All im saying is a smaller iPad needs to have as good as or better display than Fire or Nexus 7. Unless they're reslly going to do something radical in this space. But somehow I doubt that. A smaller iPad 2 is just "meh" as far as I'm concerned. It's then basically a defensive product, a Apple is worried about $199 tablets, a product that's about meeting a low price but maintaining margins, not about creating a better product in that space.
You remind me of the way people were talking before the first iPad came out. They couldn't imagine what it would be good for. The favorite word at the time, before it came out, was my least favorite word in recent history, the most narcissistic word in all history: "meh."
Who cares if YOU are not impressed by the IDEA of a particular device? Do you think your discriminatory powers are so much better than Ive's or Schiller's or Cook's or Apple's that your limp-wristed "meh" has any meaning to the world?
Actually it does have meaning to the world. It's depressing. Depressing that you don't remember that they can pull stuff off that YOU will never dream of from your position as an basement product strategist. Of course they're going to do something radical in this space.
Isn't that what Tim Cook said? "We're going to innovate like crazy in this space."
You are forgetting the parent market, the kid market, the school market, the purse and jacket market, the China market. You are only remembering the yuppie "I want my retina" market.
You are forgetting the parent market, the kid market, the school market, the purse and jacket market, the China market. You are only remembering the yuppie "I want my retina" market.
And you're forgetting the "expectation of quality" market.
All the ones you've listed are either nonexistent or can be filled by the iPad as it is.
I'm not ignoring user experience. But both the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7 received very good reviews. People i know that own the Nexus 7 like it a lot. Apple has competition in this space. I think Apple either has to not worry about price and make a truly superior product, or if they are concerned about price then be willing to take a hit on margins so they can offer a superior product at a lower price point. Of course Wall Street would hate that idea.
I totally agree with this. And this is the heart of your point which is getting lost in semantics and rumored specs.
Lest we forget there is no evidence for any of the specs being tossed around. 7.85", 163 ppi? It all sounds convincing if any of it were true. Whatever the actual specs end up being, it's inconsequential as long as the screen looks more "gorgeous" than the other tablets available in that space.
Bottom line, Apple has a stated a philosophy of not competing in the low-end market space unless they feel they can offer something superior to what's already there.
The iPad was dismissed as a big iPhone, until people used it and realized it was anything but. But the 7" tablet already exists, and Apple panned it well before any hit the streets. Now perhaps Apple has had a change of heart since Jobs died, but more likely Apple will look to offer something none of us has thought of, thus once again leaving their competition scrambling. I mean why else would eh do it?
Almost everyone is discussing this thing like a low end iPad or a big iPod Touch, an assumption based on its similarity to those devices, but seemingly forgetting that even though the iPad looked like a big iPhone, it ended up being revolutionary. So I seriously doubt Apple would make this fundamental mistake with a 7" tablet in a power grab to be the king of the bargain bin. if all Apple is doing is creating a the best looking 7" tablet on the market and using the sucess of the iPad to leverage their dominance in the market, well putting lipstick on a pig is still a pig, and that's simply not Apple's M.O.
You remind me of the way people were talking before the first iPad came out. They couldn't imagine what it would be good for. The favorite word at the time, before it came out, was my least favorite word in recent history, the most narcissistic word in all history: "meh."
Who cares if YOU are not impressed by the IDEA of a particular device? Do you think your discriminatory powers are so much better than Ive's or Schiller's or Cook's or Apple's that your limp-wristed "meh" has any meaning to the world?
Actually it does have meaning to the world. It's depressing. Depressing that you don't remember that they can pull stuff off that YOU will never dream of from your position as an basement product strategist. Of course they're going to do something radical in this space.
Isn't that what Tim Cook said? "We're going to innovate like crazy in this space."
You are forgetting the parent market, the kid market, the school market, the purse and jacket market, the China market. You are only remembering the yuppie "I want my retina" market.
