[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Well, I'll chime in. We do all things tablets and smartphones at my business. We've done extensive testing and have spent a great deal of time looking at different tablets. At first 7" tablets I thought we could squeeze in and make do with them for publishing. After some time, they just suck for content other than flipping through pages in a Kindle App.

They suck for web browsing (too much pinching and zooming)
They suck for magazines and newspapers (too much pinching and zooming)
They suck for other tasks too.

All this in the context of comparing 7" tablets to bigger size ones like the iPad: the perfect size. Web browsing, reading magazines, etc. makes sense there.

Amazon is going to be in for a big surprise when the era of 4" smartphones gets ushered in with the iPhone 5. If you thought 7" tablets weren't big enough to compete with a smartphone, it's going to be doubly so when these new, larger screened smartphones hit the market in droves.

After all this time I have to say Jobs was right: 7" tablets are tweeners. Not worth the tradeoffs of a bigger clunk of plastic to hold in your hands over the much smaller, more compact smartphone that is just as capable in many respects, and way more portable and easier to hold and take with you.

I haven't even gotten to all the other crap wrong with the Fire: it's just so stripped down.

Now that so many consumers are carrying capable smartphones, nobody needs this.

Samsung Galaxy Tab: 7" Screen vs. 10" Sound Off!

Originally Posted by freudling 

Banging my head against the wall on this. I've had an iPad for a while. Steve recently said that 7" screens are not going to last because they are not big enough to be preferable to a smartphone, and are too small for tablet apps.

While surfing the web with the iPad is great, after some months of use, and after testing a Galaxy Tab, I have this nagging feeling that 10" is not the sweet spot for a tablet. I'm getting tired of the iPad slipping out of my hands. It's very awkward to hold when it's not resting up against anything. When you have to just hold it in your hands. And it's heavy.

I tested the Galaxy Tab yesterday and man what a joy to use. I could hold it easily with 1 hand. It's much lighter than the iPad as well, and so much smaller overall. It's way more portable. And the screen looked great.

Steve also says that the screens are too small for multi-touch interfaces. Funny, there's a lot of things a tablet is good for, and if we're talking multi-touch interfaces, we use these on tiny smartphones, so why would a multi-touch OS not be suitable on a screen much larger (like 7") be any worse?

So I'm torn because for reading books, even watching movies and surfing the web (top tablet activities)... the smaller form factor/lighter weight yet decent size screen of a 7" tablet feels like a better experience than a 10" tablet overall.

I see you've completely come around?

[Salty]

I think the brilliant thing about the Fire is that Amazon is admitting what no other Android handset makers seem to be willing to admit, Android is low end. They're making a solidly low end product at a low end price for low end needs. Which for some reason makes it feel ... almost middle end?

It's kind of like why nobody hates the shuffle. It's Apple's lowest end product, it connects with some higher end (though incidentally free) software and services, but the thing is pretty well near disposable. It's a well though out, yet inexpensive product. It's also one reason why you're less likely to scoff at buying a shuffle for your specific needs that it fits, verses buy some knock off generic player from Creative.

Amazon has basically made it clear the they intend to have this product sit at the highest end of their offerings (for now) while sitting well bellow the market leader. That's brilliant. Motorola, Samsung, Acer, and Asus have all tried to compete with the iPad either by offering "better" features, or by being a bit cheaper. Meanwhile none of them have gotten it right.

Amazon on the other hand is making it an Apples to Oranges comparison. They're not the same size, not the same price, and aren't even totally meant to do the same thing. So quite frankly even if you have more brand loyalty to one or the other, you still could see yourself perhaps buying both.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Samsung Galaxy Tab: 7" Screen vs. 10" Sound Off!

Rereading the whole thing now...

That thread is just hours of fun!

Gets really funny on page three (and even funnier given freudling's appearance in this thread here...).

