Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPad

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 30, 2013, 06:46 AM   #26
WilliamLondon
macrumors 68000
 
WilliamLondon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitzuki View Post
Processor? A5x A6 A6x ect
What benefit would that provide the end user? How motivated will this make current users regarding an upgrade? If the apps I run on the machine now run perfectly, why would I think this is interesting? Just curious. I'm not saying they won't upgrade the chip, but it seems completely unnecessary if it's the only thing that gets changed.
WilliamLondon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 07:02 AM   #27
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jman13 View Post

I see no reason for the bigger iPad to have any more features aside from its size. Why should the larger one be necessarily more powerful or capable?
the laws of thermodynamics


bigger = easier to fit more power and power consumption into.

more processing = more power consumption
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 07:24 AM   #28
kitzuki
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamLondon View Post
What benefit would that provide the end user? How motivated will this make current users regarding an upgrade? If the apps I run on the machine now run perfectly, why would I think this is interesting? Just curious. I'm not saying they won't upgrade the chip, but it seems completely unnecessary if it's the only thing that gets changed.
You havent paid attention to any Ipad or Apple Releases. End users will get the Higher priced item not cheapest. If you look back 3 years of ipads iphone macbook 13s you would know this already. Anyway im done it going to get off topic.
kitzuki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 07:43 AM   #29
WilliamLondon
macrumors 68000
 
WilliamLondon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitzuki View Post
You havent paid attention to any Ipad or Apple Releases. End users will get the Higher priced item not cheapest. If you look back 3 years of ipads iphone macbook 13s you would know this already. Anyway im done it going to get off topic.
Are you kidding? You know nothing about me and yet still determined I don't pay any attention to iPad or Apple releases? Check out how long I've been a MacRumors member and then think again about your ridiculous conclusion (and my start date was after years of simply lurking on here daily).

You've taken this from a nice (and respectful) conversation into a silly direction for no reason.

I believe an upgraded chip is not enough to warrant upgrading a product that doesn't need it, and I simply asked why you thought it was or what else you thought might be incorporated into any revision. Good luck in your future conversations on this site - you're going to be a hit if you keep up that attitude.
WilliamLondon is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:12 PM   #30
kitzuki
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamLondon View Post
Are you kidding? You know nothing about me and yet still determined I don't pay any attention to iPad or Apple releases? Check out how long I've been a MacRumors member and then think again about your ridiculous conclusion (and my start date was after years of simply lurking on here daily).

You've taken this from a nice (and respectful) conversation into a silly direction for no reason.

I believe an upgraded chip is not enough to warrant upgrading a product that doesn't need it, and I simply asked why you thought it was or what else you thought might be incorporated into any revision. Good luck in your future conversations on this site - you're going to be a hit if you keep up that attitude.

OK since you are determined to do this let start all devices put out by apple at lower cost.

Macbook

Rev. A May 2006 Intel Core Duo at 1.83 GHz 13.3" glossy widescreen TFT - 1280x800 resolution

Rev. B November Intel Core 2 Duo at 1.83 GHz 13.3" glossy widescreen TFT - 1280x800 resolution

Rev. C May 2007 Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.0 GHz 13.3" glossy widescreen TFT - 1280x800 resolution

Rev. E Feb 2008 Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.1 GHz 13.3" glossy widescreen TFT - 1280x800 resolution

Rev. G June 2009 Intel Core 2 Duo 2.26GHz with 3MB L2 Cache Upgraded Display LED Backlit 13" - 1280x800 resolution

Rev. J Oct 2013 Intel Core i5 Dual Core 2.5GHz 3MB L3 Cache LED-backlit glossy 13.3" - 1280x800 resolution



Ipad 1GHz Apple A4 custom-designed, high-performance, low-power system-on-a-chip 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)

Ipad 2 Dual-core A5 1024-by-768 resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)

Ipad 3 Apple A5X 2048-by-1536 resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)

Ipad 4 Dual-core A6 2048-by-1536 resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)

Must I continue? Notice a Pattern?
You ask me a question, I answered it. I don't care about look how long I've been there arguments. If you've learned the wrong way solve something been using it for 10 years doesn't make you better than a person learning it the right way and applying it for 6 months.

