Sol, do you have an iPad? If so, simply turn it horizontal, and look at any magazine page. Or get one of the free textbooks from the iBook store and do it. It's basically unusable.
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.
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.
Where do you get "a little more" from? Quantify that. You have a 7.85' 4:3 326 PPI 2048x1536 and you think it'll be "a little more"? Everything about that points to being much, much more than the 9.7" iPad for all the shrinkage involved. On top of that you'd have additional weight, thickness and likely still get battery life out such a beast. How is all this going to be "a little more" than the rumoured $249-299 price?
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.
217 PPI at what resolution? At what aspect ratio?
Not sure. I just think it would be close enough to Nexus that it would not be perceived as a negative while at the same time leveraging the IGZO tech which uses much less battery than LCD, has better touch responsiveness and fantastic color. Sharp has been making some 217 and other higher ppi in different aspect ratios, none of which align very well with what we expect the iPd mini's aspect ratio to be but there are some indications that there could be a three way joint venture with Apple/Sharp/Foxconn to produce displays for Apple mobile devices. Perhaps those displays use some custom resolution. I know there were also some rumors to the contrary as well but given the quality of the IGZO displays demoed recently I'm hopeful it will debut in the iPad mini.
If the mini comes in product RED all hell is going to break loose. I pray Apple has more colors than black and white offerings for the mini. And if that retina 13 inch is priced right I'm selling my 13 inch air 2011 last model 1.7 ghz real quick!!
Total BS. They've been doing it through proxies. Well before the Motorola Google deal finished, Motorola was accused of doing Google's bidding in their suits against Apple and Microsoft. . . If they didn't want to do this, they could have told Motorola to drop all the suits...
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??
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.
Where do you get "a little more" from? Quantify that. You have a 7.85' 4:3 326 PPI 2048x1536 and you think it'll be "a little more"? Everything about that points to being much, much more than the 9.7" iPad for all the shrinkage involved. On top of that you'd have additional weight, thickness and likely still get battery life out such a beast. How is all this going to be "a little more" than the rumoured $249-299 price?
If you follow the post chain up you see that I suggest that a 16GB iPad Mini would be priced somewhere between $399 and $449. Mel objected to these prices insisting they wouldn't sell in comparison to the iPad 2.
This would be a viable upsell in my mind from a $249 8GB non-retina iPad Mini. Far better than the suggested $349 16GB iPad Mini that wasn't retina...so to me $399 is only a little more than $349.
You will also see in that post how I arrived at the $349 price and addressed weight, thickness and battery life.
If you follow the post chain up you see that I suggest that a 16GB iPad Mini would be priced somewhere between $399 and $449. Mel objected to these prices insisting they wouldn't sell in comparison to the iPad 2.
This would be a viable upsell in my mind from a $249 8GB non-retina iPad Mini. Far better than the suggested $349 16GB iPad Mini that wasn't retina...so to me $399 is only a little more than $349.
You will also see in that post how I arrived at the $349 price and addressed weight, thickness and battery life.
1) I think those prices are way too high for a device that would seem to be designed to suck the air out of low end of the market. Anything higher would seem to point to the 9.7" iPad.
2) I still don't see how you cold get all the pixels in the iPad (3) using the high density displays of the iPhone 5 but 4.27x larger sheets and expect it to be anything but more expensive than those devices. Making tech smaller, lighter and more power efficient costs money! That hasn't changed.
Good point. Colorful mini iPads to match the new iPod touches? Would cement the product's positioning as a kid-friendly version of the iPad.
I've said that since the iPod Touches were debuted. I think this rumoured new iPad would follow the Touch in many regards, including color, materials and the way the edges curve. Essentially I see the "cheapness" of the Touch in comparison to the iPhone to follow the same pattern between a large and small iPad.
The major differences being the iPad Air getting a quality IPS in-cell display with great color representation whereas the Touch had a far inferrer display, only matching the iPhone in pixel density.
I think this device will have to focus on how lightweight and thin it is so in order to be viable. To me that means no Retina display because as we've seen with the iPad (3) over the iPad 2 going with 4x the pixels simply isn't possible without increased costs and power usage for the display and SoC components.
There has never been a new iOS-based device that started off as Retina so why now? Why when it comes at the expense of being heavier and thicker than is reasonable? Why when it will make it more costly than the 9.7" iPad for that additional shrinkage? If the iPod Touch with 727,040px display is $299 the iPad "mini" with 786,432px display should also be able to come at $299 because the display tech will be considerably cheaper and easier to produce.
The colorful BG? A Painting application (a la Appleworks) for the (retina optimised) iWork? That'd be nice.. so long as the whole suite gets an upgrade.
Little suggests the iPad air (mini?) the Mac Mini. More suggests the iMac and maybe Mac Pro. All welcome additions of course.
You yourself said there hasn't been any evidence of anything iPad Mini related (I agree) as early as yesterday.
All signs point to we have no freakin' clue.
We have plenty of "freakin' clues". Not nothing all the details doesn't mean we can't have a reasonable ballpark idea about what could or could not be announced next week.
If someone said "There will be no 20" iPad mini that weighs 40lb and runs Windows 8." I'm guessing you'd agree despite you having no clue what will be announced next week. As we get more realistic in our declarations we approach the product's "event horizon" where the odds of guessing everything are unlikely and getting one small thing wrong can lead to massive ripples that make other aspects wrong, but that doesn't mean we don't have any clues.
Comments
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm trying to explain why it's not the same as a full sized model, and why there will need to be changes in some of the software for it.
A couple of people think its exactly the same as a 10" model, except, well, a lot smaller. It's not.
This is because we've printed the paper mockups and seen the 7.85" UI in our existing iPads.
Where do you get "a little more" from? Quantify that. You have a 7.85' 4:3 326 PPI 2048x1536 and you think it'll be "a little more"? Everything about that points to being much, much more than the 9.7" iPad for all the shrinkage involved. On top of that you'd have additional weight, thickness and likely still get battery life out such a beast. How is all this going to be "a little more" than the rumoured $249-299 price?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
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.
217 PPI at what resolution? At what aspect ratio?
Not sure. I just think it would be close enough to Nexus that it would not be perceived as a negative while at the same time leveraging the IGZO tech which uses much less battery than LCD, has better touch responsiveness and fantastic color. Sharp has been making some 217 and other higher ppi in different aspect ratios, none of which align very well with what we expect the iPd mini's aspect ratio to be but there are some indications that there could be a three way joint venture with Apple/Sharp/Foxconn to produce displays for Apple mobile devices. Perhaps those displays use some custom resolution. I know there were also some rumors to the contrary as well but given the quality of the IGZO displays demoed recently I'm hopeful it will debut in the iPad mini.
And if that retina 13 inch is priced right I'm selling my 13 inch air 2011 last model 1.7 ghz real quick!!
Edit..
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Total BS. They've been doing it through proxies. Well before the Motorola Google deal finished, Motorola was accused of doing Google's bidding in their suits against Apple and Microsoft. . . If they didn't want to do this, they could have told Motorola to drop all the suits...
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??
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Where do you get "a little more" from? Quantify that. You have a 7.85' 4:3 326 PPI 2048x1536 and you think it'll be "a little more"? Everything about that points to being much, much more than the 9.7" iPad for all the shrinkage involved. On top of that you'd have additional weight, thickness and likely still get battery life out such a beast. How is all this going to be "a little more" than the rumoured $249-299 price?
If you follow the post chain up you see that I suggest that a 16GB iPad Mini would be priced somewhere between $399 and $449. Mel objected to these prices insisting they wouldn't sell in comparison to the iPad 2.
This would be a viable upsell in my mind from a $249 8GB non-retina iPad Mini. Far better than the suggested $349 16GB iPad Mini that wasn't retina...so to me $399 is only a little more than $349.
You will also see in that post how I arrived at the $349 price and addressed weight, thickness and battery life.
1) I think those prices are way too high for a device that would seem to be designed to suck the air out of low end of the market. Anything higher would seem to point to the 9.7" iPad.
2) I still don't see how you cold get all the pixels in the iPad (3) using the high density displays of the iPhone 5 but 4.27x larger sheets and expect it to be anything but more expensive than those devices. Making tech smaller, lighter and more power efficient costs money! That hasn't changed.
New iMac model numbers
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt
anyone else think the colourful banner may indicate colourful iPad minis?
Good point. Colorful mini iPads to match the new iPod touches? Would cement the product's positioning as a kid-friendly version of the iPad.
Originally Posted by hentaiboy
New iMac model numbers
"I like to Mac it, Mac it. You like to Mac it, Mac it…"
It'll be the iPad "little" and the Macbook Pro with Retina Display "littler." ^_^
I've said that since the iPod Touches were debuted. I think this rumoured new iPad would follow the Touch in many regards, including color, materials and the way the edges curve. Essentially I see the "cheapness" of the Touch in comparison to the iPhone to follow the same pattern between a large and small iPad.
The major differences being the iPad Air getting a quality IPS in-cell display with great color representation whereas the Touch had a far inferrer display, only matching the iPhone in pixel density.
I think this device will have to focus on how lightweight and thin it is so in order to be viable. To me that means no Retina display because as we've seen with the iPad (3) over the iPad 2 going with 4x the pixels simply isn't possible without increased costs and power usage for the display and SoC components.
There has never been a new iOS-based device that started off as Retina so why now? Why when it comes at the expense of being heavier and thicker than is reasonable? Why when it will make it more costly than the 9.7" iPad for that additional shrinkage? If the iPod Touch with 727,040px display is $299 the iPad "mini" with 786,432px display should also be able to come at $299 because the display tech will be considerably cheaper and easier to produce.
Even if that screen actually has more screen real-estate than other 7" tablets?
About 40% more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
All signs have been pointing away from retina.
Huh? By all signs you mean posters on this forum?
You yourself said there hasn't been any evidence of anything iPad Mini related (I agree) as early as yesterday.
All signs point to we have no freakin' clue.
Little suggests the iPad air (mini?) the Mac Mini. More suggests the iMac and maybe Mac Pro. All welcome additions of course.
Originally Posted by enzos
Little suggests the iPad air (mini?) the Mac Mini. More suggests the iMac and maybe Mac Pro. All welcome additions of course.
Not the Mac Pro. Specifically stated next year.
And if we want to get all deconstructy with this, "show you" proves they're about to release a 50" television set. ????
We have plenty of "freakin' clues". Not nothing all the details doesn't mean we can't have a reasonable ballpark idea about what could or could not be announced next week.
If someone said "There will be no 20" iPad mini that weighs 40lb and runs Windows 8." I'm guessing you'd agree despite you having no clue what will be announced next week. As we get more realistic in our declarations we approach the product's "event horizon" where the odds of guessing everything are unlikely and getting one small thing wrong can lead to massive ripples that make other aspects wrong, but that doesn't mean we don't have any clues.