

Apple Will Fight For the Low-End - slaven
http://blog.radic.com/apple-will-fight-for-the-low-end

======
irons
He's misconstruing what happened with Mini and Nano iPods. At introduction the
iPod Mini only cost $50 less than the full-size $400 iPod, with less storage,
and it was perceived as a pricing misstep until they sold a jillion of them.
People couldn't get their heads around the idea that Apple wasn't selling a
cheaper device, they were selling a smaller device. Some people still can't.

This lesson is not applicable to Apple's current crop of devices, because
introducing a new screen size would throw a huge monkeywrench into app
development. Anybody blithely asserting that Apple might do it to save a few
cents on production has a credibility problem.

So, this post boils down to an assertion that Apple could allow manufacturing
prices to dictate the size of a device, even though changing the size would
have dire effects on its usability and market acceptance. Does that sound like
Apple to you?

~~~
slaven
I think you misunderstood - I didn't say the device would have different
resolution, just a smaller screen size if it saved costs. I also qualified it
with "an inch smaller at most" so that UI would continue to work at 1024x768.
A small change in screen size will not affect the usability of touch
interface.

I agree with you, changing resolution would be a huge mistake (unless it's
doubled).

~~~
irons
_A small change in screen size will not affect the usability of touch
interface._

The hell it won't.

Right now the screen on an iPad is 5.86" by 7.79", for 9.75" diagonal.
Multiply those dimensions by 90%, and you get a diagonal length of 8.78", an
inch smaller. Except you've just cut the total area of 45.6 square inches down
to 37, a difference of 19%.

In other words, you've just reduced the area of every tap target by one-fifth.
Put another way, you've created a fuzz factor of one-fifth in the size at
which designers will have to expect their work to be rendered. It doesn't
sound to me like an acceptable strategy from the Apple, Inc of this dimension.

I'm not saying your conclusions are wrong — I think Apple's going to have a
robust presence at the low end of the market. I just think they're going to
get there by defining the low end as last year's iPad, not by kneecapping
their own margins, or introducing compromised products.

~~~
slaven
I agree with your math, but speaking as a developer taking off half-an-inch
diagonally just won't make that much difference usability wise. Touch targets
are pretty generous in iOS - the device would work just fine, especially for
the casual use a lower-end device would normally see.

~~~
ceejayoz
I've seen plenty of iPad touch targets that are a little hard to hit on the
current screen size.

------
Kylekramer
As far as tablets go, isn't the iPad already on the low end? No reason to
undercut the lowest priced mainstream tablet when they are the lowest priced
mainstream tablet.

~~~
mcantelon
My guess is a ~$300 tablet with a smaller screen would attract a lot of people
wanting to read ebooks and dip their toes into the tablet world. The only
decent tablet I know of priced this way is the Nook (which, ironically, isn't
being sold as a tblet: it requires rooting to act as one).

------
rbranson
I'd argue that the way Apple got into the iPad market was extremely different
from the iPod. Apple's iPod play was very low key and niche at the time. The
iPad, in contrast, is a mass market product Apple waited for the timing to be
just perfect on. It required the technology to get where Apple wanted it and
Apple's (now) enormous scales of economy.

~~~
protomyth
If you go back and look, the iPod wasn't put out in a low key way. It fit the
pattern that Apple has established. The problem was that the MSM didn't really
pay them much attention and the timing was really horrible (Oct 2001 release).

------
cstross
I disagree.

What I think might show up is, ahem, an iPod Touch Maxi with a 4" or 5"
screen. Which would be identical to an iPod Touch in every way except for
being scaled up 30% (including in pixel size) -- like the Nintendo DSi XL.

Target market for this device would be people like me -- i.e. over 45s with
presbyopia/fat finger, who want a physically slightly larger device with the
same UI and apps as the iPod Touch. A secondary market would be ebooks: the
iPhone/iTouch screen is just too small to be comfortable, but a larger screen
at the same (retina display resolution) with larger UI elements but scaled
text (to display more of it for reading) would be fine. Scaling up the compact
iOS interface (iPhone/iTouch) doesn't require redesigning apps in the same way
that scaling down the iPad UI would; you can use a small app on a larger
screen, it's going in the other direction that's painful.

I suspect the BOM for a larger iTouch would be insignificantly costlier than a
regular iTouch, so this would permit them to hit the $300 price point without
cutting their margins significantly.

------
Stormbringer
Hasn't Apple been slowly (but steadily) losing market share in the iPod/MP3
player arena since, oh I don't know... 2003?

// does some research:

82% in 2004 74% in 2005 72% in 2007

I see a trend. Okay, the rate of decrease is dropping. Maybe they will settle
in around two thirds of the MP3 market, until the _next_ disruptive technology
comes along and turns it all on its head again.

I don't know that this is 'winnning the war'. I'm certainly not saying that
Apple is in a bad position, they just don't seem to have achieved that
Microsoft-esque monopoly death grip that I would associate with 'winning a
war'.

