If Apple goes to faster release cycles, they get criticized for "obsoleting" products too quickly. If they only release once a year, they get criticized for going too long between updates. I don't see that they need to be slaves to the calendar. If they can release a new product with significant enhancements, they should do so when they are ready to do it.
I tend to agree but there is still some significant "downside" to this move IMO.
I don't agree that it will make folks hold off from buying, but Apple's hallmark has always been the integration of software and hardware on their products. Considering that they have major software packages that often go *years* without any significant update, updating the hardware every 6 months seems weird to me.
Personally, I'm already kind of upset that I have bought three major revisions of the iPad hardware since the Pages Word Processing software has been updated (or even finished), in any significant way. If it was six iPad revisions, i'd be really quite pissed off, and I tend to be less angsty or angry about this kind of stuff than a lot of folks I know.
It seems to me that a six month upgrade cycle *will* increase the complaints from the customers at least.
Can someone explain how Apple couldn't do a retina mini in October but bam come March they'll have no problem doing it? And same question with the full size iPad getting the mini's form factor.
Can someone explain how Apple couldn't do a retina mini in October but bam come March they'll have no problem doing it? And same question with the full size iPad getting the mini's form factor.
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but technology changes over time. What was impossible 6 months ago might be possible today.
When Apple stopped numbering the iPad it should have been obvious they would upgraded on a more frequent basis.
I don't see how that follows. For a rapidly changing product, a numbering system is the only way to keep track of it. That's why you have OS X 10.8.3 and so on. For a product which changes only once a year, you can keep track of it with the year designation (MacBook Pro early 2009, for example). Keeping track of a rapidly changing product without numbers sounds like a recipe for disaster.
It seems to me that a six month upgrade cycle *will* increase the complaints from the customers at least.
I'm sure Apple is getting feedback (or their market research is telling them) that consumers prefer the mini's design and weight. I don't doubt Apple wants to get a new full size iPad out there that's thin and light like the mini as soon as they can. But if they get in the habit of upgrading hardware more frequently these announcements are going to become a big 'meh' to people. I mean did anyone really get excited about the 4th gen iPad? I mean unless the have something really cool on the software side to accompany it who gets excited about internals being updated?
I don't see how that follows. For a rapidly changing product, a numbering system is the only way to keep track of it. That's why you have OS X 10.8.3 and so on. For a product which changes only once a year, you can keep track of it with the year designation (MacBook Pro early 2009, for example). Keeping track of a rapidly changing product without numbers sounds like a recipe for disaster.
The laptops used to be updated exactly as often as the iPad is becoming. Never had any numbers. Works perfectly fine.
ALL PRODUCTS can be handled perfectly well without artificial numbering.
Can someone explain how Apple couldn't do a retina mini in October but bam come March they'll have no problem doing it? And same question with the full size iPad getting the mini's form factor.
They could have done a retina mini in October, but the resulting device wouldn't have met their design goals in time to ship it, including price, component yields, battery life, weight, size, etc. The design of the iPad mini was clearly finalized some time before it was released, and the team working on the next rev may have started (probably did start) work even before that. Technology moves fast these days, and they'll have been working on it a lot longer than 4-5 months by March.
I don't like this kind of 6-month cycles at all. Makes customers delay purchases and hurt resale values, which in turns cheapen the brand. Hope it's not happening.
I agree and disagree. I more disagree. You might end up delaying a full year, passing on current gen. I think we will get used to regular updates. Because stuff might not sell that well for the quarter preceding an annual model. That's 3 months of lost savings.
I bet a lot of the updates will not be that big if it is semi-annual.
Now, a thinner iPad and a retina mini is a big update.
Other updates woudl be faster processors, and maybe little better screens (with same technology). That's probably what it is.
Or this rumor is bunk and you'll get the iPad 5 with A7X and Case redesign in the fall.
Sorry, but just a redesign would be a pretty lame upgrade- it'd look awesome, dont get me wrong. But they would have to bring something else to the table you would think. Already an HD facetime and 5MP back camera- where to go from there?
If we get a Spring upgrade all I expect is a case redesign. The new chips for the internals won't be ready till fall.
