iPad iPad Air and iPad Mini with Retina announced

[afv011]

Originally Posted by tomsem

More grist for the mill:
http://stevecheney.com/why-android-first-is-a-myth/

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

http://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/09/0...roid-over-ios/

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by tomsem

And more:
http://geardiary.com/2013/10/22/ipad...announcements/

Completely agree with the following:

- Upgrade Pricing: What is so special about Apple memory compared to ASUS, Amazon and Samsung that theirs should cost $100 whereas all others only charge $40-50 to step from 16GB-32GB or 32GB-64GB? Nothing … and it is taking a toll by making Apple not just more expensive in fact, but also makes them look very greedy.

Back in Q1 2010, an Intel X25-M G2 160GB SSD would cost you ~$500. Nowadays, you can get a 1TB SSD for ~$600. Meanwhile, the base iPad model is still at 16GB for $500. The annoying thing is with the iPods and the earlier iPhones, we can usually look forward to a doubling of memory at the same price point with a product refresh. Apple should get rid of the 16GB model and make the 32GB model base. Alternately, if they made it just $50 for every memory step increase, I reckon they'd probably be selling a lot more higher capacity models at higher margins.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Apple should get rid of the 16GB model and make the 32GB model base.

They should, but they'll delay it as much as they possibly can. They know most folks will go for the 32GB "just in case", and that's an additional $100, a large chunk of it being pure profit. If they started at 32GB, they'd have to keep it at the 16GB, and that's a drop in revenue.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by afv011

They should, but they'll delay it as much as they possibly can. They know most folks will go for the 32GB "just in case", and that's an additional $100, a large chunk of it being pure profit. If they started at 32GB, they'd have to keep it at the 16GB, and that's a drop in revenue.

I'm probably unique but I'd never go for the lowest storage. Even with my Nook HD I bought the 16GB not the 8GB, knowing I could put a 32GB card in it.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I'm probably unique but I'd never go for the lowest storage. Even with my Nook HD I bought the 16GB not the 8GB, knowing I could put a 32GB card in it.

You are far from unique, and that's the game they're playing. The lowest capacity model is there mostly to entice folks to go for the next step up, and relieve their pockets of an additional $100.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by afv011

You are far from unique, and that's the game they're playing. The lowest capacity model is there mostly to entice folks to go for the next step up, and relieve their pockets of an additional $100.

When I do upgrade from my iPad 3 I'll buy the 128GB, it's not in the forceable future but it will happen eventually.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by afv011

They should, but they'll delay it as much as they possibly can. They know most folks will go for the 32GB "just in case", and that's an additional $100, a large chunk of it being pure profit. If they started at 32GB, they'd have to keep it at the 16GB, and that's a drop in revenue.

That's true. When I accompanied my aunt to the Apple Store to get her iPhone and iPad, the Apple Genius was strongly recommending she get the 32GB models of both. If I wasn't with her, that's what she would have bought even if all she uses the iPad for is online shopping and reading Kindle books. The iPhone is pretty much just a phone for her - used for calling and texting. The only benefit is it's more user friendly than her Treo and whatever has replaced it. I reckon for folks who are undecided or are easily swayed, the 32GB models are a ridiculously quick upsell.

Yep, almost pure profit for them. 16GB MLC NAND Flash spot price is around $8. Contract pricing likely even lower.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by afv011

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

http://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/09/0...roid-over-ios/

Seems that little of that activity is going to result in better apps for Android tablets.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Seems that little of that activity is going to result in better apps for Android tablets.

How do you deduce that from the article? The fact that tech companies in Asia are prioritizing Android, thus dedicating more resources to the platform, would indicate the opposite, apps will get better.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by afv011

How do you deduce that from the article? The fact that tech companies in Asia are prioritizing Android, thus dedicating more resources to the platform, would indicate the opposite, apps will get better.

The article talks only about the overwhelming popularity of Android smartphones. Doesn't mention Android tablets at all.

Sure, they could be developing for tablets, too. But no evidence here of that.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Sure, they could be developing for tablets, too. But no evidence here of that.

No evidence one way or the other, yet you were quick to point out it would have no bearing whatsoever on the quiality of tablet apps.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by tomsem

The article talks only about the overwhelming popularity of Android smartphones. Doesn't mention Android tablets at all.

Sure, they could be developing for tablets, too. But no evidence here of that.

There isn't such a fine line between android smartphones and tablets as there is with IOS though, you can easily get android phones with screens anywhere between 2-7 inches and vastly varying resolutions so the difference between a phone and a tablet is a bit blurry.

[Faterson]

The distinction is anything but blurry on the "classic" tablet size, which is 10 inches. Blown-up, simply upscaled phone apps look horrible on 10-inch tablets, and this is where iOS has a commanding lead over Android. After all, the Play Store until recently was hiding which apps were "tablet-optimised" or not, because compared to iOS, there are so relatively few of them. It's rather comical when Android evangelists try to deny that.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Faterson

The distinction is anything but blurry on the "classic" tablet size, which is 10 inches. Blown-up, simply upscaled phone apps look horrible on 10-inch tablets, and this is where iOS has a commanding lead over Android. After all, the Play Store until recently was hiding which apps were "tablet-optimised" or not, because compared to iOS, there are so relatively few of them. It's rather comical when Android evangelists try to deny that.

I'm just saying that a cheap 10-inch tablet has less pixels than an expensive 5-inch phone making "tablet-optimised" a little tricky to define.

[Faterson]

I'm not sure "tablet optimisation" is about pixels, Mike. To me, it's definitely about screen sizes. As you perhaps know, Apple displays tablet apps in the same way on iPad 2 and iPad 3+, although the latter has double (or quadruple) the amount of pixels, and even though iPhone 5+ offers a width of 1136 pixels compared to only 1024 pixels on iPad 2. Despite that, iPad 2 requests a tablet version of an app, and iPhone 5+ requests a phone version of the same app from the App Store.

The boundaries between "phone" and "tablet" apps are a lot more blurred on Android, and I'm convinced this is intentional: because there are relatively few tablet-optimised Android apps compared to iOS.

Also, you can "get away" with upscaling phone apps on small 7- or 8-inch tablets; it's not as conspicuous as it is on 10-inch tablets.