Sooooo... are they still going to release an iPad "5" in April or so, or does this news eliminate that possibility and the iPad "5" will in October-ish? Now, I'm confused if I should wait for April or just buy now cuz the "5" isn't for 8-9 months! Any thoughts or insight from anyone? Thanks.
Secondly, I hope the iPad "5" they do some innovation on the OS this year, spruce up multi-tasking, add some new features -- not just make it thinner with changed corners and new back.
If I were to ask you what you expect in a new iOS software release, what would you say? You already know the answer to the multitasking question ("No"), so what "new features" do you want? Do you expect change for the sake of change, new for the sake of new? I mean, as consumers we're taught to expect "New and Improved!" on everything, including our laundry detergent.
Like most people, I don't really care about "the Classic." I see it as the device choice of insufferable snobs for the most part.
I think the last part of your statement about how long it would take for 128GB to move to the iPhone and iPod is likely incorrect however. The fact that they can do this storage upgrade "mid-stream" as it were, without a redesign of the device, indicates to me that its a simple chip swap and that the two parts are of identical size.
If they can simply swap out the chips for a larger capacity chip of the exact same size, then it could literally happen overnight. The fact that this move would do a great deal to improve their gross margins, (exactly the problem in their last financial report), means also that they might be very motivated to do so.
It's not necessarily, or usually about insufferable snobbery. I want a iPod Classic to connect through a line-out to my audio receiver and just leave it there. I don't want to Airplay from iTunes from my MBA or Airplay (or line-out) from my iPhone (as I do now). I don't want my Apple TV playing music when I want to watch Netflix or use it for something else.
I want a dedicated music player that doesn't go anywhere, loaded with all my music and playlists. That's also what a lot of people want-a good dedicated music library connected to speakers or a stereo receiver. An iPod Classic in my home is desirable for its utility. Only problem is that I cannot justify it budget-wise and I'm looking forward to an iPad mini this year.
I just noticed it's not available until next week. Usually these would be silent and they'd be available immediately. So why this official notification and lead time. Well the Surface Pro goes on sale February 9th and has prices that are $70 higher than the same capacity iPad with Cellular. I wouldn't call it a smoking gun but it's definitely my prime suspect for this update.
Surface Pro with Windows 8 Pro, 64 GB (no keyboard cover): $899
Surface Pro with Windows 8 Pro, 128 GB (no keyboard cover): $999
The 128GB Microsoft Surface Pro Only Offers 83GB of Usable Space
It has nothing to do with other tablets it is all about the cost of flash.
Oh I see, so now the pricing of Apple products should add up to the component cost? Since when has this been the case, ever, with any company? How cute. Should they charge $63.96 more for the higher capacity model? or maybe $68.35? You're making a ridiculous argument. One of the biggest variables when they decide pricing is the entire product line, how it compares in context with the other capacities, and having a nice even number. The other capacity bumps are $100, so it makes sense that this one is too- especially since you're getting an extra 64GB, not an extra 16GB like from the 16-32. It's logically and reasonably priced, nothing else would make any sense unless they change the pricing for ALL models.
Uh, there are millions of usage scenarios where one can't depend or rely on the cloud, especially with a mobile device like the iPad which can be used anywhere and to display content to others. Apple isn't expecting this to become their best selling model, it will probably sell the least, but is an extra OPTION for those who want/need it for any reason.
Why didn't Apple launch this last year when they launched 4th gen iPad? Doing it now seems more like a reaction to the stock; throwing something out there to get margins back up. It just seems like such a random thing to do. :???:
Well, aapparently they researched storage needs and came to the conclusion there is a market for more storage. And I see, like many people, you also tag it with 4th gen, I wonder why. Wasn't the 'Lightning cable version' the 4th gen?
What's the current price on a Micro SD 32 GB Class 10 card?
To stick it into a Samsung device? Realy, if you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND, well, then you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND.
That would seem reasonable. I can't imagine the price for 16GB today is the same as it was in 2010 when the iPad first came out.
Agreed. If I remember correctly, my original iPhone was 4GB only to be dropped shortly after for the 8GB and now the 16GB is the starting point for the latest iPhones. Like I said, I think I have right.
Good for Apple!
The original iPhone came out in two models: 4GB and 8GB.
Just goes to show that it's easy to justify any argument if you want to play fast and loose with logic.
The 128 GB iPad is $300 more than the base unit. (If you want cell phone, that's an additional $130, but applies regardless of whether you have the WiFi model or the cell model.)
Meanwhile, your 64 GB iPad was $200 more than the base model.
The difference is $100, not $430.
What Absolute Ridiculousness Are You On About?
The iPad Does Not Have 'Cell Phone' (as in the ability to make place regualr phone calls) Capabilities - Never Has.