[quote name="jragosta" url="/t/155421/rumor-fifth-gen-ipad-second-gen-ipad-mini-to-debut-in-march/40#post_2257511"] Maybe no one has explained it to you, but technology changes over time. What was impossible 6 months ago might be possible today. /quote]Doh! I get that. But really a retina mini and thinner and lighter iPad was not possible in October but will be possible in March? When AnandTech reviewed the mini they were skeptical about the 2nd gen being retina. Now we're going to get one 6 months after the first one? And why announce a 4th gen iPad in October if they thought they could do a thinner and lighter one come March? Is the iPad 3 really a slouch compared to the competition? Couldn't they have updated the 3rd gen with lightning connector? Or was the 4th gen all about showing off their semiconductor chops? And the 5th gen will just be a faster version of the 4th (I can't imagine iOS 7 will be ready in March).
When Apple stopped numbering the iPad it should have been obvious they would upgraded on a more frequent basis.
Actually, when Apple stopped numbering the iPad it should have been obvious that there would be an iPad mini. Why number the iPad at all when you have two lines: iPad, iPad Mini. Which is why I'm sure the iPad 2 and 3 will be history when the next iPad comes out.
"Would you like to buy the current iPad or last gen?"
"Would you like to buy the current iPad Mini or last gen?"
Much more simple than a numbering system. If Apple announces "the New iPhone" this summer/fall, then I'll be convinced that another model of iPhone will be released as well.
The reasoning is obviously that the technology is improving fast enough that it's possible to do mid-year upgrades that would interest some people enough to spur sales.
In addition, it doesn't put them (as much) in the position where a competitor releases a new product 6-9 months after the last iPad/iPhone revision - and Apple appears to have fallen behind simply because of the advance in technology.
Sure, over time, but is 6 months enough time for them to make the changes, especially with some rumours being of a retina iPad mini? If Apple can get IGZO and Rogue 6 at capacity then it might happen but let's remember that Apple's scale is so huge that we would likely see other vendors using, or at least demoing, these technologies before Apple. Were there any IGZO products at CES? Apple could go exclusive with Rogue 6 and IGZO for a spell but is that likely?
I doubt that, since the Retina iPad is in that price range right now. The 4th generation iPad was more than just a slight upgrade over the 3rd as you suggest. The A6X is twice as fast as the A5X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
It may be priced higher, but that's not why Apple would do it. They don't operate this way.
Considering the iPad Mini only cost $70 less than the iPad 2 with the exact same specs. Shouldn't we assume a Retina Mini would cost $70 less than the Retina iPad?
As I said I believe Retina will be reserved for a higher end Mini.
Expect $429 for a Retina Mini with the current low res Mini continuing on at $329.
If they follow their iPad mini pattern a larger iPhone-like* device would have a 4.904" display. That would allow them to use the 264 PPI display panels already utilized in the iPad (4) whilst maintaining the same resolution of the iPhone 5.
* Uses the same iPhone and iPod Touch apps in the same way the iPad and iPad mini use the same apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
A 4.904" device with the Ive touch sounds fine to me.
This obviously isn't an iPhone discussion, but I've postulated that Apple could double the resolution of the iPhone 5, stretch it onto a 5 inch screen and have a "Super Retina" display of sorts. 2272 x 1280 pixels is still less than the Retina iPad (2.9 million versus 3.1 million) so such a device could use an A6X and be very speedy and relatively efficient.
How does that sound for a Super iPhone (iPhone X or Pro or whatever they would call it). But I would imagine the price would be $849 or more for the "base" model.
They could have done a retina mini in October, but the resulting device wouldn't have met their design goals in time to ship it, including price, component yields, battery life, weight, size, etc. The design of the iPad mini was clearly finalized some time before it was released, and the team working on the next rev may have started (probably did start) work even before that. Technology moves fast these days, and they'll have been working on it a lot longer than 4-5 months by March.
lets just say I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not sure how I feel about Apple upgrading their refresh cycles. Especially when they're not updating software that frequently. It either becomes 'meh' or pisses people off. I suppose its hard to hold back technology but if I purchased a 4th gen iPad and then 6 months later the 5th gen comes out which is thinner and lighter and has even better battery life I'd be pissed. It's not like this stuff is super cheap. And going to a faster refresh cycle would probably bring down the resale value of existing stuff.
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but technology changes over time. What was impossible 6 months ago might be possible today.
