If the Kindle Fires sales numbers are any indication there`s a market for a 7" form factor.
Those numbers would explode with an Apple device.
Possibly, but remember it was a new release in a holiday quarter and being sold at the cost of a 8GB IPod Touch.
Now Apple could surely make the Kindle Fire for less money than it costs Amazon but can Apple make a 7" iPad that doesn't have the HW limitations of the Kindle Fire and still returns a reasonable profit that doesn't eat into their iPad sales thus making their net profits larger than with no 7" device?
At $199 that seems impossible. At $249, the cost of the B&N Nook Color, that still seems unlikely. I think $299 would be the minimum.
What is the cost of the missing HW. The Kindle Fire is limited in function much the same way the iPod Touch offers a lot less HW than the iPhone, but the Touch still can register 11 inputs while the Kindle Fire can register only 2. Since Android can register more than 2 inputs i have to think this is a limitation of the HW. How much money does that save Amazon per unit?
Would a 7" iPad be a milled aluminium chassis? Would people be okay with 8GB storage?
Just to reiterate some stuff, since there seems to have been some misunderstanding:
I don't think Apple will introduce a 7" tablet just because they feel there is competitive pressure to which they're obliged to respond. Anyone who thinks that is the case hasn't really been paying attention to Apple the last 10 years or so. They evolve their platforms according to their own logic, and at times seem almost weirdly indifferent to what anyone else is doing. That's not sycophantic Apple worship, that's just stating facts.
I mentioned several examples of product categories that lots of people claimed Apple had to participate in (netbooks and cheap, easy to upgrade towers) which they never did (with no damage to their fortunes whatsoever), but the list can easily be extended to include other "critical" technologies or feature sets that people on these forums were dead certain Apple would have to adopt to remain competitive.
Remember "Viiv", Intel's home media chipset? Apple had no answer and was to be presently locked out of the living room. Or how Apple had to give up margins to get some cheaper hardware on the market before they inevitably became a niche boutique label for people with more money than sense? Or any given given "spec" that Apple is forever "falling behind" on, and which will presently doom them to technological irrelevance?
The trouble with this kind of thinking is that it buys into the shortsighted low margin logic of everyone else, wherein fast iteration of novel features is used to churn the market and drive volume. As we've seen of late, the entire model is broken and beginning to be abandoned by many of the incumbent players. Why? Because you don't actually make any money that way.
Apple may or may not elect to make a 7" iPad at some point. If they do so it will be because they think they can make a great product that they can sell in great numbers which addresses an actual market. But to point to "successful" 7" devices somehow "requiring" that Apple respond or lose market share takes more account of the noise being made by Apple's rivals than the actual numbers involved, IMO, and is reminiscent of previous claims that Apple wasn't being sufficiently aggressive, creative, imaginative or broadminded, according to this or that poster.
As the most astonishingly successful company on the planet I think we can maybe at this point give the benefit of the doubt and assume their reasons for doing or not doing something are pretty sound.
Possibly, but remember it was a new release in a holiday quarter and being sold at the cost of a 8GB IPod Touch.
Now Apple could surely make the Kindle Fire for less money than it costs Amazon but can Apple make a 7" iPad that doesn't have the HW limitations of the Kindle Fire and still returns a reasonable profit that doesn't eat into their iPad sales thus making their net profits larger than with no 7" device?
At $199 that seems impossible. At $249, the cost of the B&N Nook Color, that still seems unlikely. I think $299 would be the minimum.
What is the cost of the missing HW. The Kindle Fire is limited in function much the same way the iPod Touch offers a lot less HW than the iPhone, but the Touch still can register 11 inputs while the Kindle Fire can register only 2. Since Android can register more than 2 inputs i have to think this is a limitation of the HW. How much money does that save Amazon per unit?
Would a 7" iPad be a milled aluminium chassis? Would people be okay with 8GB storage?
Solipsism, I'm beginning to believe that these 7" tablets may not be costing as much to manufacture as we might think. Did you see Archos announcement of the Child Pad? A 7" slate running Android ICS on a 1ghz processor, and just $129 at retail. Wholesale would be less than that, so imagine how inexpensive it must be to produce. Granted it only includes 1GB RAM, but increasing it to 8GB would only have added $10 or so to the production cost.
