POST A COMMENT

89 Comments

Back to Article

  • blackmagnum - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Go Apple, go! Reply
  • Creig - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Go away, you mean. Reply
  • dugbug - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Rather nasty comment there Creig. Did apple kill your dog. Reply
  • UltraTech79 - Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - link

    Yes, please do go away Creig. And take your weak personality with you. This isnt reddit/youtube. We enjoy technology here. Reply
  • Fleeb - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I hope the iPad mini comes with a sandpaper, so we can sand and reduce our fingers smaller. Reply
  • inplainview - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Thanks for making the dumbest statement ever... Reply
  • lmcd - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    What was he even trying to say? Reply
  • mrgodai02 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    he is making fun of Steve Jobs. Reply
  • mrgodai02 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    yup, it is a super dumb statement, and here is the original

    "unless your tablet also includes sandpaper, so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one quarter of the present size." -Steve Jobs.
    Reply
  • B3an - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Irrelevant product. WinRT/8 tablets make these oversized phone devices pointless. Reply
  • michal1980 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I know anandtech is different. But I can't figure out why actual news programs have applegasmisms every time they release a product.

    I bet every company in the world would love that much free ad time.

    PS

    isn't the ipod touch already a mini ipad?

    so this isn't a mini ipad coming out, its a inbetween size ipad.
    Reply
  • scavio - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    They cover these Apple events because it draws eyeballs (this includes Anandtech).

    And you have it backwards. The iPad is a huge iPod Touch. So a mini iPad is just a slightly less huge iPad touch.
    Reply
  • scavio - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Of course, I mean iPod Touch in the end. Confused myself there it seems. Reply
  • BSMonitor - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Well, when the biggest company Market Cap wise in the history of the planet speaks.. Probably should pay attention.. Reply
  • Dex1701 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Yes, because that's what big businesses in this country need...bigger voices and more influence. Selling people more crap is that important. Hell, it's the only thing that's important. Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Best case scenario, 13" retina macbook pro with a quad core Ivy Bridge processor at last (there is one in the same TDP as their current dual core), and use the space savings for dedicated graphics, although I think that is unlikely looking at the 15" which had to use the extra space for battery to drive that panel.

    The iPad Mini, meh, I'll wait and see but it sounds like it will have iPad 2 internals for a bit lower price, nothing new.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    At the price of the current upgraded 13" I should have added, like I think the Retina Macbook Pro 15" wasn't too much more from the upgraded 15" regular so it was worth the jump. Reply
  • jeremyshaw - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I see a lot of dailytech readers have infested this site, already. Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I thought Apple was livestreaming this event. Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Livestream is via Safari on a Mac or iOS device, or apple tv. Sorry anandtech, don't need the play by play now heh. Reply
  • jiffylube1024 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    So stupid that Apple has limited live streaming to Apple devices. Is this a bandwidth issue, or just a BS exclusive thing? Reply
  • lmcd - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    And Apple has how much money? No, Apple never emphasizes exclusivity. Reply
  • ecuador - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    How come the 27" display on the iMac is lower resolution than the 13" display on the MBP? Are they telling us that either the MBP has a ridiculously/uselessly high resolution for its size or the iMac has a laughingly low resolution for it size? Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    If that's the best your logic can deduce, I'm afraid you fail at discerning between 2 very different products. Reply
  • ghogan42 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    27" IPS panels are very widely available at 2560x1440 and used in a ton of products.

    They're not going to spend a bunch more money on 2560x1600 panels for no real reason.
    Reply
  • lmcd - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Or the iMac is expected to be viewed from farther, and Apple's too lazy to upgrade multiple products simultaneously. Reply
  • WeenerSnitzel - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    All right Anand, we know you have come to love Apple. You and the rest of the people attending need to change your shorts and wash your face! Reply
  • karasaj - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    This is interesting. Lower resolution, probably higher cost than competing tablets in that price range/niche. I find it weird that Apple pushes Retina on things with smaller screens (iphone 5) and larger screens, but not here. A retina display would arguably be more important on a screen like this than the iphone. Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    It's meant to be low cost. So no retina makes sense. IMO the continued 4x3 aspect ration makes sense on a ~7" device, when they showed the nexus in landscape mode said it all. Still, #1 reason to go with a iPad mini, the dedicated tablet apps. Wish Android had anywhere near this amount of dedicated tablet apps, that weren't buggy. I know it's hard having to cater to so many hardware specs, but it's still a loss to the user in the end. Reply
  • HighTech4US - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    #1 it is not low cost. $329 for the 16gb WiFi. The Nexus 7 32gb WiFi costs $80 less

    #2 Apple's Reality Distortion Field was in full force to show a Mini with a 1024 x 768 diaplay showing more information that the Nexus 7's 1280 x 800 disply (which has 30% more pixels than the mini).

