I've always wondered why certain types of posters can't seem to ever spell a simple and well known brand name correctly. This isn't just a simple typo but either a blatant attempt to not spell it correctly to prove some pathetic point or a lack of the proper mental facilities to understand the difference which could be the reason their reality of the market is warped to begin with.
I don't understand your hatred for people who are less affluent than you or who don't see the direct value with more expensive CE.
I would hardly say that somebody has to be affluent to be able to buy an Apple mobile device. We're not talking about fully blown Mac Pro's here. And I don't consider myself to be rich, far from it.
I just don't like Fandroids, and I don't think very highly of cheap, rip off Android devices.
I've always wondered why certain types of posters can't seem to ever spell a simple and well known brand name correctly. This isn't just a simple typo but either a blatant attempt to not spell it correctly to prove some pathetic point or a lack of the proper mental facilities to understand the difference which could be the reason their reality of the market is warped to begin with.
It doesn't matter. Let the ants shake their mighty fists in protest.
I think you guys missed the point here. The person I responded to indicate that the iPads screen is perfect, which or course it isn't. That is the current iPad. For many users the iPad is just to damn big, thus the screen (the whole point of a tablet) is not perfect.
in a nut shell the idea that any screen is perfect is completely bogus. First, not every screen size is suitable to every application nor to every users needs. Second, screen technology is evolving rapidly as such it is impossible for any screen to be perfect as they are constantly improving.
As to the 16:9 Android tablets do you honestly think that the aspect ratio has anything to do with consumer rejection of the devices? Here is a quick list of reasons to reject Android tablets:
Lack of software.
Android is the product of theft.
Androids general lack of refinement and performance
Poor battery technology
The general lack of support. In this case the fact that you are often stuck with outdated versions of Android on your device.
Maleware
The lack of a managed app repository.
No infrastructure.
In the end I see little indication that 16:9 has anything to do with the failure of Android tablets. In any event I think you guys completely glossed over what was said and missed the whole point; the iPad screen is no more perfect than my big toe.
Look at it this way, there seems to be a very good possibility that Apple will introduce entirely new screen technology on the devices coming next week. Does that make the screens perfect? If so then how could the current screens be perfect? The use of the word perfect in this discussion is bogus and fankly asinine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
16:9 Android tablets don't sell well, hardly anybody wants them, besides a few desperately poor people and a handful of Apple haters. Consumers are flocking to the 4:3 iPad. Your comment is bogus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The rumoured iPad mini will have about 40% more screen area as these other tablets. If you do a side-by-side of the Nexus 7 and iPad mini you may easily say that it's worth an extra $50 just for the extra size even without considering the OS, ecosystem, support and other aspects that help make Apple's device so popular.
PS: I finally got my hands on a Kindle Paperwhite. This is the first Kindle eReader that was of any real interest to me. Before the Paperwhite I hated the dark grey text on light grey. My problem with the Paperwhite is that it's so small. It's display are is only 17.29 inches whereas the proposed iPad mini is 29.60 inches square. For me that's a deal breaker even though I finally like the look of an eReader.
Maybe it was an desperate attempt to make a point when there was no substance to his point?
If the MS hardware coming shortly also fails to compete in the market place with IPad, yet is priced competitively with iPad (at least from the start), I wonder what his explanation will be for the units that do sell. There are many reasons for people to go out and buy alternative hardware. From what I've seen of poor people price doesn't really matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't understand your hatred for people who are less affluent than you or who don't see the direct value with more expensive CE.
9to5Mac is reporting rumors that the starting price will be $329. They don't say for what model, but I would assume its 16GB wi-fi only. I think this might be a tough sell for Apple. Unfortunately Amazon and Google with their race to the bottom have put it in people's minds that smaller tablets should be $199-$250. And Google is rumored to be dropping the price on their 16GB Nexus to $99 with the 32GB model at $249. Assuming this rumor is true I hope Apple has some amazing hook that makes $329 seem like a good deal. The Nexus 7 might not be the best smaller sized tablet but its certainly not a POS and the build quality is better than most of the crap Samsung peddles.