EDIT: I think it's a safe assumption that the retailer is making at least 30% if selling at full retail, and with a distributor probably involved they'd be likely to take another 20% or more for themselves. That would leave Archos' wholesale selling price at less than $70. They aren't selling it at cost, so I personally believe the build itself before shipping and support costs couldn't be more than $45 or so.
IMHO, with Apple's greater economy of scale and aggressive price negotiations, I think a build cost of $110 or perhaps $120 for a quality 7" iPad including IPS display, 8GB RAM, camera and bluetooth/wifi is achievable.
Solipsism, I'm beginning to believe that these 7" tablets may not be costing as much to manufacture as we might think. Did you see Archos announcement of the Child Pad? A 7" slate running Android ICS on a 1ghz processor, and just $129 at retail. Wholesale would be less than that, so imagine how inexpensive it must be to produce. Granted it only includes 1GB RAM, but increasing it to 8GB would only have added $10 or so to the production cost.
The fun is watching the evolution of products. Discussion on pricing are difficult unless you can peer into the availability of new products and see where consolidation can happen.
What's clear to me is that every n amount of time a product has it's allowed to incorporate new more efficient products. A Q3 launch product is going to have more access to the upcoming hardware than the previous generation.
I'm eagerly awaiting faster Wifi, more integrated sensors (Accel, Gyro, Compass) and other components that drive down cost and increase reliability.
I'd love to find a great source for seeing what's new with battery technology.
This is to fool people that the Samsung 7" tablets is as good as iPad.
The only place this made news is AI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
As the most astonishingly successful company on the planet I think we can maybe at this point give the benefit of the doubt and assume their reasons for doing or not doing something are pretty sound.
There's always room for growth. If I were an Apple stock holder, I would definitely want Apple to start selling 7" tabs. There are too many people who use them as e-readers, and because of the portability factor, especially for women because they fit better in purses than full size tabs. Apple would be stupid not to get into this market.
This looks to me like an attempt by Samsung to pick on Sharp for Apple contracts.
You have a flawed analysis then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShAdOwXPR
Flexible screens are not even close to the retina displays apple needs. Not to mention that for a flexible tab,et the other components will have to become smaller or flexible for a viable form factor. I have not seen concept that will truly work for daily use.
I mean batteries, motherboard/chips, etc... Will have to become flexible or a lot smaller it will take years IMHO.
There are already plastic electronic components in the labs. Displays were the last hurdle to a true flexibility enabled electronic device.
Solipsism, I'm beginning to believe that these 7" tablets may not be costing as much to manufacture as we might think. Did you see Archos announcement of the Child Pad? A 7" slate running Android ICS on a 1ghz processor, and just $129 at retail. Wholesale would be less than that, so imagine how inexpensive it must be to produce. Granted it only includes 1GB RAM, but increasing it to 8GB would only have added $10 or so to the production cost.
There are certainly cheap tablets out there, even at 10", just as there are cheap PCs on the market. I don't think anyone is saying that you can't make a cheap product.
Is the 1GB RAM referring to NAND storage or the amount of RAM on the SoC? I can't find any info on the amount of storage. And note that simple specs like 1GHz CPU and 1GB RAM might look impressive but they only tell you two simple specs and they are quite inexpensive. For instance, the iPhone 4S only has 512GB RAM but that RAM is cutting edge for a smartphone.
you can't please all the people all the time.. and you know what? that is ok. The best customers are the reasonable ones that want to be your customers. There are plenty out there. For those that don't, they will always standing on their soapbox and demanding a 7" root-able iPad with removable battery, OLED flexible screen, SD card slot, USB ports, slide out keyboard, 4G LTE, which allows you to run Microsoft Office and play Flash for less than the cost of the HW while calling you a money greedy evil monopolistic corporation.
There are certainly cheap tablets out there, even at 10", just as there are cheap PCs on the market. I don't think anyone is saying that you can't make a cheap product.
Is the 1GB RAM referring to NAND storage or the amount of RAM on the SoC? I can't find any info on the amount of storage. And note that simple specs like 1GHz CPU and 1GB RAM might look impressive but they only tell you two simple specs and they are quite inexpensive. For instance, the iPhone 4S only has 512GB RAM but that RAM is cutting edge for a smartphone.
