Apple To Stream a Product Launch Live For the First Time

redletterdave writes "In the biggest surprise since the original iPhone, Apple has decided to live stream its product announcement for the very first time on Tuesday. This means that the company's media announcement from the California Theatre in San Jose, which will begin at exactly 10 a.m. PST (1 p.m. EST), will be available to watch on computers, laptops and mobile devices for the very first time, all in real-time. Apple will be live streaming today's event directly on the company's website. Apple says all Mac and iOS devices will be able to live stream the event, including computers, laptops, iPhones, iPads and Apple TVs." Update: 10/23 18:45 GMT by S : The iPad Mini was announced, as expected. It has a 7.9" screen at 1024x768, it's 7.2mm thick, and it runs on an A5 chip. Pricing is as follows for the Wi-Fi only version: 16GB for $329, 32GB for $429, 64GB for $529. For LTE-capable versions, add $130. Apple also updated the larger iPad, as well as its Mac Mini, iMac, and MacBook Pro lines.

Comments

Apple devices?

[SoundGuyNoise]

I was going to ask sarcastically if any device can stream it, or just Apple devices. Then I finished reading the article.

Re:Apple devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. So much for all the "HTM5!!!!!!!!" love that Steve Jobs supposedly professed. Now, I have to have another proprietary plugin to watch a video? I guess because it's *Apple's* proprietary plugin, it's alright.

Re:Apple devices?

[vlm]

I was going to ask sarcastically if any

any product release since the iphone has been described other than ""In the biggest surprise since the original iPhone..."

I'm not sure, but I think they Might Possibly sell a little tablet-ette a wee bit bigger than my trusty rusty ipod touch and a big smaller than my trusty almost as rusty ipad-1, in other words almost the same shape and size as a kindle reader (With Special Offers(tm))

A real surprise would be Apple announcing "F all this computer shit, we're reorganizing as a produce orchard and selling real apples"

Re:Apple devices?

[war4peace]

I think the correct expression is "any devices which DO have the awfully horrible Quicktime software installed". So thanks, but... no, thanks.

Re:Apple devices?

[quacking duck]

I know Youtube can stream h.264 video live, they did that with the Red Bull Stratos dive. Although the post-event video will be available in h.264, probably the only reason Apple insists on Quicktime for this live stream is to lock it to Apple-only devices, using platform detection in the plugin independent of browser user-agent.

Re:Apple devices?

[dgatwood]

It is probably just HTTP live streaming. Try VLC.

Re:Apple devices?

[LocalH]

I don't think so. I have Quicktime installed on my Win7 PC, and all I see (even in Safari) is "Apple Special Event, October 23, 2012", whereas on my iPod touch 4th gen I'm already seeing streaming video. Looks like they truly restricted it to Apple hardware.

Re:Apple devices?

[LocalH]

I tried that. I pulled the .mov link from the source code of the page, and VLC got a 404. They're probably checking the referrer as well. Still streaming fine on my iPod though.

Re:Apple devices?

[Nerdfest]

Pardon me for saying so, but what an absolute dick of a company.

Re:Apple devices?

[nmb3000]

If you go look at the source of this Javascript in an auto-refreshing IFRAME, you'll see

/*snowLeopard url*/
var slURL = "http://qthttp.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/sl_mvp.m3u8"; /* non-snowLeopard url*/
var nonSlURL = 'http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_checkback.jpg'; /*Windows url*/
var windowsURL = 'http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_checkback.jpg'; /*iphone url */
var iphoneURL = "http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_iphone_ref.mov"; /*ipad url*/
var ipadURL = "http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_ipad_ref.mov"; /*voip*/
var voiceOver = "http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_iphone_ref.mov"; /*requirements*/
var requirements = "Live streaming video requires Safari 4 or later on Mac OS X v10.6 or later; Safari on iOS 4.2 or later. Streaming via Apple TV requires second- or third-generation Apple TV with software 5.0.2 or later."; /*refreshPage*/
var refreshPage = false;

My VLC can play the first link (labeled Snow Leopard), for a little while, but drops the stream.

The "checkback" links all seem to indicate they are either not streaming live to non-Apple devices, or they ran into a "problem" and will start it later.

Re:Apple devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "...Computer users will need Safari 4 installed on a Mac running Mac OS X 10.6 or later..."

So you do need an Apple device.

Re:Apple devices?

[nmb3000]

What the hell Slashdot? You have to love a nerd news site that can't handle posting a tiny bit of code without frakking it all up. Screw Unicode support -- can we get some decent ASCII support sometime this decade?

Try again with some manual editing to make it fail a little less.

/*snowLeopard url*/
var slURL = "http://qthttp.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/sl_mvp.m3u8";

/* non-snowLeopard url*/
var nonSlURL = 'http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_checkback.jpg';

/*Windows url*/
var windowsURL = 'http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_checkback.jpg';

/*iphone url */
var iphoneURL = "http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_iphone_ref.mov";

/*ipad url*/
var ipadURL = "http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_ipad_ref.mov";

/*voip*/
var voiceOver = "http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/1210pibasdfvoihbadsv/12poibnasfdvpiajbafvpihjbasfvpiubfsv10_iphone_ref.mov";

/*requirements*/
var requirements = "Live streaming video requires Safari 4 or later on Mac OS X v10.6 or later; Safari on iOS 4.2 or later. Streaming via Apple TV requires second- or third-generation Apple TV with software 5.0.2 or later.";

/*refreshPage*/
var refreshPage = false;

Re:Apple devices?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Apple doesn't want me switching from my Android phone so they, alone among thousands of video-serving web sites, won't let me watch their exciting announcement.

Re:Apple devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me for saying so, but what an absolute dick of a company.

Yeah, they're cutting off all three of their potential Apple device customers out there that don't already have some kind of Apple device.

This will be their downfall, mark my words!

Re:Apple devices?

[stewbacca]

h.264 is not a plug-in. It's a codec. Anyone who even hints that h.264 is some sort of Apple lock-in mechanism has no idea what they are talking about.

Re:Apple devices?

[interkin3tic]

A real surprise would be apple saying "iOS 7 is ... cancelled. The next iPhone is just going to run android key lime pie. Because we all really like key lime pie. Also we tried android, and you know, we all kinda liked it!"

Re:Apple devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmm... key lime pie.

Re:Apple devices?

[cait56]

Restricting the streaming to Apple devices is just smart marketing.
Why waste money trying to sell this product to somebody who isn't already addicted?
Seriously, there are far better models for less money in both the WIFI-only and Cellular varieties.

Re:Apple devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

(goes to http://www.apple.com/apple-events/october-2012/ using chrome) "Streaming video requires ... QuickTime 7 on Windows"

The rest of your post is irrelevant

Re:Apple devices?

[mattack2]

It's available as a podcast. You can download the video there free. Search for "Apple Keynotes" in iTunes.

Re:Apple devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me for saying so, but what an absolute dick of a company.

No one gives a fuck what you think.

Or maybe you believe your pathetic little voice matters more than
the reality of the most successful consumer-level computer company in
the history of the world ? Yeah, keep on believing that, and order some pizza
to go so you don't have to leave the basement, you dickeating bastard.

Re:Apple devices?

[RocketRabbit]

Quicktime works great on a Mac. In Windows, it's running under an emulator left over from the Openstep days, called the BlueBox, which essentially provides a whole version of Cocoa on Windows.

I can't help you if you are still playing around with Windows in this day and age. You have bigger problems than QuickTime, like the gigantic hole in your head where your brain should be.

Re:Apple devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called HTTP live streaming. And it's an open specification (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-10). Waaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Re:Apple devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, this is innovation. Nobody else has ever launched a live product announcement stream before.

Re:Apple devices?

[war4peace]

Apple shill detected. RUN!

Re:Apple devices?

[stewbacca]

My entire post is relevant because I'm not addressing what the system requirements to view the Apple event were, I'm correcting the fallacious assertion that h.264 was used in order to force anyone who wanted to view the even to buy a Mac or iOS device. As your post shows, no, you don't have to have a Mac to have watched the event. And no, QuickTime 7 is not the only player that would work to watch the event, but of course that's what Apple is going to put as the system requirement. As if Apple would say, "hey, don't use our software, use some other video thing you downloaded from some shady site that may or may not work, and then bitch about it blaming us!".

Re:Apple devices?

[SiChemist]

Wow, you really upset some ACs!

Re:Apple devices?

[SiChemist]

in iTunes.

LOL. I think you just made his point.

Re:Apple devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

(I'm not original AC)

Your post was irrelevant because the original AC was referring to Jobs' stance on HTML5 (as opposed to Flash) video.

Do you really think the average viewer knows or cares that h.264 is the underlying codec and that it can be played through any number of video plugins? The whole point of the AC's post was that it's hypocritical of Apple to pooh-pooh plugins for video viewing and then turn around and (or all intents and purposes) require their own plugin to view their video.

Re:Apple devices?

[mattack2]

Not really, since he apparently was unable to *stream* it, I showed him a way to watch it live afterwards. Streaming it didn't involve iTunes.

Re:Apple devices?

[mattack2]

Oops, of course, I meant watch the recording of it afterwards.

Re:Apple devices?

[RocketRabbit]

And this is why nobody takes you seriously. Go back to calling people fat on the XBox.

Re:Apple devices?

[stewbacca]

Of course they don't, but Apple isn't requiring a specific Apple plug-in. They merely suggest you use QuickTime for Windows because that's the Apple-provided plug-in that works with h264. There are plenty of PC players that handle h264.

And the fact Apple is "requiring" a plug-in at all is unavoidable. Given the lack of video players/containers/codeds/browsers/OS standards for video (outside of producing video for playback in the Apple ecosystem), Apple has no option other than to pick a format that works best on as many platforms as possible with the least amount of hassle. Sure it sucks that QuickTime for Windows sucks, but Apple is clearly not a fan of putting something out there and then letting anyone and everyone muck it up with their crappy code. That is something that is out of their business model, which is why their PC offerings lag far behind their Mac versions. That's the nature of the free-for-all world of developing for PCs.

On second review, I must have been responding to something somewhere else, because what I thought I was responding to, the guy said that h.264 was a proprietary Apple plug-in that forces you to use Apple hardware only, stating unequivocally that only Apple users could watch the keynote....which was totally wrong, but I guess I replied to the wrong thread.

Re:Apple devices?

[war4peace]

I don't have a console. Fatsie! :)

Re:Apple devices?

[SiChemist]

You've missed my point. If you have to go through iTunes to see it, then apple is still excluding the set of people that don't have iTunes installed. (Basically, everyone who doesn't have an idevice). OP said nothing about *streaming* the video, just watching it.

Not the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

They did this just after they launched their DC

Re:Not the first time

[kthreadd]

They did this just after they launched their DC

It was also common practice about ten years ago. They always streamed everything.

Re:Not the first time

[petsounds]

No, you're right. The submitter must be pretty young. Prior to the iPhone launch, Apple used to always livestream their talks via QuickTime. I'm not sure anyone knows why they stopped; I doubt bandwidth was an issue. Probably a Steve Jobs thing, though for someone who had to control everything, I always found it odd that he let products get announced via low-res audience pictures on gadget sites.

Re:Not the first time

[geekoid]

"..via low-res audience pictures on gadget sites."
That's not odd, that's some of his genius. If you let the people talk about and share your information, they are more emotionally invested.
Steve Jobs wasn't a technical Genius, he was a people genius.

Re:Not the first time

[petsounds]

If you let the people talk about and share your information, they are more emotionally invested.

People were going to talk about these shows regardless, so I don't buy that rationale. There was nothing to lose and everything to gain by streaming Jobs' reality distortion field live, versus reading gadget liveblogs or news articles. But the hype still got through.

This is ...

[StrayEddy]

booooring...

Re:This is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to all the fanboys who now get to jizz about it in the privacy of their own home.

They used to stream Keynotes

[Anonymous Coward]

would not consider this a First Time.

"The very first time" is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

They did that a couple of years back already. But they stopped.

Re:"The very first time" is nonsense

[BasilBrush]

Yes. Apple streamed many of these keynotes in the past. They stopped a few years ago. I think the live streams became too popular, and there was the problem that the stream demand was overloaded. I guess they've decided that there is now sufficient bandwidth to do a reliable stream again.

Not the first time.

[Anonymous Coward]

They've at the very least done live streams of Keynotes where a product was announced in the past. It's just been years.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno what semantics the authors are juggling to call this the first time Apple has live streamed it's product launches. But back in the day, Apple used to live stream all their WWDC keynotes... this is definitely not a first for Apple.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. They streamed the launch for the iPhone 4 I believe.

Re:What?

[Macman408]

Not just WWDC, but both MacWorlds and other events too. And they used to do satellite broadcasts of the events as well.

But, you know, slashdot has to keep up with the slogan of Yesterday's News Tomorrow, so...

Re:What?

[R3d M3rcury]

I'm not sure about the iPhone 4, but I remember watching the stream for the first iPhone.

Re:What?

[Anubis IV]

Indeed. They even tried to use it as a selling point for Quicktime back in the day, since each of their events broke records at that time for largest number of simultaneous Internet streaming viewers. They stopped doing it for every keynote a few years back, but they've still done it on occasion here and there. I hope they bring it back as a part of the events, especially now that they're trying to increase their cloud presence, but I still wouldn't bet on it happening just yet.