I don't see how that follows. For a rapidly changing product, a numbering system is the only way to keep track of it. That's why you have OS X 10.8.3 and so on. For a product which changes only once a year, you can keep track of it with the year designation (MacBook Pro early 2009, for example). Keeping track of a rapidly changing product without numbers sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Well, notice that, for Macs, it's something like, 'MacBook Pro [Core i7 2.5 15"] Late 2011', with variations in place of "Late" that could be "Early" or "Mid", with or without the processor info. So, with their "versioning scheme" they can do up to 3 releases per year. With the iDevices, traditionally, they've used "Generations", as with the iPod (Touch). The iPhone models and iPad 2 are really the anomalies in Apple's naming scheme since Jobs' return. But, maybe that's because they planned from early on with both to sell overlapping models, where, unlike with Macs and iPods, they actually had two versions on the market at the same time, so some sort of distinctive model indicator -- e.g. iPhone 4 vs. iPhone 3Gs, iPad 2 vs. iPad (3rd Gen) -- was deemed necessary.
It is interesting that iPad (3rd Gen) reverted back to iPad, while the iPad 2 got and retained the version number. Maybe iPad 2 was considered a dead-end project with the real focus of development at that time being the Retina iPad (3rd Gen). Or maybe it was developed alongside the original iPad, but just wasn't ready to go.
The biggest company in the world seems to think it's OK to release the latest version of it's second most popular product
ONE FULL YEAR [obviously, iPad 3.2 doesn't count] after the last version of it ....
I'm all for a quicker iPhone update... but not in the traditional sense. If Apple had three different screen sizes... 3.5, 4, and say 4.5, then update each once a year but at different times.
... but the iPad... really?! What is there about the iPad that could make such a significant difference at this time of year? There just doesn't seem to be anything gained imo.
The reason is simple, people saw the mini design are many are delaying the purchase of the 10" ipad to the new design. They have to release it. I think the mini will only see incremental upgrades, like the A6.
I expect the IGZO screens and the retina mini to come in fall. So in a sense they are doing 1 big upgrade on 1 ipad model per year while the other one gets just a few internals upgrade.
They absolutly must keep a shorter refresh cycle and above all break the pretictable upgrade patterns to avoid the major dried out of sales ahead of the refresh. They need to find a way to keep sales more constant all year long and dodge the the impossible to meet demand after expected launches.
lets just say I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not sure how I feel about Apple upgrading their refresh cycles. Especially when they're not updating software that frequently. It either becomes 'meh' or pisses people off. I suppose its hard to hold back technology but if I purchased a 4th gen iPad and then 6 months later the 5th gen comes out which is thinner and lighter and has even better battery life I'd be pissed. It's not like this stuff is super cheap. And going to a faster refresh cycle would probably bring down the resale value of existing stuff.
As I said earlier, I doubt very much that Apple considers, "the resale value of existing stuff," when deciding if and when they are ready to release a new product, nor should they. It's also a ridiculous expectation that they should artificially delay products so that people who bought the previous version can feel properly smug for a good 9-12 months. It's not like purchasing a product comes with some sort of entitlement that no one will have anything better for at least 12 months. They should release new versions when they have something significantly better to offer. You should buy what you need, when you need it. And by doing more frequent releases, Apple would be giving you the best possible value for your money at any given time.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
If Apple goes to faster release cycles, they get criticized for "obsoleting" products too quickly. If they only release once a year, they get criticized for going too long between updates. I don't see that they need to be slaves to the calendar. If they can release a new product with significant enhancements, they should do so when they are ready to do it.
I tend to agree but there is still some significant "downside" to this move IMO.
I don't agree that it will make folks hold off from buying, but Apple's hallmark has always been the integration of software and hardware on their products. Considering that they have major software packages that often go *years* without any significant update, updating the hardware every 6 months seems weird to me.
Personally, I'm already kind of upset that I have bought three major revisions of the iPad hardware since the Pages Word Processing software has been updated (or even finished), in any significant way. If it was six iPad revisions, i'd be really quite pissed off, and I tend to be less angsty or angry about this kind of stuff than a lot of folks I know.
It seems to me that a six month upgrade cycle *will* increase the complaints from the customers at least.
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but technology changes over time. What was impossible 6 months ago might be possible today.
