how can the user benefit from a iPad Retina display?

[Brian]

If your a user of the retina iPad then when does the retina become useful?
For example do you notice it when reading text, does the text look better?
Do the photos you take with the iPad camera look sharper and clearer on the
retina iPad? Are there any apps that support this retina display ?

Often a feature gets advertised but its only of use if the user can benefit
from it.

--
Regards Brian

[nospam]

In article
<239194759396851831.4...@free.teranews.com>, Brian

<bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

> If your a user of the retina iPad then when does the retina become useful?

any time you look at it.

> For example do you notice it when reading text, does the text look better?

yes

> Do the photos you take with the iPad camera look sharper and clearer on the
> retina iPad?

yes

> Are there any apps that support this retina display ?

most of them.

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-30-2013 00:45, Brian wrote:
> Often a feature gets advertised but its only of use if the user can benefit
> from it.

Depends on how you define "of use." It's "of use" if it sells more product.

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-30-2013 10:09, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> Are there any apps that support this retina display ?
>

> A heck of a lot of them.

I suspect (but I've been too lazy to measure it) that "supporting the
retina display" means packing larger graphics files into the app,
sucking up more of your storage space.

And in most apps, the difference accomplishes nothing useful.

[David Taylor]

.. unless you find the text clearer and easier to read, which I
certainly do. It may not be a deal-breaker, but for me the higher pixel
density is a well worthwhile improvement.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[Brian]

From the feedback I've been getting its seems like viewing a High
definition picture on TV compared to a standard definition picture when
comparing a iPad with Retina display.

--
Regards Brian

[David Taylor]

On 31/07/2013 10:09, Brian wrote:
[]

> From the feedback I've been getting its seems like viewing a High
> definition picture on TV compared to a standard definition picture when
> comparing a iPad with Retina display.

Rather than rely on 3rd-hand information, most folk can just pop into a
suitable shop and see for themselves. Like HD, it rather depends on
your normal viewing distance, but closer up the difference is (to me)
immediately obvious.

[Fred Moore]

In article <ktbf0l$j5e$1...@dont-email.me>,

Yes, the crystal clarity of the iPad 4's Retina display is nothing short
of stunning.

[Wes Groleau]

There's no denying that if you HAVE a "retina display" it is a bit more
pleasant to look at. But does it improve your aim in "angry birds"?
Does it reduce errors in your accounting? etc. One thing's certain:
it doesn't help you pack more music into the device.

So, whether the pleasantness is worth the (possible) loss of space is
up to each person to decide. Not that it makes much difference--the
programmers aren't asking whether you want it or not.

And if you don't have a retina display, tough beans. You get all the
disadvantages and none of the advantages.

--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

[Brian]

What is this loss of space in your reply?

--
Regards Brian

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-31-2013 22:36, Lewis wrote:
>> There's no denying that if you HAVE a "retina display" it is a bit more
>> pleasant to look at. But does it improve your aim in "angry birds"?
>

> It's easier to exactly duplicate a shot, yes.

I doubt that, but I'll never know for sure because asa far as I am
concerned _nothing_ in "Angry Birds" has any practical value.

>> Does it reduce errors in your accounting?
>

> If you don't mistake a 0 for an 8 because the display is clearer, yes?

If that was a problem before the retina display, you need the
accessibility features or you foolishly selected a crappy app.
Plus, when accounting if you don't take steps to be usre of
a blurry digit, then you really don't care anyway, do you?

>> it doesn't help you pack more music into the device.
>

> It also helps in reading, both on the web (especially shitty sites that
> do grey on grey text) and in books/pdfs.

I don't waste time with those kind of websites. I did notice the
difference in iBook, but I had no trouble reading them before.
Again, I didn't ask whether it looks better, I asked whether
the visual difference is worth the cost.

--
Wes Groleau

“Isn't embarrassing to quote something you didn't read
and then attack what it didn't say?”

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-31-2013 22:28, Brian wrote:
> What is this loss of space in your reply?

"Enhanced for retina display" basically means that every image takes up
four times the storage, unless compression is increased (which reduces
the quality).

