Late last year, I chose a Google Nexus 7, the 2013, revised version. Why? The iPad mini didn't really meet my needs. It was too wide to be held in one of my hands, and it wasn't very powerful, but it was really expensive. Now that the newer (second generation+) version is out, last year's model has been dropped by US$100, and it's still not a bargain for what is there. However, the newer version isn't worth an extra US$100. People are better off buying last year's model for less.
Why does it seem that Apple are trying to push the iPad Air 2, even more than they were trying to push the iPad Air? That's my only explanation for the relative crapiness of the iPad mini. It makes the current iPad Air look a relative bargain. I'm even considering an iPad Air 2 for me. I would consider a refurbished iPad Air, if I could get it in a 64 GB configuration at a substantial discount; however, the anti-reflective surface of the newer model would be useful.
Another problem for the iPad mini is the iPhone 6 Plus. It is big enough, and its resolution is brilliant for the size. It also has strong processing power. Except for the size, it seems a great choice. I was interested in the LG G2 and Nexus 5 last year about this time but they were so large that I thought twice about them, despite the power.
I'm sure Apple will do well enough, especially with the iPad Air 2 but who will buy the newest iPad mini?
Update 2014.11.04: There is a rumor that the iPad mini may go away, making way for the huge 12.9 inch iPad. Someone mentioned that Apple gives poor upgrades to products that aren't selling. Isn't that the correct strategy for a product you're hoping will lose?
I would think that an aggressive company would drop the price and improve the performance, not try to give a product one new feature and polish it a bit more. The U.S. automotive industry was hit hard because they didn't help themselves, choosing style over functionality.
Update 2015.02.13: I've been waiting for the Apple announcement. It should be soon, and we should expect the watch, the big iPad with a keyboard/cover, and likely a revised Apple TV box. While Apple continues to make headway with content, until they start to resell networks or the networks' content, there will not be TV with a display.
Update 2015.04.07: Apple seem to be taking it easy, playing it safe, and any other relaxed idioms that apply.
The new 12 inch MacBook looks interesting, even though it's not very powerful. The latest rumor on the yet-to-be-announced Apple TV replacement is that it won't feed 4K media to the TV, even though the chipset is capable.
Update 2015.11.19: They fixed the problem by making the iPad mini 4 with the same processor as the iPhone 6. It's much more powerful having an A8 instead of an A5. The display is apparently very good, and for color accuracy, apparently better than the iPad Air 2 and the iPad Pro. That seems odd considering that the iPad Pro should be used by artists.
I guess the rumor about the Apple TV replacement was true--no 4K.
Showing posts with label iPad mini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPad mini. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Apple: revised for 2014
A few things stand out from the Apple presentation today:
Of course, the iPad mini has been revised with a 2048 by 1536 resolution at 326 pixels per inch (ppi) display. However, the price has also been revised US$70 higher, starting at US$399. That seems a bit much, especially when they're still selling the (electronically) ancient iPad 2 for US$399 also (and people apparently want a full-sized tablet, even with low resolution but why shouldn't the price be $299?). They have made their money back on the iPad 2, I'm sure, so why charge so much for the iPad mini revision? Could it be that inclusion of the A7/M7 pair has upped the cost that much, along with the higher resolution display? Alternately, they could drop the price of the iPad 2 to US$299 but that would disrupt iPad mini sales. It would seem rather high cost given that the 9.7 inch iPad Air has the same resolution in a less dense display. Also, there are still reports of low yields of the higher density 7.9 (what happened to 7.875, too much precision?) inch displays.
(Update 2013.11.06: I tried the iPad Air at the Sprint store and it was quite a comfortable beast. It seemed rather warm just sitting on the plastic display, running the demo, so I can't imagine how it would be running Galaxy on Fire 2 HD.)
