'iPad Mini' Pricing to Begin at Approximately $329(macrumors.com)
macrumors.com
'iPad Mini' Pricing to Begin at Approximately $329
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/20/ipad-mini-pricing-to-begin-at-approximately-329/
15 comments
Prediction: iPad Mini will be priced at $249.
- Apple has traditionally been willing to eat into their margin a little bit when facing competition & establishing a new market
- We know that the Nexus 7 & Fire HD at $200 don't make a profit for Google & Amazon, but they do make a small profit for ASUS & Quanta.
- According to rumours the iPad Mini is lower spec'd than the Nexus 7 (1024x768 screen rather than 720p screen), primarily, but it will probably also have less RAM, dual core vs quad core CPU, etc.
- Apple gets better prices for their components than their competitors do.
- combining the 2 above suggests that a $160 cost base is a reasonable guess. (the BOM would be less than that).
- $250 gives a very Apple-like margin of 40% given the above.
Apple is having trouble with rumour control. The traditional mechanism to deal with rumours if they can't be squelched at the source is disinformation. Given their supply chain, it's quite difficult to control the hardware rumours, but price rumours seem a lot easier to control with disinformation.
- Apple has traditionally been willing to eat into their margin a little bit when facing competition & establishing a new market
- We know that the Nexus 7 & Fire HD at $200 don't make a profit for Google & Amazon, but they do make a small profit for ASUS & Quanta.
- According to rumours the iPad Mini is lower spec'd than the Nexus 7 (1024x768 screen rather than 720p screen), primarily, but it will probably also have less RAM, dual core vs quad core CPU, etc.
- Apple gets better prices for their components than their competitors do.
- combining the 2 above suggests that a $160 cost base is a reasonable guess. (the BOM would be less than that).
- $250 gives a very Apple-like margin of 40% given the above.
Apple is having trouble with rumour control. The traditional mechanism to deal with rumours if they can't be squelched at the source is disinformation. Given their supply chain, it's quite difficult to control the hardware rumours, but price rumours seem a lot easier to control with disinformation.
I am in the market for a tablet. I have an HP Touchpad running CM9. Im going to Mexico in a few weeks and will give it away to one of my cousins.
I have the Nexus 7, iPad, Surface, and the (smaller potential) iPad, as viable options. I also looked into Asus' Transformer line.
My Macbook is on its last legs. I purchased an iMac for home use earlier this year. I want to replace the Macbook with something equally as productive. I mainly use it for email and managing customer relations.
The Surface Pro entices me, but lacks concrete information. Nexus 7 has a great price, and I like Jelly Bean. It is a little smaller than I would like. The iPad is a solid piece of hardware, but im not the biggest iOS fan. With that said a cheaper tablet, bigger than the Nexus 7 and smaller than the iPad, would be great. I hope the smaller iPad can fill that niche.
Then I go back to the Surface... I'm tempted by the ability to load to apps on the same screen. The keyboard integration looks very slick.
Too many choices for me. As a consumer, I feel like the tablet market is what I dreamed of as a kid.
As a side note, I am unsure if the Surface Pro fits in with the rest of the group. It aims to be more of a "laptop" computing experience with a touch/stylus input method. Which I like, but am skeptical on the practicality of it.
I should wait a few more months...
I have the Nexus 7, iPad, Surface, and the (smaller potential) iPad, as viable options. I also looked into Asus' Transformer line.
My Macbook is on its last legs. I purchased an iMac for home use earlier this year. I want to replace the Macbook with something equally as productive. I mainly use it for email and managing customer relations.
The Surface Pro entices me, but lacks concrete information. Nexus 7 has a great price, and I like Jelly Bean. It is a little smaller than I would like. The iPad is a solid piece of hardware, but im not the biggest iOS fan. With that said a cheaper tablet, bigger than the Nexus 7 and smaller than the iPad, would be great. I hope the smaller iPad can fill that niche.
Then I go back to the Surface... I'm tempted by the ability to load to apps on the same screen. The keyboard integration looks very slick.
Too many choices for me. As a consumer, I feel like the tablet market is what I dreamed of as a kid.
