3 ms·
He's misconstruing what happened with Mini and Nano iPods. At introduction the iPod Mini only cost $50 less than the full-size $400 iPod, with less storage, and
by irons 16y ago
He's misconstruing what happened with Mini and Nano iPods. At introduction the iPod Mini only cost $50 less than the full-size $400 iPod, with less storage, and it was perceived as a pricing misstep until they sold a jillion of them. People couldn't get their heads around the idea that Apple wasn't selling a cheaper device, they were selling a smaller device. Some people still can't.
This lesson is not applicable to Apple's current crop of devices, because introducing a new screen size would throw a huge monkeywrench into app development. Anybody blithely asserting that Apple might do it to save a few cents on production has a credibility problem.
So, this post boils down to an assertion that Apple could allow manufacturing prices to dictate the size of a device, even though changing the size would have dire effects on its usability and market acceptance. Does that sound like Apple to you?
- ctdonath 16y agoThe iPad Nano already exists: the iPhone for 3G, and the iPod Touch for wifi only. For half the price of an iPad you get a pocket sized tablet. Heck, it's how I got sucked in. 1st gen iPod Touch promptly replaced 80% of my home PC use for 2 years, convincing me to get the iPad 1 3G just 30 minutes after it came out. The author is in a sense right, he just doesn't realize Apple is years ahead of him.
- silvestrov 16y agoI agree, the only sensible different screen size is a retina screen with twice the resolution. They might keep the old iPad model, selling it for less than $500. I think Apple will try to keep the $500 price for the main model as long as possible. They don't want to race to the bottom.
- slaven 16y agoI think you misunderstood - I didn't say the device would have different resolution, just a smaller screen size if it saved costs. I also qualified it with "an inch smaller at most" so that UI would continue to work at 1024x768. A small change in screen size will not affect the usability of touch interface. I agree with you, changing resolution would be a huge mistake (unless it's doubled).
- irons 16y agoA small change in screen size will not affect the usability of touch interface. The hell it won't. Right now the screen on an iPad is 5.86" by 7.79", for 9.75" diagonal. Multiply those dimensions by 90%, and you get a diagonal length of 8.78", an inch smaller. Except you've just cut the total area of 45.6 square inches down to 37, a difference of 19%. In other words, you've just reduced the area of every tap target by one-fifth. Put another way, you've created a fuzz factor of one-fifth in the size at which designers will have to expect their work to be rendered. It doesn't sound to me like an acceptable strategy from the Apple, Inc of this dimension. I'm not saying your conclusions are wrong — I think Apple's going to have a robust presence at the low end of the market. I just think they're going to get there by defining the low end as last year's iPad, not by kneecapping their own margins, or introducing compromised products.
- slaven 16y agoI agree with your math, but speaking as a developer taking off half-an-inch diagonally just won't make that much difference usability wise. Touch targets are pretty generous in iOS - the device would work just fine, especially for the casual use a lower-end device would normally see.
- ceejayoz 16y agoI've seen plenty of iPad touch targets that are a little hard to hit on the current screen size.