Yeah, I was surprised too... Originally I was going to attribute it to Bauhaus, but decided to look it up... the Mies Van Der Rohe reference makes sense... but Robert Browning?
That reminded me of something I learned in HS English:
All this makes me think that Apple won't release an 8 GB iPad Mini unless they're prepared to emasculate iOS.
Especially since the smallest iPod Touch is 16 GB (4th or 5th generation).
I posted this earlier... now, I'm not so sure of the 8 GB model.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Here are some configurations and numbers to play with.
Underlined are the sweet spot configurations.
It is assumed that there is value to continue to offer the iPad 2 as a full-size mid priced tablet for education, special enterprise needs that are price sensitive.
The Nexus 7 has 240 ppi. I'm hoping that the iPad mini gets IGZO at 217 ppi and the devs will just have to deal with another layout which is what you were saying earlier would be necessary anyway just because of the physical dimensions.
It's possible. You know, I'm torn over this. I hate the idea of fragmentation. At some point, Apple will do more to change things, as things advance. But I don't like to see it too close together so that we have large numbers of old devices still out there. Apple waited to have three phones out with 960x640 before they added another size, and discontinues the old screen phone at the same time.
They have two screen resolutions out now. I would expect them to wait until the old one is gone first.
False. The touch points have a minimum size of 44x44 points if they meet the HIG. A 44x44 point button will be the exact same physical size on the new iPad mini as they are on the iPhone. If a 44 point button is unusable on the Mini then it would be likewise unusable on the iPhone and the HIG is broken.
A 44x44 point button on the 10" iPad would be 19% larger. Likewise the same font will be 19% larger on the iPad than the iPad mini. It is NOT twice as large.
There are many sites that have UI mockups of the 7.85" iPad. I suggest you look at the mockups on your existing iPad to see what the mini UI will look like.
Note that the font remains highly readable and the layout doesn't change. Ignore the slight fuzziness as it will not exist on the real iPad mini and is an artifact of his resizing the iPad UIs down to the 7.85" size.
If you don't have an iPad and would like to see on paper there are printable mockups here:
As the summation agrees with what I've been saying, I don't understand why you disagree.
Unless the app recognized the mini as a smaller device with the same resolution as the iPad 2, and changes the layout to match the smaller size, everything will be smaller by the percentage of the screen size, boxes, text, pictures, etc. the same layout will be smaller.
While much of that will be fine, a fair amount won't. But it will be worse if the mini had a retina screen. On my retina iPad, details are much finer. Most of that would be lost on a retina mini. It would simply be too fine to see. Again, unless its redone for the smaller screen size.
I understand all you've been saying here, but much of it is flat out wrong, because the devices are assumed to be a certain resolution at a specific size. When designed, the UI's are designed for that size. This is exactly why Apple quadrupled the number of pixels on the phone and tablet. With a smaller screen, everything will be smaller. I'll say it a thousand times if required. The standards only app,y when used at the no inal screen size. Once a different screen size is used, those size standards go out the window.
I understand that selection boxes will be fine, and they are sized the same as the original iPhone had them, and doubling the Rez has no effect, because the developers have accommodated that already. But their are many other elements that have been developed just for the retina display that can't be used at a lower resolution, either at all, or well.
A lot of this is lure convenience. I have books with formulary inside. Previously, I continually had to double tap them to read them, because the detail was lost in the more coarse screen. Now, I can read them without tapping, but they are still small, and a lot of the Greek letters used in the formula's are difficult to render. Cut that size down, and again, I'll have to double tap, because they will be sharp, but too small to read.
My main argument here is not about a mini iPad, which I'm for, but for a retina screen mini, which at this time, I think will be too expensive, and too soon for developers to take into account, as they will now have three different things to develop for. When Apple discontinues the iPad 2, the time will be right.
So your position is that retina doesn't matter? Mkay.
I disagree. And I believe that retina is worth paying a little more.
