Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
People have explained that to you a lot of times, please, don't spread wrong information

The fact that he values his privacy differently than you does not make him wrong.

1) Which apps are you referring to specifically?

:confused: Really? How about we start with the ones highlighted in the iPad mini intro event? Not sure how the claim that the iPad has higher quality apps is in any way controversial.
 
Perfect, but what has to do your answer with the OP claims?

heh heh, this is a 33 page thread with the heading of "Phil Schiller Defends iPad Mini Pricing Decision". Is there anything to defend the pricing decision now that Ipad mini is a certified best seller now with production trying to catch up with demand? If you meant the Ipad mini display debate. I will help you out. There tons of comparison out on internet and Ipad mini has an inferior display in anyone book. But for most consumer, it is not the most important issue.. I don't see what is the point of debating it other than just refer people to read those review. If anyone still want to argue Ipad mini has a better dispaly, all I can say is that sometime people need to go back to school to learn comprehension and move on.


http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_mini_ShootOut_1.htm

Sharpness and Resolution:
Pixel resolution has been the number one topic of discussion for the iPad mini – both before and after launch. Many people were expecting a Retina Display like the new iPad 3, but that would have required a 326 Pixels Per Inch display with more than 4 times the screen area of the iPhone 5. That is currently out of the question for both cost and manufacturing volume and yield since it would need to be Low Temperature Polysilicon. Given that Apple has been sticking with either 1024x768 or 2048x1536 iPad displays for compatibility reasons, that meant the iPad mini had to be 1024x768 with 163 Pixels Per Inch. But that’s now considered to be rather on the low side.

While screen Resolution gets lots of attention from both consumers and marketers – it’s really only critical for providing visually sharp text – but that applies for most applications running on a Tablet. The $199 Amazon Kindle Fire HD and Google Nexus 7 both have considerably sharper displays with 216 Pixels Per Inch, and they both delivered considerably sharper text. We’ll discuss below how Apple can improve image sharpness on the mini iPad.

Screen Reflectance:
The screens on almost all Tablets and Smartphones are mirrors good enough to use for personal grooming. Even in moderate ambient lighting the contrast and colors can noticeably degrade from ambient light reflected by the screen, especially objects like your face and any bright lighting behind you. So low Reflectance is very important in determining real picture quality, especially on the smaller and more portable Tablets. The lower the better… This article shows how screen images degrade in bright Ambient Light.

Screen Reflectance on the iPad mini is a surprisingly high 9.0 percent. On the Nexus 7 the Reflectance is a much lower 5.9 percent, while on the Kindle Fire HD it is 6.4 percent. As a result, the iPad mini reflects 53 percent more ambient light than the Nexus 7 and 41 percent more than the Kindle Fire HD. That’s quite a big difference… Screen visibility and readability in high Ambient Light depends on both the Maximum Brightness and Screen Reflectance, which we evaluate with a Contrast Rating for High Ambient Light. On the Kindle Fire HD it is 58 percent higher than the iPad mini and 47 percent higher on the Nexus 7.

Color Gamut and Color Accuracy:
While the display PPI and pixel Resolution seem to get most of the attention, it is the display’s Color Gamut together with the Factory Display Calibration (below) that play the most important role in determining the Wow factor and true picture quality and color accuracy of a display. The Color Gamut is the range of colors that a display can produce. If you want to see accurate colors in photos, videos, and all standard consumer content the display needs to closely match the Standard Color Gamut that was used to produce the content, which is called sRGB / Rec.709. Most of the previous generations of LCD Tablets and Smartphones had smaller Color Gamuts around 60 percent of the Standard Gamut, which produces somewhat subdued colors. But that’s been changing due to both technology and competition.

While the iPad 2 and iPhone 4 had reduced 61-64 percent Color Gamuts, the Amazon Kindle Fire HD and Google Nexus 7 both deliver a much larger 86 percent Color Gamut, and the new iPad 3 and iPhone 5 have full 100 percent standard Color Gamuts. So it was a surprise and a major disappointment for the iPad mini to arrive with an antiquated smaller 62 percent Color Gamut.

Factory Display Calibration:
The raw LCD panel hardware first needs to be adjusted and calibrated at the factory with specialized firmware and software data that are downloaded into the device in order for the display to produce a usable image – let alone an accurate and beautiful one. This is actually a science but most manufacturers seem to treat it as if it were a modern art form, so few Tablets, Smartphones, and even HDTVs produce accurate high quality images.

