Hand size has little to do with it in my opinion because the ideal setting for education, especially for young children, is to have the device sitting on a table where they are seated, the device is not held. The large screen allows for large buttons that mimic all previously tested and approved early childhood learning tools.
Well, that certainly makes sense, all I can say is the educators I've spoken to have suggested otherwise. I'm not sure it makes much difference for 6-12. However, whether or not they discontinue the iPad 2 commercially does not mean they won't continue to offer it to the educational market (the e-Mac is one such example), nor that they won't offer the third gen iPad at a lower price point once the 4th gen is released. I guess my point about discontinuing the iPad 2 has more to do with moving everything to retina which could theoretically happen across all product lines (excluding the 17" and higher displays) by next year. But if the mini-tablet is in fact designed to be a lower price-point competitor, then they run out of room pretty quickly trying to distinguish the value for price between the Touch, mini-tablet, and iPad 2. Something has to go, and it seems like the mini-tablet is the obvious choice to consolidate the fast-becoming-obsolete Touch, and the low end iPad offering, while also competing with the 7" tablet market. Apple does not need to compete with the low-end 10" market.
I need a 7 inch tablet! I was very tempted by Nexus 7 but is useless without 3G. If the iPad mini has 3G is an instant buy for me. I don't care about retina display. I want 3G, great battery life, powerful processor and a lot of memory. It's a Ultra mobile computer for me, not a book reader.
Apple please take the DRM off the ebooks, then I will buy more. I will buy movies regardless, but there is just something distasteful about it wrt books.
You removed DRM from songs and the bottom did not fall out of the market. And hasn't the court just ruled that Google is allowed to scan entire libraries without breaching copyright? Please just get rid of it.
I think this Ipad Book has nothing to do with specs, so no retina, accelerometer or camera, but all has to do with demographics. I think we'll see interactive epubs with extended javascript support.
Wasn't that the same focus they put on the original iPad?
No it wasn't. As usual you impart your negativity onto everything.
I do remember the presentation as if was yesterday as I knew it would be revolutionary.
I don't think Steve Jobs said "look folks we have created an e-reader".
But that is what you are implying, and don't try and squirm your way out of it.
Now that we've been spoiled by Retina or HiDPi displays, the answer to your questions is YES, the original iPad & iPhone 3GS are bad for reading. The iPad Mini with a 326dpi 2048x1536 display would be killer. I'd be first in line to buy one. Once you go retina there's no going back, at least not for me.
The term retina display was coined to express the notion that the display is pretty much as good as it gets because of the limitations in the human retina not being able to
detect pixels which were any more miniscule (when held at the appropriate distance). There is little point in going so far beyond 'retina resolution' as 326dpi. (1) higher cost (2) extra pixels means harder work for the graphics processor, again more expense, and more heat and juice drawn from a smaller batter than the 9.7" iPad.
I think they'll stay at 163dpi this time, maybe with anti-reflective finish. Not retina - but better than the iPad 1 & 2.
If the iPad is being focused on the eReader market (I'm not altogether convinced but this is the premise of the article), then there are implications for other things than the screen. We can expect it to be light, with good battery life. But processing power is not a priority for iBooks, so we could well see A5 levels of performance rather than the A6 speed of the iPhone 5.
1) They aren't manufacturing any 163 PPI iPhones or iPod Touches is one of the key reasons they would use that same equipment they long ago paid for and perfected in these new tablets.
That's one way to look at it. The other perspective is that why not discontinue "obsolete" production capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) There is also diseconomies of scale. Aren't some of the rumours on the iPhone delays based on the display not being easily manufactured? So why add to that by creating millions of displays that are 4.27x the size of the current iPhone 5 display just so they are also 326 PPI?
I don't know about the veracity of rumors. But I know that these so-called low yields are not hurting Apple's margins. And they are not hurting the suppliers enough, or else they'd refuse to swallow the costs. For sure, the low yields are not stopping Apple from manufacturing and selling the highest number of devices using that display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
3) At 326 PPI the 7.85 iPad mini would have the same resolution of the iPad (3) which is already very heavy, expensive, and simply doesn't have the room to put all that in a smaller device without getting thicker. You can loose some battery bulk with the smaller backlight and 32nm process but not enough to counter more than a fraction of it. It's simply not feasible. It could also wind up being more expensive than the 9.7" version because in technology using smaller, more power efficient components is more costly... not less.
4) The iPad (3) has a 264 PPI display so why do would you think that isn't good enough? Why not at least something that is closer to the PPI of the current iPad as you hold a tablet farther from your face than a phone? 1600x1200 would be 255 PPI.