I'm kind of hoping this ws an intentional leak with bad information and the real starting price will be $299 for 16GB. You can say 'what's a extra $30?', but I'd counter that with why do prices always end in 9's? $299 vs $329 will probably be a big deal for some, heck already on MacRumors are complaining that the price is too high.
9to5Mac is reporting rumors that the starting price will be $329. They don't say for what model, but I would assume its 16GB wi-fi only. I think this might be a tough sell for Apple. Unfortunately Amazon and Google with their race to the bottom have put it in people's minds that smaller tablets should be $199-$250.
I really don't get this line of thinking.
Do you mean like since all Apples notebook competitors have models starting at below $400, so Apple has to match them.
Oh Wait... Apple notebooks start at more than double that $999 and they have just become #1 in US Notebooks sales this year.
Sell a high quality product, with high quality service/ecosystem and you can charge a reasonable price and ignore the bottoms feeders. That is the Apple way.
Do you mean like since all Apples notebook competitors have models starting at below $400, so Apple has to match them.
Oh Wait... Apple notebooks start at more than double that $999 and they have just become #1 in US Notebooks sales this year.
Sell a high quality product, with high quality service/ecosystem and you can charge a reasonable price and ignore the bottoms feeders. That is the Apple way.
That's why I'm hoping this device has closer to iPad 3 specs than iPad 2. I'm not suggesting Apple get involved in the race to the bottom. Charge more but for a better product. Not a shrunken iPad 2 with 8G of storage.
That's why I'm hoping this device has closer to iPad 3 specs than iPad 2. I'm not suggesting Apple get involved in the race to the bottom. Charge more but for a better product. Not a shrunken iPad 2 with 8G of storage.
What is iPad 3 specs? Anyone expecting a 2048x1536 display is going to be sorely disappointed.
But a shrunken iPad 2 resolution will bump dpi from 132 to 163 which is a significant improvement and likely good enough for most people (people were still buying millions of iPad 2).
I also expect an A6 which would actually make the most powerful tablet for a while, throw in Apples tighter OS and nothing will be as smooth as this for some time to come.
What is iPad 3 specs? Anyone expecting a 2048x1536 display is going to be sorely disappointed.
But a shrunken iPad 2 resolution will bump dpi from 132 to 163 which is a significant improvement and likely good enough for most people (people were still buying millions of iPad 2).
I also expect an A6 which would actually make the most powerful tablet for a while, throw in Apples tighter OS and nothing will be as smooth as this for some time to come.
OK probably won't have iPad 3 resolution but should have something that comes close along with A6, front and rear cameras, Siri, etc, blow the competition out of the water.
When Steve Jobs stood there on stage, presenting the iPhone to the world for the first time ever, and claimed that it was years ahead of the competition, it turned out to be true.
The iPhone is not years ahead of the competition technologically. What puts Apple ahead of the competition (in profits) is everything Apple does, and it is still not 3-5 years ahead of the competition. The analyst claimed that the iPad Mini will contain technology that puts that far ahead. Name one technology you expect the iPad Mini to possess which is 3-5 years ahead of the rest of the world. A6? Nope. DIsplay? Nope. Camera? Nope. iOS? Nope (and it's the same iOS that's in everything else, so there's no point in offering it as a distinction). The analyst was simply repeating Jobs' claim about the iPhone. You could excuse (and expect, and enjoy) such hyperbole from Steve, but you can't excuse it from a stock analyst. Had he said that Apple's dominant position in the tablet space will give the iPad Mini a leg up on the competition, I'd have agreed.
Apple need not be 3-5 years ahead of anyone, they simply need to offer a value proposition that keeps them growing, and they do. I'm hard pressed to think of any tech company that's 3-5 years ahead of the competition technologically. It took less than five years for Android to outpace iOS by units, but because the ecosystem and accompanying margins (both for Apple and for 3rd party hardware/software developers) are superior for Apple, the majority of profits flow to Apple. This is not a technological advantage in any iOS device, it's the same Apple "magic" that's been at work since 1984, but finally in an environment where that magic really goes to work.
OK probably won't have iPad 3 resolution but should have something that comes close along with A6, front and rear cameras, Siri, etc, blow the competition out of the water.
