The 7" iPad would have the same 1024x768 resolution as the iPad, just a higher pixel density. There would be no change from a developer point of view.
Personally I think 7" would be the sweet spot. I find the current model cumbersome for reading in bed and can't stand the very visible pixels compared to the iPhone 4. And more RAM please. It's starting to drive me nuts the way a web page has to reload from scratch every time I hit the back button on chunky, ad-heavy sites. Love my iPad but look forward to version 2.
Download the Perfect Web Browser from the App store... it's wayyy better than using Safari. You also get tabbed browsing with it too. That was my two main reasons for going away from Safari on the iPad...tabs and that constant reload page.
First of all, the iPod touch was already in preproduction prototyping when the original iPhone launched. Don't forget that the original devices had no apps beyond what was included by Apple. The original iPod touch was really an overpriced media player with a web browser, e-mail and a couple of basic widgets.
The iPod touch's demographics skew much younger than the iPhone. There is clearly a different audience for the iPod touch. iPod touch users also download more apps than iPhone users. Note that Apple sells two iPod touches for every three iPhones they sell. It's not an insignificant chunk.
The fact that AT&T is the sole iPhone carrier in the United States is irrelevant. Note that iPod touch sales have not fallen off a cliff in international markets where there is no carrier exclusivity. It is foolish to assume that Apple's mobile device strategy is solely based on their interaction with one carrier, AT&T. Also, you should not discount the possibility that the contract was rewritten and that exclusivity may be on a year-by-year basis. We do know that with the iPhone 3G, AT&T stopped sharing subscriber revenue with Apple and moved to a direct one-time subsidy payment.
Going to a multi-carrier market isn't going to change the fact that the Total Cost of Ownership for an iPhone under a two-year service contract is way more expensive than an iPod touch, regardless of which carrier is getting your money. Assuming a $200 handset, $80 monthly service over twenty-four months, plus $40 activation fee, you are looking at $2,160. You can buy two iPod touches a year and still save money. There are still many people who are willing to make that sort of commitment.
Don't use AdMob data for sales figures. These numbers only describe what people are doing when they're looking at an ad-supported app or webpage. Again, the demographics are quite different. Also, I wouldn't quote year-old ad data anyhow. This is a rapidly growing market that has nowhere plateaued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
Or, how about you don't feel like paying ridiculous money to maintain an iPhone account but you do want to be able to do a lot of what the iPhone does.
In my case, I have a boring cell phone that costs me less than half of what it would cost to maintain an iPhone and I have a Touch. I can still make calls and I can still do a lot of the cool things the iPhone is used for but I'm paying closer to $30 a month than $60 a month. At that rate, in a year I've more than covered the cost of the Touch so over the course of a three-year period I'll have spent something like $1,300 instead of $2,400.
Basically I have 1,100 reasons to opt for the Touch over the iPhone.
I know a lot of younger consumers have the Touch probably for the same reason, namely parents are not inclined to drop thousands extra for their kids to be equipped with iPhones.
Why pay for a smartphone when what you want is a pocket computer?
The vast majority of the needs you express can be met by a smaller iPad. Yes, some with those particular needs, who insist that it must be pocketable, and who are unwilling to get an iPhone, wouldn't be served by my scenario. But since when has Apple been about making 100% of the people happy? You could still have your boring cell phone and get an iPad without a data contract. In exchange for a bigger screen you loose some portability. But I assume that your choice of a separate touch and cell phone means the ultimate in portability isn't your primary concern as you are willing to carry two devices (or you don't take your touch everywhere you go)? Perhaps the ultimate in portability for your wifi-only data device isn't as important then (at least for most people).
Either the iPod touch needs to be bigger to be better at things like web browsing and reading, or the iPad needs to get smaller to be more portable. Apple can't do both because it would lead to over-lapping product lines.
(PS: I admit that I was being a bit over-zealous when saying the entire iPod touch line would be discontinued. I wanted to see what people's reactions would be. A perhaps more likely scenario is Apple limits the feature growth of the touch or lowers the price but removes features to avoid overlap with the iPad. It will be interesting to see what Apple does. They can't give it all the iPads features. The screen just isn't big enough. And I still see sales dropping if/when the iPhone becomes available on other carriers.)
