I know Bryan keeps saying this won't happen, but the rumor mill keeps churning out more and more stuff about a smaller version of the iPad on the horizon - maybe sooner than we think. So, I thought we should start a thread about this possible new version. Here's a roundup of the rumors so far:
Rumormongers have been spreading tales of a miniature, 7-inch Apple tablet since before Apple even released its first iPad in 2010. The first rumor hit in September 2009, and now — some 17 individual rumors later — the speculation refuses to die.
A Chinese site called NetEase reported Monday that a pint-size Apple tablet will land in the third quarter of this year to "counter attack" upcoming Windows 8 tablets. The device will cost between $250 and $300, and Foxconn and Pegatron will be manufacturing the tablet for Apple.
Or so says the latest scuttlebutt.
What are we to make of a rumor storyline that's now in its 18th installment? Does sheer rumor volume suggest a diminutive iPad is all but certain? Of course not. The most likely scenario is that Apple has been testing prototype tablets of different sizes for quite a while. We should expect nothing less from any mobile hardware company that strives to remain on top.
Here are all of the iPad mini rumors that have surfaced since fall 2009. It's a tortured chain of speculation, but like a car accident, it's hard to look away.
Sept. 29, 2009: The rumor begins. An anonymous source speaking to iLounge says Apple's highly speculated upcoming tablet will be called iPad, and has been tested in three different sizes, including a 7-inch model that was killed for being too small.
Some three months later, on Jan. 27, 2010, Apple officially announces the first-generation iPad, a 9.7-inch device.
Apr. 8, 2010: About a month after the first iPad arrives in stores, Digitimes jumps into the fray, reporting that a 5- to 7-inch iPad will be launching in 2011 for less than $400. Gizmodo thinks the idea is preposterous, and moves an article about the rumor off the front page of its website, according to an editor's note on the post.
Apr. 17, 2010: Nary a week later, the rumor returns. Taiwanese newspaper Economic Daily News says Apple is working on a 7-inch touchscreen tablet that will be launching by Christmas 2010. Chimei Innolux will be making the displays, and Compal Electronics will be assembling the tablets.
Aug. 4, 2010: Sources at iLounge.com say a 7-inch iPad is on the way, to be released in late 2010 or early 2011.
Sept. 20, 2010: A research note from Rodaman & Renshaw analyst Ashok Kumar describes how Apple's next iPad will have a 7-inch screen, as well as front- and rear-facing cameras. That same day on his blog Daring Fireball, John Gruber points out that Kumar's track record at predicting Apple products is subpar at best.
Feb. 10, 2011: By now, speculation over the device that will soon be revealed as iPad 2 is intense. But John Gruber is already looking forward to iPad 3, hinting at a third-generation release in the fall of 2011. CNET takes the Gruber bait and runs with it, surmising that iPad 3 could be the iPad mini, with a $400 price point.
All of the speculation is just annoying static to the legions of consumers who begin buying the iPad 2 on Mar. 11, 2011, almost exactly one month following CNET's post.
Sept. 8, 2011: After a long hiatus, the iPad mini rumor returns. Digitimes says Apple is working on two iPad mini devices, a 5.6-inch slate and a 7-incher. Compal Electronics is pegged as the maker of the pint-sized pads.
Oct. 12, 2011: Ticonderoga Securities analyst Brian White says Apple will release an entry-level tablet, an "iPad mini," to battle the just-released Kindle Fire. White expects it to surface in early 2012.
Oct. 18, 2011: The next week, Taiwan's United Daily News reports LG Display and AU Optronics have sent Apple samples of a 7.85-inch iPad with a 1024 x 768 resolution. This tablet is expected to land early in 2012. Gadget Lab responds to the madness: "Why Apple Isn't Going to Release a 7-inch iPad."
Nov. 18, 2011: Digitimes is back, saying that panels for the next iPad are shipping, and that Apple is looking into 7.85-inch iPad screens — essentially a repeat of the Oct. 18 news.
Dec. 16, 2011: Digitimes again says that Apple is preparing to debut a 7.85-inch iPad for 2012 in addition to a 9.7-inch iPad released at the end of the first quarter. This time, the launch date isn't expected until late in the year. Production will start toward the end of Q2, according to the report.
Feb. 15, 2012: The Wall Street Journal adds some credibility to the persistent mini rumor with the headline, "Apple, Suppliers Test Tablet With Smaller Screen." The article reports that tests include an 8-inch screen.
Mar. 1, 2012: Guess who? Digitimes says Apple will begin mass producing a 7.85-inch iPad beginning in the third quarter. It's reported to be priced between $350 and $400.
Mar. 5, 2012: Venturebeat's Devindra Hardawar reports that according to his sources, Apple is buying up components for a device with a 7.1-inch screen. Two days later, Apple announces the new iPad — a 9.7-inch device — with nary a mention of smaller devices.
Mar. 13, 2012: A Samsung official leaks to the Korea Times that Apple will release a 7.85-inch iPad before the end of the year.
Mar. 28, 2012: The iPad Mini rumor mill gets thrown a loop with a report from "a reliable Chinese source" to Japanese blog Macotakara. According to that site, Apple is working on a 5-inch Retina display tablet with either a 1600 x 960 or 1280 x 960 resolution. The pint-size device will arrive in 2013.
Apr. 5, 2012: Daring Fireball's John Gruber speaks on a podcast about the 7.85-inch iPad rumors: "I've heard from numerous people that that's one of the ideas that they're noodling with." He says he hasn't heard from anybody that the device has actually been given the green light for mass production.
Which brings us to today's report from NetEase. Are you suffering from as much iPad mini rumor fatigue as we are? Weigh in with a comment — and let us know if a smaller-form-factor iPad even interests you.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/ipad-mini-rumor-roundup/ (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/ipad-mini-rumor-roundup/)
Yeah, still very skeptical for a few reasons. Apple already effectively makes an iPad mini in the iPod touch, at least in regards to a wi-fi enabled device. The current form factor of the iPad slots in perfectly between the iPhone/iPod touch and the MacBook Air/MacBook screen size. One of the reasons the iPad is such a hit is because the media content visual experience of the device is just right for consumers. Not too big to be less portable, not too small to diminish the experinece. Also we need to consider the vast number of app's which have been created and are being created to support the current screen size. Why would Apple fracture theat development market? Apple also has never been a company to try and compete in the lower price/lower margin model that other comapnies do. They want their products to have a higher price point and more cache. Making $300 tablets is not the kind of high volume/low margin business they have ever sought to compete in. And finally, the long lasting legacy of Steve jobs and his very strong opinions on the screen size for the iPad may likely still hold sway over the current management.
I think this year is about the new iPad, iTV, and iPhone 5, that's what we can likely expect and have already seen. If they do eventually make one and people love it, that's great, it just doesn't jibe with the companies current direction form my perspective.
I'll agree with Bryan here, I still remember all the rumours about an 'iPhone mini' for less money and that never materialized.
Hmmm....
Apple have and do dabble in the lower end market with Apple TV and Mac Mini so I'd never rule it out.
Quote from: Dangelus on April 18, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
Hmmm....
Apple have and do dabble in the lower end market with Apple TV and Mac Mini so I'd never rule it out.
I would suggest the MacMini was simply a quick and dirty way to try and get PC users to switch to a Mac once Apple adopted Intel chips and were capable of running windows. They have remained somewhat relevant as a home media dvice but are a tiny seller. Apple TV is similar to that in so far as it was a tests of technology for streaming video content and a means of leveraging iTunes.
