iphablet I don't see them doing ever- I would think they have the phone whatever ideal size they see fit, and the majority of the population likes. The mini can fill the gap.
Outside of that, I think that release schedule would be perfect. I don't think they'll have the A7 by march- not even close- but a redesigned A6 would be enough for me to get one and replace my seldom used 2.
As for people like solip who are saying the mini won't have retina in 2013 (due to graphics, consumption, and size restraints)- while I agree that technically, it would be a feat- if anyone can do it, it's apple. The thing about every iteration of iDevices- with the exception of the iPad 4- has had some type of "gimmick" to help sell (I use that word lightly- most or all are extremely functional) them outside of just a spec bump.
iPhone 3G- 3G
iPhone 3GS- Video (and necessary speed at the time)
iPhone 4- Retina & FaceTime
iPhone 4S- Siri
iPhone 5- Screen (but really everything- the 5 is amazing)
iPad 2- Cameras
iPad 3- Retina
iPad 4- specs only
My point is- what does the Mini do? Get an A6 and that's it? Maybe a better camera? What is the selling point to get the new model- or that distinguishes it? iOS comes out with the iPhone- so it's not that. It almost has to be Retina, doesn't it?
I know iPhablet is not a apple type device yet this is just a device as with like the iPhone nano is to fill in the questions of but what if, I hope neither iPhone nano or iPhablet arrive.
But as you pointed out it this brings me to ok a improved screen but what is in the iPhone 5 that previous iPhones don't have, processor change does not count nor cellular upgrade screen change connector change (I guess if allows new format like if video added but none like this till date.) camera upgrade as 3G phone did not show something like this either but I guess IOS was to fresh. The original iPhone did have this (touch screen). 3GS as said video recording. iPhone 4 actually is the led. 4S as said. Now iPad is off but if you know is there anything on iPad 3G. Of course not the 4g(because it is 3.5 rounded up.).
Everything you have written about the mini for the last year has turned out to be 100% wrong. There is no need for clarification of your last 5000 posts on the subject.
Problem is that's not what we're talking about, so it's irrelevant.
Everything you have written about the mini for the last year has turned out to be 100% wrong. There is no need for clarification of your last 5000 posts on the subject.
Problem is that's not what we're talking about, so it's irrelevant.
Some have suggested that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Depends on your definition of perfect. In my opinion iPad is a collection of compromises. I do like my iPad mini and rarely use my iPad 3 but it is far from perfect. People who try to force the iPad into activities that it was never designed for like the "professional" wedding photographer guy, just make me laugh. iPad might be ok as a presentation device but I find it difficult to imagine importing huge RAW files for editing unless you are some sort of masochist. IPad is convenient only because it is lightweight and portable not because it excels at computing tasks.
Note that I was quite specific in stating what I thought that it was perfect for, i.e., reading this forum. I completely agree that there are tasks for which the iPad would be less than competent - for example, creating/editing CAD files (with Rhino3D specifically) in mind. Unless, of course, some bright spark comes up with a new way of making accurate and repeatable inputs without resorting to a stylus.
Having said that, the actual size of the 9.7 " iPad (and forget about the 7.8 " Mini) tends to militate against that sort of use in any case.
Note that I was quite specific in stating what I thought that it was perfect for, i.e., reading this forum. I completely agree that there are tasks for which the iPad would be less than competent - for example, creating/editing CAD files (with Rhino3D specifically) in mind. Unless, of course, some bright spark comes up with a new way of making accurate and repeatable inputs without resorting to a stylus.
Having said that, the actual size of the 9.7 " iPad (and forget about the 7.8 " Mini) tends to militate against that sort of use in any case.
On further thought, my comments above regarding CAD might just boil down to small screen size - input to Rhino can be by direct keyboard entry, where one can be as precise as one likes (slightly red face).
Some have suggested that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Some are wrong, is all.
I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion however when opinions are stated with arrogant authority from your moderator perch as many of your remarks are, it could be characterized as unduly oppressive which is why I call you out on it occasionally. Please keep in mind that you occupy a priveliged position in that regular users cannot add you to their ignore list. In my opinion you should post in a much less controversial manner if for no other reason but to set a standard of rational and reasonable conduct becoming a moderator and perhaps trying restrain your rabid zealotry and condescending mannerisms.
On further thought, my comments above regarding CAD might just boil down to small screen size - input to Rhino can be by direct keyboard entry, where one can be as precise as one likes (slightly red face).
