Apple's iPad mini already on pace to outsell Retina iPad

1246712

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 239
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    edit

  • Reply 62 of 239


    Good for Apple! :)


     


    I've taken a very minimalist approach to my tech/electronics, recently. I've been on a mission to get rid of crappy, creaky, plasticky electronics which come with crappy, clunky interfaces and miles of cables/connectors and power bricks. The iPhone has helped immeasurably in this regard. No stand-a-lone GPS unit, no stand-a-lone camera, no stand-a-lone video camera, no stereo, etc., etc.


     


     


    1) I only buy Apple products. 2) I'll always have the latest iPhone and an iPad mini (waiting for the rMini). And, 3) I will invest most of my $'s into only one large screen device. That device being the AppleTV and not 10" iPads, 13"-15" laptops or 20"-27" iMac's/Apple Monitor.


     


     


    Sold my Macbook, ostensibly to purchase an 11" MBA...but decided against it. Sold my iPad 2 to get the new iPad 3. But again, didn't.


     


    When my orig. intel iMac gives up the ghost, I may not replace it at all. If I do, it will be an MBA 11" (The new iMac's are wondrous! But, sadly, don't fit my lifestyle anymore.)


     


    Sold my original ATV and my TV, waiting for the Apple TV. A little premature on that one. Missed the entire Formula One season. But at least saved $'s by not giving it to "Cocks" (Cox) Cable.


     


    May invest in a TimeCapsule but it seems like dated tech now with the advent of iCloud, Dropbox, etc. I do have everything backed up on an ext. HD. (My last power brick to remove.)


     


    Best! :)

  • Reply 63 of 239

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mark Dodel View Post



    As to the initial conservative volume estimate, when IBM estimated the sales of the very first PC, they came up with 275,000 over a 5 year life of product (yes they saw the PC not lasting more than 5 years). IBM had commitments for that number before the actual release date. So Apple being off by a factor of 2 is nothing compared to IBM's ineptitude.


     


    IBM was using Apple's sales numbers of the Apple II to do their projections. They didn't anticipate in how strongly their IBM name would be accepted by the Enterprise and Government markets even though the first PCs used an audio cassette tape for mass storage.

  • Reply 64 of 239

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Exactly what I said. I stand by the last statement you quoted. 


     


    I apologize; you're right in catching my error in the most recent post.



     


    I think he meant to say: 


     


  • Reply 65 of 239
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Who are YOU kidding? How big is your desk? Tell me that 27" wouldn't become too small a workspace for you after a few weeks of having a touchscreen UI on it. 40" would be glorious. I dunno, I know I'm on the high end of that, but 21.5" is definitely too small to start.



    40" would indeed be glorious, but as a touch surface it is huge. Are you thinking it lies flat like a tablet or that it is essentially an iMac with touch? Both are problematic ergonomically for extended work time. 


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    The 15" MacBook Pro isn't a niche product. Come on, man.



    Not the mbp but we're talking about a 15" iPad - or were you talking about a MBP with a touch screen? But I have to say I see less and less 15" laptops. Personally I use a 13" with a 24" monitor which for me is much better solution.

  • Reply 66 of 239


    Originally Posted by BNZ V3 View Post

    I think he meant to say: 


     


    Please, I'll take some class. image





    Originally Posted by paxman View Post

    40" would indeed be glorious, but as a touch surface it is huge. Are you thinking it lies flat like a tablet or that it is essentially an iMac with touch? Both are problematic ergonomically for extended work time. 


     


    Neither: at a slight angle, mirroring that of a keyboard for ergonomics, and created by the hardware contained therein. Basically an iMac without the foot. You're absolutely right, both horizontal and vertical screens that are meant to be touched are doomed to failure.






    Not the mbp but we're talking about a 15" iPad - or were you talking about a MBP with a touch screen?




     


    A 15" tablet. Not a touchscreen laptop, and not something with the iPad's UI, I don't think. I don't believe something so simple can scale that far up.

  • Reply 67 of 239
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Why would he? He likes Apple and I think he'll be glad to see Apple sell so many.