--
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[Brian]

I would need to have a side by side comparison of both iPad models and most
stores are likely to only stock the newest model of the iPad.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <ktc997$9r9$1...@dont-email.me>

> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 07-31-2013 05:09, Brian wrote:
>>> David Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 31/07/2013 01:44, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>>>> On 07-30-2013 10:09, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>> Are there any apps that support this retina display ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A heck of a lot of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect (but I've been too lazy to measure it) that "supporting the
>>>>> retina display" means packing larger graphics files into the app,
>>>>> sucking up more of your storage space.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in most apps, the difference accomplishes nothing useful.
>>>>
>>>> .. unless you find the text clearer and easier to read, which I certainly
>>>> do. It may not be a deal-breaker, but for me the higher pixel density is
>>>> a well worthwhile improvement.
>>>
>>> From the feedback I've been getting its seems like viewing a High
>>> definition picture on TV compared to a standard definition picture when
>>> comparing a iPad with Retina display.
>
>> There's no denying that if you HAVE a "retina display" it is a bit more
>> pleasant to look at. But does it improve your aim in "angry birds"?
>

> It's easier to exactly duplicate a shot, yes.
>

>> Does it reduce errors in your accounting?
>

> If you don't mistake a 0 for an 8 because the display is clearer, yes?

Just recently while reading e-mail with the email program that came with
the iPad 2 I mistook a 6 for a 4. The order number was in small print. I
couldn't understand why they could not find my order when I phoned the
company.


--
Regards Brian

[David Taylor]

On 01/08/2013 07:29, Brian wrote:
> David Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

[]

>> Rather than rely on 3rd-hand information, most folk can just pop into a
>> suitable shop and see for themselves. Like HD, it rather depends on your
>> normal viewing distance, but closer up the difference is (to me) immediately obvious.
>
> I would need to have a side by side comparison of both iPad models and most
> stores are likely to only stock the newest model of the iPad.

So take a look on the Web first to find a store which has both....or I
have an iPad-1 I could sell you!

[David Empson]

Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > On 07-31-2013 05:09, Brian wrote:
> >> David Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >>> On 31/07/2013 01:44, Wes Groleau wrote:
> >>>> On 07-30-2013 10:09, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >>>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >>>>>> Are there any apps that support this retina display ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A heck of a lot of them.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect (but I've been too lazy to measure it) that "supporting the
> >>>> retina display" means packing larger graphics files into the app,
> >>>> sucking up more of your storage space.
> >>>>
> >>>> And in most apps, the difference accomplishes nothing useful.
> >>>
> >>> .. unless you find the text clearer and easier to read, which I certainly
> >>> do. It may not be a deal-breaker, but for me the higher pixel density is
> >>> a well worthwhile improvement.

[...]

> > So, whether the pleasantness is worth the (possible) loss of space is
> > up to each person to decide. Not that it makes much difference--the
> > programmers aren't asking whether you want it or not.
> >
> > And if you don't have a retina display, tough beans. You get all the
> > disadvantages and none of the advantages.
>
> What is this loss of space in your reply?

When an app adds support for the retina display, any graphical objects
within the app need to be duplicated, including both a normal resolution
and an "@2x" retina resolution version of the graphical object.

The same build of the app is used on both non-retina and retina devices,
but only the appropriate graphical objects will be displayed. This means
that every app which supports retina display (which is most of them by
now, and is required for all new and updated apps) is wasting storage
space on every device, because half of the graphical objects in the app
will not be used on that particular device. The effect is worst for
non-retina models, because the graphical objects for retina displays are
four times larger than those for non-retina displays (due to having four
times as many pixels in the same area).

If the app is written to run natively on the iPhone and iPad, the
wastage is even worse, because it may need to include four instances of
each graphical object: for non-retina iPhones, retina iPhones,
non-retina iPads and retina iPads. (Apps with separate versions for the
iPhone and iPad avoid this problem.)

In some cases, further graphical objects may be needed to support the
different screen size of the iPhone 5.

In a few years this should be less of a problem because a future iOS
version will drop support for all older models which don't have a retina
display, therefore apps which require that future iOS version will no
longer need to include non-retina graphics.

That can't happen as soon as iOS 7, because iOS 7 will support the iPad
2 and iPad mini, which don't have a retina display. If an iPhone-only or
iPad-only app is run on an iPad 2 or iPad mini, the non-retina graphics
inside the app will be used.

