Samsung Exec confirms Mini iPad?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Apple Consumer seems to be a perfectly fine description... until put into context with Seaking's anti-Apple stance and the use of Bold, underlined italic for "Apple Consumer," then it seems to be just another snide way of being hostile/sarcastic... just trying to avoid being sanctioned for name calling...

I was thinking that we need a sarcastic font. Do you think that bold+underlined+italic could work?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I was thinking that we need a sarcastic font. Do you think that bold+underlined+italic could work?

A back italic would be even better... it would leave no room for doubt then and, reading some posts, we really do need to spell out sarcasm for some readers - S A R C A S M

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by elcreative

A back italic would be even better... it would leave no room for doubt then and, reading some posts, we really do need to spell out sarcasm for some readers - S A R C A S M

Back italic?

[Kumabjorn]

italics leaning to the left instead of right

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

italics leaning to the left instead of right

There is such a thing?

[Kumabjorn]

Someone on the net created a specific font for sarcasm. I haven't seen it in quite a while so I don't know if it is no longer in use. One way to express sarcasm is through color, but if there is no concensus it will be open for abuse.

[tubemonkey]

I'm an Apple unConsumer and dang proud of it

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

This whole thing is stupid in the extreme and also extremely boring. It has become impossible to even mention a new piece of software or a new device from Apple, and to a lesser extent Amazon, without the thread degenerating into a slanging match.

Good grief. Some people like Apple and some prefer Samsung or some other company. Is it really necessary to attack and make snide comments about the character and intelligence of people that like something that you do not?

I've been trying to change the subject for pages and pages, so perhaps it's time to repost something I wrote seven years ago on a different forum.

The piece happens to be about portable music players, but if I'd written it today, the subject would have been tablets.

The Irony of Calling Other Brand-Name Users "Sheep"

In Minima Moralia, German philosopher Theodor Adorno predicted that a time would come when no one rebelled against the dehumanizing nature of consumer-based society. The reason: Because the idea of rebellion would be built into the society itself. Rebellion would simply become another flavor, another category, with which the consumer could grow preoccupied.

That time has arrived and the iPod is a fascinating example of Adorno's prediction.

Some people buy iPods to enhance the experience of mass-marketed pseudo-individuality. Apple's ad campaigns speak to precisely this audience. Others avoid the iPod because they react negatively to overt manipulation but then succumb to the next layer of manipulation: They come to believe that other less conspicuous companies are the truer rebels. Such people cite the extra features and less stylized design of their players as evidence they are not "sheep," even as they brandish their credit cards to purchase another flavor of target-marketed miniaturized jeweled gewgaw. Later, they'll spend hours studying their gewgaw collection with affection, lust and awe -- the collector's equivalent of Narcissus' gazing into the mirror.

I've always found it amusing that the fans of other devices by other companies disparage iPod users as suggestible. If you own a portable player and call Apple users "sheep," then you'd better include yourself in that category. If you upgrade your player regularly, then by your own description, you might actually be even more of a "sheep" than certain veteran iPod users. A person who buys an early 15 GB iPod for $169 and avoids upgrading because sound quality minutiae fail to justify the expense is not being a lemming. S/he's being practical. On the other hand, a person who upgrades simply because too many others are buying iPods is exhibiting classic consumer lemming behavior: S/he's more interested in reacting to fashion trends than listening to music.

The problem is similar to that of owning a pair of ER-6i: Some people wince at them because they're white and can be mistaken for Apple earbuds. Yet ER-6i are extremely useful because they fit certain listeners' criteria: they're inexpensive, detailed and appropriate for the purposes of mobile listening.

To put it in second person: If it really matters to you that the unobservant might think your specialized high-quality earphones are Apple earbuds, then perhaps you shouldn't be calling anyone else a fashion lemming.

When bashing Apple users, people often leave out the factor of real-world cost. The only reason I own an iPod is because the iHP120 was nearly twice as expensive as my "refreshed" 3G; at the time, I couldn't justify purchasing a more expensive device with the same capacity. Since my ultimate consideration was cost, does my owing an iPod make me a person who is too influenced by trends? Only if iHP120 users are trend victims as well.

Recently (according to a friend), iRiver announced they were going to compete with Apple by adding more features, since they can't compete with price. If that's true, and if the optical IO returns, then I'll have a professional reason for upgrading my iPods. If not, and I refrain from buying, I'll still be one of Adorno's conditioned consumers. But whatever I do, I'll be less prone to certain levels of manipulation than "sheep" who call iPod users "sheep." Whether buying from Apple or iRiver, I'll always be aware that to buy such a thing is to fall into some niche of consumer manipulation. That will be equally true when I buy audiophile gear -- or anything else we love to discuss on these "sheep"-driven boards.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

Look mates! I have been searching for a name to associate with those who buy Apple products. I see this group as a very cohesive and solid block of people that are indeed "Apple Consumers." There is nothing derogatory in defining that group. It is a well off group, capable of and keen on getting the latest up to date and best electronic equipment which for them is consistently the Apple Brand. I see little argument possible from you there.

A name to use? How about 'the majority'?

Apples Are Growing in American Homes

Half of all U.S. households own at least one Apple product, according to CNBC’s All-America Economic survey.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by afv011

I don't see that happening, that would kill the iPod market.

steve Jobs said better you kill your own product before your comepition does it to them.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

steve Jobs said better you kill your own product before your comepition does it to them.

That's what I said, in the part of my post that you failed to quote:

I don't see that happening, that would kill the iPod market. It's a tough decision; price it too low, it kills the iPod; price it too high, and the 10" iPad kills it. But, it is always better to have your own products competing against themselves, than the competition's (well, better for Apple, certainly not for the consumer).

[afv011]

Also, another question is the resolution.

If the mini iPad is 7.8", then at 1024x768 the DPI is only 164, which does not quality as retina. If you want something along the lines of the iPad3, you have to bump the resolution to 1600x1200, and this would mean that apps now have to support extra resolutions: 960x640 (iPhone/iPod), 1024x768 (iPad1/iPad2), 1600x1200 (mini iPad), 2536x2048 (iPad3). Steve wouldn't approve, he followed the KISS mantra. But, Steve is no longer among us, so all bets are off.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by afv011

Also, another question is the resolution.

If the mini iPad is 7.8", then at 1024x768 the DPI is only 164, which does not quality as retina. If you want something along the lines of the iPad3, you have to bump the resolution to 1600x1200, and this would mean that apps now have to support extra resolutions: 960x640 (iPhone/iPod), 1024x768 (iPad1/iPad2), 1600x1200 (mini iPad), 2536x2048 (iPad3). Steve wouldn't approve, he followed the KISS mantra. But, Steve is no longer among us, so all bets are off.

Or you make it a maxi iTouch, with that screen shape, and double up the iPhone/iTouch resolution to give 1920x1280.
That would give two types of screen:
480x360 at x1, x2, x4
1024x768 at x1, x2

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Not to happen. Fails to be retina display.

Also



all from http://gizmodo.com/5895583

Favorite quote from that link:

The iPad Mini will have the same resolution as the new iPad, meaning it'll actually have a higher PPI count. However, that won't matter much, because it'll just be using those pixels to display a crisp HD photo of Steve Jobs angrily staring at you for supporting such a ridiculous product. The picture won't be dismissible.

[HarryT]

I was wondering why anyone would choose such a strange screen size as 7.85" when it occurred to me that it's actually 20cm. If we're talking about a 20cm screen would it not be easier and more accurate to call it that?