Apple competes on user experience. Not price, and certainly not specs.

Apple loves to compete on specs when it's suitable. Size, weight, resolution, ppi, processor and gpu speed -- everything.

Of course, it's not like the two concepts UX and specs were independent; all of these things have an impact on the user experience, along with many others.

They're the Nintendo of the personal device market. Ignoring everyone else and doing their own thing since XXXX.

Ignoring everyone else? Weird then that they compared it to a Nexus 7 on stage. And that they came out with a 7" tablet after they said they wouldn't when they saw the user appeal of the Kindle and others.

The poor specs lead to a poor UX, so I fail to see the difference.

Are you serious? A well designed ecosystem is much more important than trying to increase the number of gigahertz/megaflops every release. Just because a corvette is more powerful and way cheaper than a Ferrari/Porsche it does not mean that you will have a better experience than buying one of the latter.

The iPad 1 has serious usability issues due to the limited amount of RAM. After experiencing this, I would be nervous about the lifespan of an iOS device with only 512MB. On some level, specs really do matter.

> "The poor specs lead to a poor UX, so I fail to see the difference."

The inverse is not true. See the early reviews of the Kindle Fire HD, where the device is described as sluggish and laggy despite having better specs than the Nexus 7.

So the fact that something has faster hardware does not mean the one has a UX advantage over the other.

If UX was determined by specs, why would we have a different name for it?

That makes no sense. The first iPhone had an excellent overall UX for its time with a pathetic 128MB of RAM. The subjective experience of performance matters more than numbers on a spreadsheet, and for that we'll have to wait for hands-on reports.

Also, bear in mind that the mini doesn't have to push around 4X pixels like the Retina iPads, so it can get by with less RAM and processor.

I think you are not Apple's target user.

I, personally, would buy the Kindle Fire. Most people, however, will buy the iPad Mini. Bigger price and all.

Curiously enough, I think the iPad 2 has just become the most compelling tablet in the market in terms of price/specs/performance. I'm wondering if iPad 2 will eat into sells of the new iPads? And would Apple care?

Anyway, interesting times.

They sell only the 16 GB version of iPad 2 (and have been, since iPad 3 was announced), so the answer is no. Definitely not.

Not when the software is superior.

Take a look at some videos of the Kindle. That hardware is clearly not going towards the UX because that thing is so laggy.

I think Apple competes where they have the advantage, UX is just their most consistent advantage.

I guess that is why I am not a fan of their products. I just don't see a premium UX experience. The hardware is great, but the software is mediocre especially when compared to Windows 8. I know many would disagree, but I just don't see it.

It's been said that Amazon is taking either no money out of their tablets, or slightly losing money, to compete.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19907546

You're disappointed with a product you haven't used yet?

Larger screen, thinner, lighter, better camera and better performance. It's got a lot of better specs.

Larger screen, thinner, lighter, better camera and better performance. It's got some better specs.

> Why does it cost more than the Kindle Fire HD but has way worse specs?

Can you enumerate these "worse specs?"

> Apple have shot themselves in the foot with this launch.

Everybody is going to buy this.[1]

[1]iPod mini

Because Amazon markets the Kindle Fire HD as a loss leader. They sell them at a loss and make it up on content you purchase for it.