Haha, get new glasses. I noticed that in 2007 and always loved the elegance of the iOS Mail icon. The clouds mean it's Mail but the wireless non-snail mail kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Sure it does. Email is cloud computing. It's mail that gets stored and circulated via the internet. In fact, it's such a longstanding staple of cloud computing that we don't easily think of that way because the term "cloud computing" has evolved after it.
You two are both very enlightening- thanks for the education.
2nd question for you both- why is OSX Mail a stamp? Please try answering where it doesn't contradict your first answer. As Apu would say- "Thank you, come again" ;-)
New dock would be cool- but that'll be an iOS thing- not a hardware deal.
Oh, like the iPad-exclusive "iOS" 3.2's Dock and Homescreen wallpaper?
Metal Dock FTW! I'm just shocked that the Mac is out-pacing iOS devices in software & UI design.
We need more of the original thought that gave us Dashboard, Mission Control, Spotlight etc. but on iOS. This update has been rather sad in terms of Safari-no-omnibar blah blah blah
The competition is losing out because smaller tablets are less enjoyable to use than the 10-inch iPad. It's really that simple. Since the competition can't seem to figure out how to deliver a cheaper product than Apple except by making their tablets with low-resolution 7-inch screens, they're SOL. Of course a superior OS and easier access to decent software helps, too. Basically the iPad, all told, is a joy to use. It is a little heavy for some uses but otherwise it has struck the right balance as evidenced by it being one of the most successful products in consumer electronics history.
It is not, of course, the product that most consumers would want to take with them on the road but doesn't Apple have that covered already? Are the iPhone and the Touch not meant to meet that need? If you already have one of the new devices with the four-inch screen, you're not likely to bring along the iPad Mini as well. Why would you?
What Apple should be worried about are consumers who buy the Mini because of price yet expect it to provide as enjoyable an experience as the standard iPad. When that product disappoints, it will be seen as a disappointing effort on Apple's part, not a consumer making a bad choice. Even though some seem to think that Apple is capable of ignoring raw physics, the simple truth is that a much smaller iPad would simply not produce the same user experience. This is simply unavoidable.
It's quite different when you deal with a diminished experience on a truly portable device like the new iPhone and the new Touch. You want the portability those devices offer and you know you're going to make some sacrifice to gain that portability. Yet the iPad Mini would in practice prove to be no more portable than the standard iPad. What's the point?
Of course, as I have already stated, it does seem that the iPad Mini is a done deal, what with all the reports insisting it's about to be announced. So that's that, I suppose. Yet it's not 100 per cent confirmed until the event invitations go out.
Seems to me that what is expected to be announced is an iPad Mini priced identically to the new Touch. Seems highly suspect, to me. If it had been doable, the Touch would have come in at a lower price point. When I saw the starting price of the Touch come in at $299, it seemed to me rumors of an iPad Mini had been greatly exaggerated. Not sure what to think at this time.
What Apple should be worried about are consumers who buy the Mini because of price yet expect it to provide as enjoyable an experience as the standard iPad. When that product disappoints, it will be seen as a disappointing effort on Apple's part, not a consumer making a bad choice. Even though some seem to think that Apple is capable of ignoring raw physics, the simple truth is that a much smaller iPad would simply not produce the same user experience. This is simply unavoidable.
Which is why Apple is likely not just cooking up a mini iPad to compete with Google. If that's all they were after, they could have flooded the markets with them months ago when the released the new iPad. Apple's entry into the 7" tablet space has to be more than just a mini iPad. And I'm betting it will eventually replace the iPod Touch for the exact reasons you state. iPhone users are likely to go for the iPad, but Touch users will more than likely buy a slightly larger tablet instead of the Touch. But it will be different enough in function that some may buy both the iPad and the mini-tablet, as well as an iPhone. With iPhone 4S being given away for free, keeping the Touch around just doesn't make sense, and most parents I know have given their old iPhones to their kids (without activation), essentially replacing a Touch purchase anyway.
I'm on a local school board, and we're extremely interested in the possible smaller iPad model.
Possible lower costs aside, it would be more comfortable for kids in the lower and middle grades to use.
While the iPad seems like the perfect educational tool, isn't it just a bit to fragile for the average elementary and Jr. high, heck even some high schools?
I'm assuming they are all in durable cases with some kind of protective screen cover? One drop on the floor and the cases are dented, glass cracked, or worse.
Something smaller certainly makes sense for younger hands, but infinitely more durable as well for that purpose I would think ...