Apple has been a leader in accurate display calibration – the new iPad 3 and iPhone 5 have among the best and most accurate factory calibrations we have ever measured in a consumer product, including high-end HDTVs. The iPad mini follows that tradition – it has an accurate White Point and a very accurate Intensity Scale, except for a 5 percent compression near the Peak Intensity, which we discuss in more detail below.

Viewing Tests:
Using our extensive library of challenging test and calibration photos, we compared the iPad mini to a calibrated professional studio monitor and to the new iPad 3, which has a virtually perfect Factory Calibration and Color Gamut.

In spite of its smaller Color Gamut, the iPad mini delivered fairly accurate picture quality and color accuracy. This is due to color management processing that is generally absent from Tablets and Smartphones. However, the iPad mini display is still unable to produce very saturated colors, like fire engine red, which was not as vibrant and appeared with a noticeable shift towards orange. Very saturated purples are also especially difficult to reproduce on LCD displays with a reduced color Gamut. For example, the iPad mini appeared almost identical to the iPad 2 in this screen shot comparing the latter to the new iPad 3.


iPad mini Conclusions:
The iPad mini is certainly a very capable small Tablet, but it does not follow in Apple’s tradition of providing the best display, or at least a great display – it has just a very capable display. What’s more, the displays on existing mini Tablets from Amazon and Google outperform the iPad mini in most of our Lab tests as documented below in the Shoot-Out Comparison Table. Some of this results from constraints within the iPad product line, and some to realistic constraints on display technology and costs, but much of it is due to a number of poor choices and compromises.


Lower Screen Resolution:
Many people were expecting a Retina Display like the new iPad 3, but that would have required a 326 Pixels Per Inch display with more than 4 times the screen area of the iPhone 5. That is currently out of the question for both cost and manufacturing volume and yield since it would need to be Low Temperature Polysilicon. Given that Apple has been sticking with either 1024x768 or 2048x1536 iPad displays for compatibility reasons, that meant the iPad mini had to be 1024x768 with 163 Pixels Per Inch. But that’s now considered to be rather on the low side, especially given that the $199 Amazon Kindle Fire HD and Google Nexus 7 both have considerably sharper displays with 216 Pixels Per Inch. So Apple, the inventor of Retina Display marketing, now has a significant competitive shortfall on this very issue…

Improving Screen Sharpness:
Apple could have increased the iPad mini Screen Resolution in the same way as it did for the iPhone 5 – simply having older Apps running Letterboxed inside a higher resolution display, which would have been a great way to provide a higher Pixels Per Inch display. iOS and newer Apps would have used the full higher Resolution – that didn’t happen. While screen Resolution gets lots of attention from both consumers and marketers – it’s really only critical for providing visually sharp text – but that applies for most applications running on a Tablet. As we have pointed out a number of times, the best way to increase visual text sharpness on any display is by using Sub-Pixel Rendering, which Apple should now implement in order for the iPad mini to become competitive on visual sharpness…
 
The fact that he values his privacy differently than you does not make him wrong.



:confused: Really? How about we start with the ones highlighted in the iPad mini intro event? Not sure how the claim that the iPad has higher quality apps is in any way controversial.

1. That wasn't what he was responding to. He was responding to the FUD statement. Is the Nexus funded by ad sales? No. Not the last time I checked.

2. I wasn't asking you. I was asking someone else because I'm interested in what apps HE is referring to and whether or not he's even seen/used the same apps or similar on Android. Of course we know the answer - he hasn't. He's entitled to his bias and his opinion. But I think it's better to state that as his opinion - not as fact.
 
Despite the iDevotees Apple worshipping arrogant statements like "Apple doesn't compete on price & all that blah, blah, blah. The fact is, the iPad mini should be priced at $299. Period.

By pricing it as they did, they're sending a "screw you" message. We'll price it where _we want_ after all without our brilliance, you, the commoner would be worse off. "See what a favor we're doing just for you".

Oh please, what a load of... :eek:
 
1. That wasn't what he was responding to. He was responding to the FUD statement. Is the Nexus funded by ad sales? No. Not the last time I checked.

Of course it is. How do you think development of the OS is funded?

2. I wasn't asking you. I was asking someone else because I'm interested in what apps HE is referring to and whether or not he's even seen/used the same apps or similar on Android. Of course we know the answer - he hasn't. He's entitled to his bias and his opinion. But I think it's better to state that as his opinion - not as fact.

You're just splitting hairs. There is nothing biased about claiming iPad apps are generally higher quality than Android tablet apps.
 
Of course it is. How do you think development of the OS is funded?



You're just splitting hairs. There is nothing biased about claiming iPad apps are generally higher quality than Android tablet apps.