In theory, a universal (native on iPhone and iPad) app which required
iOS 7 could drop the iPhone non-retina graphics, because iOS 7 doesn't
run on any iPhone or iPod Touch models with a non-retina display, and
the app will never display those graphical objects when running on an
iPad. It would still need graphical objects for retina iPhone,
non-retina iPad and retina iPad.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[James Silverton]

On 8/1/2013 12:03 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <718765698397016995.0...@free.teranews.com>,

> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I would need to have a side by side comparison of both iPad models and
>> most stores are likely to only stock the newest model of the iPad.
>

> Not necessarily true. Both the 4th generation iPad and the iPad 2 are
> available for sale. So both should be stocked.
>
In my experience, reading an emagazine on an iPad is not too bad with
either the iPod 2 or the retina display. Perhaps the resolution of th
retina display might be better but the iPad 2 is adequate even if the
font is small. This is the first time I could use the word "adequate"
since other monitors tend to be blurred and I do not like scrolling
vertically, especially when there are two columns on a page. Perhaps an
Apple monitor with a large vertical display might have worked but the
1020 vertical resolution on my PC is not enough.

I had been ready to resign from Sigma Xi because their American
Scientist magazine was unsatisfactory until their iPad app appeared this
week.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[nospam]

In article <slrnkvlp4e....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >The effect is worst for non-retina models, because the graphical
> >objects for retina displays are four times larger than those for
> >non-retina displays (due to having four times as many pixels in the
> >same area).
>

> That would be true if graphics were stored as bmp files or something
> uncompressed. It is not at all true for the png or jpg files that are
> actually used. A graphic is not necessarily 4x larger in file size just
> because it is 4x larger in pixel count.

it's still larger.

an app with a lot of assets will be much bigger when it has retina and
non-retina artwork and for full screed assets, it needs to have two
versions, one for the iphone 4/4s and another for the iphone 5.

it adds up very quickly.

> > If the app is written to run natively on the iPhone and iPad, the
> > wastage is even worse, because it may need to include four instances of
> > each graphical object: for non-retina iPhones, retina iPhones,
> > non-retina iPads and retina iPads. (Apps with separate versions for the
> > iPhone and iPad avoid this problem.)
>

> iOS 7 apps will be able to drop the non-retina iPhone and non-Retina iPad
> sizes.

nope.

ios 7 will run on an ipad 2 and ipad mini, both of which do not have
retina displays.

only support for the non-retina iphone (3gs) can be dropped because the
earliest iphone supported is an iphone 4 which has a retina display.

and it's not 'the' retina iphone since there are *two* retina iphone
display sizes.

> But then again, the retina iPhone and non-retina iPad are the same size,
> so no need for separate graphics.

nope.

retina iphone = 960 x 640 pixels
retina iphone 5 = 1136 x 640 pixels
non-retina ipad = 1024 x 768 pixels

they're different sizes.

> > In a few years
>
> months?

definitely not months. it will be a couple of years until the current
ipad mini is no longer supported.

> > this should be less of a problem because a future iOS
> > version will drop support for all older models which don't have a retina
> > display, therefore apps which require that future iOS version will no
> > longer need to include non-retina graphics.
>
> > That can't happen as soon as iOS 7, because iOS 7 will support the iPad
> > 2 and iPad mini, which don't have a retina display.
>

> But have the same resolution as the iPhone 4 and 4S.

wrong. see above.

> > In theory, a universal (native on iPhone and iPad) app which required
> > iOS 7 could drop the iPhone non-retina graphics, because iOS 7 doesn't
> > run on any iPhone or iPod Touch models with a non-retina display, and
> > the app will never display those graphical objects when running on an
> > iPad. It would still need graphical objects for retina iPhone,
> > non-retina iPad and retina iPad.
>

> Nope, just retina iPhone and retina iPad.

wrong. see above.

[David Empson]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1l6xi48.ujui3eea63opN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>

> David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >The effect is worst for non-retina models, because the graphical
> >objects for retina displays are four times larger than those for
> >non-retina displays (due to having four times as many pixels in the
> >same area).
>

> That would be true if graphics were stored as bmp files or something
> uncompressed. It is not at all true for the png or jpg files that are
> actually used. A graphic is not necessarily 4x larger in file size just
> because it is 4x larger in pixel count.

True, I was generalising for the worst case and should have said "up to
4x larger". There is still wasted duplication of graphical resources,
because there are both standard and 2x versions of most graphical
objects, only one of which gets used on a particular device. The 2x
graphics will almost always require more space than the 1x graphics,
therefore non-retina devices are worse off for wasted storage space than
retina devices.