Some kind of intermediate resolution would lead to messy non integral scaling. Extremely unlikely Apple will do this.
This is all about getting entry product out there. Eventually 2nd or 3rd generation will get the full 2048x1536 resolution when the price is a little less extreme for entry level and it will give people a reason to upgrade to the 2nd or 3rd generation.
To really be competitive with the Kindle Paperwhite, what the iPad Air needs is a "trans-reflective" color screen that works in sunshine. They are common on GPS chartplotters, but may be too heavy or use too much power for the iDevices.
Looks like it will still be awhile until I buy an iPad. They've either been too heavy (original iPad and iPad 3) or lacked a retina display--not to mention other drawbacks to the iPad3, such as its honking battery. With the mini, it's apparently going to be too small for the functionality/price tradeoff*. Until then, my money goes toward iPhones, which are more practical--always with me; and desktops, which are far more productive.
*Technical documents are significantly more difficult to read on smaller displays
To really be competitive with the Kindle Paperwhite, what the iPad Air needs is a "trans-reflective" color screen that works in sunshine.
For competitiveness, I believe price is far more important than readability in direct sunshine. A lower price alone would suck away the vast majority of Amazon's Kindle business.
Some of Apple's magic is very old stuff, particularly the reasonably seamless integration of hardware and software and the drive for simplicity. They've had that since 1984 but it's only in the last decade that it's been seen as something worth copying, perhaps because Apple moved out of the computing world into the appliance world. Because they moved their magic to a realm where it's better appreciated, and kept integration with the computers, they were able to grow their manufacturing volumes to the point they wield purchasing power magic second to none. They've also worked quite a bit of magic in their retail operations, making it easier to experience the rest of Apple's magic. No other competitor comes close.
The analyst said that the iPad mini will contain technology that will put it 3-5 years ahead of the competition. If you wanted to argue that all iOS products are 3-5 years ahead of the competition, you'd not single out the iPad Mini. You say "like all other iOS devices, the iPad Mini will be 3-5 years ahead of the competition. I'd still say that's wrong, but less wrong.
Do you really think that Apple could stop dead in its tracks for 3-5 years and stay in business? That kind of hubris (I doubt Jobs believed Apple was 3-5 years ahead) is self destructive. Jobs, like Andy Groves, had a healthy paranoia. He simply didn't trot that out during keynotes.
Some kind of intermediate resolution would lead to messy non integral scaling. Extremely unlikely Apple will do this.
This is all about getting entry product out there. Eventually 2nd or 3rd generation will get the full 2048x1536 resolution when the price is a little less extreme for entry level and it will give people a reason to upgrade to the 2nd or 3rd generation.
Getting an entry product out there at a high price so they can lower the price next year when sales aren't what they expected? I know many here think Apple can throw anything out there, slap on a $50-$100 premium and it will sell like hotcakes. I'm not so sure in this market.
Comments
Originally Posted by mcrs
[...] Ipad mini [...] I-tune [...]
I've always wondered why certain types of posters can't seem to ever spell a simple and well known brand name correctly. This isn't just a simple typo but either a blatant attempt to not spell it correctly to prove some pathetic point or a lack of the proper mental facilities to understand the difference which could be the reason their reality of the market is warped to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't understand your hatred for people who are less affluent than you or who don't see the direct value with more expensive CE.
I would hardly say that somebody has to be affluent to be able to buy an Apple mobile device. We're not talking about fully blown Mac Pro's here. And I don't consider myself to be rich, far from it.
I just don't like Fandroids, and I don't think very highly of cheap, rip off Android devices.
It doesn't matter. Let the ants shake their mighty fists in protest.
I think you guys missed the point here. The person I responded to indicate that the iPads screen is perfect, which or course it isn't. That is the current iPad. For many users the iPad is just to damn big, thus the screen (the whole point of a tablet) is not perfect.
in a nut shell the idea that any screen is perfect is completely bogus. First, not every screen size is suitable to every application nor to every users needs. Second, screen technology is evolving rapidly as such it is impossible for any screen to be perfect as they are constantly improving.
As to the 16:9 Android tablets do you honestly think that the aspect ratio has anything to do with consumer rejection of the devices? Here is a quick list of reasons to reject Android tablets:
Lack of software.