Apple, the whole "thinner, lighter" thing has been overdone. My iPhone 4S has to wear armor to survive a fall, so it's bulkier and heavier, not thinner and lighter. I appreciate that you want to design things with more aesthetic value, but there is a point where the devices aren't going to a museum display, and will be used by everyday people. (I don't expect anyone from Apple to read this, and they don't seem to care anyway, but I thought I'd write it.) I expect that the new MacBook Pro that is thinner and lighter will get some lawsuit about the palm rest being hotter and unbearable.
I wonder how many people use a Mac Pro now. I haven't used one since the G4 days and I got mine at significant discounts. Both were originally US$3999 each. Of course, the base Apple II+ configuration was US$2495, as was the original Macintosh. I believe the Macintosh Portable was US$6499. Someone at work in 1990 had the Portable and I couldn't imagine spending that much money on any computer, short of a minicomputer system.
When people use Maya or other 3D software, or AutoCAD or various other technical design software, do they bother with Apple equipment now? I know that Linux-based systems are often used on the back-end of projects but commercial desktop software is slow to move there. As much as Apple and Microsoft and Google are herding us in a certain direction, we end up having to live with it because the commercial software we run isn't about to be moved.
The Macintosh operating system, (Mac) OS X, has been updated as Mavericks--something to do with a surfing spot in California. As 10.9, it should be better, but I'm concerned about their slipshod implementations. Look how long it took them to implement FileVault without losing data. Resolution Independence never really took hold, but can be used on a per-application basis. Memory Compression is their big, new technology and I think I'll wait, rather than having working memory corrupted, no matter how free they make it. I wonder if anyone else remembers RAM Doubler from Connectix? I used that quite a lot in one of my 1990s Macs, and it seemed to work flawlessly, but the Single-Tasking Mac OS 9.x (with Task Switcher) was much less complicated, although convoluted.
Let me remind you to take a moment or several moments to check the requirements and compatibility of your special, necessary software before you upgrade your operating system.
What I'm not saying is that I was ready for an iPad mini with the enhanced (but apparently not great, as far as color gamut goes) display--at US$349 but I'd want a 32 GB model, which would be US$100 more, and since reality hit, and it's US$50 more than what I expected, I'll be waiting. I'd prefer to put money into an enhanced phone like the 32 GB iPhone 5c that has enhanced LTE band (2 bands on Sprint, my current carrier) support. Since my iPhone 4S has no LTE support, and since LTE is starting to take shape, I'd like to be ready for 2014, when I'm expecting decent real-life LTE coverage and use. (Yes, AT&T and Verizon have coverage, but putting LTE on a tower and saying that a town has coverage is not useful. It has to work, and work well.)
Update 2013.11.17: I got the iPhone 5c and it's quite good, as you'd expect of what is mostly 1 year old technology. I also looked at the iPad Air and it's very desirable, but only for situations where I wouldn't be trying to use it at stores or restaurants. The Google Nexus 7 and EVGA Tegra Note 7 tablets are far more usable, if everything Android is in place and working smoothly.
- No more 15 inch MacBook Pro with the older displays
- iPad 2 continues to be sold, starting at US$399
- Mac Pro is finally being updated, starting at US$2999
Of course, the iPad mini has been revised with a 2048 by 1536 resolution at 326 pixels per inch (ppi) display. However, the price has also been revised US$70 higher, starting at US$399. That seems a bit much, especially when they're still selling the (electronically) ancient iPad 2 for US$399 also (and people apparently want a full-sized tablet, even with low resolution but why shouldn't the price be $299?). They have made their money back on the iPad 2, I'm sure, so why charge so much for the iPad mini revision? Could it be that inclusion of the A7/M7 pair has upped the cost that much, along with the higher resolution display? Alternately, they could drop the price of the iPad 2 to US$299 but that would disrupt iPad mini sales. It would seem rather high cost given that the 9.7 inch iPad Air has the same resolution in a less dense display. Also, there are still reports of low yields of the higher density 7.9 (what happened to 7.875, too much precision?) inch displays.
(Update 2013.11.06: I tried the iPad Air at the Sprint store and it was quite a comfortable beast. It seemed rather warm just sitting on the plastic display, running the demo, so I can't imagine how it would be running Galaxy on Fire 2 HD.)
Apple, the whole "thinner, lighter" thing has been overdone. My iPhone 4S has to wear armor to survive a fall, so it's bulkier and heavier, not thinner and lighter. I appreciate that you want to design things with more aesthetic value, but there is a point where the devices aren't going to a museum display, and will be used by everyday people. (I don't expect anyone from Apple to read this, and they don't seem to care anyway, but I thought I'd write it.) I expect that the new MacBook Pro that is thinner and lighter will get some lawsuit about the palm rest being hotter and unbearable.
I wonder how many people use a Mac Pro now. I haven't used one since the G4 days and I got mine at significant discounts. Both were originally US$3999 each. Of course, the base Apple II+ configuration was US$2495, as was the original Macintosh. I believe the Macintosh Portable was US$6499. Someone at work in 1990 had the Portable and I couldn't imagine spending that much money on any computer, short of a minicomputer system.
When people use Maya or other 3D software, or AutoCAD or various other technical design software, do they bother with Apple equipment now? I know that Linux-based systems are often used on the back-end of projects but commercial desktop software is slow to move there. As much as Apple and Microsoft and Google are herding us in a certain direction, we end up having to live with it because the commercial software we run isn't about to be moved.
The Macintosh operating system, (Mac) OS X, has been updated as Mavericks--something to do with a surfing spot in California. As 10.9, it should be better, but I'm concerned about their slipshod implementations. Look how long it took them to implement FileVault without losing data. Resolution Independence never really took hold, but can be used on a per-application basis. Memory Compression is their big, new technology and I think I'll wait, rather than having working memory corrupted, no matter how free they make it. I wonder if anyone else remembers RAM Doubler from Connectix? I used that quite a lot in one of my 1990s Macs, and it seemed to work flawlessly, but the Single-Tasking Mac OS 9.x (with Task Switcher) was much less complicated, although convoluted.
Let me remind you to take a moment or several moments to check the requirements and compatibility of your special, necessary software before you upgrade your operating system.
What I'm not saying is that I was ready for an iPad mini with the enhanced (but apparently not great, as far as color gamut goes) display--at US$349 but I'd want a 32 GB model, which would be US$100 more, and since reality hit, and it's US$50 more than what I expected, I'll be waiting. I'd prefer to put money into an enhanced phone like the 32 GB iPhone 5c that has enhanced LTE band (2 bands on Sprint, my current carrier) support. Since my iPhone 4S has no LTE support, and since LTE is starting to take shape, I'd like to be ready for 2014, when I'm expecting decent real-life LTE coverage and use. (Yes, AT&T and Verizon have coverage, but putting LTE on a tower and saying that a town has coverage is not useful. It has to work, and work well.)
Update 2013.11.17: I got the iPhone 5c and it's quite good, as you'd expect of what is mostly 1 year old technology. I also looked at the iPad Air and it's very desirable, but only for situations where I wouldn't be trying to use it at stores or restaurants. The Google Nexus 7 and EVGA Tegra Note 7 tablets are far more usable, if everything Android is in place and working smoothly.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Google's new Nexus 7
Ifr you missed the announcement on Wednesday, Google has replaced the Nexus 7 with the Nexus 7.
It uses a Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro--quad core CPU and Adreno 320 GPU with 2 GB of RAM total to power the 1920x1200 pixel resolution display.
The older one used an nVidia Tegra 3 quad+1 core CPU with nVidia's own GPU and a 1280x800 pixel display.
Obviously, it's quite a change. Having had two of the previous version and returning them for various reasons, I wonder if the newest version will please. Hopefully, they won't have any quality issues because there were plenty early in each run. Thankfully, they went with the current 16 and 32 GB storage options. I also wonder about performance issues.