As a side note, I am unsure if the Surface Pro fits in with the rest of the group. It aims to be more of a "laptop" computing experience with a touch/stylus input method. Which I like, but am skeptical on the practicality of it.
I should wait a few more months...
It sounds to me that you need a device that can stand up like a laptop and has a keyboard (either integrated or BT). I have a Transformer 101 with the keyboard dock. The dock is awesome! Extra battery, USB port, and a great way to type long emails! Hardware: great, software not so much. Boot loader access is restricted in my TF101 (Asus provides an unlock tools for later/premium models but not mine) but luckily there is an open source, reversed unlocker letting me run Ubuntu! Ubuntu was a huge hassle to get working but a great dev environment. Asus took a few months with many delays to deliver 4.0. Rumor has it that it won't get 4.1 from Asus. So I would encourage you to look at a newer Transformer tablet with a keyboard but beware about future support.
The Surface is almost guaranteed to have great support for a long time given MS's history. Keyboard probably isn't as nice (it's squishy, right?) but much more compact than a Transformer keyboard.
The Surface is almost guaranteed to have great support for a long time given MS's history. Keyboard probably isn't as nice (it's squishy, right?) but much more compact than a Transformer keyboard.
The Transformer is nice. I held the new one and I like the hardware. I like that the keyboard charges the tablet. Does Ubuntu load side by side or does it over ride Android?
[deleted]
The Nexus 7 is very nice. IMO it's a more usable size than the iPad. I'm not sure it should be much bigger.
Other than testing, I've barely touched my iPad since getting the Nexus 7.
Lack of any details on surface is sad but that is the game that Apple has played for many years. From what I have read about it, it seems the most viable product if you have productivity in mind.
I don't think $329 is low enough to break into the lower market segment.
Why would Apple want to break into the lower market segment?
This is their entry to smaller screen market.
I don't see how they could possibly justify their iPhone prices if this were the case (which are respectively $649, $749, and $849)
Because Apple set prices for normal human beings, rather than geeks.
The clearest example is the iPod Touch vs the iPhone. From a geek's perspective, they are the essentially same product, differing only in the presence or absence of a cellular radio. The iPhone is more than twice the price of the iPod Touch, which is a scandalous mark-up for the addition of what we know to be a relatively inexpensive component.
From the perspective of nearly everyone who has actually bought an iPhone, the two devices are completely different - the iPhone is a smartphone, the iPod Touch is just an MP3 player with games.
That's why Apple are the most valuable company on earth.
The clearest example is the iPod Touch vs the iPhone. From a geek's perspective, they are the essentially same product, differing only in the presence or absence of a cellular radio. The iPhone is more than twice the price of the iPod Touch, which is a scandalous mark-up for the addition of what we know to be a relatively inexpensive component.
From the perspective of nearly everyone who has actually bought an iPhone, the two devices are completely different - the iPhone is a smartphone, the iPod Touch is just an MP3 player with games.
That's why Apple are the most valuable company on earth.
Apple is the most valuable public company on earth. There are much larger non-publicly traded companies.
http://www.quora.com/Business/What-is-the-most-valuable-priv...
http://www.quora.com/Business/What-is-the-most-valuable-priv...
> The clearest example is the iPod Touch vs the iPhone. From a geek's perspective, they are the essentially same product, differing only in the presence or absence of a cellular radio.
This isn't really true though—Apple clearly gimps the ipod-touch in various small-but-annoying ways. I don't know whether this is just to keep costs down, or to encourage people to buy the iphone unless they really, really, can't afford it.
For instance, the camera on the ipod-touch 4g is downright awful, whereas that on the iphone4 is quite decent. Lack of GPS functionality is another example.
This isn't really true though—Apple clearly gimps the ipod-touch in various small-but-annoying ways. I don't know whether this is just to keep costs down, or to encourage people to buy the iphone unless they really, really, can't afford it.
For instance, the camera on the ipod-touch 4g is downright awful, whereas that on the iphone4 is quite decent. Lack of GPS functionality is another example.