The vast majority of the needs you express can be met by a smaller iPad. Yes, some with those particular needs, who insist that it must be pocketable, and who are unwilling to get an iPhone, wouldn't be served by my scenario. But since when has Apple been about making 100% of the people happy? You could still have your boring cell phone and get an iPad without a data contract. In exchange for a bigger screen you loose some portability. But I assume that your choice of a separate touch and cell phone means the ultimate in portability isn't your primary concern as you are willing to carry two devices (or you don't take your touch everywhere you go)? Perhaps the ultimate in portability for your wifi-only data device isn't as important then (at least for most people).
Either the iPod touch needs to be bigger to be better at things like web browsing and reading, or the iPad needs to get smaller to be more portable. Apple can't do both because it would lead to over-lapping product lines.
(PS: I admit that I was being a bit over-zealous when saying the entire iPod touch line would be discontinued. I wanted to see what people's reactions would be. A perhaps more likely scenario is Apple limits the feature growth of the touch or lowers the price but removes features to avoid overlap with the iPad. It will be interesting to see what Apple does. They can't give it all the iPads features. The screen just isn't big enough. And I still see sales dropping if/when the iPhone becomes available on other carriers.)
You can make the Touch bigger somewhat and still allow it to slip with little trouble into a lot of folks' pockets. This would work for me. I don't like the Touch with a 3.5" screen. I find browsing with my netbook more enjoyable and I really don't like the netbook.
I think what should happen is that the current Touch soldiers on while a new Touch with a larger screen (something like 4.5") is introduced. If Apple doesn't alter the hardware on the Touch Classic (if you will) they might even be able to lower the price of that unit, especially if they offer it in a single configuration. Then bring out new 32GB and 64GB models featuring a larger screen, cameras front and back, etc. for the current price of the 32GB and 64GB Touch models.
Lots of bases covered and the need for a 7" iPad is eliminated.
If Apple goes that route I know that I'd likely buy both the new Touch and soon after the iPad. Otherwise it will be only the iPad because no matter what they put in a new Touch, if it still comes with a 3.5" screen, I see no reason to replace my current Touch.
I'd go with the iPad alone if it was pocketable but clearly it's not. Just as clearly, a 7" iPad would likewise not be pocketable which begs the question, what would be the point of such a device?
If weight is the biggest issue with the current iPad, the obvious solution is to not always be holding it in your hands. Need to do some typing then use a bluetooth keyboard (have one already) with a case that allows the iPad to be propped up.
I want two devices. One that slips into my pocket and a second one for puttering around the house with. I already have the Touch for the first one and will upgrade either when Apple offers me something worth upgrading to or the Touch dies.
I agree with the report, the iPad is too heavy for most in-hand use.. but great size..
However, I'd say 700 down to 500 grams is not enough. It needs to get down to at least 300g in order to truly work as something you hold in your hands for more than just 10 minutes. That would require a lighter battery, a display (e-ink?) that doesn't draw as much power, and a lighter weight shell. Have you read an iBook with the iPad? I find myself leaning it to something.. It's too heavy for in-hand reading... but works good for on-lap, on-table use.
Hey, wait a second.. maybe the 7 inch version is not an iPad, but a stand alone light weight iBook, to further compete with the Kindle?
I agree that it's too heavy for in-hand reading. I've spent a lot of time with one that a co-worker has and I spent a lot more time with it as well at a local Apple Store. It really is cool and I want one to take on weekend trips or vacations when I just don't want to deal with my 15" MacBook on such occasions, but I'll wait until I see what Apple comes out with the next iterations. I'd have to try a 7" one side by side with the current 9.7" and consider the tradeoffs. The e-readers like the Kindle are pretty easy to handle for extended periods of time and I tend to read more than watch movies and things like that, so a smaller screen that's easier to handle might be better.
At the same time, I think there's room for the "Pro" iPad that could genuinely replace the smaller laptops - perhaps a 12~13" screen? The current 9.7" size could be the mid-size model and then have one for the power user and one for people who need it as portable as possible. A few years down the road, I can easily envision an iPad for everyone in my family - wife and the two kids.
So you're saying that reports on a survey of people who don't actually own an iPad holds more weight than the fact that Apple can't meet demand with their manufacturing process which is currently making and then selling about 1 million iPads per month??