Re:What?

[MachineShedFred]

Well, this is the very first time, except for the Power Mac G4, Power Mac Cube, iBook, Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, iMac 3rd Gen until the aluminum ones, etc.

So basically this is the first live stream since like 2007. But keep on with checking those facts before stating them like 4 times in the summary!

Re:What?

[mattwardfh]

I believe they streamed the 2010 fall music/iPod event, too.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when I worked as the sysdamin for a university web development group (and we even had our own QTSS) during the 2000-2002 time frame, we'd all gather around someone's computer to watch each of the keynotes / press releases, etc. I seem to remember a bunch of us watching the TiBook reveal, which would've been 2001.

. . . with two or more muted in the background so that when the first one's connection died, we could switch over to one of the others.

I seem to recall watching them when I worked for an ISP, as well, which would've been the 1997 to 1999 time frame.

(posting anon to not undo the moderation to your comment)

Re:What?

[nurb432]

With an attention span of 6 minutes, you honestly expect people to remember that far back?

I dont, wait, what were we talking about? Oooo hang on, i see a shiny object...

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, but I blame the Steve for blocking the streams prior.

Look at it this way how many news sites didn't send people to cover the event when there were streams and instead used the web stream? When you remove the general internet user's access to the event you instead can force/focus who will be reporting on the product, and also allow those people hands-on interactions with the new equipment. Which is more likely to provide a highly positive review because the reporter was a part of the buzz and fever at the event. ..or am I just smoking something here.

Re:What?

[RocketRabbit]

Hell I watched Steve Jobs return and make nice with Bill Gates LIVE back over a decade ago.

I'm on the edge of my seat

[Jeng]

So reporting on a news release about the fact that an upcoming news release will happen live.

Re:I'm on the edge of my seat

[Flipstylee]

Mod parent up "*this"

Re:I'm on the edge of my seat

[Anonymous Coward]

this->modParentUp()

Re:I'm on the edge of my seat

[medcalf]

Or, this being Apple: modParent:parent upByAmount:1 withExtremePrejudice:TRUE;

Re:I'm on the edge of my seat

[BSDimwit]

[super modUp:YES];

I propose a bounty!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

To be paid to the snarky foxcon wage slave(or his/her next of kin, if company security catch up to him) who upstages this announcement by live-streaming a product announcement straight from the factory floor!

Re:I propose a bounty!

[Jeng]

I would think that a live streaming suicide is more likely.

Re:I propose a bounty!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, making Samsung phones and Nintendo Wii's will take the will to live out of anyone.

Re:I propose a bounty!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, making Samsung phones and Nintendo Wii's will take the will to live out of anyone.

What're you doing posting on Slashdot? Didn't you hear? Someone's desecrating an iTemple in Cupertino by walking past it with a phone containing the mark of the Green Beast! You've got to get out there and CORRECT THIS SIN AGAINST YOUR GOD!!!1! HURRY! They might get away and continue being happy!

Re:I propose a bounty!

[Jeng]

Within the realm of what is possible I think that it is more likely that a foxcon employee would commit suicide live in order to get better working conditions for his fellow workers vs same employee doing a live streaming product launch that would only get said employee fired.

New Tag Line

[MyLongNickName]

News for Nerds
Stuff that Matters
Apple Stories Regardless

Re:New Tag Line

[Anonymous Coward]

News for Nerds
Stuff that Matters
Apple Stories Regardless

And how is an Apple product announcement not news for nerds?

Unless its just a new music player, Apple has a history of releasing products that are... notable among geeks to say the least.

Re:New Tag Line

[Anonymous Coward]

News for Nerds
Stuff that Matters
Apple Stories Regardless

And how is an Apple product announcement not news for nerds?

Unless its just a new music player, Apple has a history of releasing products that are... notable among geeks to say the least.

It has always been News for Nerds && Stuff that matters, not News for Nerds || Stuff that matters... Apple stories are neither nerdly (this is a story about an uninteresting little half-sized ipad, remember) nor do they matter (its really just a story about an UPCOMING story, after all). So yeah, someone not beholden to the cult of Steve might look at this and think "why, i dont give one flying fuck about how apple chooses to market their upcoming products". And if they did, they would realize it's really just another shitty step toward all-apple lock in.

Re:New Tag Line

[MyLongNickName]

And how is an Apple product announcement not news for nerds?

Did you read the Summary? This isn't a product announcement. This is details about a product announcement announcement. The next logical step is to have a press release indicating that sometime in the near future we will release a press release about a new product and the press release's press release is on 8.5x11 heavy cardstock paper.

Re:New Tag Line

[Anonymous Coward]

better illustrated as a venn diagram:

( News for Nerds ( Apple ) Stuff that Matters )

Re:New Tag Line

[gstoddart]

Hey, for those of us who have been invited to a "meeting to discuss the agenda for the upcoming meeting" and other meta meetings ... why not? Hell, I've been to a meeting to prepare a status update for the status update that was being prepared after a previous meeting. (Granted, that's usually the point where I start telling PMs they're wasting my time.)

And, like 'em or hate 'em, there will likely be several million of these things sold opening week, probably to the tune of a few hundred million dollars in sales ... it's kind of hard to ignore it as irrelevant. Slashdot may hate them, but I'm hard pressed to think of any other products which everybody wants to know about when they're released.

Re:New Tag Line

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

do you know if they said it was going to be glossy or non glossy? I gotta know man. I gotta know!

Re:New Tag Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try this:

$article =~ s/Apple/Samsung/g;
$article =~ s/iPad/Galaxy Tab/g;
print $article;

Still irrelevant? But you just jizzed your pants.

Fact: it takes no effort to ignore an article, and not post.
Fact: it takes effort to click the link, type up a post, and submit it.

If this article is so inconsequential, why did it prompt you to exert yourself? Let's be honest: the only reason you've declared it irrelevant is that it gives you a reason to post and remind us all how much you hate Apple, and would never use their products, and use the clearly superior Android/Linux versions of the products, thus demonstrating your exquisite taste and amazingly clear-eyed judgement.

And you lot say that APPLE users identify with their brand choices? Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. You probably won't like him, because he's black.

Re:New Tag Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Howzabout this:

News for Nerds
Stuff that Matters
Including News Not Important to MyLongNickName

Re:New Tag Line

[Anonymous Coward]

I just watched Phil Schiller hold up an iPad mini and say out loud "This is the iPad mini." In what world is this NOT a product announcement? There's a product. It was announced. Are you thinking impaired?

Re:New Tag Line

[Anonymous Coward]

the vast majority of apple users and customers are NOT nerds.. but the exact opposite. technophobes, noobs, novices, click-happy windows users, and most importantly (for apple), idiots with disposable income trying to keep up with the joneses'

captcha: profits

Re:New Tag Line

[Rakarra]

And how is an Apple product announcement not news for nerds?

Did you read the Summary? This isn't a product announcement. This is details about a product announcement announcement. The next logical step is to have a press release indicating that sometime in the near future we will release a press release about a new product and the press release's press release is on 8.5x11 heavy cardstock paper.

I think it's actual notable for the decision to only stream to Apple hardware. That's worth talking about, though Apple's dickish lockout tactics aren't a new thing. But it's still worth reporting on since not that many people are aware of it.

Re:New Tag Line

[Joce640k]

It's Apple.

Apple doesn't do non-shiny.

not the first time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thi is the first time in 2 years. Lots of Apple announcements have been live streamed.

Modern Times

[carrier lost]

What are the odds on how long it runs before being taken down by a DMCA Bot?

Re:Modern Times

[geekboybt]

Considering Apple runs the whole infrastructure from top to bottom (rather than using, say, YouTube or ustream), I highly doubt this would happen.

Re:Modern Times

[ThatsMyNick]

Apple is self hosting these videos. If it did receive a DMCA notice from a bot, they will ask it to fuck off.

hm

[Arith]

Apple continues to break new ground! Now where have I heard a company unveiling a product live dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

Re:hm

[NIK282000]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that.

Re:APPLE!! APPLE!!! Apple... Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by an Apple.

Not exactly "all"

[tverbeek]

"Apple says all Mac and iOS devices running new enough software will be able to live stream the event, including computers, laptops, iPhones, iPads and Apple TVs."

FTFY.

Thats no moon

[gmuslera]

I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out "I want one now"

Re:Thats no moon

[Tough Love]

I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out "I want one now"

That's amazing, in spite of the fact the this new product has lower screen resolution than a product that costs $130 less, sports an obsolete dual core processor, and still has no built in USB port.

Oh, and the battery is glued in.

Re:Thats no moon

[BasilBrush]

And yet it's still the best 7" tablet.

Re:Thats no moon

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet it's still the best 7" tablet.

Well, I'll concede that it's the best 7.9" tablet running iOS. If that's not what you meant, please be more specific.

Is it the least expensive? No. So any metric for "best" that takes price into account, such as price/performance ratio, it might not be "best".

Will Android fans love it? No. So any metric for "best" that does not assume every single living person prefers iOS to Android, it might not be "best".

But it looks like a nice piece of kit, and only about 50% more expensive than a Nexus 7. If I could put any software I want on it without rooting it, I might just buy one. But since Apple controls what software is permitted, it's a non-starter, just like every other iPad.

If you love it? Good for you, have fun, whatever.

Re:Thats no moon

[SiChemist]

I liked your comment, but BasilBrush doesn't even know you're here. Kind of tragic, really.

Re:Thats no moon

[Uberbah]

That's amazing, in spite of the fact the this new product has lower screen resolution than a product that costs $130 less

Nice slight of hand there, comparing the 16 big iPad Mini to the 8 gig Nexus 7, as opposed to the 16 gig. Which is still cheaper, so why the need for the switcheroo?

sports an obsolete dual core processor

So every Android device running a processor from 2011 is now shit?

and still has no built in USB port. Oh, and the battery is glued in.

Oh, and if anyone gave a rat's ass, the iPod and first iPad would have been one-hit-wonders. If you want a replaceable battery, go ahead and buy whatever it is you want. But stop pretending that your desired feature is someone's design flaw, anymore than the lack of a second camera on the Nexus is a flaw.

Re:They got some Smart People at Apple

[Desler]

No, that's just the submitter being ignorant. They've live-streamed plebty of other events.

Re:They got some Smart People at Apple

[quacking duck]

They've live-streamed in the past (using Quicktime plug-in, just like this time), but not recently. IIRC those were platform-locked too, something I don't agree with. Even the Olympics, though requiring Silverlight for desktop video in Canada, were at least available on Mac as well as Windows.

Re:APPLE!! APPLE!!! Apple... Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is pitch black. You are likely to be sued by an Apple."

-ftfy

Re:They got some Smart People at Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not Quicktime locked, they use HTTP Live Streaming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming

Granted, it's something they originally pushed, but it's not platform locked by any means.

Re:They got some Smart People at Apple

[LocalH]

It's Apple-locked, not Quicktime-locked. I have the current Quicktime on my Win7 PC as well as Safari, and it won't play. Can't get it to work in the standalone QT player, nor in VLC.

Botched that landmark

[Grayhand]

The stream still isn't working on the Apple web site so I'm following in on Wired. Oh well. I hope the announcement is more impressive than their live stream!

Re:Botched that landmark

[Foo2rama]

Works fine from iOS or Mac OS... They should have stated that on the website. When I use windows it just says try again later....

Re:They got some Smart People at Apple

[makomk]

I'm not sure if it's an issue with their livestream or VLC, but the stream seems to be incompatible with VLC. It plays for a minute or so and then falls over with an error about sequence numbers as soon as it reaches the next segment of the stream.

Only available on Mac OS X and iOS:

[blind biker]

From apple.com's event page:

Live streaming video requires Safari 4 or later on Mac OS X v10.6 or later; Safari on iOS 4.2 or later. Streaming via Apple TV requires second- or third-generation Apple TV with software 5.0.2 or later.

Re:Only available on Mac OS X and iOS:

[Algae_94]

If your "live stream" is only viewable by a select group of devices I don't consider that "live".

Lame way to get a more favorable audience for the initial views and reports.

Re:Only available on Mac OS X and iOS:

[Em Adespoton]

If your "live stream" is only viewable by a select group of devices I don't consider that "live".

Lame way to get a more favorable audience for the initial views and reports.

If my production of Hamlet is only viewable by those who bought tickets, do you consider it "live"?

I think you're getting confused between "live" and "public". "Live" means real-time. It says nothing about accessiblity or who is watching (see C-SPAN).

Re:Only available on Mac OS X and iOS:

[Algae_94]

I used quotation marks to imply that I wasn't using the literal definition. Can't a guy spew some anti-Apple nonsense on /. anymore?

I still think it's lame that the live stream was only viewable by certain devices

Re:Only available on Mac OS X and iOS:

[BasilBrush]

If your "live stream" is only viewable by a select group of devices I don't consider that "live".

Then you're confusing the word "live" with "universal".

Tactic to win first impressions?

[DragonWriter]

I suspect that the reason for the restriction to Apple devices is to assure that the first wave of third-party online reporting about the announcement is from a group biased to be more generally favorable to Apple products, to set the tone of the response.

Re:Tactic to win first impressions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. People often forget that Apple is not a software or hardware company but a marketing company. One of the most successful marketing companies in the history of marketing in fact. They are so good, the people at Adbusters strut around proudly displaying their products unironically. If Apple wanted, they could literally sell freezers to eskimos.

Re:Tactic to win first impressions?

[Anonymous Coward]

And those eskimos would get a damn good freezer that was thoughtfully designed, sturdily constructed, and looked attractive in the kitchen of their igloos.

I think you forget that Apple can't market anything until it first creates the thing to market.

No, I'm sorry, you're right - nothing but marketing all the way down.

Re:Tactic to win first impressions?

[Plumpaquatsch]

I suspect that the reason for the restriction to Apple devices is to assure that the first wave of third-party online reporting about the announcement is from a group biased to be more generally favorable to Apple products, to set the tone of the response.

Yeah, as if those who want to attack Apple need any actual information on the devices they are going to bash.

BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember watching the iBook introduction via live QT stream in the summer of '99. Steve Jobs looked weird on the small, grainy feed but we started suspecting something was up he immediately said "we got some cool new products to introduce today" instead of dedicating the first part of his keynote to how awesome Apple has been doing as he always did. Then when "he" said "we have some Insanely Great new products to introduce today" the real Steve Jobs came out and revealed that the imposter was Noah Wyle, who portrayed Jobs in Pirates of Silicon Valley. "We ditched the insanely great line a while back."

For the very first time

[future assassin]

> laptops and mobile devices for the very first time, all in real-time

Another small step for man kind and giant ego leap for hipsters.

How much do these advertisements cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is good, the visibility is there, but 'the biggest surprise' etc go a little bit over the top.

The audience is not supposed to pick it up too easily.

Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

How desperate can they get?

Re:So, Apple fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a 7" tablet. It's 7.9" which most people would round up to 8". It's amazing how an inch on the diagonal gives you a 33% larger area.

They weren't doing that already? Lame

[Animats]

I'd assumed that Apple had been streaming their product launches for years. They weren't?

Re:They weren't doing that already? Lame

[Tough Love]

I'd assumed that Apple had been streaming their product launches for years. They weren't?

And now they only stream to the Apple faithful, reminding everybody about that walled garden thing. The message they seem to send is "we have no hope of converting new customers, we'll just keep preaching to the converted" and hope to stem defections. Now the consensus is coming in from around the web: the price is problematic and the specs are considerably weaker than Nexus 7.

Re:They weren't doing that already? Lame

[bobbyjack]

Almost all of their potential customer base weren't even aware beforehand that there was an Apple product announcement due today. Of those that were, only a tiny fraction would have wanted to watch it live. No-one's hearing this 'message' you've invented. I believe they are planning to market this product via means other than just the keynote.

It sucks, but not for the reasons you give.

Re:So, Apple fanboys

[Jeng]

I believe they would like their crow with rounded corners, easy to use, and stylishly designed.

Re:So, Apple fanboys

[0xdeadbeef]

I know! It's amazing!

iPad Mini -- $329

[ShanghaiBill]

Well, they announced the iPad-mini starting at $329 for 16GB, wifi-only. At that price, I don't think it is going to be the "Android-killer" they hoped it would be.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Anonymous Coward]

With Nexus 7s now priced at $199 for the same storage, you're paying over $100 for the Apple premium. Plenty of people will pay, but not enough to dent Google and/or Amazon's success in this market.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[the eric conspiracy]

Read the fine comment again please. WiFi only for $329.

If you want cellular that will be $459 for the 16GB model.

Plus cost of a data plan.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Algae_94]

He said "starting at" to indicate a reference to the lowest level base model. That page says to chose a model with cellular if you want it. Learn to read.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Anonymous Coward]

You misread the post. Try to be more helpful and less snarky in the future. Thanks! :)

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[SuperKendall]

With Nexus 7s now priced at $199 for the same storage, you're paying over $100 for the Apple premium. Plenty of people will pay, but not enough to dent Google and/or Amazon's success in this market.

As noted, $80... but that is a fair premium for more screen real estate, a much wider range of apps built for a larger display, and also much higher quality of construction (looks to use the same materials at the iPhone 5 as far as metallic backs and glass).

The most interesting aspect of this in regards to Fire/Nexus sales to me is, will the multi-user aspects of the FIre and Nexus be a draw for people? That is a good way to compete against Apple, it solves a real problem that families have with tablets. Apple may support something like it next year, but it leaves a wide window open for Android tablets to make a play in.

Or, will the Surface drag away potential Nexus/Fire buyers...

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, at that price Android tablets are now dead in the water. Only purists and Apple haters will still be buying them.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[shutdown -p now]

As noted, $80... but that is a fair premium for more screen real estate

There's actually less real screen estate here, because resolution is lower. So you can fit less text with the same legibility level.

a much wider range of apps built for a larger display

That's debatable. There are plenty tablet-aware apps for Android, certainly all the big names that actually matter are there. We're not talking about fart apps, right?

and also much higher quality of construction (looks to use the same materials at the iPhone 5 as far as metallic backs and glass).

The quality of construction is not defined by materials alone, and then there's also the utility aspect of it. Soft touch rubber-like plastic on the back of Nexus 7 is actually far superior to all-aluminum iPad, because it makes it so much easier to grip it in one hand.

All in all, this has been a very unimpressive announcement: epic fail on price, display is very meh in this day of Retina craze, and overall lack of any distinguishing competitive features other than the Apple logo. The 13" MacBook is much more interesting.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably won't be an 'Android-killer' because android fanboys are cheap bastards who are satisfied with mediocre pieces of garbage. You can't kill off stupid.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Kergan]

Uh huh? As in "No Wifi. Less space than a nomad. Lame."?

We know how that worked out for Apple...

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[AmiMoJo]

I don't think any screen under 1280 pixels wide can cut it for browsing any more. Having only a 1024 pixel screen was my primary motivation for upgrading my Thinkpad a few years ago and I'd never go back.

Really trying to charge this much for a device with a sub-par screen is a bit much, but Apple are screwed because all the iOS tablet apps are designed for 1024x768 or an exact multiple like the Retina models. They simply can't do anything in between 1024x768 and 2048x1536 without ruining their pixel-perfect experience.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Quila]

Nexus 7 16 GB is priced at $250, $80 less. For that price you'll get a device that has a smaller screen (although higher-resolution), yet still manages to be 30% bigger, and is missing the 5 MP rear camera. When it comes to portables, smaller size always demands a premium.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[SuperKendall]

There's actually less real screen estate here, because resolution is lower. So you can fit less text with the same legibility level.

But since the fonts will be the same ACTUAL size, you get more content on screen even if the readability is slightly lower. Just like a technical user to focus on one data point to overlook the fact of what people will actually get on the whole.

Are you also arguing the iPhone 5 is actually larger than the S3 since it has a denser display? You would seem to be as it's exactly the same argument. I personally prefer consistency in my own life and would say an S3 could display more actual content than an iPhone 5.

There are plenty tablet-aware apps for Android,

And there are 275k on the iPad, that are specifically designed for more space.

We're talking about REAL apps, like just about anything anyone uses. Apple showed plenty of examples in the presentation, from eBay to Yelp to Vimeo.. .

The FACT is that most Android developers are still targeting Android 2.1, and coding apps that simply scale up UI from a phone-sized screen. Real tablet apps make use of the greater space to add more UI elements, and there are very few Android apps that do this outside of tablet specific games. You joke about fart apps when all you seem to be talking about is that you can run Angry Birds on an Android tablet.

The quality of construction is not defined by materials alone, and then there's also the utility aspect of it.

Which of course is a heavy win for the iPad since in the end the tablet is there to run software.

Soft touch rubber-like plastic on the back of Nexus 7 is actually far superior to all-aluminum iPad

Both are equally able to be held in one hand, I have never had an issue holding either material.

All in all, this has been a very unimpressive announcement: epic fail on price, display is very meh in this day of Retina craze, and overall lack of any distinguishing competitive features

I feel the same way about your response; the same old Apple Hater kind of nonsense that obviously means nothing to real buyers. Your post could have come from 2010 unchanged. When will you people upgrade your arguments? As it stands no-one wants to read your tired repeats. That goes double for me, I'll let you have the last response since why bother to respond to the same old arguments yet again? In the end the market will tell us all the same message you don't want to hear.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[SuperKendall]

I don't think any screen under 1280 pixels wide can cut it for browsing any more

Hence, retina iPad...

Not everyone cares as much about the higher resolution. For the ones that do, the Nexus hardly cuts it either. You might as well have 1024 as 1200, the difference is so slight.

Personally I can't see how anyone can browse landscape on a widescreen device - iPhone 5 or Nexus tablet. It's like trying to read a newspaper through the guard door of a speakeasy.

Really trying to charge this much for a device with a sub-par screen is a bit much

You should see what Google is trying to do, charge just a bit less for something less well made and with almost no real tablet software!

Shocking.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[shutdown -p now]

But since the fonts will be the same ACTUAL size, you get more content on screen even if the readability is slightly lower. Just like a technical user to focus on one data point to overlook the fact of what people will actually get on the whole.

You missed my point. I can make fonts smaller on a higher-DPI screen without hurting overall legibility, because there are still enough pixels there to draw the letters sharply. So, for the same level of legibility/readability, I can fit more text on Nexus 7 than I can on iPad Mini. Physical screen size matters, too, but it matters less - 7" vs 10" is a noticeable difference, but 7" vs 8" is not at all. On the other hand, that extra inch will make the device less "pocketable", so in that sense it's still more of a minus.

And there are 275k on the iPad, that are specifically designed for more space.

And 274.5k out of those, nobody cares about outside of installing them once to check them out because they popped up in "this week's top 10".

We're talking about REAL apps, like just about anything anyone uses. Apple showed plenty of examples in the presentation, from eBay to Yelp to Vimeo.. .

So long as we're talking about REAL apps, I'm pretty certain that there aren't 275k of those. And real apps are available on Android just the same.

The FACT is that most Android developers are still targeting Android 2.1, and coding apps that simply scale up UI from a phone-sized screen. Real tablet apps make use of the greater space to add more UI elements, and there are very few Android apps that do this outside of tablet specific games. You joke about fart apps when all you seem to be talking about is that you can run Angry Birds on an Android tablet.

The fact is that all important app makes are well aware of tablets, and make apps that run on 2.1, yes, but also take advantage of ICS features and larger screens. In fact, I can't think of any non-large-screen aware app on my Android devices, and I have many. And I'm not talking Angry Birds here.

Which of course is a heavy win for the iPad since in the end the tablet is there to run software.

Do you even read the post to which you reply, for Christ sake? We were talking about construction of the tablet. You know, what it's made of, physically.

Anyway, the obvious reply to this complete non sequitur is that both tablets have plenty of software to run, and certainly enough to cover any real need.

Both are equally able to be held in one hand, I have never had an issue holding either material.

That's your personal subjective opinion, and many disagree. Objectively speaking, it's fairly obvious that soft-touch plastic is less slippery than aluminum. If you don't notice the difference, I can only surmise that you're trying really hard not to.

I feel the same way about your response; the same old Apple Hater kind of nonsense that obviously means nothing to real buyers. Your post could have come from 2010 unchanged. When will you people upgrade your arguments? As it stands no-one wants to read your tired repeats. That goes double for me, I'll let you have the last response since why bother to respond to the same old arguments yet again? In the end the market will tell us all the same message you don't want to hear.

The entire market has seen Apple slide from uncontested dominance of the mobile space with iOS, to 35% of the market, in three years of Android. You can keep salivating at lackluster Apple gadget announcements - everyone has their fetish, and I'm not going to judge yours - but it's clear that it's making you blind to the real deficiencies and better alternatives.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[shellbeach]

Nexus 7 16 GB is priced at $250, $80 less. For that price you'll get a device that has a smaller screen (although higher-resolution), yet still manages to be 30% bigger, and is missing the 5 MP rear camera. When it comes to portables, smaller size always demands a premium.

Where do you get 30% bigger from? The ipad mini is 200mm x 134mm; Nexus 7 is 198.5mm x 120mm. That's less space taken up by the Nexus, as far as I can see, if you really wanted to count it. The ipad mini is 30% thinner, but I don't see 3mm making a substantial difference for anyone. It's the width and height dimensions that matter.

I'm a little surprised by the small size of the ipad mini screen bezel, though. It's going to be pretty hard to hold that thing without accidentally touching the screen, especially in portrait mode. Plus it looks really cramped. Not really up to Apple's usual design standards (in fact, I'd argue the Nexus 7 looks substantially better; not that looks matter, but I'm a little surprised).

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[mjwx]

Well, they announced the iPad-mini starting at $329 for 16GB, wifi-only. At that price, I don't think it is going to be the "Android-killer" they hoped it would be.

Considering I can get a Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7" 16 GB for that price in Australia dollars (we all know that a US$330 price translates to an A$440 Australian price). A Nexus 7 is under $300 for a 16GB (under A$250 for the 8 GB which is fine for me). Both of these products are available today. Nexus 7 16GB in the US is $250.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[mjwx]

Both are equally able to be held in one hand, I have never had an issue holding either material.