Um, Jony Ive has said on numerous occasions that Apple's philosophy is to make the best possible products they can. How is making a smaller iPad that is inferior to other products on the market making the best product they can? I'm not arguing against a smaller iPad, I'm arguing against a smaller iPad that is a compromise in order to reach a certain price point but yet still have healthy margins. If Apple can't make a device that is better than the Kindle Fire HD or Nexus 7 (and I'm using those as benchmark because they're the best reviewed/selling smaller tablets out there) then they should abandon the idea all together.
I totally agree with this. And this is the heart of your point which is getting lost in semantics and rumored specs.
Lest we forget there is no evidence for any of the specs being tossed around. 7.85", 163 ppi? It all sounds convincing if any of it were true. Whatever the actual specs end up being, it's inconsequential as long as the screen looks more "gorgeous" than the other tablets available in that space.
Bottom line, Apple has a stated a philosophy of not competing in the low-end market space unless they feel they can offer something superior to what's already there.
The iPad was dismissed as a big iPhone, until people used it and realized it was anything but. But the 7" tablet already exists, and Apple panned it well before any hit the streets. Now perhaps Apple has had a change of heart since Jobs died, but more likely Apple will look to offer something none of us has thought of, thus once again leaving their competition scrambling. I mean why else would eh do it?
Almost everyone is discussing this thing like a low end iPad or a big iPod Touch, an assumption based on its similarity to those devices, but seemingly forgetting that even though the iPad looked like a big iPhone, it ended up being revolutionary. So I seriously doubt Apple would make this fundamental mistake with a 7" tablet in a power grab to be the king of the bargain bin. if all Apple is doing is creating a the best looking 7" tablet on the market and using the sucess of the iPad to leverage their dominance in the market, well putting lipstick on a pig is still a pig, and that's simply not Apple's M.O.
Exactly. Here Apple is entering a market where there are products that don't suck, so "good enough" won't necessarily be better than what's out there.
Um, Jony Ive has said on numerous occasions that Apple's philosophy is to make the best possible products they can. How is making a smaller iPad that is inferior to other products on the market making the best product they can? I'm not arguing against a smaller iPad, I'm arguing against a smaller iPad that is a compromise in order to reach a certain price point but yet still have healthy margins. If Apple can't make a device that is better than the Kindle Fire HD or Nexus 7 (and I'm using those as benchmark because they're the best reviewed/selling smaller tablets out there) then they should abandon the idea all together.
And yet you still haven't answered my question as why the iPod Touch which ships well after the iPhone has repeatedly had such inferior components despite your claims that Apple has to trump itself with disparate product releases. You haven't answered my question as to why the iPad only had a 132 PPI display in 2010 despite the 2007 iPhone had 163 PPI display.
Making a baseless statement but then ignoring all the evidence that goes against your statement isn't being reasonable or objective. There are plenty of arguments one could make to support your "idea"of an iPad mini but nothing you've argued backs that up in any regard.
And yet you still haven't answered my question as why the iPod Touch which ships well after the iPhone has repeatedly had such inferior components despite your claims that Apple has to trump itself with disparate product releases.
Biggest reason is, the iPod Touch is part of the iPod line up not part of the iPhone line up. iPod Touch = $299, iPhone = $650 (approx) . That should explain it well enough. In the case of the iPad mini if it is indeed part of the iPad line up it should share similarities with the other models in that category. For example when you look at the MBP you see only differences in CPU speed, screen size, memory and storage not a completely different architecture.
And yet you still haven't answered my question as why the iPod Touch which ships well after the iPhone has repeatedly had such inferior components despite your claims that Apple has to trump itself with disparate product releases. You haven't answered my question as to why the iPad only had a 132 PPI display in 2010 despite the 2007 iPhone had 163 PPI display.
Making a baseless statement but then ignoring all the evidence that goes against your statement isn't being reasonable or objective. There are plenty of arguments one could make to support your "idea"of an iPad mini but nothing you've argued backs that up in any regard.
