If Apple were Google or Microsoft, companies with a "take over the world" mentality, they might actually think a "reason" like that makes sense. Since they aren't Google or Microsoft, and have a "let's make great stuff" mentality, they likely view this kind of "reason" as insanity.
There is no doubt in my mind that Apple will some day make a colour E-ink device of similar size to this 'iPad mini', to ignore the market would be "insanity".
Is screen technology advanced enough for Apple to bring one out this fall? No probably not. But when the time is right, they sure will.
Intel is going after the education market this year with a 7" ruggedized/waterproof slate design. One potential advantage over what Apple might be willing to offer is the standard USB port which would allow some existing peripherals to be connected. The good news for Apple of course is Intel's tablet is not designed to compete with Apple's iPad in the first place so it's not likely to impact Apple's product very much even if the Intel design is successfully adopted.
Interesting that predictions keep pointing at a September release. Just looking back at many past new/updated product launch...one may notice that fall launches at reserved typically for the iPod line and iPhone in later generations. It used to be: early Q2 was iPhone before the iPad. Q3 was the computer Segment and OS X/iOS, and early Q4 was the iPod line, now including the iPhone.
That kind of leads me to think if this so-called "iPad mini" is launched in September, it would more likely be a larger iPod touch. I kind of hope that's th case. Read my last few posts on other threads if you care to ask why.
There is no doubt in my mind that Apple will some day make a colour E-ink device of similar size to this 'iPad mini', to ignore the market would be "insanity".
A. What market?
B. Apple doesn't need to and probably has no interest in competing in every possible "market". They've demonstrated time and again that they are interested in making products in instances where they think they can make something that is not only great but significant. I don't see a color e-ink device as ever being significant.
Companies, like Google and Microsoft, whose focus is on taking over the world, lose, or never develop, their focus on making great products. You can only have one primary focus, and that focus dictates everything you do. The key to Apple's success has been understanding focus, and understanding that great, significant products are more important than controlling everything and dominating every possible market.
3) If they call a 7.85" tablet-like device an iPad I have a hard time thinking it would be sold to everyone, especially if it uses the same 163 PPI TN displays of the iPhone 3GS. And how will they do the OS, SDK and App Store? Those will all take time and money to adjust, it's not like the iPhone and iPod Touch where the resolution and size are exactly the same.
Where did you hear that the resolution would be the same as the 3GS. I have read many articles about iPad Mini rumors and they have all said it would be the same resolution as the iPad 2 but scaled down in size which would almost double the PPI of the iPad 2 and would then be close to a retina display in quality. And I have not heard of any rumors stating that they would drop the IPS screen. Your arguments here do not make any since. If they keep the same Aspect Ratio and Resolution as the iPad 2 but scale it down in size it accomplishes the same thing as pixel doubling does but keeping the size the same. Existing Apps for the iPad are already created for that Resolution, they would just be displayed on a smaller screen. You only create problems by changing the Aspect Ratio or Resolution, changing screen size but retaining Aspect Ratio and Resolution does not affect Apps ability to fit or operate it only changes the density of the pixels (PPI) and the size of the display. The size of objects on the screen will be smaller but it will not require a rewrite for them to work. Some developers may want to write special Apps with larger touch points for the smaller screen but that will be preference not a requirement for the App to work.
where they think they can make something that is not only great but significant
A colour e-ink pad would be significant. Maybe not to you, but to many people.
What you are saying reminds me of what people said before the iPad was released. No market, current tablets not selling well, etc.
Apple will create significantly more of a market than has already been primed by Amazon. And like the iPad they will wow people with this technology at a price point that takes people by surprise (just as they did the iPad).
In the past the laptops were multiuser, shared among the students and they didn't take them home. iPad is single user so they will need many more iPads than they did with laptops.
Maybe in some contexts, but in all the situations I'm aware of and deal with, the laptop use is identical with the iPad use (i.e. - "class sets" distributed as teaching tools in class and not taken home).