Quote from: Bryancd on April 18, 2012, 11:44:35 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on April 18, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
Hmmm....
Apple have and do dabble in the lower end market with Apple TV and Mac Mini so I'd never rule it out.
I would suggest the MacMini was simply a quick and dirty way to try and get PC users to switch to a Mac once Apple adopted Intel chips and were capable of running windows. They have remained somewhat relevant as a home media dvice but are a tiny seller. Apple TV is similar to that in so far as it was a tests of technology for streaming video content and a means of leveraging iTunes.
The same strategy could be used with iPad Minis to get people to cross over surely? Do you think it would hurt the brand if they did it?
I really don't see the market for a smaller iPad. I mean, look at that new "smart" phone that is just plain HUGE.Can't remember which one it is, but when I saw it at BestBuy it looked like a Kindle or something! Why on EARTH would you want a phone THAT big? Same with the iPad, in my opinion. WHen you start reducing the size, you take away a lot of what the iPad has to offer as far as look, graphics, etc. I mean, I like my iPhone but try watching a movie or something, or even reading a book on it??? I'm old, the eyes aren't that good anymore!
Quote from: Dangelus on April 18, 2012, 12:15:24 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 18, 2012, 11:44:35 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on April 18, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
Hmmm....
Apple have and do dabble in the lower end market with Apple TV and Mac Mini so I'd never rule it out.
I would suggest the MacMini was simply a quick and dirty way to try and get PC users to switch to a Mac once Apple adopted Intel chips and were capable of running windows. They have remained somewhat relevant as a home media dvice but are a tiny seller. Apple TV is similar to that in so far as it was a tests of technology for streaming video content and a means of leveraging iTunes.
The same strategy could be used with iPad Minis to get people to cross over surely? Do you think it would hurt the brand if they did it?
I think the cost of ramping up production on it would force the company to make a major commitment they didn't have to make with the MacMini or AppleTV, so it's not an apples to apples analogy to compare the products. That financial commitment along with the cost to all the app developers to make versions which would run correctly on a new screen size would be very disruptive and Apple would have to be in for the long haul of selling a low end product. So yes, I feel it would hurt the brand. And there's currently no cross over product Apple needs for their tablet strategy. Everyone wants their current tablet design, they don't need an entry level. And I don't think consumers want a smaller entry level. They can provide a less expensive version of the current model whenever a new one is announced.
Quote from: Bryancd on April 18, 2012, 11:44:35 AM
Apple TV is similar to that in so far as it was a tests of technology for streaming video content and a means of leveraging iTunes.
Apple TV is pretty popular with the "cord cutting" crew that has been touched on in that other thread about ditching cable.
I really believe that as the 7" tabs grow in popularity that Apple won't remain content to let those potential customers go to Amazon or some other company, which shuts out a large base of potential users (and spenders) in the iTunes store. It's only a matter of time IMHO
Quote from: Jobydrone on April 18, 2012, 01:50:45 PM
I really believe that as the 7" tabs grow in popularity that Apple won't remain content to let those potential customers go to Amazon or some other company, which shuts out a large base of potential users (and spenders) in the iTunes store. It's only a matter of time IMHO
Honest question, Birthday Boy. :) Where do you see the 7" form factor becoming popular? I don't see that in the least.
Quote from: Bryancd on April 18, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
"... Where do you see the 7" form factor becoming popular? I don't see that in the least..."
Ok, am I the ONLY one that had to stifle a serious laugh at this??? :)
Quote from: QuadShot on April 18, 2012, 03:42:25 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 18, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
"... Where do you see the 7" form factor becoming popular? I don't see that in the least..."
Ok, am I the ONLY one that had to stifle a serious laugh at this??? :)
Yes, in Al's filthy mind the 7" form factor would work very well...doh! :)
That's what she said!!!
Ha ha you guys are quick on the draw (and that's also what she said)
Anyway, you could be right Bry, and I don't have the sales figures to go by. But in my mind at least, the Kindle Fire seems to be doing just fine, and you have to agree that every sale of every Fire is another person not using iTunes to buy their books and movie rentals. And you have to imagine that the Kindle Fire 2 or whatever is right around the corner and I'm sure it will be as much an improvement on the hardware as the iPad 2 was for Apple. There's a huge gap between the price point of the cheapest iPad and the most expensive iPod touch. A 7.5" tab fit squarely in the middle there would entice many users not willing to spring $500 for a 10" tablet but would be willing to pay $75-125 more for Apple cache and iTunes integration for a smaller tablet. I think it's inevitable but I agree with you not happening this year. Probably they'll do it to coincide with the launch of Fire 2.
I'm definitely with Joby on this one. People like options. Apple has no valid reason not to do this at some point in time. I can actually even see a slightly larger iPad at some point. Amazon's Kindle Fire is a terrific product at a very attractive price. I think one of the ideas with tablets is in a few years homes will have several laying around the house for various purposes and it's obvious they all won't need to be as big as the current iPad.
Kindle Fire has not made any meaningful impact in tablet sales when compared to the iPad and there's not one analysts on the street who considers it true competition in the broader tablet market. Now that's not an indictment of the product or the screen size per se, it's just doesn't have the functionality and app support that the iPad has. So by default, the iPad massive sales advbantage makes the form factor the dominant one. So sonsumers aren't clamoring for a smaller screen size, they are buying Kindles because they are cheaper, but Apple has no need to try and compete there beciuse the iPad is such a huge success.
Bryan, smaller screens allow them to make these devices cheaper. They go hand-in-hand. And I think you need to look up Kindle Fire sales figures again. I know several people that bought one and didn't buy an iPad due to the price difference. I really don't see how you don't think Apple isn't working on trying to capture that part of the market.
:) You crack me up Bryan, but in all seriousness, I wouldn't like to see a smaller iPad. Kind of defeats the purpose for me. I may be able to see a (small) market for one but not for us "old...er" types.
Quote from: Rico on April 19, 2012, 07:54:37 AM
And I think you need to look up Kindle Fire sales figures again.
Really?! Wow, if you actually know the true sales figures please share because Amazon doesn't release them! Estimates for last quarter were about 6 million. During the same period Apple sold 15 million iPads. Kindle fire is not a true tablet competitior. Now, the Samsung Galaxy is and if they satrt to broaden into a smaller screen size to try and offer a discounted device, that might be incentive for Apple to develop a similar offering. But I explained all the reasons why I have concluded what I have a few posts ago.
The competition is not between the Kindle Fire and the iPad, but the Apple Store and the Amazon Store. How many of those 6 million estimated people who bought the Fire also have an iPad? I'd say less than 1%, if any at all. That's six MILLION people that aren't using the Apple store for purchases that are most likely available there as well as on Amazon. I don't believe that Apple is going to be comfortable much longer watching all that money at stake just fly out the window. Especially when the buzz and excitement over the new Kindle Fire starts growing.