    #3 Google has more than 600,000 apps which is very close to the 650,000 apps Apple has.
    Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    #1 Yes it is, however you fail to see relative comparison. If all you care about is a lower price, sure. However, the obvious argument, which you again fail to see is that the $80 is worth it for a superior build quality. Something ligher and thinner too.

    #2 Yes, it has fewer pixels. IMO it's not that huge of a gap for it be discounted as a contender however.

    #3 You're obviously not looking at tablet-specific apps. Android can't touch iOS in this regard. I am sick of stretched out apps on my Android tablet.

    If anyone is anywhere near entrenched in the Apple ecosystem, that is yet another reason to pick the iPad mini over your Nexus.
    Reply
  • IHateMyJob2004 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Anandtech better give this kind of attention to BB10 Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    When BB is in the same realm of hype and marketshare, sure. Reply
  • zlandar - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    They could have wrap this up in one sentence that includes the price of the iPad mini. Reply
  • jiffylube1024 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Damn you Apple! I've purged my household of Apple products, but the iPad mini is exactly what I want! Bigger than my Nexus 7, yet thinner *and lighter? Jeez! Unless the 1024x768 screen is a real stinker, the iPad mini looks like a real winner. Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Maybe we're spoiled by Retina now hah. Nevertheless I think 1024x768 should do fine, considering it's on a 7.9" screen rather than a 10", it's a high enough ppi I think. Which this was at the $299 mental barrier though, at least =P. Reply
  • HighTech4US - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    The Nexus 7 has a 1280 x 800 display and the mini has only a 1024 x768.

    Don't believe the Apple Reality Distortion shown here as for Apple to claim the mini shows more information than the Nexus 7 means that Apple made the N7 to show pages not in the native resolution (probably by tweaking the magnification or font size).

    Last time I checked the Nexus 7 has 1,024,000 pixels which is 30% more than the mini's 786,432.

    So why would you fork out $130 extra dollars for a product that displays less?

    Seems like you still have the it-starts-with-an-i-so-i-must-buy-it-disease
    Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Do you really think pixel count has something to do with what was shown on the screen? That was a show of aspect ratio if anything. Reply
  • thedarknight87 - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    Yeah, considering the fact that 800>768, the N7 is definitely going to be more legible when displaying the same info as iPad Mini. Plus N7 gives smaller ugly black borders when you watch 16:9 videos Reply
  • zlandar - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Not sure why you would buy this if you can get a refurb iPad 2 for the same price. Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    For the portability? Why does anyone get smaller devices?

    There's also the better cameras.
    Reply
  • HighTech4US - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Typical of the Apple Reality Distortion Field where they show the Nexus 7 showing less information that the mini.

    The Nexus 7 has a 1280 x 800 native resolution it will display more pixels that the mini.

    For it no to what did Apple do? Probably turned up the font magnification on the Nexus 7.

    So typical of Apple, can't compete so bring out the "Apple Reality Distortion Field" and distort the truth.
    Reply
  • jiffylube1024 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    2 things though:

    1: pinch to zoom means that the iPad mini will indeed display more information over the N7 if you want it to - it's got an almost 50% larger display area.

    2: Some iOS apps have better tablet versions than Android, and obviously Apple picked & chose some of those to hilight the differences.

    I currently own a Nexus 7, and enjoy it, but the two main things I do on it - web browsing, and ereading via the Kindle app, will be significantly better with a screen that's 50% larger.

    16:9 or 16:10 is indeed much better for video, but 4:3 is better for web browsing and reading, and I find I don't watch much video on my N7 after all - I primarily use my laptop for that.
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Can someone do the math for me?? Reply
  • Moizy - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    162 PPI (http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/computer/hardwa...