    I knew the small one would sell better than the big one if they made one. Doesn't mean making one was a good idea. :lol:
    That isn't even rational. The Mini was and is a good idea and the sales success is a testimate to that good idea.
    A 40" touchscreen computer will sell better than either of these models. The key is the interface.
    A 40" touchscreen computer is a stupid idea, there is cose to zero sales potential there. Now a gesture based computer might be something else but that isn't a touch screen.
    I'd really like a 15" iPad-equivalent for portable stuff, too. Do I think that would sell as well as the 8"? I think it would sell better than the 10".
    Now this I tend to agree with though I might suggest something like a 13" screen. This is only a matter of time though, I still see Apple having a stable full of iOS based machines.
  • Reply 68 of 239


    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

    A 40" touchscreen computer is a stupid idea, there is cose to zero sales potential there.


     


    Maybe people that need a work surface greater than 13"?

  • Reply 69 of 239

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    I still think 7" 16:9 tablets are crap. And I think iPad sales for this quarter will bear that out. Even if Apple doesn't break out sales between iPad and mini we'll be able to get a good estimate based on margins.

    I still think the reason we got 7" tablets from Amazon and Google is because they knew the only way they could compete with iPad was on price. But if people are buying their tablets (because they're so cheap) and not really using them are they really competing?


    I do agree with you that 7" tablets are crap. Most of the brand X sales are going to the first-time buyers or buyers that primarily want an e-reader.


     


    Apple's mini at 7.9" is dramatically larger than the brand X 7" tablets and can do so much more than function as an e-reader. But, as has been recognized by Samsung and others, it's Apple's ecosystem that makes its iPads and iPhones really attractive to the larger market. 


     


    If Apple were to get the weight down on their 10" tablet it would become more attractive to some buyers that like the larger format, but want more portability. With the rapidly aging population the larger size (coupled with lighter weight) would be a win win for the older eyes. So, I don't see a problem with that size at all. This isn't to say that a larger and heavier tablet has anything going for it. Microsoft's Surface terrible sales shows that format isn't attractive to buyers at all.

  • Reply 70 of 239

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Maybe people that need a work surface greater than 13"?



    The 40" touch screen is a favorite of the news and weather announcers, but at that size it's more of a whiteboard then a tablet or computer.

  • Reply 71 of 239


    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

    The 40" touch screen is a favorite of the news and weather announcers, but at that size it's more of a whiteboard then a tablet or computer.


     


    Well, yeah; they'd start at 27". But multiple points of contact, multiple larger points of contact, require larger operating areas.

  • Reply 72 of 239
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    You may be slightly in the extreme here but this highlights why iPhone in particular has been so successful. It is a device that literally replaces a half dozen other devices and is infinitely more flexible.
    Good for Apple! :)

    I've taken a very minimalist approach to my tech/electronics, recently. I've been on a mission to get rid of crappy, creaky, plasticky electronics which come with crappy, clunky interfaces and miles of cables/connectors and power bricks. The iPhone has helped immeasurably in this regard. No stand-a-lone GPS unit, no stand-a-lone camera, no stand-a-lone video camera, no stereo, etc., etc.
    Personally I still like my iPad 3 and its size. I'm not as extreme in my minimalism but I find myself milking my MBP in favor of keeping iOS devices fairly up to date. Obviously I'm behind the curve with iPad 4 but that is due to the device needing more flash. My iPad usage is such now that more internal flash storage is becoming an important element in any new purchase.

    1) I only buy Apple products. 2) I'll always have the latest iPhone and an iPad mini (waiting for the rMini). And, 3) I will invest most of my $'s into only one large screen device. That device being the AppleTV and not 10" iPads, 13"-15" laptops or 20"-27" iMac's/Apple Monitor.
    The only buy Apple products view is a point I can't subscribe too. There are other things out there of comparable quality.

