The current iPad with 32GB in base form retails for $599 so I think you underestimate just how much a high-rez screen at that size will add to the price.
Getting 32GB in addition to retina display and A6 processing may be wishful thinking on my part, but given that the extra 16GB really only costs Apple a couple bucks (despite charging $100 more), I'm hopeful they'll throw it in while they're upping the iPad price by $100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
I think what is possible is that Apple will keep the current pricing for the base model but with the difference that all iPads will come with 3G (or whatever) connectivity. So you'd have a $499 (US) 16GB iPad with wi-fi+3G and then you'd have the step-up version that would come in at around $229 more but for 32GB and of course the hi-rez screen. This would not constitute a significant price increase in that the current 32GB model with 3G retails in the US for $729, as would the new high-rez version. Apple has done this sort of thing before.
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of iPads are sold with 3G.
Why do you think they would make 3G standard? It's an expensive feature a lot of people, including myself, don't need. I won't buy a 3G-enabled iPad until the cellular companies stop forcing you to buy separate data plans for every device. I'd guess at least half of iPad sales are wi-fi only, and at least half of 3G iPad sales are to people who don't understand that the 3G version is largely just an unnecessary added expense (both for the hardware and the monthly bill), given how prevelant wifi is.
I'm utterly stunned at this article. Pathetic. I thought you were better than this guys.
An entire article about John Gruber's article about a DigiTimes article. Really?
Gruber may be well connected but his word isn't gospel. He simply has something so many in the 'analysis' blogosphere don't have: perspicacity.
First, kudos for working "perspicacity" into a post.
However, if you follow Gruber you'll notice that there's kind of a little game he plays-- that he seems to have actual reliable sources within Apple and sometimes knows things for sure.
When he's openly speculating, he always labels it as such. He goes out of his way to say something like "This isn't based on insider info it's just my best guess." But when he does know something, he never comes right out and says it, but rather slides it in just like the case in point. As far as I know, this kind of "funny they would say x when y is happening" type remark has a pretty solid track record. Of course, Apple has been known to change its mind at the last minute, so even reliable insider info can be rendered wrong a day or two before a planned product release.
My guess is that this is his way of protecting his source(s), that the odd offhand remark amongst the "just guessing" stuff (as opposed to some big exclusive scoop OMG we found an iPhone type thing) is unlikely to draw Apple's scrutiny.
Seems unfathomable to think that the iPhone 5 won't have a larger display. Only budget smart phones now have 3.5" screens. All the mid to high end stuff has 4" or higher.
Having played with a Galaxy Nexus, the 4.6" screen is a perfect size, and doesn't seem unwieldy or overly large. It helps that the phone is super slim of course, and much more comfortably shaped in the hand than the boxy iPhone 4/4S. I wish Apple would just give people a choice of screen size. Choice is good, give us a 4" and a 4.5" option.
I recently played around with a Droid Razr and even though it only had a 4.3" screen, not a 4.65", the overall size of the phone felt ungainly to me. In my opinion, it was not as easy to handle, manipulate, control, or engage as my iPhone 4S.
I can't see Apple offering an option of both 4" and 4.5" screens. Developers would have twice the work to make sure their apps scaled correctly on both formats. Currently, they have 2 size formats for apps: 3.5" for iPod Touch & iPhone, and 9.7" for iPad. Throw an odd size into the mix, and you've added extra work for everyone.
Besides, Apple is selling every 3.5" screen iPhone they can make. Why should they need to change?
The current iPad with 32GB in base form retails for $599 so I think you underestimate just how much a high-rez screen at that size will add to the price.
I think what is possible is that Apple will keep the current pricing for the base model but with the difference that all iPads will come with 3G (or whatever) connectivity. So you'd have a $499 (US) 16GB iPad with wi-fi+3G and then you'd have the step-up version that would come in at around $229 more but for 32GB and of course the hi-rez screen. This would not constitute a significant price increase in that the current 32GB model with 3G retails in the US for $729, as would the new high-rez version. Apple has done this sort of thing before.
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of iPads are sold with 3G.
Wow, remind me to dump my stocks before the next Apple event. I really don't believe in those prices. Apple need to be way more aggressive on pricing. And it need to come up with at least 4" screen on the next iPhone. I think there is a market for both 3.5" and 4.5". Maybe they should get into low prices 3.5" and high end 4.5", so 2 models.