I don't see how they could possibly justify their iPhone prices
Two totally different markets. Carrier subsidies inflate the price of SmartPhones because the consumer is not paying the full price up front. They don't even know what the real price is. The carriers would certainly like to negotiate prices lower however the iPhone owns enough of the market, by itself, that Apple has the upper hand. A carrier who doesn't offer the iPhone these days is in trouble. This is true of other types of SmartPhones too. Having the latest and greatest Samsung phone is valuable to the carrier as well. So they pay a bit more to lure in customers with nicer phones. Don't feel too bad for the carrier's though because they still make quite a lot of money in this arrangement too.
Two totally different markets. Carrier subsidies inflate the price of SmartPhones because the consumer is not paying the full price up front. They don't even know what the real price is. The carriers would certainly like to negotiate prices lower however the iPhone owns enough of the market, by itself, that Apple has the upper hand. A carrier who doesn't offer the iPhone these days is in trouble. This is true of other types of SmartPhones too. Having the latest and greatest Samsung phone is valuable to the carrier as well. So they pay a bit more to lure in customers with nicer phones. Don't feel too bad for the carrier's though because they still make quite a lot of money in this arrangement too.
Miniaturization is expensive. It would be also 2x-3x more powerful than a iPad mini
In the US, carrier subsidies distort pricing. The iPhone premium is paid by the carrier. For example, AT&T retail iPhone 5 is $649, while retail SG III is $499. But both are $199 to the consumer with a 2-year contract.
I have no idea how this works out in other countries... $649 is a lot to pay for a phone when you can buy a galaxy nexus for $349 at retail!
I have no idea how this works out in other countries... $649 is a lot to pay for a phone when you can buy a galaxy nexus for $349 at retail!
All iPads are sold unsubsidized, most iPhones are sold subsidized. It's a lot easier to soak the mobile operators than it is the consumer at the store trying to decide if they should buy luxury item.
[deleted]
I hope this is not true. $329 would not cut it, I think $249 would be more like it - definitely not $329.
Yeah, anything above $279 would be a huge disappointment.
For a very long time, I was convinced that Apple would never do a smaller iPad. What's in it for them? The profit margins will certainly be smaller. Then I realized: if they wanted to completely own the tablet market, they need a cheap option that's competitive with the Kindle Fire and co.
$249 gives Apple almost complete dominance in the tablet market. $329 does not.
For a very long time, I was convinced that Apple would never do a smaller iPad. What's in it for them? The profit margins will certainly be smaller. Then I realized: if they wanted to completely own the tablet market, they need a cheap option that's competitive with the Kindle Fire and co.
$249 gives Apple almost complete dominance in the tablet market. $329 does not.
Apple does not want dominance. Apple wants to make money.
They are not Google making money on ads sold. They make money on hardware sold.
But if that's the case, why make the 7" iPad at all? Like I said, the profit margins will inevitably be lower than on the 10" iPad.
Unless it's about dominance, this is a pointless niche product and a waste of time.
Look at what Apple's been doing with iPhone pricing for the past few years. If you're in the US, you can now get a "free" iPhone 4. That's absolutely a move to seize the low end of the market, even if they're not making as much per device.
Unless it's about dominance, this is a pointless niche product and a waste of time.
Look at what Apple's been doing with iPhone pricing for the past few years. If you're in the US, you can now get a "free" iPhone 4. That's absolutely a move to seize the low end of the market, even if they're not making as much per device.
A few months ago Tim Cook went on record saying he "wasn't going to leave any price umbrellas". As Ryan Jones (via Forbes) observes, "a price umbrella is the cover that a market leader provides other companies by establishing a premium price for their products. Competitors can enter the market at lower price points and disrupt the leader’s dominance, in Jones words, 'from the bottom up.'"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/07/22/apple-w...
Per this logic, $299 seems like the best bet. This is $100 lower than the point where iPad and iPod prices presently converge ($399 for either a 64GB Touch or a 16GB iPad 2). This move would also mean dropping the price of the 64GB Touch to $299 (where the 32GB model currently sits) and dropping the 32 GB to $249, which is where you find the 160 GB iPod classic ($100 above the new nano).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/07/22/apple-w...
Per this logic, $299 seems like the best bet. This is $100 lower than the point where iPad and iPod prices presently converge ($399 for either a 64GB Touch or a 16GB iPad 2). This move would also mean dropping the price of the 64GB Touch to $299 (where the 32GB model currently sits) and dropping the 32 GB to $249, which is where you find the 160 GB iPod classic ($100 above the new nano).
> Yeah, anything above $279 would be a huge disappointment.
how so?
how so?
I was skeptical about the iPad (either you want a phone either you want a computer, but why something between ???)... It turned out well for Apple finally and they have found (or created) a great market.
But now we have something between the iPhone and the Ipad ? Seriously.... I hope for them they will find people who will want to buy it (not only because it's a new Apple product of course...), but it's hard to believe, even for these marketing genius.
But now we have something between the iPhone and the Ipad ? Seriously.... I hope for them they will find people who will want to buy it (not only because it's a new Apple product of course...), but it's hard to believe, even for these marketing genius.
Fwiw, I have an Android Nexus phone and 10.1" Galaxy Tab and found i rarely used it, and phones just aren't big enough for watching video, typing anything but tweets/short SMSs. But I recently picked up a Nexus 7" and i've found a lot more uses for it and i'm using it daily. It's the right form factor for slipping into the pocket to carry around, you can type adequately while standing/sitting (the 10" i found cumbersome), good size for reading most websites, more comfortable to lounge with on the sofa etc.
Yeah the price is a lot less but many people who buy Apple products are probably pretty price insensitive, and there is def people who would prefer the smaller size
Yeah the price is a lot less but many people who buy Apple products are probably pretty price insensitive, and there is def people who would prefer the smaller size
At that price, if you want an iPad, it's easy to justify paying $70 more for the iPad 2(non retina but so is the iPad mini) or the iPad 3 for $170 more.
If you want to explore other options, the 9" Kindle Fire HD at $299 or 9" Nook HD at $269, or 7" Nexus 7 are similarly pretty competent. Perhaps Apple is trying to mitigate the cannibalization of the larger iPad, but this does seem expensive.
If you want to explore other options, the 9" Kindle Fire HD at $299 or 9" Nook HD at $269, or 7" Nexus 7 are similarly pretty competent. Perhaps Apple is trying to mitigate the cannibalization of the larger iPad, but this does seem expensive.
What if people want it for being 7" and not for being a cheaper iPad?
I bought my Nexus 7 because it fits in my pockets. Everywhere I would have a bag with a bigger tablet with me I would have my big notebook anyway.
I bought my Nexus 7 because it fits in my pockets. Everywhere I would have a bag with a bigger tablet with me I would have my big notebook anyway.
I've always been put off by the size of the iPad, and I could never understand why Jobs thought a smaller device would be too small for people's fingers when the much smaller iPhone was already a bazillion dollar business.
Having passed on every iPad to date specifically because of the size issue, I'm really excited by this one.
Having passed on every iPad to date specifically because of the size issue, I'm really excited by this one.
A lot depends on (a) what other positives the new smaller iPad has and (b) whether this speculation has any basis in reality.
E.g. the new iPad may have the iPad 3's camera or GPU.
E.g. the new iPad may have the iPad 3's camera or GPU.
Apple has always proudly sold its products at a premium so I am not surprised. They will market it out with some snappy music and celebrity footage.
Apple's mobile products haven't carried a large premium. Starting with the iPod Apple has used economies of scale and massive purchasing power to stay very competitive (for high-end devices, they're not chasing the bottom of the market).
Actually, they do. It's just that, in the US, the premium is hidden away behind the expensive contracts that the carriers require. See this very insightful article on the subject: <http://ben-evans.com/iphone-pricing-and-us-market-share>;
I don't see your point. Compare the unsubsidized prices of the iPhone to its competitors and it's not huge (iPhone 5 is $649.99 and the Samsung Galaxy S3 is $549.99), but that's because carriers want the iPhone and are willing to pay a large subsidy.