The issue is not with holding, the issue is with dropping. Aluminium slips out of a hand much easier than rubberised plastic, especially if the hand has sweat, grease or moisture on it. Also aluminium dents easier than rubber or plastic.

obviously means nothing to real buyers

Price and funtionality means everything to real buyers. Not brand or gimmicks. This is why Android is outselling Apple on the phone (and is in the process of being repeated in the tablet space).

You need to admit that this product is entirely a reaction to highly successful 7" Android tablets, which means people are buying them.

the same old Apple Hater

Here's where you lose your last shred of credibility. You've simply pointed out you cant rationally argue with the GGP.

Also, seeing as "hater" is a regular noun, not a proper noun you shouldn't capitalise it.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[SuperKendall]

The issue is not with holding, the issue is with dropping. Aluminium slips out of a hand much easier than rubberised plastic

Not with any aluminum thing I've ever owned. The rubber is a little easier to hold but aluminum has quite a bit of texture to it, I've never had an issue with it slipping.

Price and funtionality means everything to real buyers.

Exactly my point. Do you want a tablet that does not really have many apps for tablets? Why does that make any sense? Amazon has a much better play than Google here.

This is why Android is outselling Apple on the phone

That is a combination of carriers that had no other phone to sell, along with dirt-cheap Android phones from carriers offering a low price entry smartphone, that are really hard to use as a smartphone (I know; I have one).

Now that most carriers can sell the iPhone Android activations have flatlined...

You need to admit that this product is entirely a reaction to highly successful 7" Android tablets, which means people are buying them.

Why would I not admit that? I agree that is totally the case.

I even think people will continue to buy them.

But I also think Apple will have a lot greater success here than Google or Amazon.

You've simply pointed out you cant rationally argue with the GGP.

I argued rationally all along, just at the end noting that they were not being wholly rational in the arguments they offered and explaining why that was probably the case. The fact is that the OP claimed the iPad mini was tired or blah or whatever other emotional term he offered, when it's at the same level as any other 7" tablet launch and I'll bet he did not say that about the Fire or Nexus.

When they use emotion along with references to Apple "epiically failing" then you know for sure you are dealing with a man (yes it is always a man) that cannot handle any potential success on behalf of Apple. This poster in particular has a chronic history of throwing reason out the window when it comes to Apple; a problem not uncommon on Slashdot, but note I did not accuse YOU of this because you did in fact use logic and reasoning in your arguments.

Also, seeing as "hater" is a regular noun, not a proper noun you shouldn't capitalise it.

It'll take a few years for Websters to catch up but in fact with "Apple Haters" the capitalization is appropriate, the same as it is for any title.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[SuperKendall]

You missed my point. I can make fonts smaller on a higher-DPI screen without hurting overall legibility

Only to a point, and the PPI difference is bot enough that you could fit the same content into the space a Nexus 7 offers and have it be as readable.

7" vs 8" is not at all.

Aspect ratio matters.

I can't think of any non-large-screen aware app on my Android devices, and I have many. And I'm not talking Angry Birds here.

Really, list some and lets see how the iPad versions compare.

I find it curious now that in two posts you have not listed a single app.

Anyway, the obvious reply to this complete non sequitur is that both tablets have plenty of software to run,

Which again is wrong, and the apps DO matter because that is as much a part of usability as is construction.

That's your personal subjective opinion, and many disagree. Objectively speaking, it's fairly obvious that soft-touch plastic is less slippery than aluminum

I agree that it is, but I've never found it different enough to matter.

The entire market has seen Apple slide from uncontested dominance of the mobile space with iOS, to 35% of the market, in three years of Android.

And yet application developers still target iOS first. So why would that be?

The answer is that the market has a LOT of devices that are Android for purposes of that 35% but only barley smartphones. I know, I have one myself.

In all the stats that matter iOS is still hammering Android. There is and always will be a place for other OS makers besides iOS, but Android users seem unwilling to admit that Apple is still handily on top, and looks to remain so for a long time - Android activations are no longer increasing, and the iPhone now has spread to quite a lot more carriers with cheaper entry options than they used to have.

I'll let you have the last response on this as it's pointless unless you are going to speak to the far more interesting strategic aspect of all the smaller tablets, which I attempted to initiate discussion on but you ignored for the lame and very tired Android vs. iOS arguments that actually have nearly zero bearing on what will bring people to chose one of these smaller tablets.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPad was already doing a good job of killing Android at $499. $329 is not going to obliterate Android tablets, but it will surely put more hurt on them. In any case, Apple will have its hands full ramping up supply without having to increase demand by pricing it lower.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[shellbeach]

Android activations are no longer increasing

Um ... really???

You're a brave individual to suggest that Apple's in the ascendancy (no, sorry, "hammering" Android!) right now. Android's market share of new units shipped in Q2 this year was a massive 68% vs 17% for iOS. I really wonder what you're basing this on ...

Coming back to topic, I'm really surprised Apple released an ipad mini with those specs. It justifies the existence of the 7" Android tablet market, and almost pushes people into buying a Nexus 7 or Fire HD instead -- why would anyone other than an Apple zealot choose to pay more for a tablet with a lower-resolution screen? Surely they had to at the very least have a retina display, or extra battery life, or something in there to justify the price premium. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that people will still pay extra bucks simply for that magical "i" in the name ... it will be interesting to see.

On a more practical note, this is the first time I've seen Apple offer a product of noticably worse quality than their competitors since 2007. Apple used to do this all the time in the 1990s, and that didn't work out so well for them ...

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Xest]

"In all the stats that matter iOS is still hammering Android."

What are the stats that matter currently?

The reason I ask is that Apple fanboys change their mind on this each time Android surpasses Apple in yet another stat, so I'm just wondering what the "stats that matter" are this week?

Honestly, it's the no true scotsman fallacy, but still, I'm intrigued to hear what they are this week.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Quila]

The ipad mini is 30% thinner,

There you go. It is thinner and lighter, which does matter, and for which in the mobile space you always pay a premium. As far as the bezel, it doesn't look like it's meant to hold like an iPad. I'd have to get my hands on one to see if it's comfortable, but I'm betting Apple had dozens of people hold it to test comfort.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[dywolf]

hey look, its a slightly bigger and more functional ipod!

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[shellbeach]

Do you honestly think 3mm of depth in a tablet makes a significant difference in portability? When people are thinking in terms of portability, it's the width and height dimensions that will count here (i.e. what will fit into a backpack/handbag/purse). And it's not like the Nexus either looks or feels thick (it's slightly thinner than a normal iPad).

As regards the bezel, I'm not suggesting it won't be comfortable, but I do wonder about how easy it will be to hold without touching the screen in portrait mode as there's precious little thumb space that isn't touchscreen. You'll notice that the Fire HD went for an even wider bezel than the Nexus 7, presumably for ergonomic reasons (there's a lot of free space inside a Fire HD -- it didn't need to be that wide).

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Quila]

Thin notebooks, thick notebooks, which cost more, other hardware specs being approximately equal? Thin commands a price premium in portables. So does light weight.

For the side bezels, I see pictures of people holding it portrait with fingers of one hand gripping the sides, and it's easier to hold this way with a thinner product. For landscape viewing, which is too big for a hand, you get the now side bezels thicker for gripping.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[shellbeach]

You're right about the side bezels -- I just picked up my Nexus 7 in portrait and noticed that I do hold it exactly as you describe (and it also has the wider top/bottom bezels for landscape holding). There's just something ... odd ... about the proportions of the mini that makes it look uncomfortable and awkward (at least to my mind). Maybe I'm just too used to widescreen devices ...

I'm not convinced that any laptop commanded a price premium by being 3mm thinner than another one, though. The price premium for ultrabooks comes from being centimetres thinner, not millimetres. And the weight difference between an ipad mini and a Nexus 7 is 32g -- admittedly in the mini's favour, but again, it's a negligible difference at 10% of the total mass.

I guess I'm mostly just surprised Apple didn't at least match their competitors' screen resolution -- a 1280x960 screen surely would have made sense. And I'm likewise surprised they didn't keep the price to the $250 entry point. I mean, Apple's dominated the tablet market for so long; why risk throwing away that dominance for a bit of temporary profit?

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[bingoUV]

As noted, $80... but that is a fair premium for more screen real estate

You might as well have 1024 as 1200, the difference is so slight

Interesting. 7 vs 7.9 : Apple wins because of "more" screen real estate. Difference of 12.86% or 11.39% depending upon direction.

But 1024 vs. 1200 is "so slight" so Apple wins again. Difference of 17.19% or 14.67% depending on direction.

Your claims of not being a fanboy in this post (http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3204895&cid=41747851) are quite interesting in this light.

Re:iPad Mini -- $329

[Quila]

Apple's dominated the tablet market for so long; why risk throwing away that dominance for a bit of temporary profit?

Because they still dominate. The full-sized iPad is still leading the market despite being twice as expensive, so there's no need for price parity with the competition. I'd expect the price to come down if one of the competition actually catches on in a big way, threatening the iPad's position.

Linear measure to Area

[DragonWriter]

It's not a 7" tablet. It's 7.9" which most people would round up to 8". It's amazing how an inch on the diagonal gives you a 33% larger area.

It would be amazing, since a 7.9" linear measure translates to only 27.3% larger area than a 7" linear measure.

Re:Linear measure to Area

[the eric conspiracy]

It's not that amazing if the aspect ratio is different.

Which it is.

Making it fatter is an interesting move. Some people might find it harder to hold in one hand.

Re:Linear measure to Area

[R3d M3rcury]

He rounded up.

Re:Linear measure to Area

[Speedfister]

That's what Samsung did, and look what happend.

Re:Linear measure to Area

[Plumpaquatsch]

It's not that amazing if the aspect ratio is different.

Which it is.

Making it fatter is an interesting move. Some people might find it harder to hold in one hand.

So you Android Fans always claimed that bigger is better - what happened?

Re:Linear measure to Area

[the eric conspiracy]

"you Android fans"

I'm not an Android fan, more a non-fan of systems that close out users from having control of what they buy.

Fan - Linux
Fan - No cell contract
Fan - having root easily available

Non-Fan - DRM
Non-Fan - Secure Boot
Non-Fan - No root access
Non-Fan - App store lock-in
Non-Fan - computers that are welded closed

As far as size goes, I've never expressed a size preference for a tablet. I'm also a Non-Fan of being stereotyped, thank you.

Genuine Interest

[Anonymous Coward]

I was really curious to see it, but apparently Apple sensed the wild heathen of a computer my Debian box truly is. Though Seriously I think its dumb they aren't open to all devices since people use a variety of things in a days work from Windows PC's to using an Ipad, and this this underscores how apple see's themselves as a closed source community. So much so that even us Window and Linux infidels can't see into their mecca even if we are interested.

Re:So, Apple fanboys

[0xdeadbeef]

One crow suppository, coming right up!

So Exciting

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so exciting! Oh! No! Ah! Apppplllleeeee!!!!!! Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I just jizzed in my pants...

Another Apple blunder

[Tough Love]

Ipad mini priced at $329 so as to avoid gutting sales of Ipad 3. Another in a string of Apple blunders. Customers will defect to Nexus 7 at $100 less or Kindle Fire also at $100 less and offering the Amazon marketplace. It's now safe to say that Apple will be looking at a minority share of the tablet market from here on in.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

Ipad mini priced at $329 so as to avoid gutting sales of Ipad 3. Another in a string of Apple blunders. Customers will defect to Nexus 7 at $100 less or Kindle Fire also at $100.

I think the price is more to protect the iPod Touch at $299. When thinking about a device for the kids, it is a tough choice for me. I've used a Kindle Fire; I'm happy to pay $100 more for something that is good.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[vakuona]

Yup. Let's all ignore Apple's real advantages here. That you get 275,000 apps that work ono the iPad mini. Or that the Nexus 7 that costs $199 is actually the 8GB version.

Oh, and lets just pretend that the bigger and more expensive iPad is not outselling the Nexus 7 right now, with a much larger price differential.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[trybywrench]

"Ipad mini priced at $329 so as to avoid gutting sales of Ipad 3. Another in a string of Apple blunders. Customers will defect to Nexus 7 at $100 less or Kindle Fire also at $100 less and offering the Amazon marketplace. It's now safe to say that Apple will be looking at a minority share of the tablet market from here on in."

man what a great quote. Since when has any Apple customer cared about a price difference of $100? Just the fact that it's made of metal and not plastic is worth $100 to the average consumer's mind. Heh "string of blunders" that's freaking priceless.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anubis IV]

As an advocate of getting facts right, I feel compelled to point out that Apple announced the fourth gen iPad as a replacement to the third gen iPad and will stop selling the third gen. Apparently you missed that. And you could at least get your prices right. Comparably-featured Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire models are $80 cheaper and $130 cheaper, respectively, than the iPad mini base model, though you can get models as cheap as $130 less and $170 less, respectively.

Also, ignoring your issues of fact, I fail to see the logic in what you're suggesting. Up until today, Apple didn't even have a product that competed in that class of tablet. It's been relying on a product in an entirely different class and at a far higher price to draw customers away from the products you cited, and even then, it's been doing very well (based on the 100M total iPad sales they announced today, coupled with the history of sales numbers listed on Wikipedia, we can gather that they've sold roughly 16M iPads in the last three months, as compared to 3M Nexus 7 sales in about the last four months). Yet for some reason you seem to think that Apple entering that space with a competing product right before the holiday season will actually drive customers away from Apple? That makes no sense whatsoever, and not just because we're talking about Apple. It just makes no sense period.