    Sold my Macbook, ostensibly to purchase an 11" MBA...but decided against it. Sold my iPad 2 to get the new iPad 3. But again, didn't.
    Sounds like you really aren't that wrapped up in Apple after all. That is a good thing because to many around here jump at the latest "I" glossy without even thinking. Frankly I wonder if these people have anything going on beyond their "I" glossy.
    When my orig. intel iMac gives up the ghost, I may not replace it at all. If I do, it will be an MBA 11" (The new iMac's are wondrous! But, sadly, don't fit my lifestyle anymore.)
    Well that may be a little tough for me right now. Sadly I may find myself buying into a PC (used possibly) to run Linux for a project or two I have in mind.
    Sold my original ATV and my TV, waiting for the Apple TV. A little premature on that one. Missed the entire Formula One season. But at least saved $'s by not giving it to "Cocks" (Cox) Cable.
    I gave up on cable and to some extent conventional TV some time ago. Yeah it was tough but it saved me huge bucks. As to my TV watching, there are so many options out there today that it is very possible to get a good mix of entertainment relatively cheap. You tube is a rewarding option with some things I rather enjoy more than most of what passes for TV today. An example is Knife Making Tuesdays.
    May invest in a TimeCapsule but it seems like dated tech now with the advent of iCloud, Dropbox, etc. I do have everything backed up on an ext. HD. (My last power brick to remove.)
    Actually I have no confidence at all in any of the cloud services thus I wouldn't rely upon any of them for important file storage. This is one reason why I will have a Mac of some sort for a very long time into the future.
    Best! :)

    While not everyone has gone to your extremes I think everyone has shrunken their device ownership a bit due to the advent of iOS devices. It is pretty much the new "normal".
  • Reply 73 of 239

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    I knew the small one would sell better than the big one if they made one. Doesn't mean making one was a good idea. image


     


    A 40" touchscreen computer will sell better than either of these models. The key is the interface.


     


    I'd really like a 15" iPad-equivalent for portable stuff, too. Do I think that would sell as well as the 8"? I think it would sell better than the 10".



    Apple isn't stupid.  When you can make something at your profit margin, and at that price take away the sales from the other companies cannabalizing your line, you do it.   Good Idea = Make Money you aren't already making, without selling your future out.


     


    The question was pricepoint.  Obviously apple hit the pricepoint (shame on us who felt $199/249/299 were the pricepoints).   I don't think a 40" would work well for total ROI.  15"?  That I think is in the realm of possibility (definitely 13"... I figure once Win8 OEM's push out a few hundred thousand 11" plus tablets,  Apple will swoop in and make one and eat their lunches).


     


    The fact it's selling more than expected, is a heckuva lot better than selling to expectation, and your flagship ipad drops by the same amount.  The fact that the 'new' ipad is selling at normal levels basically says the cannabalization from external forces has been staunched.  that's a WinWin.   



     


    A 40" touchscreen where the attitude can be adjusted from horizontal to vertical (and all points in between) like an easel or drafting table would be exceptional for some types of creative work.  Things like: drawing;  painting;  CAD;  drafting;  photo light table;  graphics design;  prototyping;  storyboarding; video and sound editing...


     


    Final Cut Pro X [almost] cries out for you to reach in and "get your hands dirty" in the editing process.


     


    Imagine doing ripple, roll, slip and slide with your fingers..


     


    image

  • Reply 74 of 239


    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Final Cut Pro X [almost] cries out for you to reach in and "get your hands dirty" in the editing process.


     


    Imagine doing ripple, roll, slip and slide with your fingers..



     


    I cannot wait for the day when desktop OS' are touchscreen. So much that I want to do now that we just can't.

  • Reply 75 of 239
    Good points Wiz.
  • Reply 76 of 239
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    A 40" touchscreen computer is a stupid idea, there is cose to zero sales potential there.

    Maybe people that need a work surface greater than 13"?

    Few would be able to leverage such a screen for traditional computer usage. It is directly related to ergonomics. I have a bit of experience here to back up this statement because I work at a place with a large number of touch screens (think automation), everyone of them has been supplemented with a standard keyboard because touch screens suck if you have to work at them for more than a few minutes. This has nothing to do with the operating system but is simply a human factors issue. Now a 40" screen that can "see" gestures is another thing but no one has a viable solution for that either.