You've never seen a reference to cellular written as cell phone?
Oh I see, so now the pricing of Apple products should add up to the component cost? Since when has this been the case, ever, with any company? How cute. Should they charge $63.96 more for the higher capacity model? or maybe $68.35? You're making a ridiculous argument. One of the biggest variables when they decide pricing is the entire product line, how it compares in context with the other capacities, and having a nice even number. The other capacity bumps are $100, so it makes sense that this one is too- especially since you're getting an extra 64GB, not an extra 16GB like from the 16-32. It's logically and reasonably priced, nothing else would make any sense unless they change the pricing for ALL models.
What I don't get is why people always make that argument from the cheapest model. Let's say that each doubling of NAND cost only $20 more (to make it simple). You'll never see someone say the prices should $739 for 16GB, $759 for 32GB, $779 for 64GB, and $799 for 128GB. It's always starting with the entry-level item as if that is the gold standard by which Apple arranges their desired profit margin from and everything else is just gravy.
It was, which begs the question why not release the 128GB model last year when they released the 4th gen iPad? My guess is that this density NAND simply wasn't available in quantity -and- the Surface Pro was about to ship.
That's not to say Apple is worried about the Surface Pro but I do think Apple really wants the iPad market to be like the iPod market so being aggressive and not taking any chances (no matter how awful the Surface Pro is compared to an Ultrabook).
I found it interesting in the Apple announcement that they highlighted three business use examples:
AutoCad, music recording, and football. The football example I get because you are on the sidelines watching the video taken in the previous plays of the day.
The AutoCad and music examples have me baffled. If you are at a construction site it might make sense to be able to view the plans on an iPad but why on earth would you make edits to them? All edits to the building CAD files should be done back at the architect's office on the master copy otherwise you have multiple versions floating around. The music one is nonsensical to me as well because in order to do professional recoding you need a truck load of equipment like mics, stands, cords, instruments, etc. Why is a small portable device like an iPad a benefit when you are toting around a drum kit and a piano? You would probably be better off with the full desktop version of the app on a MBP.
Uh, Apple isn't implying that those are the ONLY 3 possible uses. They are showing that users who store large amounts of graphical, video or audio information would benefit from the increased storage.
If you don't get the music one then you are completely clueless about recording and production. Why do I need to carry around a truck full of equipment if I just want to lay down a couple tracks in a remote location or while on the road? I can be staying in a hotel and have my iPad, guitar and Apogee One and make quality recordings with gear that takes up no more space than a laptop would. And an iPad is much faster than a laptop. I can use the iPad's touchscreen to make quick adjustments to recording levels, EQ and effects MUCH FASTER than running software on a laptop. Have you tried using a touchpad to select a control and then apply a change to it? Horribly slow. A mouse is much better, but then that's more stuff to carry around and now you need a desk/surface to use it on.
And I don't think anyone is suggesting you make major changes to a CAD file for a project. What do you think is better? Make a few notes on a scratchpad and head back to the office to update the original drawings? Or make a few changes, sticky notes and highlights to the iPad version and use that as your "reference" when updating the originals? Which will be clearer to understand when you get back to the office with possibly dozens of "notes"?
It's not necessarily, or usually about insufferable snobbery. I want a iPod Classic to connect through a line-out to my audio receiver and just leave it there. I don't want to Airplay from iTunes from my MBA or Airplay (or line-out) from my iPhone (as I do now). I don't want my Apple TV playing music when I want to watch Netflix or use it for something else.
I want a dedicated music player that doesn't go anywhere, loaded with all my music and playlists. That's also what a lot of people want-a good dedicated music library connected to speakers or a stereo receiver. An iPod Classic in my home is desirable for its utility. Only problem is that I cannot justify it budget-wise and I'm looking forward to an iPad mini this year.
I didn't mean anything personal by the snobery comment and I hope you didn't take too much offence. I would say this is definitely not a use that most people want or care about though so to me it's still not a good reason for keeping the classic around given that so few people would actually want to do this.
[...] companies will lose profit margins on the low-end in expectation of making it up on the high-end. [...] You've made the erroneous assumption that the 16GB is some sweet spot with price and profit margin so that anything higher is just a rip off, but that's foolish.
Fair enough, so bear with me as I present it another way: I resent having to subsidize the cheapskates in order to get a higher capacity device. If the exorbitant margins on the higher capacity devices are, in fact, necessary to allow a lower base price, then yes, I think the entry-level models are priced too low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It was, which begs the question why not release the 128GB model last year when they released the 4th gen iPad?
One of my pet peeves, so I can't help myself here. "Begs the question" does not mean "logically leads one to ask." If an argument is based a flawed premise, it is said to beg the question. I share this NOT with the intention of being insulting or condescending, but because I'm vainly hoping it won't become another "could care less."