Intel is going after the education market this year with a 7" ruggedized/waterproof slate design. One potential advantage over what Apple might be willing to offer is the standard USB port which would allow some existing peripherals to be connected. The good news for Apple of course is Intel's tablet is not designed to compete with Apple's iPad in the first place so it's not likely to impact Apple's product very much even if the Intel design is successfully adopted.
Who cares about a USB port on an iPad. What existing peripherals do you want to hook a tablet up to? None are needed, all syncing is now wireless, you can display on other screens wireless, and Keyboards are wireless. If you do have some type of USB device to hook up all you need is the correct cord or adapter. There is no advantage to a USB port.
1) You can't just change display sizes at will with iOS and expect to maintain the user experience. There are very specific reasons and methods for Apple's display changes. Apple planned for the iPad (3) to scale the display by 2x resolution at the cost of making it thicker, heavier, and warmer than the previous iPad. It's probably even costlier to Apple.
So? A 7-8" iPad with the same resolution as the iPad 2 would be sharper than a 10" iPad 2 with the same resolution. They're still selling the 10" iPad 2, so why wouldn't they be able to sell a device with the same resolution (so 99% of developers wouldn't have to change their app) but is even sharper?
2) Apple created the iPod Touch after the iPhone using inferior components that help reduce costs. Having the iPod Touch without an IPS Retina Display, less RAM, etc. didn't hurt the iPhone brand because it's not an iPhone. They have to tread carefully. Many companies have ruined brand names by trying to convince buyers that premium, well respected brands were still of high quality when they weren't. It might take awhile but customers catch on and it's hard to recover. Just look at Sony. Who still thinks Trinitron is a respected brand?
I'm not suggesting a greatly inferior product. I'm suggesting a product with essentially the same components as the iPad 2, but smaller. So it would have the same performance as the iPad to, but sharper screen.
3) If they call a 7.85" tablet-like device an iPad I have a hard time thinking it would be sold to everyone, especially if it uses the same 163 PPI TN displays of the iPhone 3GS. And how will they do the OS, SDK and App Store? Those will all take time and money to adjust, it's not like the iPhone and iPod Touch where the resolution and size are exactly the same.
You keep setting up arbitrary decisions and using them to say it won't work. They don't need to use 163 PPI. In fact, I can be pretty certain they won't. That would require a new resolution - and still have a lousy display. If they use the same resolution as the iPad 2, it would have a sharper screen than the iPad 2 - which is still a competitive product. Or, consider that it would have the same resolution as the iPhone 4, but a much larger screen (and also being held at a greater distance). The sharpness would be greater than an iPad 2, but not that much worse than the iPhone 4.
Outside of the iPad, at least half of the tablets being sold appear to be 7". Even if Apple only sells 1/4 as many 7-8" iPads as their 10" iPad sales, it would still be a very profitable niche.
There is no doubt in my mind that Apple will some day make a colour E-ink device of similar size to this 'iPad mini', to ignore the market would be "insanity".
Is screen technology advanced enough for Apple to bring one out this fall? No probably not. But when the time is right, they sure will.
I agree with your idea of the product but not the technology.
Personally, I see "eInk" as a dead-end technology that will not move forward.
All of the benefits touted as crucial to it's adoption (cheapness, thin-ness, low-power, flexibility etc.) are likely achievable with succeeding generations of the alternative technologies (LCD, LED, OLED). It seems likely to me that those technologies will surpass the supposed benefits of eInk, long before eInk can overcome the advantages of the competition.
What's not often mentioned is that eInk is only "easier on the eyes" to some, not to all (I know this because I have the type of eyes that makes eInk actually quite irritating). It's low contrast and poor refresh rates hold it back as does the lack of a good colour solution. Seniors and people with slow vision who instead of being familiar with the use of computer screens are more familiar with the printed page do indeed love eInk. That doesn't mean that it's a good solution for everyone. Similarly, people who buy into the popular misconception that LCD screens cause "eye strain" as a matter of course, are also interested in eInk. These two groups overlap to a large degree.
IMO however, barring some great advances, it seems to me that by the time eInk overcomes the unique problems particular to it's technology, the competing technologies will probably have already acquired eInks unique benefits themselves, negating it as a technology. It's essentially a race, and I wouldn't bet on eInk winning it.
