My read is that the 10.5" iPad will be the only "pro" version in a smaller form factor. The 9.7" Pro will be discontinued. - 9.7" is the iPad - starting at $329. - 10.5" Pro and then larger 12.9" (or higher if/when going small bezels).
Provides additional differentiation between the entry level iPad and the Pro models. Assuming they maintain the $599 starting price point, there is $170 between the entry iPad and current 9.7" Pro. That is a big gap to up-sell. The core features on the Pro accessed with the Pencil, which is another $99. To convince more purchasers to move up requires some visible differentiation.
Apple is crazy for dragging their feet on what can be done with the Apple TV. The rout is in progress from greedy cable/satellite providers. Alternatives are announced every week and they all capture subscribers even though most suck. I admit I hadn't researched the market until the monthly tab from DirecTV became too much for this retiree.
We tried several freebies over a month and now spend about a third of our previous bill. Playstation VUE was the easy winner. Their GUI ain't 100% to my taste; but, it was an easy change. They're still learning about TV switchers instead of gamers...but, that's a market with 100 times more potential. I'd compare their approach to Apple when it comes to solutions, function and use. How they introduced a "jog" being a good example.
And Apple could run right past them if they tried. Just lose the oversimple remote. Trying to satisfy TV geeks without a mute button or easy access to a 30-second skip is archaic. I thought Apple learned years ago to leave decisions like that to designers instead of engineers.
Spend some time time reading through TV geek users forums in recent years. DirecTV was smart enough to follow - and introduce solutions suggested by thoughtful users. Of course, AT&T will put an end to that. No one plays the Cloud DVR like Sony - and AT&T intriduced DirecTV NOW with none. Pitiful.
OK. Longish rant - but, WWDC would be a good time to intro the Amazon Prime app and tell us when we can get the Gen 5 AppleTV. Just priming the pump.
Hard to say what Apple is thinking about w.r.t. "video services", but the landscape is dramatically changing, and it may be that Apple doesn't have clear view as to what that future will be. That is why I think they are touting "apps". The old school PayTV is still dominant, but also a diverse set of services have sprung up, more every month, each taking a slice of the market. Netflix is the biggest on the block, Amazon is rising, but still another handful of services in any market. In this context of multiple services, being the best "platform" is a way to provide value for Apple, rather than trying to develop its own video streaming service (I have commented before on how iTunes could play a bigger role though - a place where they are a global leader).
What does everyone say they want - all content available, whenever they want it (on-demand), down to the program level, easy to fine, for a cheap price. This doesn't exist in any one service today - not even close - and it isn't going to be for some time (if ever). The content providers/developers - those that bring the content - do not want anyone provider to have this control - they make more money with the competing services. Apple won't be able to build such a service. So, approaching with an "apps" and platform offering may be the best way to go.
Final comment - Apple TV is nice - but majority of video viewing is via iPhone / iPad, and so any video service & platform needs to be viewed through this lens.
How Apple handles the next IPad & (low level) Mac upgrades will be interesting because, right now they are half-pregnant: -- Their tablet can almost achieve laptop functionality -- Their laptop can almost achieve tablet functionality
Currently, if you need a touch screen you have to use a tablet. If you need a cursor or a file system, you have to use a laptop.
At one point, not long ago, the separation was necessary due to power limitations.
That was absolutely not, in any way, shape, or form the reason. In fact, the digitizer and display needed for Apple's interface required WAY more power than conventional cursor-and-pen-based cellphones (of which there were plenty, running Windows CE).
The reason was that it was a hand-held device. That reason has in no way "faded".
What has happened is that yes, their tablet can almost achieve laptop functionality, but crucially, it is not a laptop. And vice versa.
Tablets are hand-held devices, and retain direct-manipulation hand-held interfaces. Traditional desktop computers retain the abstraction of a remote-controlled cursor.
This is fundamental to Apple's interface strategy.
So, your argument is that the tablet can only ever function in tablet format and can never function in laptop format because, well, it's not a laptop? ROFL....
It reminds of my days as a systems designer and asking a user "Why do you do it this way?" and, too often the answer came back as: "Because we have always done it this way!"... It was hard not give it an Anderson Cooper eye roll -- but you get one!
Soli said: If Apple could ink deals with networks the same way the others have, then sure, I'm on board with your "Apple could run right past them" assessment, but we know that Apple has had an issue with networks ever since before the Apple TV ever launched. They're afraid of Apple getting too much control. A real or imagined threat, Apple's success is negatively affecting them in negotiations.