    Now I won't dismiss the idea that a few can leverage a large touch screen in a non traditional orientation but the problem here is that is damn few people and not enough to justify the sale of such a device. More importantly the vast majority of your customers would never use the option or become frustrated with it. This would lead to poor acceptance and a lot of negativity about the Mac line up. In a nut shell Apple trying to pass off a touch screen as an improvement to the Mac user interface has a very good possibility of backfiring.
  • Reply 77 of 239
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,927member
    What? Cheaper things sell more? Never!
  • Reply 78 of 239
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    [quote]

    A 40" touchscreen where the attitude can be adjusted from horizontal to vertical (and all points in between) like an easel or drafting table would be exceptional for some types of creative work.  Things like: drawing;  painting;  CAD;  drafting;  photo light table;  graphics design;  prototyping;  storyboarding; video and sound editing...
    [/Quote]
    This is sort of like the argument about the inclusion of opticals. Does it really make sense for Apple to include a feature so few would use effectively? Especially in this case where the feature could end being seen a useless or of no value by the vast majority of Mac Users. By the way being hunched over a drafting table wasn't exactly good ergonomics, modern CAD systems came on quickly because the old ways left a lot to be desired.
    [Quote]

    Final Cut Pro X [almost] cries out for you to reach in and "get your hands dirty" in the editing process.

    Imagine doing ripple, roll, slip and slide with your fingers..
    [/quote]

    That may be so but would most Mac users even care? I'm willing to bet not and frankly the touch screen would be either quickly forgotten or seldom used by the majority of Mac users. It all comes back to what the majority of Mac users would see in a touch screen. In that regard I don't think many would be happy paying an additional cost for something seldom used which is where opticals come into the discussion. Apples customers have shown a very strong preference for hardware that suits their needs without the extras or frills.
  • Reply 79 of 239
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Few would be able to leverage such a screen for traditional computer usage. It is directly related to ergonomics. I have a bit of experience here to back up this statement because I work at a place with a large number of touch screens (think automation), everyone of them has been supplemented with a standard keyboard because touch screens suck if you have to work at them for more than a few minutes. This has nothing to do with the operating system but is simply a human factors issue. Now a 40" screen that can "see" gestures is another thing but no one has a viable solution for that either.
    Now I won't dismiss the idea that a few can leverage a large touch screen in a non traditional orientation but the problem here is that is damn few people and not enough to justify the sale of such a device. More importantly the vast majority of your customers would never use the option or become frustrated with it. This would lead to poor acceptance and a lot of negativity about the Mac line up. In a nut shell Apple trying to pass off a touch screen as an improvement to the Mac user interface has a very good possibility of backfiring.
    Maybe people that need a work surface greater than 13"?

    I don't see Apple offering it, but if horizontal or on a skew (like a drafting table), it literally could replace a physical desktop.

    But I wouldn't do it without a physical keyboard. I don't like virtual keyboards for more than occasional use, I think it cuts my speed by half.
  • Reply 80 of 239
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    A 40" touchscreen computer is a stupid idea, there is cose to zero sales potential there. Now a gesture based computer might be something else but that isn't a touch screen.

     


     


    Touchscreens on desktop computing is IMHO correctly assessed as generally suboptimal...until you go all in.


     



     


    99% of the time you don't use your fingers on the vertical surface because obviously your arms will get tired.  You use it on the table surface and there, the bigger the better.


     


    http://www.ohgizmo.com/2012/10/10/benddesk-is-a-workstation-and-multitouch-computer-in-one/


     


    This isn't their idea...this was first introduced by an Apple UI alumnus in 1992 while working at Sun...Bruce Tognazzini:


     



     


     


    http://www.asktog.com/starfire/


     


     


    Just remember it's from 1992 and it's a corporate video. :)  It's rather non-apple though.  I dunno if I see the iMac going in this direction because it's so big but you need both a vertical and horizontal work surface for effective touch.   


     


    Still if you watch the video you get to see iChat, a tablet, skeuomorphic UI (that nobody will understand since film canisters doesn't exist anymore) and bad 90s hair.


     


    There are some interesting features that are not in the video such as tactile feedback by providing a raised goosebumps where the paper is displayed, the ability to print by throwing the document toward the table edge that has a printer installed, etc. 

Sign In or Register to comment.