Who cares about a USB port on an iPad. What existing peripherals do you want to hook a tablet up to? None are needed, all syncing is now wireless, you can display on other screens wireless, and Keyboards are wireless. If you do have some type of USB device to hook up all you need is the correct cord or adapter. There is no advantage to a USB port.
If you read the linked article it explains why a USB port would be useful in a school setting. For your typical retail iPad buyer I'd agree that most wouldn't find it necessary.
"With a full-sized USB port, it can accept many of the probes and science tools on the market. LabCam software, with small adapter lenses, can convert the webcam into a portable microscope and front and rear cameras can be used to collect time-lapse data or be triggered by motion to take pictures of events that students might otherwise miss (emerging butterflies or hatching eggs, for example). Statistical data collection software can even show patterns in seemingly Brownian motion (e.g., the movement of ants across pheromone trails).
While the Learning Series Ecosystem partners are all porting apps to Android, the device also runs Windows, meaning that virtually any x86-compatible hardware and software can be used with the tablet. That’s actually one of the more interesting benefits of the Atom processor. It may not be as fast or as efficient as many ARM-based chips, but schools can leverage existing purchases and software adoption with these tablets. This even includes the countless USB keyboards that schools invariably have sitting in closets, making the lack of an integrated keyboard a true non-issue when typing is necessary (and bigger hands struggle to touch type on the 7? screen)."
1) You can't just change display sizes at will with iOS and expect to maintain the user experience. There are very specific reasons and methods for Apple's display changes. Apple planned for the iPad (3) to scale the display by 2x resolution at the cost of making it thicker, heavier, and warmer than the previous iPad. It's probably even costlier to Apple.
2) Apple created the iPod Touch after the iPhone using inferior components that help reduce costs. Having the iPod Touch without an IPS Retina Display, less RAM, etc. didn't hurt the iPhone brand because it's not an iPhone. They have to tread carefully. Many companies have ruined brand names by trying to convince buyers that premium, well respected brands were still of high quality when they weren't. It might take awhile but customers catch on and it's hard to recover. Just look at Sony. Who still thinks Trinitron is a respected brand?
3) If they call a 7.85" tablet-like device an iPad I have a hard time thinking it would be sold to everyone, especially if it uses the same 163 PPI TN displays of the iPhone 3GS. And how will they do the OS, SDK and App Store? Those will all take time and money to adjust, it's not like the iPhone and iPod Touch where the resolution and size are exactly the same.
I agree. The only way I see this as plausible is if Apple released a new, large iPod Touch, not a small iPad.
I agree with your idea of the product but not the technology.
Personally, I see "eInk" as a dead-end technology that will not move forward.
All of the benefits touted as crucial to it's adoption (cheapness, thin-ness, low-power, flexibility etc.) are likely achievable with succeeding generations of the alternative technologies (LCD, LED, OLED). It seems likely to me that those technologies will surpass the supposed benefits of eInk, long before eInk can overcome the advantages of the competition.
What's not often mentioned is that eInk is only "easier on the eyes" to some, not to all (I know this because I have the type of eyes that makes eInk actually quite irritating). It's low contrast and poor refresh rates hold it back as does the lack of a good colour solution. Seniors and people with slow vision who instead of being familiar with the use of computer screens are more familiar with the printed page do indeed love eInk. That doesn't mean that it's a good solution for everyone. Similarly, people who buy into the popular misconception that LCD screens cause "eye strain" as a matter of course, are also interested in eInk. These two groups overlap to a large degree.
IMO however, barring some great advances, it seems to me that by the time eInk overcomes the unique problems particular to it's technology, the competing technologies will probably have already acquired eInks unique benefits themselves, negating it as a technology. It's essentially a race, and I wouldn't bet on eInk winning it.
Agreed. When I use the term 'E-Ink' it is for want of better terminology. When I say 'E-Ink' really what I mean is any low power non backlit high res screen technology.
A colour e-ink pad would be significant. Maybe not to you, but to many people.
What you are saying reminds me of what people said before the iPad was released. No market, current tablets not selling well, etc.