At worst, its price will keep it from doing as well as Apple would like, but for customers who wanted an iPad but felt like their only choice was an Android because they wanted something smaller or cheaper than a full-sized iPad, Apple now has an answer that is sure to capture some interest where none would have existed before. That's a net gain, not the loss you're suggesting.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the fact that it's made of metal and not plastic

As seen with the aluminium Apple laptops, metal case just means that the shock of impact is transferred directly to the screen and internal components.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anubis IV]

Oh, and lets just pretend that the bigger and more expensive iPad is not outselling the Nexus 7 right now, with a much larger price differential.

Indeed. I just ran the math on it, and the numbers ended up being about 16M iPad sales in the last 3 months, as compared to 3M Nexus 7 sales in the same time frame.

For anyone who wants to check my numbers, Apple announced today that they had sold 100M iPads. Wikipedia has a breakdown of iPad sales by quarter, and if you subtract those from the 100M number, you're left with roughly 16M sales that apparently make up the current quarter up to this point. Wikipedia also has sales numbers for the Nexus 7, and says that it's sold 3M as of mid-October, which would be pretty much exactly three months after it launched and only unaligned with Apple's numbers by about a week or two, making it a good comparison.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anubis IV]

Correction: I should have said three months for both iPad sales and Nexus 7 sales, rather than saying four months for Nexus 7 sales. Apparently I misread the Nexus 7's launch date as June instead of July, which caused the incorrect addition of the extra month in my statement.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Tough Love]

Since when has any Apple customer cared about a price difference of $100?

You're right, Apple customers obviously don't care about saving $100 since they are still customers, but Apple ex-customers do. That is precisely how Apple lost the lead in the smartphone market.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Tough Love]

you seem to think that Apple entering that space with a competing product right before the holiday season will actually drive customers away from Apple?

Yup I do. Apple priced it too high, pure and simple, and that is just because of fear of cannibalizing their own full size tablet sales. Mistake. This way, Apple gets to cannibalize its higher margin tablets *and* lose ground to lower priced Android tablets. Not that I disapprove of Apple making mistakes. On the contrary, I think Apple should make as many mistakes as possible. I just love that fixed screen resolution thing.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

Or that the Nexus 7 that costs $199 is actually the 8GB version.

They will soon phase out the 8 GB version altogether; drop the price of the 16 GB to $199 and introduce a 32 GB for $249.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Tough Love]

"When asked what the most they would pay for a smaller iPad was, our respondents on average said that they would pay $242 for a 7-inch iPad and $268 for an 8-inch iPad," said William Power, Baird Equity Research analyst.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. Where I'm from, we're taught that dropping our laptops on hard surfaces is kind of stupid.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple didn't lose the lead in the smart phone category. Name another smartphone that sells more than the iPhone.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[geekoid]

Ah, another post telling us the Apple priced to high the [product x] will fail.

You base that on what expertise, exactly?

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple "lost the lead" in the smartphone market - and that, ONLY if you measure by units shipped; the story is starkly different when you look at profits - because a multitude of Android manufacturers engaged in an unprofitable race to the bottom, and flooded the "smartphone" market with cheap Android crap. Once most of them finally fail out of the market, you'll probably see Apple, Samsung (via Android), and Microsoft/Nokia all holding a sizable non-majority-but-profitable share of the market, with the remainder (HTC, Moto, Sony, etc.) having one or two phones that anybody cares about, and a negligible share of the market and profits.

In the tablet space, pretty much the same. Surface, iPad, and Galaxy, with Amazon largely scrapping their hardware manufacturing in favor of writing Kindle software to work on all the major tablets. Amazon's a seller of content, not a builder of devices, and the Kindles - nice as they are - are addressed at a very small segment of the market whose only strong argument - screen resolution - is becoming largely moot with the advent of "Retina" and other high-ppi displays.

I disregard Motorola, because I don't think they're going to do much with that. Google is not, and never has been, a "design" company. They would have been better off courting Nokia - a company with actual design skills and taste. Motorola is a "geek toy" company, now owned by a "geek" company. Together, they will produce stuff that only a geek will want - a small, unprofitable market, because geeks will demand "open" everything, and argue "Why buy a Motorola thing, when I can build my own for half the price?"

Re:Another Apple blunder

[kipsate]

That you get 275,000 apps that work ono the iPad mini.

Which ones, old, pre-retina iPad apps or newer retina iPad apps that will look like shit if they work at all?

This device should have had a retina resolution if it was to exist at all. Now it is just an enlarged iPhone. Only few developers will target this device specifically. It will be a niche device. I can see it being used by waiters for taking orders on a busy terrace. But as a media consumer or internet front-end device it will fail. The screen is a huge step back compared to all other iOS devices except the iPad 2. If Apple really believed in a device of this size, it should have had a retina resolution.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Algae_94]

This is a specious argument. iPhone's may sell better than any single other smartphone manufacturer, but the smartphone OS of Android outsells the smartphone iOS. I'll leave it up to everyone else to figure out which is more important. It's a perfect flame war starter as both sides can make a valid claim of being better here.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Citizen of Earth]

Samsung Galaxy. 60M vs. 35M units.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple priced it too high

Conventional wisdom on Slashdot said the same thing about the iPad. "Starting at $499? HA WAIT UNTIL ANDROID TABLETS ARE OUT, THEY'LL GET CREAMED!" And look how that worked out: all the Android tabs cited as "iPad killers" came out at about the same $499 price point (but somehow they weren't overpriced), and largely failed in the market.

The ones that are much cheaper - Kindle Fire, for example - are also priced to factor in the expected content sales Amazon will get from the owners of those devices.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[AmiMoJo]

Comparably-featured Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire models are $80 cheaper and $130 cheaper, respectively, than the iPad mini base model, though you can get models as cheap as $130 less and $170 less, respectively.

How are they comparable? They both have better screens, and the Nexus 7 has NFC, for example.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Tough Love]

No kids much?

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Plumpaquatsch]

Just the fact that it's made of metal and not plastic

As seen with the aluminium Apple laptops, metal case just means that the shock of impact is transferred directly to the screen and internal components.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=drop+test+iphone+5+samsung+s3

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Tough Love]

Apple is already losing significant ground to Android in the 7 inch tablet space, so I don't know what you're foaming about. See, Google was really smart here, if they'd introduced a full size tablet at cost they'd be competing with partners. Bad news. In the 7 inch space they're competing with Amazon, not a partner. And Amazon can take care of themselves, with their own content and ability to loss-lead as you say.

Apple's strategy is the opposite of smart: they're failing to challenge Google and Amazon at the low end, where the volume is. All they're accomplishing really is giving those customers who just have to buy Apple a way to save money on an Apple tablet. And hopefully not feel too bummed out when they compare their Christmas present to Android owners with much slicker hardware that cost less money.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

It's now safe to say that Apple will be looking at a minority share of the tablet market from here on in.

Uh-huh. Sure.

"The era of the all-in-one hardware and software solution has been gone for at least the last ten years, even though Apple hasn’t quite caught on yet. [...] Apple will catch on and abandon Mac hardware by the start of the next decade." - Chris Seibold, AppleMatters, March 8, 2006

"The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks. In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant. [...] Apple will sell a few to its fans, but the iPhone won't make a long-term mark on the industry." - Matthew Lynn, Bloomberg, January 13, 2007

"The tablet market has only succeeded as a niche market over the years and it was hoped Apple would dream up some new paradigm to change all that. From what I've seen and heard, this won't be it." - John C. Dvorak, MarketWatch, January 29, 2010

Riiiiight. You keep on predicting that; we'll see how well that works out for you.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[adisakp]

Since when has any Apple customer cared about a price difference of $100?

You're right, Apple customers obviously don't care about saving $100 since they are still customers, but Apple ex-customers do. That is precisely how Apple lost the lead in the smartphone market.

Apple may not have a majority of sales in the smartphone market. However, they have a majority of PROFIT in the smartphone market. They don't bother competing over dwindling profits with half-baked ever crappier hardware. They make nicer hardware that upholds their "premium brand" and they make 2-5X more per item sold than their nearest competitor.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[jittles]

Which ones, old, pre-retina iPad apps or newer retina iPad apps that will look like shit if they work at all?

This device should have had a retina resolution if it was to exist at all. Now it is just an enlarged iPhone. Only few developers will target this device specifically. It will be a niche device. I can see it being used by waiters for taking orders on a busy terrace. But as a media consumer or internet front-end device it will fail. The screen is a huge step back compared to all other iOS devices except the iPad 2. If Apple really believed in a device of this size, it should have had a retina resolution.

Actually handling retina display is easy. The aspect ratio is the same so all you have to is add two pngs for each custom image, one with whatever name you choose, lets say sample.png and the retina image is just sample@2x.png. It makes the IPA larger, certainly, but some apps allow you to download the retina images as a separate package after you install the app.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

The 16GB Nexus 7 is $249. That's approximately $100 cheaper than the mini. The point thus still stands.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

Once most of them finally fail out of the market, you'll probably see Apple, Samsung (via Android), and Microsoft/Nokia all holding a sizable non-majority-but-profitable share of the market,

You can take Nokia out of that because they are failing too.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anubis IV]

Truth be told, I was actually trying to avoid an argument by referring to them as comparable, since I thought I was being pretty generous for the sake of any Android fans who might be offended. If you really want to argue that the Nexus is better enough that the two shouldn't be considered comparable, however, we can go down that path. Looking at the spec sheet quickly, here's my take on each of the major points...

Screen: Tie, since the Nexus' has 35% less screen area but at a resolution that's a fair amount higher
Processor: Nexus wins with the Nvidia Tegra 3 over the 1.5 year old Apple A5
Storage: Tie for the models I was talking about, but an iPad win overall with 16GB to 64GB instead of 8GB to 16GB
Cellular: Tie for the models I was talking about, but an iPad win overall with 4G LTE as an option
WiFi: iPad wins with dual-band 802.11n instead of single-band 802.11n
Bluetooth: iPad wins with 4.0 instead of the Nexus' 3.0
Front-Facing Camera: Tie, with a 1.2MP each
Back-Facing Camera: iPad wins with a 5MP camera, whereas the Nexus doesn't even have a camera
Wired Connectivity: Nexus wins with micro-USB instead of Apple's proprietary Lightning connector
Payment: Tie? Nexus has NFC, whereas iPad uses Passbook
Battery: Tie, with both getting about 10 hours in typical use
Feel in the hand: iPad wins with an aluminum case that's thinner and lighter than the Nexus' plastic case
Software: I'm not touching this topic with a ten foot pole.

Just to clarify on that NFC vs. Passbook point, Apple hasn't added NFC (yet?), instead opting to add Passbook with iOS 6. Passbook seems to be intended to replace the need to have NFC for making a payment, and by all accounts, it seems to be doing very well, despite only being a few weeks old and only being available on the latest version of iOS. Considering that NFC still hasn't seen widespread deployment by vendors yet, I'm leaning towards calling it a wash. They're both immature at this stage.

Long story short, we could quibble about a few of them (e.g. bigger vs. better is an ongoing debate with screens, hence why I called it a tie), but in the end, it's pretty close either way and they trade hits pretty evenly when you consider the base iPad mini vs. the higher-end Nexus 7. I'd call that comparable.

Now, whether or not you're willing to pay an extra $80 for something that's considered comparable...that's a more interesting question.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[BasilBrush]

Which ones, old, pre-retina iPad apps or newer retina iPad apps that will look like shit if they work at all?

You haven't a clue how this works. Those apps are in the vast majority of cases exactly the same. It's just that the developer supplies artwork at the two different resolutions. And for text, it renders much more nicely on the double resolution Retina display.

But as a media consumer or internet front-end device it will fail.

Every device Apple has released has had people like you declaring they would fail. And with few exceptions, such predictions couldn't be more wrong. Prepare to look stupid.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Plumpaquatsch]

Apple is already losing significant ground to Android in the 7 inch tablet space, so I don't know what you're foaming about.

Yeah, that's why the Galaxy Tab 10.1 creamed the Galaxy Tab - because 7" tablets are selling so well.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anubis IV]

Apple is already losing significant ground to Android in the 7 inch tablet space

Color me shocked that a company was losing ground in a market they weren't even competing in!

While I don't doubt that the 7" Android tablets have been making inroads, I don't think that Apple has been ceding any sort of significant ground in the overall tablet market just yet. Amazon has consistently refused to provide actual sales numbers for their Kindle line (though they've somewhat hilariously provided all sorts of numbers that sound big but are actually impossible to use as a source of comparison *eyeroll*). We do, however, have some analyst's figures for the Nexus 7. To cite the numbers I posted earlier in this thread, Apple sold 16M full-size iPads at $500 to $830 during the Nexus 7's debut quarter, in which the Nexus sold 3M units priced at $200 to $250. As a quick note, it was not a debut quarter for the iPad, and I think it's safe to say that the Nexus 7 was probably the best-selling Android tablet during that time period, likely by a large margin.