    Nexus 7 is 216 PPI
    Reply
  • mevensen - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Really? 7.9 inch is mini? Starting at $329?
    Interesting play for Apple. They present as competition with Nexus 7, but they are not competing in quite the same size category or price category.
    Reply
  • HighTech4US - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Exactly Reply
  • augiem - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    If I wanted an iPad, which I don't, I'd definitely get the mini. 10" tablets are too bulky for extended use. But tablets are useless to me and I'll never buy an iAnything. Reply
  • andrewaggb - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    need to see one in person to decide if the screen etc is really good enough. Not that interested in a smaller tablet, only reason I never grabbed a nexus 7, but I know a few people who like the smaller tablets. Reply
  • TheRealArdrid - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I think Apple really missed an opportunity to dominate the lower-end tablet market. They spent a good chunk of their time taking swipes at the competition (namely, Nexus 7), something Apple rarely does it, and yet didn't hit them where the most damage could be done: price. Granted, Apple has always been able to charge a premium for devices, but I have to wonder how successful a $329+ iPad Mini is going to be comared to a $199+ Nexus 7. Reply
  • uhuznaa - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Judging from my weeks with the Nexus 7: People who can't afford to spend $130 on top of what the Nexus 7 costs won't buy an iPad. If money is not that much of a concern the fact that you don't have to expose yourself to almost nothing but smartphone apps and hit the menu and back buttons all the time for everything might make the iPad mini still a success. And it certainly will make Apple more money than the Nexus does for Google (although I don't care much for that, really).

    Honestly, the real drawback for Android on tablets are the apps or better the lack of tablet apps.
    Reply
  • kaalus - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    And 30% less pixels... Of course didn't mention that. Hypocrites. Fail. Reply
  • MadMan007 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    The potrait comparisons are one thing, but the landscape comparison of the 'Guggenheim' page is really RDF'd, to the point that I think Apple didn't just distort reality but made a truly non-equivalent comparison. There's no way the Nexus display is half the iPad Mini in landscape. Reply
  • uhuznaa - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Not the display itself, but with all the bars on top and bottom there's really not that much left in landscape for actual content in Chrome/Jelly Bean. If you had ever used a Nexus 7 you wouldn't have asked about that. I hardly ever use my Nexus 7 in landscape precisely because of this. Reply
  • MadMan007 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    The menu bar taks up *some* pixels but come on, look at that landscape Guggenheim picture...there's no way bars and stuff take up almost half the screen. Reply
  • holotech - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    basically, the iphone 5 has faster internals than the ipad mini. A6 > A5. and the resolution is disappointing. Reply
  • holotech - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    AND the price is to high. 250 or less it should have been IMO . but my O doesnt matter. Reply
  • Kjella - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Didn't expect one, but would have been a nice surprise.... hopefully we'll see a 4K monitor next year. Reply
  • Moizy - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Can we get rid of all Reality Distortion Fields, both Pro-Apple and Anti? I love Anandtech because Anand and Brian lack either and can appreciate the merits and industry gravitas of Apple's products and critique them at the same time.

    Pro-Apple Reality Distortion Field: Finally! Someone made a smaller tablet! Wonderful idea! Apple is so cool for thinking of these things. And the price? So low!

    Anti-Apple Reality Distortion Field: Apple's products suck, only stupid people would buy them (ignoring best tablet apps - best hardware design - best tablet and smartphone graphics - SoCs that compete with the best out there on performance and battery life).

    Before you post, ask yourself if you suffer from either of these ailments, and spare us your symptoms!
    Reply
  • HighTech4US - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Take your daily i-pill and chill. Reply
  • Taft12 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    The new Godwin's law of the internet. It really does make reading any forums that cover Apple products tiresome, doesn't it? Reply
  • Moizy - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    What none of these comments are addressing is the claim Apple made that the 4th Gen Ipad doubles graphics performance over the 3rd Gen, which used 543MP4 and had an enormous (for ARM chips) die size.

    How did they do this? Any thoughts? Like the A6 vs A5 improvements, I don't think they could have just added more of the same cores, or increase clock speeds to get there. Even with the headroom 32nm would give them (remember, 3rd Gen Ipad was on 45nm), they couldn't have used this approach. Must be new graphics cores, I'm guessing.
    Reply
  • Heisenburger - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I must say, I don't really have Apple envy now. That is kind of odd for my tech lust drive.
    I do however envy my rich friends who can buy this without regard to price. However, if price is an issue then Apple may not be the answer for you.
    I am glad that Apple is pushing others, yes, even Google, to try to keep up. In doing so, I can buy a slightly less item (not always) for a significant discount.
    Why do I see things this way? Apple targets those who can best afford or most want their toys. In fact, every business wants to sell to the most affluent segment. This does however require giving buyers something to get excited about even if it's not that necessary to the product's performance-- friction stir welding? How did previous iPads survive without this?