Apple will create significantly more of a market than has already been primed by Amazon. And like the iPad they will wow people with this technology at a price point that takes people by surprise (just as they did the iPad).
I don't think an e-ink pad would be significant at all. It might appeal to a small number of people, but it's not going to change the world, or even anyone's life. It might be something you want, but in the big picture, it's not something that will be at all important, unless, maybe, and until e-ink, or something very much like it, can offer all the advantages of the current iPad display, and overcome all it's shortcomings. This won't happen in the foreseeable future. Until then, it's not an important technology for Apple to get involved with, except perhaps as an R&D project in a lab.
Where did you hear that the resolution would be the same as the 3GS. I have read many articles about iPad Mini rumors and they have all said it would be the same resolution as the iPad 2 but scaled down in size which would almost double the PPI of the iPad 2 and would then be close to a retina display in quality. And I have not heard of any rumors stating that they would drop the IPS screen.
You lost me. Where did I say that it would be the same resolution as the iPhone 3GS? I said the same PPI which is how people have been able to get 7.85" for a 1024x768 resolution iPad mini. That means they can use the same 163 PPI display manufacturing, but cut into 7.85" 4:3 panels instead of 3.5" 3:2 panels, thus reducing their costs substantially.
Your arguments here do not make any since. If they keep the same Aspect Ratio and Resolution as the iPad 2 but scale it down in size it accomplishes the same thing as pixel doubling does but keeping the size the same. Existing Apps for the iPad are already created for that Resolution, they would just be displayed on a smaller screen.
1) Speaking of not making any since how do you think they scale down the size whilst keeping the resolution the same? They'd need to manufacturer new displays with a new pixel size. With what I've stated, based on the previous rumours of a 7.85" display, they have no need to recreate what they've been doing since 2007 with the 163 PPI panels. Can they retool it with ease to make the panels IPS instead of TN? I sure hope so but that is yet unseen.
2) If you mention resolution you don't need mention aspect ratio as the former defines the latter.
You only create problems by changing the Aspect Ratio or Resolution, changing screen size but retaining Aspect Ratio and Resolution does not affect Apps ability to fit or operate it only changes the density of the pixels (PPI) and the size of the display. The size of objects on the screen will be smaller but it will not require a rewrite for them to work. Some developers may want to write special Apps with larger touch points for the smaller screen but that will be preference not a requirement for the App to work
So you want to go on record a saying that the display doesn't matter if the resolution is the same? You want to go on record that Apple, of all companies, doesn't care about how virtual objects on a touchscreen device relate to the user's interaction?
So if Apple put the iPad's UI on a 1024x768 iPod Nano with the sized display you're claiming there would be no difference in the user experience because the resolutions are the same? I hope you are now saying to yourself that such an example is unfair because that is too extreme, which leads me into my next logical trap that for you acknowledge there are limits to usability as items get larger or smaller from the size they are designed around that you have acknowledge that going to 65% of the original area might be too extreme for a company like Apple to allow willy nilly, a company that is known for caring about every...single...pixel.. being displayed.
By offering a new iPad at a lower price point, it would attract more price sensitive customers, and also offer an alternative for those who want a smaller tablet.
Since when has Apple ever cared to cater to the 'it's too expensive' or "we want X" crowds. they don't'. And that Apple makes what Apple makes and then markets it to make you want what you were given is one thing that Steve did that I think will stick. Just cause he said "don't do as I did cause I did it" doesn't mean everything will change. Add this 'tude to the list with 'fighting IP infringement with full strength' and 'not telling what we are doing until we are ready to do it' which Tim Cook mentioned at D
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Lighter is probably better for kids.
A 2lb ipad in a case is way lighter than the pack of textbooks and notebooks they are carrying now. A few more ounces really won't make a big difference.
As for the whole 'wont get rid of textbooks completely' yeah actually it might. There are many schools that jumped right into that test with their pilot programs. If you are going to test it, why not go all the way. And many of them are finding that they can do the same things with the textbooks and apps they have available. It's all about being creative in how you pick things and how you use the tech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacKrazyinKC
Note previous Appleinsider post on "Collapse of Kindle..". All probably due to it not being an iPad. New form factor may be a iTouch replacement but it would not be a mini iPad. Why add a smaller competitor line that could conceivably take away from the premier product of the Apple line up?. Silly to suggest it.
Rumor has it that Kindle is looking at a 10 inch Fire to compete with the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I personally doubt this. More likely an even cheaper iPad 2 for education.
I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out that Apple gives some kind of bulk discount to schools, or even some kind of grant to poorly funded ones (perhaps both) to achieve just that idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
Any school district that spends money to equip each kid with a laptop or tablet is wasting your taxes. Ask any educator who's not a paid shill for some software or hardware company.
Any school district that spends money to equip kids with out of date textbooks that will only get more out of date in the 5-6 years they agree to use them, not to mention write in, torn up etc (and not replaced) is wasting our taxes. Ask any educator who's not a paid shill for the publishing companies. Especially those that aren't technophobe FUD spreaders about how they are going to be replaced by machines etc.
I used to think the chances of Apple making an iPad Mini were slim at best for all the usual reasons everyone gives.
Now I think they will introduce an iPad Mini, and for one reason only: to completely dominate the tablet market.
they dominate the market already. And there's a danger in gaining that last 10-15%. If you have total strength in the market then folks start yelling about antitrust etc even harder. They assume you had to do something to be so totally winning. That your product is just that much better than the rest is impossible.
Apple and their one product line takes 85-90% of the market and the other 20 guys with their 50 or so product lines are sharing that other part. It's still a win. Why would Apple, who is already winning in sales, use and mindshare, increase their production costs, decrease the lines that can barely keep up with demand etc to produce a product that they don't really need in order to win.
Comments
September launch of iPad Mini seen "NOT HAPPENING"
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
If Apple were Google or Microsoft, companies with a "take over the world" mentality, they might actually think a "reason" like that makes sense. Since they aren't Google or Microsoft, and have a "let's make great stuff" mentality, they likely view this kind of "reason" as insanity.
There is no doubt in my mind that Apple will some day make a colour E-ink device of similar size to this 'iPad mini', to ignore the market would be "insanity".
Is screen technology advanced enough for Apple to bring one out this fall? No probably not. But when the time is right, they sure will.
Intel is going after the education market this year with a 7" ruggedized/waterproof slate design. One potential advantage over what Apple might be willing to offer is the standard USB port which would allow some existing peripherals to be connected. The good news for Apple of course is Intel's tablet is not designed to compete with Apple's iPad in the first place so it's not likely to impact Apple's product very much even if the Intel design is successfully adopted.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/education/the-intel-studybook-what-an-education-tablet-should-be/4878
That kind of leads me to think if this so-called "iPad mini" is launched in September, it would more likely be a larger iPod touch. I kind of hope that's th case. Read my last few posts on other threads if you care to ask why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
There is no doubt in my mind that Apple will some day make a colour E-ink device of similar size to this 'iPad mini', to ignore the market would be "insanity".
A. What market?
B. Apple doesn't need to and probably has no interest in competing in every possible "market". They've demonstrated time and again that they are interested in making products in instances where they think they can make something that is not only great but significant. I don't see a color e-ink device as ever being significant.
Companies, like Google and Microsoft, whose focus is on taking over the world, lose, or never develop, their focus on making great products. You can only have one primary focus, and that focus dictates everything you do. The key to Apple's success has been understanding focus, and understanding that great, significant products are more important than controlling everything and dominating every possible market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
3) If they call a 7.85" tablet-like device an iPad I have a hard time thinking it would be sold to everyone, especially if it uses the same 163 PPI TN displays of the iPhone 3GS. And how will they do the OS, SDK and App Store? Those will all take time and money to adjust, it's not like the iPhone and iPod Touch where the resolution and size are exactly the same.