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Salty 

I think the brilliant thing about the Fire is that Amazon is admitting what no other Android handset makers seem to be willing to admit, Android is low end. They're making a solidly low end product at a low end price for low end needs. Which for some reason makes it feel ... almost middle end?

The Fire is nowhere near the low end of the Android tablet spectrum. There are plenty of Android tablets on the market right now that still run 2.2 or 2.1 and are $80-100.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Samsung Galaxy Tab: 7" Screen vs. 10" Sound Off!


I see you've completely come around?

Yup. They haven't worked out for us. Steve Jobs was bang on. 7" are tweeners.

Kindle eInk: for Americans on vacation in mexico.
Kindle Fire: for suckers who don't know any better or tech nerds who like to play with the latest junk.

The 4" iPhone 5 is going to kill any remaining hope for the 7" tablet.

[Lateralus]

Wait...

So a 7" tablet is too small to be worthwhile... yet a significantly more expensive contract phone with a 4" screen is going to kill its market?

[imitchellg5]

A 7" screen is almost exactly the same size as a paperback book.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Yup. They haven't worked out for us. Steve Jobs was bang on. 7" are tweeners.

Kindle eInk: for Americans on vacation in mexico.
Kindle Fire: for suckers who don't know any better or tech nerds who like to play with the latest junk.

I think you just got the wrong product for your needs.

We'll see how the market reacts, given that the Kindle Fire is aimed at entirely different needs, but let me just say that you have been known to be completely and utterly wrong in your market analyses, however inflammatory and trollish you may like to word them.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

A 7" screen is almost exactly the same size as a paperback book.

Whoever said paperback books were the right size? I'll say it again. There are too many compromises with 7" screens. They suck for magazines and newspapers and they suck for textbooks, all of which Amazon is trying to sell. Especially textbooks. Students are gravitating to the iPad in droves. Schools more and more replacing textbooks with them. Amazon's junk are good for novels and that's it. It's a big market for sure, but they're limiting themself here.

Meanwhile, Inkling and CourseSmart have thrown down with the iPad and rightfully so. And Kobo is properly leveraging the iPad.

You don't need Amazon's junk to enjoy eBooks and rich content. You can have it all with the iPad. General purpose computers like the iPhone and iPad are what people want and are buying. These are important tools in people's lives. Meanwhile, Amazon treats them as stripped down gimmics to suck you into buying their content. I don't see the world biting for many reasons listed here and more.

Even at $99. Nobody needs it.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Amazon's junk are good for novels and that's it.

I rented about $700 of textbooks this semester on my Kindle for $42

I love my Kindle and honestly it's my favorite piece of technology that I own. I love the size, light weight, screen, and battery life. I don't like reading on a LCD for hours on end.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Whoever said paperback books were the right size?

Now there's a man who's never read a book!

Um. freudling.

It would be easier to deal with you seriously if you didn't say such excruciatingly stupid things all the time.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I don't see the world biting for many reasons listed here and more.

17.5m Kindle sales doesn't mean anything to you?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

17.5m Kindle sales doesn't mean anything to you?

The analysts were guessing 26 million Kindles for 2012 back in June, before the announcement of the Fire.



It will interesting what their new estimates will be now.

---

95000 orders on the first day?

eDataSource, which tracks consumer purchases, estimates that Amazon received about 95,000 pre-orders for Kindle in the first 24 hours after the product was unveiled Wednesday. That's a good bit lower than the 300,000 iPads that Apple sold in that gadget's first day on the market, but still respectable--particularly given that the Kindle Fire won't actually ship until Nov. 15.

"Despite the higher price point, the Kindle Fire outstripped sales of the other three new Kindle units combined," said eDataSource. Amazon officials did not return a call seeking comment on Kindle Fire sales. Bezos said he expects that sales of the new Kindles, including Fire, will be in the "millions."

[freudling]

Worldwide, 350 million smartphones were sold last year. In just a few years it's projected to be 1 billion.

