Once again, with you it's always the OTHER guy who has the very problem you exhibit. Meanwhile, the very next post on this forum projects a boatload of Kindles cutting deeply into the iPad market.
Apple can obviously make iOS work on any sized device they need it to, and because of the Kindle, they need it to. Exactly what part of that don't YOU understand?
Perhaps YOU shouldn't be here, though it's painfully evident by now that you simply have nowhere else to go.
So your brilliant¡ answer to the loss-leader Kindle that will bring down Apple's marketshare but not hut their tablet profit is to cram the iPad's UI designed for a 9.7" device into a 7" display.
Care to explain 1) why you think having 7" optimized UI on a 7" device makes sense because they can offer multiple display sizes in Mac OS, and 2) why CocoaTouch and Aqua UI paradigms are not intrinsically different?
edit: And before you start your circus quality backpeddling money show let me refresh to what you referring….
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asizmov
Apple sells various sized MacBooks, iMacs and iPods. A 2nd iPad won't be too surprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
But we're talking about completely different UI paradigms. For Apple to change CocoaTouch UI they need to rethink everything to idealize it for the display, but for Aqua they don't have to change anything for it to work.
?I would love a 7" iPod Touch. (Because, let's face it, a 7-inch "iPad" IS a big iPod Touch, whereas the iPad's screen size makes it a much different beast.)
I have a Kindle Fire, and I love it ? warts and all. (Yes, I'm the one Mac geek who does, apparently.) An iPad is better, sure, but you can't stick it in your back pocket, either.
You must have quite the pair of pants or back pockets if you can even stick a 7" Kindle in there.
Apple should do what they've been doing with iPhone - let the iPad 2 be the inexpensive model once the iPad 3 is introduced. $300-400 maybe?
Following the iPhone scaling seems like the best option at this point.
However, I still have doubts about this Retina Display (264ppi) display in the iPad 3 in terms of cost for the panel, cost for the backlighting, cost for manufacturing, and cost for battery, GPU and other components that will make it work. That makes me think such a device could come in at a higher price point than what's currently offered or only offered at the high end do production limitations.
The results of an AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers conducted for Morgan Stanley:
Quote:
With a $100 price cut Apple could sell 15 million more iPads. Even after applying a 30% discount to the survey results (where does she get these numbers?), Huberty estimates that if Apple were to reduce the price of the cheapest iPad 2 to $399, it could sell 90 million iPads worldwide in 2012, roughly 10 million more than its suppliers have reportedly been asked to build.
I doubt it. Apps come in two sizes: iPhone size for 2x3 inch screens and iPad size for 7 and 34 x 5 and 3/4 inches (more or less). It's hard enough to get developers to make TWO versions of their apps let alone a 3rd version for a smaller iPad. Running current iPad apps on a smaller iPad would be a poor user experience because the graphics in menus and such would be microscopic since they were designed for a considerably larger device.
Let's be honest... the Kindle Fire isn't selling because of its size. It's selling because it's dirt cheap since Amazon doesn't even try to break even with it.
The problem with the 7-inch form factor is that it's a compromise all the way around, offering the worst possible outcome. By drastically reducing screen real estate (going from 9.7 inches to 7 inches is a far more drastic reduction than you might think) you diminish the quality of user experience. Here's the worst part, though. You do this with not much upside. The resulting device is still too large to be easily slipped into a pocket and carried anywhere with next to no footprint.
The sweet spot, so to speak, in my view comes from making the largest possible device that can be slipped into most pockets. That's what the Touch should be, i.e. a pocketable unit that compromises as little as possible on screen real estate because you can never have too much screen for gaming, video, browsing, etc.
Making a larger Touch also makes sense, rather than coming up with a third product because there would otherwise be too much pricing creep. Apple has tended to set up its products to spread across the pricing spectrum. A range of Touch models based around a larger screen combined with the iPad range and the laptop models would accomplish this nicely and make it difficult for competitors to take on Apple with price alone. Along with the larger Touch, Apple could modestly upsize the Nano to fill that void and have all the bases covered.
There is another point to consider. By releasing a 7-inch iPad, it would be sending a message that I think Apple would prefer not to, namely that with Jobs gone, Apple will veer from the successful path he put it on. A larger Touch, on the other hand, would avoid this.
I don't know precisely what the ideal size would be for a pocketable device like the Touch but I believe, for what it's worth, that Apple doesn't have it right quite yet. On the other hand, the iPad is right on the money. Large enough to provide a fine user experience but small enough to be convenient to putter around the house with. Continued efforts to reduce weight will make it that much more suited to the role it has been assigned.
It's the Touch that just doesn't feel quite right. It has a compromised feel to it that's just not what I would expect from Apple. It's as if a screen that makes sense on a phone was used for a portable computing device that could use more real estate. If current management wants to continue down the path that Jobs was leading the company on, that's the product that could use a form factor overhaul. It needs a bigger screen and that should be considered ahead of bringing to market a 7-inch tweener device that I suspect Jobs would never have signed off on.