> > If the app is written to run natively on the iPhone and iPad, the
> > wastage is even worse, because it may need to include four instances of
> > each graphical object: for non-retina iPhones, retina iPhones,
> > non-retina iPads and retina iPads. (Apps with separate versions for the
> > iPhone and iPad avoid this problem.)
>

> iOS 7 apps will be able to drop the non-retina iPhone and non-Retina iPad
> sizes.
>

> But then again, the retina iPhone and non-retina iPad are the same size,
> so no need for separate graphics.

On iOS 6 or earlier, a non-retina iPad running an iPhone-only app uses
non-retina iPhone graphics, even if the app contains retina graphics and
is operating in 2x mode. It is horribly pixelated in 2x mode.

Will that be changing in iOS 7? Apple hasn't mentioned anything that I
noticed, so if there is such a change I expect it is under NDA.

If it is the case that the iPad mini and iPad 2 will use retina graphics
for iPhone-only apps and always run the app in 2x mode, then iPhone-only
apps which require iOS 7 could drop all non-retina graphics objects.

> > In a few years
>
> months?

Years. iOS 7 supports the iPad 2 and iPad mini, which have a non-retina
display, therefore native iPad apps running on those devices which
require iOS 7 must still include non-retina graphics.

iOS 8 (late 2014) might still need to support at least the iPad mini,
depending on how long Apple keeps selling a non-retina model after iOS 7
is released. Therefore apps which require iOS 8 might still need to
include non-retina iPad graphics.

iOS 9 (late 2015) is very likely to only work on devices with retina
displays, therefore apps which require iOS 9 will almost certainly be
able to drop non-retina iPad graphics.

> > this should be less of a problem because a future iOS
> > version will drop support for all older models which don't have a retina
> > display, therefore apps which require that future iOS version will no
> > longer need to include non-retina graphics.
>
> > That can't happen as soon as iOS 7, because iOS 7 will support the iPad
> > 2 and iPad mini, which don't have a retina display.
>

> But have the same resolution as the iPhone 4 and 4S.
>

> > In theory, a universal (native on iPhone and iPad) app which required
> > iOS 7 could drop the iPhone non-retina graphics, because iOS 7 doesn't
> > run on any iPhone or iPod Touch models with a non-retina display, and
> > the app will never display those graphical objects when running on an
> > iPad. It would still need graphical objects for retina iPhone,
> > non-retina iPad and retina iPad.
>

> Nope, just retina iPhone and retina iPad.

And non-retina iPad. The native user interface of iPad apps running on
an iPad mini or iPad 2 under iOS 7 will not be able to use retina
graphics.

Universal apps running on an iPad do not use the iPhone user interface,
so any iPhone graphics (retina or non-retina) in the app are ignored on
the iPad.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Brian]

Thanks for the detailed reply David.

Does this mean that apps that support a Retina display are larger in size
and use more system memory?

Is there any noticeable difference when using a app that supports a Retina
display on a iPad that does not a support Rentinae display?

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

I hope that Retina supports apps are backward compatible.
It was a problem when Apple decided to change the connection on the iPod so
my new iPod touch would not work on my older iPad speaker system (iPod sits
between two speakers).





--
Regards Brian

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-01-2013 20:43, David Empson wrote:
> True, I was generalising for the worst case and should have said "up to
> 4x larger". There is still wasted duplication of graphical resources,
> because there are both standard and 2x versions of most graphical
> objects, only one of which gets used on a particular device. The 2x
> graphics will almost always require more space than the 1x graphics,
> therefore non-retina devices are worse off for wasted storage space than
> retina devices.

This is greater waste than necessary, as IOS already has code for
scaling images that are too big for the screen.

--
Wes Groleau

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined.”
— David Hume, age 37
“There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it.”
— Becky Groleau, age 4

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-01-2013 00:58, Lewis wrote:
> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>> I don't waste time with those kind of websites. I did notice the
>> difference in iBook, but I had no trouble reading them before.
>

> With the non-retina iPad I found my eyes would et tired and I'd start to
> get a headache after a few hours of reading. No such problems with the
> retina one.

