|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Are you gonna get an iPad?
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 02-04-2010 10:56 AM
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren I guess I don't understand the market this is trying to compete in. It seems like a mobile device, because it doesn't have a real OS, but it is way too big. If it wanted to be a tablet, it should have a tablet OS, which shouldn't be a problem, since I thought Apple was supposed to be good at software. If it wanted to be an ebook reader, it should be billed as such. Even then, why should I buy this over a Kindle, at twice the price?
It's a mobile device along the same lines that the iPod Touch is a mobile device. Given the state of the "real" OS's out there, would you really want something like that running on a device that is intended to have less generalistic purposes? By not running something like Windows 7 or OSX, you lose the complexity of those operating systems at the expense of all-purpose functionality. This is the same side of the balance that Apple has taken with the iPod line all along.
I agree that it would be nice if it were to have a memory slot, but what would that accomplish, besides it being a "nice" thing to have? That would be an easy way to expand storage beyond the built-in memory, but then it introduces issues like the compatibility of the memory card, the speed of said memory card, and the requirement of having to juggle two memory spaces instead of one, and one of those could be removed at any time. Lots of complexity in such operation, which is never what the iPod was about.
I'm curious whether it will be a good e-book reader. I've never tried to read an e-book on my iPhone because the screen is just way too small (I'm assuming) to make doing so a worthwhile experience. The Kindle that is half the price of the 16GB iPad only has a 6" screen, vs. 10" on the iPad. The 9.7" Kindle is $489, which is only $10 cheaper than the list price on the iPad, and it only has 4G of internal space (probably very satisfactory when all you're storing is B&W e-books).
As far as I can tell, there's no removable battery or memory card slot on the Kindle, either. It's also important to keep in mind that the larger Kindle is very close to the same price, but is even more limited in its functionality than the iPad. Anyone who dismisses the apps that are available for the iPod Touch and iPhone probably hasn't actually used one of those devices. For every flashlight app, there are 100 useful apps that address some particular purpose that extend the usefulness of the device.
I have no idea how the Kindle looks in real life, because I've never seen one in person. If there was one to play with in a local store, I'd be very curious to see it in action.
In contrast, I have first-hand experience with an iPhone 3GS and four different generations/iterations of iPods, and it's something that just about anyone can experience first-hand at a wide variety of retail locations and probably more than a few people around you at any given time. What I'm getting at is if I had $500 to spend on either device, I know which one I'd be more comfortable choosing. Amazon needs to get more Kindles in the wild, and pushing them non-stop on their home page doesn't seem to be doing the trick.
I suspect that Apple will roll out a camera in the final released product. While not a killer feature, I could see that being appealing to a certain number of people, and it might just pull video phone calls out of the obscurity they currently enjoy. Right now, I think webcams are used more for posting YouTube video replies to other YouTube videos than they are for face-to-face video phone calls between friends and family members.
The bottom line is that Apple is being consistent with its history of sacrificing functionality for style and ease of use. I'd bet that my Dad could start using the iPad without too much of an introduction, whereas he resists dealing with a laptop and a mouse (or forbid, the trackpad). I think the iPad will be a very approachable device, and its toughest selling point is the cost. While not extreme in the Apple-sphere, it's not an easy purchase for many people to make.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 02-05-2010 12:34 AM
I'm normally the last person to defend Apple, but I do have to say that the battery in my 20gig iPod Photo (with color screen!) that I bought factory refurbished almost five years ago is still kicking strong. When I was in high school, I put the thing through a charge cycle every few days, though I haven't used it nearly as much the last few years. To me, that is a pretty impressive life for a battery. Now, if you combined that kind of battery quality with some user serviceability of the battery, so much the better, but I don't think it is necessary. By the time current device's batteries lose the ability to hold a charge, they will almost all have left service anyhow.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 02-06-2010 01:30 AM
I realize that, but there is a level of quality that comes into play with batteries, both in terms of hardware and software. Good power management, preventing overcharging, quality manufacturing, these all come into play here. I'm the opposite of an Apple fanboy, but at least as far as my iPod goes, I've been well satisfied with the performance of the battery.
And my point still stands that these are all consumer electronics with a limited useful shelf life anyways. I have an old Thinkpad 770 with a battery that won't hold a charge. The computer otherwise runs just fine, the real pride of 1997 mobile computing technology. If I got a new battery for it, would that change the fact that it is woefully ancient technology, relatively speaking? Unless the iPad's battery's useful life is less than 3-4 years, then it isn't a major factor. Certainly nothing compared to the fact that it appears to be an ill-conceived device from the start.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-06-2010 02:57 AM
You got the good one.
My daughter's iPod has gone through 3 batteries already. A friend's iPhone doesn't hold but a few hours of charge. All the apple laptops in the neighbourhood have undergone surgery to the charger's connectors.
Not saying "that's bad", as Bobby said, it's just normal depending on the cycles, heat, etc. Just 1º(c) difference in operating/charging temperature is significant in the battery's life. The Apple laptop chargers are a bad design, though, with the weak too-thin cable and the propietary (how else) connector.
Guess those outdoor's iPods in Alaska last for a long time
Apple makes QUALITY products. For the price, they better be. But as usual, they are neither free of design or manufacturing faults nor are they any higher than other good manufacturers (say Toshiba, Nokia, Sony, Samsung, etc).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-06-2010 09:29 AM
Speaking of iPods, MP3 players and such, are there any existing threads comparing favorite MP3 players, particularly ones instead of Apple iPods? I'm currently in the market to buy a new MP3 player since the one I had was taken when my house was burglarized in the wee hours of Feb. 1.