Kudos for attempting to use an iPad for CAD although personally I feel that regardless of the fact that CAD apps exist for iPad the finger as a pointing input method is severely compromised when attempting activities traditionally requiring pixel perfect accuracy.
I would bet money that this report is right. It's the most logical evolution for both product lines!
My curiosity now is where the iPhone/iPod lines will evolve to. After the iPhone 6, there's really no clear evolutionary path. I could guess that eventually some of Apple's patents will show up in the design, such as 3D and solar cells hidden and integrated within the pixels of the display, but those could be years off due to the enormous complexities involved in manufacturing process for those technologies.
We could see a quad-core A6/A7 processor in the next iPhone generation, but that could come as early as the iPhone 5S. The 20-something nanometer processors that will not use Samsung as the manufacture is at least a year or two away. That might get introduced with the iPhone 6. The iPhone 5S's camera will likely get a boost in megapixels and other tweaks.
Besides taking a gigantic leap forward in processing technology and power, I am completely clueless as to what other major new features and improvements the iPhone 6 will have. As I said, I would live to see those patents Apple has been hoarding finally make it into the design, but I can't expect that to happen so soon. In absence of those patents, I am at a lose as to what else (besides the CPU and camera improvements) it's going to have! Anyone want to take a shot at guessing?
I would bet money that this report is right. It's the most logical evolution for both product lines!
My curiosity now is where the iPhone/iPod lines will evolve to. After the iPhone 6, there's really no clear evolutionary path. I could guess that eventually some of Apple's patents will show up in the design, such as 3D and solar cells hidden and integrated within the pixels of the display, but those could be years off due to the enormous complexities involved in manufacturing process for those technologies.
We could see a quad-core A6/A7 processor in the next iPhone generation, but that could come as early as the iPhone 5S. The 20-something nanometer processors that will not use Samsung as the manufacture is at least a year or two away. That might get introduced with the iPhone 6. The iPhone 5S's camera will likely get a boost in megapixels and other tweaks.
Besides taking a gigantic leap forward in processing technology and power, I am completely clueless as to what other major new features and improvements the iPhone 6 will have. As I said, I would live to see those patents Apple has been hoarding finally make it into the design, but I can't expect that to happen so soon. In absence of those patents, I am at a lose as to what else (besides the CPU and camera improvements) it's going to have! Anyone want to venture a guess?
Or you could just read what I've written and ask for clarification where a misunderstanding might have taken place. But that doesn't fit the "I'm always right" bill that you yourself seem to have taken, I suppose.
At no point did I say the things you've claimed, stet.
I read what you wrote and it was quite clear. I cited the exact wording above.
What isn't clear is why you feel that you can constantly deny all the things that you said earlier.
Well, yeah. And I see twice a year for tablets, too. But not yet. ARM isn't moving fast enough.
CPU architecture, while being an important consideration, is not the only thing that can be improved. Processor speed, RAM, Flash, GPU, displays, etc can as well. At the expense of margin, Apple can improve to a twice a year cycle. Just as with Macs a mid year spec bump is more than possible given that Apple, unlike their competitors, do not drop prices as component prices decrease.
The question is whether that expense will be large and if Apple is actually willing to pay it.
/shrug I would not be surprised either way. There are many strategic reasons to argue both for and against such a move. Whatever Apple does there will be equal numbers of folks here claiming their brilliance or stupidity either way.
The 'Apple can do anything' mantra doesn't hold water. Apple was the one that brought the Retina iPad to use in 2012 and look what they had to do to bring it. It's much thicker and heavier. Now a device with a much smaller footprint but the same resolution means that using the same tech will need to be even thicker but will be slightly lighter than the current iPad. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't. I think weight is a key component to how Apple views the iPad mini. Note that all this so far has ignored price which require a more expensive display if you want to put a 2058x1536 panel in about half the size. So how is Apple is going to achieve this miracle of keeping the product lightweight and inexpensive? I hope you are right and i am wrong but so far not a single person has given a single detailed rebuttal as to how Apple could do it except to say "if anyone can do it, it's Apple."
And? There were 2 generations of the iPad before it was Retina and 3 years of the iPhone and Touch before they were Retina but for their cheapest tablet with the most expensive and complex display you expect to offer it for the 2nd gen simply because you don't like it not being Retina and can't think of additional upgrades? That's not a valid argument!
And it can't get an A6 if you want it to be Retina. It has to be at least an A6X, but that likely won't do because the A6X is shown to use too require too much power which is why I've been saying that it needs to be Rogue 6, which doesn't look to be available until the 2nd half of 2013. Perfect timing? Not if you note if you notice that the iPad mini is using the A5 right now (i.e.: a year behind) and that the iPod Touch is too and has yet to jump ahead 2 years just because.