I agree with both points. I am simply suggesting that 163 ppi is not a foregone conclusion, even if I believe it is more practical and likely. At 163 ppi, the iPad Air will fall well short of the 216 ppi on Nexus 7 and 254 ppi on Kindle Fire HD. It would surprise me if Apple will undercut Amazon or Google in price. So how will this product be positioned?
Why would Apple announce a device that has a lower ppi than Fire HD or Nexus 7 but most likely would be more expensive? To me that comes across as arrogant - Apple thinking they can release something that's just "good enough" and people will buy it because its got an apple logo on it. Yeah I know display isn't everything but its a pretty big deal with tablets, especially if you're positioning the tablet for books and education.
That's one way to look at it. The other perspective is that why not discontinue "obsolete" production capacity.
Can you explain how the capacity for production can be "obsolete"? If you need any production then production isn't obsolete.
I don't know about the veracity of rumors. But I know that these so-called low yields are not hurting Apple's margins. And they are not hurting the suppliers enough, or else they'd refuse to swallow the costs. For sure, the low yields are not stopping Apple from manufacturing and selling the highest number of devices using that display.
You don't think selling less products than you could otherwise sell doesn't hurt a company? You could have an apple stand that is profitable but if you can't get to an entire orchard to pick more apples that there is a demand for then you are not making as much money as possible.
But lets look at margins. You're talking about not just taking the 4" iPhone 5 displays that are rumoured to a be key component that Apple can't get produced fast enough and putting that same tech into what is rumoured to be a low cost tablet. A tablet that will have a lower profit margin... and that is even without considering the additional cost for yield issues of producing the same display at 4.27x the area. Everything about that idea says it's not a smart move.
I agree with both points. I am simply suggesting that 163 ppi is not a foregone conclusion, even if I believe it is more practical and likely. At 163 ppi, the iPad Air will fall well short of the 216 ppi on Nexus 7 and 254 ppi on Kindle Fire HD. It would surprise me if Apple will undercut Amazon or Google in price. So how will this product be positioned?
If we're talking about a 7.85" 4:3 display then a 163 or 326 PPI are a foregone conclusion because the only reason for that specific size and aspect ratio are for using a resolution that is already found on the iPad. There is unequivocally no argument to support that size. The latter is foolish if you except this to be a lightweight (one-handed), cost effective tablet that can compete with the current 7" tablets. In fact, the idea of the 326 PPI display on the 7.85" iPad mini would make it considerably more costly to make over the iPad (3) because of the increased difficulty. It's just not feasible to think that anything other than 163 PPI makes sense if you believe the 7.85" rumour.
Apple thinking they can release something that's just "good enough" and people will buy it because its got an apple logo on it.
Except in this case "good enough" would be better than anything on the market.
And no, I'm not rooting for the stupid thing, I'm saying that the corners people believe Apple is cutting are the corners that have to be cut to make a smaller tablet.
If the stupid thing comes out, people will complain about it, get this, for being EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO BE. You mark my words.
Originally Posted by fatusmiles
Marketing
No, thank you, Apple has not destroyed the tablet, phone, PMP, and ultralight computer market thanks to "marketing".
Why would Apple announce a device that has a lower ppi than Fire HD or Nexus 7 but most likely would be more expensive? To me that comes across as arrogant - Apple thinking they can release something that's just "good enough" and people will buy it because its got an apple logo on it. Yeah I know display isn't everything but its a pretty big deal with tablets, especially if you're positioning the tablet for books and education.
Why does the PPI have to be higher? Why does it have to be less expensive based solely on the PPI? Why are you ignoring that a 7.85" 4:3 display has about 40% more area than a 7" 16:9 display? Why is 163 PPI, which is about 20% higher than the still selling iPad 2, such an awful resolution against products that aren't yet on sale? Since when has Apple competed on specs over the user experience?
Why does the PPI have to be higher? Why does it have to be less expensive based solely on the PPI? Why are you ignoring that a 7.85" 4:3 display has about 40% more area than a 7" 16:9 display? Why is 163 PPI, which is about 20% higher than the still selling iPad 2, such an awful resolution against products that aren't yet on sale? Since when has Apple competed on specs over the user experience?
Apple may say they don't compete on spec but I think that's BS. Apple has a heavy focus on retina displays, they're beefing up their capabilities in chip design. Apple is all about making what they feel Is a superior product. I don't see how coming out with a product that had an inferior display cuts it, the last thing they want is someone reviewing it and saying the display on the Fire or Nexus is better. Display trumps real estate IMO.
Funny I use my iPad to read books all the time. I'm guessing people use the Fire and Nexus 7 for that purpose too. I guess we're all epic failures?
No, but you will never convince the eInk folks that their display isn't superior even though there are no actual facts to back them up.