But Joby, how many of those 6 MILLION have iTunes accounts and use the Apple Store/iTunes Store? Or have iPhones and use the Apple Store? This is really not an easy debate to have, and as always will come down to personal preference. We like Apple so we're going to defend and come up with all kinds of stats to prove Apple is the best. Someone else likes the Kindle and will do the same. It's really an exercise in futility to debate this on and on. I say WE...the Treks In Sci Fi community, build our OWN tablet and rule the world. :)
Quote from: Jobydrone on April 19, 2012, 08:30:40 AM
The competition is not between the Kindle Fire and the iPad, but the Apple Store and the Amazon Store. How many of those 6 million estimated people who bought the Fire also have an iPad? I'd say less than 1%, if any at all. That's six MILLION people that aren't using the Apple store for purchases that are most likely available there as well as on Amazon. I don't believe that Apple is going to be comfortable much longer watching all that money at stake just fly out the window. Especially when the buzz and excitement over the new Kindle Fire starts growing.
Well, beyond music and video content, there's very little to compare between the Apple store and Amazon. It's an interesting supposition but I don't think it's on the mark. Amazon uses the Fire as a gateway to the store. I mentioned when the Fire was released it wasn't designed to be a true tablet device but as a tool to drive Amazon store business. Apple is not looking to compete with Amazon as a retailer of goods. When you say Apple is losing revenue to Amazon, I'm not sure what you mean. How many Amazon buyers also use iTunes is the real question. The iPad and other fully functional tablets are portable media devices with massive application support that makes them very diverse in their uses. The Fire is much more limited in fuction and MUCh more limited in app support. Again, I think for what it does it's great and the price is terrific. But this isn't about Fire vs. iPad, that battle for now has already been decided in the Pads favor. The question is does Apple feel that the Fire's screen size and price point is a place they feel they need to take the iPad. I would suggest based on the reason i put forth, the answer right now is no.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Who wants to put a little gentleman's wager on it?
And the TrekSF pad could never be a true competitor to the iPad, so forget it ;)
Quote from: Jobydrone on April 19, 2012, 08:50:45 AM
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Who wants to put a little gentleman's wager on it?
I'm placing REAL money bets on it everyday, my friend. :) I am long Apple but not Amazon right now, but not because of concern over the Kindle Fire. I think Amazon is taking a bath on Amazon Prime and I am concerned as to how that will continue to impact their earnings. In the meantime, I love Prime! Gain, i am more interested in watching what Samsung does then Amazon inregards to the direction of the tablet market.
And this is why I bristle a bit when some here try and portray my opinions on this subject as being an Apple fanboy. I'm not, I love their products but I am far more interested in making investment return for my clients. My opinions on Apple are purley driven by that consideration. I like Apple's story and the growth prospects of the company and the shares. When a day arrives that the story is not as compelling, i will be the first to say so.
Quote from: Bryancd on April 19, 2012, 08:42:01 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone on April 19, 2012, 08:30:40 AM
The competition is not between the Kindle Fire and the iPad, but the Apple Store and the Amazon Store. How many of those 6 million estimated people who bought the Fire also have an iPad? I'd say less than 1%, if any at all. That's six MILLION people that aren't using the Apple store for purchases that are most likely available there as well as on Amazon. I don't believe that Apple is going to be comfortable much longer watching all that money at stake just fly out the window. Especially when the buzz and excitement over the new Kindle Fire starts growing.
Well, beyond music and video content, there's very little to compare between the Apple store and Amazon. It's an interesting supposition but I don't think it's on the mark. Amazon uses the Fire as a gateway to the store. I mentioned when the Fire was released it wasn't designed to be a true tablet device but as a tool to drive Amazon store business. Apple is not looking to compete with Amazon as a retailer of goods. When you say Apple is losing revenue to Amazon, I'm not sure what you mean. How many Amazon buyers also use iTunes is the real question. The iPad and other fully functional tablets are portable media devices with massive application support that makes them very diverse in their uses. The Fire is much more limited in fuction and MUCh more limited in app support. Again, I think for what it does it's great and the price is terrific. But this isn't about Fire vs. iPad, that battle for now has already been decided in the Pads favor. The question is does Apple feel that the Fire's screen size and price point is a place they feel they need to take the iPad. I would suggest based on the reason i put forth, the answer right now is no.
You're forgetting the ebook store which I'm certain provides a HUGE amount of money for both Apple and Amazon and that amount is just going to grow larger every year. I don't think in general most people want a separate movie player, game machine, ebook reader, magazine subscription device, etc etc. Most people aren't buying a Kindle for reading and an iPad for everything else. If they have an iPad they're buying their content on the Apple store. If they havea Kindle they're buying their content onthe Amazon store. It's simple. I agree with everything you're saying about how much better the iPad is at what it does...I wouldn't trade my iPad 1 for a Kindle Fire even if you paid me to do it. But there's clearly alot of people that don't want or need all the functionality you're describing at $500 but will pay $250-300 for a smaller device to check their email, buy and read books, buy and rent movies, and surf the web. Apple should and will try to capture those people.
Agreed, there is absolutely a market for a 4200-$300 portable device with a smaller screen and less functionality. And it could be a good sized market. The question of thtis thread is does Apple feel compelled to compete there. I presented my analysis as why I don't believe they will. And e-books are a TINY portion of iTunes sales.
Quote from: Bryancd on April 19, 2012, 09:06:15 AM
And e-books are a TINY portion of iTunes sales.
Yes I think ebooks are in a position now where digital music was about five years ago. But considering the way the number of people I see using ebook readers (of all brands) on my morning commute every day is increasing so dramatically, it's only a matter of time before those sales numbers grow much much larger for all the major sellers.
I think Apple knows that a backlit screen device will never be as popular for e-book reading as a Nook or Kindle device. That market will never be one they will be competitive in.
FART....
Go get 'em Joby! Because I give up.
Woo hoo!!!
iPad Mini for the summer!!!
http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/tablets/new-ipad-mini-rumors-orders-placed-release-date-this-summer-1076821 (http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/tablets/new-ipad-mini-rumors-orders-placed-release-date-this-summer-1076821)
;)
Go get 'em Dan! :)
What you guys fail to realize...is that I already have an iPad Mini!!! Hahahahaha!!!! Mine, all mine, my Precious! :)
I'd like everyone who's "teaming up" against Bryan that he states his case very well, and, I'm sure you all can agree, he looks TOTALLY HOT without a shirt! :)
Quote from: Bryancd on April 19, 2012, 03:22:42 PM
What you guys fail to realize...is that I already have an iPad Mini!!! Hahahahaha!!!! Mine, all mine, my Precious! :)
I'm only believing it if you post a pic with yourself holding it (shirtless - of course)! :)
...And not a Photoshopped photo Bryan! :)
:) Just to to put a bow on it, if Apple did announce a new iPad mini type device, the shares would likely respond positively thus it would be a good thing as far as I am concerned. That's the beauty of this debate, I win regardless. :) But long term I would have concerns about Apple trying to compete in a low margin, high volume market in a meaningful way, MacMini and Apple TV aren't really mass market. I think strategically long term that would not be a good move, especially since right now, that market really isn't there to compete against. Right now the tablet market is Apple's to lose. Diluting that market by competing against themselves with two different form factors of iPad doesn't seem like a direction they would take.