If this is not the case then why buy the iPad 3 over the iPad 2?
Also if you print out the paper mockups and trim down the side bezels down to iPhone side bezel size the result is a device around 1/4" taller and 1/4" wider than the original Kindle Fire. That's a much handier device than the iPad 2.
I never said that it doesn't matter. I've said that it would cost too much to make now, if we're looking at a really competitive price, and notice that Google just announced, no doubt because of the mini, a Nexus 7 tablet for $249 with 32GB flash.
I'm also saying that I don't think all the fragmentation that will occurs is great, but with a 1024x768 tablet, the problem will be less, for now. I would expect that next year, we could see a retina mini.
It's fine. The iPad is a digital device which means you don't need the same area as pre-printed text and images book. You can change the layout to have plenty of text and then click what is essentially a thumbnail that will open into a 3D model of molecule for Biology, show you an animation of a pulley for Physics, show you a clip of the Hindenburg burning for History, etc. Would a larger iPad be better? Sure, but it's also more expensive. Schools use "PC" screens that were smaller than the TV screens we have at home but that doesn't mean they couldn't be learning tools.
What you're suggesting for a textbook sucks. Sorry to say that, but it does. That's not the concept behind textbook information retrieval. I've been working with this for a long time in K-12. For college, it's one thing, but as you move down in grade, ease of use becomes paramount. The less the student needs to do to see the information, the better, the more they have to click on, the less they will click on.
<p id="user_yui_3_5_1_1_1350429005800_1038" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">Sometimes you make up the silliest claims Mel. Remember why Google supposedly moved so quickly to make Moto a buyout offer, and offered so much? Moto was reportedly planning IP suits against others including Android licensees, and MS was a rumored suitor. You somehow make a leap of logic to come up with Motorola suing others as Google's proxy?? </p>
<p id="user_yui_3_5_1_1_1350429005800_1031" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">You also conveniently ignore Motorola dropping the only IP case started against a competitor since Google took over, in this case Apple, which would be possible evidence of Google's sincerity. You're not very convincing. </p>
Oh please! Google simply didn't want anyone to buy Motorola because they wanted all those patents, most of which seem worthless to them. No one else would have bought Motorola if Google didn't pay far more than they were worth. And you seem to love rumors. No one knows why Motorola dropped the case. Assumptions abound. L e is that they didn't think they could win. The other is that app,e and Google are negotiation so e settlement. You can be sure it wasn't because they were being good hearted.
Of all the big companies, Google is the only that refused to promise that they wouldn't use FRAND patents to sue other companies, or to try to use them for product I junctions. Both the EU and the US government have expressed their unease over that, Nd indeed, in the EU, Motorola is being investigated, with Samsung, over this very issue. They may be investigated here over it as well.
If Google wanted to, they could stop all the lawsuits, and take the high road. But they're not, and so they won't.
Oh, and they coulalso drop their exclusive page turn patent license they get from Stanford, and let Stanford license it to all their competitors.
Of course, we've been over this already, but I like the numbering scheme. What are we going to call the iPad next year? The New New iPad? The New iPad version 2? The Second New iPad? The iPad 2013?
Of all the big companies, Google is the only that refused to promise that they wouldn't use FRAND patents to sue other companies, or to try to use them for product I junctions. Both the EU and the US government have expressed their unease over that, Nd indeed, in the EU, Motorola is being investigated, with Samsung, over this very issue. They may be investigated here over it as well.
Not true at all Mel. In fact Nokia comes to mind right away with their most recent statement at the UN supporting injunctions over SEP infringement when necessary. You also (again conveniently?) forget that Nokia wanted an injunction on Apple devices using FRAND infringement claims, pressuring Apple into a settlement last year. Qualcomm is another who very recently reiterated that taking SEP injunctions off the table was a bad idea. And you're well aware, or should be, that Rockstar, Core Wireless, Mosaid and a couple of other so-called patent trolls are attacking other tech players using, even leasing, FRAND-pledged IP transferred from the likes of Apple, Microsoft and Nokia. Those are real proxies doing the dirty work so they can make half-truth pledges.