I don't see how that follows. For a rapidly changing product, a numbering system is the only way to keep track of it. That's why you have OS X 10.8.3 and so on. For a product which changes only once a year, you can keep track of it with the year designation (MacBook Pro early 2009, for example). Keeping track of a rapidly changing product without numbers sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Originally Posted by jragosta
I don't see how that follows. For a rapidly changing product, a numbering system is the only way to keep track of it. That's why you have OS X 10.8.3 and so on. For a product which changes only once a year, you can keep track of it with the year designation (MacBook Pro early 2009, for example). Keeping track of a rapidly changing product without numbers sounds like a recipe for disaster.
The laptops used to be updated exactly as often as the iPad is becoming. Never had any numbers. Works perfectly fine.
ALL PRODUCTS can be handled perfectly well without artificial numbering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Can someone explain how Apple couldn't do a retina mini in October but bam come March they'll have no problem doing it? And same question with the full size iPad getting the mini's form factor.
They could have done a retina mini in October, but the resulting device wouldn't have met their design goals in time to ship it, including price, component yields, battery life, weight, size, etc. The design of the iPad mini was clearly finalized some time before it was released, and the team working on the next rev may have started (probably did start) work even before that. Technology moves fast these days, and they'll have been working on it a lot longer than 4-5 months by March.
Good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever
I don't like this kind of 6-month cycles at all. Makes customers delay purchases and hurt resale values, which in turns cheapen the brand. Hope it's not happening.
I agree and disagree. I more disagree. You might end up delaying a full year, passing on current gen. I think we will get used to regular updates. Because stuff might not sell that well for the quarter preceding an annual model. That's 3 months of lost savings.
I bet a lot of the updates will not be that big if it is semi-annual.
Now, a thinner iPad and a retina mini is a big update.
Other updates woudl be faster processors, and maybe little better screens (with same technology). That's probably what it is.
P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Or this rumor is bunk and you'll get the iPad 5 with A7X and Case redesign in the fall.
Sorry, but just a redesign would be a pretty lame upgrade- it'd look awesome, dont get me wrong. But they would have to bring something else to the table you would think. Already an HD facetime and 5MP back camera- where to go from there?
If we get a Spring upgrade all I expect is a case redesign. The new chips for the internals won't be ready till fall.
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but technology changes over time. What was impossible 6 months ago might be possible today.
/quote]Doh! I get that. But really a retina mini and thinner and lighter iPad was not possible in October but will be possible in March? When AnandTech reviewed the mini they were skeptical about the 2nd gen being retina. Now we're going to get one 6 months after the first one? And why announce a 4th gen iPad in October if they thought they could do a thinner and lighter one come March? Is the iPad 3 really a slouch compared to the competition? Couldn't they have updated the 3rd gen with lightning connector? Or was the 4th gen all about showing off their semiconductor chops? And the 5th gen will just be a faster version of the 4th (I can't imagine iOS 7 will be ready in March).
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
When Apple stopped numbering the iPad it should have been obvious they would upgraded on a more frequent basis.
Actually, when Apple stopped numbering the iPad it should have been obvious that there would be an iPad mini. Why number the iPad at all when you have two lines: iPad, iPad Mini. Which is why I'm sure the iPad 2 and 3 will be history when the next iPad comes out.
"Would you like to buy the current iPad or last gen?"
"Would you like to buy the current iPad Mini or last gen?"
Much more simple than a numbering system. If Apple announces "the New iPhone" this summer/fall, then I'll be convinced that another model of iPhone will be released as well.
Sure, over time, but is 6 months enough time for them to make the changes, especially with some rumours being of a retina iPad mini? If Apple can get IGZO and Rogue 6 at capacity then it might happen but let's remember that Apple's scale is so huge that we would likely see other vendors using, or at least demoing, these technologies before Apple. Were there any IGZO products at CES? Apple could go exclusive with Rogue 6 and IGZO for a spell but is that likely?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerofTruth
I doubt that, since the Retina iPad is in that price range right now. The 4th generation iPad was more than just a slight upgrade over the 3rd as you suggest. The A6X is twice as fast as the A5X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
It may be priced higher, but that's not why Apple would do it. They don't operate this way.
Considering the iPad Mini only cost $70 less than the iPad 2 with the exact same specs. Shouldn't we assume a Retina Mini would cost $70 less than the Retina iPad?
As I said I believe Retina will be reserved for a higher end Mini.
Expect $429 for a Retina Mini with the current low res Mini continuing on at $329.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If they follow their iPad mini pattern a larger iPhone-like* device would have a 4.904" display. That would allow them to use the 264 PPI display panels already utilized in the iPad (4) whilst maintaining the same resolution of the iPhone 5.