I don't know if you saw my edit, or whether your reply addressed it.
EDIT: I think it's a safe assumption that the retailer is making at least 30% if selling at full retail, and with a distributor probably involved they'd be likely to take another 20% or more for themselves. That would leave Archos' wholesale selling price at less than $70. They aren't selling it at cost, so I personally believe the build itself before shipping and support costs couldn't be more than $45 or so.
IMHO, with Apple's greater economy of scale and aggressive price negotiations, I think a build cost of $110 or perhaps $120 for a quality 7" iPad including IPS display, 8GB RAM, camera and bluetooth/wifi is achievable.
I hadn't even thought about a camera and Bluetooth. Does the Kindle Fire even have a speaker and mic? There are a lot of little things that just add up.
If it's a 7" iPad then I would expect IPS panel aluminum casing... the works. If it's a 7" iPod Touch I would expect an IPS panel though wouldn't be surprised by TN (note that every 7" tablet under $199 seems to be TN except for the Kindle Fire), and I would expect a plastic backing.
But when I say the same thing you get your panties in a bunch.
I didn't like the way your usual apologist persona here was splitting hairs with it being a larger iPod touch and not an iPad mini so as not to dilute the iPad brand. Whatever name they call it should they release it it's going to be a 7-8" tablet - which they claimed had no inherent benefit to it more than a year ago. I still don't think Steve's claim then was all marketing and no substance as this size has much more shortcomings than it has benefits, but some benefits for the form factor do exist, apple just didn't think it worth going against competitors at that stage in this format, before allowing the ipad to enter as many homes as it could, but now could very well be thinking that that iPad is already established enough to have a smaller cousin for different purposes, and that they shouldn't be allowing amazon and android's to enter their market from the bottom up so to speak by carving a nice segment for themselves with their cheaper smaller form factor before moving on to sell a later larger iPad like tablet to the same customers. If that's what they are thinking now, I am 100% with them and it will be good to see that there's still some foresight at apple after the os x debacles...
I didn't like the way your usual apologist persona here was splitting hairs with it being a larger iPod touch and not an iPad mini so as not to dilute the iPad brand. Whatever name they call it should they release it it's going to be a 7-8" tablet - which they claimed had no inherent benefit to it more than a year ago. I still don't think Steve's claim then was all marketing and no substance as this size has much more shortcomings than it has benefits, but some benefits for the form factor do exist, apple just didn't think it worth going against competitors at that stage in this format, before allowing the ipad to enter as many homes as it could, but now could very well be thinking that that iPad is already established enough to have a smaller cousin for different purposes, and that they shouldn't be allowing amazon and android's to enter their market from the bottom up so to speak by carving a nice segment for themselves with their cheaper smaller form factor before moving on to sell a later larger iPad like tablet to the same customers. If that's what they are thinking now, I am 100% with them and it will be good to see that there's still some foresight at apple after the os x debacles...
That's right, having distinct differences in design, HW inclusions, overall cost and marketing mean nothing because the iPad is just a large iPod Touch.
I seem to recall a time, fairly recently, when many where sure Apple was presently to release an "iPhone Mini", since obviously they'd need to extend the product line to cover all the action and not leave any money on the table.
Of course, you don't hear too much about that any more, since the new "action" is all about 5"+ screens and Apple needs to make one of those, now.
As Soli pointed out, touch devices are inherently different from iPods or Macs, since the screen size is part of the UI. The iPhone is the size it is because Apple's exhaustive pre-release testing suggested to them that that size works best as an aspect of the entire device, software and hardware. Same goes for the iPad. Apple didn't make the iPad the size they did for laughs, they did it because they determined that that was the best size for a device other than the iPhone. Pocketable: 3.5" screen. Not pocketable: 9.7" screen. It could have been 7 at launch. It could have been 11. They chose 9.7" because of how it worked.
So a 7" iPad wouldn't just be device to slot in between the iPhone and existing iPad, to cover the market and satisfy "choice." It would have to work, in the sense Apple defines work-- do something better in a compelling way. Samsung makes devices in every size just in case. Not Apple.
That's right, having distinct differences in design, HW inclusions, overall cost and marketing mean nothing because the iPad is just a large iPod Touch.
