Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
I don't think I am. A proponent of thing will certainly highlight innovation, but a polite detractor will also. "Well, Mr Smith, your proposal to use genetically engineered electric eels for our city's power needs is certainly innovative, but we've decided to go another way. Security!"
Seriously, one can acknowledge innovative elements in an otherwise flawed product.
|
Yes, sure, in general. But, as I said, within the specific context of this discussion -- talking about products already on the market from top technology companies that make consumer electronics -- the word "innovation" is generally inferred to mean something new and better.
Quote:
|
I'm not exactly sure what leebase was referring to as innovative in the mini, but I don't see any reason to assume he was referring to the design decisions that Hans mentioned. Unless I missed a post. Which is very possible.
|
I do. From this:
"It took innovation to bring the iPad down to size while remaining enough of an iPad to satisfy the customers. Takes innovation to keep the battery life while shrinking the size and weight of the battery."
This word "innovation" (or
any other similar word implying something new and better) simply doesn't belong in this conversation. All Apple did was shrink the iPad down in size. Size in and of itself is not innovation unless it genuinely took some sort of technological or engineering feat to achieve that size. In this case, it did not.
Battery life could have been maintained despite a smaller battery simply by having a smaller screen which is typically one of the biggest drains on battery life. And, as others have pointed out already, other manufacturers such as Samsung were already getting similar battery life with tablets the same size. So it is nothing new or unique.
Forget the semantical slicing and dicing. Look at the iPad Mini objectively and try to say with a straight face that something new and different of a
significant nature relative to the marketplace was accomplished here.
--Pat