I don't care about what Apple has done in the past. I don't care about the iPod vs. the iPhone. I'm not talking about Apple trumping itself. It's obvious why the iPod touch is inferior to the iPhone. I wouldn't expect a smaller iPad to be superior to its bigger brother. But if Apple releases a smaller iPad it will be compared to the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7. Those are the devices I think it needs to best. Both of them have received quite good reviews and the Nexus 7 supposedly has had decent sales. When the first iPad came out there really wasn't any competition, it was basically a new category. In the smaller tablet space there is competition. I wouldn't think it terribly difficult for Apple to build a smaller iPad that bests the competition, I don't think they'd get into that space if they didn't think they could do something better.
Biggest reason is, the iPod Touch is part of the iPod line up not part of the iPhone line up. iPod Touch = $299, iPhone = $650 (approx) . That should explain it well enough. In the case of the iPad mini if it is indeed part of the iPad line up it should share similarities with the other models in that category.
64G iPod touch is 399 USD. 64G unlocked iPhone is $849. Obviously the iPod touch will be a step below the iPhone. Especially since, as you say it's not part of the iPhone family. I would assume a smaller iPad would be part of the iPad family as thus should be spec'd accordingly.
Biggest reason is, the iPod Touch is part of the iPod line up not part of the iPhone line up. iPod Touch = $299, iPhone = $650 (approx) . That should explain it well enough. In the case of the iPad mini if it is indeed part of the iPad line up it should share similarities with the other models in that category.
It doesn't because the comments were very clear about Apple having to make a lesser product be better than a larger one in every way. We don't even see that within the history of the iPod.
So you think it should be similar in price? It should have similar PPI and resolution (which then means it has a similar display size)? You have take some things away for it to fit within the requirements for that device. Surely you know that. If they want it to be 7.85" it will have a 163 PPI display in 2012.
I don't care about what Apple has done in the past. I don't care about the iPod vs. the iPhone. I'm not talking about Apple trumping itself. It's obvious why the iPod touch is inferior to the iPhone. I wouldn't expect a smaller iPad to be superior to its bigger brother. But if Apple releases a smaller iPad it will be compared to the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7. Those are the devices I think it needs to best. Both of them have received quite good reviews and the Nexus 7 supposedly has had decent sales. When the first iPad came out there really wasn't any competition, it was basically a new category. In the smaller tablet space there is competition. I wouldn't think it terribly difficult for Apple to build a smaller iPad that bests the competition, I don't think they'd get into that space if they didn't think they could do something better.
You absolutely do care what they have done in the past because your comments have stated (incorrectly) that they wont make it a certain way because of what they have done in the past. You can't have it both ways.
Since when has Apple focused on trumping a competitor in raw specs over user experience? The iPad has a "watered down OS" that surely meant it was doomed. The iPhone had "no physical keyboard" which surely meant it was doomed. None have a removable battery or SD card slot which surely meant they were doomed. And on and on and on and on.
The bottom line is you can't look at the PPI of the Kindle Fire and say that Apple will offer the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 resolution just because that is already on the market. It doesn't work that way! You or someone else has stated that they can simply make more displays which will make it cheaper. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
Whatever idea you et al. have for a smaller Apple tablet what has been stated in these recent threads are not viable. I have no personal interest in the smaller, cheaper iPad (nor a smaller, grossly more expensive iPad as some have stated based on the specs they expect) but I do see how Apple can leverage their investments and skill sets to make a competitive tablet with the 163 PPI displays that will effectively close out the bottom end of the market from gaining any real traction.
64G iPod touch is 399 USD. 64G unlocked iPhone is $849. Obviously the iPod touch will be a step below the iPhone. Especially since, as you say it's not part of the iPhone family. I would assume a smaller iPad would be part of the iPad family as thus should be spec'd accordingly.
And the iPod mini came out after the iPod (Classic) and it was inferior in capacity, performance, screen resolution, etc. and yet only $50 cheaper. It's claim was that it was much smaller than the other iPod and it was a huge success despite the same arguments you and others have put forth as to why no one will want an iPod that can hold less songs than the very first iPod three years earlier in 2001.
This isn't difficult stuff to wrap your heads around. You simply can't put everything in the iPad (3) into 60% the display area 6 months later and not expect it to be considerably more expensive and thicker, and too heavy for its intended us.