A new study from Retrevo (over 1,000 non-Retrevo users) looks at interest in the iPad ahead of Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference next week. The company emailed WebProNews with a round-up of significant findings.
So without beating around the bush, let's just get to them.
Study Highlights:
- 52% of people surveyed say they "don't need" an iPad
- 38% of people say the iPad is "too expensive"
- 10% of people are "waiting for a good excuse" to buy an iPad
Obviously competition for the iPad is on the way, and it has been widely speculated that Google's Android will play a major role in that. Retrevo asked people interested in buying a tablet, "What would make you buy an Android-based tablet over an iPad?"
- 53% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "If it was less expensive than the iPad."
- 33% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "If Verizon was the carrier."
- 28% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "If it was discounted as part of a subscription service (like a cell phone contract)."
- 22% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "for other reasons."
- 16% say they would still buy an iPad, regardless.
"Apple still has a ways to go in convincing many users of the full utility of the iPad. More than half of owners or would-be owners, 55 percent, said they still see the iPad as an expensive toy while 33 percent see it as a breakthrough product and 28 percent see it benefiting productivity.
For people who intend to buy the iPad, the main reasons are entertainment (58 percent), cool factor (42 percent), convenience (40 percent) and brand (28 percent). For people not interested in the iPad, 54 percent say they don't see a need for it, while 46 percent say it's too expensive."
"55% call the device “a very expensive toy.” They view it in terms of amusement as opposed to practicality. Because of the strong associations with entertainment and coolness, the top reasons for rejecting the iPad were related to its futility.
I agree the current iPad is too big and heavy. That's why I took mine back and bought an iPhone 4.
The iPhone 4 makes the iPad look obsolete.
I really don't get the iPad at all. It's just a big iPod Touch with no phone, no camera.
I'm tired of hearing that...it's just a giant iPod Touch... Is that a bad thing? Your swimming pool is just a giant bath tub...how useless. Size is dependent on your personal needs. I find my giant iPod Touch (iPad) more useful than my real iPod Touch that just sits and collects dust. I can't understand how viewing web pages on a small screen is as enjoyable as my giant iPad.
Really who cares, small screen, big screen, obviously everyone has different likes and wants, not one is perfect for everyone.
I don't mean to direct this to you, it's for everyone that feels this way.
Too many devices with different resolutions is not good! Just look at the android market to see that for yourself.
Actually programmer only need to design for two sides: iPhone and iPad. For iPhone, developer only need to create new resources suffixed with "@2x", e.g. button.jpg -> button@2x.jpg. If there is no @2x counterpart resource, it will fall back to ordinary one. No code changes is required.
I guess the 7" inch iPad will have same resolution as 9.7" iPad, so the old program will run smoothly on 7" iPad.
This is just too much too soon if it proves to be true, (which I highly doubt). Apple devices may be wildly popular, but introducing so many mobile idevices in rapid session can't be good for public perception. After buying an iPad, I upgraded my 3GS to an iPhone 4 about a week later. Frankly I'm iOSed out for now and tired of the upgrades and changes. A person only has but so many needs for these kinds of devices and those needs are already being met with the current line-up. Plus I hear the iPod line will be refreshed in a month or so. Enough already.
By the way, the article states that iOS 4 runs on the current crop of iPhones, iPod Touches and the iPad which is not true. iOS 4 is not available on the iPad yet.
I would sell my ipad and buy a smaller and lighter version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov
Not if the resolution and aspect ratio is the same. In fact if they make it and price it lower than current iPad I'll get one and I already got an iPad.
I would keep my iPad and buy the smaller one too. And I live alone.
Can't wait to buy the next top of the line iPod Touch next month.
So you're saying that reports on a survey of people who don't actually own an iPad holds more weight than the fact that Apple can't meet demand with their manufacturing process which is currently making and then selling about 1 million iPads per month??
I believe they're producing and selling about 2 million iPads a month now. Plus they haven't even finished the global rollout yet and won't be fully deployed for sale everywhere they can for another 2 months. They really don't need to complicate the line up with a new iPad until sometime in 2011.