The device - the Nexus is not funded by advertising as implied by Laguna Sol. You know it. I know it. He knows it. You can "split hairs" all you want and it won't make it true. Because when he says funded - he's really saying the cost difference between the iPad and/or Mini compared to the Nexus is because it's supplemented by advertising. Selling something at a lower price point (even if it's only marginally profitable and/or below cost) and relying on content purchase and or other revenues does not make it funded by advertising. But you can perpetuate the FUD along with Laguna Sol if it makes you sleep better at night

Second - I'm not splitting hairs. Again - I'm not asking you. I'm asking Laguna Sol.

But it is a bias if you only use/try apps on one platform without using them yourself on another. Are you suggesting there's no bias? Seriously?

Now - if you don't mind - I'd like Laguna Sol to answer my question. Which is why I addressed the question to him.
 
The fact that he values his privacy differently than you does not make him wrong.

The fact that it is not true that Google sells you to advertisers is what makes him wrong.

----------

Please enlighten me how Google makes its money?

(People haven't "explained" anything - they simply don't know what business Google is in.)

Google makes their money selling targeted add space, they don't sell you to anybody, they don't sell your information to anybody.

And people have explained, you only ignore it and spread FUD
 
The device - the Nexus is not funded by advertising as implied by Laguna Sol. You know it. I know it. He knows it. You can "split hairs" all you want and it won't make it true. Because when he says funded - he's really saying the cost difference between the iPad and/or Mini compared to the Nexus is because it's supplemented by advertising. Selling something at a lower price point (even if it's only marginally profitable and/or below cost) and relying on content purchase and or other revenues does not make it funded by advertising. But you can perpetuate the FUD along with Laguna Sol if it makes you sleep better at night

The OS is funded by advertising. What part of that is FUD? Are you saying the OS is not part of the Nexus? Passing up direct profits from hardware sales in favor of potential advertising revenue is another subsidy.

Second - I'm not splitting hairs. Again - I'm not asking you. I'm asking Laguna Sol.

But it is a bias if you only use/try apps on one platform without using them yourself on another. Are you suggesting there's no bias? Seriously?

Now - if you don't mind - I'd like Laguna Sol to answer my question. Which is why I addressed the question to him.

Speaking of FUD. Sounds to me like you don't even disagree with the statement. Sounds like you are just pretending it's a question, so you can call LagunaSol biased.

----------

The fact that it is not true that Google sells you to advertisers is what makes him wrong.

----------



Google makes their money selling targeted add space, they don't sell you to anybody, they don't sell your information to anybody.

And people have explained, you only ignore it and spread FUD

They do track people and sell their information in aggregate. Some people are okay with that. Some people are not. Doesn't make either side wrong.
 
An advertising-based business is selling you. Period.

There is people that believes that the world is 6,000 old, you can also believe this about Google if it makes sleep better at night

----------

They do track people and sell their information in aggregate. Some people are okay with that. Some people are not. Doesn't make either side wrong.

They don't sell information
 
The OS is funded by advertising. What part of that is FUD? Are you saying the OS is not part of the Nexus? Passing up direct profits from hardware sales in favor of potential advertising revenue is another subsidy.



Speaking of FUD. Sounds to me like you don't even disagree with the statement. Sounds like you are just pretending it's a question, so you can call LagunaSol biased.

----------



They do track people and sell their information in aggregate. Some people are okay with that. Some people are not. Doesn't make either side wrong.

BaldiMac - just stop. You know what LagunaSol was suggesting. And you know he was just bashing Android and the Nexus with FUD. If you don't - then you should just keep out of the conversation - the one that you just "had" to join. Hmmmm:rolleyes:

As for what I believe - it's irrelevant. I asked a question. A question I wanted the answer to or I wouldn't have ask it - to Laguna Sol. It's not to prove he's biased - we all know he is. Any idiot would be able to see he's biased. But that being said - I'd love to know what apps he's talking about when he makes that statement. Notice he hasn't responded. Now why do you think that is? Is it that he can't answer it? That he hasn't used apps on both devices. Another reason? Who knows. But do us both a favor - don't answer for him. He's a big boy - he can answer this himself if he wants to. I'm obviously curious since I've asked the question.

Maybe you just post questions you have answers to already and/or ones that you want to out someone's bias. Maybe you don't. But I'm inclined to think if you ask a question - it's because you are curious what the answer is.