I see tablets as home devices and something you bring on vacation. Its too big to walk around with so I rely on my iPhone for internet browsing on the go. I would jump on a bigger screen iPhone. Seriously if Apple come out with yet another 3.5" iPhone I am getting a 4.5"+ android 4 phone.
Wow, remind me to dump my stocks before the next Apple event. I really don't believe in those prices. Apple need to be way more aggressive on pricing. And it need to come up with at least 4" screen on the next iPhone. I think there is a market for both 3.5" and 4.5". Maybe they should get into low prices 3.5" and high end 4.5", so 2 models.
Why? Because a single loss-leader, budget tablet with less than half the display area, half the storage capacity, and with significantly less than half if every other usability category sells for $200?
4.5" 3:2 iPhone would be too larger to fit in your pocket. It's considerably wider than the 4.65" monstrosities that are out there now.
Why? Because a single loss-leader, budget tablet with less than half the display area, half the storage capacity, and with significantly less than half if every other usability category sells for $200?
4.5" 3:2 iPhone would be too larger to fit in your pocket. It's considerably wider than the 4.65" monstrosities that are out there now.
My co-worker 4.6" Samsung Nexus phone WITH the protective casing fits perfectly in my pocket. And I am no 6.6' football player, I am talking 34" waist regular pockets. They will have to change aspect ratio if its too large. Apple can't come with with just 1 model if they make a 4.5" model, indeed its too big for everyone. I could settle for a 4" but it better be great.
I do agree with you that 7" tablets are ridiculous. Its too big to walk around with and too small for home use. In fact I would buy a bigger iPad anytime. But Apple still has to compete at the high end level and can't afford to be more expensive at the moment.
I've long complained about the bad spelling on AppleInsider, and it's clear to me that I am one of the few who is voicing it, as evidenced by the fact these foolish misspellings continue. We don't live in the 1970's anymore, when we didn't have spelling checkers, more less PCs.
Hi everyone, excuse the ignorance, but the last time Apple worked on a higher-res (or larger) screen, didn't they already have a version of iOS capable of supporting it? I mean, what would be the point of releasing an iPad 3 in March if they then had to stick to the same resolution found in the majority of their Apps?
I understand that text-based Apps would have an improved resolution, but would it be worth releasing a new version of the iPad before developers even have a chance to update and adjust their Apps accordingly? It seems like Apple typically have done it the other way around, allowing themselves time to create the software before releasing the hardware...
The title is awfully amusing when it comes to the phrase "completely accurate," seeing the content of this article is far from it.
I've long complained about the bad spelling on AppleInsider, and it's clear to me that I am one of the few who is voicing it, as evidenced by the fact these foolish misspellings continue. We don't live in the 1970's anymore, when we didn't have spelling checkers, more less PCs. Even so, we did have paper dictionaries back then, and educated people used them. But with the convenience of digital spell checking today, there are no more excuses NOT to use proper spelling. Or has the American public school system failed so badly for the majority of readers here that no one even notices it or cares anymore?
"big expensive" in the article should read "bit expensive."
Shame on everyone associated with the article for allowing the bad English to continue. I long for the day that AppleInsider spelling and punctuation is "completely accurate."
You've made a fundamental mistake. When talking about another writer's bad spelling, it is best that you not spell poorly and use poor grammar yourself. It isn't, for example, 1970's. The correct way to do it would be 1970s with no apostrophe. Also, why did you place a comma after then in the sentence that should have read, "Even so, we did have paper dictionaries back then and educated people used them."
If we're going to nitpick, let's also point out that anymore is commonly spelled out as one word, as you are doing but the more traditional approach would be to use any more, i.e. two words. It is also poor form to use all-caps to emphasize a word as in "excuses NOT to use proper spelling." In addition I rather dislike the aforementioned sentence because it's a rather poor sort of English to write, "there are no more excuses NOT to use proper spelling." That is awkward sentence structure, at best. As well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by the sentence, "We don't live in the 1970's anymore, when we didn't have spelling checkers, more less PCs." You totally lost me at more less PCs.
While we're at it, which is it, spelling checker or spell checking.
