the page and cutting it down to half its size. We could pretend it isn't a problem if the pixels were there to handle it, but they're also quartering the pixels. If the text doesn't get any smaller, things need reformatted. If the text gets smaller, it becomes potentially unreadable.
They aren't quartering the pixels. It has the same number of pixels as the iPad 2. It goes from 132 ppi to 163 ppi. Yes, the text gets smaller. Whether it severely impacts readability depends on your vision. Obviously for older folks bigger is better.
Of course they could change the resolution on us completely. /shrug That doesn't seem likely though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Yes, if they're going the 8GB route just to match some price point. iPod Nano is 16GB, touch is 32GB OR 64GB. Offering an iPad with only 8GB makes no sense. I understand the "premium" for Apple quality/user experience/ecosystem, etc. But 8GB fills up fast. Textbooks and especially magazines take up a lot of space.
De cloud, boss... de iCloud...!
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything there and above will have a retina display. This shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display.
As with the 9.7" model, only the entry level model doesn't have the retina display.
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything 16GB and above will have a retina display (this shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display). As with the 9.7" iPad, only the entry level model doesn't have a retina display.
These prices look very plausible, assuming the 8GB model is the only one w/o a retina display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrsnoop
IF this is real, and IF it translates directly into dollars, I think the 249 for 8gb works out well. That makes a good browser/basic apps/reader platform price, and a 50 dollar "premium" for Apple is good. I'm a little surprised by a 100 dollar jump to 16gb though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVX
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything 16GB and above will have a retina display (this shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display). As with the 9.7" iPad, only the entry level model doesn't have a retina display.
These prices look very plausible, assuming the 8GB model is the only one w/o a retina display.
I think this is just too optimistic, I can't see retina minis until the next years refresh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by festerfeet
I think this is just too optimistic, I can't see retina minis until the next years refresh.
5 pages of comments and so many specifics over a table that someone could easily have faked. Has Apple even announced what the 23 October event is about? Has Apple even confirmed it's happening? All I've seen so far is rumours.
Interesting take on where Microsoft is going with the Surface here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100008016/on-the-eve-of-the-ipad-mini-microsoft-admit-that-apple-was-right/ – I'm even more skeptical that that will go anywhere.
Moderator, please delete, double post
Quote:
Originally posted by DVX:
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything 16GB and above will have a retina display (this shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display). As with the 9.7" iPad, only the entry level model doesn't have a retina display.
These prices look very plausible, assuming the 8GB model is the only one w/o a retina display.
I'm thinking exactly the same.
Kind of old iPod touch, new one more expensive with better display, or iPad 2 and the new iPad, or if you think this was only because of keeping old generation hardware, the MacBookPro and the more expensive MacBookPro with retina display, released at the same time, same event.
I have many Apple products including the iPhone, the iPad, and the iMac. I am also a "serious" stockholder.
The Android threat is not perceived; it is real. Generally, I tend to side with Rogifan that an 8GB-device at $250 would be insulting. Apple is entering a new area with this new product, and they need go for the kill early. Not "testing the market" or whatever.
I do not yet know what the iPad mini will offer. I haven't seen it and haven't heard Phil's marketing. I do know what the Nexus offers. So, this is how I am making a judgment on the $250 price.
Like Dick Applebaum says, Apple has to show us what is the purpose of the iPad mini and what it can do.
Apple's strategy is to charge a premium for iOS and the ecosystem, better long-term value, and beautiful design. I seriously hope they aren't focusing on targeting the masses with a $250 price-point.
Today, from the rumors I've heard, a $250 iPad mini with 2-year old hardware and 8GB is a very bad idea.
Some of the pieces are in place: IGZO screens are manufactured by sharp, could mean retina display without the bigger energy consumption, and the A6 soc has the same GPU performance as the A5X that drives the new iPad with retina display.
Maybe not in big volumes, hence the 250$ non retina iPad mini..
If not, I see a lot of people getting Nexus 7s and other alternatives instead, especially if they want more than 8GB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I don't disagree entirely however there are still some unanswered questions that school boards need to understand. Apple is not presenting a comprehensive guideline for implementation which leaves IT managers for school districts with a lot of uncertainty. Do the parents own the device, does the classroom own the device, do the kids have the ability to check out the device for home use, does the device stay with the classroom the next year. Who's Apple ID is used to download content, etc.
What are the educational benefits of laptops/tablets in the elementary thru high school classroom? Are there studies that show significant improvement in test scores and/or knowledge retention? Is it more about saving money on hard-copy textbooks instead of significant learning improvements?
Google has been pushing their Chromebook education initiative since last year, getting 500+ school districts to sign on so far. It even answers most of your post questions. But Google, with all the research they have access to, apparently can't definitively show significant student benefits attributable directly to digital media delivery in the classroom. Perhaps there's some vetted studies out there somewhere that prove the value in both learning improvements and cost savings and just I hadn't found them yet. Please link some if anyone has them.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Google-s-Chromebooks-making-big-school-push-2685156.php#page-2
http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/25/chromebooks-education-500-school-districts/
Microsoft is in a bind. They want to control their own destiny by making hardware as well as software, but can't afford to alienate their entire existing OEM base. It will be interesting to see if they're able to pull it off.
That's ridiculous. The Nexus 7 is $249 for 8 GB. So if Apple matches the competitor's price, that's insulting? Even though Apple has a better ecosystem, better customer satisfaction, and a better OS? For years, we hear about how evil Apple is when their products are more expensive than the competition, but now they're evil (or, at least, insulting) if they match the competition?
Yes, there are cheaper tablets out there, but most of them are junk compared to the iPad. Apple isn't competing with Etch-a-sketch, either.
I really wish the whiners would disappear. Nothing Apple could ever do would make them happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVX
The price jump from 8GB to 16GB shouldn't be such a mystery, everything 16GB and above will have a retina display (this shouldn't be a surprise, Apple wants everyone to use a retina display). As with the 9.7" iPad, only the entry level model doesn't have a retina display.
These prices look very plausible, assuming the 8GB model is the only one w/o a retina display.
It's possible that they use the same 326 PPI panels from the touch in the $349 mini but I'd be concerned about yields. They're likely to be volume constrained this XMas for at least one of the product lines. They are currently running a 2 week delay on the iPods as is. Given the choice I would constrain the iPod yields and max out the iPad mini builds.
$299 for the 32GB touch to the $349 16GB iPad makes sense as does a $250 entry model. The only other concern is whether the stock A5 is going to be fast enough to drive a retina iPad. They may opt for the A5 from the iPod in the $250 model and the A5X in any retina ones.
That's one hell of a price drop from the iPad 3 at $499 to the iPad mini at $349 and in a smaller form factor. Possible but I'd expect a huge margin hit and a much earlier iPad 4 refresh with an A6 to justify the price premium and no mini refresh until 2014 to get back into the iPad cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's ridiculous. The Nexus 7 is $249 for 8 GB. So if Apple matches the competitor's price, that's insulting?
$199 but a $50 premium is an easy sell IMHO. $100 premium fir the 16GB a little harder but still viable. What would be tough is if the 32GB Nexus 7 replaces the 16GB at $250 as rumored.
What people miss is this. Google can subsidise cheap manufactured products with its search sales, Apple is a manufacturing company.
It can subsidise however, it subsidises the low end models with the higher end. For a tiny amount of extra memory you spend 100 dollars. And again. And again. People of moderate income go for the middle range, people of higher income buy the top range. The rest of us buy the lower end models. The margins are somewhere in the middle, and healthy enough. This can mean - although they rarely do this - that they can forgo all margins on the lower end device and still make margin overall.
Does the size matter? Not as much as some would suggest. As a consumption device all tablets have too little memory. You cant save more than a few HD movies even on the top end device. What people are forgetting is that Apple seem to have allowed streaming of Video in the latest iTunes - which will probably be also announced to ship at the 23rd - at the launch of the iPhone, they demoed that you can start on the iPad, and finish on the Mac, or Mac to Mac.
From here:
With iCloud, you can access your content on all your devices. And now, when you buy an album, song, movie, or TV show on any device, it’s instantly accessible in your iTunes library on your Mac or PC. Just double-click to play. Or if you’re going offline — say, taking your notebook on a plane — click the new Download button and bring a copy with you.
Thats worded so that something bought - and downloaded - on a "Device" can then be played on a Mac, or PC.
I would guess that they will announce on the 23rd that it also works the other way, start to - or maybe finish - a download on a Mac and you can stream on an iPad. Which means that any downloaded purchased can then be streamed anywhere else, so load up on the Mac before you travel, and keep space for some you may download on the go. It would mean you could download the entire season two of Homeland on a Mac, and then its available on the iPad.
The only reason why not would be it might reduce the consumer desire for higher end models, which means they may have other differentiators, like retina on some models, 3G, LTE on others. Which is what we are seeing. That iTunes announcement, missed by most people apparently, is very important.
I was judging by Amazon pricing:
http://www.amazon.com/Asus-Google-Nexus-Tablet-Quad-core/dp/B008J6VYUC/
but I'm sure the prices will vary with different retailers.
I agree but not being Retina quality will help. I think the resolution will be 1136 x 768, which will still look very sharp on a smaller screen.
When you give a 10" iPad to a kid, it's clear what the benefit of an 8" tablet is:
If it comes in $150 cheaper than the $399 iPad 2, it's a much bigger incentive for budget consumers who just want to read their kids digital books, play basic games or movies to keep them entertained.
They can be used as in-car 'DVD players' too without any additional effort. Just put a holder in the car and slot it in. It can charge off the cigarette lighter when needed but would last a long time on battery anyway. You can load it up with kids TV shows.