    Personal info: (skip this part if u don't care)
    I'm 63 years old and been having trouble reading more and more lately with my old glasses. I've even been experiencing buyers remorse for my Nexus 7 UNTIL... I got something called "cheater glasses" which are simply non-prescription magnification glasses. These 1.75x glasses now allow me to enjoy my Nexus 7 more than when I first bought it. Thanks COSTCO!
    Note to other aging folks, the Nexus 7 isn't too small if your eyesight is properly addressed.
    Reply
  • dishayu - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Anyone else finds it ridiculous that their 13 inch notebook has the same resolution as the 27 inch computer and the 15 inch laptop exceeds it by more than 25%

    Someone please explain to me WHY can't we have 4K PC monitors for a reasonable amount of money today?
    Reply
  • kyuu - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Because making panels of the same resolution as are already made but just for smaller devices is not the same as making panels of a significantly higher resolution? Reply
  • dishayu - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Take the same tech (i.e. maintain the ppi) and make bigger panels, how hard can it be? Reply
  • Sm0kes - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    The difficulty isn't making the panels, the challenge is doing it with a useable yield that will be profitable. Reply
  • Taft12 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Desktop-sized panels aren't a smart place for the LCD builders of the world to ramp new capacity. The volume in the desktop market is ever-decreasing and won't ever go back upwards. Luckily 4K resolution will give us desktop users some new options in the near future.

    Apple and the LCD manufacturers are pushing the envelope on tablets and laptops because that's the present and near-future (who knows what lies beyond?)
    Reply
  • dishayu - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Well, that's the only plausible reason i could think of, as well. But, i as an avid desktop user like to wish otherwise. :( Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    lol wow the ignorance. It's not the same thing. Considering the tech, it is obvious that it's something you grow out your yields. You start small, then ramp it up to larget screens. Furthermore, you view your desktop at a farther distance than your phone or tablet or laptop, all that is taken into account. Grow up. Reply
  • dishayu - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    the ignorance? pot, kettle, black.

    It IS the same thing. You make big sheets of of high ppi LCD matrix, harvest as many zero pixel defect large screens as possible and use the rest to harvest screens for tablets/phones/smaller devices. Don't come up with bs theories with no logical backing. LCD manufacturing does not work the way you think you do. They DON'T make individual small/large screens.
    Reply
  • uhuznaa - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Because producing 27" displays with this pixel density in economic yields is incredibly hard. And because you won't be selling hundreds of millions of them to justify what you have to invest for that anyway.

    And hardly anyone is buying PC displays for any serious amount of money anyway.
    Reply
  • dishayu - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    first up, the ppi will not be the same...
    27 inch screen is approx 4 times the surface area of 13.3 inch screen
    4K resolution has approx 2x the pixels of 2560x1600

    So, it works out to be about half the pixel density which should be a lot less challenging. And 4K makes atleast as much sense on a 27 inch desktop monitor as 25x16 does on a 13 inch laptop screen (i.e. almost none).
    Reply
  • lmcd - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    The mini should have been predicted: after all, the A5 just got a successful die shrink around the time of the 3rd iPad, with a huge battery life jump. Since Apple usually doesn't like lower end products having advantages over higher end, this shrink obviously wasn't for the 10-inch form factor. Similarly, the iPad is considered higher-end than the iPhone, and the A5X was already 45nm (or 40, I forget), so instead of making a die-shrink they just upgraded it.

    The 13-inch Retina was exactly where expected. Form factor changes with the iMac weren't totally predictable except when you note that the TDPs changed on Ivy Bridge and Apple wouldn't waste an opportunity like that.
    Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    $329 for something that has no usb port and cant even take an sd card or anything. They are beyond stupid. 16GB is nothing in 2012. The thing will be nothing more than a paperweight in 6 months for anyone actually dumb enough to buy it. Apple stock price will reflect this stupid move. Reply
  • dugbug - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Im sure they won't sell any Reply
  • web2dot0 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    You're are spot on.