Where did you hear that the resolution would be the same as the 3GS. I have read many articles about iPad Mini rumors and they have all said it would be the same resolution as the iPad 2 but scaled down in size which would almost double the PPI of the iPad 2 and would then be close to a retina display in quality. And I have not heard of any rumors stating that they would drop the IPS screen. Your arguments here do not make any since. If they keep the same Aspect Ratio and Resolution as the iPad 2 but scale it down in size it accomplishes the same thing as pixel doubling does but keeping the size the same. Existing Apps for the iPad are already created for that Resolution, they would just be displayed on a smaller screen. You only create problems by changing the Aspect Ratio or Resolution, changing screen size but retaining Aspect Ratio and Resolution does not affect Apps ability to fit or operate it only changes the density of the pixels (PPI) and the size of the display. The size of objects on the screen will be smaller but it will not require a rewrite for them to work. Some developers may want to write special Apps with larger touch points for the smaller screen but that will be preference not a requirement for the App to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
where they think they can make something that is not only great but significant
A colour e-ink pad would be significant. Maybe not to you, but to many people.
What you are saying reminds me of what people said before the iPad was released. No market, current tablets not selling well, etc.
Apple will create significantly more of a market than has already been primed by Amazon. And like the iPad they will wow people with this technology at a price point that takes people by surprise (just as they did the iPad).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
In the past the laptops were multiuser, shared among the students and they didn't take them home. iPad is single user so they will need many more iPads than they did with laptops.
Maybe in some contexts, but in all the situations I'm aware of and deal with, the laptop use is identical with the iPad use (i.e. - "class sets" distributed as teaching tools in class and not taken home).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Intel is going after the education market this year with a 7" ruggedized/waterproof slate design. One potential advantage over what Apple might be willing to offer is the standard USB port which would allow some existing peripherals to be connected. The good news for Apple of course is Intel's tablet is not designed to compete with Apple's iPad in the first place so it's not likely to impact Apple's product very much even if the Intel design is successfully adopted.
Who cares about a USB port on an iPad. What existing peripherals do you want to hook a tablet up to? None are needed, all syncing is now wireless, you can display on other screens wireless, and Keyboards are wireless. If you do have some type of USB device to hook up all you need is the correct cord or adapter. There is no advantage to a USB port.
So? A 7-8" iPad with the same resolution as the iPad 2 would be sharper than a 10" iPad 2 with the same resolution. They're still selling the 10" iPad 2, so why wouldn't they be able to sell a device with the same resolution (so 99% of developers wouldn't have to change their app) but is even sharper?
I'm not suggesting a greatly inferior product. I'm suggesting a product with essentially the same components as the iPad 2, but smaller. So it would have the same performance as the iPad to, but sharper screen.
You keep setting up arbitrary decisions and using them to say it won't work. They don't need to use 163 PPI. In fact, I can be pretty certain they won't. That would require a new resolution - and still have a lousy display. If they use the same resolution as the iPad 2, it would have a sharper screen than the iPad 2 - which is still a competitive product. Or, consider that it would have the same resolution as the iPhone 4, but a much larger screen (and also being held at a greater distance). The sharpness would be greater than an iPad 2, but not that much worse than the iPhone 4.
Outside of the iPad, at least half of the tablets being sold appear to be 7". Even if Apple only sells 1/4 as many 7-8" iPads as their 10" iPad sales, it would still be a very profitable niche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
There is no doubt in my mind that Apple will some day make a colour E-ink device of similar size to this 'iPad mini', to ignore the market would be "insanity".
Is screen technology advanced enough for Apple to bring one out this fall? No probably not. But when the time is right, they sure will.
I agree with your idea of the product but not the technology.
Personally, I see "eInk" as a dead-end technology that will not move forward.
All of the benefits touted as crucial to it's adoption (cheapness, thin-ness, low-power, flexibility etc.) are likely achievable with succeeding generations of the alternative technologies (LCD, LED, OLED). It seems likely to me that those technologies will surpass the supposed benefits of eInk, long before eInk can overcome the advantages of the competition.
What's not often mentioned is that eInk is only "easier on the eyes" to some, not to all (I know this because I have the type of eyes that makes eInk actually quite irritating). It's low contrast and poor refresh rates hold it back as does the lack of a good colour solution. Seniors and people with slow vision who instead of being familiar with the use of computer screens are more familiar with the printed page do indeed love eInk. That doesn't mean that it's a good solution for everyone. Similarly, people who buy into the popular misconception that LCD screens cause "eye strain" as a matter of course, are also interested in eInk. These two groups overlap to a large degree.