Putting words in my mouth while missing my point again? You are very well aware, or you should be, that a 9.7" tablet is quite distinct than a 3.5" iPod and those who claimed otherwise were cretins, but that this is not down to marketing hardware inclusions and whatever you mean by loosely referring to as design but due to the distinct usage and user interface capabilities due to the quite distinct form factor. But at 7-8" inches the lines blur especially so when iOS interface has so many common elements across the two sizes it caters for now. The only reason you were splitting hairs and opted for a large iPod touch as opposed to a small iPad was that you did not want to implicitly admit that more than a year ago Steves claim that a smaller iPad would be a completely pointless form factor was a half truth, and a half marketing ploy to sell apple's product instead.
@addagox, I don't disagree, I never claimed a smaller iPhone or a net book where anything but idiotic propositions that apple had no part in. As to how they can make, or if they can make a 8" iPad mini/ iPod touch mega compelling enough and differentiated enough while also keeping common ui cues remains to be seen, I don't think they have much room for movement, and I wouldn't put it past them at this stage of their evolution to just shrink the iPad ui with a modicum of changes and rationalise that they are offering some distinct capability, maybe their native maps/navigation app, who knows.. I am always prepared to be amazed by apple but I am never prepared to be uncritical of them.
The only reason you were splitting hairs and opted for a large iPod touch as opposed to a small iPad was that you did not want to implicitly admit that more than a year ago Steves claim that a smaller iPad would be a completely pointless form factor was a half truth, and a half marketing ploy to sell apple's product instead.
I stated his comments shouldn't be taken verbatim when he said them. I distinctly recall you being quite upset about his "sand down their fingers" comment despite not realizing they make 1/8th size devices.
Steve never said that any other size wasn't possible. He stated they found the 9.7" 4:3 panel to be ideal for their needs and that the then current 7" tablets were DOA. Show us one comment where Steve said no 7" device would ever work. If you had a solid grasp of English I don't think you'd start to comprehension language a little better and wouldn't add absolutes to comments that were never implied.
I've clearly stated why I think a larger iPod Touch makes more sense than a smaller iPad. I've stated many reasons for it, namely as a way to profit from using cheaper components and to prop up the iPod arm.
Comments
What it Apple announces a 7" iPad on March 7?
What if Apple announces a 7" iPad on March 7?
I guess they figure they can make a go with a 7" iPad.
16:9 sucks at 7".
Even worse than it sucks at 10"
Who really wants to watch movies on a tablet anyway?
How? You can't possibly reach the entire screen with one hand.
I can easly hold a book and turn pages with one hand on a 7" tablet.
Can`t do it with an iPad
'Hood pockets, sure. Do you want that to be your main demographic?
7" tablet fits nicely in my inside jacket pocket.
iPad might fit in my purse, if I had a purse.
You really think car manufacturers are going to let third party stuff where they could have full control?
I don`t think they have a choice.
Sound systems are sound systems, after market is always available for an audio system.
They'd be brain-dead to make a 7" device.
I`d buy one in a heartbeat, I have no use for the current iPad form factor so I haven`t bought one.
If the Kindle Fires sales numbers are any indication there`s a market for a 7" form factor.
Those numbers would explode with an Apple device.
Just have to get the profit margins right and they`d be fools not to produce a 7" tablet.
If the Kindle Fires sales numbers are any indication there`s a market for a 7" form factor.
Those numbers would explode with an Apple device.
Possibly, but remember it was a new release in a holiday quarter and being sold at the cost of a 8GB IPod Touch.
Now Apple could surely make the Kindle Fire for less money than it costs Amazon but can Apple make a 7" iPad that doesn't have the HW limitations of the Kindle Fire and still returns a reasonable profit that doesn't eat into their iPad sales thus making their net profits larger than with no 7" device?
At $199 that seems impossible. At $249, the cost of the B&N Nook Color, that still seems unlikely. I think $299 would be the minimum.
What is the cost of the missing HW. The Kindle Fire is limited in function much the same way the iPod Touch offers a lot less HW than the iPhone, but the Touch still can register 11 inputs while the Kindle Fire can register only 2. Since Android can register more than 2 inputs i have to think this is a limitation of the HW. How much money does that save Amazon per unit?