Quote from: Rico on April 19, 2012, 03:27:33 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 19, 2012, 03:22:42 PM
What you guys fail to realize...is that I already have an iPad Mini!!! Hahahahaha!!!! Mine, all mine, my Precious! :)
I'm only believing it if you post a pic with yourself holding it (shirtless - of course)! :)
Shirtless?! If Bryan is wrong after such a confident pitch he should reward us (perhaps that's not quite the right word for it! ;) ) with a tasteful shot holding an iPad Mini with the device being the only thing protecting the modesty of his "mini" :roflmao
But you're right Bryan, either way, you win. :)
Yupper, doesn't matter what they release or do, at least at this point, they're only going to grow stronger and more powerful than we can possibly imagine ;) People do love them some Apples. If I could travel through time all I'd have to remember is to buy Apple stock in the 80's and enjoy the rest of my life rich as Croesus
edit to add: If/when they do release an iPad mini I wouldn't be interested at all. I'll probably pick up a third gen iPad when the next model comes out and the price on those goes down. My next Apple purchase though is the iPhone 5, and I might actually wait in line for it this year...my iPhone 3GS feels so old and crusty.
I was listening to the Appslappy podcast by Scott Johnson this morning and one of his co-hosts Eileen Rivera had an interesting thing to say. When they were discussing these mini rumors Eileen said she would have bought a iPad mini over the new iPad she got due to liking the smaller form factor. For some people the current iPad is actually bigger than they want to hold and carry around. Eileen knows tech and works with Leo over on the TWIT shows. She just said she prefers the smaller size of a 7-8 inch tablet like the Kindle Fire for most of the things she uses it for. She mentioned reading books especially since she said the iPad is too big for doing that for long stretches for her. Anyway, I thought it she made some good points.
Right, while I enjoy reading books on the iPad and do it often, it's probably what I do least on it. But for the majority of my activities, like movies and ESPECIALLY reading comics, I wouldn't want a smaller screen at all. 10" is perfect. Gaming and ebooks I'd be fine with 7", but would still always prefer the full size iPad.
Maybe the iPad is much bigger than the typical paperback book, but it's lighter and thinner than a hard back. Perhaps I'm one of the few left in the world that prefer hard backs over paperbacks when available....but then, I AM an odd duck.
N=1. I have do doubt some folks might be interested in the smaller screen, that's not in question. Apple isn't looking at the iPad as an e-reader, however. It's watching video, surfing the internet, and a growing gaming content that is the direction of the portable market. As I mentioned, Amazon owns the e-reader market with the Kindle and Apple is willing to ceede that for now. Enough people, my wife included, do use the iPad as a book reader but they aren't going to directly cater to that market.
Again, I say all of these companies would love for people to have 2 or 3 tablets each. I'm reading a book at lunch on my regular Kindle right now and love using my iPad for video, comics, games, etc.
"The right tool for the right job." :)
That's where we part ways Rico. You and I are the anomolies, and I don't believe the vast majority of consumers want to buy and especially carry around more than one or two devices, one of which being their cell phone. In My backpack I've got my iPhone, iPad, and my brand spanking new PSVita because I think gaming on iPhone & iPad, with a very few exceptions, sucks mightily. There's a core group of people that feel the way we do about their love of electronic devices but I think it's a pretty small group, and most want a one fits all solution.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Sometimes giving consumers too many choices is very disruptive to a market. Apple won't likely want to break their tablet markewt into too many slices. Some may want a 7" iPad, but if one's not offered, they will buy the standard size and move on.
What do you believe you've won?
I listened to that Appslappy too but I wouldn't go as far as saying I'd prefer the 7" to the regular iPad but I don't travel with it. Now if I did I may prefer the 7" to an iPhone perhaps.
I think it's safe to say that if it happens it will sell TONS. It's Apple, it's iOS and it's well made.
Pacific Crest Securities analysts just on CNBC saying he thinks we will see an iPad mini even before an Apple branded TV. Still highy skeptical.
Sure Bryan - listen to CNBC and not us! ;)
I think I understand what is driving this. It's not that people en masse are clamoring for a smaller form factor. It's really a question of price. There's the low end market that wants a $300 iPad. The problem/question is should Apple cater to that market. By doing so they can increase revenues but at the cost of product cannibalization. Fracturing a market that right now doesn't want to be fractured per se.
I'd better register http://www.ipadmini.com (http://www.ipadmini.com)
;)
Quote from: Bryancd on May 15, 2012, 08:33:31 AM
I think I understand what is driving this. It's not that people en masse are clamoring for a smaller form factor. It's really a question of price. There's the low end market that wants a $300 iPad. The problem/question is should Apple cater to that market. By doing so they can increase revenues but at the cost of product cannibalization. Fracturing a market that right now doesn't want to be fractured per se.
On the flip side, having a lower cost model would pull others into the Apple world and allow them to use their mini purchases as leverage for needing to buy a larger unit with more storage space. I think that Apple could pretty easily sell the mini at a lost and pick up the profits within their market place. They could in theory turn the Kindle Fire's model against Amazon and still get their 30% off of everything sold.
The question to me is do they want 30% of potential purchases by lowering the entry cost, or do they want Amazon and other tablet makers to continue to increase their foothold?
They will NEVER sell a product at a loss. They are a high margin vendor, always will be.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 15, 2012, 09:30:08 AM
They will NEVER sell a product at a loss. They are a high margin vendor, always will be.
True enough. If they do come out with a mini, I'm sure that the specs in line with their current model and they could sell low cost minis and turn a profit if they aren't using the latest generation of chips and hardware. It would also position them for the release of a better unit the next year in keeping with their slight upgrades each season.
Google is about to announce a 7" tablet to compete in the $200 market against Fire and somewhat Nook. Goes well with their recent aquisition of Motorola Mobility. Like I said in that thread, Google is looking to get into the hardware business. I think this would likley make Apple less inclined to also have a 7" tablet. They own the high end and may want to conitunue to differentiate themselves and own that market.
Topeka Capital, who have a $1001 multi year price targte on Apple, say iPad mini aimed at the education market in September. I would be more inlcined to agree with them if they didn't have that price target....
Still more rumors of a Sept. 7" iPad launch today as part of the Nexus 7 introduction among analysts.
Quote from: Bryancd on June 27, 2012, 12:08:38 PM
Still more rumors of a Sept. 7" iPad launch today as part of the Nexus 7 introduction among analysts.
The Neo-Newton?
And now they are taking 8" form factor. At this point, I have to manage Apple assuming this release will happen as it's being priced favorably into the shares. If they don't announce this, that would be received as a net negative. Still suggesting an end of year release. I'm ont sure what they gain doing 8" vs. 7".
My first idea on why an 8" vs. a 7" would be so it looks just a bit bigger than a Kindle Fire or other tablets in that size range. It would make it stand out a little from the others.
Analysts Gene Munster is expecting the iPad mini to be 16GB and priced at $299.
Gene Munster at Piper Jaffrey said in their research almost 30% of respondents were interested in a smaller form factor of the iPad, skewing heavily towards women. Boy, I got that demand side wrong. That's much more then I thought it would be. He anticipated a smaller iPad capturing 30% of the current smaller android tablet market with only 10% cannibalization of current iPad sales. that will be the real issue, how many people go for the lower price point and how it effect earnings.
Ok...I have to do it.... Told you so! :)
Quote from: Rico on July 10, 2012, 08:25:50 AM
Ok...I have to do it.... Told you so! :)
You did. :)
Maybe out in October...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2408709,00.asp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2408709,00.asp)
Quote from: Bryancd on July 09, 2012, 07:11:35 AM
Analysts Gene Munster is expecting the iPad mini to be 16GB and priced at $299.
That thing is going to fly off the shelves if this is correct.
Love your new avatar pic Joby!
If the mini is priced correctly I will be buying one for my studio. It will be one of my music production tools.