That you value the language is laudable but please show respect for the language yourself if you wish to offer yourself up as a defender of the written word.
One more thing, while we're assessing your writing, I believe you meant to write correct spelling, not proper spelling. The term proper in regards to writing is more commonly used in reference to grammar, as in proper grammar.
The title is awfully amusing when it comes to the phrase "completely accurate," seeing the content of this article is far from it.
I've long complained about the bad spelling on AppleInsider, and it's clear to me that I am one of the few who is voicing it, as evidenced by the fact these foolish misspellings continue. We don't live in the 1970's anymore, when we didn't have spelling checkers, more less PCs. Even so, we did have paper dictionaries back then, and educated people used them. But with the convenience of digital spell checking today, there are no more excuses NOT to use proper spelling. Or has the American public school system failed so badly for the majority of readers here that no one even notices it or cares anymore?
"big expensive" in the article should read "bit expensive."
Shame on everyone associated with the article for allowing the bad English to continue. I long for the day that AppleInsider spelling and punctuation is "completely accurate."
sometimes I ask myself the same question maybe AI is being run by a bunch of skateboarding teens who are updating the site while skating and don't have the time to run "SPLEEL CHECKER" (emphasis on spell) and these things go "live" and full of errors... oh well welcome to the world of ebonics-
(one more thing to add doesn't AI have a spell checker in their text editor??? they should at least have one i mean its in apple's Text Edit app and it corrects my mistakes as i type them- i guess we're asking for too much then.. HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
We can safely predict the iPad 3 will have a Retina display this year. And maybe even some of the smaller Macs. But I wonder what totally new stuff Apple is working on?
Getting 32GB in addition to retina display and A6 processing may be wishful thinking on my part, but given that the extra 16GB really only costs Apple a couple bucks (despite charging $100 more), I'm hopeful they'll throw it in while they're upping the iPad price by $100.
Why do you think they would make 3G standard? It's an expensive feature a lot of people, including myself, don't need. I won't buy a 3G-enabled iPad until the cellular companies stop forcing you to buy separate data plans for every device. I'd guess at least half of iPad sales are wi-fi only, and at least half of 3G iPad sales are to people who don't understand that the 3G version is largely just an unnecessary added expense (both for the hardware and the monthly bill), given how prevelant wifi is.
If you make 3G standard, the cost is reduced and production simplified. Due to economies of scale you can lower the cost to the consumer. Just because the hardware for 3G is built into a unit does not mean that a customer is obligated to carry a data plan for it. Yet, if at the time one buys an iPad there is no need for 3G but a situation presents itself in which such a plan would be useful, good luck adding that functionality after the fact.
For instance, I don't think I'd need 3G on a regular basis but if I were travelling overseas, for that trip, it sure would come in handy. I'd like to be able to not pay for 3G on a regular basis yet have it as an option in such a scenario. Also, life is unpredictable. My situation is such that if I bought an iPad today, I would not pick up a 3G data plan for it. Do I know with certainty that six months, a year, two years from now that will be the case?
I don't mind the way the data plans are set up for the iPad. You don't need to commit to a year-round plan and the cost isn't outrageous. I wouldn't appreciate, by the way, the cost of plans in general increasing to allow for additional connectivity to be offered free to the small percentage who can take advantage of it. If someone else wants 3G connectivity on their iPad, I shouldn't be subsidizing that if I have no use for such a service.
Don't get me wrong. I pay far more to my service provider than I reasonably should be. I think it's costing me more to maintain my connectivity than to maintain my car, including the cost of fuel. I could pay cash for a half-decent car once a decade with the money my service provider is extracting from me even though I hardly use my cell (not a smart phone), don't have the top-tier Internet service, and I don't subscribe to all the TV services available. There's a lot of profit in that arrangement for the provider, has to be.
Yet is there not a big difference between that and putting the hardware into a device that makes it possible to have 3G connectivity. If the deal was that you had to pay for 3G service regularly, I'd be on here complaining. Instead, what I suggest is that Apple provide the ability to use the iPad with 3G and leave it up to the consumer to decide if that connectivity is needed. Think of it as future-proofing.
By the way, memory is not cheap, certainly far from cheap enough to cavalierly toss in 16GB worth.