I'm not seeing it. I could see a larger iPod Touch before a smaller iPad.
Surely not an iPod with a 7.85" screen!
In any case it's more an argument over the name than anything. Sure there's technical differences in the two UI's. Any 7-8" iPod or iPad would be targeting those buyers who think they want a smaller tablet. Period. They aren't looking for a bigger iPod and regardless what you might want to call it, they'll refer to it as a tablet.
It really won't monetarily matter what name is slapped on the vaporware device and shouldn't be concerning to anyone except the purists who are so fully-invested in the idea that a real tablet could only be is the size that Mr. Jobs said it should be.
A 7-inch iPad will be great. Apple should make also a MacBook Air 7-inch. Because true portability is the number one feature in these cases!
For real portability, you need a 3.5" MacBook Air. 7" would never fit in your pocket. But, hey, why not, all screen sizes are equally good, and the Aqua UI would work perfectly well at 3.5", or you could just have your developers redesign their apps for an AquaTiny UI. A lot of people would love to have a 3.5" MBA and Apple is missing out on a big market segment by not offering it. If other PC manufacturers start offering 3.5" ultrabooks, Apple will have no choice but to do so too, or they are doomed.
Man, how many friggin' times does this nonsense have to be repeated before the idiots that make it up realize it is not going to happen.
I must have heard this 'rumor from the supply chain' BS about a smaller iPad at least once every three months since the first iPad was released, for a grand total of about 12 times. Just stop it already.
Utter nonsense. There is no "need" to compete with the Kindle Fire. :roll eyes: My gawd. This is trolling en masse by whoever's putting out these rumours.
The results of an AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers conducted for Morgan Stanley:
Yes, by applying a 50% price cut Apple could sell 20x the amount of products they do.
However, Apple is already selling as much iPads and iPhones than they can possibly manufacture. Why don't the analysts see that as the bottleneck? Can they supply chain and manufacture better than Tim Cook? I'd like to see them try. Maybe someone could do better than Tim Cook out there, but it sure as heck ain't the analysts.
Aside from SJ's comment about sandpaper, there's just no way Apple could produce a 7 inc tablet and price it competitively against the rest.
The Kindle Fire may suck, but it's not a general purpose tablet. It's just a window to Amazon content. It does that really well. And for the vast majority of the public that's good enough. Apple can't compete with that concept head-on.
If Apple wanted to compete with Kindle they would ship a larger iPod Touch with Mirasol or E-Ink display.
If 7" is more portable than 10" then sure 3.5" is the most portable. They could sell a 7" iPod Touch with the same aspect ratio and number of pixels as the Galaxy Nexus and sell it as the iPod Video and debut it with a 4G LTE radio that does iBooks, NetFlix and iTunes video but runs the iPhone Version of Newsstand.
There is no question of competing with the Kindle Fire. It would be a pointless race to the bottom -let Amazon fight that market with all the other wanabees - somebody has to. I could see a 7" happening but it's not a game changer and presumably it would need the new factories in Brazil to get up to full speed. Apple problem is not selling stuff - it's making it.
Now what would be a game-changer?... a 15" iPad. Many new use cases not presently covered. Ponder that one for a while me hearties.
Comments
Once again, with you it's always the OTHER guy who has the very problem you exhibit. Meanwhile, the very next post on this forum projects a boatload of Kindles cutting deeply into the iPad market.
Apple can obviously make iOS work on any sized device they need it to, and because of the Kindle, they need it to. Exactly what part of that don't YOU understand?
Perhaps YOU shouldn't be here, though it's painfully evident by now that you simply have nowhere else to go.
So your brilliant¡ answer to the loss-leader Kindle that will bring down Apple's marketshare but not hut their tablet profit is to cram the iPad's UI designed for a 9.7" device into a 7" display.
Care to explain 1) why you think having 7" optimized UI on a 7" device makes sense because they can offer multiple display sizes in Mac OS, and 2) why CocoaTouch and Aqua UI paradigms are not intrinsically different?
edit: And before you start your circus quality backpeddling money show let me refresh to what you referring….
Apple sells various sized MacBooks, iMacs and iPods. A 2nd iPad won't be too surprising.
But we're talking about completely different UI paradigms. For Apple to change CocoaTouch UI they need to rethink everything to idealize it for the display, but for Aqua they don't have to change anything for it to work.
?I would love a 7" iPod Touch. (Because, let's face it, a 7-inch "iPad" IS a big iPod Touch, whereas the iPad's screen size makes it a much different beast.)
I have a Kindle Fire, and I love it ? warts and all. (Yes, I'm the one Mac geek who does, apparently.) An iPad is better, sure, but you can't stick it in your back pocket, either.
You must have quite the pair of pants or back pockets if you can even stick a 7" Kindle in there.
Apple should do what they've been doing with iPhone - let the iPad 2 be the inexpensive model once the iPad 3 is introduced. $300-400 maybe?
Following the iPhone scaling seems like the best option at this point.