Which is why Apple is likely not just cooking up a mini iPad to compete with Google. If that's all they were after, they could have flooded the markets with them months ago when the released the new iPad. Apple's entry into the 7" tablet space has to be more than just a mini iPad. And I'm betting it will eventually replace the iPod Touch for the exact reasons you state. iPhone users are likely to go for the iPad, but Touch users will more than likely buy a slightly larger tablet instead of the Touch. But it will be different enough in function that some may buy both the iPad and the mini-tablet, as well as an iPhone. With iPhone 4S being given away for free, keeping the Touch around just doesn't make sense, and most parents I know have given their old iPhones to their kids (without activation), essentially replacing a Touch purchase anyway.
While the iPad seems like the perfect educational tool, isn't it just a bit to fragile for the average elementary and Jr. high, heck even some high schools?
I'm assuming they are all in durable cases with some kind of protective screen cover? One drop on the floor and the cases are dented, glass cracked, or worse.
Something smaller certainly makes sense for younger hands, but infinitely more durable as well for that purpose I would think ...
Apple could have gone to a bigger screen on the iPhone and Touch already but it could be that a 4-inch 16X9 screen is the right choice for that sort of device. I'll be getting an iPhone this week and after a few days of use, it will be apparent if the new screen size makes enough of a difference. If it does, that eliminates the need for a somewhat larger device, I would think.
Really, if Apple does release the iPad Mini, personally it will have no impact. My iPhone is on the way and I have a standard iPad. For me, the bases are covered. My argument would be that for most of us, that combination would cover our needs in regards to a portable computing device. I suppose the problem I have is that I just don't see where the iPad sporting a 7.85-inch 4X3 screen would fit in. It seems like a pointless form factor for the majority of us.
With the just-introduced iPod touch going for $299@32GB, the only way we're getting a $299 iPad "mini" is at 8GB. And that seems like a huge compromise considering it (i) cuts into the iPod touch pricing bracket and (ii) is still $100 more than non-profit 8GB models from Amazon, Google etc. More likely is a 16GB $349 model, which is equivalent to most 16GB models out there atm. The link below is quite a good reference for the current 7-inch-ish (android) market:
With the just-introduced iPod touch going for $299@32GB, the only way we're getting a $299 iPad "mini" is at 8GB. And that seems like a huge compromise considering it (i) cuts into the iPod touch pricing bracket and (ii) is still $100 more than non-profit 8GB models from Amazon, Google etc. More likely is a 16GB $349 model, which is equivalent to most 16GB models out there atm. The link below is quite a good reference for the current 7-inch-ish (android) market:
Ah yes, mistake with the iPod pricing... I would agree $349 seems more logical. I could even add the new iPod Nano to that line up also as it starts at $149 and becomes more consistent pricing differences.
With the just-introduced iPod touch going for $299@32GB, the only way we're getting a $299 iPad "mini" is at 8GB. And that seems like a huge compromise considering it (i) cuts into the iPod touch pricing bracket and (ii) is still $100 more than non-profit 8GB models from Amazon, Google etc. More likely is a 16GB $349 model, which is equivalent to most 16GB models out there atm. The link below is quite a good reference for the current 7-inch-ish (android) market: http://tablets.venturebeat.com/saved_search/7-Inch-Android-Tablets
Edit: caps lock
I'm not following you. Why would it have to be 8GB? 1024x768 7.85" 165 PPI display is much easier to produce than a 1136x640 4" 326 PPI display. And that's without considering full sRGB or in-cell tech that the iPod Touch/iPhone display has.
I don't understand how people far and wide easily grasp that the smaller you make CE the more pricy it gets... except when it comes to Apple. There is a reason the iPad (3) with 4G LTE will cost you less than the iPhone 5 for the same capacity device.
Apple could have gone to a bigger screen on the iPhone and Touch already but it could be that a 4-inch 16X9 screen is the right choice for that sort of device. I'll be getting an iPhone this week and after a few days of use, it will be apparent if the new screen size makes enough of a difference. If it does, that eliminates the need for a somewhat larger device, I would think.
Really, if Apple does release the iPad Mini, personally it will have no impact. My iPhone is on the way and I have a standard iPad. For me, the bases are covered. My argument would be that for most of us, that combination would cover our needs in regards to a portable computing device. I suppose the problem I have is that I just don't see where the iPad sporting a 7.85-inch 4X3 screen would fit in. It seems like a pointless form factor for the majority of us.
I don't think apple went with a bigger iPhone screen sooner, because they had the display resolution to contend with. If apple just kept adding new resolution requirements every year, it would be no different for the developers than Android. Also, Androids screens are actually bigger -- everything on them is bigger. Apple on the other hand only changed the aspect ratio, allowing you to see more stuff, but not necessarily bigger. I believe that's because Apple didn't want to go that direction, so they would have never built a larger iPhone just to compete in the Android space. Either Apple realized that a taller iPhone was more efficient, or they felt the pressure to compete with Android on some level, but did it without a major disruption to the developers, just like they did with iPad. Frankly I prefer the shorter iPhone, and would like one smaller. But the best I can hope for is maintaining the two different sizes that exist now (I.e. 4 & 5).
You say yourself you are not a candidate for a mini-tablet. But you don't have an iPod Touch either. My guess is the mini will replace the Touch in preference to a larger device, but isn't a full-sized tablet, nor does it carry the premium price tag -- targeted specifically at kids, teens and young adults -- a huge money spending demographic. And I look for Apple to have mostly game vendors lined up to show how the mini blows every portable gaming device they've ever used out of the water, while still providing minimal services of the full iPad. I also look for the display to be retina, in a 16:9 aspect ratio drawing from the Touch, and keeping it tied to iPhone ecosystem, not the iPad, though it could be 4:3, or it could introduce a third display resolution, like 16:10 considering that by next Spring, all the standard resolution displays will no longer be sold, so mini could replace it. So these "kids" buy a mini instead of a Touch, the touch gets dropped, and eventually they go on to add an iPhone, and one day they upgrade their mini, or add to their collection a full-sized adult iPad. The iPod line is then strictly music players going forward. It seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm the first to confess, I have no idea what apple is up to.
So Oct. 10 is going, going, nearly gone and no invitations for an unveiling next week. What's up with that?
It's not going to happen unless they are really changing up their routine. They usually let it rip first thing in the morning about 8am PT, give or take an hour.
It's not going to happen unless they are really changing up their routine. They usually let it rip first thing in the morning about 8am PT, give or take an hour.
They may just be taking the mickey out on me and doing the invite tomorrow.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Haha, get new glasses. I noticed that in 2007 and always loved the elegance of the iOS Mail icon. The clouds mean it's Mail but the wireless non-snail mail kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Sure it does. Email is cloud computing. It's mail that gets stored and circulated via the internet. In fact, it's such a longstanding staple of cloud computing that we don't easily think of that way because the term "cloud computing" has evolved after it.
You two are both very enlightening- thanks for the education.
2nd question for you both- why is OSX Mail a stamp? Please try answering where it doesn't contradict your first answer. As Apu would say- "Thank you, come again" ;-)
Oh, like the iPad-exclusive "iOS" 3.2's Dock and Homescreen wallpaper?
Metal Dock FTW! I'm just shocked that the Mac is out-pacing iOS devices in software & UI design.
We need more of the original thought that gave us Dashboard, Mission Control, Spotlight etc. but on iOS. This update has been rather sad in terms of Safari-no-omnibar blah blah blah
The competition is losing out because smaller tablets are less enjoyable to use than the 10-inch iPad. It's really that simple. Since the competition can't seem to figure out how to deliver a cheaper product than Apple except by making their tablets with low-resolution 7-inch screens, they're SOL. Of course a superior OS and easier access to decent software helps, too. Basically the iPad, all told, is a joy to use. It is a little heavy for some uses but otherwise it has struck the right balance as evidenced by it being one of the most successful products in consumer electronics history.
It is not, of course, the product that most consumers would want to take with them on the road but doesn't Apple have that covered already? Are the iPhone and the Touch not meant to meet that need? If you already have one of the new devices with the four-inch screen, you're not likely to bring along the iPad Mini as well. Why would you?
What Apple should be worried about are consumers who buy the Mini because of price yet expect it to provide as enjoyable an experience as the standard iPad. When that product disappoints, it will be seen as a disappointing effort on Apple's part, not a consumer making a bad choice. Even though some seem to think that Apple is capable of ignoring raw physics, the simple truth is that a much smaller iPad would simply not produce the same user experience. This is simply unavoidable.
It's quite different when you deal with a diminished experience on a truly portable device like the new iPhone and the new Touch. You want the portability those devices offer and you know you're going to make some sacrifice to gain that portability. Yet the iPad Mini would in practice prove to be no more portable than the standard iPad. What's the point?
Of course, as I have already stated, it does seem that the iPad Mini is a done deal, what with all the reports insisting it's about to be announced. So that's that, I suppose. Yet it's not 100 per cent confirmed until the event invitations go out.
Seems to me that what is expected to be announced is an iPad Mini priced identically to the new Touch. Seems highly suspect, to me. If it had been doable, the Touch would have come in at a lower price point. When I saw the starting price of the Touch come in at $299, it seemed to me rumors of an iPad Mini had been greatly exaggerated. Not sure what to think at this time.
I'm assuming they are all in durable cases with some kind of protective screen cover? One drop on the floor and the cases are dented, glass cracked, or worse.