Wow, remind me to dump my stocks before the next Apple event. I really don't believe in those prices. Apple need to be way more aggressive on pricing. And it need to come up with at least 4" screen on the next iPhone. I think there is a market for both 3.5" and 4.5". Maybe they should get into low prices 3.5" and high end 4.5", so 2 models.
I see tablets as home devices and something you bring on vacation. Its too big to walk around with so I rely on my iPhone for internet browsing on the go. I would jump on a bigger screen iPhone. Seriously if Apple come out with yet another 3.5" iPhone I am getting a 4.5"+ android 4 phone.
When you bring one on vacation, 3G connectivity would be a good thing. So don't pay for that 3G when you're not on vacation and have it for when you do travel, assuming that it is available abroad. Having the ability to make that choice is what I'm talking about.
As for pricing, Apple knows that the price points it started off with works because the iPad has been a runaway success. Who cares if you can have a vastly inferior device that costs a lot less like, for example, the Fire. If it's cheap you want, you're not an Apple customer and you really just don't get it. For sure Apple needs to make sure that the price point is right but right does not mean a race to the bottom. When competitors have gone there, they have delivered the netbook and deeply flawed products like the Fire. Apple, taking the high road, has given us the Macbook Air, the iPad, the iPhone, etc.
You want cheap, good for you. Plenty of manufacturers are offering you lots of cheap alternatives. If you want good products, then we're talking Apple and if the price is too much for you, quality isn't for everybody. There's Apple and then there's everybody else. Sounds like you belong with the latter and don't understand the appeal of the former.
We can safely predict the iPad 3 will have a Retina display this year. And maybe even some of the smaller Macs. But I wonder what totally new stuff Apple is working on?
I disagree. Apple has at no point indicated that a Retina display is on the way for the iPad. I point this out because if the next iPad lacks such a display, Apple will have done nothing wrong.
I'm not saying that the higher-res display is out of the question but rather that Apple itself has not indicated that it is coming. Hence, let's deal with facts and not declare a rumour about upcoming hardware the same as an announced product. In a few weeks we'll have the actual iPad 3 to consider and don't be shocked if Apple chooses lighter weight, lower cost, better battery life and more real memory capacity over a much higher resolution.
By not opting for the Retina display, Apple could, for instance, bring out a new iPad that retails for about the same price as we currently get yet adding 3G for no additional charge. Doing that, the iPad would have three price points instead of six and would offer (using US pricing) a $499, $599, and $699 model. Gone would be the $629, $729 and $829 models. This device would be lighter than the current iPad, enjoy better battery life and sport a faster processor.
The Retina Display would force Apple to keep the cost unchanged or worse, increase it. The unit would be heavier, need more battery capacity, and files taking advantage of the higher resolution would eat up more memory. In other words, lose/lose/lose/lose for one gain, i.e. higher resolution. Doesn't seem like a good trade-off to me and it feels like the sort of direction Apple would never go in.
Look at this another way. If Apple did offer two versions, with and without the Retina display, consider how the two models would compare. Let's say that the one with the current screen resolution had a few upgrades that resulted in faster performance, with a modest weight loss, slightly better battery life, and the price was $449 in the US instead of $499 for the base model. Then there would be the iPad Retina, starting at $599, with more weight (additional tech to handle the display and the need for a bigger battery). So, do you pay $449 and get a lighter device or pay $599 and get a heavier one that has less effective memory capacity with no additional battery capacity, maybe less.
With all those trade-offs, I would expect the Retina iPad to be a sales flop. I mean, who among us wants a heavier, more expensive iPad especially considering few of us seem to be complaining about the screen currently offered with the iPad. If the screen really needs an upgrade, how is it that millions are happily using the current iPad.
Wow, remind me to dump my stocks before the next Apple event. I really don't believe in those prices. Apple need to be way more aggressive on pricing. And it need to come up with at least 4" screen on the next iPhone. I think there is a market for both 3.5" and 4.5". Maybe they should get into low prices 3.5" and high end 4.5", so 2 models.
I see tablets as home devices and something you bring on vacation. Its too big to walk around with so I rely on my iPhone for internet browsing on the go. I would jump on a bigger screen iPhone. Seriously if Apple come out with yet another 3.5" iPhone I am getting a 4.5"+ android 4 phone.