However, I still have doubts about this Retina Display (264ppi) display in the iPad 3 in terms of cost for the panel, cost for the backlighting, cost for manufacturing, and cost for battery, GPU and other components that will make it work. That makes me think such a device could come in at a higher price point than what's currently offered or only offered at the high end do production limitations.
With a $100 price cut Apple could sell 15 million more iPads. Even after applying a 30% discount to the survey results (where does she get these numbers?), Huberty estimates that if Apple were to reduce the price of the cheapest iPad 2 to $399, it could sell 90 million iPads worldwide in 2012, roughly 10 million more than its suppliers have reportedly been asked to build.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/...nes-next-year/
Let's be honest... the Kindle Fire isn't selling because of its size. It's selling because it's dirt cheap since Amazon doesn't even try to break even with it.
The sweet spot, so to speak, in my view comes from making the largest possible device that can be slipped into most pockets. That's what the Touch should be, i.e. a pocketable unit that compromises as little as possible on screen real estate because you can never have too much screen for gaming, video, browsing, etc.
Making a larger Touch also makes sense, rather than coming up with a third product because there would otherwise be too much pricing creep. Apple has tended to set up its products to spread across the pricing spectrum. A range of Touch models based around a larger screen combined with the iPad range and the laptop models would accomplish this nicely and make it difficult for competitors to take on Apple with price alone. Along with the larger Touch, Apple could modestly upsize the Nano to fill that void and have all the bases covered.
There is another point to consider. By releasing a 7-inch iPad, it would be sending a message that I think Apple would prefer not to, namely that with Jobs gone, Apple will veer from the successful path he put it on. A larger Touch, on the other hand, would avoid this.
I don't know precisely what the ideal size would be for a pocketable device like the Touch but I believe, for what it's worth, that Apple doesn't have it right quite yet. On the other hand, the iPad is right on the money. Large enough to provide a fine user experience but small enough to be convenient to putter around the house with. Continued efforts to reduce weight will make it that much more suited to the role it has been assigned.
It's the Touch that just doesn't feel quite right. It has a compromised feel to it that's just not what I would expect from Apple. It's as if a screen that makes sense on a phone was used for a portable computing device that could use more real estate. If current management wants to continue down the path that Jobs was leading the company on, that's the product that could use a form factor overhaul. It needs a bigger screen and that should be considered ahead of bringing to market a 7-inch tweener device that I suspect Jobs would never have signed off on.
I'm not seeing it. I could see a larger iPod Touch before a smaller iPad.
Surely not an iPod with a 7.85" screen!
In any case it's more an argument over the name than anything. Sure there's technical differences in the two UI's. Any 7-8" iPod or iPad would be targeting those buyers who think they want a smaller tablet. Period. They aren't looking for a bigger iPod and regardless what you might want to call it, they'll refer to it as a tablet.
It really won't monetarily matter what name is slapped on the vaporware device and shouldn't be concerning to anyone except the purists who are so fully-invested in the idea that a real tablet could only be is the size that Mr. Jobs said it should be.
A 7-inch iPad will be great. Apple should make also a MacBook Air 7-inch. Because true portability is the number one feature in these cases!
For real portability, you need a 3.5" MacBook Air. 7" would never fit in your pocket. But, hey, why not, all screen sizes are equally good, and the Aqua UI would work perfectly well at 3.5", or you could just have your developers redesign their apps for an AquaTiny UI. A lot of people would love to have a 3.5" MBA and Apple is missing out on a big market segment by not offering it. If other PC manufacturers start offering 3.5" ultrabooks, Apple will have no choice but to do so too, or they are doomed.
I must have heard this 'rumor from the supply chain' BS about a smaller iPad at least once every three months since the first iPad was released, for a grand total of about 12 times. Just stop it already.
iPad Jr?
The second I read that, I just had horrid visions of the PC Jr.
The results of an AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers conducted for Morgan Stanley:
Yes, by applying a 50% price cut Apple could sell 20x the amount of products they do.
However, Apple is already selling as much iPads and iPhones than they can possibly manufacture. Why don't the analysts see that as the bottleneck? Can they supply chain and manufacture better than Tim Cook? I'd like to see them try. Maybe someone could do better than Tim Cook out there, but it sure as heck ain't the analysts.
The Kindle Fire may suck, but it's not a general purpose tablet. It's just a window to Amazon content. It does that really well. And for the vast majority of the public that's good enough. Apple can't compete with that concept head-on.
If 7" is more portable than 10" then sure 3.5" is the most portable. They could sell a 7" iPod Touch with the same aspect ratio and number of pixels as the Galaxy Nexus and sell it as the iPod Video and debut it with a 4G LTE radio that does iBooks, NetFlix and iTunes video but runs the iPhone Version of Newsstand.
I just don't think they will.
Now what would be a game-changer?... a 15" iPad. Many new use cases not presently covered. Ponder that one for a while me hearties.
Because if you have that, then they're "too close together" instead of being "too far apart".