And the iPod mini came out after the iPod (Classic) and it was inferior in capacity, performance, screen resolution, etc. and yet only $50 cheaper. It's claim was that it was much smaller than the other iPod and it was a huge success despite the same arguments you and others have put forth as to why no one will want an iPod that can hold less songs than the very first iPod three years earlier in 2001.
I really don't think think you can extrapolate the characteristics of the iPod history or current iPod line up to make assumptions about the iPad line up. The iPod line has many various models so there is more allowance for diversity. Not so much with the iPad brand which is more adult oriented, they have one model. If they introduce another model that is completely different there will be consumer confusion. Perhaps over time they will get over it but at first introduction which is very important in the Christmas season there will be some indecisiveness which is not the desired response in this tight release timeframe.
I really don't think think you can extrapolate the characteristics of the iPod history or current iPod line up to make assumptions about the iPad line up. The iPod line has many various models so there is more allowance for diversity. Not so much with the iPad brand which is more adult oriented, they have one model. If they introduce another model that is completely different there will be consumer confusion. Perhaps over time they will get over it but at first introduction which is very important in the Christmas season there will be some indecisiveness which is not the desired response in this tight release timeframe.
I think that is the problem. You et al. are putting all the characteristics that Apple focused on for the original iPad into one that is rumoured to be designed for the lower end, education and business markets.
The only customer confusion I see would be to make the iPad mini with a 326 PPI 2048x1536 display that is the same performance as the iPad (3) and yet somehow in the same price ballpark but with lower margins. That would not only cause confusion but be a product travesty.
edit: What about the MBA? It wasn't faster than the MBP and yet came after it and it's a huge success that everyone is now following. It's also more expensive than the MBP for a given size and capacity despite the limited performance and feature set. Clearly Apple has released products that doesn't outs-pec another device in the same general category.
The only customer confusion I see would be to make the iPad mini with a 326 PPI 2048x1536 display that is the same performance as the iPad (3) and yet somehow in the same price ballpark but with lower margins. That would not only cause confusion but be a product travesty.
Who knows? Perhaps Tim inherited the RDF from Steve and they can make people believe less is more.
Who knows? Perhaps Tim inherited the RDF from Steve and they can make people believe less is more.
There is noting about the iPad mini rumours that are geared toward it being "more" than the iPad (3) in any way. I know we all want Apple to release something groundbreaking every day but they simply can't. Sometimes it's about releasing something smaller, cheaper, and simpler to capture the lower end of the market once the tech and saturation make it viable. As previously noted, we've seen them do this with the iPod line up.
It doesn't because the comments were very clear about Apple having to make a lesser product be better than a larger one in every way. We don't even see that within the history of the iPod.
So you think it should be similar in price? It should have similar PPI and resolution (which then means it has a similar display size)? You have take some things away for it to fit within the requirements for that device. Surely you know that. If they want it to be 7.85" it will have a 163 PPI display in 2012.
You absolutely do care what they have done in the past because your comments have stated (incorrectly) that they wont make it a certain way because of what they have done in the past. You can't have it both ways.
Since when has Apple focused on trumping a competitor in raw specs over user experience? The iPad has a "watered down OS" that surely meant it was doomed. The iPhone had "no physical keyboard" which surely meant it was doomed. None have a removable battery or SD card slot which surely meant they were doomed. And on and on and on and on.
The bottom line is you can't look at the PPI of the Kindle Fire and say that Apple will offer the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 resolution just because that is already on the market. It doesn't work that way! You or someone else has stated that they can simply make more displays which will make it cheaper. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
Whatever idea you et al. have for a smaller Apple tablet what has been stated in these recent threads are not viable. I have no personal interest in the smaller, cheaper iPad (nor a smaller, grossly more expensive iPad as some have stated based on the specs they expect) but I do see how Apple can leverage their investments and skill sets to make a competitive tablet with the 163 PPI displays that will effectively close out the bottom end of the market from gaining any real traction.