Given that the iPad 3 was a compromise fixed within normal yearly product cycle there's no real reason to believe that the iPac Mini 2 could not also address some shortcomings with the current device.
A 32nm A5X is certainly within the realm of possibility by spring.
A more efficient display panel is certainly within the real of possibility by spring
Given both then an iPad Mini retina is also within the realm of possibility by spring/summer. They launched the iPad Mini with the technology shippable this fall in time for XMas 2012 to take any wind from the sails (or sales) of the Nexus and Fire. Not the technology shippable 6 months later.
CPU architecture, while being an important consideration, is not the only thing that can be improved. Processor speed, RAM, Flash, GPU, displays, etc can as well.
That makes buying a new device even less desirable. An update without a CPU change isn't much of one.
That makes buying a new device even less desirable. An update without a CPU change isn't much of one.
Yeah. Just like no one would ever buy a smaller iPad.
There are LOTS of things that could be improved that would justify a half-year refresh. A few of them were pointed out in the post you were responding to.
Comments
I know iPhablet is not a apple type device yet this is just a device as with like the iPhone nano is to fill in the questions of but what if, I hope neither iPhone nano or iPhablet arrive.
But as you pointed out it this brings me to ok a improved screen but what is in the iPhone 5 that previous iPhones don't have, processor change does not count nor cellular upgrade screen change connector change (I guess if allows new format like if video added but none like this till date.) camera upgrade as 3G phone did not show something like this either but I guess IOS was to fresh. The original iPhone did have this (touch screen). 3GS as said video recording. iPhone 4 actually is the led. 4S as said. Now iPad is off but if you know is there anything on iPad 3G. Of course not the 4g(because it is 3.5 rounded up.).
Originally Posted by mstone
Everything you have written about the mini for the last year has turned out to be 100% wrong. There is no need for clarification of your last 5000 posts on the subject.
Problem is that's not what we're talking about, so it's irrelevant.
Some have suggested that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Originally Posted by mstone
Some have suggested that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Some are wrong, is all.
Note that I was quite specific in stating what I thought that it was perfect for, i.e., reading this forum. I completely agree that there are tasks for which the iPad would be less than competent - for example, creating/editing CAD files (with Rhino3D specifically) in mind. Unless, of course, some bright spark comes up with a new way of making accurate and repeatable inputs without resorting to a stylus.
Having said that, the actual size of the 9.7 " iPad (and forget about the 7.8 " Mini) tends to militate against that sort of use in any case.
On further thought, my comments above regarding CAD might just boil down to small screen size - input to Rhino can be by direct keyboard entry, where one can be as precise as one likes (slightly red face).
I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion however when opinions are stated with arrogant authority from your moderator perch as many of your remarks are, it could be characterized as unduly oppressive which is why I call you out on it occasionally. Please keep in mind that you occupy a priveliged position in that regular users cannot add you to their ignore list. In my opinion you should post in a much less controversial manner if for no other reason but to set a standard of rational and reasonable conduct becoming a moderator and perhaps trying restrain your rabid zealotry and condescending mannerisms.
Kudos for attempting to use an iPad for CAD although personally I feel that regardless of the fact that CAD apps exist for iPad the finger as a pointing input method is severely compromised when attempting activities traditionally requiring pixel perfect accuracy.
My curiosity now is where the iPhone/iPod lines will evolve to. After the iPhone 6, there's really no clear evolutionary path. I could guess that eventually some of Apple's patents will show up in the design, such as 3D and solar cells hidden and integrated within the pixels of the display, but those could be years off due to the enormous complexities involved in manufacturing process for those technologies.
We could see a quad-core A6/A7 processor in the next iPhone generation, but that could come as early as the iPhone 5S. The 20-something nanometer processors that will not use Samsung as the manufacture is at least a year or two away. That might get introduced with the iPhone 6. The iPhone 5S's camera will likely get a boost in megapixels and other tweaks.
Besides taking a gigantic leap forward in processing technology and power, I am completely clueless as to what other major new features and improvements the iPhone 6 will have. As I said, I would live to see those patents Apple has been hoarding finally make it into the design, but I can't expect that to happen so soon. In absence of those patents, I am at a lose as to what else (besides the CPU and camera improvements) it's going to have! Anyone want to take a shot at guessing?