Which is why I emailed the powers that be [frequently] to spend a few bucks and buy DirecTV. For years before AT&T did it.
Lots easier to amend existing contracts than write new ones.
It's extremely common for media deals to expire if the company licensing them is bought out or files for bankruptcy.
If the content owners discover their income increased as a result - they'd be crazy to walk away. Renegotiate? Likely. Anything else?. You get to be Kodak.
How Apple handles the next IPad & (low level) Mac upgrades will be interesting because, right now they are half-pregnant: -- Their tablet can almost achieve laptop functionality -- Their laptop can almost achieve tablet functionality
Currently, if you need a touch screen you have to use a tablet. If you need a cursor or a file system, you have to use a laptop.
At one point, not long ago, the separation was necessary due to power limitations.
That was absolutely not, in any way, shape, or form the reason. In fact, the digitizer and display needed for Apple's interface required WAY more power than conventional cursor-and-pen-based cellphones (of which there were plenty, running Windows CE).
The reason was that it was a hand-held device. That reason has in no way "faded".
What has happened is that yes, their tablet can almost achieve laptop functionality, but crucially, it is not a laptop. And vice versa.
Tablets are hand-held devices, and retain direct-manipulation hand-held interfaces. Traditional desktop computers retain the abstraction of a remote-controlled cursor.
This is fundamental to Apple's interface strategy.
So, your argument is that the tablet can only ever function in tablet format and can never function in laptop format because, well, it's not a laptop? ROFL....
That's pretty much exactly it.
Except it's not about functionality - what it does -; it's about HOW it's done.
iOS exists entirely because it's built for scenarios where traditional mouse interface doesn't make sense. If it had a mouse pointer, it'd be a Mac.
me too. And i need at least 4K-5K AMOLED displays on these new iPads and better cameras since they have room to put even better lenses than iPhones. Now, they would be revolutionary-ish.
me too. And i need at least 4K-5K AMOLED displays on these new iPads…
1) What's the point?
2) I don't see Apple doing that. I see Apple doubling the resolution (4x the number of pixels), again, once the component cost and processing make it feasible, but I don't expect that to happen for a long time.
...and better cameras since they have room to put even better lenses than iPhones. Now, they would be revolutionary-ish.
Just evolutionary. All CE is an evolution over something else. Every piece of the brilliance in the original iPhone can be traced back to simpler components and concepts from Apple and others, and you can do the same moving forward to today.
Comments
- 9.7" is the iPad - starting at $329.
- 10.5" Pro and then larger 12.9" (or higher if/when going small bezels).
Provides additional differentiation between the entry level iPad and the Pro models. Assuming they maintain the $599 starting price point, there is $170 between the entry iPad and current 9.7" Pro. That is a big gap to up-sell. The core features on the Pro accessed with the Pencil, which is another $99. To convince more purchasers to move up requires some visible differentiation.
Hard to say what Apple is thinking about w.r.t. "video services", but the landscape is dramatically changing, and it may be that Apple doesn't have clear view as to what that future will be. That is why I think they are touting "apps". The old school PayTV is still dominant, but also a diverse set of services have sprung up, more every month, each taking a slice of the market. Netflix is the biggest on the block, Amazon is rising, but still another handful of services in any market. In this context of multiple services, being the best "platform" is a way to provide value for Apple, rather than trying to develop its own video streaming service (I have commented before on how iTunes could play a bigger role though - a place where they are a global leader).
Final comment - Apple TV is nice - but majority of video viewing is via iPhone / iPad, and so any video service & platform needs to be viewed through this lens.
ROFL....
It reminds of my days as a systems designer and asking a user "Why do you do it this way?" and, too often the answer came back as: "Because we have always done it this way!"... It was hard not give it an Anderson Cooper eye roll -- but you get one!
Except it's not about functionality - what it does -; it's about HOW it's done.
iOS exists entirely because it's built for scenarios where traditional mouse interface doesn't make sense. If it had a mouse pointer, it'd be a Mac.
Now, they would be revolutionary-ish.
2) I don't see Apple doing that. I see Apple doubling the resolution (4x the number of pixels), again, once the component cost and processing make it feasible, but I don't expect that to happen for a long time.
Just evolutionary. All CE is an evolution over something else. Every piece of the brilliance in the original iPhone can be traced back to simpler components and concepts from Apple and others, and you can do the same moving forward to today.