As long as they're selling as fast as they can be made, what's the point of making other sizes when their manufacturing capacity is already stressed to the limit for both iPads and iPhone 4s not to mention all the new iPods about to be introduced next month. Seems unlikely a 7" iPad fits into the current physical limits of parts supplies & manufacturing capacities doesn't it?
i agree, instead of a smaller form factor to reduce weight, why not improve the current model to reduce weight. I am one that subscribes to the fact that the current model is too heavy, comparatively speaking. The ipod Touch has the same guts in it, except for a larger battery and screen size, and it only weighs 4.05 oz. I can't imagine the screen and battery contributing that much more mass. Even if they reduced the current model to 500g (17 oz) it's still too heavy, but getting closer. After using the Nook (11 oz.) and the Kindle (8.7 oz), they both seem like the right weight for a device of this form factor.
There is at least one good reason why the iPad weighs more than the Nook and Kindle.
Glass
Here is another.
Screen size-6" (Kindle) vs. 9.7" (iPad).
If a one and a half pound device is too heavy for some people, then those same people should probably put the iPad down and go get some exercise.
This is just too much too soon if it proves to be true, (which I highly doubt). Apple devices may be wildly popular, but introducing so many mobile idevices in rapid session can't be good for public perception. After buying an iPad, I upgraded my 3GS to an iPhone 4 about a week later. Frankly I'm iOSed out for now and tired of the upgrades and changes. A person only has but so many needs for these kinds of devices and those needs are already being met with the current line-up. Plus I hear the iPod line will be refreshed in a month or so. Enough already.
Apple now has many different lines so upgrades seem coming in rapid succession. But if you go to
you will actually see upgrades for each line is space between 230 - 340 days between upgrades, depending upon the product. Not too long ago people were wondering when the upgrade to the Mac Pro or MBP were coming.
There is at least one good reason why the iPad weighs more than the Nook and Kindle.
Glass
Here is another.
Screen size-6" (Kindle) vs. 9.7" (iPad).
If a one and a half pound device is too heavy for some people, then those same people should probably put the iPad down and go get some exercise.
Nah, you just need the right kind of case... This might not look very impressive or fancy, but it is helpful. My iPad is almost like a netbook already (the good aspects of netbooks, not the lousy ones)
For me, it's nice because I use the iPad almost always in landscape mode, portrait usage is too "small" for me. This case however doesn't have a "tilted portrait" mode though.
But type in "iPad too light" into a google search and see what comes up.
In any event, by the time you remove all the posting prior to April 3rd, duplications, comments or references to the original, or links to links and all the trolls, you end up with a smidgeon of 'real' postings complaining about the weight of the iPad.
Probably about 0.5% of all the actual iPad owners, if any, would be my educated guess. But I would have to read every link to really determine it.
I tried it, and got no links on the first few pages that mention anyone complaining about it being too light (weight-wise). There are plenty of complaints about it being too bright to read e-books.
I tried it, and got no links on the first few pages that mention anyone complaining about it being too light (weight-wise). There are plenty of complaints about it being too bright to read e-books.
From people who can't find the brightness setting, no doubt.
From people who can't find the brightness setting, no doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
I tried it, and got no links on the first few pages that mention anyone complaining about it being too light (weight-wise). There are plenty of complaints about it being too bright to read e-books.
There needs to be an overall setting to reduce brightness way, way down for Safari use, etc. It's a massive feature request, which I'm sure will come in iOS 4 for iPad. The screen is so great it's too bright in the dark! Yes iBooks and other apps have finer brightness control, but there needs to be a system-wide "night mode" setting.
Exactly. I remember my family's first TV! It was about the size of a microwave oven with a Black & White 7" screen, and 13 (count 'em) push-button channels (including channel 1).
Too bad the industry didn't standardize on these little beauties...
There needs to be an overall setting to reduce brightness way, way down for Safari use, etc. It's a massive feature request, which I'm sure will come in iOS 4 for iPad. The screen is so great it's too bright in the dark! Yes iBooks and other apps have finer brightness control, but there needs to be a system-wide "night mode" setting.
Maybe, but if it didn't anticipate every possible situation perfectly, people would complain about that too. I set the overall brightness down to about 1/3 and make adjustments to iBooks as the situation requires. Since the slider is right there on every page of your book, I guess I don't see the problem.