IMO however, barring some great advances, it seems to me that by the time eInk overcomes the unique problems particular to it's technology, the competing technologies will probably have already acquired eInks unique benefits themselves, negating it as a technology. It's essentially a race, and I wouldn't bet on eInk winning it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS Turn
Who cares about a USB port on an iPad. What existing peripherals do you want to hook a tablet up to? None are needed, all syncing is now wireless, you can display on other screens wireless, and Keyboards are wireless. If you do have some type of USB device to hook up all you need is the correct cord or adapter. There is no advantage to a USB port.
If you read the linked article it explains why a USB port would be useful in a school setting. For your typical retail iPad buyer I'd agree that most wouldn't find it necessary.
"With a full-sized USB port, it can accept many of the probes and science tools on the market. LabCam software, with small adapter lenses, can convert the webcam into a portable microscope and front and rear cameras can be used to collect time-lapse data or be triggered by motion to take pictures of events that students might otherwise miss (emerging butterflies or hatching eggs, for example). Statistical data collection software can even show patterns in seemingly Brownian motion (e.g., the movement of ants across pheromone trails).
While the Learning Series Ecosystem partners are all porting apps to Android, the device also runs Windows, meaning that virtually any x86-compatible hardware and software can be used with the tablet. That’s actually one of the more interesting benefits of the Atom processor. It may not be as fast or as efficient as many ARM-based chips, but schools can leverage existing purchases and software adoption with these tablets. This even includes the countless USB keyboards that schools invariably have sitting in closets, making the lack of an integrated keyboard a true non-issue when typing is necessary (and bigger hands struggle to touch type on the 7? screen)."
I agree. The only way I see this as plausible is if Apple released a new, large iPod Touch, not a small iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I agree with your idea of the product but not the technology.
Personally, I see "eInk" as a dead-end technology that will not move forward.
All of the benefits touted as crucial to it's adoption (cheapness, thin-ness, low-power, flexibility etc.) are likely achievable with succeeding generations of the alternative technologies (LCD, LED, OLED). It seems likely to me that those technologies will surpass the supposed benefits of eInk, long before eInk can overcome the advantages of the competition.
What's not often mentioned is that eInk is only "easier on the eyes" to some, not to all (I know this because I have the type of eyes that makes eInk actually quite irritating). It's low contrast and poor refresh rates hold it back as does the lack of a good colour solution. Seniors and people with slow vision who instead of being familiar with the use of computer screens are more familiar with the printed page do indeed love eInk. That doesn't mean that it's a good solution for everyone. Similarly, people who buy into the popular misconception that LCD screens cause "eye strain" as a matter of course, are also interested in eInk. These two groups overlap to a large degree.
IMO however, barring some great advances, it seems to me that by the time eInk overcomes the unique problems particular to it's technology, the competing technologies will probably have already acquired eInks unique benefits themselves, negating it as a technology. It's essentially a race, and I wouldn't bet on eInk winning it.
Agreed. When I use the term 'E-Ink' it is for want of better terminology. When I say 'E-Ink' really what I mean is any low power non backlit high res screen technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
A colour e-ink pad would be significant. Maybe not to you, but to many people.
What you are saying reminds me of what people said before the iPad was released. No market, current tablets not selling well, etc.
Apple will create significantly more of a market than has already been primed by Amazon. And like the iPad they will wow people with this technology at a price point that takes people by surprise (just as they did the iPad).
I don't think an e-ink pad would be significant at all. It might appeal to a small number of people, but it's not going to change the world, or even anyone's life. It might be something you want, but in the big picture, it's not something that will be at all important, unless, maybe, and until e-ink, or something very much like it, can offer all the advantages of the current iPad display, and overcome all it's shortcomings. This won't happen in the foreseeable future. Until then, it's not an important technology for Apple to get involved with, except perhaps as an R&D project in a lab.