As for volume, while Steve Jobs famously said that Apple's biggest mistake after his departure in the '80s was that it sat on its laurels instead of going for volume when it had the chance, Apple has consistently shown that if it has to choose between profit and volume, it will choose profit. That's why Apple makes roughly 3/4 of the profits in the mobile sector, despite accounting for far less than that in terms of volume. Likewise for the PC market, where they are far-and-away the most profitable PC manufacturer (35% profit share as of 2010, but likely higher now), despite only having a VERY low double-digit share of the market. They'll happily let companies run each other out of business by competing on volume, which is exactly what's happening in the mobile sector, where the only companies actually making a profit are Apple (with 77% of the market's profit), Samsung (22%) and HTC (about 1%), while the rest are in the red as they fight for volume.

That likely won't happen in the tablet space, since Amazon gets money from content sales while Google gets money from advertising, but Apple's strategy of focusing on profit over volume seems to have worked pretty well for them so far, given that they're the largest company in the world at the moment. If that's what you define as "the opposite of smart", I hope I'm an idiot. ;)

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the now stupidly-large-and-unwieldy iPad has been far outselling the Nexus 7, and probably all other Android tablets combined.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anonymous Coward]

So they released iPad mini to do what? Reduce their earning?

Re:Another Apple blunder

[RocketRabbit]

Remember that the Nexus numbers are tablets *shipped to retailers* and not necessarily sold. Apple is the only tablet or phone manufacturer that reveals how many devices are actually *sold* and get into the hands of the consumers.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[RocketRabbit]

No, the reason they released the iPad mini was to totally murder the 7" Droid tablet market. I am betting by a month from now they will have sold more iPad Minis than all 7" Droid tablets combined, since they were released to market.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[RocketRabbit]

I think the main figure to look at here is profit per unit. I don't think anybody can argue that Apple is a loser there, even when comparing their phone profits to all other mobile phone makers combined.

Sure, Samsung sells a lot of units, but their profit per unit is so low that they could throw them out the back of an airplane over Somalia and they'd hardly be less profitable than they are now.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anubis IV]

Though I love making that point as well, I'm afraid it doesn't apply in this case, since the 3M number came from an analyst who had worked out actual sales numbers, and not from Google itself.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[RocketRabbit]

Unfortunately, I believe that since only Samsung knows how many activations there were that the data points the analyst was likely to have derived his conclusions from come from certain spyware type analytics programs, and surveys.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Tough Love]

Apple may not have a majority of sales in the smartphone market. However, they have a majority of PROFIT in the smartphone market.

Apple cultists seem to lack a firm grasp of the concept of "eroding margins". Which is what happens in response to eroding market share. Here's how it works: faced with low price competition, if you immediately drop your price to defend your market share then the ending situation is: lower margins, decent market share. If on the other hand, out of fear you decide to accept lower market share in the name of holding margins high, you will surely be forced to lower your margins later to prevent share from going to zero, and at that point you have low market share and low margins. Bummer.

This would seem to describe Tim Cook's current strategy. Judging from the 3% hit Apple stock took today, I would say that Wall street shares this view.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Onan]

> Here's how it works: faced with low price competition, if you immediately drop your price to defend your market share

This is how it works for, say, the Dells of the world: the companies who just repackage others' technologies rather than creating anything, and thus have control only over market traits like price.

But you're forgetting the other lever available to companies that actually create new things, which is to compete on quality and innovation. This has always been Apple's chosen tactic, and it has served them incredibly well, making them the most stable and successful technology company over the last 35ish years.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[AmiMoJo]

Nice try, but no.

Feel in the hand: iPad wins with an aluminum case that's thinner and lighter than the Nexus' plastic case

The Nexus wins hands down actually. The back gives you plenty of grip to make holding and operating it with one hand easy. I wish more devices had backs like that.

Payment: Tie? Nexus has NFC, whereas iPad uses Passbook

Passbook is not a payment system, it is a glorified card holder. I suppose in theory if you had a voucher or something it could be used for actual payment. NFC is widely supported in some countries, so it depends where you live. Also the Nexus 7 has similar functionality to Passbook via any number of free apps.

NFC does much more than pay for stuff too. It is used for sharing data easily as well. Simply touch two devices together.

Screen: Tie, since the Nexus' has 35% less screen area but at a resolution that's a fair amount higher

My guess is that Apple decided to go a bit bigger to make up for the poor screen resolution, but in terms of usability the Nexus 7 wins easily. Even most high end phones have a better screen resolution than the iPad Mini.

Keep in mind that Apple were forced to pick 1024x768 because that is what the original iPads used and apps have been designed for, not because it was the best option.

Storage: Tie for the models I was talking about, but an iPad win overall with 16GB to 64GB instead of 8GB to 16GB

64GB version to be announced next week.

Cellular: Tie for the models I was talking about, but an iPad win overall with 4G LTE as an option

4G not supported in the UK, but I'll give you that one.

A few more to add to the list:

Multitasking: Nexus wins, iOS is extremely limited.
USB device support: Nexus wins, iPad does not support USB devices at all.
Tethering: Tie, both support it I believe.
Serviceability: Nexus 7's battery is easier to replace.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anubis IV]

As I said, I'm not interested in arguing, so I'll refrain from quibbling over the counterpoints you made. I just wanted to chime in on this topic:

My guess is that Apple decided to go a bit bigger to make up for the poor screen resolution...Keep in mind that Apple were forced to pick 1024x768 because that is what the original iPads used and apps have been designed for, not because it was the best option.

You got the resolution correct, but you missed the actual reason for why they went bigger. The reason is because it allows them to keep the same physical size for on-screen elements as they have on their iPhone line. iPhones and iPads have had different physical sizes for the on-screen buttons and other chrome elements as a result of their differing pixel densities, with the iPhone's elements being smaller and the iPad's being slightly larger. That's why whenever the Retina displays come out, they quadruple the resolution, since it allows them to use the same number of logical pixels and thus maintain the same physical size on the screen. The iPhone's elements represented the minimum in the range of what was considered acceptable according to Apple's research into the topic of touch sensing and the ability of the human finger to indicate a particular point on a screen (if memory serves, they said that a human finger's touch was typically 40px across on their original iPhone).

Essentially, for the iPad mini they took an iPad 2 screen and shrunk it down until it was at the pixel density of an iPhone 3GS. As a result, it has the same ppi as the iPhone 3GS, and thus has the same physical size for its on-screen elements, meaning that they will not be smaller than Apple's stated minimum. If someone can comfortably use an iPhone, they can comfortably use the iPad mini since its elements will be the same size. Had they gone smaller, the elements would have had to have been scaled up, creating all sorts of different issues at the software level.

USB device support: Nexus wins, iPad does not support USB devices at all.

Okay, I will quibble a bit, since I think this point is a poorly constructed standard on which to base a judgment. If you want to analyze wired connectivity (i.e. how easy it is to physically connect it to another device), I already covered that up above and considered the Nexus the winner, so it's redundant to state it again. But if you want to analyze device support, then analyze device support, irrespective of the interface being used. Otherwise, you'd be artificially weighting against any device that uses a different interface for supporting peripherals, without showing regard for the benefits or drawbacks of that other interface. That's a biased standard.

Once you look at it that way, you need to consider not only how ubiquitous the interface is, but also how widely it's supported, since a port isn't any good if you can't actually use it. For instance, micro-USB has absolutely massive adoption, yet despite that there is no guarantee that if I plug my Nexus 7 into a speaker with a USB port that I can hit play and expect it to work. Assuming they can work together at all, I'll probably have to do some fiddling to make it happen, since the software standards that allow for things like easy audio and video streaming over USB are not yet widely adopted. On the other hand, while the Lightning connector "just works" with anything you can connect it to, it's not widely adopted (though with an adapter it is backwards compatible with tens of thousands of devices that were made for the old dock connector), which greatly limits how useful it is.

You also need to look at the wireless options as well. While both Android and iOS have third-party apps (of varying quality) that allow for music and video streaming to DLNA/UPnP-compatible devices, Apple's products come with AirPlay, which is a bit more capable (e.g. screen mirroring), can work from within any app, and has seen pretty good deployment on third-party speakers,

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Uberbah]

Apple customers obviously don't care about saving $100 since they are still customers, but Apple ex-customers do. That is precisely how Apple lost the lead in the smartphone market.

To...Android phones costing just as much as an iPhone? And haterz like to complain about Apple's reality distortion field...

Re:Another Apple blunder

[AmiMoJo]

You got the resolution correct, but you missed the actual reason for why they went bigger. The reason is because it allows them to keep the same physical size for on-screen elements as they have on their iPhone line.

Nice attempt at justification, but you can't escape the fact that they are always stuck with exact multiples of their original resolution choices. Even the new iPhone 5 couldn't quite manage to be HD due to having to keep the same number of pixels in one dimension. Apple has never released a product in either the iPhone or iPad lines which did not have a screen that is an exact multiple resolution of the original product.

You also need to look at the wireless options as well. While both Android and iOS have third-party apps (of varying quality) that allow for music and video streaming to DLNA/UPnP-compatible devices, Apple's products come with AirPlay

So it is a choice between using DLNA, an open standard that is supported by a wide variety of software and devices natively, and AirPlay which requires that giant streaming turd known as iTunes (on Windows, don't know about Mac). I use DLNA extensively already because my TV supports it, all my PCs support it, my NAS supports it, my phone supports it... Realistically AirPlay is only a good solution for people who buy a lot of Apple gear and don't care about native support in non-Apple devices like smart TVs.

While the Nexus definitely does allow for more robust multitasking, in practice, it doesn't actually make much of a difference since the iPad mini allows for a variety of background tasks that cover most of those same uses

I'm not talking about background apps. On my Android tablet I often create lists by switching between the browser and a notepad app, or the browser and Gmail. On an iPad you have to close each app to do that, then open it back up again. The browser re-loads the page, re-loads all your tabs. It is a slow and clunky process, compared to the streamlined switching on Android.

Samsung offers an even better option in the form of side-by-side apps, which is something I hope makes it in to mainstream Android soon. iOS will never support it because of the previously mentioned fixed resolution problems, and lack of real multitasking of course.

Both the resolution problem and monotasking were decisions made for the first iPhone, which was basically released before the technology was quite powerful enough to do what Apple wanted. In order to make apps slick and everything run smoothly they had to impose those restrictions, and are now paying for it.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anubis IV]

Nice attempt at justification

That part of my post wasn't an attempt at a justification. It was an attempt at an explanation for the sake of providing you with additional information that I thought you might find interesting. I was just providing some information I was aware of since I thought a fellow nerd might find those sorts of details interesting. Nothing more. I can understand how you chose to read it as a justification, but please understand that it was not intended that way.

That said, I think you're trying to create an issue where one doesn't exist when you mention the iPhone 5 and HD. Specifically, when we're talking about these high-density displays used in some recent Android and iOS devices, science tells us that they're already beyond the point where a 20/20 eye can distinguish individual pixels at a typical viewing distance. We can still argue that they should have increased the size of the screen or changed the aspect ratio, but increasing the pixel density to a point where it attained HD status, as you seem to suggest they should have done, would be a pointless endeavor, since we would be physically incapable of appreciating the difference.

So it is a choice between using DLNA [...] and AirPlay which requires that giant streaming turd known as iTunes [...] Realistically AirPlay is only a good solution for people who buy a lot of Apple gear and don't care about native support in non-Apple devices like smart TVs.

No, it's a choice between having both or having one. As I already stated, neither Android nor iOS come with DLNA support baked into the OS, but both support third-party apps that allow you to stream audio and video using that standard. But in addition to DLNA, iOS has AirPlay baked into the OS, which allows it to do the audio/video streaming DLNA can do, as well as to mirror everything you can see on your iDevice to a TV, effectively turning it into a second monitor. It can also be used for more entertaining purposes, such as playing Real Racing on your TV while using your iDevice as a steering wheel.

And it's somewhat ironic you should mention smart TVs, since Google TV 2.0 supports AirPlay via an app. Also, who said anything about iTunes? While it is the default choice for AirPlay streaming from a PC (why are we bringing up PCs suddenly?), it's in no way required; there are a number of apps that can stand in. Where you got the idea that it's required (or why you decided to bring it up at all), I have no clue.

On an iPad you have to close each app to do that, then open it back up again.

That hasn't been strictly true since iOS 4 debuted over two years ago. All you have to do is double-tap the home button to bring up the application switcher, then tap the app you want to switch to, bringing you back to right where you left off. That said, I do want to paint an honest picture, since there are some differences between Android and iOS. The Android model for multitasking essentially puts the onus on you to manage your own apps. It works, and it gives you fine-grained control, but it requires a bit of interaction on your part in order for it to work optimally. Failure to do so can lead to degraded performance in foreground apps.

In contrast, iOS will reallocate memory being used by background apps if there's a need for it elsewhere. As a result, while those tabs won't reload if we follow your example by just switching back and forth between the browser and a text editor, if you were to go and play some games and then come back to your browser later, it may need to reload the tabs. Similarly, iOS will also exit background apps if it needs the memory, generally starting with the least-recently run app (the user sees no indication whether an app has exited or not). In that case, a signal is sent to the app, allowing it time to save your progress before it exits. Whenever you go

Re:Another Apple blunder

[AmiMoJo]

The Android model for multitasking essentially puts the onus on you to manage your own apps. It works, and it gives you fine-grained control, but it requires a bit of interaction on your part in order for it to work optimally. Failure to do so can lead to degraded performance in foreground apps.