You keep bringing up user experience. Well let me tell you as a user of an iPad the quality of the display is something I care about and I would consider that part of a superior user experience. In my opinion for a smaller iPad to be competitive (especially since there's a 99% chance it will be more expensive than Fire or Nexus 7) it has to have an equal or better display.
Also as I mentioned earlier the Nexus 7 has gotten very good reviews. I haven't seen one review that complained about the user experience. Both hardware and software got good reviews.
Maybe it's wrong or naive for me to want a product that people will see and go "Wow! Top that Google, Amazon!", but that's what I want. I think Apple can do it but I don't know if they will. The bean counters might decide to go the cheaper route assuming they can milk the iPad brand.
You keep bringing up user experience. Well let me tell you as a user of an iPad the quality of the display is something I care about and I would consider that part of a superior user experience. In my opinion for a smaller iPad to be competitive (especially since there's a 99% chance it will be more expensive than Fire or Nexus 7) it has to have an equal or better display.
Also as I mentioned earlier the Nexus 7 has gotten very good reviews. I haven't seen one review that complained about the user experience. Both hardware and software got good reviews.
Maybe it's wrong or naive for me to want a product that people will see and go "Wow! Top that Google, Amazon!", but that's what I want. I think Apple can do it but I don't know if they will. The bean counters might decide to go the cheaper route assuming they can milk the iPad brand.
Then make an actual case that is very specific in detail as to how you think this device should be created and how it could be created to reach a price, performance, and profit margin range that is reasonable.
So far all you've implied is that the PPI has to be higher than the Nexus 7 without actually saying what being slightly lower will matter if the display tech is better, if the display is 40% larger and yet the device is overall lighter. I've very clearly stated why I think weight and cost are imperative to this product market if it's going to work and you've done nothing but imply things that would not only make it as expensive as the current iPad but more expensive.
And the iPod mini came out after the iPod (Classic) and it was inferior in capacity, performance, screen resolution, etc. and yet only $50 cheaper. It's claim was that it was much smaller than the other iPod and it was a huge success despite the same arguments you and others have put forth as to why no one will want an iPod that can hold less songs than the very first iPod three years earlier in 2001.
This isn't difficult stuff to wrap your heads around. You simply can't put everything in the iPad (3) into 60% the display area 6 months later and not expect it to be considerably more expensive and thicker, and too heavy for its intended us.
Again I've said I think a smaller iPad would need to best the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7. I don't think that requires 3rd gen iPad specs does it? I fully expect the smaller iPad to be more expensive than either of those devices regardless of what the specs are. Apple will need to demonstrate why said device is worth an extra $50-$100. Now maybe they'll do it with a super thin and light design and amazing battery life. Or maybe the device will use the in cell technology they're using with the iPhone 5. Maybe it will be LTE. But it's going to need something to justify the higher price.
Then make an actual case that is very specific in detail as to how you think this device should be created and how it could be created to reach a price, performance, and profit margin range that is reasonable.
So far all you've implied is that the PPI has to be higher than the Nexus 7 without actually saying what being slightly lower will matter if the display tech is better, if the display is 40% larger and yet the device is overall lighter. I've very clearly stated why I think weight and cost are imperative to this product market if it's going to work and you've done nothing but imply things that would not only make it as expensive as the current iPad but more expensive.
I don't care about ppi I care about what my eyes see on the screen. If Apple can build a device that has lower ppi but is visually equal or better than what's already out there than great. We already have that with iPhone 5 don't we? The S3, One X and Lumia 920 all have more ppi but iPhone 5 display is equal to or superior to all of them.
Comments
You remind me of the way people were talking before the first iPad came out. They couldn't imagine what it would be good for. The favorite word at the time, before it came out, was my least favorite word in recent history, the most narcissistic word in all history: "meh."
Who cares if YOU are not impressed by the IDEA of a particular device? Do you think your discriminatory powers are so much better than Ive's or Schiller's or Cook's or Apple's that your limp-wristed "meh" has any meaning to the world?