I probably should buy your Apple stocks then. I have more confidence in Apple's strategy than yours
Comments
The current iPad with 32GB in base form retails for $599 so I think you underestimate just how much a high-rez screen at that size will add to the price.
Getting 32GB in addition to retina display and A6 processing may be wishful thinking on my part, but given that the extra 16GB really only costs Apple a couple bucks (despite charging $100 more), I'm hopeful they'll throw it in while they're upping the iPad price by $100.
I think what is possible is that Apple will keep the current pricing for the base model but with the difference that all iPads will come with 3G (or whatever) connectivity. So you'd have a $499 (US) 16GB iPad with wi-fi+3G and then you'd have the step-up version that would come in at around $229 more but for 32GB and of course the hi-rez screen. This would not constitute a significant price increase in that the current 32GB model with 3G retails in the US for $729, as would the new high-rez version. Apple has done this sort of thing before.
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of iPads are sold with 3G.
Why do you think they would make 3G standard? It's an expensive feature a lot of people, including myself, don't need. I won't buy a 3G-enabled iPad until the cellular companies stop forcing you to buy separate data plans for every device. I'd guess at least half of iPad sales are wi-fi only, and at least half of 3G iPad sales are to people who don't understand that the 3G version is largely just an unnecessary added expense (both for the hardware and the monthly bill), given how prevelant wifi is.
I'm utterly stunned at this article. Pathetic. I thought you were better than this guys.
An entire article about John Gruber's article about a DigiTimes article. Really?
Gruber may be well connected but his word isn't gospel. He simply has something so many in the 'analysis' blogosphere don't have: perspicacity.
First, kudos for working "perspicacity" into a post.
However, if you follow Gruber you'll notice that there's kind of a little game he plays-- that he seems to have actual reliable sources within Apple and sometimes knows things for sure.
When he's openly speculating, he always labels it as such. He goes out of his way to say something like "This isn't based on insider info it's just my best guess." But when he does know something, he never comes right out and says it, but rather slides it in just like the case in point. As far as I know, this kind of "funny they would say x when y is happening" type remark has a pretty solid track record. Of course, Apple has been known to change its mind at the last minute, so even reliable insider info can be rendered wrong a day or two before a planned product release.
My guess is that this is his way of protecting his source(s), that the odd offhand remark amongst the "just guessing" stuff (as opposed to some big exclusive scoop OMG we found an iPhone type thing) is unlikely to draw Apple's scrutiny.
Seems unfathomable to think that the iPhone 5 won't have a larger display. Only budget smart phones now have 3.5" screens. All the mid to high end stuff has 4" or higher.
Having played with a Galaxy Nexus, the 4.6" screen is a perfect size, and doesn't seem unwieldy or overly large. It helps that the phone is super slim of course, and much more comfortably shaped in the hand than the boxy iPhone 4/4S. I wish Apple would just give people a choice of screen size. Choice is good, give us a 4" and a 4.5" option.
I recently played around with a Droid Razr and even though it only had a 4.3" screen, not a 4.65", the overall size of the phone felt ungainly to me. In my opinion, it was not as easy to handle, manipulate, control, or engage as my iPhone 4S.
I can't see Apple offering an option of both 4" and 4.5" screens. Developers would have twice the work to make sure their apps scaled correctly on both formats. Currently, they have 2 size formats for apps: 3.5" for iPod Touch & iPhone, and 9.7" for iPad. Throw an odd size into the mix, and you've added extra work for everyone.
Besides, Apple is selling every 3.5" screen iPhone they can make. Why should they need to change?
The current iPad with 32GB in base form retails for $599 so I think you underestimate just how much a high-rez screen at that size will add to the price.
I think what is possible is that Apple will keep the current pricing for the base model but with the difference that all iPads will come with 3G (or whatever) connectivity. So you'd have a $499 (US) 16GB iPad with wi-fi+3G and then you'd have the step-up version that would come in at around $229 more but for 32GB and of course the hi-rez screen. This would not constitute a significant price increase in that the current 32GB model with 3G retails in the US for $729, as would the new high-rez version. Apple has done this sort of thing before.
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of iPads are sold with 3G.