Would a 7" iPad be a milled aluminium chassis? Would people be okay with 8GB storage?
I don't think Apple will introduce a 7" tablet just because they feel there is competitive pressure to which they're obliged to respond. Anyone who thinks that is the case hasn't really been paying attention to Apple the last 10 years or so. They evolve their platforms according to their own logic, and at times seem almost weirdly indifferent to what anyone else is doing. That's not sycophantic Apple worship, that's just stating facts.
I mentioned several examples of product categories that lots of people claimed Apple had to participate in (netbooks and cheap, easy to upgrade towers) which they never did (with no damage to their fortunes whatsoever), but the list can easily be extended to include other "critical" technologies or feature sets that people on these forums were dead certain Apple would have to adopt to remain competitive.
Remember "Viiv", Intel's home media chipset? Apple had no answer and was to be presently locked out of the living room. Or how Apple had to give up margins to get some cheaper hardware on the market before they inevitably became a niche boutique label for people with more money than sense? Or any given given "spec" that Apple is forever "falling behind" on, and which will presently doom them to technological irrelevance?
The trouble with this kind of thinking is that it buys into the shortsighted low margin logic of everyone else, wherein fast iteration of novel features is used to churn the market and drive volume. As we've seen of late, the entire model is broken and beginning to be abandoned by many of the incumbent players. Why? Because you don't actually make any money that way.
Apple may or may not elect to make a 7" iPad at some point. If they do so it will be because they think they can make a great product that they can sell in great numbers which addresses an actual market. But to point to "successful" 7" devices somehow "requiring" that Apple respond or lose market share takes more account of the noise being made by Apple's rivals than the actual numbers involved, IMO, and is reminiscent of previous claims that Apple wasn't being sufficiently aggressive, creative, imaginative or broadminded, according to this or that poster.
As the most astonishingly successful company on the planet I think we can maybe at this point give the benefit of the doubt and assume their reasons for doing or not doing something are pretty sound.
Possibly, but remember it was a new release in a holiday quarter and being sold at the cost of a 8GB IPod Touch.
Now Apple could surely make the Kindle Fire for less money than it costs Amazon but can Apple make a 7" iPad that doesn't have the HW limitations of the Kindle Fire and still returns a reasonable profit that doesn't eat into their iPad sales thus making their net profits larger than with no 7" device?
At $199 that seems impossible. At $249, the cost of the B&N Nook Color, that still seems unlikely. I think $299 would be the minimum.
What is the cost of the missing HW. The Kindle Fire is limited in function much the same way the iPod Touch offers a lot less HW than the iPhone, but the Touch still can register 11 inputs while the Kindle Fire can register only 2. Since Android can register more than 2 inputs i have to think this is a limitation of the HW. How much money does that save Amazon per unit?
Would a 7" iPad be a milled aluminium chassis? Would people be okay with 8GB storage?
Solipsism, I'm beginning to believe that these 7" tablets may not be costing as much to manufacture as we might think. Did you see Archos announcement of the Child Pad? A 7" slate running Android ICS on a 1ghz processor, and just $129 at retail. Wholesale would be less than that, so imagine how inexpensive it must be to produce. Granted it only includes 1GB RAM, but increasing it to 8GB would only have added $10 or so to the production cost.
EDIT: I think it's a safe assumption that the retailer is making at least 30% if selling at full retail, and with a distributor probably involved they'd be likely to take another 20% or more for themselves. That would leave Archos' wholesale selling price at less than $70. They aren't selling it at cost, so I personally believe the build itself before shipping and support costs couldn't be more than $45 or so.
IMHO, with Apple's greater economy of scale and aggressive price negotiations, I think a build cost of $110 or perhaps $120 for a quality 7" iPad including IPS display, 8GB RAM, camera and bluetooth/wifi is achievable.
Solipsism, I'm beginning to believe that these 7" tablets may not be costing as much to manufacture as we might think. Did you see Archos announcement of the Child Pad? A 7" slate running Android ICS on a 1ghz processor, and just $129 at retail. Wholesale would be less than that, so imagine how inexpensive it must be to produce. Granted it only includes 1GB RAM, but increasing it to 8GB would only have added $10 or so to the production cost.
