So in June Apple will update almost everything to Retina, and in the Fall they will introduce new non-retina devices? I just don't see this happening. Maybe if the resolution was quadrupled this rumor would be more plausible, but even then...
If the size is to believed, and the resolution is to be believed, then it may in fact become retina just by the fact of the DPI on it (which is 163.06).
If the size is to believed, and the resolution is to be believed, then it may in fact become retina just by the fact of the DPI on it (which is 163.06).
Well, maybe not, but they may give it that name.
The name "Retina" is based on scientifically based research on optics and which provided a mathematical formula for determining the limits a human eye can discern. They can't throw that label on anything without changing its meaning and making it pointless term. That's simply not going to happen.
An iPhone 4S is $649 for 16GB an iPad with larger hirez screen, larger battery and LTE cellular is $629. In electronics making something larger is the easy
task. Making it small and functional is considerably more difficult.
All things being equal, sure, but the iPod Touch benefits from the iPhone's selling price and use of pretty much the same type components. It saves cost by not having as much of the same HW and by using much inferior HW (like the display).
I can't see how a a smaller iPad, which would not only need engineering for new HW but a new UI for the new size and new SDK for 3rd-party apps that are design specifically for it, could fit into that price point. If they go the same route as the iPhone v iPod Touch and remove most of the HW people love with the iPad like the built in mic, speaker, IPS display, etc. I think it would be remiss to call this an iPad at all the same way it wouldn't be good for Apple to call an iPod Touch that only had the cellular HW added an iPhone. You don't want soil your branding as it's usually impossible to rebound from that.
For that reason I'd think such a device would be better off being only for education (not available for the average consumer) or being marketed as a Touch (or at least not an iPad). But those options seems like a bad move from a cost perspective. To me the best option seems to be to keep producing the 9.7" iPad and just sell the older models for a couple generations and sell at increasingly lower prices without any of the engineering, testing or other costs associated with a new device, just like they do with the iPhone.
The name "Retina" is based on scientifically based research on optics and which provided a mathematical formula for determining the limits a human eye can discern. They can't throw that label on anything without changing its meaning and making it pointless term. That's simply not going to happen.
Apple's definition is based on science and math but since Apple created the marketing term they did have the right to define it as they see fit. That said, for them to call it Retina Display they had to address the definition in a mathematically logical way for people to take their definition seriously.
You mean the 2,000 other posters who say "I want a smaller iPad for $200" aren't enough?
Still asinine. It's a given that Apple could sell a functionally identical iPad in a smaller size for $200-$299. Just like it's a given that a smaller, but similarly-featured Lexus GS-series priced at $10,000 would be a runaway best seller.
The only issue is "does it make sense from a business standpoint?" None of these "fantasy CEO"-players have given that a single thought. It's all part of the "I want it"/"why shouldn't I have it?"/"choice is good" mantra.
Please do yourself a favor and get $200 out of your head. It's not going to happen.
$299 is very plausible. $249 is just barely within the realm of possibility, although I doubt it since the margins would be greatly reduced. A 7" iPad is about 50% of the size of a 10% (or, if it's 7.85", that's 65% the size of a 10"). But many of the costs do not change significantly with size, so the price can't be reduced by the same percentage. The cheapest current iPad is $399 - so you'd need to reduce the price by 50% to get to $200. Not a chance.
If the size is to believed, and the resolution is to be believed, then it may in fact become retina just by the fact of the DPI on it (which is 163.06).
Well, maybe not, but they may give it that name.
Not unless you're viewing it from twice as far as the 10" - which isn't going to happen.
Frankly, I don't think it matters. The 7" device is a lower cost, entry level device. I don't see that retina is necessary. The original iPad was widely praised as having a sharp, clear screen. This device would have the same resolution in a 35-50% smaller area, so it would be even sharper even without quadrupling the resolution. To me, that's more than good enough for the entry level device.
Having just bought my mother a Kindle (just the regular one, not the fire), and had a good look at that, it's really shown me how weak the iPad is as a straight reading device.
I know the Kindle is designed just to be a reader, so you would expect it to be better at that, but I did find myself thinking that for travel purposes, I'll probably be getting one.
If there was an iPad around that size, I'd go for it over the Kindle, as I'd rather pay more for a device that can do more, but in terms of screen size, for book reading, the 6" of the Kindle did seem to be pretty much the sweet spot, for me.
Please do yourself a favor and get $200 out of your head. It's not going to happen.
$299 is very plausible.
Neither $200 or $299 are in my head. The very limited Kindle Fire costs nearly $200 in parts alone. I don't see a smaller format iPad being any less than $249 in parts. That translates to $399 retail (cost of parts is not equal to "costs"). This $299 or under talk is all nonsense.