Wow, remind me to dump my stocks before the next Apple event. I really don't believe in those prices. Apple need to be way more aggressive on pricing. And it need to come up with at least 4" screen on the next iPhone. I think there is a market for both 3.5" and 4.5". Maybe they should get into low prices 3.5" and high end 4.5", so 2 models.
I see tablets as home devices and something you bring on vacation. Its too big to walk around with so I rely on my iPhone for internet browsing on the go. I would jump on a bigger screen iPhone. Seriously if Apple come out with yet another 3.5" iPhone I am getting a 4.5"+ android 4 phone.
Wow, remind me to dump my stocks before the next Apple event. I really don't believe in those prices. Apple need to be way more aggressive on pricing. And it need to come up with at least 4" screen on the next iPhone. I think there is a market for both 3.5" and 4.5". Maybe they should get into low prices 3.5" and high end 4.5", so 2 models.
Why? Because a single loss-leader, budget tablet with less than half the display area, half the storage capacity, and with significantly less than half if every other usability category sells for $200?
4.5" 3:2 iPhone would be too larger to fit in your pocket. It's considerably wider than the 4.65" monstrosities that are out there now.
Why? Because a single loss-leader, budget tablet with less than half the display area, half the storage capacity, and with significantly less than half if every other usability category sells for $200?
4.5" 3:2 iPhone would be too larger to fit in your pocket. It's considerably wider than the 4.65" monstrosities that are out there now.
My co-worker 4.6" Samsung Nexus phone WITH the protective casing fits perfectly in my pocket. And I am no 6.6' football player, I am talking 34" waist regular pockets. They will have to change aspect ratio if its too large. Apple can't come with with just 1 model if they make a 4.5" model, indeed its too big for everyone. I could settle for a 4" but it better be great.
I do agree with you that 7" tablets are ridiculous. Its too big to walk around with and too small for home use. In fact I would buy a bigger iPad anytime. But Apple still has to compete at the high end level and can't afford to be more expensive at the moment.
I've long complained about the bad spelling on AppleInsider, and it's clear to me that I am one of the few who is voicing it, as evidenced by the fact these foolish misspellings continue. We don't live in the 1970's anymore, when we didn't have spelling checkers, more less PCs.
Much less PC's.
Can you say Irony?
I understand that text-based Apps would have an improved resolution, but would it be worth releasing a new version of the iPad before developers even have a chance to update and adjust their Apps accordingly? It seems like Apple typically have done it the other way around, allowing themselves time to create the software before releasing the hardware...
I'm curious as to your opinions on this!
The title is awfully amusing when it comes to the phrase "completely accurate," seeing the content of this article is far from it.
I've long complained about the bad spelling on AppleInsider, and it's clear to me that I am one of the few who is voicing it, as evidenced by the fact these foolish misspellings continue. We don't live in the 1970's anymore, when we didn't have spelling checkers, more less PCs. Even so, we did have paper dictionaries back then, and educated people used them. But with the convenience of digital spell checking today, there are no more excuses NOT to use proper spelling. Or has the American public school system failed so badly for the majority of readers here that no one even notices it or cares anymore?
"big expensive" in the article should read "bit expensive."
Shame on everyone associated with the article for allowing the bad English to continue. I long for the day that AppleInsider spelling and punctuation is "completely accurate."
You've made a fundamental mistake. When talking about another writer's bad spelling, it is best that you not spell poorly and use poor grammar yourself. It isn't, for example, 1970's. The correct way to do it would be 1970s with no apostrophe. Also, why did you place a comma after then in the sentence that should have read, "Even so, we did have paper dictionaries back then and educated people used them."
If we're going to nitpick, let's also point out that anymore is commonly spelled out as one word, as you are doing but the more traditional approach would be to use any more, i.e. two words. It is also poor form to use all-caps to emphasize a word as in "excuses NOT to use proper spelling." In addition I rather dislike the aforementioned sentence because it's a rather poor sort of English to write, "there are no more excuses NOT to use proper spelling." That is awkward sentence structure, at best. As well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by the sentence, "We don't live in the 1970's anymore, when we didn't have spelling checkers, more less PCs." You totally lost me at more less PCs.
While we're at it, which is it, spelling checker or spell checking.