Comments
Wow. So much discussion over Apple offering more storageon the iPad.
Based on the number of comments I would have guessed this to be an article about Apple winning another case against Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The only thing they add is more flash, that is it. As such they are charging way too much for a 128GB of flash.
They are charging $100 for 64Gig of flash. Since 16 to 32 is $100, the cost of flash drops 50% for each increment past that.
If I were to ask you what you expect in a new iOS software release, what would you say? You already know the answer to the multitasking question ("No"), so what "new features" do you want? Do you expect change for the sake of change, new for the sake of new? I mean, as consumers we're taught to expect "New and Improved!" on everything, including our laundry detergent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Wow. So much discussion over Apple offering more storageon the iPad.
Based on the number of comments I would have guessed this to be an article about Apple winning another case against Samsung.
LOL!. You're right. I've no idea why a simple storage increase prompts over 130 posts in less than a day. Maybe nothing else to talk about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Like most people, I don't really care about "the Classic." I see it as the device choice of insufferable snobs for the most part.
I think the last part of your statement about how long it would take for 128GB to move to the iPhone and iPod is likely incorrect however. The fact that they can do this storage upgrade "mid-stream" as it were, without a redesign of the device, indicates to me that its a simple chip swap and that the two parts are of identical size.
If they can simply swap out the chips for a larger capacity chip of the exact same size, then it could literally happen overnight. The fact that this move would do a great deal to improve their gross margins, (exactly the problem in their last financial report), means also that they might be very motivated to do so.
It's not necessarily, or usually about insufferable snobbery. I want a iPod Classic to connect through a line-out to my audio receiver and just leave it there. I don't want to Airplay from iTunes from my MBA or Airplay (or line-out) from my iPhone (as I do now). I don't want my Apple TV playing music when I want to watch Netflix or use it for something else.
I want a dedicated music player that doesn't go anywhere, loaded with all my music and playlists. That's also what a lot of people want-a good dedicated music library connected to speakers or a stereo receiver. An iPod Classic in my home is desirable for its utility. Only problem is that I cannot justify it budget-wise and I'm looking forward to an iPad mini this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I just noticed it's not available until next week. Usually these would be silent and they'd be available immediately. So why this official notification and lead time. Well the Surface Pro goes on sale February 9th and has prices that are $70 higher than the same capacity iPad with Cellular. I wouldn't call it a smoking gun but it's definitely my prime suspect for this update.
Surface Pro with Windows 8 Pro, 64 GB (no keyboard cover): $899
Surface Pro with Windows 8 Pro, 128 GB (no keyboard cover): $999
The 128GB Microsoft Surface Pro Only Offers 83GB of Usable Space
http://gizmodo.com/5979796/the-128gb-microsoft-surface-pro-only-offers-83gb-of-usable-space
Apple is doing no favor to the Cloud concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It has nothing to do with other tablets it is all about the cost of flash.
Oh I see, so now the pricing of Apple products should add up to the component cost? Since when has this been the case, ever, with any company? How cute. Should they charge $63.96 more for the higher capacity model? or maybe $68.35? You're making a ridiculous argument. One of the biggest variables when they decide pricing is the entire product line, how it compares in context with the other capacities, and having a nice even number. The other capacity bumps are $100, so it makes sense that this one is too- especially since you're getting an extra 64GB, not an extra 16GB like from the 16-32. It's logically and reasonably priced, nothing else would make any sense unless they change the pricing for ALL models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCProfessor
Apple is doing no favor to the Cloud concept.
Uh, there are millions of usage scenarios where one can't depend or rely on the cloud, especially with a mobile device like the iPad which can be used anywhere and to display content to others. Apple isn't expecting this to become their best selling model, it will probably sell the least, but is an extra OPTION for those who want/need it for any reason.
Well, aapparently they researched storage needs and came to the conclusion there is a market for more storage. And I see, like many people, you also tag it with 4th gen, I wonder why. Wasn't the 'Lightning cable version' the 4th gen?
That is exactl why I'm getting this iPad as well, even though I have the 64 3rd gen now.
To stick it into a Samsung device? Realy, if you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND, well, then you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND.
The original iPhone came out in two models: 4GB and 8GB.
You've never seen a reference to cellular written as cell phone?
What I don't get is why people always make that argument from the cheapest model. Let's say that each doubling of NAND cost only $20 more (to make it simple). You'll never see someone say the prices should $739 for 16GB, $759 for 32GB, $779 for 64GB, and $799 for 128GB. It's always starting with the entry-level item as if that is the gold standard by which Apple arranges their desired profit margin from and everything else is just gravy.
It was, which begs the question why not release the 128GB model last year when they released the 4th gen iPad? My guess is that this density NAND simply wasn't available in quantity -and- the Surface Pro was about to ship.