Quote from: Bryancd on August 21, 2012, 08:46:23 AM
Love your new avatar pic Joby!
thank you brother, can't wait to see yours :)
Sounds like the Mini name might be for real. Sometimes I think companies just toss a rumor out there to see how people like it.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500724-37/apples-7-inch-tablet-will-be-named-ipad-mini-says-report/ (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500724-37/apples-7-inch-tablet-will-be-named-ipad-mini-says-report/)
Pictures of the back of the Mini (at least that's the guess right now).
http://www.macgasm.net/2012/09/06/new-images-show-alleged-ipad-mini-rear-shell/ (http://www.macgasm.net/2012/09/06/new-images-show-alleged-ipad-mini-rear-shell/)
I'm skeptical about that, it looks quite clunky, underdesigned and overly thick for an Apple product.
Quote from: billybob476 on September 06, 2012, 08:40:29 AM
I'm skeptical about that, it looks quite clunky, underdesigned and overly thick for an Apple product.
You think so? Looks about the same thickness as the current iPad to me. Did you check out the other pics at the link? The question is, will the mini be a retina display?
I'd be amazed if it wasn't considering the phone is.
lmao @ Macgasm. What a horrible name for a website!
Quote from: Jobydrone on September 06, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
lmao @ Macgasm. What a horrible name for a website!
Yeah, there are a lot of Apple fanboy blogs like that. Cult of Mac, Macgasm, etc and so forth.
I'm curious why someone with a pre-2008 think pad has an iPAD mini
Quote from: X on September 06, 2012, 04:43:25 PM
I'm curious why someone with a pre-2008 think pad has an iPAD mini
hahahaha! I see it. We have a few of those at my workplace. I have no clue, but to me, it doesn't look legit. I'd like someone to actually show pictures of it turned on, then maybe I'll believe them.
Quote from: X on September 06, 2012, 04:43:25 PM
I'm curious why someone with a pre-2008 think pad has an iPAD mini
Maybe he realizes it's time to finally upgrade. :)
Really looking pretty real now...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443635404578033684191275730.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443635404578033684191275730.html)
The words 'lower resilution' in that article worried me. If they mean a smaller screen will have less pixels overall them that's fine (and they should have used better language) but I'd it actually is a lower resolution screen (i.e. fewer pixels for a given unit of measurement then I think some people will be put off.
Surely they're not going for a 'less than retina' experience?
There have been rumblings that the mini will be a lower hardware spec in many ways in comparison to the regular iPad.
This does make sense for Apple to be able to squeeze thus product into the narrow pricing windows they now have between the iPad and the touch.
Also, they save the retna display for the 2 or 3 version
I suppose so.
Interesting, but probably not for me then.
I am not still not clear what this 7" market is but I am sure they will sell a zillion of them.
Quote from: Bryancd on October 06, 2012, 02:53:39 PM
I am not still not clear what this 7" market is but I am sure they will sell a zillion of them.
Yeah, at this point in time you'd be crazy to doubt it since whatever they make, they sell. :)
It's going to be very interesting to see what they are able to cram into is thing if they decide to compete on price with the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD etc. if they don't then most likely it will be priced at around the iPod touch price which has interested some pundits. Some are saying that it would be ludicrous and other say that the market for an iPad mini is different to that of an iPod touch so consumers will pay $299 for it.
Interesting times! :)
Size is an important factor. An iPod touch or iPhone can slip in your pocket. The current iPad is really too big for many people to drag around to many places - unless they are using it basically as their laptop. A 7-8" form factor will slip in a purse, a lunch tote, etc. I take my Kindle to work to read at lunch because it will slip into my lunch bag, but the iPad is too big for that. Anyway like I have said before I see people in the future having many of these devices around of different sizes - just like Captain Picard.
I think he should turn them off when he's not using them :)
Size is a factor but the other consideration is how does going smaller effect the visual experience for the user. People seem well adapted to using a phone for browsing and media consumption but the experience is lacking. That's why Steve Jobs was so adamant about 9" for the iPad being the sweet spot where the visual experience is the best while portability is still very manageable. This slots into a bit of a nether world for me as a user. But as I said, I don't look at my N=1 experience to dictate my world view on products like this. Clearly there is a market or an opportunity for Apple to be a disruptive force within this 7" form factor market, that could also be part of the goal.
Screen size: It had to be smaller, but not too small, etc. iPad 2: 9.7″ diagnoal, iPad Mini, 7.9″. Both have same pixel count. So all software created for iPad already works on Mini
Compares iPdd mini side-by-side to Google's Nexus 7, without calling it out by name.
Apple's display is bigger – 7.9″ to 7″. That's 29.6 square inches compared to 21.9. 35% larger. "That's a huge difference"
Yeah, 1024 x 768 is the resolution for 'non retina' iPads.
Hmm..$329 starting for the 16GB. Wish they had brought it in for $299.
Quote from: Bryancd on October 23, 2012, 11:07:16 AM
Hmm..$329 starting for the 16GB. Wish they had brought it in for $299.
I agree. It's only 30 bucks, but being under 300 seems to be easier to sell.
It actually can also push people up to the ipad 2 which is selling for $399
Yeah, not a great idea. I don't think this will be as successful as they want.
It will sell very well. I'm starting to think Apple are putting this out to prove they can sell anything at any price these days. ;)
In terms of the actual hardware it's nothing spectacular (for the price). I think I'd rather spend a bit more and get the iPad 2.
Well, remains to be seen what the consumer reaction will be. I'm sure they will sell a ton it's just an issue of cross canabalization of products that make coming up with numbers difficult to project. They did sell their 100 millionth iPad already. That's something. 92% of all web tablet traffic is from an iPad.
Quote from: Bryancd on October 23, 2012, 11:31:47 AM
Well, remains to be seen what the consumer reaction will be. I'm sure they will sell a ton it's just an issue of cross canabalization of products that make coming up with numbers difficult to project. They did sell their 100 millionth iPad already. That's something. 92% of all web tablet traffic is from an iPad.
how many of those people do you think will be pissed that their New iPAD was new for less than a year?
Some, but that has never stopped people from shilling out more for the latest and greatest!
Quote from: X on October 23, 2012, 11:33:36 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on October 23, 2012, 11:31:47 AM
Well, remains to be seen what the consumer reaction will be. I'm sure they will sell a ton it's just an issue of cross canabalization of products that make coming up with numbers difficult to project. They did sell their 100 millionth iPad already. That's something. 92% of all web tablet traffic is from an iPad.
how many of those people do you think will be pissed that their New iPAD was new for less than a year?
I've seen or on twitter already and it was an "Apple" guy.
It was a strange move if you ask me. Does this mean that they are moving the release cycle for iPads to next October or will we get a new New iPad in 6 months?
First I've read about any of this. Initial reaction - price is too high.
Initial reaction is too expensive for what it provides. More comments when I'm back home.
When the iPad was released and priced, there were all sorts of wailing around here about the price being too high, which I summarily dismissed and correctly pointed out it was perfectly priced. History and 100 million iPads later has proven me correct. Now I am saying this is priced too high, not by a lot, but a $299 number would have really hit it out of the park and provide a solid $100 price differential to the iPad2 which is still for sale. Now, the iPad2 is likely not long for this world based on todays new iPad processor upgrade so the product line will be more in line price wise once it's retired. However a $2XX number would really resonate with consumers and pull up bargain shoppers looking at the competing tablets.