The older one left me wondering whether I had a defective device or not. It would be smooth for the longest time (like I'd not seen from Android) and suddenly, it would pause a couple of seconds, and start again suddenly. There never seemed to be a pattern, and it happened with both the 16 GB version that was then top of the line and after being replaced at the top, the 32 GB version. You'd think that nVidia (and Google) would have noticed that in testing.
I'm amused at the Apple fanatics who say that there is nothing to the Nexus 7 in comparison to the iPad mini. What are they missing? The iPad mini wasn't competition for the original Nexus 7, so how is it that it beats the newer one? (Update 2013.10.25: Obviously the revised iPad mini with the higher resolution (the same as the full-sized iPad) display is on a more even testing ground with the newer Nexus 7. Given that both the newer iPad mini and newer Nexus 7 have very powerful processing available, it's simply a matter of taste. Oh, and the US$170 difference leads to some powerful thoughts. Google is trying to sell their ecosystem and services while Apple is trying to sell hardware.)
I like Apple products and I was disappointed with the iPad mini by the time it arrived. There were rumors about the time of the second generation iPad and a 7-8 inch mini version with a 1024x768 pixel display was reasonable then. As time passed, the specifications remained the same, and the processor was barely newer. Adding insult to injury, they wanted a premium price for it. I had zero desire to buy one.
Having had two Nexus 7 tablets and feeling a bit cheated by the experience, I'm not sure I want a tablet at all but I feel it's a good way to display my photos. If I buy a tablet, it's going to be from 7-8 inches for the display. The Nexus 7 and iPad mini would still be the likely items.
Right now, Apple is having trouble lining up displays for the iPad mini, so they need to have a fire sale because I don't see how they're going to sell what's now a US$149 tablet using Android.
Update 2013.11.14: I tried the 2013 version of the Nexus 7 briefly and found it to be more agreeable than the 2012 versions. Even though there is a rather massive difference in display surface area, I'm not sure it's going to be a huge deal for people wanting a tablet that they can hold in one hand. While I was in Micro Center yesterday, I saw people buying a US$50 tablet as though it would solve everyone's deepest needs. I suspect, being that cheap, the people behind the tablet have zero mechanisms for dealing with software updates so what you see is what you get, even if you somehow naively think you're getting a Nexus 7 equivalent.
Update 2013.12.03: I've had a 2013 Nexus 7 for a couple of weeks. It's everything I hoped with none of the bad. The fact that I got it US$30 cheaper than the regular price helped sway me to part with the money. The new iPad mini is good, but not very good, and for less money, the 2013 Nexus 7 is so much better. It's the tablet I expected from Apple before they even had anything ready for the public. It's too bad that Apple decided to raise the price, rather than dropping it. Of course, Google raised their price also, but the new tablet is much, much better than the 2012 version.
Update 2014.03.15: I've had my Nexus 7 for a few months. It got the Android 4.4.2 update not long after I bought it. I still have my doubts about Android. It works as though it is tested for functionality, but not for the user experience at all. The 2012 Nexus 7 is evidence of that. If anyone had actually tried that tablet, they never would have let it go to market.
Still, in a casual setting, the newer Nexus 7 is stable and except for the occasional glitch performs well. For games, a lot is dependent on the game but they all seem more unhappy than their iOS relatives. That's sad because this is the Google tablet. If they can't get Android to perform correctly on products labeled as their own, how can they handle other products correctly?
Update 2015.04.27: The Nexus 7 has been said to no longer be available via Google. It's surprising that they didn't replace it already, but it doesn't look as though they care to replace it at all.
With the latest Android version 5.1, mine doesn't seem to be working all that well, even though that was the performance fix release for 5.0. I can only imagine how horribly the 2012 version of the tablet is struggling to work. Maybe, it is time to call it quits.
It uses a Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro--quad core CPU and Adreno 320 GPU with 2 GB of RAM total to power the 1920x1200 pixel resolution display.
The older one used an nVidia Tegra 3 quad+1 core CPU with nVidia's own GPU and a 1280x800 pixel display.