* Uses the same iPhone and iPod Touch apps in the same way the iPad and iPad mini use the same apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
A 4.904" device with the Ive touch sounds fine to me.
This obviously isn't an iPhone discussion, but I've postulated that Apple could double the resolution of the iPhone 5, stretch it onto a 5 inch screen and have a "Super Retina" display of sorts. 2272 x 1280 pixels is still less than the Retina iPad (2.9 million versus 3.1 million) so such a device could use an A6X and be very speedy and relatively efficient.
How does that sound for a Super iPhone (iPhone X or Pro or whatever they would call it). But I would imagine the price would be $849 or more for the "base" model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but technology changes over time. What was impossible 6 months ago might be possible today.
I don't see how that follows. For a rapidly changing product, a numbering system is the only way to keep track of it. That's why you have OS X 10.8.3 and so on. For a product which changes only once a year, you can keep track of it with the year designation (MacBook Pro early 2009, for example). Keeping track of a rapidly changing product without numbers sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Well, notice that, for Macs, it's something like, 'MacBook Pro [Core i7 2.5 15"] Late 2011', with variations in place of "Late" that could be "Early" or "Mid", with or without the processor info. So, with their "versioning scheme" they can do up to 3 releases per year. With the iDevices, traditionally, they've used "Generations", as with the iPod (Touch). The iPhone models and iPad 2 are really the anomalies in Apple's naming scheme since Jobs' return. But, maybe that's because they planned from early on with both to sell overlapping models, where, unlike with Macs and iPods, they actually had two versions on the market at the same time, so some sort of distinctive model indicator -- e.g. iPhone 4 vs. iPhone 3Gs, iPad 2 vs. iPad (3rd Gen) -- was deemed necessary.
It is interesting that iPad (3rd Gen) reverted back to iPad, while the iPad 2 got and retained the version number. Maybe iPad 2 was considered a dead-end project with the real focus of development at that time being the Retina iPad (3rd Gen). Or maybe it was developed alongside the original iPad, but just wasn't ready to go.
ONE FULL YEAR [obviously, iPad 3.2 doesn't count] after the last version of it ....
Sounds good to me!
I've already got my $750 socked away for it!
GO iPAD, GO !!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The laptops used to be updated exactly as often as the iPad is becoming. Never had any numbers. Works perfectly fine.
ALL PRODUCTS can be handled perfectly well without artificial numbering.
Nailed it.
It allows for more 'minor' updates as necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
I'm all for a quicker iPhone update... but not in the traditional sense. If Apple had three different screen sizes... 3.5, 4, and say 4.5, then update each once a year but at different times.
... but the iPad... really?! What is there about the iPad that could make such a significant difference at this time of year? There just doesn't seem to be anything gained imo.
The reason is simple, people saw the mini design are many are delaying the purchase of the 10" ipad to the new design. They have to release it. I think the mini will only see incremental upgrades, like the A6.
I expect the IGZO screens and the retina mini to come in fall. So in a sense they are doing 1 big upgrade on 1 ipad model per year while the other one gets just a few internals upgrade.
They absolutly must keep a shorter refresh cycle and above all break the pretictable upgrade patterns to avoid the major dried out of sales ahead of the refresh. They need to find a way to keep sales more constant all year long and dodge the the impossible to meet demand after expected launches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
lets just say I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not sure how I feel about Apple upgrading their refresh cycles. Especially when they're not updating software that frequently. It either becomes 'meh' or pisses people off. I suppose its hard to hold back technology but if I purchased a 4th gen iPad and then 6 months later the 5th gen comes out which is thinner and lighter and has even better battery life I'd be pissed. It's not like this stuff is super cheap. And going to a faster refresh cycle would probably bring down the resale value of existing stuff.
As I said earlier, I doubt very much that Apple considers, "the resale value of existing stuff," when deciding if and when they are ready to release a new product, nor should they. It's also a ridiculous expectation that they should artificially delay products so that people who bought the previous version can feel properly smug for a good 9-12 months. It's not like purchasing a product comes with some sort of entitlement that no one will have anything better for at least 12 months. They should release new versions when they have something significantly better to offer. You should buy what you need, when you need it. And by doing more frequent releases, Apple would be giving you the best possible value for your money at any given time.