But it is revealing that you consider investigations by government agencies to be proof enough of wrongdoing as far as you're concerned. That way I know what side you're standing on when Apple comes under a Justice Dept. or EU microscope. . .
or could that only apply when it's NOT Apple. We both know the answer to that don't we.
Anyway, rather than hijack this thread any further why not start a new thread and I'll be happy to get more into detail if you wish. Or don't if you'd rather not.
Next year's iPad is "the new iPad". This year's iPad becomes "iPad". It's not difficult to imagine.
No, this year's iPad becomes last year's iPad. But what after that? It does get confusing, esp. after a few years. Then we start saying; "You know, the iPad from two years ago."
That's what I said. I don't get why you don't understand the naming.
In the store, you'll see "the new iPad". The product's name will be 'iPad'. You'll also see "iPad" in the store. That's the model released the previous year. The name of that product is also iPad. Delineated by the year of introduction.
The existence of the iPad mini probably even throws out the idea of having two iPads available at once, much less three, so that's not even a concern. If it were, it'd just be iPad, iPad, and the new iPad in the store (in a hypothetical situation years down the road). For next year, it would have been iPad 2, iPad, and the new iPad. That's no more difficult to figure out than what "G" and "S" and "GS" mean.
Not true at all Mel. In fact Nokia comes to mind right away with their most recent statement at the UN supporting injunctions over SEP infringement when necessary. You also (again conveniently?) forget that Nokia wanted an injunction on Apple devices using FRAND infringement claims, pressuring Apple into a settlement last year. Qualcomm is another who very recently reiterated that taking SEP injunctions off the table was a bad idea. And you're well aware, or should be, that Rockstar, Core Wireless, Mosaid and a couple of other so-called patent trolls are attacking other tech players using, even leasing, FRAND-pledged IP transferred from the likes of Apple, Microsoft and Nokia. Those are real proxies doing the dirty work so they can make half-truth pledges.
But it is revealing that you consider investigations by government agencies to be proof enough of wrongdoing as far as you're concerned. That way I know what side you're standing on when Apple comes under a Justice Dept. or EU microscope. . .
or could that only apply when it's NOT Apple. We both know the answer to that don't we.
Anyway, rather than hijack this thread any further why not start a new thread and I'll be happy to get more into detail if you wish. Or don't if you'd rather not.
Nokia had Claims other than FRAND against Apple. Nokia has made statements agreeing that FRAND patents should be taken off the tablet. I do t know about Qualcomm. As far as patent trolls go, yes, I'm aware, but I wasn't including them with actual manufacturers.
That's what I said. I don't get why you don't understand the naming.
In the store, you'll see "the new iPad". The product's name will be 'iPad'. You'll also see "iPad" in the store. That's the model released the previous year. The name of that product is also iPad. Delineated by the year of introduction.
The existence of the iPad mini probably even throws out the idea of having two iPads available at once, much less three, so that's not even a concern. If it were, it'd just be iPad, iPad, and the new iPad in the store (in a hypothetical situation years down the road). For next year, it would have been iPad 2, iPad, and the new iPad. That's no more difficult to figure out than what "G" and "S" and "GS" mean.
You said that last year's iPad becomes just the iPad.
Comments
A qestion for the ages: Is the wing on the bird, or is the bird on the wing?
Lemme think about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Lemme think about that.
Would you like me to search the web for:
"Is the wing on the bird, or is the bird on the wing?"
~Siri
I've been doing some information gathering re the size of iOS on various devices:
iPad 1: 64 GB - 58.1 GB Available == 5.9 GB iOS 5
iPad 2: 64 GB - 58.1 GB Available == 5.9 GB iOS 6
iPad 3: 64 GB - 57.2 GB Available == 6.8 GB iOS 6
iPhone 1........8 GB - 7.1 GB Available == 0.9 GB iOS 3.13
iPhone 4S....64 GB - 57.4 GB Available == 6.6 GB iOS 6
iPhone 5......64 GB - 57.3 GB Available == 6.7 GB iOS 6
All this makes me think that Apple won't release an 8 GB iPad Mini unless they're prepared to emasculate iOS.