Have a lovely day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The device - the Nexus is not funded by advertising as implied by Laguna Sol. You know it. I know it. He knows it. You can "split hairs" all you want and it won't make it true. Because when he says funded - he's really saying the cost difference between the iPad and/or Mini compared to the Nexus is because it's supplemented by advertising. Selling something at a lower price point (even if it's only marginally profitable and/or below cost) and relying on content purchase and or other revenues does not make it funded by advertising. But you can perpetuate the FUD along with Laguna Sol if it makes you sleep better at night

I will take the side that Google is losing money on every Nexus 7 base model they sell. Since Google did not break out any statistic on Nexus 7. You can go about it a couple ways. You can make estimate based on what cometition paid and you can make estimation based on individual cost.

This is what Oppenheimer said about about Ipad mini gross margin (GM = revenue - cost of revenue). So base Ipad 3 make about 23% gross margin (the 32% is high end Ipad 3). Apple project 4Q12 average gross margin to be 36%. So what is the gross margin for Ipad min? My guess is that it is in the mid-teen %. Apple engineering and SG&I in 3Q12 is about 8.5% revenue. So the base Ipad min net profit before tax will be in the range of 7-9%. And after tax profit for Ipad mini will be in the 5-7% of MSRP range (apple tax rate is about 26%). So how can Nexus 7 make money when they are selling about 40% less (199 vs 329) and using more expensive components.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/952...arnings-call-transcript?page=5&p=qanda&l=last

The iPad Mini has the full iPad experience, and we priced it aggressively at $329, delivering incredible value to our customers. Its gross margin is significantly below the corporate average.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/uk-apple-miniipad-idUSLNE89E00F20121015

Apple earned gross margins of 23 percent to 32 percent on its U.S. iPad sales between October 2010 and the end of March 2012, a court filing by Apple in a recent patent trial against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd revealed in July. The company's margins on U.S. iPhone sales are almost double those of the iPad, averaging between 49 percent and 58 percent.


Alternative, you can use the bom estimate and start adding cost. When Nexus 7 was introduced the bom cost estimate range anywhere between 160 to 185. And with that number you start adding in them: profit to ASUS and subcontractor who build the tablet, manufacturing inefficiency (broken part in assembly line, rework etc. etc.), inventory cost (you know keeping all the part cost some money), transportation cost (between factory and from China to US etc.), distribution cost (i.e. Walmart and target need their gross margin as well), warranty cost (i.e. they need to serving the tablet if it break down the road). And then of course the engineering and marketing cost. If they are selling at 199 with a bom cost of 160 to 185 and stil can make money, Google deserve to win the tech race and dominate the world.

A better way to look at the situation is that ASUS build Nexus 7 (and so is Samsung for Nexus 10 and LG for Nexus 4), why wouldn't they sell the device at the price point that Google set up now? They can easily sell an identical device along side of Google at the same price with their own brand name. Could it be that the price don't make any business sense for them, I wonder???

https://www.google.com/search?q=nex...&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

At $199 the Nexus 7 is a steal, easily the best bang for buck tablet on God’s green earth, so frankly consumers really shouldn’t care whether Google makes a profit on every single device. According to a teardown over at TechInsights, the tablet packs some $184 worth of components. If we were to factor in R&D, logistics, marketing and all other costs, Google could even end up in the red, so $199 is a fair deal to say the least.

BTW, I don't quite understand the FUD angle that you try to make. Google is willing to loss money and it is good for consumer. The only one that need to be scare is Apple and Android device maker. Samsung, HTC, ZTE of the world will have to wonder how are they going to make money with their own Android device now that Google decide to drive them down as low as it is. If they cannot make money, they will have to exit the market. Have you see much of any tablet announcement from anyone else since nexus 7 and Nexus 10 is in the market? I wonder why?
 
Like anyone needs an excuse to do that. :p

No comment. :)

Well, they don't sell their information on you exactly. It's more like they sell their clients billboard space and they advertise for them.

They sell your information in aggregate with data from other users in the form of targeted advertising. The also sell you in the more direct fashion of referring "you" (aka anyone that clicks on their ads) to their advertisers.

They don't sell information

Not everything is black and white.

BaldiMac - just stop. You know what LagunaSol was suggesting.

Yeah. He was suggesting that the quality of apps available for the iPad is a reason to choose it over a cheaper Android device. Seems reasonable to me.

And you know he was just bashing Android and the Nexus with FUD. If you don't - then you should just keep out of the conversation - the one that you just "had" to join. Hmmmm:rolleyes:

As for what I believe - it's irrelevant. I asked a question. A question I wanted the answer to or I wouldn't have ask it - to Laguna Sol. It's not to prove he's biased - we all know he is. Any idiot would be able to see he's biased. But that being said - I'd love to know what apps he's talking about when he makes that statement. Notice he hasn't responded. Now why do you think that is? Is it that he can't answer it? That he hasn't used apps on both devices. Another reason? Who knows. But do us both a favor - don't answer for him. He's a big boy - he can answer this himself if he wants to. I'm obviously curious since I've asked the question.