Actually it does have meaning to the world. It's depressing. Depressing that you don't remember that they can pull stuff off that YOU will never dream of from your position as an basement product strategist. Of course they're going to do something radical in this space.
Isn't that what Tim Cook said? "We're going to innovate like crazy in this space."
You are forgetting the parent market, the kid market, the school market, the purse and jacket market, the China market. You are only remembering the yuppie "I want my retina" market.
Originally Posted by Flaneur
You are forgetting the parent market, the kid market, the school market, the purse and jacket market, the China market. You are only remembering the yuppie "I want my retina" market.
And you're forgetting the "expectation of quality" market.
All the ones you've listed are either nonexistent or can be filled by the iPad as it is.
Lest we forget there is no evidence for any of the specs being tossed around. 7.85", 163 ppi? It all sounds convincing if any of it were true. Whatever the actual specs end up being, it's inconsequential as long as the screen looks more "gorgeous" than the other tablets available in that space.
Bottom line, Apple has a stated a philosophy of not competing in the low-end market space unless they feel they can offer something superior to what's already there.
The iPad was dismissed as a big iPhone, until people used it and realized it was anything but. But the 7" tablet already exists, and Apple panned it well before any hit the streets. Now perhaps Apple has had a change of heart since Jobs died, but more likely Apple will look to offer something none of us has thought of, thus once again leaving their competition scrambling. I mean why else would eh do it?
Almost everyone is discussing this thing like a low end iPad or a big iPod Touch, an assumption based on its similarity to those devices, but seemingly forgetting that even though the iPad looked like a big iPhone, it ended up being revolutionary. So I seriously doubt Apple would make this fundamental mistake with a 7" tablet in a power grab to be the king of the bargain bin. if all Apple is doing is creating a the best looking 7" tablet on the market and using the sucess of the iPad to leverage their dominance in the market, well putting lipstick on a pig is still a pig, and that's simply not Apple's M.O.
And yet you still haven't answered my question as why the iPod Touch which ships well after the iPhone has repeatedly had such inferior components despite your claims that Apple has to trump itself with disparate product releases. You haven't answered my question as to why the iPad only had a 132 PPI display in 2010 despite the 2007 iPhone had 163 PPI display.
Making a baseless statement but then ignoring all the evidence that goes against your statement isn't being reasonable or objective. There are plenty of arguments one could make to support your "idea"of an iPad mini but nothing you've argued backs that up in any regard.
Hey checkout my video on it where i basically give a few specs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwiNJudAp2Q
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
And yet you still haven't answered my question as why the iPod Touch which ships well after the iPhone has repeatedly had such inferior components despite your claims that Apple has to trump itself with disparate product releases.
Biggest reason is, the iPod Touch is part of the iPod line up not part of the iPhone line up. iPod Touch = $299, iPhone = $650 (approx) . That should explain it well enough. In the case of the iPad mini if it is indeed part of the iPad line up it should share similarities with the other models in that category. For example when you look at the MBP you see only differences in CPU speed, screen size, memory and storage not a completely different architecture.
It doesn't because the comments were very clear about Apple having to make a lesser product be better than a larger one in every way. We don't even see that within the history of the iPod.
So you think it should be similar in price? It should have similar PPI and resolution (which then means it has a similar display size)? You have take some things away for it to fit within the requirements for that device. Surely you know that. If they want it to be 7.85" it will have a 163 PPI display in 2012.
You absolutely do care what they have done in the past because your comments have stated (incorrectly) that they wont make it a certain way because of what they have done in the past. You can't have it both ways.
Since when has Apple focused on trumping a competitor in raw specs over user experience? The iPad has a "watered down OS" that surely meant it was doomed. The iPhone had "no physical keyboard" which surely meant it was doomed. None have a removable battery or SD card slot which surely meant they were doomed. And on and on and on and on.