That you value the language is laudable but please show respect for the language yourself if you wish to offer yourself up as a defender of the written word.
One more thing, while we're assessing your writing, I believe you meant to write correct spelling, not proper spelling. The term proper in regards to writing is more commonly used in reference to grammar, as in proper grammar.
The title is awfully amusing when it comes to the phrase "completely accurate," seeing the content of this article is far from it.
I've long complained about the bad spelling on AppleInsider, and it's clear to me that I am one of the few who is voicing it, as evidenced by the fact these foolish misspellings continue. We don't live in the 1970's anymore, when we didn't have spelling checkers, more less PCs. Even so, we did have paper dictionaries back then, and educated people used them. But with the convenience of digital spell checking today, there are no more excuses NOT to use proper spelling. Or has the American public school system failed so badly for the majority of readers here that no one even notices it or cares anymore?
"big expensive" in the article should read "bit expensive."
Shame on everyone associated with the article for allowing the bad English to continue. I long for the day that AppleInsider spelling and punctuation is "completely accurate."
sometimes I ask myself the same question maybe AI is being run by a bunch of skateboarding teens who are updating the site while skating and don't have the time to run "SPLEEL CHECKER" (emphasis on spell) and these things go "live" and full of errors... oh well welcome to the world of ebonics-
(one more thing to add doesn't AI have a spell checker in their text editor??? they should at least have one i mean its in apple's Text Edit app and it corrects my mistakes as i type them- i guess we're asking for too much then.. HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Getting 32GB in addition to retina display and A6 processing may be wishful thinking on my part, but given that the extra 16GB really only costs Apple a couple bucks (despite charging $100 more), I'm hopeful they'll throw it in while they're upping the iPad price by $100.
Why do you think they would make 3G standard? It's an expensive feature a lot of people, including myself, don't need. I won't buy a 3G-enabled iPad until the cellular companies stop forcing you to buy separate data plans for every device. I'd guess at least half of iPad sales are wi-fi only, and at least half of 3G iPad sales are to people who don't understand that the 3G version is largely just an unnecessary added expense (both for the hardware and the monthly bill), given how prevelant wifi is.
If you make 3G standard, the cost is reduced and production simplified. Due to economies of scale you can lower the cost to the consumer. Just because the hardware for 3G is built into a unit does not mean that a customer is obligated to carry a data plan for it. Yet, if at the time one buys an iPad there is no need for 3G but a situation presents itself in which such a plan would be useful, good luck adding that functionality after the fact.
For instance, I don't think I'd need 3G on a regular basis but if I were travelling overseas, for that trip, it sure would come in handy. I'd like to be able to not pay for 3G on a regular basis yet have it as an option in such a scenario. Also, life is unpredictable. My situation is such that if I bought an iPad today, I would not pick up a 3G data plan for it. Do I know with certainty that six months, a year, two years from now that will be the case?
I don't mind the way the data plans are set up for the iPad. You don't need to commit to a year-round plan and the cost isn't outrageous. I wouldn't appreciate, by the way, the cost of plans in general increasing to allow for additional connectivity to be offered free to the small percentage who can take advantage of it. If someone else wants 3G connectivity on their iPad, I shouldn't be subsidizing that if I have no use for such a service.
Don't get me wrong. I pay far more to my service provider than I reasonably should be. I think it's costing me more to maintain my connectivity than to maintain my car, including the cost of fuel. I could pay cash for a half-decent car once a decade with the money my service provider is extracting from me even though I hardly use my cell (not a smart phone), don't have the top-tier Internet service, and I don't subscribe to all the TV services available. There's a lot of profit in that arrangement for the provider, has to be.
Yet is there not a big difference between that and putting the hardware into a device that makes it possible to have 3G connectivity. If the deal was that you had to pay for 3G service regularly, I'd be on here complaining. Instead, what I suggest is that Apple provide the ability to use the iPad with 3G and leave it up to the consumer to decide if that connectivity is needed. Think of it as future-proofing.
By the way, memory is not cheap, certainly far from cheap enough to cavalierly toss in 16GB worth.