There is a long held popular misconception that LCD screens are bad for reading or bad for your eyes or both. If you look into it you will find it has no factual support at all.
There are also lots of folks like me who find eInk screens to be hard on their eyes, but since this is absolute heresy to even mention it, this also is denied and ridiculed.
Except in this case "good enough" would be better than anything on the market.
And no, I'm not rooting for the stupid thing, I'm saying that the corners people believe Apple is cutting are the corners that have to be cut to make a smaller tablet.
If the stupid thing comes out, people will complain about it, get this, for being EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO BE. You mark my words.
No, thank you, Apple has not destroyed the tablet, phone, PMP, and ultralight computer market thanks to "marketing".
I thought it was Apple's motto to create what they feel are the best possible products, not just something that's "good enough". If Apple is going to release something that's just "good enough" so they can meet some price target and still keep decent margins then why even bother. We have the iPad 2, so just keep selling that then.
No, but you will never convince the eInk folks that their display isn't superior even though there are no actual facts to back them up.
There is a long held popular misconception that LCD screens are bad for reading or bad for your eyes or both. If you look into it you will find it has no factual support at all.
There are also lots of folks like me who find eInk screens to be hard on their eyes, but since this is absolute heresy to even mention it, this also is denied and ridiculed.
Ever since I got my iPad my Nook has been collecting dust. Only time I use it is if I'm outside in direct sunlight. To me that's the only benefit of eink
Apple may say they don't compete on spec but I think that's BS. Apple has a heavy focus on retina displays, they're beefing up their capabilities in chip design. Apple is all about making what they feel Is a superior product. I don't see how coming out with a product that had an inferior display cuts it, the last thing they want is someone reviewing it and saying the display on the Fire or Nexus is better. Display trumps real estate IMO.
So you think Apple is using Retina displays solely because they can advertise the pixel density and not because it actually makes the user experience better? Yet you've ignored that they don't have the highest capacity RAM or highest number of CPU cycles or even the fact that the iPhone 3GS was falling behind other phones in PPI and resolution because they didn't simply bump the spec willy nilly to make a spec sheet look better at the risk of hurting the user experience. No, they balanced the pros and cons only releasing the Retina display when it made sense because scaling the resolution by 2x was best for developers and customers. If you think Apple cares about a spec sheet over the totality of the device then you don't understand Apple at all.
Comments
Did iSheldon finally get the boot? I see people quoting him but his posts are gone. TallestSkill, thanks for cleaning up his trolling if he's gone.
Apple please take the DRM off the ebooks, then I will buy more. I will buy movies regardless, but there is just something distasteful about it wrt books.
You removed DRM from songs and the bottom did not fall out of the market. And hasn't the court just ruled that Google is allowed to scan entire libraries without breaching copyright? Please just get rid of it.
No it wasn't. As usual you impart your negativity onto everything.
I do remember the presentation as if was yesterday as I knew it would be revolutionary.
I don't think Steve Jobs said "look folks we have created an e-reader".
But that is what you are implying, and don't try and squirm your way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji
Now that we've been spoiled by Retina or HiDPi displays, the answer to your questions is YES, the original iPad & iPhone 3GS are bad for reading. The iPad Mini with a 326dpi 2048x1536 display would be killer. I'd be first in line to buy one. Once you go retina there's no going back, at least not for me.
The term retina display was coined to express the notion that the display is pretty much as good as it gets because of the limitations in the human retina not being able to
detect pixels which were any more miniscule (when held at the appropriate distance). There is little point in going so far beyond 'retina resolution' as 326dpi. (1) higher cost (2) extra pixels means harder work for the graphics processor, again more expense, and more heat and juice drawn from a smaller batter than the 9.7" iPad.
I think they'll stay at 163dpi this time, maybe with anti-reflective finish. Not retina - but better than the iPad 1 & 2.
If the iPad is being focused on the eReader market (I'm not altogether convinced but this is the premise of the article), then there are implications for other things than the screen. We can expect it to be light, with good battery life. But processing power is not a priority for iBooks, so we could well see A5 levels of performance rather than the A6 speed of the iPhone 5.
So where will I be excited iPad mini or iBook?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) They aren't manufacturing any 163 PPI iPhones or iPod Touches is one of the key reasons they would use that same equipment they long ago paid for and perfected in these new tablets.
That's one way to look at it. The other perspective is that why not discontinue "obsolete" production capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) There is also diseconomies of scale. Aren't some of the rumours on the iPhone delays based on the display not being easily manufactured? So why add to that by creating millions of displays that are 4.27x the size of the current iPhone 5 display just so they are also 326 PPI?
I don't know about the veracity of rumors. But I know that these so-called low yields are not hurting Apple's margins. And they are not hurting the suppliers enough, or else they'd refuse to swallow the costs. For sure, the low yields are not stopping Apple from manufacturing and selling the highest number of devices using that display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
3) At 326 PPI the 7.85 iPad mini would have the same resolution of the iPad (3) which is already very heavy, expensive, and simply doesn't have the room to put all that in a smaller device without getting thicker. You can loose some battery bulk with the smaller backlight and 32nm process but not enough to counter more than a fraction of it. It's simply not feasible. It could also wind up being more expensive than the 9.7" version because in technology using smaller, more power efficient components is more costly... not less.
4) The iPad (3) has a 264 PPI display so why do would you think that isn't good enough? Why not at least something that is closer to the PPI of the current iPad as you hold a tablet farther from your face than a phone? 1600x1200 would be 255 PPI.
I agree with both points. I am simply suggesting that 163 ppi is not a foregone conclusion, even if I believe it is more practical and likely. At 163 ppi, the iPad Air will fall well short of the 216 ppi on Nexus 7 and 254 ppi on Kindle Fire HD. It would surprise me if Apple will undercut Amazon or Google in price. So how will this product be positioned?
Can you explain how the capacity for production can be "obsolete"? If you need any production then production isn't obsolete.
You don't think selling less products than you could otherwise sell doesn't hurt a company? You could have an apple stand that is profitable but if you can't get to an entire orchard to pick more apples that there is a demand for then you are not making as much money as possible.
But lets look at margins. You're talking about not just taking the 4" iPhone 5 displays that are rumoured to a be key component that Apple can't get produced fast enough and putting that same tech into what is rumoured to be a low cost tablet. A tablet that will have a lower profit margin... and that is even without considering the additional cost for yield issues of producing the same display at 4.27x the area. Everything about that idea says it's not a smart move.
If we're talking about a 7.85" 4:3 display then a 163 or 326 PPI are a foregone conclusion because the only reason for that specific size and aspect ratio are for using a resolution that is already found on the iPad. There is unequivocally no argument to support that size. The latter is foolish if you except this to be a lightweight (one-handed), cost effective tablet that can compete with the current 7" tablets. In fact, the idea of the 326 PPI display on the 7.85" iPad mini would make it considerably more costly to make over the iPad (3) because of the increased difficulty. It's just not feasible to think that anything other than 163 PPI makes sense if you believe the 7.85" rumour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Why would Apple announce a device that has a lower ppi than Fire HD or Nexus 7 but most likely would be more expensive?
Marketing
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Apple thinking they can release something that's just "good enough" and people will buy it because its got an apple logo on it.
Except in this case "good enough" would be better than anything on the market.
And no, I'm not rooting for the stupid thing, I'm saying that the corners people believe Apple is cutting are the corners that have to be cut to make a smaller tablet.
If the stupid thing comes out, people will complain about it, get this, for being EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO BE. You mark my words.
Originally Posted by fatusmiles
Marketing
No, thank you, Apple has not destroyed the tablet, phone, PMP, and ultralight computer market thanks to "marketing".
Why does the PPI have to be higher? Why does it have to be less expensive based solely on the PPI? Why are you ignoring that a 7.85" 4:3 display has about 40% more area than a 7" 16:9 display? Why is 163 PPI, which is about 20% higher than the still selling iPad 2, such an awful resolution against products that aren't yet on sale? Since when has Apple competed on specs over the user experience?
Quote:
No, thank you, Apple has not destroyed the tablet, phone, PMP, and ultralight computer market thanks to "marketing".
They have not destroy anything except applications
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Funny I use my iPad to read books all the time. I'm guessing people use the Fire and Nexus 7 for that purpose too. I guess we're all epic failures?
No, but you will never convince the eInk folks that their display isn't superior even though there are no actual facts to back them up.
There is a long held popular misconception that LCD screens are bad for reading or bad for your eyes or both. If you look into it you will find it has no factual support at all.
There are also lots of folks like me who find eInk screens to be hard on their eyes, but since this is absolute heresy to even mention it, this also is denied and ridiculed.
So you think Apple is using Retina displays solely because they can advertise the pixel density and not because it actually makes the user experience better? Yet you've ignored that they don't have the highest capacity RAM or highest number of CPU cycles or even the fact that the iPhone 3GS was falling behind other phones in PPI and resolution because they didn't simply bump the spec willy nilly to make a spec sheet look better at the risk of hurting the user experience. No, they balanced the pros and cons only releasing the Retina display when it made sense because scaling the resolution by 2x was best for developers and customers. If you think Apple cares about a spec sheet over the totality of the device then you don't understand Apple at all.