You lost me. Where did I say that it would be the same resolution as the iPhone 3GS? I said the same PPI which is how people have been able to get 7.85" for a 1024x768 resolution iPad mini. That means they can use the same 163 PPI display manufacturing, but cut into 7.85" 4:3 panels instead of 3.5" 3:2 panels, thus reducing their costs substantially.
1) Speaking of not making any since how do you think they scale down the size whilst keeping the resolution the same? They'd need to manufacturer new displays with a new pixel size. With what I've stated, based on the previous rumours of a 7.85" display, they have no need to recreate what they've been doing since 2007 with the 163 PPI panels. Can they retool it with ease to make the panels IPS instead of TN? I sure hope so but that is yet unseen.
2) If you mention resolution you don't need mention aspect ratio as the former defines the latter.
So you want to go on record a saying that the display doesn't matter if the resolution is the same? You want to go on record that Apple, of all companies, doesn't care about how virtual objects on a touchscreen device relate to the user's interaction?
So if Apple put the iPad's UI on a 1024x768 iPod Nano with the sized display you're claiming there would be no difference in the user experience because the resolutions are the same? I hope you are now saying to yourself that such an example is unfair because that is too extreme, which leads me into my next logical trap that for you acknowledge there are limits to usability as items get larger or smaller from the size they are designed around that you have acknowledge that going to 65% of the original area might be too extreme for a company like Apple to allow willy nilly, a company that is known for caring about every...single...pixel.. being displayed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
By offering a new iPad at a lower price point, it would attract more price sensitive customers, and also offer an alternative for those who want a smaller tablet.
Since when has Apple ever cared to cater to the 'it's too expensive' or "we want X" crowds. they don't'. And that Apple makes what Apple makes and then markets it to make you want what you were given is one thing that Steve did that I think will stick. Just cause he said "don't do as I did cause I did it" doesn't mean everything will change. Add this 'tude to the list with 'fighting IP infringement with full strength' and 'not telling what we are doing until we are ready to do it' which Tim Cook mentioned at D
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Lighter is probably better for kids.
A 2lb ipad in a case is way lighter than the pack of textbooks and notebooks they are carrying now. A few more ounces really won't make a big difference.
As for the whole 'wont get rid of textbooks completely' yeah actually it might. There are many schools that jumped right into that test with their pilot programs. If you are going to test it, why not go all the way. And many of them are finding that they can do the same things with the textbooks and apps they have available. It's all about being creative in how you pick things and how you use the tech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacKrazyinKC
Note previous Appleinsider post on "Collapse of Kindle..". All probably due to it not being an iPad. New form factor may be a iTouch replacement but it would not be a mini iPad. Why add a smaller competitor line that could conceivably take away from the premier product of the Apple line up?. Silly to suggest it.
Rumor has it that Kindle is looking at a 10 inch Fire to compete with the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I personally doubt this. More likely an even cheaper iPad 2 for education.
I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out that Apple gives some kind of bulk discount to schools, or even some kind of grant to poorly funded ones (perhaps both) to achieve just that idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
Any school district that spends money to equip each kid with a laptop or tablet is wasting your taxes. Ask any educator who's not a paid shill for some software or hardware company.
Any school district that spends money to equip kids with out of date textbooks that will only get more out of date in the 5-6 years they agree to use them, not to mention write in, torn up etc (and not replaced) is wasting our taxes. Ask any educator who's not a paid shill for the publishing companies. Especially those that aren't technophobe FUD spreaders about how they are going to be replaced by machines etc.
As long as it's weight less than 1 pound and $299 or lower, I'd buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I used to think the chances of Apple making an iPad Mini were slim at best for all the usual reasons everyone gives.
Now I think they will introduce an iPad Mini, and for one reason only: to completely dominate the tablet market.
they dominate the market already. And there's a danger in gaining that last 10-15%. If you have total strength in the market then folks start yelling about antitrust etc even harder. They assume you had to do something to be so totally winning. That your product is just that much better than the rest is impossible.
Apple and their one product line takes 85-90% of the market and the other 20 guys with their 50 or so product lines are sharing that other part. It's still a win. Why would Apple, who is already winning in sales, use and mindshare, increase their production costs, decrease the lines that can barely keep up with demand etc to produce a product that they don't really need in order to win.