How many iPads have been sold? 1 iPad sells every second of every day.

Kindle eInks have failed in education. From well published studies and the fact schools aren't using them as textbook replacements is a fact. You are 1 of a few who would use a Kindle for school. Imagine trying to read textbooks on the Kindle eInk? It's painful and slow and just not usable. I agree with Jobs: going from eInk to the iPad is like going from a black and white TV to a color one.

Amazon and Kindles are a US phenomena. Most of the rest of the world their brand awareness and market penetration with the Kindle is next door to zero.

All the action is on LCDs and multi-touch. eInk is niche and 7" tablets are tweeners.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Kindle eInks have failed in education. From well published studies and the fact schools aren't using them as textbook replacements is a fact. You are 1 of a few who would use a Kindle for school. Imagine trying to read textbooks on the Kindle eInk? It's painful and slow and just not usable. I agree with Jobs: going from eInk to the iPad is like going from a black and white TV to a colour one.

That argument has been rendered moot, since the Fire is in colour, and the discussion is about Amazon's path going forward with the Kindle line.

Furthermore, like I said before, Amazon could easily just release both a 7" and a 10" Fire, with the same resolution. You wouldn't even need to make the apps / textbooks different.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Worldwide, 350 million smartphones were sold last year. In just a few years it's projected to be 1 billion.

And Hyundai sold 12,000 cars last month. What do smartphone sales have to do with iPads or Kindles?

All the action is on LCDs and multi-touch. eInk is niche and 7" tablets are tweeners.

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. You don't think the market has enough space for eReaders and tablets? I'd beg to differ.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That argument has been rendered moot, since the Fire is in colour, and the discussion is about Amazon's path going forward with the Kindle line.

Furthermore, like I said before, Amazon could easily just release both a 7" and a 10" Fire, with the same resolution. You wouldn't even need to make the apps / textbooks different.

Run along... I was responding to iMitch.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Run along... I was responding to iMitch.

If your responses can't hold up to other facts/points, then they weren't worth making in the first place.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

And Hyundai sold 12,000 cars last month. What do smartphone sales have to do with iPads or Kindles?
All the action is on LCDs and multi-touch. eInk is niche and 7" tablets are tweeners.

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. You don't think the market has enough space for eReaders and tablets? I'd beg to differ.[/QUOTE]

You haven't been paying attention. The reason Jobs and others call 7" tablets tweeners is because the screen size is not big enough to compete eith a smartphone. The fact that smartphones have transformed the PC industry and are making their way into everyone's lives is important in understanding what's wrong with the category of a 7" tablets. They're just not compelling enough to use over a smartphone.

We work with tablets and publishing and have given up on 7" tablets. Other than novels, things just look all out of wack on them. No matter what you do, magazines, newspapers, textbooks, even webpages look like they've been smashed against a wall a thousand times.

I'm confident that 4" smartphones like the iPhone 5 are going to effectively kill the 7" tablet, a category that has completely failed thusly.

[imitchellg5]

^You're holding it wrong.®

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Yes well thankfully the iPhone 5 will come with iTherapist which will help you deal with your fear of commitment.

I'm ok with commitment, just so long as we're both making sacrifices, but the 3yr contracts and locked telephones in a relationship with Canadian carriers make the commitment completely one-sided.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Whoever said paperback books were the right size?

How often do you see people reading 9.5"x7.5" books? Magazines, yes, but the activity of reading a magazine is much shorter than the activity of reading a book and a magazine is significantly lighter than an iPad.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I'm confident that 4" smartphones like the iPhone 5 are going to effectively kill the 7" tablet, a category that has completely failed thusly.

Reading a book on a 4" screen is insufficient. I do it from time-to-time, but only when I'm stuck with nothing to do and only have my iPhone with me (recognizing that the iPhone is not yet 4", but I can't see 4" being too much better). It's certainly not preferential.