Maybe you just post questions you have answers to already and/or ones that you want to out someone's bias. Maybe you don't. But I'm inclined to think if you ask a question - it's because you are curious what the answer is.

Have a lovely day.

If you want a private conversation, there's app for that. Looks to me that you were just looking for an excuse to bash the poster rather that the post.
 
Yeah. He was suggesting that the quality of apps available for the iPad is a reason to choose it over a cheaper Android device. Seems reasonable to me.

If you want a private conversation, there's app for that. Looks to me that you were just looking for an excuse to bash the poster rather that the post.

1) My initial comment in my response to you was regarding the FUD - not the apps.
2) Thanks for the tip. Since he posted the statement and I wanted a response from him - that doesn't mean the conversation needs to be private. But it's nice that you want to play forum cop on that. My point was - I don't really care what your reply is to the question. Not that you even really replied since you didn't name any apps either. You just wanted to engage me in a conversation which wasn't directed to you. Looks to me that you were just looking for an excuse for a senseless debate? See how that works.

But if you need it stated again because you were unable to understand it the first time. I asked because I'd like to know what Apps Laguna Sol considers better on iOS than on Android.

Clear enough? Thanks.
 
Oh, but in this specific claim it is black or white. Google, or Apple with iAds don't sell you and don't sell your information to other companies. They only sell ad space.

Which is exactly the black and white perspective I was referring to. They do NOT "only sell ad space". Google gets paid to refer you to it's advertisers. They also collect your information and sell it in aggregate with other data in the form of targeted advertising. If you see a difference between that and what you are claiming, that's fine. I don't.

Personally, I believe that what Google offers in services is currently worth what I know about their data collection. I do turn off data mining whenever possible. However, the idea that someone is profiting by (figuratively) following me around wherever I go is a bit creepy. And the potential for the future is even creepier.
 
You have a defective one, it doesn't have poor viewing angles at all. And id doesn't have poor color saturation
I went through three of them (because of other defects) and they all had the the same washed out colors. I have also used three other Nexus 7s (belonging to friends and coworkers) that all exhibited the same screen quality.

That's six for six, and the issue with washed out colors is widely reported and well known.

To illustrate this, attached is a photo of my VGN and Nexus 7 playing Landrule. Red is very bright on the VGN and flat on Nexus 7. The light-orange player is almost indistinguishable from the tan player on the Nexus 7 (which can be a PITA when playing Landrule). The pink and yellow continents in the middle pop on the VGN and are drab on the Nexus 7.

Sure AMOLED tends to be especially vibrant, but the iPad mini colors are much closer to the VGN than the Nexus 7 (which also has issues with colors getting messed after watching videos, another issue that's been widely reported).

For the record, I don't own an iPad mini (but I've used one), and I like my Nexus 7, despite its mediocre screen.
 

Attachments

  • nexus-7-vs-vgn.jpg
    nexus-7-vs-vgn.jpg
    85.7 KB · Views: 79
However, the idea that someone is profiting by (figuratively) following me around wherever I go is a bit creepy. And the potential for the future is even creepier.

That's the thing. It's not really you exactly they're following around. It's more like you're a semi-randomized demographic blip to them, rather than BaldiMac. They know you as a 20-40 year old male who visits certain sites, and really, really likes scones. They can't use any of the information they have on your blip to drill down to your name, address, and phone number.

Yeah, I'll admit and agree the implications can be a little creepy. But the reality? Not so much. There's a fairly healthy divorce between you and the information you accrue for Google.
 
That's the thing. It's not really you exactly they're following around. It's more like you're a semi-randomized demographic blip to them, rather than BaldiMac. They know you as a 20-40 year old male who visits certain sites, and really, really likes scones. They can't use any of the information they have on your blip to drill down to your name, address, and phone number.

I think you have that off a bit. They are exactly following me around (if I'm logged into Google services) or more generally by my IP address. They are just selling the "semi-randomized demographic blip" in the form of targeted advertising.

Yeah, I'll admit and agree the implications can be a little creepy. But the reality? Not so much. There's a fairly healthy divorce between you and the information you accrue for Google.

Not for 9-18 months.
http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/faq/

Not sure for other types of data, but web history seems to accrue indefinitely if you don't turn it off in your account.
 
Yeah, I'll admit and agree the implications can be a little creepy. But the reality? Not so much.

Right. Nothing to worry about. Just keep feeding Google your data and hope for the best.

I'd rather be paranoid than naive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.