Something smaller certainly makes sense for younger hands, but infinitely more durable as well for that purpose I would think ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Which is why Apple is likely not just cooking up a mini iPad to compete with Google. If that's all they were after, they could have flooded the markets with them months ago when the released the new iPad. Apple's entry into the 7" tablet space has to be more than just a mini iPad. And I'm betting it will eventually replace the iPod Touch for the exact reasons you state. iPhone users are likely to go for the iPad, but Touch users will more than likely buy a slightly larger tablet instead of the Touch. But it will be different enough in function that some may buy both the iPad and the mini-tablet, as well as an iPhone. With iPhone 4S being given away for free, keeping the Touch around just doesn't make sense, and most parents I know have given their old iPhones to their kids (without activation), essentially replacing a Touch purchase anyway.
While the iPad seems like the perfect educational tool, isn't it just a bit to fragile for the average elementary and Jr. high, heck even some high schools?
I'm assuming they are all in durable cases with some kind of protective screen cover? One drop on the floor and the cases are dented, glass cracked, or worse.
Something smaller certainly makes sense for younger hands, but infinitely more durable as well for that purpose I would think ...
Apple could have gone to a bigger screen on the iPhone and Touch already but it could be that a 4-inch 16X9 screen is the right choice for that sort of device. I'll be getting an iPhone this week and after a few days of use, it will be apparent if the new screen size makes enough of a difference. If it does, that eliminates the need for a somewhat larger device, I would think.
Really, if Apple does release the iPad Mini, personally it will have no impact. My iPhone is on the way and I have a standard iPad. For me, the bases are covered. My argument would be that for most of us, that combination would cover our needs in regards to a portable computing device. I suppose the problem I have is that I just don't see where the iPad sporting a 7.85-inch 4X3 screen would fit in. It seems like a pointless form factor for the majority of us.
iPod touch - $199
iPad Mini - $299
iPad 2 - $399
new iPad - $499
Seems logical to me...
With the just-introduced iPod touch going for $299@32GB, the only way we're getting a $299 iPad "mini" is at 8GB. And that seems like a huge compromise considering it (i) cuts into the iPod touch pricing bracket and (ii) is still $100 more than non-profit 8GB models from Amazon, Google etc. More likely is a 16GB $349 model, which is equivalent to most 16GB models out there atm. The link below is quite a good reference for the current 7-inch-ish (android) market:
http://tablets.venturebeat.com/saved_search/7-Inch-Android-Tablets
Edit: caps lock
Edit for quote inclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax
With the just-introduced iPod touch going for $299@32GB, the only way we're getting a $299 iPad "mini" is at 8GB. And that seems like a huge compromise considering it (i) cuts into the iPod touch pricing bracket and (ii) is still $100 more than non-profit 8GB models from Amazon, Google etc. More likely is a 16GB $349 model, which is equivalent to most 16GB models out there atm. The link below is quite a good reference for the current 7-inch-ish (android) market:
http://tablets.venturebeat.com/saved_search/7-Inch-Android-Tablets
Edit: caps lock
Ah yes, mistake with the iPod pricing... I would agree $349 seems more logical. I could even add the new iPod Nano to that line up also as it starts at $149 and becomes more consistent pricing differences.
I'm not following you. Why would it have to be 8GB? 1024x768 7.85" 165 PPI display is much easier to produce than a 1136x640 4" 326 PPI display. And that's without considering full sRGB or in-cell tech that the iPod Touch/iPhone display has.
I don't understand how people far and wide easily grasp that the smaller you make CE the more pricy it gets... except when it comes to Apple. There is a reason the iPad (3) with 4G LTE will cost you less than the iPhone 5 for the same capacity device.
You say yourself you are not a candidate for a mini-tablet. But you don't have an iPod Touch either. My guess is the mini will replace the Touch in preference to a larger device, but isn't a full-sized tablet, nor does it carry the premium price tag -- targeted specifically at kids, teens and young adults -- a huge money spending demographic. And I look for Apple to have mostly game vendors lined up to show how the mini blows every portable gaming device they've ever used out of the water, while still providing minimal services of the full iPad. I also look for the display to be retina, in a 16:9 aspect ratio drawing from the Touch, and keeping it tied to iPhone ecosystem, not the iPad, though it could be 4:3, or it could introduce a third display resolution, like 16:10 considering that by next Spring, all the standard resolution displays will no longer be sold, so mini could replace it. So these "kids" buy a mini instead of a Touch, the touch gets dropped, and eventually they go on to add an iPhone, and one day they upgrade their mini, or add to their collection a full-sized adult iPad. The iPod line is then strictly music players going forward. It seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm the first to confess, I have no idea what apple is up to.
So Oct. 10 is going, going, nearly gone and no invitations for an unveiling next week. What's up with that?
It's not going to happen unless they are really changing up their routine. They usually let it rip first thing in the morning about 8am PT, give or take an hour.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's not going to happen unless they are really changing up their routine. They usually let it rip first thing in the morning about 8am PT, give or take an hour.
They may just be taking the mickey out on me and doing the invite tomorrow.