Wow, remind me to dump my stocks before the next Apple event. I really don't believe in those prices. Apple need to be way more aggressive on pricing. And it need to come up with at least 4" screen on the next iPhone. I think there is a market for both 3.5" and 4.5". Maybe they should get into low prices 3.5" and high end 4.5", so 2 models.
I see tablets as home devices and something you bring on vacation. Its too big to walk around with so I rely on my iPhone for internet browsing on the go. I would jump on a bigger screen iPhone. Seriously if Apple come out with yet another 3.5" iPhone I am getting a 4.5"+ android 4 phone.
When you bring one on vacation, 3G connectivity would be a good thing. So don't pay for that 3G when you're not on vacation and have it for when you do travel, assuming that it is available abroad. Having the ability to make that choice is what I'm talking about.
As for pricing, Apple knows that the price points it started off with works because the iPad has been a runaway success. Who cares if you can have a vastly inferior device that costs a lot less like, for example, the Fire. If it's cheap you want, you're not an Apple customer and you really just don't get it. For sure Apple needs to make sure that the price point is right but right does not mean a race to the bottom. When competitors have gone there, they have delivered the netbook and deeply flawed products like the Fire. Apple, taking the high road, has given us the Macbook Air, the iPad, the iPhone, etc.
You want cheap, good for you. Plenty of manufacturers are offering you lots of cheap alternatives. If you want good products, then we're talking Apple and if the price is too much for you, quality isn't for everybody. There's Apple and then there's everybody else. Sounds like you belong with the latter and don't understand the appeal of the former.
We can safely predict the iPad 3 will have a Retina display this year. And maybe even some of the smaller Macs. But I wonder what totally new stuff Apple is working on?
I disagree. Apple has at no point indicated that a Retina display is on the way for the iPad. I point this out because if the next iPad lacks such a display, Apple will have done nothing wrong.
I'm not saying that the higher-res display is out of the question but rather that Apple itself has not indicated that it is coming. Hence, let's deal with facts and not declare a rumour about upcoming hardware the same as an announced product. In a few weeks we'll have the actual iPad 3 to consider and don't be shocked if Apple chooses lighter weight, lower cost, better battery life and more real memory capacity over a much higher resolution.
By not opting for the Retina display, Apple could, for instance, bring out a new iPad that retails for about the same price as we currently get yet adding 3G for no additional charge. Doing that, the iPad would have three price points instead of six and would offer (using US pricing) a $499, $599, and $699 model. Gone would be the $629, $729 and $829 models. This device would be lighter than the current iPad, enjoy better battery life and sport a faster processor.
The Retina Display would force Apple to keep the cost unchanged or worse, increase it. The unit would be heavier, need more battery capacity, and files taking advantage of the higher resolution would eat up more memory. In other words, lose/lose/lose/lose for one gain, i.e. higher resolution. Doesn't seem like a good trade-off to me and it feels like the sort of direction Apple would never go in.
Look at this another way. If Apple did offer two versions, with and without the Retina display, consider how the two models would compare. Let's say that the one with the current screen resolution had a few upgrades that resulted in faster performance, with a modest weight loss, slightly better battery life, and the price was $449 in the US instead of $499 for the base model. Then there would be the iPad Retina, starting at $599, with more weight (additional tech to handle the display and the need for a bigger battery). So, do you pay $449 and get a lighter device or pay $599 and get a heavier one that has less effective memory capacity with no additional battery capacity, maybe less.
With all those trade-offs, I would expect the Retina iPad to be a sales flop. I mean, who among us wants a heavier, more expensive iPad especially considering few of us seem to be complaining about the screen currently offered with the iPad. If the screen really needs an upgrade, how is it that millions are happily using the current iPad.
Wow, remind me to dump my stocks before the next Apple event. I really don't believe in those prices. Apple need to be way more aggressive on pricing. And it need to come up with at least 4" screen on the next iPhone. I think there is a market for both 3.5" and 4.5". Maybe they should get into low prices 3.5" and high end 4.5", so 2 models.
I see tablets as home devices and something you bring on vacation. Its too big to walk around with so I rely on my iPhone for internet browsing on the go. I would jump on a bigger screen iPhone. Seriously if Apple come out with yet another 3.5" iPhone I am getting a 4.5"+ android 4 phone.
I probably should buy your Apple stocks then. I have more confidence in Apple's strategy than yours