The iPod touch is very competitive, it has been around for years with pretty much zero competition. iPods were very competitive for years, again primarily with no one being able to compete. The iPad has always been competitively priced.
I doubt the iPad Air will be as competitive in price as the others, I just don't see a $199 level, but I do not agree that Apple is not competitively priced in mobile.
The iPod touch is very competitive, it has been around for years with pretty much zero competition. iPods were very competitive for years, again primarily with no one being able to compete. The iPad has always been competitively priced.
I doubt the iPad Air will be as competitive in price as the others, I just don't see a $199 level, but I do not agree that Apple is not competitively priced in mobile.
I would have to say that 400% over estimated manufacturing cost is quite a bit of cream on top, at least for the iPhone 5.
Because we all know that product development, distribution, and retail are free, right?
I'm hoping Samsung doesn't settle then, so we can all take a look at their per-device profit margins which Apple wants placed under seal. Since when does a company consider profit margins trade secrets? Maybe when the public discovers Apple has enormous profit margins from these devices yet pursues multi-billion dollar lawsuits against competitors with shoddy patents, there will be backlash.
When compared to the other end of the spectrum, such as the Google Nexus 7, which barely sells for more than production costs, 400% is a huge margin. I'd doubt you would find too many other companies out there who are making as large of a margin on their mobile devices as Apple is.
The Nexus 7 practically has no costs over and above production. Android itself is subsidized by Google's advertising business, which cuts out the software development costs. The industrial design and manufacturing quality are nothing special--I doubt they spent a year measuring people's ears just to discover the optimal headphone shape, or designed manufacturing processes to reduce the tolerances to microns. Google doesn't have retail stores in every metropolitan area where you can take in your Nexus 7 when it's acting up. When you take all these things into consideration it's surprising Apple's products are as competitive as they are.
Much of what you wrote is what Apple marketing wants you to think. It's kind of hard to know for sure how much effort was put into the EarPods or what's going on with the micron tolerances. Apple is not immune to errors, the antenna in the iPhone4, Apple Maps has major problems and Time Machine seems to be broken for many using OS X Mountain Lion.
Apple Stores are a big part of Apple marketing. The service received a these store can range from exceptional to terrible. They don't pay the people who do technical support or work in retail big bucks either.
I am not surprised Apple is doing so well, given the premium they charge for their devices.
Apple Stores are a big part of Apple marketing. The service received a these store can range from exceptional to terrible. They don't pay the people who do technical support or work in retail big bucks either.
I am not surprised Apple is doing so well, given the premium they charge for their devices.
> They don't pay the people who do technical support or work in retail big bucks either.
The fact that they hire those people at all represents an expense and a service that Android manufacturers just don't have. The operating costs for an Apple store are probably higher than Nexus 7 retailers like Gamestop, Sam's Club, Staples, Office Depot, or Kmart--and the level of service is largely a step ahead as well. Either way, it's still an expense that isn't accounted for in manufacturing margin, which was the original point of the exercise.
The fact that they hire those people at all represents an expense and a service that Android manufacturers just don't have. The operating costs for an Apple store are probably higher than Nexus 7 retailers like Gamestop, Sam's Club, Staples, Office Depot, or Kmart--and the level of service is largely a step ahead as well. Either way, it's still an expense that isn't accounted for in manufacturing margin, which was the original point of the exercise.
Let's not forget marketing, technical support, and regular software updates!
Seriosly, production cost again?
That has nothing to do with how competitively they are priced. If I can make something for less money than you can and we both sell it at the same price, we are just as competitively priced. Manufacturing cost has nothing to do with price competitiveness.
Apple uses its giant scale to literally buy up all supply of lots of components and other resources (factory output, air freight, you name it). It's tough to compete.
Apple uses its giant scale to literally buy up all supply of lots of components and other resources (factory output, air freight, you name it). It's tough to compete.
When you are producing a product that costs less or the same to make than other manufacturers products but you sell it for more, people are paying a premium for your product.