The fun is watching the evolution of products. Discussion on pricing are difficult unless you can peer into the availability of new products and see where consolidation can happen.
What's clear to me is that every n amount of time a product has it's allowed to incorporate new more efficient products. A Q3 launch product is going to have more access to the upcoming hardware than the previous generation.
I'm eagerly awaiting faster Wifi, more integrated sensors (Accel, Gyro, Compass) and other components that drive down cost and increase reliability.
I'd love to find a great source for seeing what's new with battery technology.
Flexible screens are not even close to the retina displays apple needs.
Actually they are pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJEHp15Hoo0
This is to fool people that the Samsung 7" tablets is as good as iPad.
The only place this made news is AI.
As the most astonishingly successful company on the planet I think we can maybe at this point give the benefit of the doubt and assume their reasons for doing or not doing something are pretty sound.
There's always room for growth. If I were an Apple stock holder, I would definitely want Apple to start selling 7" tabs. There are too many people who use them as e-readers, and because of the portability factor, especially for women because they fit better in purses than full size tabs. Apple would be stupid not to get into this market.
This looks to me like an attempt by Samsung to pick on Sharp for Apple contracts.
You have a flawed analysis then.
Flexible screens are not even close to the retina displays apple needs. Not to mention that for a flexible tab,et the other components will have to become smaller or flexible for a viable form factor. I have not seen concept that will truly work for daily use.
I mean batteries, motherboard/chips, etc... Will have to become flexible or a lot smaller it will take years IMHO.
There are already plastic electronic components in the labs. Displays were the last hurdle to a true flexibility enabled electronic device.
Solipsism, I'm beginning to believe that these 7" tablets may not be costing as much to manufacture as we might think. Did you see Archos announcement of the Child Pad? A 7" slate running Android ICS on a 1ghz processor, and just $129 at retail. Wholesale would be less than that, so imagine how inexpensive it must be to produce. Granted it only includes 1GB RAM, but increasing it to 8GB would only have added $10 or so to the production cost.
There are certainly cheap tablets out there, even at 10", just as there are cheap PCs on the market. I don't think anyone is saying that you can't make a cheap product.
Is the 1GB RAM referring to NAND storage or the amount of RAM on the SoC? I can't find any info on the amount of storage. And note that simple specs like 1GHz CPU and 1GB RAM might look impressive but they only tell you two simple specs and they are quite inexpensive. For instance, the iPhone 4S only has 512GB RAM but that RAM is cutting edge for a smartphone.
There are certainly cheap tablets out there, even at 10", just as there are cheap PCs on the market. I don't think anyone is saying that you can't make a cheap product.
Is the 1GB RAM referring to NAND storage or the amount of RAM on the SoC? I can't find any info on the amount of storage. And note that simple specs like 1GHz CPU and 1GB RAM might look impressive but they only tell you two simple specs and they are quite inexpensive. For instance, the iPhone 4S only has 512GB RAM but that RAM is cutting edge for a smartphone.
I don't know if you saw my edit, or whether your reply addressed it.
EDIT: I think it's a safe assumption that the retailer is making at least 30% if selling at full retail, and with a distributor probably involved they'd be likely to take another 20% or more for themselves. That would leave Archos' wholesale selling price at less than $70. They aren't selling it at cost, so I personally believe the build itself before shipping and support costs couldn't be more than $45 or so.
IMHO, with Apple's greater economy of scale and aggressive price negotiations, I think a build cost of $110 or perhaps $120 for a quality 7" iPad including IPS display, 8GB RAM, camera and bluetooth/wifi is achievable.
I hadn't even thought about a camera and Bluetooth. Does the Kindle Fire even have a speaker and mic? There are a lot of little things that just add up.
If it's a 7" iPad then I would expect IPS panel aluminum casing... the works. If it's a 7" iPod Touch I would expect an IPS panel though wouldn't be surprised by TN (note that every 7" tablet under $199 seems to be TN except for the Kindle Fire), and I would expect a plastic backing.
But when I say the same thing you get your panties in a bunch.