Comments
The 7" iPad would have the same 1024x768 resolution as the iPad, just a higher pixel density. There would be no change from a developer point of view.
Personally I think 7" would be the sweet spot. I find the current model cumbersome for reading in bed and can't stand the very visible pixels compared to the iPhone 4. And more RAM please. It's starting to drive me nuts the way a web page has to reload from scratch every time I hit the back button on chunky, ad-heavy sites. Love my iPad but look forward to version 2.
Download the Perfect Web Browser from the App store... it's wayyy better than using Safari. You also get tabbed browsing with it too. That was my two main reasons for going away from Safari on the iPad...tabs and that constant reload page.
I feel the same way,the iPad seems 'just right' as it is and having two size options could lead to app store fragmentation.
My sentiments exactly
Many of your assumptions appear to be wrong
First of all, the iPod touch was already in preproduction prototyping when the original iPhone launched. Don't forget that the original devices had no apps beyond what was included by Apple. The original iPod touch was really an overpriced media player with a web browser, e-mail and a couple of basic widgets.
The iPod touch's demographics skew much younger than the iPhone. There is clearly a different audience for the iPod touch. iPod touch users also download more apps than iPhone users. Note that Apple sells two iPod touches for every three iPhones they sell. It's not an insignificant chunk.
The fact that AT&T is the sole iPhone carrier in the United States is irrelevant. Note that iPod touch sales have not fallen off a cliff in international markets where there is no carrier exclusivity. It is foolish to assume that Apple's mobile device strategy is solely based on their interaction with one carrier, AT&T. Also, you should not discount the possibility that the contract was rewritten and that exclusivity may be on a year-by-year basis. We do know that with the iPhone 3G, AT&T stopped sharing subscriber revenue with Apple and moved to a direct one-time subsidy payment.
Going to a multi-carrier market isn't going to change the fact that the Total Cost of Ownership for an iPhone under a two-year service contract is way more expensive than an iPod touch, regardless of which carrier is getting your money. Assuming a $200 handset, $80 monthly service over twenty-four months, plus $40 activation fee, you are looking at $2,160. You can buy two iPod touches a year and still save money. There are still many people who are willing to make that sort of commitment.
Don't use AdMob data for sales figures. These numbers only describe what people are doing when they're looking at an ad-supported app or webpage. Again, the demographics are quite different. Also, I wouldn't quote year-old ad data anyhow. This is a rapidly growing market that has nowhere plateaued.
Or, how about you don't feel like paying ridiculous money to maintain an iPhone account but you do want to be able to do a lot of what the iPhone does.
In my case, I have a boring cell phone that costs me less than half of what it would cost to maintain an iPhone and I have a Touch. I can still make calls and I can still do a lot of the cool things the iPhone is used for but I'm paying closer to $30 a month than $60 a month. At that rate, in a year I've more than covered the cost of the Touch so over the course of a three-year period I'll have spent something like $1,300 instead of $2,400.
Basically I have 1,100 reasons to opt for the Touch over the iPhone.
I know a lot of younger consumers have the Touch probably for the same reason, namely parents are not inclined to drop thousands extra for their kids to be equipped with iPhones.
Why pay for a smartphone when what you want is a pocket computer?
The vast majority of the needs you express can be met by a smaller iPad. Yes, some with those particular needs, who insist that it must be pocketable, and who are unwilling to get an iPhone, wouldn't be served by my scenario. But since when has Apple been about making 100% of the people happy? You could still have your boring cell phone and get an iPad without a data contract. In exchange for a bigger screen you loose some portability. But I assume that your choice of a separate touch and cell phone means the ultimate in portability isn't your primary concern as you are willing to carry two devices (or you don't take your touch everywhere you go)? Perhaps the ultimate in portability for your wifi-only data device isn't as important then (at least for most people).
Either the iPod touch needs to be bigger to be better at things like web browsing and reading, or the iPad needs to get smaller to be more portable. Apple can't do both because it would lead to over-lapping product lines.
(PS: I admit that I was being a bit over-zealous when saying the entire iPod touch line would be discontinued. I wanted to see what people's reactions would be. A perhaps more likely scenario is Apple limits the feature growth of the touch or lowers the price but removes features to avoid overlap with the iPad. It will be interesting to see what Apple does. They can't give it all the iPads features. The screen just isn't big enough. And I still see sales dropping if/when the iPhone becomes available on other carriers.)
The vast majority of the needs you express can be met by a smaller iPad. Yes, some with those particular needs, who insist that it must be pocketable, and who are unwilling to get an iPhone, wouldn't be served by my scenario. But since when has Apple been about making 100% of the people happy? You could still have your boring cell phone and get an iPad without a data contract. In exchange for a bigger screen you loose some portability. But I assume that your choice of a separate touch and cell phone means the ultimate in portability isn't your primary concern as you are willing to carry two devices (or you don't take your touch everywhere you go)? Perhaps the ultimate in portability for your wifi-only data device isn't as important then (at least for most people).
Either the iPod touch needs to be bigger to be better at things like web browsing and reading, or the iPad needs to get smaller to be more portable. Apple can't do both because it would lead to over-lapping product lines.
(PS: I admit that I was being a bit over-zealous when saying the entire iPod touch line would be discontinued. I wanted to see what people's reactions would be. A perhaps more likely scenario is Apple limits the feature growth of the touch or lowers the price but removes features to avoid overlap with the iPad. It will be interesting to see what Apple does. They can't give it all the iPads features. The screen just isn't big enough. And I still see sales dropping if/when the iPhone becomes available on other carriers.)
You can make the Touch bigger somewhat and still allow it to slip with little trouble into a lot of folks' pockets. This would work for me. I don't like the Touch with a 3.5" screen. I find browsing with my netbook more enjoyable and I really don't like the netbook.
I think what should happen is that the current Touch soldiers on while a new Touch with a larger screen (something like 4.5") is introduced. If Apple doesn't alter the hardware on the Touch Classic (if you will) they might even be able to lower the price of that unit, especially if they offer it in a single configuration. Then bring out new 32GB and 64GB models featuring a larger screen, cameras front and back, etc. for the current price of the 32GB and 64GB Touch models.
Lots of bases covered and the need for a 7" iPad is eliminated.
If Apple goes that route I know that I'd likely buy both the new Touch and soon after the iPad. Otherwise it will be only the iPad because no matter what they put in a new Touch, if it still comes with a 3.5" screen, I see no reason to replace my current Touch.
I'd go with the iPad alone if it was pocketable but clearly it's not. Just as clearly, a 7" iPad would likewise not be pocketable which begs the question, what would be the point of such a device?
If weight is the biggest issue with the current iPad, the obvious solution is to not always be holding it in your hands. Need to do some typing then use a bluetooth keyboard (have one already) with a case that allows the iPad to be propped up.
I want two devices. One that slips into my pocket and a second one for puttering around the house with. I already have the Touch for the first one and will upgrade either when Apple offers me something worth upgrading to or the Touch dies.
I agree with the report, the iPad is too heavy for most in-hand use.. but great size..
However, I'd say 700 down to 500 grams is not enough. It needs to get down to at least 300g in order to truly work as something you hold in your hands for more than just 10 minutes. That would require a lighter battery, a display (e-ink?) that doesn't draw as much power, and a lighter weight shell. Have you read an iBook with the iPad? I find myself leaning it to something.. It's too heavy for in-hand reading... but works good for on-lap, on-table use.
Hey, wait a second.. maybe the 7 inch version is not an iPad, but a stand alone light weight iBook, to further compete with the Kindle?
I agree that it's too heavy for in-hand reading. I've spent a lot of time with one that a co-worker has and I spent a lot more time with it as well at a local Apple Store. It really is cool and I want one to take on weekend trips or vacations when I just don't want to deal with my 15" MacBook on such occasions, but I'll wait until I see what Apple comes out with the next iterations. I'd have to try a 7" one side by side with the current 9.7" and consider the tradeoffs. The e-readers like the Kindle are pretty easy to handle for extended periods of time and I tend to read more than watch movies and things like that, so a smaller screen that's easier to handle might be better.
At the same time, I think there's room for the "Pro" iPad that could genuinely replace the smaller laptops - perhaps a 12~13" screen? The current 9.7" size could be the mid-size model and then have one for the power user and one for people who need it as portable as possible. A few years down the road, I can easily envision an iPad for everyone in my family - wife and the two kids.