Bryan, you can't go back in time - well at least not yet. There is A LOT more competition in the tablet market these days - and in this size range too. I think Apple boxed themselves in a bit on the price due to the current price of the iPod touch. What they should have done was dropped the Touch price some so they could price the Mini at $299 - or even a little less. The Nexus 7 and the Kindle Fire HD version are both very nice products and significantly less in price than the Mini. In my view they should have gone for the one-two punch of size and price both. Based on all this, I'd just buy a $199 mini tablet from someone else to go with my iPad.
When this fails and it will after you look at the kindle price point with better stuff and slightly larger screen, you are going to hear how jobs was right, but the price point here is just wrong. They painted themselves in a corner because of the touch, but they could have fixed the price issues with the cell version. They just gave reason on why people should get the 8.9 fire hd.
Apple just endorsed the small form and didn't bring their A game.
Did I mention that the 32 gb nexus are only 249.99? I don't even know when they go on sale and most sites list them as rumors, but I've held one in my hands.
wow, so many things to think about here. I was hoping for a bit less on the mini as I wanted one. BUT.. now with the Ipad 4 being so fast, I may have to save up my pennies for that.. of course am I going to regret it in six months? LOL. Such awesome machines...
Nice article here comparing the current three, main "mini" tablets.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411313,00.asp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411313,00.asp)
Ridiculous price for the ipad mini, i was thinking of getting one but not at this price.
Sorry Bryan, I've got to side with Rico on this. I am disappointed in Apple for their price point on this. Really. Yes, I think a lot of people will buy but I just think it's too high for something smaller. Plus I'm pretty pissed at Apple for the new iMacs. I'm not sure WHY they removed the Superdrive. A truly stupid move if you ask me. So now they're telling me that if I want to watch a movie, burn a photo CD, burn a DVD, etc, I now have to pay MORE?! STUPID. When they first announced they were retooling the iMacs, and leaving them at the same price point I was excited. But...removing something, and NOT adding anything? Not even Retina Display? POOH. Poor form Apple!!
I'm sorry, reading comprehension has failed you guys! :) I said it was priced too high.
"Now I am saying this is priced too high, not by a lot, but a $299 number would have really hit it out of the park and provide a solid $100 price differential to the iPad2 which is still for sale."
I AM SAYING THIS IS PRICED TOO HIGH. :old_bash:
Quote from: Bryancd on October 25, 2012, 07:59:20 PM
I'm sorry, reading comprehension has failed you guys! :) I said it was priced too high.
"Now I am saying this is priced too high, not by a lot, but a $299 number would have really hit it out of the park and provide a solid $100 price differential to the iPad2 which is still for sale."
I AM SAYING THIS IS PRICED TOO HIGH. :old_bash:
I have to agree. All Apple products cost too much. I would have bought a mac pro long ago if it just wasn't priced so high. I can get multiple Windows systems for the price of one mac pro. Don't get me wrong, I used a top of the line macpro at work and can run 2 VMs in it at the same time (Win XP and Ubuntu) and loved it. But for the machine to be over $3k, whew! I can get a whole lot of hardware for that amount....
Bryan....I just got back from vacation. Reading comp isn't where it should be I guess. My apologies.
Coda, yes Apple products are priced high but in general you get superior products. How many Windows machines can you say still function extremely well 3,4 even 8+ years after purchase? I say none. But for me, Apple has begun a slight downward turn of late. Like the are trying to nickel and dime us now.
Quote from: QuadShot on October 25, 2012, 06:55:26 PM
Sorry Bryan, I've got to side with Rico on this. I am disappointed in Apple for their price point on this. Really. Yes, I think a lot of people will buy but I just think it's too high for something smaller. Plus I'm pretty pissed at Apple for the new iMacs. I'm not sure WHY they removed the Superdrive. A truly stupid move if you ask me. So now they're telling me that if I want to watch a movie, burn a photo CD, burn a DVD, etc, I now have to pay MORE?! STUPID. When they first announced they were retooling the iMacs, and leaving them at the same price point I was excited. But...removing something, and NOT adding anything? Not even Retina Display? POOH. Poor form Apple!!
Apple is pushing the all-digital, wireless frontier heavily. They have been for the past several years. No discs, no wires, nothing, they want it out. Take a look at the Macbook Air, iPad and etc. Its been coming for a long while. It is interesting that they are removing it now, but not surprising. Though I pretty much never use a disc anymore, so losing a disc drive doesn't bother me much. But I understand that plenty of people do so removing it seems like a bad idea to me...
What does bother me is that the new Macbook Pros don't come with Ethernet. Idk if Apple has noticed lately, but wireless connections still pale in comparison to the stability, reliability and speed of ethernet connections. While I get that Macbooks aren't as likely to use wired connections when on the go, I'm sure many people still connect them to an ethernet connection when they get home. So not having Ethernet as a connection type would be a deal breaker if I was looking at getting a new laptop.
Watched the presentation of the new iMac.
Apple have always been very style conscious and to me their products are comparible with the designer clothes industry in many ways, very good quality going slightly overboard with the frills, and you pay a premium.
These iMacs jump the shark a little for me. If yes they are thin and look great but this doesn't actually save you any space on a desktop. A little bit of smoke and mirrors I think. Also as with many style emphasised products, practicality takes a back seat. The SD card slot is on the back of the machine etc...
It may be obvious but I don't buy designer clothes ;)
To me a desktop PC needs to be a big box to be useful. Something I can upgrade and be user serviceable. These style features are more suited to laptop devices really. Apple say there will be a new Mac Pro next year but it looks likely that after that they will be retiring the big box and abandoning the professional content creators that kept their business going for many years before they became mainstream. A real shame.
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on October 25, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
Quote from: QuadShot on October 25, 2012, 06:55:26 PM
Sorry Bryan, I've got to side with Rico on this. I am disappointed in Apple for their price point on this. Really. Yes, I think a lot of people will buy but I just think it's too high for something smaller. Plus I'm pretty pissed at Apple for the new iMacs. I'm not sure WHY they removed the Superdrive. A truly stupid move if you ask me. So now they're telling me that if I want to watch a movie, burn a photo CD, burn a DVD, etc, I now have to pay MORE?! STUPID. When they first announced they were retooling the iMacs, and leaving them at the same price point I was excited. But...removing something, and NOT adding anything? Not even Retina Display? POOH. Poor form Apple!!
Apple is pushing the all-digital, wireless frontier heavily. They have been for the past several years. No discs, no wires, nothing, they want it out. Take a look at the Macbook Air, iPad and etc. Its been coming for a long while. It is interesting that they are removing it now, but not surprising. Though I pretty much never use a disc anymore, so losing a disc drive doesn't bother me much. But I understand that plenty of people do so removing it seems like a bad idea to me...
What does bother me is that the new Macbook Pros don't come with Ethernet. Idk if Apple has noticed lately, but wireless connections still pale in comparison to the stability, reliability and speed of ethernet connections. While I get that Macbooks aren't as likely to use wired connections when on the go, I'm sure many people still connect them to an ethernet connection when they get home. So not having Ethernet as a connection type would be a deal breaker if I was looking at getting a new laptop.
The other thing to point out here is this is Apple's historical behaviour. Remember, they were the first to remove floppy drives from the original iMac. People (myself included) reacted badly then, now no PC of any type ships with a floppy drive. That time they were right (albeit ahead of the curve), they are also likely right this time, but I guess we'll see.