Stop being so sensitive its the god forsaking internet Grow some skin. Also I'll take any luck so thanks.
kitzuki is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:34 PM   #31
WilliamLondon
macrumors 68000
 
WilliamLondon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitzuki View Post
Stop being so sensitive its the god forsaking internet Grow some skin. Also I'll take any luck so thanks.
You really are incredible - you completely fail to answer my question (over and over and over again, you still haven't answered my question despite what you think - perhaps you didn't understand it?), which was a respectful question (I don't disagree with you that retina may not be in this next release) and was merely enquiring what you thought might be included as well as a spec bump. You are the one that took offence and became immediately defensive and then offensive, you are the one that needs to as you say, "grow some skin" ffs.

Get over yourself and do it quickly and drop the arrogant offensive routine.
WilliamLondon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:40 PM   #32
kitzuki
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamLondon View Post
You really are incredible - you completely fail to answer my question (over and over and over again, you still haven't answered my question despite what you think - perhaps you didn't understand it?), which was a respectful question (I don't disagree with you that retina may not be in this next release) and was merely enquiring what you thought might be included as well as a spec bump. You are the one that took offence and became immediately defensive and then offensive, you are the one that needs to as you say, "grow some skin" ffs.

Get over yourself and do it quickly and drop the arrogant offensive routine.
LOL ok buddy
kitzuki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:47 PM   #33
PalacePlayers
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
I could bet both my kidneys on this never going to happen. Keywords: fragmentation and App selection.

Never going to happen OP, sorry.
__________________
 MacBook Pro with Retina 512 GB, 2.6 GHz, 16 GB RAM /  iPad Air 128 GB /  iPhone 5 64 GB
PalacePlayers is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 03:13 PM   #34
Awakener
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
It's another stupid feature no one needs. How about improving the battery first?
Awakener is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 04:13 PM   #35
D.T.
macrumors 68030
 
D.T.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vilano Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitzuki View Post
Why would apple release something better at a lower price?

They wouldn't, however, like has happened historically with iOS devices, they might very replace a device at the same price point, then reduce the price of the replaced item.

Example: iPad 3 16GB at $499, replaces iPad 2 which is then sold for $399

Maybe in this case it goes <both> ways: iPad Mini Retina is introduced at $399, iPad Mini sold for $299.

I don't think there's anything from a marketing perspective that would stop Apple from releasing a retina (2048x1536) model Mini, it's purely technical (and specifically power consumption/battery life vs. size/heat).
__________________
"I am not in danger, Skyler. I am the danger. A guy opens his door and gets shot, and you think that of me? No, I am the one who knocks." ~Walter White
D.T. is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 07:32 PM   #36
thehumorpolice
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Deleted.
thehumorpolice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 07:52 PM   #37
haruhiko
macrumors 68030
 
haruhiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by leukotriene View Post
Why It Would Make Sense if Apple Increased the 9.7" iPad to 326 ppi

If Apple were to raise the resolution of the 9.7" iPad to 2530 x 1897, this would yield a 326ppi display.

I know you're probably asking why Apple would do this. I believe it would independently solve three problems (I will address the developers-don't-like-extra-resolutions problem below):
  1. Simultaneous-view app multitasking, a common complaint about the iPad. The higher resolution would allow for an app to be run in a "skinny" mode simultaneously next to a second standard-sized iPad app. This would be similar (but probably implemented differently) to Windows 8 "snapping" where an app can be snapped to the side. For example, an iPad app developer would develop a "skinny" companion app (to accompany their normal-sized iPad app) which could be docked to the left of a "standard" sized iPad app. You could have a skinny-view Tweetbot running to the left of normal-view Safari, for example. Alternatively, the extra real estate could be used for a different multitasking system that Apple could uniquely design. I'm not 100% sold that Microsoft's "app snapping" UI is the absolute best form of multitasking, but I think most of us agree that the iPad would benefit from the ability to view two apps simultaneously when needed. iOS 7 would be a great opportunity enhance high-productivity computing.

  2. Product differentiation from the iPad mini. When the iPad mini becomes retina at 2048x1536, it will be the same resolution as the iPad 4, at an even higher pixel density. Let that sink in for a moment: the iPad mini will have a superior display in terms of pixel density, yet will be priced lower. This could create a perception problem for the full-sized iPad.