You are in the 16% bracket i presume.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...aper-than-ipad
A new study from Retrevo (over 1,000 non-Retrevo users) looks at interest in the iPad ahead of Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference next week. The company emailed WebProNews with a round-up of significant findings.
So without beating around the bush, let's just get to them.
Study Highlights:
- 52% of people surveyed say they "don't need" an iPad
- 38% of people say the iPad is "too expensive"
- 10% of people are "waiting for a good excuse" to buy an iPad
Obviously competition for the iPad is on the way, and it has been widely speculated that Google's Android will play a major role in that. Retrevo asked people interested in buying a tablet, "What would make you buy an Android-based tablet over an iPad?"
- 53% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "If it was less expensive than the iPad."
- 33% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "If Verizon was the carrier."
- 28% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "If it was discounted as part of a subscription service (like a cell phone contract)."
- 22% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "for other reasons."
- 16% say they would still buy an iPad, regardless.
another article:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-0...e-yahoo-sports
"Apple still has a ways to go in convincing many users of the full utility of the iPad. More than half of owners or would-be owners, 55 percent, said they still see the iPad as an expensive toy while 33 percent see it as a breakthrough product and 28 percent see it benefiting productivity.
For people who intend to buy the iPad, the main reasons are entertainment (58 percent), cool factor (42 percent), convenience (40 percent) and brand (28 percent). For people not interested in the iPad, 54 percent say they don't see a need for it, while 46 percent say it's too expensive."
and another:
http://www.ipadnewstracker.com/2010/...esearch-study/
"55% call the device “a very expensive toy.” They view it in terms of amusement as opposed to practicality. Because of the strong associations with entertainment and coolness, the top reasons for rejecting the iPad were related to its futility.
#1 (54%) — Unnecessary
#2 (46%) — It’s too expensive
#3 (17%) — Subscription fee required for 3G
#4 (16%) — Duplicates functions of other owned devices"
I agree the current iPad is too big and heavy. That's why I took mine back and bought an iPhone 4.
The iPhone 4 makes the iPad look obsolete.
I really don't get the iPad at all. It's just a big iPod Touch with no phone, no camera.
I'm tired of hearing that...it's just a giant iPod Touch... Is that a bad thing? Your swimming pool is just a giant bath tub...how useless. Size is dependent on your personal needs. I find my giant iPod Touch (iPad) more useful than my real iPod Touch that just sits and collects dust. I can't understand how viewing web pages on a small screen is as enjoyable as my giant iPad.
Really who cares, small screen, big screen, obviously everyone has different likes and wants, not one is perfect for everyone.
I don't mean to direct this to you, it's for everyone that feels this way.
Ohh, sent from my iPad.
This could only lead to fragmentation:
480 by 320 iPhones/iPod touches
960 by 640 iPhone
9.7" iPad
7" iPad
Too many devices with different resolutions is not good! Just look at the android market to see that for yourself.
Actually programmer only need to design for two sides: iPhone and iPad. For iPhone, developer only need to create new resources suffixed with "@2x", e.g. button.jpg -> button@2x.jpg. If there is no @2x counterpart resource, it will fall back to ordinary one. No code changes is required.
I guess the 7" inch iPad will have same resolution as 9.7" iPad, so the old program will run smoothly on 7" iPad.
I would sell my ipad and buy a smaller and lighter version.
Not if the resolution and aspect ratio is the same. In fact if they make it and price it lower than current iPad I'll get one and I already got an iPad.
I would keep my iPad and buy the smaller one too. And I live alone.
Can't wait to buy the next top of the line iPod Touch next month.
So you're saying that reports on a survey of people who don't actually own an iPad holds more weight than the fact that Apple can't meet demand with their manufacturing process which is currently making and then selling about 1 million iPads per month??
I believe they're producing and selling about 2 million iPads a month now. Plus they haven't even finished the global rollout yet and won't be fully deployed for sale everywhere they can for another 2 months. They really don't need to complicate the line up with a new iPad until sometime in 2011.