Good point Joe but there is a huge difference to between a floppy disk and optical media and the reasoning behind removing them is totally different too.
The floppy was removed because superior storage mediums with greater capacity began to appear which made it obsolete. Optical media is also used for storage and is still being worked to increase capacity. It is also the bridging medium with consumer media (CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray) and it is this that Apple don't want you to watch / listen on your Mac as they want people to use iTunes.
I'm probably one of the people on this forum who rarely use physical media. I have all my movies and music on hard drives and they are networked to all my devices for playback. I still need a physical media reader to get them there so even if you are a bit like me there will always be the need for physical media devices on computers.
Quote from: Bryancd on October 25, 2012, 07:59:20 PM
I'm sorry, reading comprehension has failed you guys! :) I said it was priced too high.
"Now I am saying this is priced too high, not by a lot, but a $299 number would have really hit it out of the park and provide a solid $100 price differential to the iPad2 which is still for sale."
I AM SAYING THIS IS PRICED TOO HIGH. :old_bash:
I know what you said Bryan and I agreed with you. Hell everyone is pretty much agreed on this one. I think the others are just shocked that you agreed or scared that jamie posted under your name on accident.
Yeah, but the floppy, for all it's greatness was not as useful as a DVD or CD. I could never go to the store and purchase a movie on floppy. And DVD's and CD's are still in mass production. It's not like they can single handedly stop people from watching DVD's right away, or from wanting to burn discs. What about those who rely on their machines to produce DVD's or like, in our case, musical photo slide shows for customers from time to time? Apple pretty much is telling me that I either have to keep my old iMac, or purchase an additional add-on for a new iMac. And isn't the crap of purchasing something else what's pissing people off about the new iPhone? The whole power/sync cable?
Quote from: QuadShot on October 26, 2012, 08:32:46 AM
Yeah, but the floppy, for all it's greatness was not as useful as a DVD or CD. I could never go to the store and purchase a movie on floppy. And DVD's and CD's are still in mass production. It's not like they can single handedly stop people from watching DVD's right away, or from wanting to burn discs. What about those who rely on their machines to produce DVD's or like, in our case, musical photo slide shows for customers from time to time? Apple pretty much is telling me that I either have to keep my old iMac, or purchase an additional add-on for a new iMac. And isn't the crap of purchasing something else what's pissing people off about the new iPhone? The whole power/sync cable?
At the end of the day, Apple products aren't for people that want to customize their systems and tweak their things. It's so everyone can have the same experience. If you see something you like on another iDevice like yours, you can get it too. It's designed so that everyone that gets it can be the same as everyone else, even if they think it makes them stand out.
When I buy any stock PC system, I gut it and add a heavier power supply and setup for a more powerful video card. All still coming in under the price of a mac that does less.
here is the thing I am seeing. Most people are happy being part of the herd if they can still think that they are some how special. Apple lets the common and the tech illiterate feel like they are special and part of something. Even if the tech behind it isn't a good as it could be.
Apple products are magic boxes that you take as is. The stuff that they don't include is stuff that most common folk that don't know the difference between ram and rom would ever use.
Quote from: X on October 26, 2012, 09:16:13 AM
At the end of the day, Apple products aren't for people that want to customize their systems and tweak their things. It's so everyone can have the same experience. If you see something you like on another iDevice like yours, you can get it too. It's designed so that everyone that gets it can be the same as everyone else, even if they think it makes them stand out.
When I buy any stock PC system, I gut it and add a heavier power supply and setup for a more powerful video card. All still coming in under the price of a mac that does less.
here is the thing I am seeing. Most people are happy being part of the herd if they can still think that they are some how special. Apple lets the common and the tech illiterate feel like they are special and part of something. Even if the tech behind it isn't a good as it could be.
Apple products are magic boxes that you take as is. The stuff that they don't include is stuff that most common folk that don't know the difference between ram and rom would ever use.
Wow, parts of this are spot on and other parts are insufferably condescending. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.
LOL! I didn't mean to be condescending, but I think that Apple is good at what they do, but for me looking from the outside in, it looks like they dumb things down to my perspective.
I think that Apple is great for what they do, but it's just not for me. Many people don't care how something works as long as it works. I like knowing the ins and outs. I like knowing how to fix my breaks or skin a deer even if I choose to pay for the job or go grocery shopping.
Apple dumbing things down? Never! ;)
ordered the black 32GB...
Quote from: MARKO on October 26, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
ordered the black 32GB...
Awesome, when do you get it? I mean..."Moooo...."
Quote from: QuadShot on October 25, 2012, 10:42:24 PM
Bryan....I just got back from vacation. Reading comp isn't where it should be I guess. My apologies.
Coda, yes Apple products are priced high but in general you get superior products. How many Windows machines can you say still function extremely well 3,4 even 8+ years after purchase? I say none. But for me, Apple has begun a slight downward turn of late. Like the are trying to nickel and dime us now.
Hi Quadshot!
Thanks for your insight, but um, I ran Windows XP ever since it's inception until last year. I have a Dell Inspiron 8000 from about 2001 that I'm still using with Ubuntu. I've had my current quad core machine for about 5 years now, and it's still running great on Windows 7. I've never seen a mac run for longer than 3-4 years let alone 8+ years. And also, for that high of a price of a machine, they'd BETTER run at least that long!
I used a macpro at work that was on 24/7 and it worked fine for a little more than a year and it died. Don't know what hardware failed, but they weren't the hard drives. I swapped out the drives to a new machine and worked fine for the next two years. I don't doubt the build quality of the machine, but for that price, I could get 2-3 PCs with constant upgrades to the latest and greatest for the cost and lifespan of ONE mac machine. And with Apple always changing their tech, your mac will be obsolete in 2 years, unfortunately.
Of course, if I won the lottery, I would have all the Apple products in my house.... ;D
I would agree with that with Apple you get superior products overall taking into account the design and finish and that fact that controlling what hardware officially runs on your OS helps keep your software stable. In terms of hardware like for like Apple can be extremely overpriced but most people who make that argument don't factor in the above mentioned benefits that you are paying for.
I've built hackintoshes out of 4 year old PC hardware that ran OS X fast and great but in the end you have to keep an eye on compatibility and believe me it will kernel panic as fast as XP in that situation! :)
Yeah, I have to agree with Coda about the life of Windows PCs. As much as I've ragged on them for having their...problems...my parent's XP machine is still running after 8+ years of service. And we had a Windows 95 machine still running until last year when we got rid of it. And yeah, that machine would still turn on and function like it always did.
I can't really say how long Mac machines run, as I don't know anyone who has kept a Mac for that many years. But I've seen plenty of Windows machines that run for years beyond what I consider possible. Now, Laptops, those machines do not last nearly so long. You'll be lucky to get 5 years out of them, on both Windows and Mac. They just don't hold up.
Granted, Machines that are that old can't do the tasks that modern machines can so you'll need to upgrade or get a new one sooner or later.
Part of the problem with Apple computers and laptops in general is that there aren't designed to be user serviceable and so give the impression that the don't last as long. This may be true but for traditional pcs it is a lot easier to replace components yourself so if your graphics card, ram, hard drive pack in you can keep the machine going for a lot longer. Also upgrades are easier.
The fact that traditional pcs are big boxes helps too. iMacs and mac books are packed in tight for style which isn't great for component lifespan.
OMG this is so funny - and so true!