Especially since the smallest iPod Touch is 16 GB (4th or 5th generation).
I posted this earlier... now, I'm not so sure of the 8 GB model.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Here are some configurations and numbers to play with.
Underlined are the sweet spot configurations.
It is assumed that there is value to continue to offer the iPad 2 as a full-size mid priced tablet for education, special enterprise needs that are price sensitive.
Mini iPad2 iPad3 SSD
* $199 08 GB
* $249 * $299 16 GB
* $299 * $349 * $499 32 GB
* $399 * $649 64 GB
* $799 128 GB
LTE $100 3G $100 LTE $100
You make a convincing case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Lemme think about that.
Would you like me to search the web for:
"Is the wing on the bird, or is the bird on the wing?"
~Siri
LOL! Actually, Siri would have found at least 1 hit:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=22740
It's possible. You know, I'm torn over this. I hate the idea of fragmentation. At some point, Apple will do more to change things, as things advance. But I don't like to see it too close together so that we have large numbers of old devices still out there. Apple waited to have three phones out with 960x640 before they added another size, and discontinues the old screen phone at the same time.
They have two screen resolutions out now. I would expect them to wait until the old one is gone first.
As the summation agrees with what I've been saying, I don't understand why you disagree.
Unless the app recognized the mini as a smaller device with the same resolution as the iPad 2, and changes the layout to match the smaller size, everything will be smaller by the percentage of the screen size, boxes, text, pictures, etc. the same layout will be smaller.
While much of that will be fine, a fair amount won't. But it will be worse if the mini had a retina screen. On my retina iPad, details are much finer. Most of that would be lost on a retina mini. It would simply be too fine to see. Again, unless its redone for the smaller screen size.
I understand all you've been saying here, but much of it is flat out wrong, because the devices are assumed to be a certain resolution at a specific size. When designed, the UI's are designed for that size. This is exactly why Apple quadrupled the number of pixels on the phone and tablet. With a smaller screen, everything will be smaller. I'll say it a thousand times if required. The standards only app,y when used at the no inal screen size. Once a different screen size is used, those size standards go out the window.
I understand that selection boxes will be fine, and they are sized the same as the original iPhone had them, and doubling the Rez has no effect, because the developers have accommodated that already. But their are many other elements that have been developed just for the retina display that can't be used at a lower resolution, either at all, or well.
A lot of this is lure convenience. I have books with formulary inside. Previously, I continually had to double tap them to read them, because the detail was lost in the more coarse screen. Now, I can read them without tapping, but they are still small, and a lot of the Greek letters used in the formula's are difficult to render. Cut that size down, and again, I'll have to double tap, because they will be sharp, but too small to read.
My main argument here is not about a mini iPad, which I'm for, but for a retina screen mini, which at this time, I think will be too expensive, and too soon for developers to take into account, as they will now have three different things to develop for. When Apple discontinues the iPad 2, the time will be right.
I never said that it doesn't matter. I've said that it would cost too much to make now, if we're looking at a really competitive price, and notice that Google just announced, no doubt because of the mini, a Nexus 7 tablet for $249 with 32GB flash.
I'm also saying that I don't think all the fragmentation that will occurs is great, but with a 1024x768 tablet, the problem will be less, for now. I would expect that next year, we could see a retina mini.
What you're suggesting for a textbook sucks. Sorry to say that, but it does. That's not the concept behind textbook information retrieval. I've been working with this for a long time in K-12. For college, it's one thing, but as you move down in grade, ease of use becomes paramount. The less the student needs to do to see the information, the better, the more they have to click on, the less they will click on.
I've done the same thing too.