This has not been true for a long time. Android automatically kills background apps to keep the device responsive. When you go back to them they re-load and continue where you left off, just like iOS.

Your knowledge is lacking and I am too busy to educate you for the sake of this debate.

Re:Another Apple blunder

[Anubis IV]

Your knowledge is lacking and I am too busy to educate you for the sake of this debate.

Fair enough, but I'd say that this statement goes both ways, given the explanation I just gave about app switching in iOS. ;)

Not the first time

[sootman]

AFAIK, they used to do it, in the late 90s/early 2000s. I remember watching the 12" G4 PowerBook be announced, and seeing the video before coverage was available, so I'm as certain as I can be that it was live -- not even delayed 30 or 60 minutes. Then they got pretty popular and I guess bandwidth was a problem, and now they're starting again. Feel free to chime in and let me know if I'm wrong or right.

1024x768 on that "so much bigger" screen ... hmm

[daboochmeister]

Hmm. I guess the iPad mini team missed a memo or two since the original iPad ... so let's create a kinda sorta mini tablet that, while still a"mini", will be enough bigger than the 7" tablets so that Steve doesn't go zombie apocalypse on us and we can market it like crazy as providing SO much more screen surface that you'd be a FOOL to use a competitor ... but make it way lower resolution than those 7" competitors (that cost a lot less). Things that make you go "hmm".

This ISN'T the first time Apple has streamed

[Anonymous Coward]

This ISN'T the first time Apple has streamed an event. They streamed the 2010 “Back to the Mac” event. Plus, they used to stream the Keynotes to the Apple Stores way back in the day. The last being the introduction of the Power Mac G5.

First time?

[freaktheclown]

Apple had live streams for events over 10 years ago. They streamed the Macworld keynotes at least four times and also had a live stream of their event in September 2010.

Macworld 2000 live stream announcement
Macworld 2001 live stream announcement
Macworld 2002 live stream announcement
Macworld 2003 live stream announcement

LOL

[Gnomaana]

I read those prices and laughed so hard I almost passed out. Those are seriously the price points?

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. For that price I'll buy two.

Superior product at modest premium? Fuck yeah.

Re:Lol

[BSDimwit]

Yep, it's so funny they are laughing all the way to the bank.

I wonder what I would do if I made the most popular tablet on the market by a HUGE margin and then decided to come out with a smaller version. Hmm, would I worry about what a few cheapskate android using slashdotters thought, or would I would maintain my previously successful pricing strategy...what to do, what to do.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

> Superior product at modest premium? Fuck yeah.

Inferior products with double the price. Fanboy will buy two. Fuck yeah!!

Blundering away

[Anonymous Coward]

Another in a string of Apple blunders.

Slashdot has been chronicling Apple blunders since 2001.

It's only a matter of time before someone starts to pay attention. Customers, Wall Street, someone. Sooner or later.

Only a matter of time, I tell's ya.

I watched it

[howardd21]

I watched it on my second gen apple TV and it was fine except for occasionally there would be a lag more likely due to my Time Warner cable modem. All in all the great experience in some decent looking products coming out

iMac -- most impressive product here

[Scowler]

The specs / price on the iMacs are better than I would have guessed, and the form factor is impressive as well. Return of the all-in-one PC?

Re:iMac -- most impressive product here

[Anonymous Coward]

How can it be the "return" of something that's been present for 14 years?

Re:iMac -- most impressive product here

[Anonymous Coward]

All-in-one...plus an add-in optical drive, and probably some kind of USB/card dock.. I wonder how many compromises were made with regard to price and performance in order to get it that thin. I just need to get work done and give zero fscks about how thick the machine is.

I'm disappointed

[Smartcowboy]

I don't care about the ipad mini. I don't have a use for that kind of gadget. But I say thumb down for this new imac. Yeah it's more powerful, wich is good, but my ssd-upgraded five years old imac is already powerful enough. Yeah it's slimmer but why? When i'm at my desk, I see the imac in 2d anyway. When i'm not at my desk, I don't see it at all. I don't understand why I should care about the width of the thing. I dislike the external DVD drive. It's one more clutter on my workspace that's already swamped by books, papers, dried coffee cups and rotting lunches. They should have kept the current imac's mesurements and use the available space to make it extensible. Oh.... I remember I'm talking about Apple. Do as if I did not say anything. My next computer will be a beige Linux box anyway: most of the softwares I use are FLOSS already so it will not be a big change for me.

Re:I'm disappointed

[Smartcowboy]

I'm replying to myself because I forgot to explain why I can be disappointed with a new model if my current computer is good enough.

Actually, the screen of my imac is too small. So I would like to get a bigger one but I have one more reason to dislike the new imac: These 16:9 display are bad. I would be better with a used 16:10 screen from kijiji and a previous-generation macmini, one with integrated dvd. Or, as I said earlier, a beige linux box.

Apple jumped shark.

Re:I'm disappointed

[mikael_j]

I definitely agree on the iMac. The new one is something I would tolerate in an office setting if my employer was footing the bill (and dealing with upgrade cycles and repairs/replacements), at home I'd rather want something like the previous generation of iMac but with a replaceable hard drive, no optical unit and a relatively easy way to clean the fans.

And of course, bigger screen with higher (or the same) pixel density would also be nice but for now 27" 2560x1440 is good enough.

Re:I'm disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, you sound disgusting. "...my workspace that's already swamped by books, papers, dried coffee cups and rotting lunches..."

Re:So, Apple fanboys

[Bramlet Abercrombie]

That ought to take care of the damn gerbil.

iPad 3

[LordStormes]

From the looks of the store, they've completely dropped the iPad 3. Their comparison now shows an iPad 2 vs. an iPad 4. Does anyone know if there will be some sort of clearance event anywhere to clean out stock of 3s? Looking to get one for my girlfriend for her birthday.

Re:iPad 3

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be a couple of weeks before the iPad 4 is released (one week I think they said)... so that is the "clearance" period.

Re:iPad 3

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there will. Just go here or here.

Every time Apple revs a product, there will always be those that feel the need to get the latest. Apple stuff is actually a pretty good deal if you buy 1 generation behind.

Re:iPad 3

[T-Bone-T]

I was planning on getting one for my birthday before I leave the country and have questionable access to new Apple products and now I'm not sure if I should try to get the new one at the last minute or just get the 3 like I planned. I'm suprised and a little pissed that they simply dropped it instead of replacing the iPad 2 for $399.

Re:iPad 3

[LordStormes]

I would have loved them to slot the 3 where the 2 is now, and further lower the price of the 2.

Re:iPad 3

[LordStormes]

I'm looking for a new one with a warranty, to give as a gift. I'd prefer not to buy a fragile, commonly-counterfeited product out of the back of somebody's van for $500.

Wait, what just happened?

[Daetrin]

I've come to expect Apple to release hardware that is marginally better than their competitors at a pretty hefty markup. So let's compare...

iPad mini: 7.9" screen + 1024x768 resolution = 163 PPI. Price = $330 - $530 depending on storage size.

Nexus 7: 7" screen + 1280x800 resolution = 216 PPI. Price = $200-$250.

So for $80 more than the Nexus 7 version with the same amount of storage (16GB: $330 iPad mini, $250 Nexus 7) you get a 0.9" larger screen but significantly worse pixel density. And this is of course before the 32GB Nexus 7 announcement next week. The rumor is that the 32GB version will be $250 and the other models will drop in price. If so that means at the 32GB level you'll have to pay $180 more to get an iPad mini with worse resolution.

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[fustakrakich]

Yes, exactly.. What are they trying to pull? 1024x768 at that price is an atrocity. You can get a Lenovo at $150 or less. But hey! It's an iPad!. Gotta have it, right? I think it's safe to ignore this one.

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[AmiMoJo]

You forgot NFC, and the Nexus 7 has a better CPU (quad core + low power core) and batter battery life.

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but apple has the coolest adapters.

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[wile_e8]

If so that means at the 32GB level you'll have to pay $180 more to get an iPad mini with worse resolution.

They do it because they know the masses will pay that much for it and insist it's better.

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[Misagon]

Google can price the Nexus at $200 because it takes a loss on each device sold.

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

He forgot NFC. I forgot NFC. Microsoft forgot NFC on the Surface. Nokia forgot NFC. Amazon forgot NFC.

What's NFC actually useful for, exactly?

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[swillden]

He forgot NFC. I forgot NFC. Microsoft forgot NFC on the Surface. Nokia forgot NFC. Amazon forgot NFC.

What's NFC actually useful for, exactly?

I regularly use NFC on my Nexus 7 to buy stuff, at Home Depot, 7-11, Petco, Best Buy, Walgreens... and more places all the time. It's slick.

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you why. Because when the cycle comes up next year, what will they have to trumpet as "amazing" and "resolutionary" if they add it all this year?

Progress is good, but holding back features (screen pixels and processor) just to have something to add as an upgrade next year when it's fully available this year, is either smart marketing, greed, and/or cynical. And the sad thing is you'll have people fucking drooling at next year's minipad... with retina display!

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? You make purchases by digging a 7" tablet out of your bag, rather than a credit card out of your wallet?? That's gotta look pretty special ...

I'm a bit lost as to why you wouldn't just use an NFC phone rather than a tablet ... but then, I'm also a bit lost as to why you wouldn't just use a little bit of plastic card in your wallet.

I have both an NFC phone and an NFC tablet, but I honestly can't see much point in the tech. I've used it to share websites between phones a few times, and that's about it ... and even then, it's clumsy at the best of times.

Re:Wait, what just happened?

[swillden]

I do use my phone. I also use my tablet, which is generally either in my hand or in my pocket, not in a bag. That's the nice thing about the 7" table size. I could use a plastic card, certainly, but then I wouldn't get an electronic receipt on my phone and tablet, and I find tapping more convenient than swiping. I'm also hoping there will be a day when I can stop carrying a wallet full of credit cards.

Lousy low-res screen

[kriston]

Wow, my Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7 have higher resolution screens than that lousy disappointment Apple announced today.

This screen is marginally better than even the Nook Color.

Re:Lousy low-res screen

[Plumpaquatsch]

Wow, my Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7 have higher resolution screens than that lousy disappointment Apple announced today.

This screen is marginally better than even the Nook Color.

And you really need it to show all the white space on the non-tablet-specific apps.

disappointed

[GentooBob]

I'm a little upset to see that the 13" MacBook Pro Retina is only a dual core. If you get the spec'd out version, you might as well get the 15" model. Someone should dig Steve Jobs back up and ask him what the hell is going on!

Now sue Samsung

[drolli]

They have stolen your Design, which Steve Jobs mentioned as that Apple would never build something of this size. The fact he mentioned it clearly proves that Apple designed it perfectly before any competitors examined thise size factor.

Very interesting

[grumpyman]

The most interesting aspect to me is the 4:3 for the mini version. Personally I prefer 4:3.

In any case I think Android is mature enough with JB to be used widely. Apple better come up with something REAL different as the hardware differentiation is narrower and narrower. I've even seen some Chinese Android tablet has retina display.

Re:Very interesting

[mjwx]

The most interesting aspect to me is the 4:3 for the mini version. Personally I prefer 4:3.

I'm the opposite. For some years now all my movies have been in 16:9 seeing as my tablet is primarily a media consumption device this matters a lot. Web browsing gives me either more vertical space for long pages or more horizontal space for wide pages (I.E. with a lot of images, text does not matter so much with Android's text reflow).

Apple is locked into 4:3, which I only use for my legacy PC games as they dont support 16:9/10 resolutions. If I buy a new display I want it in 16:9 or 16:10.

In any case I think Android is mature enough with JB to be used widely. Apple better come up with something REAL different as the hardware differentiation is narrower and narrower. I've even seen some Chinese Android tablet has retina display.

Just like Android overtook Apple in the phone space with a mature product (Android 2.2) they are repeating it in the tablet space with Android 4.x.

What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the iPhone got bigger and the iPad got smaller. Is the next product going to be the iPhone HD or iPad Nano?

bad apple

[kipsate]

The iPad mini is a device with a flawed screen. Everything will just seem bigger because of the lower ppi. Very very bad design decision. Sure, it can pre-Retina iPad apps. But what about retina iPad apps? They will look like shit if they run at all.

Apple should have kept the retina resolution. Sure, the display would be new in terms of number of pixels, but at least the number of ppi would be more consistent. Everything would appear comparable in size. Now, on the iPad mini, everything will seem larger while at the same time the display is smaller than an iPad.

This will just not fly. Developers will be reluctant to adapt their apps for this device. Lack of apps will result in low sales. This device will FAIL.

Re:bad apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh...

All apps are non-retina. Retina is add-on (i.e. apps contains normal and 2x resolution assets). All iPad apps are in particular non-retina since they are supported on the non-retina iPad 2. Apps can tell after launch if they need to render in 2x or not.