Everyone has to make their own decisions. For me, it looks nicer, but I
don't read any faster and I never had headaches or anything like that

before.

>> Again, I didn't ask whether it looks better, I asked whether
>> the visual difference is worth the cost.
>

> What cost?

What have I been saying for two days? It costs you storage space.

(Not to mention the purchase price.)


--
Wes Groleau

“Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change;
the courage to change the one I can;
and the wisdom to know it's me.”
— unknown

[nospam]

In article
<445684778397103121.6...@free.teranews.com>, Brian

<bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

> Does this mean that apps that support a Retina display are larger in size
> and use more system memory?

they do, but ipads with retina displays have more memory so it works
out just fine.

non-retina ipads will ignore the retina assets.

> Is there any noticeable difference when using a app that supports a Retina
> display on a iPad that does not a support Rentinae display?

no

[nospam]

In article <slrnkvmcbu...@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> The purchase price has not changed on the ipad since it was introduced.

the ipad was introduced at $499.

ipad 2 is now $399 and ipad mini is $329.

[Brian]

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <718765698397016995.0...@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>

>> I would need to have a side by side comparison of both iPad models and
>> most stores are likely to only stock the newest model of the iPad.
>

> Not necessarily true. Both the 4th generation iPad and the iPad 2 are
> available for sale. So both should be stocked.

I tried today to compare a iPad 2 with a retina iPad but all they had was a
mini iPad and a retina iPad which might not be a good test as the screen
size of the mini is smaller. I have a feeling that there is less demand for
the iPad 2.
The main different I noticed was when using the rear camera as text that
was in the picture was clearer to read compared to the mini iPad.

--
Regards Brian

[nospam]

In article <michelle-B77E6E...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > The purchase price has not changed on the ipad since it was introduced.
> >
> > the ipad was introduced at $499.
> >
> > ipad 2 is now $399 and ipad mini is $329.
>

> And the iPad 4 is still $499. Let's rephrase Lewis's original statement so
> that the clear implication is explicitly stated: The purchase price of a
> full-sized most recent generation, smallest capacity, WiFi-only iPad has
> not changed since the iPad was introduced.
>
> Everyone with at least half a brain who read what he wrote clearly
> understood what he meant.

anyone with half a brain can see that the price of an ipad *has*
changed since it was introduced.

he was wrong.

the fact that you have to qualify his statement to eliminate the lower
priced ipads proves it.

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <1l6xi48.ujui3eea63opN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,

dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> That can't happen as soon as iOS 7, because iOS 7 will support the iPad
> 2 and iPad mini, which don't have a retina display. If an iPhone-only or
> iPad-only app is run on an iPad 2 or iPad mini, the non-retina graphics
> inside the app will be used.

What *could* have happened with iOS 7 is a switch to a preference for
vector graphics for many things. Especially for things like icons,
which have already been simplified. I certainly know that that *I*
already have SVG versions of most of my graphics assets, and would
prefer to avoid the hassle of having to produce all different sizes of
raster versions just because Apple (along with most OS companies) still
can't seem to do resolution-independence quite right.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

[nospam]

In article <slrnkvok8r....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > Everyone with at least half a brain who read what he wrote clearly
> > understood what he meant.
>

> If you re-read that, you can see why nospam is confused.

i'm not confused at all. you were wrong. the price of an ipad went down
and it may even drop further in a couple of months, as rumours suggest.

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-02-2013 00:23, nospam wrote:
> <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Does this mean that apps that support a Retina display are larger in size
>> and use more system memory?
>
> they do, but ipads with retina displays have more memory so it works
> out just fine.

More RAM, yes. But not more storage.

Again, depends what's important to you.

For some people, storage is so important that they're willing to
sacrifice the nice form factor and plug in an external drive.

--
Wes Groleau

Change is inevitable. We need to learn that “inevitable" is
neither a synonym for “good" nor for “bad.”

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-02-2013 00:23, nospam wrote:

The iPad 2 is less because the iPad 3 is out and Apple doesn't want the
leftovers to go unsold.

The purchase price of the new one is the same as that of the old one.

So to double the resolution, you've doubled what you paid out.

For me--not worth it.

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-02-2013 12:03, nospam wrote:
> he was wrong.

He was correct for what he meant, though he and you apparently didn't
understand what I meant.

> the fact that you have to qualify his statement to eliminate the lower
> priced ipads proves it.