As long as they're selling as fast as they can be made, what's the point of making other sizes when their manufacturing capacity is already stressed to the limit for both iPads and iPhone 4s not to mention all the new iPods about to be introduced next month. Seems unlikely a 7" iPad fits into the current physical limits of parts supplies & manufacturing capacities doesn't it?
i agree, instead of a smaller form factor to reduce weight, why not improve the current model to reduce weight. I am one that subscribes to the fact that the current model is too heavy, comparatively speaking. The ipod Touch has the same guts in it, except for a larger battery and screen size, and it only weighs 4.05 oz. I can't imagine the screen and battery contributing that much more mass. Even if they reduced the current model to 500g (17 oz) it's still too heavy, but getting closer. After using the Nook (11 oz.) and the Kindle (8.7 oz), they both seem like the right weight for a device of this form factor.
There is at least one good reason why the iPad weighs more than the Nook and Kindle.
Glass
Here is another.
Screen size-6" (Kindle) vs. 9.7" (iPad).
If a one and a half pound device is too heavy for some people, then those same people should probably put the iPad down and go get some exercise.
This is just too much too soon if it proves to be true, (which I highly doubt). Apple devices may be wildly popular, but introducing so many mobile idevices in rapid session can't be good for public perception. After buying an iPad, I upgraded my 3GS to an iPhone 4 about a week later. Frankly I'm iOSed out for now and tired of the upgrades and changes. A person only has but so many needs for these kinds of devices and those needs are already being met with the current line-up. Plus I hear the iPod line will be refreshed in a month or so. Enough already.
Apple now has many different lines so upgrades seem coming in rapid succession. But if you go to
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
you will actually see upgrades for each line is space between 230 - 340 days between upgrades, depending upon the product. Not too long ago people were wondering when the upgrade to the Mac Pro or MBP were coming.
There is at least one good reason why the iPad weighs more than the Nook and Kindle.
Glass
Here is another.
Screen size-6" (Kindle) vs. 9.7" (iPad).
If a one and a half pound device is too heavy for some people, then those same people should probably put the iPad down and go get some exercise.
Nah, you just need the right kind of case... This might not look very impressive or fancy, but it is helpful. My iPad is almost like a netbook already (the good aspects of netbooks, not the lousy ones)
http://www.capdase.com/en/product5.p...d=991&pid=7092
For me, it's nice because I use the iPad almost always in landscape mode, portrait usage is too "small" for me. This case however doesn't have a "tilted portrait" mode though.
Amazing! 305,000 hits.
But type in "iPad too light" into a google search and see what comes up.
In any event, by the time you remove all the posting prior to April 3rd, duplications, comments or references to the original, or links to links and all the trolls, you end up with a smidgeon of 'real' postings complaining about the weight of the iPad.
Probably about 0.5% of all the actual iPad owners, if any, would be my educated guess. But I would have to read every link to really determine it.
I tried it, and got no links on the first few pages that mention anyone complaining about it being too light (weight-wise). There are plenty of complaints about it being too bright to read e-books.
I tried it, and got no links on the first few pages that mention anyone complaining about it being too light (weight-wise). There are plenty of complaints about it being too bright to read e-books.
From people who can't find the brightness setting, no doubt.
From people who can't find the brightness setting, no doubt.
I tried it, and got no links on the first few pages that mention anyone complaining about it being too light (weight-wise). There are plenty of complaints about it being too bright to read e-books.
There needs to be an overall setting to reduce brightness way, way down for Safari use, etc. It's a massive feature request, which I'm sure will come in iOS 4 for iPad. The screen is so great it's too bright in the dark! Yes iBooks and other apps have finer brightness control, but there needs to be a system-wide "night mode" setting.
Exactly. I remember my family's first TV! It was about the size of a microwave oven with a Black & White 7" screen, and 13 (count 'em) push-button channels (including channel 1).
Too bad the industry didn't standardize on these little beauties...
.
Dude, that thing rocks. Is it still operational?
There needs to be an overall setting to reduce brightness way, way down for Safari use, etc. It's a massive feature request, which I'm sure will come in iOS 4 for iPad. The screen is so great it's too bright in the dark! Yes iBooks and other apps have finer brightness control, but there needs to be a system-wide "night mode" setting.
Maybe, but if it didn't anticipate every possible situation perfectly, people would complain about that too. I set the overall brightness down to about 1/3 and make adjustments to iBooks as the situation requires. Since the slider is right there on every page of your book, I guess I don't see the problem.