The incremental cost of Flash is tiny compared to the gap in cost between a standard and a retina display with 4x the pixels.
I call BS.
The 7.85in iPad will sport a "retina" display after all, it has been claimed, but will still come in at $200-250 retail. We've heard rumours before that the so-called 'iPad Mini' will be cheaper than the current, 9.7in model, but thus far all such suggestions have come with the caveat that a low price will mean a low …
I can just about slip a 7" Playbook into a large coat pocket but it sticks out the top. Not very practical but I've done it a few times.
I think that you would struggle to do that with an iPad because the 4:3 aspect ratio means it's going to be wider than the typical 16:9 or 16:10 format that other devices use. I'm assuming any mini iPad would still be 4:3 but I don't see Apple changing the aspect ratio given that it would screw up every iPad app in existence.
Yes... but why would they leak specs that are better than the actual device (which is what the rumours are generally like)? That leads to disappointment with the actual product.
More likely it's their rivals leaking inflated specs so the device ends up disappointing, and hopefully a few punters look elsewhere.
No, actually, the iPod touch 8GB is widely available at around £160, supermarkets, Argos, etc. I dont think carphone warehouse should be the go-to place for anyone looking for anything, even a reasonably priced phone.
£155. Including VAT.
Ok... can we compare Apple to Apple list price to rule out any clearance deals or loss leaders?
That gives an Apple list price ratio of 1.18 $/£. If my logic holds an my math is right... that would mean a list of £250 would translate to $295 which would put it more in the middle ground between a Touch ($199) and the entry level iPad 2 ($399).
That said, can we agree that the $200-$250 in the article is complete bullshit?
Well, the costs of high resolution displays scale more with size than with resolution, so this isn't totally impossible... Still, I doubt it. 1024x768 on 7.85" should be fine, the backlight uses much less battery (which makes the device not only cheaper again, but also thinner and lighter), you get better performance and the price (and margins!) surely would be much better compared to a retina display.
Honestly, I would instantly buy a cheap, light and thin 7.85" iPad with 1024x768. Should be great for ebooks and couch surfing.
I’d be very surprised. With big profit margins on the new iPad (which they can’t make fast enough), and the older iPad 2 fulfilling the cheaper segment, there’s no reason to release a smaller iPad.
It would also cannibalise sales from the iPhone 5. A slightly larger screen, which is likely, would also bridge the gap.
I’ve no doubt they’ve made a smaller iPad in their labs, but I don’t see it making the light of day to be honest.
>It would also cannibalise sales from the iPhone 5
Possibly, but on that logic there would be no iPod touch... I'm sure that Apple would find a way to to differentiate a small iPad from a large iPhone; no cellular radios in the budget iPad, for example.
Not sure what the point of a slightly smaller iPad would be, though... it still won't fit in a jacket pocket.
Are we really suggesting that a 5" screen on a phone would hamper the sales of an 8" tablet from the same manufacturer?
What on earth were Samsung thinking when they released the Galaxy Note?! They already have a 7" tablet ... why would anyone buy such a phone when its almost the same size as the tablet...
Oh, wait, thats right, one is a phone, the other isn't. That must be the difference. No?
When most people with 16GB Ipad (3)'s are complaining that with the app upsizing due to the retina display, we're to believe that a smaller one with just 8GB makes sense (especially given it will no doubt be non-expandable)?
As noted above, flash memory is cheap (as chips) these days - see the current price of thumb drives in your local supermarket etc. So it would be a device that would struggle to store what most people would want it to, even with the reduced form factor.
Somehow I think Apple's marketting droids are more on the ball than that...
... or else the Reg will switch to a strange unit of length, like milli-velociraptors.
But seriously, even here in the UK, diagonal screen measurements are almost always given in inches. It gives you the distance in one or two significant figures, and can be roughly estimated to your hand (fore-finger tip to thumb tip roughly equal to 6")
It's that it is applied to screens of differing aspect ratios that can confuse- often to a 16:9 laptop maker's advantage.
Milk: Imperial (doorstep) or Metric (supermarket)
Inertia. More than with many other things people don't care that much for the actual exact size of a screen, they just want to know how large or small it is compared to other screens they're familiar with.
Additionally screens happen to come in sizes that are nicely expressed in inches in somewhat comfortable and memorable (low) figures.
It's somehow strange but I'm comfortable with that.
Surely, they wouldn't change from the officialLDB length standard at this point.
Now then, the screen would be 1.42 linguine if it exists at all. That said, perhaps a new unit is called for to define resolution and it should be based on how many pixels occupy a given angle at a particular viewing distance along the lines of sub-pixels per steradian, SPPS for now. This should take into account whether a device is monochrome, color, hand held, wall mounted, etc. and be accompanied by suitable standards, such as SPPS3L which would be sub-pixels per steradian at 3 linguine or SPPS.5DDB which is measured at 1/2 a double-decker bus. Mind, I'm just spit balling, I'll leave the real details to the unit pros at El Reg.
It'll be ipad2 based... so the new shrunk processor, cooler and less power hungry, with old res screen, so no big power requirements, = smaller battery.
Essentially ipad (2) mini.
This will then of course also leave apple free to launch the new, improved model in classic apple fashion 6 months later so everyone can buy it again.
...for Apple to keep the non-retina resolution for this iPad Mini / iPod Touch-XL or whatever it is, if indeed it "is" at all. The pixel density will rise as the screen shrinks for the same number of pixels, so the display will of course look crisper and more retina-y anyway, and it should keep the cost under control, which I doubt would be possible on a 2048x1536, 7-8" screen.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019