My curiosity now is where the iPhone/iPod lines will evolve to. After the iPhone 6, there's really no clear evolutionary path. I could guess that eventually some of Apple's patents will show up in the design, such as 3D and solar cells hidden and integrated within the pixels of the display, but those could be years off due to the enormous complexities involved in manufacturing process for those technologies.
We could see a quad-core A6/A7 processor in the next iPhone generation, but that could come as early as the iPhone 5S. The 20-something nanometer processors that will not use Samsung as the manufacture is at least a year or two away. That might get introduced with the iPhone 6. The iPhone 5S's camera will likely get a boost in megapixels and other tweaks.
Besides taking a gigantic leap forward in processing technology and power, I am completely clueless as to what other major new features and improvements the iPhone 6 will have. As I said, I would live to see those patents Apple has been hoarding finally make it into the design, but I can't expect that to happen so soon. In absence of those patents, I am at a lose as to what else (besides the CPU and camera improvements) it's going to have! Anyone want to venture a guess?
I read what you wrote and it was quite clear. I cited the exact wording above.
What isn't clear is why you feel that you can constantly deny all the things that you said earlier.
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
Apple's aggressiveness may abandon customers unless they continue to support their operating systems for twice as long.
Why? Three years can now mean six generations instead of three.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmythe00
Oh. And while I'm on a wsh list, add themes to ios!
Yeah, themes, that's what iOS needs. Good god, how have we lived this long without themes? I can't get anything done without themes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
Apple's aggressiveness may abandon customers unless they continue to support their operating systems for twice as long.
Or for the same amount of time, depending on how you measure it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, yeah. And I see twice a year for tablets, too. But not yet. ARM isn't moving fast enough.
CPU architecture, while being an important consideration, is not the only thing that can be improved. Processor speed, RAM, Flash, GPU, displays, etc can as well. At the expense of margin, Apple can improve to a twice a year cycle. Just as with Macs a mid year spec bump is more than possible given that Apple, unlike their competitors, do not drop prices as component prices decrease.
The question is whether that expense will be large and if Apple is actually willing to pay it.
/shrug I would not be surprised either way. There are many strategic reasons to argue both for and against such a move. Whatever Apple does there will be equal numbers of folks here claiming their brilliance or stupidity either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The 'Apple can do anything' mantra doesn't hold water. Apple was the one that brought the Retina iPad to use in 2012 and look what they had to do to bring it. It's much thicker and heavier. Now a device with a much smaller footprint but the same resolution means that using the same tech will need to be even thicker but will be slightly lighter than the current iPad. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't. I think weight is a key component to how Apple views the iPad mini. Note that all this so far has ignored price which require a more expensive display if you want to put a 2058x1536 panel in about half the size. So how is Apple is going to achieve this miracle of keeping the product lightweight and inexpensive? I hope you are right and i am wrong but so far not a single person has given a single detailed rebuttal as to how Apple could do it except to say "if anyone can do it, it's Apple."
And? There were 2 generations of the iPad before it was Retina and 3 years of the iPhone and Touch before they were Retina but for their cheapest tablet with the most expensive and complex display you expect to offer it for the 2nd gen simply because you don't like it not being Retina and can't think of additional upgrades? That's not a valid argument!
And it can't get an A6 if you want it to be Retina. It has to be at least an A6X, but that likely won't do because the A6X is shown to use too require too much power which is why I've been saying that it needs to be Rogue 6, which doesn't look to be available until the 2nd half of 2013. Perfect timing? Not if you note if you notice that the iPad mini is using the A5 right now (i.e.: a year behind) and that the iPod Touch is too and has yet to jump ahead 2 years just because.
Given that the iPad 3 was a compromise fixed within normal yearly product cycle there's no real reason to believe that the iPac Mini 2 could not also address some shortcomings with the current device.
A 32nm A5X is certainly within the realm of possibility by spring.
A more efficient display panel is certainly within the real of possibility by spring
Given both then an iPad Mini retina is also within the realm of possibility by spring/summer. They launched the iPad Mini with the technology shippable this fall in time for XMas 2012 to take any wind from the sails (or sales) of the Nexus and Fire. Not the technology shippable 6 months later.
Originally Posted by nht
CPU architecture, while being an important consideration, is not the only thing that can be improved. Processor speed, RAM, Flash, GPU, displays, etc can as well.
That makes buying a new device even less desirable. An update without a CPU change isn't much of one.
Yeah. Just like no one would ever buy a smaller iPad.
There are LOTS of things that could be improved that would justify a half-year refresh. A few of them were pointed out in the post you were responding to.