The bottom line is you can't look at the PPI of the Kindle Fire and say that Apple will offer the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 resolution just because that is already on the market. It doesn't work that way! You or someone else has stated that they can simply make more displays which will make it cheaper. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
Whatever idea you et al. have for a smaller Apple tablet what has been stated in these recent threads are not viable. I have no personal interest in the smaller, cheaper iPad (nor a smaller, grossly more expensive iPad as some have stated based on the specs they expect) but I do see how Apple can leverage their investments and skill sets to make a competitive tablet with the 163 PPI displays that will effectively close out the bottom end of the market from gaining any real traction.
And the iPod mini came out after the iPod (Classic) and it was inferior in capacity, performance, screen resolution, etc. and yet only $50 cheaper. It's claim was that it was much smaller than the other iPod and it was a huge success despite the same arguments you and others have put forth as to why no one will want an iPod that can hold less songs than the very first iPod three years earlier in 2001.
This isn't difficult stuff to wrap your heads around. You simply can't put everything in the iPad (3) into 60% the display area 6 months later and not expect it to be considerably more expensive and thicker, and too heavy for its intended us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
And the iPod mini came out after the iPod (Classic) and it was inferior in capacity, performance, screen resolution, etc. and yet only $50 cheaper. It's claim was that it was much smaller than the other iPod and it was a huge success despite the same arguments you and others have put forth as to why no one will want an iPod that can hold less songs than the very first iPod three years earlier in 2001.
I really don't think think you can extrapolate the characteristics of the iPod history or current iPod line up to make assumptions about the iPad line up. The iPod line has many various models so there is more allowance for diversity. Not so much with the iPad brand which is more adult oriented, they have one model. If they introduce another model that is completely different there will be consumer confusion. Perhaps over time they will get over it but at first introduction which is very important in the Christmas season there will be some indecisiveness which is not the desired response in this tight release timeframe.
I think that is the problem. You et al. are putting all the characteristics that Apple focused on for the original iPad into one that is rumoured to be designed for the lower end, education and business markets.
The only customer confusion I see would be to make the iPad mini with a 326 PPI 2048x1536 display that is the same performance as the iPad (3) and yet somehow in the same price ballpark but with lower margins. That would not only cause confusion but be a product travesty.
edit: What about the MBA? It wasn't faster than the MBP and yet came after it and it's a huge success that everyone is now following. It's also more expensive than the MBP for a given size and capacity despite the limited performance and feature set. Clearly Apple has released products that doesn't outs-pec another device in the same general category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The only customer confusion I see would be to make the iPad mini with a 326 PPI 2048x1536 display that is the same performance as the iPad (3) and yet somehow in the same price ballpark but with lower margins. That would not only cause confusion but be a product travesty.
Who knows? Perhaps Tim inherited the RDF from Steve and they can make people believe less is more.
There is noting about the iPad mini rumours that are geared toward it being "more" than the iPad (3) in any way. I know we all want Apple to release something groundbreaking every day but they simply can't. Sometimes it's about releasing something smaller, cheaper, and simpler to capture the lower end of the market once the tech and saturation make it viable. As previously noted, we've seen them do this with the iPod line up.
Also as I mentioned earlier the Nexus 7 has gotten very good reviews. I haven't seen one review that complained about the user experience. Both hardware and software got good reviews.
Maybe it's wrong or naive for me to want a product that people will see and go "Wow! Top that Google, Amazon!", but that's what I want. I think Apple can do it but I don't know if they will. The bean counters might decide to go the cheaper route assuming they can milk the iPad brand.
Then make an actual case that is very specific in detail as to how you think this device should be created and how it could be created to reach a price, performance, and profit margin range that is reasonable.
So far all you've implied is that the PPI has to be higher than the Nexus 7 without actually saying what being slightly lower will matter if the display tech is better, if the display is 40% larger and yet the device is overall lighter. I've very clearly stated why I think weight and cost are imperative to this product market if it's going to work and you've done nothing but imply things that would not only make it as expensive as the current iPad but more expensive.
I don't care about ppi I care about what my eyes see on the screen. If Apple can build a device that has lower ppi but is visually equal or better than what's already out there than great. We already have that with iPhone 5 don't we? The S3, One X and Lumia 920 all have more ppi but iPhone 5 display is equal to or superior to all of them.