The whole idea with retina is that devices that have 2xPPI can draw in double resolution while the other devices don't. Most of the time the developer doesn't even notice.

It is the PPI, so everything will look the same size in retina and non-retina. Retina will just render sharper.

Re:bad apple

[BasilBrush]

But what about retina iPad apps? They will look like shit if they run at all.

No they won't. All retina apps ship with multiple artwork. One set for the original iPad res, and one set for Retina res. The iPad mini will run with the original iPad res graphics and look just fine.

Apple is cleverer than you.

Re:bad apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPad mini is a device with a flawed screen. Everything will just seem bigger because of the lower ppi.

Is this opposite day? Everything will look slightly smaller, not bigger, because it has higher PPI than previous non-Retina iPads.

Very very bad design decision. Sure, it can pre-Retina iPad apps. But what about retina iPad apps? They will look like shit if they run at all.

"Retina" apps will run and they won't look like shit. That's not conjecture, that's known fact. When Apple launched the retina iPad, there were tens of millions of iPad 2 units in the field, and Apple kept selling the iPad 2 as a low cost model. App developers would have been insane to update their apps for Retina in such a way that they failed to run or looked like crap on the iPad 1 or 2.

It's crazy that you even bring this up as a big deal. iPhone / iPodTouch had this first, since those product lines also had a mix of retina and non-retina machines for a long time. It was never a problem there, it hasn't been a problem with the iPad, and the iPad mini does nothing to introduce new problems.

Apple should have kept the retina resolution.

You know, I'm sure Apple would prefer to make their whole product line retina, but it's going to take a few years. The new 10" retina iPads have a 42.5 watt hour battery and the new mini has a 16.3 watt hour battery. Both are rated for 10 hours. That means the retina machine averages about 2.6x as much power as the mini. There's no way they could fit a huge battery like that in the mini.

Give it another year and another process shrink for Apple's A7 SoC, and maybe GPU power use will have come down enough to put one beefy enough for a 2048x1536 display in a retina iPad mini.

(and yes, there are some high res small Android tablets out there. Guess what? They have very underpowered GPUs for those pixel dimensions. Apple doesn't like to do that.)

This is so cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's gonna dominate. I'm selling all my shares of Android right now!

Yeah

[geekoid]

Now I can pay 600 bucks for a computer with an slow i5 chip. Yawn.
Yeah,I can buy a large Touch. Yawn.

I"m not a hater, and while Apple does some thing that drive me up a wall, This is one of the most boring sets of announcements in over a decade.
You have a smaller iPad, and slight hardware improvements!

Surely you mean PDT/EDT?

[Anonymous Coward]

How odd that they chose to announce the time in Standard time and not Daylight Saving time, which most of the US is currently observing. Or perhaps the author is using an acronym they don't understand?

~$500????

[nurb432]

And what market is this for? If i'm going to have to pay that sort of price, id just get a 'real' iPad. I wouldn't pay a premium just to lose an inch and get a worse display.

I didn't expect it to be cheaper than the competition but i wasn't expecting it to be as much as the full sized iPads either.

Re:~$500????

[BasilBrush]

I didn't expect it to be cheaper than the competition but i wasn't expecting it to be as much as the full sized iPads either.

What are you talking about? The new full size iPad starts at $499. The new iPad mini starts at $329.

Re:~$500????

[nurb432]

I'm talking about the 'entry level' stuff.

And i cant see why people would even pay that much.

Re:So, Apple fanboys

[nurb432]

Well, its not 7", so try again.

And i do agree with him, 7 is too small, 8 is about right and 9.x is a bit big ( yes i have all 3... ) Now if they can just ditch that damned LCD and swtich to ink so its useable as a reading device and not a 'multimedia consumption device'.

not the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the first time. Apple has always streamed the events.

It is better

[SuperKendall]

So let's compare...

And then you proceed to look at only PPI. How is that a comparison?

The iPad mini screen is physically larger, and with a form factor closer to paper than the widescreen Nexus. If you paid attention to the launch, you'd realize that it results in a device that has quite a lot more physical screen area to view things in compared to the Nexus.

Yes the PPI is lower, but some people don't seem to mind - and for the ones that do, well Apple already makes an ever larger retina iPad for more space.

So for $80 more than the Nexus 7 version with the same amount of storage you get a 0.9" larger screen but significantly worse pixel density

And lots more tablet specific apps and a better build. You are also marginalizing that 0.9" but considering that's on the diagonal it's quite a lot of extra space.

If you are right about the Nexus price drop that will probably help the Nexus, but when it all comes down to software the iPad is still in a really good position compared to the Nexus.

I find it hilarious to watch all the people claiming the larger screen of the S3 automatically makes it better than the iPhone 5 now saying the Nexus is obviously better based on PPI, when here you have exactly reversed the roles of the iPad mini and the Nexus tablets in terms of screen DPI...

Re:It is better

[Anonymous Coward]

And then you proceed to look at only PPI. How is that a comparison?

You're right that PPI is meaningless when comparing different size screens. However, the Nexus 7 (1280x800) still has a higher resolution screen than the iPad Mini (1024x768) and the iPhone 5 (1136x640). Why? I'll spell it out.

1280 > 1136 > 1024
800 > 768 > 640

Interestingly, the iPhone 5 has a wider screen than the iPad Mini (by resolution), although it is not as tall.

Re:It is better

[Daetrin]

I'm comparing that particular aspect because Apple made such a big deal out of the "Retina Display" when they came out with it, and following that lead Apple fans always make a big deal out of how wonderful and beautiful the iPad's screen is. Apple is the one who decided to make pixel density a mainstay of their advertising campaign, so it kind of stick out like a sore thumb when they release a product that not only isn't "Retina Display" quality, but isn't even as good as the competition.

Of course if you really want to look at other factors, we could look at CPU. For quite awhile Apple has had inferior CPUs to the best Android devices, and that continues to be true here as well, 800 MHz -1 GHz dual core Apple A5 vs 1.3 GHz quad core Cortex-A9.

As for the size, maybe some people have made a big deal out of the larger Android phones, but personally i've never made any such claims. In fact i'm kind of concerned with the apparent arms race in screen sizes. I'm quite happy with the 3.7" screen on my Nexus One, and am a little worried about whether i'll be able to find a decent phone that fits comfortably in my pocket when i upgrade. And i'm a bit dubious about the claim that the iPad _Mini_ scores better than some other tablet because it's 0.9" larger. If that's true, shouldn't it be twice as much better if it was 1.8" larger? And three times as much better if it were 2.7" larger? And at that rate pretty soon you're back to regular iPad size. If the goal of the product is to be a smaller version, you're in a tough spot arguing that larger = better. 7" is too small, and 8" is too large, but 7.9" is just right? Why? Because Apple said so?

Re:It is better

[SuperKendall]

I'm comparing that particular aspect because Apple made such a big deal out of the "Retina Display"

It is a big deal.

And that's why the mini to N-7 PPI comparison makes no sense, because you are comparing two devices that are not Retina displays, nor close to it. Yes the Nexus will be a little crisper, but not much more - and meanwhile the iPad has much more space in which UI and text can be filled. It'll not be as easy to read as it would be on a Retina class display - but the same is also true of the Nexus 7.

Of course if you really want to look at other factors, we could look at CPU. For quite awhile Apple has had inferior CPUs to the best Android devices, and that continues to be true here as well, 800 MHz -1 GHz dual core Apple A5 vs 1.3 GHz quad core Cortex-A9.

Which Android needs just to keep up. For games that will help, for real applications and general OS use iOS is simply more efficient and can be smoother to use even with a less powerful CPU. The speed of the CPU hardly matters when you don't have as much software to run on it.

If the goal of the product is to be a smaller version, you're in a tough spot arguing that larger = better. 7" is too small, and 8" is too large, but 7.9" is just right? Why? Because Apple said so?

I still think the iPad mini is better not so much because of the 7 to 7.9" difference, but because of the aspect ratio - if you look at comparison shots you can see that when browsing or reading you really get a lot more content in the iPad screen.

And yes, I feel the iPhone 5 is a step back in that regard although the extra vertical space is useful.

If all you are doing on a tablet is watching movies then the Fire would seem to make way more sense to me.

Re:It is better

[Daetrin]

"Yes the Nexus will be a little crisper, but not much more"

Uh, what? You think 33% greater density is "not much more"? According to Apple's own numbers the iPad's Retina Display only has 22% greater pixel density than the Nexus 7, and the MacBook Pro 13's Retina Display only has 5% greater pixel density.

So you're saying that 20% greater pixel density in a device that's much larger is a HUGE deal, but 33% greater pixel density in a device that's close to the same size doesn't really matter?

Re:It is better

[SuperKendall]

So you're saying that 20% greater pixel density in a device that's much larger is a HUGE deal

Yes, because you get way more physical screen space along with improved PPI. That is why it's a bigger deal. Think of it this way, from the iPad mini to the Nexus 7 you are going from 1024 to only 1200 pixels across (even less of an increase vertically, 768 to 800). But from the Nexus 7 to an iPad 3 you are going from 1200 to 2048 pixels horizontally, which is quite a bit larger jump.

All of this in a device category which is roughly equal. A Nexus 7 is not something you can keep in a jeans pocket, so it's not that much harder to carry a full-sized iPad in the same way you'd carry around a 7" tablet.

I will admit it's a larger jump than I had thought from the iPad mini to the Nexus 7; but still feel like the usable space will be greater with the iPad because the screen size is already small enough that you can't reasonably compress content much more in absolute size without it being tiny.

Re:It is better

[bingoUV]

I will admit it's a larger jump than I had thought from the iPad mini to the Nexus 7; but still feel like the usable space will be greater with the iPad because the screen size is already small enough that you can't reasonably compress content much more in absolute size without it being tiny.

Wow! I have to pity you fanboys. Cruel Apple comes out with a new release every few months, totally distorting your worldviews. A week ago, screen resolution used to be the most important metric. Now, not so. And you guys have to think ways to explain away and make 20% appear more than 33%. You have to start "feeling" , while still talking numbers, about "enough" "reasonable" "much" "tiny". Tough.

And not to speak of the old Apple advertisement criticizing competitors to have too little or too high a resolution, claiming that only the Apple devices have just the "right" resolution so as to be good to eyes. And the Steve Jobs comments about 7 inch tablets needing to come with a file to shape one's fingers to be able to use a 7 inch tablets.

apple schiller: plastic

[MadMaverick9]

"Theirs is made of plastic," Schiller said, referring to the Android tablet.

So what's yours made of? Wood?

Like the Apple I.

It's obvious WHY, not why it matters

[SuperKendall]

You're right that PPI is meaningless when comparing different size screens. However, the Nexus 7 (1280x800) still has a higher resolution screen than the iPad Mini (1024x768)

And? That is a pretty slight difference, and the Nexus 7 is nowhere near the 326 PPI of the retina iPad.

If you really cared about PPI, both the Nexus and the iPad mini are inadequate. In fact it's pretty obvious a lot of people are going to be OK with the PPI of the iPad mini given how many people bought the iPad 2 with the same resolution in a 10" screen.

Physically the iPad mini with a 4x3 aspect ratio still offers substantially more space to read in than the other 7" tablets. Since a large point of the tablet, even in a smaller form factor, is to have a larger screen to read on it sure seems like it's better to lose some resolution and gain space to read.

Personally though I think the iPad mini AND the other 7" tablets are kind of a silly tweener size, so we'll see how the market plays it out...

Re:It's obvious WHY, not why it matters

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that PPI is meaningless when comparing different size screens. However, the Nexus 7 (1280x800) still has a higher resolution screen than the iPad Mini (1024x768)

And? That is a pretty slight difference

Funnily enough, it's a 30% increase in pixels ...

Re:1024x768 on that "so much bigger" screen ... hm

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no need to go "hmmm" if you take a look at the spec sheets. As I pointed out in another post up above, the 10" retina iPad has 2.6x as much battery capacity as the 7.9" mini, yet both are rated for exactly the same battery life. Right now, a GPU with enough raw throughput to do high frame rate graphics on a 2048x1536 display sucks too much power to be practical in a smaller, thinner chassis with much less battery capacity.

And before you say it, no, that 7" competitor hasn't solved this problem at all. It uses a Tegra3, whose GPU is less powerful than the one in the Apple A5 found in an iPad mini or iPad 2. Here's some benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6073/the-google-nexus-7-review/5

(The ones you really want to look at for evaluating raw GPU throughput are the "offscreen" benchmarks at the bottom of the page, both because they aren't vsync limited and because they're rendering into a fixed size buffer on all platforms so the numbers are more proportional to the GPU fillrate.)

Meanwhile the Mac Pro...

[anarkhos]

Earth to Tim Cook: Create a genuine 'PRO' team at Apple. You're currently a laughing stock

It's RetiNOT

[Provocateur]

Not a retina display *sigh* Dealbreaker!

Re:It's RetiNOT

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, not having a display that gets some made up marketing term applied to it is totally lame.
why don't they just change the made up term to include whatever this new toy has for a screen?
problem solved.

20 minute delay in case of FAIL?

[HagraBiscuit]

The Bum Gardner stream had a 20 min delay so they could cut it in the event of more than his bum getting gardened. Will the fruity computey folk be rolling something similar y'reckon?