I'm getting tired as well of hearing these rumors of 7-8" iPad mini, if Apple can keep around the iPhone 3GS, then Apple will definitely keep the iPad 2 around for a longtime and setting that at a lower price point than the new iPad next year.
iPad 2 16GB for say $199-249 iPad (3rd gen) 16GB $399 iPad (4th gen) 16GB $499
They wouldn't need to change anything at all. They save money in manufacturing costs, all the apps work just fine and they've successfully eliminated any Kindle Fire debacle.
I'm getting tired as well of hearing these rumors of 7-8" iPad mini, if Apple can keep around the iPhone 3GS, then Apple will definitely keep the iPad 2 around for a longtime and setting that at a lower price point than the new iPad next year.
iPad 2 16GB for say $299.. who would'nt pay 100 bucks more to get a better product than a kindle iPad (3rd gen) 16GB $399 iPad (4th gen) 16GB $499
They wouldn't need to change anything at all. They save money in manufacturing costs, all the apps work just fine and they've successfully eliminated any Kindle Fire debacle.
Not unless you're viewing it from twice as far as the 10" - which isn't going to happen.
Frankly, I don't think it matters. The 7" device is a lower cost, entry level device. I don't see that retina is necessary. The original iPad was widely praised as having a sharp, clear screen. This device would have the same resolution in a 35-50% smaller area, so it would be even sharper even without quadrupling the resolution. To me, that's more than good enough for the entry level device.
Maybe so, but Apple seems to be developing their products in an opposite direction, that's what makes this story implausible.
A 7.85" iPad using a 3:2 format would have these dimensions: 7.85x6.53x4.35
A 7.85" iPad using a 4:3 format would have these dimensions: 7.85x6.27x4.72
I don't think that is easily pocketable at 4:3, so it still doesn't pass that test. You still have to add bezel to that. I've seen some jeans pockets that people could stuff a Kindle Fire into, but it's dimensions are 8.85x7.5×4.7 including bezel.
My approx usage percentages are now approx... iPhone: 30%, iPad 65%, Mac, 5%.
Having thought this through, I'm pretty sure that if there were a 7.85" iPad with retina display, 64G memory and good camera, I'd roll down the 2 to my daughter and my 3 to my wife and use the 7.85.
I've come to the conclusion that I don't need 10".
I think some of the main reasons for a smaller, less expensive, iPad are being overlooked. The main one being: a less expensive iPad allows for a lot more people to purchase one. I don't think the people who want an ipad, but want it for cheaper, care too much about 64GB of ram, retina screen, or the 9.7 inch screen. If the people holding out are doing so because of price, an iPad at $299 or maybe even a little less, will win them over. I think it's the price, not the "I need to have a smaller iPad", that is driving Apple's decision to make such an item.
An iPhone 4S is $649 for 16GB an iPad with larger hirez screen, larger battery and LTE cellular is $629. In electronics making something larger is the easy
task. Making it small and functional is considerably more difficult.
IPhone 4S BOM is around $180. The new iPad is around $220.
Comments
If the size is to believed, and the resolution is to be believed, then it may in fact become retina just by the fact of the DPI on it (which is 163.06).
Well, maybe not, but they may give it that name.
8GB for tablets is too low IMO.
NAND storage is getting much cheaper
http://news.softpedia.com/news/SSD-Prices-to-Go-Low-as-0-4-dollars-per-Gigabyte-267666.shtml
16GB should be the minimum.
The name "Retina" is based on scientifically based research on optics and which provided a mathematical formula for determining the limits a human eye can discern. They can't throw that label on anything without changing its meaning and making it pointless term. That's simply not going to happen.
All things being equal, sure, but the iPod Touch benefits from the iPhone's selling price and use of pretty much the same type components. It saves cost by not having as much of the same HW and by using much inferior HW (like the display).
I can't see how a a smaller iPad, which would not only need engineering for new HW but a new UI for the new size and new SDK for 3rd-party apps that are design specifically for it, could fit into that price point. If they go the same route as the iPhone v iPod Touch and remove most of the HW people love with the iPad like the built in mic, speaker, IPS display, etc. I think it would be remiss to call this an iPad at all the same way it wouldn't be good for Apple to call an iPod Touch that only had the cellular HW added an iPhone. You don't want soil your branding as it's usually impossible to rebound from that.
For that reason I'd think such a device would be better off being only for education (not available for the average consumer) or being marketed as a Touch (or at least not an iPad). But those options seems like a bad move from a cost perspective. To me the best option seems to be to keep producing the 9.7" iPad and just sell the older models for a couple generations and sell at increasingly lower prices without any of the engineering, testing or other costs associated with a new device, just like they do with the iPhone.
Apple's definition is based on science and math but since Apple created the marketing term they did have the right to define it as they see fit. That said, for them to call it Retina Display they had to address the definition in a mathematically logical way for people to take their definition seriously.
Please do yourself a favor and get $200 out of your head. It's not going to happen.
$299 is very plausible. $249 is just barely within the realm of possibility, although I doubt it since the margins would be greatly reduced. A 7" iPad is about 50% of the size of a 10% (or, if it's 7.85", that's 65% the size of a 10"). But many of the costs do not change significantly with size, so the price can't be reduced by the same percentage. The cheapest current iPad is $399 - so you'd need to reduce the price by 50% to get to $200. Not a chance.
Not unless you're viewing it from twice as far as the 10" - which isn't going to happen.
Frankly, I don't think it matters. The 7" device is a lower cost, entry level device. I don't see that retina is necessary. The original iPad was widely praised as having a sharp, clear screen. This device would have the same resolution in a 35-50% smaller area, so it would be even sharper even without quadrupling the resolution. To me, that's more than good enough for the entry level device.
Having just bought my mother a Kindle (just the regular one, not the fire), and had a good look at that, it's really shown me how weak the iPad is as a straight reading device.
I know the Kindle is designed just to be a reader, so you would expect it to be better at that, but I did find myself thinking that for travel purposes, I'll probably be getting one.
If there was an iPad around that size, I'd go for it over the Kindle, as I'd rather pay more for a device that can do more, but in terms of screen size, for book reading, the 6" of the Kindle did seem to be pretty much the sweet spot, for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinScott
Finally, someone who shares the same opinion as I do on a smaller iPad.
As… though you're the only two? Maybe the only two who aren't joking or trolls.
Quote:
• 8GB
Too small to be of any use.
Quote:
• Perfect for iOS gaming and as an e-reader for textbooks
You really want a book that small? You really want games that small?
Quote:
• Gives users a choice of devices at every price point
They're already offered a choice of devices at every price point.
Quote:
And I don't want to hear about the touch targets being too small on such a device.
Right, because you don't understand how that works.
Quote:
If you can use an iPhone or iPod Touch, this would be even easier.
It's a different UI with a different UX and different use case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please do yourself a favor and get $200 out of your head. It's not going to happen.
$299 is very plausible.
Neither $200 or $299 are in my head. The very limited Kindle Fire costs nearly $200 in parts alone. I don't see a smaller format iPad being any less than $249 in parts. That translates to $399 retail (cost of parts is not equal to "costs"). This $299 or under talk is all nonsense.
iPad 2 16GB for say $199-249
iPad (3rd gen) 16GB $399
iPad (4th gen) 16GB $499
They wouldn't need to change anything at all. They save money in manufacturing costs, all the apps work just fine and they've successfully eliminated any Kindle Fire debacle.
iPad 2 16GB for say $299.. who would'nt pay 100 bucks more to get a better product than a kindle
iPad (3rd gen) 16GB $399
iPad (4th gen) 16GB $499
They wouldn't need to change anything at all. They save money in manufacturing costs, all the apps work just fine and they've successfully eliminated any Kindle Fire debacle.
Maybe so, but Apple seems to be developing their products in an opposite direction, that's what makes this story implausible.
A 7.85" iPad using a 3:2 format would have these dimensions: 7.85x6.53x4.35
A 7.85" iPad using a 4:3 format would have these dimensions: 7.85x6.27x4.72
I don't think that is easily pocketable at 4:3, so it still doesn't pass that test. You still have to add bezel to that. I've seen some jeans pockets that people could stuff a Kindle Fire into, but it's dimensions are 8.85x7.5×4.7 including bezel.
I've had the iPad 1 2 and 3.
My approx usage percentages are now approx... iPhone: 30%, iPad 65%, Mac, 5%.
Having thought this through, I'm pretty sure that if there were a 7.85" iPad with retina display, 64G memory and good camera, I'd roll down the 2 to my daughter and my 3 to my wife and use the 7.85.
I've come to the conclusion that I don't need 10".
That surprises even me.
It's far more likely that Amazon will release a 10" Kindle Fire at $299, than Apple releasing a 7" iPad at $299.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable
It's far more likely that Amazon will release a 10" Kindle Fire at $299, than Apple releasing a 7" iPad at $299.
10" tablet (even a gimped one like that) at $299?
I'd honestly be impressed.
I think some of the main reasons for a smaller, less expensive, iPad are being overlooked. The main one being: a less expensive iPad allows for a lot more people to purchase one. I don't think the people who want an ipad, but want it for cheaper, care too much about 64GB of ram, retina screen, or the 9.7 inch screen. If the people holding out are doing so because of price, an iPad at $299 or maybe even a little less, will win them over. I think it's the price, not the "I need to have a smaller iPad", that is driving Apple's decision to make such an item.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
10" tablet (even a gimped one like that) at $299?
I'd honestly be impressed.
Archos sells 10" Android tablets at that price. Not a big stretch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable
Archos sells 10" Android tablets at that price. Not a big stretch.
Who, now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Smaller devices are more difficult to engineer.
An iPhone 4S is $649 for 16GB an iPad with larger hirez screen, larger battery and LTE cellular is $629. In electronics making something larger is the easy
task. Making it small and functional is considerably more difficult.
IPhone 4S BOM is around $180. The new iPad is around $220.