Oh please! Google simply didn't want anyone to buy Motorola because they wanted all those patents, most of which seem worthless to them. No one else would have bought Motorola if Google didn't pay far more than they were worth. And you seem to love rumors. No one knows why Motorola dropped the case. Assumptions abound. L e is that they didn't think they could win. The other is that app,e and Google are negotiation so e settlement. You can be sure it wasn't because they were being good hearted.
Of all the big companies, Google is the only that refused to promise that they wouldn't use FRAND patents to sue other companies, or to try to use them for product I junctions. Both the EU and the US government have expressed their unease over that, Nd indeed, in the EU, Motorola is being investigated, with Samsung, over this very issue. They may be investigated here over it as well.
If Google wanted to, they could stop all the lawsuits, and take the high road. But they're not, and so they won't.
Oh, and they coulalso drop their exclusive page turn patent license they get from Stanford, and let Stanford license it to all their competitors.
What do other 7" tablets have to with comparing it to using textbooks written specifically for a 10" iPad.
Of course, we've been over this already, but I like the numbering scheme. What are we going to call the iPad next year? The New New iPad? The New iPad version 2? The Second New iPad? The iPad 2013?
Originally Posted by melgross
What are we going to call the iPad next year? The New New iPad? The New iPad version 2? The Second New iPad? The iPad 2013?
Next year's iPad is "the new iPad". This year's iPad becomes "iPad". It's not difficult to imagine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Of all the big companies, Google is the only that refused to promise that they wouldn't use FRAND patents to sue other companies, or to try to use them for product I junctions. Both the EU and the US government have expressed their unease over that, Nd indeed, in the EU, Motorola is being investigated, with Samsung, over this very issue. They may be investigated here over it as well.
Not true at all Mel. In fact Nokia comes to mind right away with their most recent statement at the UN supporting injunctions over SEP infringement when necessary. You also (again conveniently?) forget that Nokia wanted an injunction on Apple devices using FRAND infringement claims, pressuring Apple into a settlement last year. Qualcomm is another who very recently reiterated that taking SEP injunctions off the table was a bad idea. And you're well aware, or should be, that Rockstar, Core Wireless, Mosaid and a couple of other so-called patent trolls are attacking other tech players using, even leasing, FRAND-pledged IP transferred from the likes of Apple, Microsoft and Nokia. Those are real proxies doing the dirty work so they can make half-truth pledges.
But it is revealing that you consider investigations by government agencies to be proof enough of wrongdoing as far as you're concerned. That way I know what side you're standing on when Apple comes under a Justice Dept. or EU microscope. . .
or could that only apply when it's NOT Apple. We both know the answer to that don't we.
Anyway, rather than hijack this thread any further why not start a new thread and I'll be happy to get more into detail if you wish. Or don't if you'd rather not.
No, this year's iPad becomes last year's iPad. But what after that? It does get confusing, esp. after a few years. Then we start saying; "You know, the iPad from two years ago."
Originally Posted by melgross
No, this year's iPad becomes last year's iPad.
That's what I said. I don't get why you don't understand the naming.
In the store, you'll see "the new iPad". The product's name will be 'iPad'. You'll also see "iPad" in the store. That's the model released the previous year. The name of that product is also iPad. Delineated by the year of introduction.
The existence of the iPad mini probably even throws out the idea of having two iPads available at once, much less three, so that's not even a concern. If it were, it'd just be iPad, iPad, and the new iPad in the store (in a hypothetical situation years down the road). For next year, it would have been iPad 2, iPad, and the new iPad. That's no more difficult to figure out than what "G" and "S" and "GS" mean.
Nokia had Claims other than FRAND against Apple. Nokia has made statements agreeing that FRAND patents should be taken off the tablet. I do t know about Qualcomm. As far as patent trolls go, yes, I'm aware, but I wasn't including them with actual manufacturers.
You said that last year's iPad becomes just the iPad.
Actually, even your explanation is confusing.