This kind of unnecessary self-defense just reinforces what many folks
think about you. You might consider sometime trying Charles Wallace's
approach:

"Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to feel smug about.
Why should I disillusion them?"

[Wes Groleau]

Sheesh. I was talking about whether a newer model was worth the cost.

Clearly a price change on the older model is totally irrelevant.

[nospam]

In article <kthrnv$vkh$1...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau

<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> The iPad 2 is less because the iPad 3 is out and Apple doesn't want the
> leftovers to go unsold.

they're still making them, just as they're still making the iphone 4
and 4s.

they certainly didn't have a year's worth of leftovers kicking around.

[nospam]

In article <kths1h$1rj$1...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau

<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> > he was wrong.
>
> He was correct for what he meant, though he and you apparently didn't
> understand what I meant.

he was not correct.

someone with $400 in 2011 could not buy an ipad.

that same person with the same $400 in 2012 could buy an ipad, and in
fact, the very same one he couldn't afford a year earlier.

the price went *down*.

[nospam]

In article <slrnkvp5mg....@mgb.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> the price of an ipad went down
> >> and it may even drop further in a couple of months, as rumours suggest.
>

> No it didn't. The price of the ipad has remained constant across the
> current models. That a previous version is sold at a discount is in no
> way relevant.

it's exactly relevant.

as i said, $400 could not buy an ipad and now it can.

that can only happen if the price dropped.

and that's ignoring the new model that's even cheaper ($329). it is in
a smaller size, but as apple says, 'every inch an ipad'.

[Brian]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <kthrf7$ssl$2...@dont-email.me>

> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 08-02-2013 00:23, nospam wrote:
>>> <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does this mean that apps that support a Retina display are larger in size
>>>> and use more system memory?
>>>
>>> they do, but ipads with retina displays have more memory so it works
>>> out just fine.
>
>> More RAM, yes. But not more storage.
>
>> Again, depends what's important to you.
>
>> For some people, storage is so important that they're willing to
>> sacrifice the nice form factor and plug in an external drive.
>

> How do they manage that?

I'm wondering that myself considering that you can't plug a external drive
into a iPad.


--
Regards Brian

[Steve Hix]

In article <kthrnv$vkh$1...@dont-email.me>,

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 08-02-2013 00:23, nospam wrote:
> > In article <slrnkvmcbu...@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> > <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >
> >> The purchase price has not changed on the ipad since it was introduced.
> >
> > the ipad was introduced at $499.
> >
> > ipad 2 is now $399 and ipad mini is $329.
>
> The iPad 2 is less because the iPad 3 is out and Apple doesn't want the
> leftovers to go unsold.

iPad 2's are apparently still being made, mostly for the education market.
That, or they had a huge amount of unsold stock after later models were released.

[Fred Moore]

In article <sehix-0EF36A....@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>,

Apple was almost forced to stop selling them because of a Samsung suit
until the Obama administration took this unusual action:

Obama Administration Overturns Ban on Apple Products
<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/obama-administration-overturns-
ban-on-apple-products/?ref=technology>

[Wes Groleau]

Well, theoretically you can with an adapter and driver,
but I typed a bit carelessly. The only such drive that
I know about works by WiFi. Though I think it very likely
there's a bluetooth version out there.

The point is that the storage is important enough to someone
for the maker to keep making them. And for that someone, it's
more important than the size/shape of the iPad alone.

--
Wes Groleau

He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
— Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

[Wes Groleau]

You defense of your misinterpretation is more of the same.


--
Wes Groleau

¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente!
私が実際にしたいと思う何をホットドッグを食べることである!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463

[Wes Groleau]

"Methinks he doth protest too much."

Vociferous defense of your misinterpretation does not help you.


--
Wes Groleau

“Brigham Young agrees to confine himself to one woman,
if every member of Congress will do the same.”
— Weekly Republican, 1869

[nospam]

In article <ktma09$c6d$1...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau

<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> > I'm wondering that myself considering that you can't plug a external drive
> > into a iPad.
>
> Well, theoretically you can with an adapter and driver,
> but I typed a bit carelessly. The only such drive that
> I know about works by WiFi. Though I think it very likely
> there's a bluetooth version out there.

bluetooth would be too slow.

there are jailbreak hacks to access a hard drive from a usb port when
using a camera connector in the dock port.