I realize a huge number of people love iPods, but I hate iTunes and its penchant for "owning" your music and not letting you make copies of the AAC files and such. Screw that, it's a deal-breaker. If I buy a music file online, I'll get something DRM-free that I can copy onto various discs using a computer or into other devices such as an MP3 player, PS3, etc. Amazon is not too bad; the sell 256kbs VBR MP3 files.
And to get the topic back on topic, for all the trash Steve Jobs talked about "netbooks" (being no more than mere cheap laptops) it would seem that prelude would have required the iPad to at least have a full compliment of notebook functions -including a full version of the MacOS. The lack of a stylus is another puzzler. Even the ill-fated Apple Newton of the early 1990s had a stylus.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-10-2010 03:11 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/apple-ipad-parts-cost-as-little-as-219-isuppli-says-update1-.html
quote: Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc.’s iPad tablet computer carries component costs of as little as $219.35, less than half its retail price, according to a preliminary estimate by market research firm ISuppli Corp.
Materials for the iPad, due to go on sale in March and April, include a touch-screen display that may cost about $80 and a $17 processor designed by Apple and made by Samsung Electronics Co., according to El Segundo, California-based ISuppli. Apple introduced the device on Jan. 27.
Even the lowest-priced iPad, with 16 gigabytes of memory and a retail price of $499, may be beyond the reach of budget- conscious consumers, some analysts have said. The relatively low price of the iPad’s materials gives Apple flexibility to reduce the retail price over time, ISuppli analyst Francis Sideco said.
“There’s certainly a decent amount of headroom in there,” Sideco said. “If they had to reduce the retail price, they certainly could.”
Bill Shope, an analyst at Credit Suisse in New York, fueled speculation over price cuts when he released a research note on Feb. 8 saying Apple may be flexible on pricing if the iPad doesn’t attract as many buyers as hoped.
“While it remains to be seen how much traction the iPad gets initially, management noted that it will remain nimble,” Shope wrote in the note, citing recent meetings with Apple executives.
Colin Smith, a spokesman for Cupertino, California-based Apple, declined to comment on ISuppli’s research or the prospect of price cuts for the iPad.
Teardown Analysis
Apple rose 17 cents to $196.36 at 9:37 a.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. The shares had fallen 6.9 percent this year before today.
Research firms conduct so-called teardown analysis of consumer electronics to determine component prices and makers and to estimate profit margins. Researchers at ISuppli didn’t have an actual iPad and instead relied on Apple’s public statements on its features.
The iPad’s most expensive component will be its 9.7-inch multitouch display, similar to the one found on the iPhone though more than twice its size. At $80, the screen will cost Apple about five times the price of the display used on the iPhone 3GS. South Korea-based LG Electronics Inc. is the most likely supplier of the screen, Sideco says. Apple hasn’t disclosed the identity of the maker, and LG spokesman John Taylor didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment.
The chip running the iPad is called the A4, the fruit of Apple’s 2008 acquisition of P.A. Semi Inc. for $278 million.
Chip Foundry
Samsung supplies the main applications chip used in the iPhone 3GS and two previous iPhone models. In the case of the iPad, Samsung is playing a role akin to a chip foundry, building the chip under contract based on Apple’s design, Sideco says.
Chip foundry companies including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and United Microelectronics Corp., both of Taiwan, similarly make chips for so-called fabless chip companies that don’t have the means to build their own semiconductor factories. Sideco estimates the A4 will cost Apple about $17 each, about $2.54 more than the Samsung chip used in the iPhone 3GS.
Of the six iPad models that Apple plans to release in March and April, three will have access to 3G wireless data networks and three will work only with Wi-Fi. Each will offer either 16 gigabytes, 32 gigabytes or 64 gigabytes of memory for storing data. The memory chips represent the key variable cost across all six models, Sideco said. The price of 16 GB of flash memory is $29.50, while 32 GB costs $59 and 64 GB costs $118.
The most profitable of the six iPads is the 32-GB version with 3G network access, Sideco says. Its combined materials and manufacturing cost of $287.15 amount to 39 percent of the retail price. The least profitable is the 16-GB non-3G version, which sells for $499. Its combined costs total $229.35, or 46 percent of the retail price, leaving the slimmest potential profit margin of the six.

And we all know that the lion share of profits from today's devices come from the communication contracts, software and content downloads used ...
To bring it on topic, kind-of-like cinemas. You could almost let people in at cost as long as they buy popcorn ...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Mundell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 120
From: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 02-10-2010 03:47 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson I realize a huge number of people love iPods, but I hate iTunes and its penchant for "owning" your music and not letting you make copies of the AAC files and such. Screw that, it's a deal-breaker. If I buy a music file online, I'll get something DRM-free that I can copy onto various discs using a computer or into other devices such as an MP3 player, PS3, etc. Amazon is not too bad; the sell 256kbs VBR MP3 files.
All music from iTunes has been DRM free for some time now; you should have no problem making copies of the files. Of course if you're not going to use iTunes, buying from Amazon or similar will probably be easier anyway, but nothing should stop you from downloading an aac track in iTunes and using it elsewhere. You can even convert to mp3, aiff, or wav though the process is less than intuitive. Everything recent I've bought has been 256kbs AAC format; I don't think they offer the lower bit rate versions anymore.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|