    With their track record of making gazillion dollars, how could they ever make any right decisions. They are beyond stupid. Apple stock price will plummet and go out of business in 6months time.

    I agree with you, iPad mini will be a complete disaster. Just like the folks who bought Apple when they were at $38/share. Dumb asses ....

    Oops ... that would be me.

    Ok, I admit you have a point, I mean who's the one with the cash in their bank account right?

    I mean who are these idiots who bought iPad/iPad2/iPad3 and soon to be iPad4 and iPad mini with no USB port?!!?!?!? No one will ever buy that piece of crap.
    Reply
  • DukeN - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    The Nexus 7 has 30% more pixels than the iPad mini. And of course, Apple glosses over this by yelling they have 35% more display area because their 7.9" screen is larger than the 7" for the Nexus. Reply
  • web2dot0 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I agree. It's a launch party, so I fully expect them to promote other competing products.

    Just like how Samsung does when they launch their products during the time when they didn't have Retina display phones. Fully praise to their competitors.
    Reply
  • Scannall - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    The Nexus 7 also happens to be a plasticy, clunky bit of junk. Sold at cost. Poor build quality, running a slow OS. Yes, I said it. Dalvic sucks. Having to run apps through a wannabe Java layer makes things run like, well Java. Slow no matter how much CPU power you throw at it. Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Do the new ones lose this functionality? I believe this was through a display port connection? Reply
  • name99 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    "Built into Mountain Lion, sounds like SSD caching done Apple-style"

    I don't think so. The effect is approximately the same, but Apple control everything which means they can do this at the file system level, not the block level. So they can do a vastly better job.

    There are a bunch of obvious things that can be done if you're at the file system level:
    You can place all the file system data structures (B-Trees etc) always in SSD, likewise for hotfiles, likewise for /tmp and /vm.
    You can also steer large files (larger than say 10MB) automatically to the HD.
    You can also do things like always steer writes to the SSD and then later, when you have some free time, move them to the HD is appropriate.

    All in all I can see this working substantially better than a Momentus XT, and not just because the cache SSD is quite a bit larger.
    Reply
  • tomatus270389 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Why would I ever need a desktop computer that thin??? Reply
  • uhuznaa - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    You won't, but you also won't need china plates, leather shoes, furniture made from real wood and a pretty girlfriend. The really cheap versions of all this work just as well! And they're cheaper! Stupid people!

    Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

    Seriously, even desktop computers aren't just office machinery anymore. They're furniture as well. They have to look good. It's not only about geeks anymore. And people pay lots of money for things they like. What's so hard to understand about this and do you really, really think there's anything wrong with that? Do you drink from plastic cups every day? I mean, they're cheaper and they don't shatter, so they're much better? Come on.
    Reply
  • tomatus270389 - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    I agree that people like good looking things, but the older one wasn't ugly. It seems that these days thiner=nicer. I can imagine stupid people saying uuuu look thinner!! I have to buy this one, the older one is crap. But well, it's just my opinion. I will always prefer a computer were I can easily change any component either to upgrade it or to replace it if it fails. Reply
  • tzhu07 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I agree that thinness in something that is already a desktop product isn't mission critical, but I gotta respect Apple for pushing their design paradigm in everything they do. And one of those design paradigms is THINNER THINNER THINNER!!!!!!

    FWIW, I also agree with Apple's decision to drop the opitical drive from the iMac. The way of the (green) future is digital distribution.
    Reply
  • sandineyes - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I'm not one for Apple products, as I have little experience with Mac Os and I can't stand the prices (as I am a poor college student), but I'll always have a soft spot for the iMac. As a child, I couldn't understand why my father was upgrading to a PC (with a new 600MHz Pentium III). It took hours to buy all the parts, had all sorts of boxes to it, and wires all over the place. I couldn't believe that it was somehow better than the Mac we had, which was all one big unit. Reply
  • iamQasim - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    just work seamless Reply
  • perspicacity - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    It looks like Apple is trying to catch up to the competition... but not quite making it.

    Apple makes nice looking products. They're like fashion accessories for girls... irrationally coveted.

    I would consider one of these if I could use it with a more open operating system like Android or W8. iOS's primary purpose is to be incompatible with other devices, thus locking the user into Apple hardware. Apple is primarily a hardware vender, after all.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now