I didn't like the way your usual apologist persona here was splitting hairs with it being a larger iPod touch and not an iPad mini so as not to dilute the iPad brand. Whatever name they call it should they release it it's going to be a 7-8" tablet - which they claimed had no inherent benefit to it more than a year ago. I still don't think Steve's claim then was all marketing and no substance as this size has much more shortcomings than it has benefits, but some benefits for the form factor do exist, apple just didn't think it worth going against competitors at that stage in this format, before allowing the ipad to enter as many homes as it could, but now could very well be thinking that that iPad is already established enough to have a smaller cousin for different purposes, and that they shouldn't be allowing amazon and android's to enter their market from the bottom up so to speak by carving a nice segment for themselves with their cheaper smaller form factor before moving on to sell a later larger iPad like tablet to the same customers. If that's what they are thinking now, I am 100% with them and it will be good to see that there's still some foresight at apple after the os x debacles...
I didn't like the way your usual apologist persona here was splitting hairs with it being a larger iPod touch and not an iPad mini so as not to dilute the iPad brand. Whatever name they call it should they release it it's going to be a 7-8" tablet - which they claimed had no inherent benefit to it more than a year ago. I still don't think Steve's claim then was all marketing and no substance as this size has much more shortcomings than it has benefits, but some benefits for the form factor do exist, apple just didn't think it worth going against competitors at that stage in this format, before allowing the ipad to enter as many homes as it could, but now could very well be thinking that that iPad is already established enough to have a smaller cousin for different purposes, and that they shouldn't be allowing amazon and android's to enter their market from the bottom up so to speak by carving a nice segment for themselves with their cheaper smaller form factor before moving on to sell a later larger iPad like tablet to the same customers. If that's what they are thinking now, I am 100% with them and it will be good to see that there's still some foresight at apple after the os x debacles...
That's right, having distinct differences in design, HW inclusions, overall cost and marketing mean nothing because the iPad is just a large iPod Touch.
Of course, you don't hear too much about that any more, since the new "action" is all about 5"+ screens and Apple needs to make one of those, now.
As Soli pointed out, touch devices are inherently different from iPods or Macs, since the screen size is part of the UI. The iPhone is the size it is because Apple's exhaustive pre-release testing suggested to them that that size works best as an aspect of the entire device, software and hardware. Same goes for the iPad. Apple didn't make the iPad the size they did for laughs, they did it because they determined that that was the best size for a device other than the iPhone. Pocketable: 3.5" screen. Not pocketable: 9.7" screen. It could have been 7 at launch. It could have been 11. They chose 9.7" because of how it worked.
So a 7" iPad wouldn't just be device to slot in between the iPhone and existing iPad, to cover the market and satisfy "choice." It would have to work, in the sense Apple defines work-- do something better in a compelling way. Samsung makes devices in every size just in case. Not Apple.
That's right, having distinct differences in design, HW inclusions, overall cost and marketing mean nothing because the iPad is just a large iPod Touch.
Putting words in my mouth while missing my point again?
@addagox, I don't disagree, I never claimed a smaller iPhone or a net book where anything but idiotic propositions that apple had no part in. As to how they can make, or if they can make a 8" iPad mini/ iPod touch mega compelling enough and differentiated enough while also keeping common ui cues remains to be seen, I don't think they have much room for movement, and I wouldn't put it past them at this stage of their evolution to just shrink the iPad ui with a modicum of changes and rationalise that they are offering some distinct capability, maybe their native maps/navigation app, who knows.. I am always prepared to be amazed by apple but I am never prepared to be uncritical of them.
The only reason you were splitting hairs and opted for a large iPod touch as opposed to a small iPad was that you did not want to implicitly admit that more than a year ago Steves claim that a smaller iPad would be a completely pointless form factor was a half truth, and a half marketing ploy to sell apple's product instead.
I stated his comments shouldn't be taken verbatim when he said them. I distinctly recall you being quite upset about his "sand down their fingers" comment despite not realizing they make 1/8th size devices.
Steve never said that any other size wasn't possible. He stated they found the 9.7" 4:3 panel to be ideal for their needs and that the then current 7" tablets were DOA. Show us one comment where Steve said no 7" device would ever work. If you had a solid grasp of English I don't think you'd start to comprehension language a little better and wouldn't add absolutes to comments that were never implied.
I've clearly stated why I think a larger iPod Touch makes more sense than a smaller iPad. I've stated many reasons for it, namely as a way to profit from using cheaper components and to prop up the iPod arm.