I don't agree, in my opinion you have to be priced more than similar products to count as "paying a premium". Like Monster Cable--same product but several times the price.
Walk into the store and you'll see that the best phones from both Apple and Samsung cost the same amount.
Walk into the store and you'll see that the best phones from both Apple and Samsung cost the same amount.
With phone subsidies you may be correct, though unlocked you're still paying more for the Apple product. Things like Macs and iPads do have premiums still though. Probably doesn't help my case that I highlighted the iPhone 5 which is heavily subsidized by the service provider for most people.
This passes the smell test. All signs are go for Apple to make an extra couple billion dollars this Christmas.
The 7" form factor clearly has value to customers over the predominant 10" form factor. Every review of them touches on how much nicer they are to read on and carry around.
7" tablets will be kids first computers, they'll replace the full iPad for lightweight POS installations, they'll be the go-to for portable employee applications, they'll sell into schools like crazy, and they'll make good purse-able travel iPads.
Plus there's that media ecosystem, that OS, that app stack, that customer familiarity, and that third party universe. No readily identifiable competitive weaknesses.
The 7" form factor clearly has value to customers over the predominant 10" form factor. Every review of them touches on how much nicer they are to read on and carry around.
7" tablets will be kids first computers, they'll replace the full iPad for lightweight POS installations, they'll be the go-to for portable employee applications, they'll sell into schools like crazy, and they'll make good purse-able travel iPads.
Plus there's that media ecosystem, that OS, that app stack, that customer familiarity, and that third party universe. No readily identifiable competitive weaknesses.
If their primary goal with the product is market segmentation, then a price that high is likely a mistake. On the other hand, Apple has a long history of starting with a high price and then creeping it down into the sweet spot (temporal market segmentation?)
Slightly OT: I tried a Galaxy Note 2 in an AT&T store the other day while the wife was upgrading her iPhone. I can't believe how far Samsung is behind Apple at sales-time polish.
The big feature of the Note 2 is the stylus. That's what I wanted to try. So I picked it up and the first screen was this home screen with three buttons. One was for the Notes app. I tapped it, and it took me to an explanatory page about the app. I started scribbling. Nothing. Looked for a "try the app" button. Nothing. Backed out, clicked the "explore this device" button instead. Looked for a notes app on the home screen. Nothing. Clicked "applications". Greeted with 30 apps per screen. On the second page, found a "Notes" app and a "Memo" app. Guessed it was the memo app. Guessed incorrectly, that didn't support the stylus. Finally opened up the Notes app. Scribbled. It was laggy.
I can't understand how other companies can keep sucking so much at this when Apple has it figured out. It's just shocking.
The big feature of the Note 2 is the stylus. That's what I wanted to try. So I picked it up and the first screen was this home screen with three buttons. One was for the Notes app. I tapped it, and it took me to an explanatory page about the app. I started scribbling. Nothing. Looked for a "try the app" button. Nothing. Backed out, clicked the "explore this device" button instead. Looked for a notes app on the home screen. Nothing. Clicked "applications". Greeted with 30 apps per screen. On the second page, found a "Notes" app and a "Memo" app. Guessed it was the memo app. Guessed incorrectly, that didn't support the stylus. Finally opened up the Notes app. Scribbled. It was laggy.
I can't understand how other companies can keep sucking so much at this when Apple has it figured out. It's just shocking.
We (me, my wife, two small children) have the original Kindle Fire, a Nexus 7, and two iPads (first generation). We used to have two iPad 2s but we had to return them to former employers. The Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire are only used in desperation, while we basically fight over the iPads.
I wanted to like the Nexus 7, but I find it borderline useless for everything including simply browsing the web. (There's a lot to like about the Chrome browser, but it's simply too fiddly to resize text all the time.) Overally, I find the Kindle Fire to be a superior device to the Nexus 7 (which is pretty depressing given the Nexus 7 is a year newer, ostensibly has better hardware, is running a far more modern OS, and was more expensive).
I think Apple is going to clean everyone's clocks with the new devices, even if they're a bit expensive. $330 for a really good device is a way better deal than $200 for a piece of junk.