Android is the product of theft.
Androids general lack of refinement and performance
Poor battery technology
The general lack of support. In this case the fact that you are often stuck with outdated versions of Android on your device.
Maleware
The lack of a managed app repository.
No infrastructure.
In the end I see little indication that 16:9 has anything to do with the failure of Android tablets. In any event I think you guys completely glossed over what was said and missed the whole point; the iPad screen is no more perfect than my big toe.
Look at it this way, there seems to be a very good possibility that Apple will introduce entirely new screen technology on the devices coming next week. Does that make the screens perfect? If so then how could the current screens be perfect? The use of the word perfect in this discussion is bogus and fankly asinine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
16:9 Android tablets don't sell well, hardly anybody wants them, besides a few desperately poor people and a handful of Apple haters. Consumers are flocking to the 4:3 iPad. Your comment is bogus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The rumoured iPad mini will have about 40% more screen area as these other tablets. If you do a side-by-side of the Nexus 7 and iPad mini you may easily say that it's worth an extra $50 just for the extra size even without considering the OS, ecosystem, support and other aspects that help make Apple's device so popular.
PS: I finally got my hands on a Kindle Paperwhite. This is the first Kindle eReader that was of any real interest to me. Before the Paperwhite I hated the dark grey text on light grey. My problem with the Paperwhite is that it's so small. It's display are is only 17.29 inches whereas the proposed iPad mini is 29.60 inches square. For me that's a deal breaker even though I finally like the look of an eReader.
Maybe it was an desperate attempt to make a point when there was no substance to his point?
If the MS hardware coming shortly also fails to compete in the market place with IPad, yet is priced competitively with iPad (at least from the start), I wonder what his explanation will be for the units that do sell. There are many reasons for people to go out and buy alternative hardware. From what I've seen of poor people price doesn't really matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't understand your hatred for people who are less affluent than you or who don't see the direct value with more expensive CE.
I'm kind of hoping this ws an intentional leak with bad information and the real starting price will be $299 for 16GB. You can say 'what's a extra $30?', but I'd counter that with why do prices always end in 9's? $299 vs $329 will probably be a big deal for some, heck already on MacRumors are complaining that the price is too high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
9to5Mac is reporting rumors that the starting price will be $329. They don't say for what model, but I would assume its 16GB wi-fi only. I think this might be a tough sell for Apple. Unfortunately Amazon and Google with their race to the bottom have put it in people's minds that smaller tablets should be $199-$250.
I really don't get this line of thinking.
Do you mean like since all Apples notebook competitors have models starting at below $400, so Apple has to match them.
Oh Wait... Apple notebooks start at more than double that $999 and they have just become #1 in US Notebooks sales this year.
Sell a high quality product, with high quality service/ecosystem and you can charge a reasonable price and ignore the bottoms feeders. That is the Apple way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
That's why I'm hoping this device has closer to iPad 3 specs than iPad 2. I'm not suggesting Apple get involved in the race to the bottom. Charge more but for a better product. Not a shrunken iPad 2 with 8G of storage.
What is iPad 3 specs? Anyone expecting a 2048x1536 display is going to be sorely disappointed.
But a shrunken iPad 2 resolution will bump dpi from 132 to 163 which is a significant improvement and likely good enough for most people (people were still buying millions of iPad 2).
I also expect an A6 which would actually make the most powerful tablet for a while, throw in Apples tighter OS and nothing will be as smooth as this for some time to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Not at all.
When Steve Jobs stood there on stage, presenting the iPhone to the world for the first time ever, and claimed that it was years ahead of the competition, it turned out to be true.
The iPhone is not years ahead of the competition technologically. What puts Apple ahead of the competition (in profits) is everything Apple does, and it is still not 3-5 years ahead of the competition. The analyst claimed that the iPad Mini will contain technology that puts that far ahead. Name one technology you expect the iPad Mini to possess which is 3-5 years ahead of the rest of the world. A6? Nope. DIsplay? Nope. Camera? Nope. iOS? Nope (and it's the same iOS that's in everything else, so there's no point in offering it as a distinction). The analyst was simply repeating Jobs' claim about the iPhone. You could excuse (and expect, and enjoy) such hyperbole from Steve, but you can't excuse it from a stock analyst. Had he said that Apple's dominant position in the tablet space will give the iPad Mini a leg up on the competition, I'd have agreed.
Apple need not be 3-5 years ahead of anyone, they simply need to offer a value proposition that keeps them growing, and they do. I'm hard pressed to think of any tech company that's 3-5 years ahead of the competition technologically. It took less than five years for Android to outpace iOS by units, but because the ecosystem and accompanying margins (both for Apple and for 3rd party hardware/software developers) are superior for Apple, the majority of profits flow to Apple. This is not a technological advantage in any iOS device, it's the same Apple "magic" that's been at work since 1984, but finally in an environment where that magic really goes to work.
Originally Posted by bsimpsen
The iPhone is not years ahead of the competition technologically.
Why did the first iPhone have things that aren't yet on other phones?
What puts Apple ahead of the competition (in profits)…
lolololololimsoedgy
…is everything Apple does…
Meaning what?
…and it is still not 3-5 years ahead of the competition.
So in five years, why can't I get an ecosystem from someone else that works (at all) better than Apple's?
iOS? Nope.
Boom goes the argument. At least partially.
Apple need not be 3-5 years ahead of anyone, they simply need to offer a value proposition that keeps them growing, and they do.
True! It helps, though, that they are several years ahead of most.
I'm hard pressed to think of any tech company that's 3-5 years ahead of the competition technologically.
Apple.
This is not a technological advantage in any iOS device…
… Wrong.
…Apple "magic"…
Elaborate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
OK probably won't have iPad 3 resolution but should have something that comes close along with A6, front and rear cameras, Siri, etc, blow the competition out of the water.
Some kind of intermediate resolution would lead to messy non integral scaling. Extremely unlikely Apple will do this.
This is all about getting entry product out there. Eventually 2nd or 3rd generation will get the full 2048x1536 resolution when the price is a little less extreme for entry level and it will give people a reason to upgrade to the 2nd or 3rd generation.
Looks like it will still be awhile until I buy an iPad. They've either been too heavy (original iPad and iPad 3) or lacked a retina display--not to mention other drawbacks to the iPad3, such as its honking battery. With the mini, it's apparently going to be too small for the functionality/price tradeoff*. Until then, my money goes toward iPhones, which are more practical--always with me; and desktops, which are far more productive.
*Technical documents are significantly more difficult to read on smaller displays
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredtowers
To really be competitive with the Kindle Paperwhite, what the iPad Air needs is a "trans-reflective" color screen that works in sunshine.
For competitiveness, I believe price is far more important than readability in direct sunshine. A lower price alone would suck away the vast majority of Amazon's Kindle business.
Some of Apple's magic is very old stuff, particularly the reasonably seamless integration of hardware and software and the drive for simplicity. They've had that since 1984 but it's only in the last decade that it's been seen as something worth copying, perhaps because Apple moved out of the computing world into the appliance world. Because they moved their magic to a realm where it's better appreciated, and kept integration with the computers, they were able to grow their manufacturing volumes to the point they wield purchasing power magic second to none. They've also worked quite a bit of magic in their retail operations, making it easier to experience the rest of Apple's magic. No other competitor comes close.
The analyst said that the iPad mini will contain technology that will put it 3-5 years ahead of the competition. If you wanted to argue that all iOS products are 3-5 years ahead of the competition, you'd not single out the iPad Mini. You say "like all other iOS devices, the iPad Mini will be 3-5 years ahead of the competition. I'd still say that's wrong, but less wrong.
Do you really think that Apple could stop dead in its tracks for 3-5 years and stay in business? That kind of hubris (I doubt Jobs believed Apple was 3-5 years ahead) is self destructive. Jobs, like Andy Groves, had a healthy paranoia. He simply didn't trot that out during keynotes.
Originally Posted by bsimpsen
Do you really think that Apple could stop dead in its tracks for 3-5 years and stay in business?
Apple could stop selling everything they sell and operate for a decade on their cash alone.
So, yes.
Take products into account and they'd operate even longer.