Obviously, it's quite a change. Having had two of the previous version and returning them for various reasons, I wonder if the newest version will please. Hopefully, they won't have any quality issues because there were plenty early in each run. Thankfully, they went with the current 16 and 32 GB storage options. I also wonder about performance issues.
The older one left me wondering whether I had a defective device or not. It would be smooth for the longest time (like I'd not seen from Android) and suddenly, it would pause a couple of seconds, and start again suddenly. There never seemed to be a pattern, and it happened with both the 16 GB version that was then top of the line and after being replaced at the top, the 32 GB version. You'd think that nVidia (and Google) would have noticed that in testing.
I'm amused at the Apple fanatics who say that there is nothing to the Nexus 7 in comparison to the iPad mini. What are they missing? The iPad mini wasn't competition for the original Nexus 7, so how is it that it beats the newer one? (Update 2013.10.25: Obviously the revised iPad mini with the higher resolution (the same as the full-sized iPad) display is on a more even testing ground with the newer Nexus 7. Given that both the newer iPad mini and newer Nexus 7 have very powerful processing available, it's simply a matter of taste. Oh, and the US$170 difference leads to some powerful thoughts. Google is trying to sell their ecosystem and services while Apple is trying to sell hardware.)
I like Apple products and I was disappointed with the iPad mini by the time it arrived. There were rumors about the time of the second generation iPad and a 7-8 inch mini version with a 1024x768 pixel display was reasonable then. As time passed, the specifications remained the same, and the processor was barely newer. Adding insult to injury, they wanted a premium price for it. I had zero desire to buy one.
Having had two Nexus 7 tablets and feeling a bit cheated by the experience, I'm not sure I want a tablet at all but I feel it's a good way to display my photos. If I buy a tablet, it's going to be from 7-8 inches for the display. The Nexus 7 and iPad mini would still be the likely items.
Right now, Apple is having trouble lining up displays for the iPad mini, so they need to have a fire sale because I don't see how they're going to sell what's now a US$149 tablet using Android.
Update 2013.11.14: I tried the 2013 version of the Nexus 7 briefly and found it to be more agreeable than the 2012 versions. Even though there is a rather massive difference in display surface area, I'm not sure it's going to be a huge deal for people wanting a tablet that they can hold in one hand. While I was in Micro Center yesterday, I saw people buying a US$50 tablet as though it would solve everyone's deepest needs. I suspect, being that cheap, the people behind the tablet have zero mechanisms for dealing with software updates so what you see is what you get, even if you somehow naively think you're getting a Nexus 7 equivalent.
Update 2013.12.03: I've had a 2013 Nexus 7 for a couple of weeks. It's everything I hoped with none of the bad. The fact that I got it US$30 cheaper than the regular price helped sway me to part with the money. The new iPad mini is good, but not very good, and for less money, the 2013 Nexus 7 is so much better. It's the tablet I expected from Apple before they even had anything ready for the public. It's too bad that Apple decided to raise the price, rather than dropping it. Of course, Google raised their price also, but the new tablet is much, much better than the 2012 version.
Update 2014.03.15: I've had my Nexus 7 for a few months. It got the Android 4.4.2 update not long after I bought it. I still have my doubts about Android. It works as though it is tested for functionality, but not for the user experience at all. The 2012 Nexus 7 is evidence of that. If anyone had actually tried that tablet, they never would have let it go to market.
Still, in a casual setting, the newer Nexus 7 is stable and except for the occasional glitch performs well. For games, a lot is dependent on the game but they all seem more unhappy than their iOS relatives. That's sad because this is the Google tablet. If they can't get Android to perform correctly on products labeled as their own, how can they handle other products correctly?
Update 2015.04.27: The Nexus 7 has been said to no longer be available via Google. It's surprising that they didn't replace it already, but it doesn't look as though they care to replace it at all.
With the latest Android version 5.1, mine doesn't seem to be working all that well, even though that was the performance fix release for 5.0. I can only imagine how horribly the 2012 version of the tablet is struggling to work. Maybe, it is time to call it quits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)