For me, for book reading:
4" = too small
10" = too big

[Lateralus]

I tend to disagree with Apple entirely on tablet sizing. I had a TouchPad, loved the thing... aside from the size. While it was more convenient to use than my MacBook, it was very nearly the same size insofar as storing it - so it never really struck me as truly portable; it's not something I'd buy a soft case for and regularly dump into my backpack and couldn't slide into a deep coat pocket. A 10" screen requires some planning before allowing it to tag along for your day.

A 7" on the other hand, I could definitely see myself taking with me less intently.

[freudling]

I'm done going around in circles. The Kindle both the eInk and Fire have their applications. But it's niche stuff.

I'll leave u with this. Why isn't Apple's iPad 7"?

[Lateralus]

Because Apple is stubbornly looking for all conceivable reasons to defend the margins they get on the iPad at its current price point?

If 10" is the touch-interface epitome of perfection that both you and Apple seem to see it as... then why is the iPhone's screen getting larger? Will you defend a 5" screen if it appears next year?

Is it possible that a full spectrum of screen sizes from many manufacturers may be the way for the tablet market to truly enter its zenith?

[Big Mac]

Who says it necessarily is? At least right now the iPhone 5 with a redesigned larger screen looks pretty doubtful come Tuesday.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I'll leave u with this. Why isn't Apple's iPad 7"?

Because Apple made a design decision and stuck with it. Apple makes great design decisions, but doesn't make the *only* good design decisions; there are alternative decisions that are equally valid for different business reasons. With the iPad, Apple was not making a device targeted specifically at reading eBooks; they had many other uses in mind as well.

I'll leave u with this: why are you raving about iPhones with 4" screens being superior to 7" screens when no such iPhone exists yet? What will you do if no such iPhone emerges?

[imitchellg5]

I love how this is becoming metaphysical.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I'll leave u with this. Why isn't Apple's iPad 7"?

Heh. Jobs said small MP3 players sucked, and then they released the iPod shuffle.

[Shaddim]

Actually, I don't really like the page size of MMPs, never have. I've always preferred hardbacks and TPBs, so the iPad's size is just about perfect for me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I'm done going around in circles. The Kindle both the eInk and Fire have their applications. But it's niche stuff.

I'll leave u with this. Why isn't Apple's iPad 7"?

Because it's built to be a handheld computer, not a pocketable book reader.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Heh. Jobs said small MP3 players sucked, and then they released the iPod shuffle.

You've forgotten his explanation of WHY they sucked: they were fiddly, with tiny capacity and useless little screens.

Apple released the iPod shuffle after they figured out how to eliminate the suck — and completely repurposed the low-end mp3 player in the process.

Yeah, netbooks suck. Apple built one that has all the netbooks' advantages (except price) and manages to NOT suck.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yeah, netbooks suck. Apple built one that has all the netbooks' advantages (except price) and manages to NOT suck.

The point is the 11" MBA is a netbook. Just a very good one.

I remember when the 13" came out I said Apple could build the perfect netbook by simply including a decent CPU, a full-sized keyboard, and an 11" screen. People were adamant that Apple wouldn't do it... until they did.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The point is the 11" MBA is a netbook. Just a very good one.

I remember when the 13" came out I said Apple could build the perfect netbook by simply including a decent CPU, a full-sized keyboard, and an 11" screen. People were adamant that Apple wouldn't do it... until they did.

Even Apple was adamant on that. People like freudling will be adamant that 7" tablets suck ... until Apple releases a 7" tablet, and then they'll laugh at Amazon for copying Apple on the 7" idea.

Apple changes it's design mantras all the time. One of my favorites was a statement from Jobs that the iPod was a music device, and would never be focussed on doing more than that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Even Apple was adamant on that. People like freudling will be adamant that 7" tablets suck ... until Apple releases a 7" tablet, and then they'll laugh at Amazon for copying Apple on the 7" idea.