I wanted to like the Nexus 7, but I find it borderline useless for everything including simply browsing the web. (There's a lot to like about the Chrome browser, but it's simply too fiddly to resize text all the time.) Overally, I find the Kindle Fire to be a superior device to the Nexus 7 (which is pretty depressing given the Nexus 7 is a year newer, ostensibly has better hardware, is running a far more modern OS, and was more expensive).
I think Apple is going to clean everyone's clocks with the new devices, even if they're a bit expensive. $330 for a really good device is a way better deal than $200 for a piece of junk.
That's interesting, because I have not touched my iPad since getting a Nexus 7, except to test websites on it.
I use it for reading ebooks, some browsing the web, reading email, managing my calendar, and very occasional casual gaming. It's fast and responsive, and as far as seeing it, the display is sharp and bright. It's not an issue (which is saying a lot--I'm legally blind).
The display and responsiveness are no better than the iPad, and the retina display on the new iPad is a bit crisper, but I prefer the 7in form factor (lighter, easier to hold/use with one hand) and the customization options that Android offers over iOS.
I know Google had a lot of problems with them initially, some of which effected performance and display... maybe you got a dud?
I use it for reading ebooks, some browsing the web, reading email, managing my calendar, and very occasional casual gaming. It's fast and responsive, and as far as seeing it, the display is sharp and bright. It's not an issue (which is saying a lot--I'm legally blind).
The display and responsiveness are no better than the iPad, and the retina display on the new iPad is a bit crisper, but I prefer the 7in form factor (lighter, easier to hold/use with one hand) and the customization options that Android offers over iOS.
I know Google had a lot of problems with them initially, some of which effected performance and display... maybe you got a dud?
The Nexus 7's display is technically fine -- it's what it does with it that's problematic. I am nearly legally blind when not wearing corrective lenses, but when wearing corrective lenses the Nexus is unusable and unfixable. I'm sure it would be fine if I took out my contacts and read it 2" from my nose.
Bear in mind, it's not just me. My daughters would rather wait for an iPad to recharge than use the alternatives (even when the same content is on them).
Bear in mind, it's not just me. My daughters would rather wait for an iPad to recharge than use the alternatives (even when the same content is on them).
Since I'm in the process of buying a tablet, I'd welcome elaboration on "it's simply too fiddly to resize text all the time".
Do you mean that (like Mobile Safari) Chrome does not reflow text, so that you cannot make the text big enough to read without making the text expand past the edge of the window, so you have to scroll each line of text horizontally?
Do you mean that (like Mobile Safari) Chrome does not reflow text, so that you cannot make the text big enough to read without making the text expand past the edge of the window, so you have to scroll each line of text horizontally?
iOS has the "reader" function which, in my opinion (when it works) is nearly ideal.
Chrome reflows the text on the Nexus 7 -- pretty much the greatest mobile browsing feature ever and I miss it terribly on my iPhone.
I think his point was more than you have to resize text on the Nexus 7 because the screen is much smaller than an iPad. Pretty much every page on the Nexus will require a pinch zoom and a tap before you start reading.
I think his point was more than you have to resize text on the Nexus 7 because the screen is much smaller than an iPad. Pretty much every page on the Nexus will require a pinch zoom and a tap before you start reading.
Also, Chrome on Nexus 7 has a lot of "accessibility" options, so you can size the default reflowable text to your comfort, which reduces any need to manually squeeze/expand. (Nexus 7 is dramatically superior to a New(3) iPad.)
[deleted]
Not sure I buy it. They floated higher prices before the original iPad came out too. I'm still betting on $249. They want the tech media to parrot the 'it's a great value at $249' angle of the story instead of focusing on the 'it's $50 more than this other tablet' angle of it.
I just have a tough time believing they are going to put out a 7" model for a price that is within $70 of the 10" model. Also, $329 is a weird price for Apple. They are very much into $x49 and $x99 prices. I could see $299, but $329 is just odd for a base price. It seems like the speculation that led people to believe the original iPad was going to be $999. It also seems like a serious deviation from the iPod / iPhone strategy.