That's not to say Apple is worried about the Surface Pro but I do think Apple really wants the iPad market to be like the iPod market so being aggressive and not taking any chances (no matter how awful the Surface Pro is compared to an Ultrabook).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Wow. So much discussion over Apple offering more storageon the iPad.
Based on the number of comments I would have guessed this to be an article about Apple winning another case against Samsung.
Slow day... lots of pent up rage over the way the quarterly was reported...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I found it interesting in the Apple announcement that they highlighted three business use examples:
AutoCad, music recording, and football. The football example I get because you are on the sidelines watching the video taken in the previous plays of the day.
The AutoCad and music examples have me baffled. If you are at a construction site it might make sense to be able to view the plans on an iPad but why on earth would you make edits to them? All edits to the building CAD files should be done back at the architect's office on the master copy otherwise you have multiple versions floating around. The music one is nonsensical to me as well because in order to do professional recoding you need a truck load of equipment like mics, stands, cords, instruments, etc. Why is a small portable device like an iPad a benefit when you are toting around a drum kit and a piano? You would probably be better off with the full desktop version of the app on a MBP.
Uh, Apple isn't implying that those are the ONLY 3 possible uses. They are showing that users who store large amounts of graphical, video or audio information would benefit from the increased storage.
If you don't get the music one then you are completely clueless about recording and production. Why do I need to carry around a truck full of equipment if I just want to lay down a couple tracks in a remote location or while on the road? I can be staying in a hotel and have my iPad, guitar and Apogee One and make quality recordings with gear that takes up no more space than a laptop would. And an iPad is much faster than a laptop. I can use the iPad's touchscreen to make quick adjustments to recording levels, EQ and effects MUCH FASTER than running software on a laptop. Have you tried using a touchpad to select a control and then apply a change to it? Horribly slow. A mouse is much better, but then that's more stuff to carry around and now you need a desk/surface to use it on.
And I don't think anyone is suggesting you make major changes to a CAD file for a project. What do you think is better? Make a few notes on a scratchpad and head back to the office to update the original drawings? Or make a few changes, sticky notes and highlights to the iPad version and use that as your "reference" when updating the originals? Which will be clearer to understand when you get back to the office with possibly dozens of "notes"?
Great news! As usual, screw the whiners and others who are plagued by ignorance and doomed to a mediocre life of misery and unhappiness.
My first iPad was a 16 GB, my second ipad was a 32 GB, and my next iPad will most likely be 128 GB! Bring it on!
I use certain apps that takes many, many GBs of storage. A 128 GB will be rather nice indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia
It's not necessarily, or usually about insufferable snobbery. I want a iPod Classic to connect through a line-out to my audio receiver and just leave it there. I don't want to Airplay from iTunes from my MBA or Airplay (or line-out) from my iPhone (as I do now). I don't want my Apple TV playing music when I want to watch Netflix or use it for something else.
I want a dedicated music player that doesn't go anywhere, loaded with all my music and playlists. That's also what a lot of people want-a good dedicated music library connected to speakers or a stereo receiver. An iPod Classic in my home is desirable for its utility. Only problem is that I cannot justify it budget-wise and I'm looking forward to an iPad mini this year.
I didn't mean anything personal by the snobery comment and I hope you didn't take too much offence. I would say this is definitely not a use that most people want or care about though so to me it's still not a good reason for keeping the classic around given that so few people would actually want to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
I need that. It's actually amazing how fast storage memory gets hoggled up when you have N versions of multiple multimedia projects...
Yes, if you actually use iPhoto or iMovie on the iPad the extra space is very worthwhile.
It has cellular capabilities. As in data. The MBA does not.
What part of that are you confused about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Wow. So much discussion over Apple offering more storageon the iPad.
Based on the number of comments I would have guessed this to be an article about Apple winning another case against Samsung.
Slow day... lots of pent up rage over the way the quarterly was reported...
LOL! A lot of truth to that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] companies will lose profit margins on the low-end in expectation of making it up on the high-end. [...] You've made the erroneous assumption that the 16GB is some sweet spot with price and profit margin so that anything higher is just a rip off, but that's foolish.
Fair enough, so bear with me as I present it another way: I resent having to subsidize the cheapskates in order to get a higher capacity device. If the exorbitant margins on the higher capacity devices are, in fact, necessary to allow a lower base price, then yes, I think the entry-level models are priced too low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It was, which begs the question why not release the 128GB model last year when they released the 4th gen iPad?
One of my pet peeves, so I can't help myself here. "Begs the question" does not mean "logically leads one to ask." If an argument is based a flawed premise, it is said to beg the question. I share this NOT with the intention of being insulting or condescending, but because I'm vainly hoping it won't become another "could care less."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question