You forget that freudling used to be a Galaxy fanboi, and was arguing that Apple should introduce a 7" iPad:

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...b-7-screen-vs/

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Apple changes it's design mantras all the time. One of my favorites was a statement from Jobs that the iPod was a music device, and would never be focussed on doing more than that.

Heh, yeah. That was in 2003, and the exact quote was

M: Do you have plans for movies on the iPod?
J: I'm not convinced people want to watch movies on a tiny little screen. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Itis the music, stupid, itis the music!" Musicis been around for a long time, will continue to be, itis huge. Not speculative, a real tangible market.

The iPod with video was introduced in October 2005.

Steve Jobs: No Tablet, No PDA, No Cell Phone, Lots Of iPods | News | The Mac Observer

That also included the following:

M [Walt Mossberg]: A lot of people think given the success youive had with portable devices, you should be making a tablet or a PDA.
J [Steve Jobs]: There are no plans to make a tablet. It turns out people want keyboards. When Apple first started out, "People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this." "We look at the tablet and we think it's going to fail." Tablets appeal to rich guys with plenty of other PCs and devices already. "And people accuse us of niche markets." I get a lot of pressure to do a PDA. What people really seem to want to do with these is get the data out . We believe cell phones are going to carry this information. We didn't think we'd do well in the cell phone business. What we've done instead is we've written what we think is some of the best software in the world to start syncing information between devices. We believe that mode is what cell phones need to get to. We chose to do the iPod instead of a PDA.

He practically announced one strategic aspect of where they saw the industry going.

Apple saw why stuff that was available sucked.
They just hadn't figured out how to redefine the product categories.

[freudling]

I do like the Galaxy Tab 7". It's nice. But after all this time it's just got too many tradeoffs. I really wanted to like it. Bottom line for me is Jobs was right.

No, Jobs didn't outright discount the netbook. He just said they sucked with the tiny screens and keyboards and how underpowered they are. He also said that if consumer interest remained strong that Apple had some "good ideas for it".

As for the comments about the iPod, whatever, he also tried to convince people that black and white screens were the way to go way back when colour was lurking.

Jobs has been at the height of his brilliance over the past 5 years and I don't think he was fooling about 7" tablets. He really meant what he said with absolute conviction. Apple's got a 30 year history with tablets and seems to have completely figured out the category to perfection when everybody else has totally failed at it.

With that, I'm certain we won't be seeing a 7" tablet for many reasons.

The iPad 3. Will likely have a Retina display, be a tad lighter, and could have a smaller form factor with less of a bezel.

As for my comments about Amazon and their lack of international penetration, I like this Article from Wired. It shows how US centric Amazon is and how this is going to hurt the Fire in relation to global products like the iPad.

A few weeks back I studied Amazon's annual report. Wow, growth in their earnings and profits. Respect to Jeff Bezos for sure and how successful Amazon has been in the US. However, Amazon's profits are now scaling at only half the rate they used to as they try to go more global. They're margins are getting less and less. They've been struggling to go global and it hasn't been easy. DRM problems across borders, red tape like in Canada where the government has stymied their attempts to get into our market. Similar story elsewhere.

For these reasons and more, Amazon is going to struggle in terms o penetration with it's entry into the tablet market. It also doesn't help that every Fire Amazon sells, they lose money. So citing number of units sold is BS. It's the revenue they generate off each person is where they'll make it. They're margins are already so low on books and music that Amazon has officially put itself in a dangerous position of going for volume in a world where it hasn't penetrated and where the recession could last for several more years.

[freudling]

m.wired.com/epicenter/2011/09/kindle-fire-amazon-global/2/

[besson3c]

Why is it that 2 inches of screen can impact prices so much? I mean this in a general way, not comparing apples to oranges here in comparing the iPad to the Kindle, but even in Apple's laptops there is such a price jump from 13" to 15". It would be nice if this extra screen space amounted to a trivial cost. One would think that in some ways a smaller device would cost more since it would be harder to engineer?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that 2 inches of screen can impact prices so much? I mean this in a general way, not comparing apples to oranges here in comparing the iPad to the Kindle, but even in Apple's laptops there is such a price jump from 13" to 15". It would be nice if this extra screen space amounted to a trivial cost. One would think that in some ways a smaller device would cost more since it would be harder to engineer?

This is a really good question, and I don't entirely know the answer. But I think if Amazon wanted to launch a 10" tablet, ya, there're more materials. More case, more battery needed, bigger IPS panel, bigger touch-screen. Some design changes. At least $50 more retail.

At any rate, I think personally the Fire is cool. And I'd love to try one. And I hope Amazon gets some success to help put tablets on the map because I'm a tablet guy. But I know how much 7" tablets are tweeners and that with 4" smartphones and devices like the iPad, the amount people are actually going to pick them up and use them is going to be not much.

Another thing: Amazon Silk. Apple's AI Assistant is going to blow the doors off search and be disruptive. There's all kinds of other things at play here. Try prying someone away from Apple's iOS 5? Now we get into platform discussions and App Stores and content and everything else.

I can't predict the future and time will tell, I just see a rocky ride here. Some success in the US but zero chance of doing anything against the iPad. The sad reality is that with so many failing at tablets and mobile operating systems - don't even get me started on RIM - it could be right back down to good old Microsoft and Apple. Say what you want about tiles in WP7/W8, at least the old dog MS has some understanding of what it's like to create and maintain a real platform.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that 2 inches of screen can impact prices so much? I mean this in a general way, not comparing apples to oranges here in comparing the iPad to the Kindle, but even in Apple's laptops there is such a price jump from 13" to 15". It would be nice if this extra screen space amounted to a trivial cost. One would think that in some ways a smaller device would cost more since it would be harder to engineer?

Um what?

The price delta is $300. That gets you

15" vs. 13"
quad-core i7 vs. dual-core i7
discrete graphics.

Apple chooses to keep the product line simple — smaller machine = smaller power = smaller price — but the actual price difference is not big, and the value you get over the smaller machine is (IMO) well worth it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Um what?

Why do people in the internet insist on taking a perfectly good thread and pollute with this "ya idiot, I will now show you up!" sort of language? I apologize if this is not what you intended, but whenever somebody does the "um... no", "um... yeah", "um... what", etc. thing this is a very strong sense I get - that there is something deficient in the person for saying this. Not every thread has to be a contest of some sort.

The price delta is $300. That gets you

15" vs. 13"
quad-core i7 vs. dual-core i7
discrete graphics.

Apple chooses to keep the product line simple — smaller machine = smaller power = smaller price — but the actual price difference is not big, and the value you get over the smaller machine is (IMO) well worth it.

This is the difference now, in the past there has been a similar price difference primarily for a slightly faster processor (of the same family) and the larger screen. If you don't like my example of Apple's laptops, take any other electronic device - my point is not that we should be critical of Apple for this (which I know tends to invoke a reaction from you), but that in a very general way it's often confounding how much a difference a couple of inches of screen real-estate can mean to pricing when, like I said, you'd think that it would be more expensive to make the smaller stuff engineering wise.

[besson3c]

Let me put that question another way....

Companies like Apple are always trying to make their stuff smaller and thinner. To them smaller/thinner = better, smaller/thinner is the golden egg. To the consumer, it seems like the overall mentality is smaller = cheaper, with exceptions I guess. If smaller = better, should't smaller = at least the same price as the bigger stuff?

[ort888]

The price difference is only sorta $300.

The cheapest 13" MacBook Pro is $1,199.

The cheapest 15" MacBook Pro is $1,799.

For 90% of the world, the specs of the 13" is more then they need. If the screen is important to you though, you have to spend $600 more just to get one.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do people in the internet insist on taking a perfectly good thread and pollute with this "ya idiot, I will now show you up!" sort of language? I apologize if this is not what you intended, but whenever somebody does the "um... no", "um... yeah", "um... what", etc. thing this is a very strong sense I get - that there is something deficient in the person for saying this. Not every thread has to be a contest of some sort.

No, but this is the Internet, where just as in Real Life, people have the right to be snarky if they want, as long as it's within the "page [MacNN] rules". Especially if you say something that's obviously not well-thought-out, like you just did.

In other words, I find this great example of your incessantly whiny "why poor ol me?" attitude much more annoying than a bit of Internet Snobbery.

So, um, yeah: STFU noob.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

No, but this is the Internet, where just as in Real Life, people have the right to be snarky if they want, as long as it's within the "page [MacNN] rules". Especially if you say something that's obviously not well-thought-out, like you just did.

It was thought out well enough, albeit not terribly well stated, but I would argue that this rudeness is still completely unnecessary. People ask questions that seem not well thought out constantly, at what point is some civility a good idea?

In other words, I find this great example of your incessantly whiny "why poor ol me?" attitude much more annoying than a bit of Internet Snobbery.

So, um, yeah: STFU noob.

I'm a tough guy, I'm fine, I don't know how a "why poor ol me" perception came into play, but I figured somebody ought to point this out cause this sort of thing happens constantly to all sorts of people. I could very well do similar things. I'm just trying to make MacNN better because I'm a good samaritan, and I bet that if this were to change MacNN would be like the 90s and early 2000s all over again

[Spheric Harlot]

Sorry if that came off a little too snarky. It seemed self-evident to me, but I admit I deal with this structure quite a bit as part of my sales job.

The thing is that Apple's product structure generally forces you into a somewhat painful, but very simple—and simplicity is the point of Apple—compromise.

This is a good thing for consumers, because they're always aware of *why* they chose the product they bought. It's a good thing for Apple because it increases the "upsell" value, pulling more money out of the consumers' pockets.

If you want to know what I'm getting at, watch this:

Dan Gilbert: Exploring the frontiers of happiness - YouTube

And if you don't, watch it anyway.

Bottom line: People are much happier with their decision, the fewer options they're presented. And this isn't just a psychological thing; it manifests itself in the brain.
The TED talk is about the biophysical manifestations of happiness.
It's really awesome.

[Wiskedjak]

I'll agree with that. I'm annoyed when the option I want isn't available, but I'm frustrated to no end when there are too many options.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Sorry if that came off a little too snarky. It seemed self-evident to me, but I admit I deal with this structure quite a bit as part of my sales job.

The thing is that Apple's product structure generally forces you into a somewhat painful, but very simple—and simplicity is the point of Apple—compromise.

This is a good thing for consumers, because they're always aware of *why* they chose the product they bought. It's a good thing for Apple because it increases the "upsell" value, pulling more money out of the consumers' pockets.

If you want to know what I'm getting at, watch this:

Dan Gilbert: Exploring the frontiers of happiness - YouTube

And if you don't, watch it anyway.

Bottom line: People are much happier with their decision, the fewer options they're presented. And this isn't just a psychological thing; it manifests itself in the brain.
The TED talk is about the biophysical manifestations of happiness.
It's really awesome.

No problem Spheric, I'll check out that video, thanks for posting it!

For the record, I have no problem with the Apple product matrix and its pricing. My comments pertained to the industry in general, and what I'd like to understand which maybe you can help me with is:

1) What is the raw component cost of those extra 2 inches of size, and how does this offset the additional engineering effort to cram more stuff in 2 fewer inches of physical space?

2) Does the whole American mentality of bigger = more valuable thing factor in here? Are Americans comfortable with paying more for a larger screen just because?


Again, this is out of context with the Apple product matrix or the Fire vs. iPad, I'm just wondering about this in a general way. I realize there are a gazillion factors which influence the iPad vs. Fire pricing, but it has been my perception that we are typically content to pay a premium for larger screens.