Banned iPad mini Promo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os87PLlyU4k#ws)
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
That was hilarious Rico! What makes it so funny is it's truth.
Kevin
awesome video... had me laughing!
Hehehe, yeah that got a few chuckles out of me.
My iPAD mini has arrived..... its very mini and light, loving it.
Cool! Let us know what you think after using it for awhile.
Quote from: Dangelus on October 28, 2012, 12:29:58 PM
Part of the problem with Apple computers and laptops in general is that there aren't designed to be user serviceable and so give the impression that the don't last as long. This may be true but for traditional pcs it is a lot easier to replace components yourself so if your graphics card, ram, hard drive pack in you can keep the machine going for a lot longer. Also upgrades are easier.
The fact that traditional pcs are big boxes helps too. iMacs and mac books are packed in tight for style which isn't great for component lifespan.
I heard from somewhere that Apple makes their products disposable so their customers will be forced to buy newer and better ones. ie...ipod batteries lifespan is supposed to be two years. I got lucky with my 1st gen nano when I sent it back in due to a recall and got the 6th gen nano. If I had waited a few months, I could have gotten the 7th gen nano instead.
Quote from: Coda on November 02, 2012, 04:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on October 28, 2012, 12:29:58 PM
Part of the problem with Apple computers and laptops in general is that there aren't designed to be user serviceable and so give the impression that the don't last as long. This may be true but for traditional pcs it is a lot easier to replace components yourself so if your graphics card, ram, hard drive pack in you can keep the machine going for a lot longer. Also upgrades are easier.
The fact that traditional pcs are big boxes helps too. iMacs and mac books are packed in tight for style which isn't great for component lifespan.
I heard from somewhere that Apple makes their products disposable so their customers will be forced to buy newer and better ones. ie...ipod batteries lifespan is supposed to be two years. I got lucky with my 1st gen nano when I sent it back in due to a recall and got the 6th gen nano. If I had waited a few months, I could have gotten the 7th gen nano instead.
That rumor goes around for more companies than just Apple, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on November 02, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
Quote from: Coda on November 02, 2012, 04:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on October 28, 2012, 12:29:58 PM
Part of the problem with Apple computers and laptops in general is that there aren't designed to be user serviceable and so give the impression that the don't last as long. This may be true but for traditional pcs it is a lot easier to replace components yourself so if your graphics card, ram, hard drive pack in you can keep the machine going for a lot longer. Also upgrades are easier.
The fact that traditional pcs are big boxes helps too. iMacs and mac books are packed in tight for style which isn't great for component lifespan.
I heard from somewhere that Apple makes their products disposable so their customers will be forced to buy newer and better ones. ie...ipod batteries lifespan is supposed to be two years. I got lucky with my 1st gen nano when I sent it back in due to a recall and got the 6th gen nano. If I had waited a few months, I could have gotten the 7th gen nano instead.
That rumor goes around for more companies than just Apple, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Business 101 for you guys. Companies will weight the cost/benefits of spending the money for the development and higher production costs and size considerations for longer lasting products vs. the need to get product into peoples hands. It's really academic, it's not personal.
I wouldn't say Apple are products are "disposal" in the same sense as other products. They are great quality so if you treat them right they can last a long time. My 3GS is still knocking around and working great. Where Apple get you a little more than some other companies is that a lot of the time you can service their products or they are extremely hard to get into without industrial tools. They make great money when you have to send your phone for a new battery fitting as opposed to having a removal battery for example.
There's something called "planned obsolescence" which has been happening about as long as mass production has been occurring. It's an important way companies stay in business, by accounting for, (and sometimes engineering) the failure rate of a product so customers keep coming back to buy again and again.
There's definitely a reason why the iPad battery is so difficult/expensive to replace...they want you to buy a whole new device, not replace the battery.
My iPod 160g classic just took a dump after 3 years...it's funny, I said "Well, I had for a long time..." but since when is 3 years a long time? We are programmed to think that way tech wise. As far as being upset that Apple keeps putting out new stuff, that's an issue for people who MUST have the brand new thing and are pissed that they spent over a grand in the same year on similar products.
That's the thing I'm starting to have trouble with. Why do people get so upset when Apple puts out a new device? No one gets upset when Dell releases a computer with a 2.8 Ghz processor and then 2 months later releases the same machine with a 3.0 Ghz processor. Why should Apple be any different? No one is forcing people to upgrade. I have an iPhone 4 and an iPad 2. They both work fine for me. When one of them stops working fine for me, I will upgrade.
Frankly, I'm impressed that Apple has been able to create the incredibly artificial need for people to upgrade their devices just because a new version comes out. People don't even consider whether or not their current setup suitably meets their needs, they just run to the store because the new one is "better".
Quote from: billybob476 on November 03, 2012, 06:28:37 AM
That's the thing I'm starting to have trouble with. Why do people get so upset when Apple puts out a new device? No one gets upset when Dell releases a computer with a 2.8 Ghz processor and then 2 months later releases the same machine with a 3.0 Ghz processor. Why should Apple be any different? No one is forcing people to upgrade. I have an iPhone 4 and an iPad 2. They both work fine for me. When one of them stops working fine for me, I will upgrade.
Frankly, I'm impressed that Apple has been able to create the incredibly artificial need for people to upgrade their devices just because a new version comes out. People don't even consider whether or not their current setup suitably meets their needs, they just run to the store because the new one is "better".
Spot on Joe.
Quote from: Jobydrone on November 03, 2012, 05:23:02 AM
There's something called "planned obsolescence" which has been happening about as long as mass production has been occurring. It's an important way companies stay in business, by accounting for, (and sometimes engineering) the failure rate of a product so customers keep coming back to buy again and again.
There's definitely a reason why the iPad battery is so difficult/expensive to replace...they want you to buy a whole new device, not replace the battery.
There is a curious downside to that which our economists do not mention. How much do consumers lose on the depreciation of all of the junk every year? Somehow that statistic has disappeared into space for the last 50 years.
Economics is Science Fiction.
http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html (http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html)
psik
My Google Nexus 7 barely fits into some pants pockets. The miniPad should be too wide. And has lower resolution.
I liked this full review of the MiniPad (I prefer this name, reminds me of MaxiPad)
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/the-skinny-on-the-mini-its-not-the-size-that-counts/ (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/the-skinny-on-the-mini-its-not-the-size-that-counts/)
For the TL/DR crowd, this part was most interesting to me:
"I didn't really want to like the iPad mini as much as I did before I reviewed it for several days. I didn't want to dislike it, but as a third-gen iPad owner, I couldn't see the iPad mini having any purpose in my life. But as I began to wrap up this review and laid off on my requirement to use the iPad mini over my iPad 3 at all times, something changed. I found myself voluntarily reaching for the iPad mini over my full-sized iPad when it came time to relax on the couch or read in bed.
I can't help but feel like my preference for the mini when entering into "iPad mode" is almost entirely due to its Kindle-like shape and weight. It's just that much easier to hold and carry around. Picking up my third-gen iPad feels like lead after spending days on end with the mini. And the iPad mini's screen isn't actually that mini—the experience is largely the same."
I love mine and i have the iPAD 1 & 3 best iPAD ever so small and thin as for the screen come on now there is nothing wrong with it all all.
iPad mini 2 already in the works. Those interested might as well wait for this one in 6 months ;)
http://on.mash.to/TLmkef (http://on.mash.to/TLmkef)