    However, raising the 9.7" iPad to 326ppi will eliminate the argument that the retina iPad mini has a better screen, and will also introduce a "pro" feature you can't get on the iPad mini: simultaneous-view app multitasking. Fast-forward to a year from now when both the full-sized iPad and the iPad mini come with retina screens. I imagine that very few customers would opt for the full-sized iPad if it provided no easily-recognizable benefits over the iPad mini.

    I don't share the view that Apple will eventually eliminate the 9.7" iPad in favor of the iPad mini. I believe the 9.7" iPad will instead be upgraded to function more as a computer replacement (by having several apps running simultaneously in view), justifying it's higher price, higher computing power, and larger size.

  3. Economies of scale and maintaining iPad gross margins. By raising the 9.7" iPad to 326ppi, the manufacturing costs would be lowered since the displays can be cut from the same sheet used for retina iPhones (and a future iPad mini). This enhances economies of scale thus lowering the cost of manufacturing. On the flip side, Apple undoubtedly foresees a future drop in the margins of their iPad business, as their product sales mix shifts to lower-priced and lower-margin iPad minis. This margin decline will only be exacerbated when the lower-priced yet higher-cost (and more desired) retina iPad mini is released. By offering an iPad "pro" at 326ppi, Apple could stanch the margin declines while retaining robust sales of a 9.7" iPad at the same time. It's a win-win from a revenue, profit, and margin point-of-view.

Apple's release of the 128GB iPad today is proof that Apple wants to make their 9.7" iPad more realistic as a PC replacement. It's probably also a strategy to raise the average margin per iPad sold. Remember that declining margins are one of the concerns the market has about AAPL (whether those concerns actually enough to drive AAPL down as much as it has is a can of worms I won't get into).

I know that Apple also must feel it is time for iOS to grow into an OS that can start to functionally replace Mac OS X. That begins with simultaneous app multitasking, which could allow for drag-and-drop between apps, quicker copy-pasting between apps, and being able to read a webpage while writing in Pages. I also believe that the iOS engineers' interest must be piqued by the app snapping feature and the "contracts" API in Windows 8, both of which are tremendously clever. Moreover, PC sales are declining, and even the demand for Macs are slowing down, so there needs to be an iPad that is capable of carrying the torch.

The best argument against Apple increasing the resolution to 326ppi is that it would add complexity for developers making iPad apps, since additional app resolutions would need to be developed. I understand this argument very well, but I do not believe this obstacle alone is enough to discourage Apple from pursuing the three benefits I listed above (a more capable iOS multitasking system, differentiation from iPad mini, and retaining average iPad margins). They've shown with iPhone 5 that 960 x 640 is not a sacred cow. If it's in Apple's best interest, then they will change an iOS device's resolution when they need to. I don't think it is safe to assume that the iOS's UI for the iPad is "done", considering the iPad is likely the future of Apple's computer business.
Unfortunately you're wrong.
__________________
rMBP'12 15" 2.3GHz, iPad Air 2 LTE 64GB, iPhone 6 Plus Space Grey 128GB
iMac'08/24",Mini'09,MBP'10/15",MBA'11/13". iPhone 5s,5,4S,4,3GS. iPT: 3,1. iPad: Air,4,3,2,1,Mini2. ATV'12,'11, AEBS'09,TC'13.
haruhiko is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:03 PM   #38
kitzuki
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.T. View Post
They wouldn't, however, like has happened historically with iOS devices, they might very replace a device at the same price point, then reduce the price of the replaced item.

Example: iPad 3 16GB at $499, replaces iPad 2 which is then sold for $399

Maybe in this case it goes <both> ways: iPad Mini Retina is introduced at $399, iPad Mini sold for $299.

I don't think there's anything from a marketing perspective that would stop Apple from releasing a retina (2048x1536) model Mini, it's purely technical (and specifically power consumption/battery life vs. size/heat).
Maybe 429 but who knows
kitzuki is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPad

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad: Apple iPad Air screen feels "springy" and "cheap"...... Rockies iPad 28 Sep 3, 2014 08:42 AM
Carrier: Can I upgrade iPad "number" with iPhone 5s - ATT andyw715 iPhone 5 Nov 9, 2013 12:03 AM
Please Help ID MC700LLA, 820-2530-A Sheridansystems MacBook Pro 0 Sep 3, 2013 09:50 PM
All iPads: The "justify you iPad mini purchase/iPad 4 upgrade/neither" thread comatose81 iPad 5 Nov 5, 2012 06:12 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC