PDA

View Full Version : 'iPad Mini' Rumors Revived with Claims of 7.85-Inch Screen




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Oct 18, 2011, 09:51 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/18/ipad-mini-rumors-revived-with-claims-of-7-85-inch-screen/)


Taiwan's United Daily News reports (http://udn.com/NEWS/FINANCE/FIN3/6657939.shtml) [Google translation (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://udn.com/NEWS/FINANCE/FIN3/6657939.shtml&hl=en&langpair=auto|en)] that Apple has received samples of 7.85-inch screens carrying the same 1024x768 resolution of the current iPad. The report (via Unwired View (http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/10/18/apple-orders-7-85-ipad-mini-display-samples-from-lg-display-and-au-optronics/)) claims that AU Optronics and LG Display have sent samples of the display to Apple, which is reportedly targeting a launch for the "iPad mini" early next year.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/10/ipad_mini_mockup.jpg
Previous mockup (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/leaked-details-on-2010-2011-ipods-iphone-5-bumper-2-ipad-mini/) of a 7-inch "iPad mini"
It is unclear how Apple and its developers would handle a considerably smaller screen for this iPad mini at the same resolution as the current iPad. While maintaining the current resolution would mean that iPad apps would display natively on the iPad mini, the interface elements would be somewhat smaller than on the iPad, a reduction that could introduce usability issues in some cases.

Steve Jobs had also famously panned (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/18/steve-jobs-criticizes-7-inch-tablets-says-10-inches-minimum/) 7-inch tablets from competitors, claiming that roughly 10 inches was the minimum screen size needed for a useful tablet.

Apple has been said to be interesting in fending of Amazon's new Kindle Fire (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/28/amazon-set-to-unveil-199-kindle-fire-tablet/) tablet, which is launching next month at a $199 price point. Ticonderoga Securities analyst Brian White had noted just last week that his research among Asian suppliers is indeed pointing toward Apple releasing an "iPad mini" early next year to take on the Kindle Fire. White cautioned, however, that the "mini" moniker was in reference to the device's price rather than necessarily meaning a smaller device.Regarding Apple, our research is pointing to the unveiling of a lower priced iPad in the first few months of 2012 that is aimed at expanding the company's market potential by tapping into a more price sensitive consumer segment. Essentially, this "iPad mini" will also fend off the recently announced Amazon Kindle Fire that addresses the low-end tablet market with a $199 price tag but could lead to bigger tablet ambitions from the online retailer in the future. The "mini" refers to a reduced price point of this iPad and not necessarily the size of the device. We believe this lower priced iPad could be priced in the mid-to-high-$200 range.Apple is widely rumored to be preparing to introduce the iPad 3 early next year, a device which is said to carry a Retina display (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/19/wall-street-journal-confirms-early-2012-ipad-3-with-retina-display/) with 2048x1536 resolution. A smaller iPad at the lower resolution of the current iPad could enable Apple to lower entry-level price points for its tablet products if it does indeed view Amazon as a significant threat.

Article Link: 'iPad Mini' Rumors Revived with Claims of 7.85-Inch Screen (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/18/ipad-mini-rumors-revived-with-claims-of-7-85-inch-screen/)



HussamRaed
Oct 18, 2011, 09:54 AM
wow i didn't think they would do another rumor about the iPad mini

TimUSCA
Oct 18, 2011, 09:54 AM
This. Will. Not. Happen.

There's not even any evidence here except some analyst talking out of his butt.

Monkey194545
Oct 18, 2011, 09:54 AM
7...too small...7.85..juuuuust right :p /sarcasm

mbarriault
Oct 18, 2011, 09:55 AM
I'm not a fan of the idea of a 7" screen, though I think an iPad min/iPod maxi with dimensions that align perfectly with a trade paperback would be a hit against the Fire.

Small White Car
Oct 18, 2011, 09:55 AM
Same as the 4" iPhone rumors: Just because some people would want it does not mean Apple is going to do it.

Now, I consider a smaller iPad more likely than a 4" iPhone, but I still don't see it happening this year or next.

It may happen eventually. I'm not saying it's impossible. In fact, Apple probably DOES have a prototype of one. I'm just saying that I see no business need for them to offer one now.

ECUpirate44
Oct 18, 2011, 09:55 AM
9.7 is perfect.

bkj216
Oct 18, 2011, 09:56 AM
I think a 7 inch iPad would be great

MultiMediaWill
Oct 18, 2011, 09:57 AM
Apple is not smart enough to innovate. iPhone 4S = example

ActionJax
Oct 18, 2011, 09:58 AM
To fight Kindle Fire: iPad 3 starts at $499. iPad 2 low-end model drops to $349.

ThunderSkunk
Oct 18, 2011, 09:58 AM
Could it be that the current iPad resolution gets crammed into the 7" size via a higher density display, and the new full size model, getting its own HD display is the one that gets the bigger resolution developers have to re-render their graphics for?


Still, I don't see a 7" happening, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

WestonHarvey1
Oct 18, 2011, 09:59 AM
7...too small...7.85..juuuuust right :p /sarcasm

7.85 is quite a bit larger than 7 when you're talking about surface area.

Forks
Oct 18, 2011, 09:59 AM
oh yeah like the iphone mini.... the late SJ spoke about why Apple will not make a smaller ipad.... it's just not going to happen at all

johnnielse
Oct 18, 2011, 10:01 AM
I don't believe it. Why would Apple not use the same iPhone-legacy model for their iPads? When the anticipated retina iPad 3 hits next year, I'm pretty sure the iPad 2 gets a lower price and stays on the market.

Wang Foolio
Oct 18, 2011, 10:01 AM
2048x736 would be a strange resolution for the iPad 3 :D

Anyway the idea of a smaller, cheaper Kindle Fire style alternative would be interesting. 8" 8GB A5 would probably weigh in a lot cheaper than a resolution-doubled 10" running A6.

akugyaku
Oct 18, 2011, 10:01 AM
Quick, somebody make a bunch of cases for it!

Liquinn
Oct 18, 2011, 10:01 AM
This would be great, but what would be the point though? ;3

JAT
Oct 18, 2011, 10:03 AM
"fending of"??

My son would be all over this. He is begging me for a Touch or Nook, doesn't want a large tablet.

mms13
Oct 18, 2011, 10:04 AM
To fight Kindle Fire: iPad 3 starts at $499. iPad 2 low-end model drops to $349.

A $349 iPad 2 is like a $15 profit after manufacturing costs for Apple.

fxtech
Oct 18, 2011, 10:06 AM
I'm not a fan of the idea of a 7" screen, though I think an iPad min/iPod maxi with dimensions that align perfectly with a trade paperback would be a hit against the Fire.

Not if it costs $500.

----------

A $349 iPad 2 is like a $15 profit after manufacturing costs for Apple.

They could give them away. They are raking in far more on their App Store 30%.

Littleodie914
Oct 18, 2011, 10:08 AM
Won't happen.

The specs of these devices are a small portion of the equation, the majority of which is dominated by the software. (Which is dominated by third-party apps.)

Adding another smaller (physically) device with the same (or similar) resolution will result in developers having to write code/design graphics for a third scale. This is what Google got wrong, and Apple has (so far) gotten right.

JAT
Oct 18, 2011, 10:08 AM
They could give them away. They are raking in far more on their App Store 30%.
Not even close. Apple doesn't use the video game strategy like Nintendo/Sony.

jouster
Oct 18, 2011, 10:09 AM
Not if it costs $500.

----------



They could give them away. They are raking in far more on their App Store 30%.

I don't think that's the case. Apple has generally seen most of its profits come from hardware, not software or content.

kiljoy616
Oct 18, 2011, 10:10 AM
Not happening even with Steve gone. :rolleyes:

Diode
Oct 18, 2011, 10:10 AM
A $349 iPad 2 is like a $15 profit after manufacturing costs for Apple.

The screen and memory are like 1/2 the manufacturing cost of the iPad.

A smaller panel and lower memory (base of 16GB) would drastically reduce the price.

Not to mention the prices of components falling since the last iPad manufacturing cost estimate came out.

I would guess that as there are samples being sent out - Apple is toying with the idea at this point. Seeing if they can come up with something that is profitable. Not meaning its a 100% guarantee.

scott.n
Oct 18, 2011, 10:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8L1)

Maybe a cheaper "ePad" for educational institutions?

rols
Oct 18, 2011, 10:11 AM
and this is still not happening.

Dan--
Oct 18, 2011, 10:12 AM
2048x736 would be a strange resolution for the iPad 3 :D

Strange indeed! In fact, this article misquotes the WSJ article (and MacRumors own prior quote). The WSJ article said:
"The next generation iPad is expected to feature a high resolution display - 2048 by 1536"

Yamcha
Oct 18, 2011, 10:13 AM
i think a 7inch tablet is a great size, but Apple had already said there would be no 7inch tablet, and the tend to keep their word..

And funnily enough Im typing this on my Playbook..

monaarts
Oct 18, 2011, 10:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

iPad 3: Starting at $500
iPad 2: Starting at $300

ranReloaded
Oct 18, 2011, 10:14 AM
This mockup was brought to you by... M.C. Escher

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/10/ipad_mini_mockup.jpg

LoadStar
Oct 18, 2011, 10:20 AM
This will be announced at the same Apple Event where they announce the iPhone Mini and the Apple television.

Right before they announce the Apple Flying Pig.

Yvan256
Oct 18, 2011, 10:21 AM
I know english isn't my native language, but...

"Apple has been said to be interesting in fending of Amazon's new Kindle Fire tablet".

Shouldn't that be "Apple has been said to be interested in fending of Amazon's new Kindle Fire tablet"?

ruimpinho
Oct 18, 2011, 10:22 AM
Probably not going to happen. Steve Jobs said once that less than 10" is too small for a tablet.

Yvan256
Oct 18, 2011, 10:23 AM
Not even close. Apple doesn't use the video game strategy like Nintendo/Sony.

I think you mean Microsoft/Sony. Nintendo has never sold their hardware at a loss.

oliversl
Oct 18, 2011, 10:24 AM
I really doubt it, I don't an iPad with smaller screen the same way I don't see an iPhone with a bigger screen.

Apple should not follow the competitors game: bigger screen, Ghz war, ram war, connector war, etc

drewtje
Oct 18, 2011, 10:26 AM
Lol, will there come a iPad 5", 6",7" , 8" 9" 10" then also ?

I think apple will make a iPod BigTouch 5" ...

lucas123
Oct 18, 2011, 10:26 AM
8gb iPad 2 for $299 would destroy the Android tablet market.

Amazon tablet included.

GQB
Oct 18, 2011, 10:29 AM
This simply comes down to the choice Apple will have to make between a possibly large (but unknown) market for a 7" pad on one hand, and fragmentation diluting of its overwhelming app advantage and the confusion that would go along with a 3rd development format.

I personally don't think 7" is a particularly bad idea, but in almost all cases it would require developers to write specific versions for it.
But what will NOT happen will be the simple release of a 7 incher intended to simply run blown up iPhone or shrunk down iPad apps.

100% will not happen. And only Apple can decide if the risk of fragmentation and dilution is worth it.

Yr Blues
Oct 18, 2011, 10:30 AM
I'd love a 7.5" iPad. 10" is a tad too big. The iPod touch is way too small.

I think, like iPods, Apple is known to give the customer a variety of choices.

On a side note, they should do away with the iPod classic and have a hard-disk option for the touch.

hleewell
Oct 18, 2011, 10:30 AM
I think you mean Microsoft/Sony. Nintendo has never sold their hardware at a loss.

Apple would do a few misdirections in their official announcements to throw their competitors off.

MonkeySee....
Oct 18, 2011, 10:30 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A334)

This just isn't going to happen. Let it go already!

jasonxneo
Oct 18, 2011, 10:30 AM
The bottom line, if Apple makes it, people will buy it!!!!!!! :cool:

JarScott
Oct 18, 2011, 10:30 AM
Hmm. There was talk of a slightly smaller iPad and an "iPhone mini". But it brings the question, would a slightly smaller iPad be too similar to the iPod touch? I'm not sure I can see a market for it. But I won't rule it out. iPhone Mini is a different story though. I could see THAT happening to appeal to an audience who can't afford the iPhone currently.

brdeveloper
Oct 18, 2011, 10:31 AM
Whatever happen, I will not buy a tablet until it becomes OS independent - "bootcampable" - and I can keep a useful OS for five years. This is what happens in desktop/laptop market. I have friends who bought a Vista laptop in 2006-2007 and still have a useful computer. The same with OSX Leopard. This is not the case in the smartphone/tablet market. Aggressive programmed obsolescence is not for me.

JarScott
Oct 18, 2011, 10:31 AM
I'd love a 7.5" iPad. 10" is a tad too big. The iPod touch is way too small.

I think, like iPods, Apple is known to give the customer a variety of choices.

On a side note, they should do away with the iPod classic and have a hard-disk option for the touch.

The iPod Classic was discontinued about a year ago...

applefan289
Oct 18, 2011, 10:32 AM
I would rather have this than a bigger-screen iPhone.

bretm
Oct 18, 2011, 10:33 AM
Not if it costs $500.

----------



They could give them away. They are raking in far more on their App Store 30%.

Let's see, to even make $15 how many 99 cent apps do they have to sell?

Roughly 50. In all the years the App store has been open, I've spent maybe $4 total on Apps. Kids may go nuts, but even $50 worth of apps seems a bit, well, ridiculous. And it certainly isn't the average. I know very few people that spend anything on apps. The occasional 99 cent app. And of course those purchases would have to be made within the time span of maybe a year or less because as soon as the next iPad comes along they would of course upgrade to that because, well, it's free right?

And of course none of the above actually takes into account the cost of running and building the app store. All said and done I would figure they make 10% or less.

iluomo
Oct 18, 2011, 10:33 AM
I think the iPad was a frigg'n monster in terms of weight. The iPad 2 is only a bit better. And 10" is NOT the best size for my needs. I've looked at the 7" Galaxy and that's PERFECT in terms of size... too bad Android sucks.

Apple can have it's OPINION about what makes for the best tablet experience. The fact that that they have made billions of dollars on some good design choices before does not make them right on all design choices by default. If they know more people will buy a 10" tablet and it's not worth producing a smaller one because most people don't want one, fine. But that's not the same thing as an opinion as to what's the best. Remember, people, Apple is still not the most used computer in the world. Just because there are less of them, doesn't mean they aren't better than PCs, right?

I'm going to be looking very hard at the Kindle Fire. I hope it will be what I want. Whether I like it or not, I really hope it's a huge hit. We need some competition for Apple to force some competition and, hopefully, make them rethink their decision.

hleewell
Oct 18, 2011, 10:33 AM
8gb iPad 2 for $299 would destroy the Android tablet market.

Amazon tablet included.

What could you do with 8GB? My music library is already 4GB. Have 4 to 5 graphics-heavy games at 800MB each, that is 4 GB. You are left with 0GB thirsting for more storage. Don't think so.

tido2012
Oct 18, 2011, 10:33 AM
I use an iPad quite a bit when I'm at home and I'm just curious, if there are people out there that would be interested in the iPad mini? I'm not opposed to an iPad mini, just wouldn't purchase it. I was actually hoping for a future iPad to have the screen taken to the edges, but they would have to do something where the corners of the iPad would not be sensitive to touch as much so that when you're holding it you wouldn't accidentally click on something. Anyways, just wanting to see people's reasons for an iPad mini.

SkippyThorson
Oct 18, 2011, 10:36 AM
Apple is not smart enough to innovate. iPhone 4S = example

Continually seeing your name, and reading your posts is an insult to intelligence in general. This has been the last determining factor in the "You're A Troll" award.

----------

Back to the thread, I think a 7" iPad that's priced to favor the budget-minded consumer is a welcome addition to the iPad family. I have people in mind that hate full-blown computers, but would love an iPad. The only thing holding them back now is the price.

Funny how the article MacRumors wrote regarding Steve Jobs knocking the 7" tablets (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/18/steve-jobs-criticizes-7-inch-tablets-says-10-inches-minimum/) was posted 1 year ago to the day, on October 18th, 2010. Oh, how ideas change.

pmjoe
Oct 18, 2011, 10:36 AM
A smaller screen in no way equates to a significant decrease in price. To get an iPad down to $199, Apple would have to eliminate features (cameras, storage, etc.), much like Amazon did with the Kindle Fire.

And realistically, Apple is not suddenly now asking questions about 7" screens. They've either been thinking about how the concept might fit in for years now, or they're total idiots (unlikely in this case).

chago04
Oct 18, 2011, 10:36 AM
How is this different than the iPhone mini rumors going on for years? A cheaper, smaller iPhone, now a cheaper, smaller iPad? I would be shocked.

Kar98
Oct 18, 2011, 10:37 AM
This. Will. Not. Happen.

There's not even any evidence here except some analyst talking out of his butt.

That's why they're called anal-ysts.

jeffedsell
Oct 18, 2011, 10:37 AM
Love to see it happen. I'm pretty set on getting a Fire. Depending on the cost, I might be willing to go with a 7" iPad instead. I like the idea of a tablet that I can easily hold in one hand, but that has more real estate than a phone.

As for whether Apple sees the Fire as a competitor, It's an interesting question. Amazon has taken pretty sharp aim at a specific segment of the market with the Fire, and it's specifically not the segment the iPad aims at. Fire users are media consumers, essentially Kindle users who don't mind spending a bit more to get a bit more.

And as for the fact that Steve Jobs insisted that a small iPad would be a bad move, he also vehemently insisted that no one wanted to watch video on an iPod…right up until the video iPod was released.

ericrwalker
Oct 18, 2011, 10:37 AM
I'd buy a smaller iPad. The biggest reason I don't have an iPad now is the current version is too big.

telegix
Oct 18, 2011, 10:37 AM
Steve was very much against the smaller screen as its was only half the size of the 10" we have now..

mbh
Oct 18, 2011, 10:38 AM
The iPod Classic was discontinued about a year ago...

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_classic

Still in stock a year after being discontinued?

monkeylui
Oct 18, 2011, 10:39 AM
I absolutely love my iPad & couldn't imagine a smaller screen. I think it's perfect. I wouldn't mind a kindle fire. But I've already got 3 iPads! Lol. Kids iPad 1 (my and me down), my iPad 2, wife's iPad 1.

jeffedsell
Oct 18, 2011, 10:40 AM
And realistically, Apple is not suddenly now asking questions about 7" screens. They've either been thinking about how the concept might fit in for years now, or they're total idiots (unlikely in this case).

Well, yeah. Of course in Cupertino, they've got 7-inch iPads. And maybe even 15-inch ones, and e-ink ones, etcetera. But these will only see the light of day if they're up to Apple standards.

Jabukka
Oct 18, 2011, 10:40 AM
Bs.

cvaldes
Oct 18, 2011, 10:40 AM
Utterly meaningless rumor.

It's likely that Apple has received samples of every single commercially viable flat panel display, regardless of size or type (LCD, AMOLED, etc.). As a matter of fact, if you were a LCD panel manufacturer, you'd be begging to send Apple some engineering samples. After all, you'd be ecstatic if you could score a 10 million unit purchase order.

It's probable that Apple had had 5", 7", 15", 17" iPads sitting in a lab in Cupertino for years. It's probable those labs have 3.7"/4"/4.5" iPhones, an iPhone with an LTE chip, an iPhone with a WiMAX chip, an iPad running OS X, a MacPro with a Blu-ray drive, an A5 iPod touch with 3G cellular data and more combinations of parts and features.

Alleged stories of sample parts are devoid of any importance.

dooyou
Oct 18, 2011, 10:42 AM
Wow it took only a few weeks since steve jobs is gone and the things at apple going now crazy.

rottenjeff
Oct 18, 2011, 10:43 AM
This is obviously a photoshopped image. It's an image of 1 iPad, with a scaled, duplicate image laid over the original. Notice that the border and home button are scaled to about 70%, which suggest that it's fake. What PROVES that it's fake is the reflection in the top corner. That is also scaled to about 70%. The reflection would not be smaller, just because the screen is smaller. It would be the SAME SIZE as on the larger iPAD. This is as FAKE as it gets.

Yr Blues
Oct 18, 2011, 10:44 AM
Well, yeah. Of course in Cupertino, they've got 7-inch iPads. And maybe even 15-inch ones, and e-ink ones, etcetera. But these will only see the light of day if they're up to Apple standards.

Exactly. Apple-labs have all sorts of experiments, but the marketing management that was once Steve Jobs are the ones who figures out which to make available.

iPad is just a platform. Some people buy 11" MacBook Airs, and others buy 15"s. They don't really compete against each other.

jonnyb
Oct 18, 2011, 10:45 AM
This is obviously a photoshopped image. It's an image of 1 iPad, with a scaled, duplicate image laid over the original. Notice that the border and home button are scaled to about 70%, which suggest that it's fake. What PROVES that it's fake is the reflection in the top corner. That is also scaled to about 70%. The reflection would not be smaller, just because the screen is smaller. It would be the SAME SIZE as on the larger iPAD. This is as FAKE as it gets.

It says it's a 'previous mockup'. Does nobody actually read any more?

RobertMartens
Oct 18, 2011, 10:45 AM
One iPhone each year- 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
One iPad each year- 2010, 2011
One new iOS too- 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

The rest is just noise to keep us busy between releases.

Oh man, all that nonsense about the iPad 3 coming out in the fall...

And how there are going to be two iPhones. blah blah blah

Keeping up with two new iOS devices a year is plenty for the developers to deal with
considering the iOS upgrades have been often and large when they come too.

SkippyThorson
Oct 18, 2011, 10:45 AM
This is obviously a photoshopped image. It's an image of 1 iPad, with a scaled, duplicate image laid over the original. Notice that the border and home button are scaled to about 70%, which suggest that it's fake. What PROVES that it's fake is the reflection in the top corner. That is also scaled to about 70%. The reflection would not be smaller, just because the screen is smaller. It would be the SAME SIZE as on the larger iPAD. This is as FAKE as it gets.

This was determined a year ago when the image first made the rounds. It was called a mockup for a reason - it was never touted as a real, physical, existing iPad.

vixducis
Oct 18, 2011, 10:48 AM
I can see apple toying with the idea. Android's main selling point is still price. If they can undercut the decent, but cheaper android tablets, they'll sell a whole lot a ipads. As said before, display is one of the more costly parts of the ipad. If they make it smaller, they can stick a cheaper battery in it too. Leave out the cameras, and maybe stick a previous gen Ax chip in there, and bam: you have a $300 tablet.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 10:49 AM
We all know that Steve Jobs main focus was the user experience based on quality, performance and artistic looks.

Unless Apple is now going on a different direction or using some kind of magic, I don't see a smaller iPad in Apple's future, specially one that would compete with the $200 tablets. That would never happened, just as Apple never released a Netbook competitor; their answer to the Netbook was the MacBook Air, which definitely competes in size, but not in price.

By just reducing the size of the display, Apple is not going to lower costs much. They would have to replace the aluminum body with carbon-fiber, remove both cameras, use a lower-end processor (which would slow down performance) to compensate for the reduced battery size (lower runtime on batteries).

The resulting product would be a smaller version of the iPad 1 in carbon-fiber, one that would perform mediocrely and go against Apple's true principles.

So I would insist that this rumor can't be true.

epocx
Oct 18, 2011, 10:49 AM
PLEASE, stop posting BS!

Btw, Steve himself said that 7" is too small for a iPad.

And, while i am at it. The iPhone 5 will not be out in Q1/2012 (I read that somewhere anyways...)

ranReloaded
Oct 18, 2011, 10:49 AM
IF Apple ever comes up with (say) a 7 inch tablet, that's because they had an idea and found a way to make a great product that happens to be that size. Probably it's nothing like the iPad. And once they release it, many people will realize they want it.

Giving people what they asked for is not Apple's M.O.

PracticalMac
Oct 18, 2011, 10:50 AM
I am just about to say "I told you so!"


I will be FIRST in line for it!

RobertMartens
Oct 18, 2011, 10:50 AM
But I've already got 3 iPads! Lol.
Kids iPad 1, my iPad 2, wife's iPad 1.

Well aren't you the king of the castle!

toddybody
Oct 18, 2011, 10:51 AM
What makes the iPad wonderful is its larger size (which IMO is perfect). Anything smaller will only re-affirm the annoying "its just a giant iPod touch" crowd.

Cant see it happening.

PracticalMac
Oct 18, 2011, 10:51 AM
Giving people what they asked for is not Apple's M.O.

Teh??

Many times Apple DOES do what customers ask!

Not exactly, but they do!

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 10:52 AM
i think a 7inch tablet is a great size, but Apple had already said there would be no 7inch tablet, and the tend to keep their word..

You might want to review an article like: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/03/70546?currentPage=all

Apple is notorious for coming out hard against something until their version of it rolls out. Then, it's the "greatest thing ever"... until the next big thing. Just because they've said it doesn't mean they won't do it. And if they do, it'll be "the thinnest, lightest, iPad ever" with "high density display" and "thousands of apps already optimized for this screen".

If there's a market for a smaller form factor, build it and sell it there. When the bigger iPod Touch rumor was flying, there sure were a lot of people in those threads frothing for that thing. There appears to be a lot of interest in the Amazon device in spite of it's disconnect from the iTunes Apps & ecosystem. The HP Tablet bomb proved there was a lot of buyers at price points below the current price of the iPad (even for a discontinued and presumably unsupported product). I've messed around with some Tablets around that size and they seem to work good. While the current size may be perfect for some, it doesn't make it perfect for all. At one time, it was state-of-the-(Apple)-art to watch media on a tiny iPod w/Video screen. They roll this out with a bunch of hype of how great it is, how portable, thin, etc and they'll sell a bunch of them.

To those suggesting changing the size will somehow require re-programming of apps for a third variation, pay attention to the rumor. It's talking about fitting the exact same resolution into a smaller size. The existing apps coded for the current iPad will be exactly the same- pixel-for-pixel- in this one. It's not a change in resolution; it's fitting more pixel density into a smaller space (which is how "retina" works too). The only graphics re-coding that might be necessary would be situation in which the designer made buttons or similar almost too small on the current iPad (which would already be a programming no-no "as is").

Consultant
Oct 18, 2011, 10:52 AM
Nope. 7" won't fit in pocket either, so not going to happen.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 10:53 AM
One iPhone each year- 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
One iPad each year- 2010, 2011
One new iOS too- 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

The rest is just noise to keep us busy between releases.

Oh man, all that nonsense about the iPad 3 coming out in the fall...

And how there are going to be two iPhones. blah blah blah

Keeping up with two new iOS devices a year is plenty for the developers to deal with
considering the iOS upgrades have been often and large when they come too.

Agree, we should know already the pattern for product releases. It's been very predictable so far, so why consider it will change?
Smaller iPad... Nah! If it comes it will not be cheap and crappy. it would be more like a larger iPod Touch and it would be price between the iPod Touch and the iPad. Not cheaper for sure.

PracticalMac
Oct 18, 2011, 10:55 AM
What makes the iPad wonderful is its larger size (which IMO is perfect). Anything smaller will only re-affirm the annoying "its just a giant iPod touch" crowd.

Cant see it happening.

Do you have an iPod Touch 4G *and* iPad 2?

----------

Nope. 7" won't fit in pocket either, so not going to happen.

I don't want it to fit in pocket.

Just not take up most of a bag

kdarling
Oct 18, 2011, 10:56 AM
Btw, Steve himself said that 7" is too small for a iPad.

Longtime watchers know that Jobs dissed any product that Apple wasn't selling... often just before they did... so such comments are pretty meaningless.

I think the most compelling reason to believe Apple is interested in the 7" book form, is because they seem to be out to kill all possible competition.

One way to do that, is to put out their own product in that area.

Thunderhawks
Oct 18, 2011, 10:57 AM
I would rather have this than a bigger-screen iPhone.

According to an analyst:

THIS IS THE NEXT iphone!!

Everybody stop complaining. Apple listened and made a bigger screen for all of those who want a bigger iphone.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 10:58 AM
Nope. 7" won't fit in pocket either, so not going to happen.

Have you heard the rumor that Apple is partnering with clothing companies to start making larger pockets? :D

dooyou
Oct 18, 2011, 10:58 AM
Btw, Steve himself said that 7" is too small for a iPad.


Yeah, he said. But maybe has the new team a different opinion. Markets change. So, we will see.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 11:00 AM
according to an analyst:

This is the next iphone!!

Everybody stop complaining. Apple listened and made a bigger screen for all of those who want a bigger iphone.

lol

----------

Yeah, he said. But maybe has the new team a different opinion. Markets change.

Before Steve died, he left an outlined path for Apple to follow for the next 4 years. Hopefully the new management doesn't start making mistakes this soon.

PracticalMac
Oct 18, 2011, 11:00 AM
Back to the thread, I think a 7" iPad that's priced to favor the budget-minded consumer is a welcome addition to the iPad family. I have people in mind that hate full-blown computers, but would love an iPad. The only thing holding them back now is the price.


A smaller screen in no way equates to a significant decrease in price. To get an iPad down to $199, Apple would have to eliminate features (cameras, storage, etc.), much like Amazon did with the Kindle Fire.

And realistically, Apple is not suddenly now asking questions about 7" screens. They've either been thinking about how the concept might fit in for years now, or they're total idiots (unlikely in this case).

I don't want a cheaper iPad mini,

I want a smaller iPad 2.5!

Give me a better version of iPad 2 (like 8MP camera, better GPS, rugged case, maybe SD slot) but smaller.

Stig McNasty
Oct 18, 2011, 11:02 AM
For what it's worth: I reckon we'll see the iPad following Apple's logic over from the iPhone. This sees the previous model (or two - 3GS and 4) being sold as a near loss leader to ensnare price sensitive consumers into the web that is the iOS-sphere.

Don't forget to factor in the design and manufacturing set-up costs (molds, pcbs etc) have long been paid for and written down. This means that the product can be sold for little more than the straight manufacturing costs.

Then again, I could be not right, in a wrong way, downside up…

D.T.
Oct 18, 2011, 11:03 AM
We all know that Steve Jobs main focus was the user experience based on quality, performance and artistic looks.

Unless Apple is now going on a different direction or using some kind of magic, I don't see a smaller iPad in Apple's future, specially one that would compete with the $200 tablets. That would never happened, just as Apple never released a Netbook competitor; their answer to the Netbook was the MacBook Air, which definitely competes in size, but not in price.

By just reducing the size of the display, Apple is not going to lower costs much. They would have to replace the aluminum body with carbon-fiber, remove both cameras, use a lower-end processor (which would slow down performance) to compensate for the reduced battery size (lower runtime on batteries).

The resulting product would be a smaller version of the iPad 1 in carbon-fiber, one that would perform mediocrely and go against Apple's true principles.

So I would insist that this rumor can't be true.

Terrific post, just one comment: I see carbon fiber mentioned as a case option quite a bit, and from my experience, it may be lighter, but it's way more complex to manufacture, has very different tolerances (bending vs. shattering) and is generally more expensive vs. aluminum (at least in the sailing and automotive industries).

PracticalMac
Oct 18, 2011, 11:03 AM
Before Steve died, he left an outlined path for Apple to follow for the next 4 years. Hopefully the new management doesn't start making mistakes this soon.

But maybe Steve actually said "lets make a smaller iPad, like all the other small versions of stuff we make".

As someone posted, Steve always says one thing, then comes out with an insanely great product that in many ways is what people want.

LastLine
Oct 18, 2011, 11:03 AM
This. Will. Not. Happen.

There's not even any evidence here except some analyst talking out of his butt.

A month ago I'd have agreed.


Now that we're keeping the iPhone 3GS in the line up this year I can't see any reason they won't keep the iPad 2 when the iPad 3 comes out, it wouldn't hurt anything at all to do so.

Not saying it will, just saying - it could.

Friscohoya
Oct 18, 2011, 11:04 AM
I dont see a mini. More likely same screen size lower specs.

dooyou
Oct 18, 2011, 11:05 AM
Before Steve died, he left an outlined path for Apple to follow for the next 4 years. Hopefully the new management doesn't start making mistakes this soon.

I'm sure he did. But as every company, also apple has to react to recent changes.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 11:06 AM
I don't want a cheaper iPad mini,

I want a smaller iPad 2.5!

Give me a better version of iPad 2 (like 8MP camera, better GPS, rugged case, maybe SD slot) but smaller.

Consider it done, but don't expect to pay less.

That would never happen. Apple already has a market for the iPod Touch, the iPad and the iPhone, and it's very easy for the consumer to decide what they want to purchase. Adding a product in between would negatively affect the products above and below it (in this case the iPod Touch and iPad), making it more confusing for the consumer to decide what to buy.

And every good salesman knows that giving the consumer too many choices is bad. Most of the time leads to frustration, resulting in a lost sale.

42streetsdown
Oct 18, 2011, 11:06 AM
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple actually did receive 7 inch test displays. I imagine Apple gets a lot of different components that they mess around with, but aren't necessarily going to end up in a final product.
Apple has some 7 inch displays, so what.

bretm
Oct 18, 2011, 11:07 AM
I think the iPad was a frigg'n monster in terms of weight. The iPad 2 is only a bit better. And 10" is NOT the best size for my needs. I've looked at the 7" Galaxy and that's PERFECT in terms of size... too bad Android sucks.

Apple can have it's OPINION about what makes for the best tablet experience. The fact that that they have made billions of dollars on some good design choices before does not make them right on all design choices by default. If they know more people will buy a 10" tablet and it's not worth producing a smaller one because most people don't want one, fine. But that's not the same thing as an opinion as to what's the best. Remember, people, Apple is still not the most used computer in the world. Just because there are less of them, doesn't mean they aren't better than PCs, right?

I'm going to be looking very hard at the Kindle Fire. I hope it will be what I want. Whether I like it or not, I really hope it's a huge hit. We need some competition for Apple to force some competition and, hopefully, make them rethink their decision.

I think it is the most used computer in the world, no? Or are you comparing ALL the other computer manufacturers combined to Apple? That's ludicrous. In fact, many of those computers are chosen for os compatibility and price. 2 things that have nothing to do with whether Apple's design in question is better. I would imagine if Apple spit out windows/android machines at the same price as their competitors, then Apple would have a much larger share even. They wouldn't be making any money, just like their competitors, but they'd be selling lots more stuff. What's the point of that?

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 11:10 AM
I'm sure he did. But as every company, also apple has to react to recent changes.

What changes? I haven't seen any drastic changes in Apple. Steve's dead was already expected, that's why he resign, named a new CEO, and established the path to follow. And he did that to ensure Apple's future, which also affects his surviving family's future.
I'm sure there's other people that have worked close to him that have learned to think like him; and not by accident. It was all planed long time ago.

ranReloaded
Oct 18, 2011, 11:10 AM
Teh??

Many times Apple DOES do what customers ask!

Not exactly, but they do!

There's people out there asking for any kind of thing you can imagine. Whatever Apple does, they will always be pleasing someone :)
----

No, seriously: that may be true for minor changes/added features; But for new products/categories like the iPad (and arguably the iPhone), people don't know they want it until they see it. Apple's genius is precisely that nobody saw it coming.

scottwaugh
Oct 18, 2011, 11:11 AM
To fight Kindle Fire: iPad 3 starts at $499. iPad 2 low-end model drops to $349.

I think you've got it here. This is how Apple operates with the iPhone and it makes total sense to do the same with the iPad.

SwiftLives
Oct 18, 2011, 11:11 AM
I don't doubt that a 7in prototype exists. I do doubt they'll release it anytime soon.

The only way I can see it as a viable product would be as an entry-level "iCloud" product with minimal physical storage. But I think that cellular data bandwidth needs to increase before that - like widespread LTE.

And a price at $199.

I also suspect Apple is taking a wait and see approach to the Kindle Fire.

Xendren
Oct 18, 2011, 11:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple already sells a $200 tablet. It's called an iPod Touch. Compare it's specs against the Kindle Fire. The only measure that the Fire is better on is the screen size. Since the media doesn't think screen size matters when comparing the Fire to the iPad, then it shouldn't matter when comparing the Touch. Maybe Apple should just rebrand the Touch to IPad Mini to get the media to take notice?

OrangeSVTguy
Oct 18, 2011, 11:16 AM
I'd like to see Apple introduce a 15" iPad with a Retina display.

Tiger8
Oct 18, 2011, 11:16 AM
iPad 3 debuts next year with Retina and A6...
iPad 2 drops in Price by $100 or so...
iPad 1 drops even further...

RoboCop001
Oct 18, 2011, 11:19 AM
lol It's probably just going to be them selling iPad 2 alongside the iPad 3, just like they do with the iPhone 4/4S.

So the cheaper iPad is just the previous generation. I'd say just a WiFi model, 16GB, and since it's last years model they can price it cheaper.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 11:19 AM
A month ago I'd have agreed.


Now that we're keeping the iPhone 3GS in the line up this year I can't see any reason they won't keep the iPad 2 when the iPad 3 comes out, it wouldn't hurt anything at all to do so.

Not saying it will, just saying - it could.

Think about this... iPhone 3GS is perfect for people who mainly want an phone, but also want to experiment with some of the features iOS brings, basically pushed email and calendar and To-Do Lists.
These are people who don't really care about playing games or watching videos or surfing the net heavily. These could be compared to former BlackBerry users.
And these users either stay happy with their iPhone 3GS or start discovering all the things the iPhone could do, become power hungry and later on upgrade to the latest iPhone.

And the iPhone 3GS is not a new product created for this purpose. It's an existing product that has proven successful and has a good reputation, and it's being given a new purpose: to serve as an entry point to current iOS Products.

There's a chance Apple will keep the iPad 2, but maybe just until they run out of stock; not for long.
I don't see the iPad 1 still being manufactured. All you see is refurbished units.

till
Oct 18, 2011, 11:21 AM
Adding a product in between would negatively affect the products above and below it (in this case the iPod Touch and iPad), making it more confusing for the consumer to decide what to buy.
Yep. There's no room for a 7" tablet in Apple's product line. It's annoying for developers, and a little confusing for all but the few customers who really want a smaller tablet.

iPod, iPhone -> go in your pocket
iPad -> goes in a bag, whether it's 10" or 7"

For the vast majority of people, there's really very little distinction between a larger tablet and a slightly smaller tablet. There's little difference in use cases. Unless it's an entirely different device, like the super-lightweight e-ink Kindle, it's never going to happen.

GQB
Oct 18, 2011, 11:23 AM
Whatever happen, I will not buy a tablet until it becomes OS independent - "bootcampable" - and I can keep a useful OS for five years. This is what happens in desktop/laptop market. I have friends who bought a Vista laptop in 2006-2007 and still have a useful computer. The same with OSX Leopard. This is not the case in the smartphone/tablet market. Aggressive programmed obsolescence is not for me.

1) OS 5 goes back to 3GS... 2.5 years. Hardly 'planned obsolences'
2) its one thing to have only modest changes in a mature platform such as desktop OS's. Its quite another in an area that is in its first few years of existence (for all practical purposes.) In 10 years, yes, a mobile or tablet OS will have matured to a point where a 5-year old machine is still usable. Actually, what's not usable about a 3G now? It still makes calls. Just don't upgrade.
3) replacement every 2 years is not as big an issue for a $500 device as it is for a $1500-$2000 machine.
4) your concerns are very geek/developer-centric. Not really a big issue for the vast majority of users.
5) Apple will never become 'OS independent'. Get used to it.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 11:23 AM
The only measure that the Fire is better on is the screen size. Since the media doesn't think screen size matters when comparing the Fire to the iPad, then it shouldn't matter when comparing the Touch. Maybe Apple should just rebrand the Touch to IPad Mini to get the media to take notice?

Com'on. Apple also makes the (even smaller screen nano). Why not call it the iPad Micro?

The Fire's appeal is that it is still an ambiguous challenger to the iPad (just like the HP tablet a few months ago), that it also comes with a reasonably well-established software & media side and that it offers a big (relative) discount on price. Price matters to a lot of people- even people here. HP sold out of their "iPad killer" very quickly even after announcing no future support, no new apps, etc.

For some iPad & Fire niceties, the Touch & Phone screen is just too small. Others have proven there are buyers of an around 7" screen device. Apple should take that business rather than just give it away to those others. Just because some of us don't like the concept, it doesn't mean EVERYONE won't like it. Even within this thread, you got people (HERE!) showing enthusiasm for a smaller form iPad.

Yr Blues
Oct 18, 2011, 11:24 AM
Adding a product in between would negatively affect the products above and below it (in this case the iPod Touch and iPad), making it more confusing for the consumer to decide what to buy.

The MacBook Air have 11" and 13" versions. People still buy the MacBook Pro.

robeddie
Oct 18, 2011, 11:25 AM
Maybe the ipad 'mini' will be like the mac mini: just the guts in a tiny box and you have to attach your own screen!

PCClone
Oct 18, 2011, 11:27 AM
I would prefer a 10"85 over a 7.85.

filmantopia
Oct 18, 2011, 11:28 AM
Probably not going to happen. Steve Jobs said once that less than 10" is too small for a tablet.

Well his opinion doesn't matter too much anymore, does it?

jk jk

GQB
Oct 18, 2011, 11:28 AM
PLEASE, stop posting BS!

Btw, Steve himself said that 7" is too small for a iPad.


Steve was the master of the head fake.
Some seem to get their feelings all hurt when Apple comes out with something they claimed they weren't going to do.
Apple has no responsibility to disclose or even tell the truth about their future directions.

PCClone
Oct 18, 2011, 11:29 AM
The MacBook Air have 11" and 15" versions. People still buy the MacBook Pro.

11 and 13.

qtx43
Oct 18, 2011, 11:30 AM
What could you do with 8GB? My music library is already 4GB. Have 4 to 5 graphics-heavy games at 800MB each, that is 4 GB. You are left with 0GB thirsting for more storage. Don't think so.Don't play games, don't use iPad for music, currently using 2.4GB. I could see an 8GB full size iPad with no camera happening. Some companies like devices to not have cameras.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple already sells a $200 tablet. It's called an iPod Touch. Compare it's specs against the Kindle Fire. The only measure that the Fire is better on is the screen size. Since the media doesn't think screen size matters when comparing the Fire to the iPad, then it shouldn't matter when comparing the Touch. Maybe Apple should just rebrand the Touch to IPad Mini to get the media to take notice?If they put the iPhone 4s's camera in there, I'd get one, even if they jacked up the price a little.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 11:30 AM
Yep. There's no room for a 7" tablet in Apple's product line. It's annoying for developers, and a little confusing for all but the few customers who really want a smaller tablet.

iPod, iPhone -> go in your pocket
iPad -> goes in a bag, whether it's 10" or 7"

For the vast majority of people, there's really very little distinction between a larger tablet and a slightly smaller tablet. There's little difference in use cases. Unless it's an entirely different device, like the super-lightweight e-ink Kindle, it's never going to happen.

Did you know that Apple makes laptops with screen sizes in 2" intervals: 11", 13", 15" and 17"? Have you not seen the crowd (even HERE!) griping for a 24" iMac because a 27" is "too big" and a 21" is "too small"? If 2" intervals in laptops is "confusing" or there are only a "few" customers who desire a smaller screen, why are Airs selling so well or why is Apple bothering with 2" screen intervals in laptops?

Unless you've surveyed the "vast majority of people", you should NOT speak for them. It may turn out that a cheaper, smaller iPad with a higher density screen (packing the same, current resolution into a smaller body) will sell a lot better than the current form factor and price point... just like smaller & cheaper Air's.

logandzwon
Oct 18, 2011, 11:32 AM
A $349 iPad 2 is like a $15 profit after manufacturing costs for Apple.

The alternative is the consumer buys another product. It'd still worth while.

daveathall
Oct 18, 2011, 11:33 AM
I think it is possible. I also think it would sell.

Apple will have done their market research, they will have also been eyeing other manufactures offerings, if there is the market, Apple will do it better than anyone else.

I'm no gamer but I think a screen just under 8" would be easier to play games on as opposed to the normal sized iPad.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 11:34 AM
I don't doubt that a 7in prototype exists. I do doubt they'll release it anytime soon.

The only way I can see it as a viable product would be as an entry-level "iCloud" product with minimal physical storage. But I think that cellular data bandwidth needs to increase before that - like widespread LTE.

And a price at $199.

I also suspect Apple is taking a wait and see approach to the Kindle Fire.

I just ran into this PC Magazine article that was released an hour ago.
I don't doubt there could be a market for the Kindle Fire, but it's a completely different market than the iPad market.
I don't perceive an iPad user switching to the Kindle Fire. It's like going from the Mac back to the PC.

I have a friend who recently replaced his iPhone 3GS and was telling me for a long time how much he liked what he read about Android OS, how much better than iOS it was, etc. Well, his new phone is not an Android but an iPhone 4S.

I don't believe Apple cares for a low end device like the Kindle Fire. Apple believes in convincing people their products are better, by showing the consumer how useful their products are and how these can improve their life. This belief is reflected by every commercial Ad that Apple makes.

Contrary to the MAC vs PC campaign, we no longer see Ads that compare Apple products with their competitors'.

Many of the people who are buying the Kindle Fire now will eventually buy an iPad. These will regret trying to be cheap at first.

crzdcolombian
Oct 18, 2011, 11:34 AM
if its $300-350 then I'd think about getting one. I have an imac, macbook pro, ipod classic, ipod nano, ipod shuffle, iphone 4s, appletv. I don't think I need one but if the price is good then why not. I have a $100 kindle that lets me reads books on the go but be willing to get an ipad if the price was right. Would be sweet to read magazines but not $500 sweet. I am going to wait to hear reviews on kindle fire, and if apple does come out with a under $350 ipad then I'd most likely get one.

Shivetya
Oct 18, 2011, 11:37 AM
8gb iPad 2 for $299 would destroy the Android tablet market.

Amazon tablet included.

and would never happen.

The Android market for tablets never really existed as they are were copying Apple's size and trying to out feature them when the key was to out price them.

I have the K.Fire on order, considering what I use my iPad for screen size isn't an issue, size and weight of it is. You don't realize how large and heavy an iPad gets after awhile. You keep thinking, this thing is HEAVY, or its too big, or its to fragile.

JHankwitz
Oct 18, 2011, 11:37 AM
Not if it costs $500.
----------


They could give them away. They are raking in far more on their App Store 30%.

They may be "raking in" money from the App Store, but they're making very little if any profit with only a 30% cut. Most distributors get far far more than that.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 11:38 AM
if its $300-350 then I'd think about getting one. I have an imac, macbook pro, ipod classic, ipod nano, ipod shuffle, iphone 4s, appletv. I don't think I need one but if the price is good then why not. I have a $100 kindle that lets me reads books on the go but be willing to get an ipad if the price was right. Would be sweet to read magazines but not $500 sweet. I am going to wait to hear reviews on kindle fire, and if apple does come out with a under $350 ipad then I'd most likely get one.

If size is not an issue for you, why don't you buy an iPad 1? You should be able to get it for under $300. For reading magazines, it's more than what you really need, at a price you can afford.

iEvolution
Oct 18, 2011, 11:39 AM
I think it may be true just to get an iPad model with a lower price tag. Not everyone has $500-$800 to spend on a tablet.

If Apple were smart they'd release a lower priced tablet, even if it means cutting the size. I really think the Fire is going to take off.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 11:40 AM
The MacBook Air have 11" and 13" versions. People still buy the MacBook Pro.

Well, I know a lot of people who have purchased the MacBook Air in either size. I certainly wouldn't, as I consider it not powerful enough for my usage, but that doesn't make it the rule.
Each has it's own targeted market: One for people who want portability, the other for people who want performance.
Also, the MacBook Air attracts newcomers to OS X.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 11:43 AM
They may be "raking in" money from the App Store, but they're making very little if any profit with only a 30% cut. Most distributors get far far more than that.

Didn't Apple just share that they had paid out $3 billion to developers? You can do your own math to calculate how much/little Apple has made with their 30% cut. Personally, I lean to the "much" vs. the "little" or "very little".

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 11:45 AM
I think it may be true just to get an iPad model with a lower price tag. Not everyone has $500-$800 to spend on a tablet.

If Apple were smart they'd release a lower priced tablet, even if it means cutting the size. I really think the Fire is going to take off.

History tends to repeat itself over and over:
Just recall the zillion Android Tablets that have come out so far and their impact on Apple products (do you see any impact???).
Same happened with the iPod. None of their competitors could steal the iPods market (Zune, Sansa, Sony, etc.).

mjtomlin
Oct 18, 2011, 11:45 AM
Apple already sells a $200 tablet. It's called an iPod Touch. Compare it's specs against the Kindle Fire. The only measure that the Fire is better on is the screen size. Since the media doesn't think screen size matters when comparing the Fire to the iPad, then it shouldn't matter when comparing the Touch. Maybe Apple should just rebrand the Touch to IPad Mini to get the media to take notice?

^This. Completely agree.

If Apple wanted a 7" anything, it would up the size of the iPod, not downsize the iPad.

Still believe Apple will release an upgraded iPod Touch along with a larger sized (6" - 7") iPod sometime during spring of next year when they also release the iPad 3. And for ***** and giggles, keep the iPad 2 around at a lower cost. This would cover a wide range of costs and form factors for iOS devices.

ranReloaded
Oct 18, 2011, 11:47 AM
iPad 3 debuts next year with Retina and A6...
iPad 2 drops in Price by $100 or so...
iPad 1 drops even further...

lol It's probably just going to be them selling iPad 2 alongside the iPad 3, just like they do with the iPhone 4/4S.

So the cheaper iPad is just the previous generation. I'd say just a WiFi model, 16GB, and since it's last years model they can price it cheaper.

I don't think they're keeping the iPad 1 around; they're already selling them at a discount (as if to get rid of them ahead of the iPad 3 launch), and those are refurbished.

Bytor65
Oct 18, 2011, 11:49 AM
This makes even less sense than the (many) previous mini ipod rumors.

The main advantage of smaller tablets would be:

1: Comfortable to hold in one hand.
2: Fit in a pocket.

7.85" screen gives you neither, with a 4:3 aspect and bezels it would still be about 6" wide. Which would NOT be comfortable to hold in a one handed grip and would not fit in a pocket.

If Anything Apple would likely go smaller, I think it would make more sense to make a large iPod Touch, about 5"-6" with a 3:2 ratio and no side bezels, so it would be easy for anyone to hold in one hand and fit in most pockets. It could just use the standard resolution, and run the same apps as the iPhone/Touch, by scaling up, you don't have fragmentation issues.

Now if there is need for more actual iPad models, I would rather have an 11" or 12" version.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 11:52 AM
This makes even less sense than the (many) previous mini ipod rumors.

The main advantage of smaller tablets would be:

1: Comfortable to hold in one hand.
2: Fit in a pocket.

7.85" screen gives you neither, with a 4:3 aspect and bezels it would still be about 6" wide. Which would NOT be comfortable to hold in a one handed grip and would not fit in a pocket.

If Anything Apple would like go smaller, I think it would make more sense to make a large iPod Touch, about 5"-6" with a 3:2 ratio and no side bezels, so it would be easy for anyone to hold in one hand and fit in most pockets.

Probably, but one thing for sure: Apple will not change the screen ratio. It would become a nightmare for developers, as they would have to code their apps for both aspect ratios. 4:3 ratio is here to stay.
If you were an iOS Developer you would understand this.

radicalcentrist
Oct 18, 2011, 11:53 AM
I travel a lot, with a decent amount of paperwork in my bag plus an MBA, and it still gets heavy (so much better than when I had the 15" MBP, though). I had an original iPad for a while (my wife's hand-me-down), but it just got too big and bulky in combination with the MBA.

I can't really not bring the MBA, so something that I could A) read books on; B) surf the internet; C) Use Maps; D) Check email; E) Use the productivity apps (Things, Reminders, Pages, etc.); F) maybe watch a few movies on; and G) listen to a sub-section of my 50GB music collection would fit my needs perfectly.

That's an iPad, but the 10" is too big. Something smaller, lighter, than just can slip in and out of my shoulder bag would be perfect for me. If it were cheaper, that would just be the cherry on top.

Just like the MBA is a netbook but BETTER, a 7" (or 6.5 or 7.13528 or whatever) iPad would be a more-portable tablet but BETTER. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't produce it if they could resolve the scaling issue.

guineapig
Oct 18, 2011, 11:59 AM
iPhone 5 cannot be tagged under rumor anymore.
Off to the iPad 3!

steadysignal
Oct 18, 2011, 12:00 PM
To fight Kindle Fire: iPad 3 starts at $499. iPad 2 low-end model drops to $349.
still might not be enough.

good thing is people will still by apple product in droves...

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:03 PM
I travel a lot, with a decent amount of paperwork in my bag plus an MBA, and it still gets heavy (so much better than when I had the 15" MBP, though). I had an original iPad for a while (my wife's hand-me-down), but it just got too big and bulky in combination with the MBA.

I can't really not bring the MBA, so something that I could A) read books on; B) surf the internet; C) Use Maps; D) Check email; E) Use the productivity apps (Things, Reminders, Pages, etc.); F) maybe watch a few movies on; and G) listen to a sub-section of my 50GB music collection would fit my needs perfectly.

That's an iPad, but the 10" is too big. Something smaller, lighter, than just can slip in and out of my shoulder bag would be perfect for me. If it were cheaper, that would just be the cherry on top.

Just like the MBA is a netbook but BETTER, a 7" (or 6.5 or 7.13528 or whatever) iPad would be a more-portable tablet but BETTER. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't produce it if they could resolve the scaling issue.


Unless you work on insurance, why don't you replace all that paperwork with an iPad? You can fill up forms, have these signed, and then emailed to your clients. Or just carry a portable printer, which certainly weights a lot less than a pile of paperwork.

Or...You are already carrying a lot of paperwork; an iPad 2 would not add much weight to it. Plus, I'm sure you would want its battery to last you all day, right ?



----------

good thing is people will still by apple product in droves...

Could you please translate that? Thank you :D

kingsmuse
Oct 18, 2011, 12:03 PM
This probably isn`t going to happen and it`s too bad.

As much as I admire Steve Jobs he was way off base about the 7 inch tablet.

The only reason I don`t own an iPad is that it`s to bulky to be a comfortable reading machine.

The Kindle Fire does look like exactly what I want and I`m already pretty invested in the Amazon eco system so I guess that`s the route I`ll go.

It`s a shame really because I love Apple machines.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:04 PM
If Apple wanted a 7" anything, it would up the size of the iPod, not downsize the iPad.

Unless I'm missing something, an upsized iPod Touch IS an iPad Mini and vice versa.

Bytor65
Oct 18, 2011, 12:04 PM
Probably, but one thing for sure: Apple will not change the screen ratio. It would become a nightmare for developers, as they would have to code their apps for both aspect ratios. 4:3 ratio is here to stay.

I am not suggesting a change of ratio. iPhone/Touch are 3:2 and I am suggesting a scaled up Touch, not a shrunken iPad.

Zero fragmentation. Same resolution, just a bigger screen. Design targets remain for aimed at the Touch/iPhone. Everything will just be a bit bigger.

This is not a new target for developers at all. Just a bigger screen for people with less than Hawk vision who would prefer a bigger screen. A 5.5" Touch XL would still have about 210 DPI, which is still beyond the limits of vision at the distance I want to use it.

firewood
Oct 18, 2011, 12:04 PM
Didn't Apple just share that they had paid out $3 billion to developers? You can do your own math to calculate how much/little Apple has made with their 30% cut. Personally, I lean to the "much" vs. the "little" or "very little".

A billion might seem big to you, but compare it to Apple's total revenues over the past 3 years. Fraction of a percent. Compare it to Apple's operating costs over the same time period, and it barely covers any of it.

CIA
Oct 18, 2011, 12:05 PM
New potential good competitor with Amazon tablet at 7". Apple spreads rumor of smaller cheaper iPad in spring. People hold off buying new amazon tablet waiting to see if rumor pans out. Amazon tablet is released, and is semi failure like all Android tablets. In spring new iPad 3 is released with crazy retina display, iPad 2 sticks around as cheaper option (ala iPhone 4/iPhone 3GS still avail now). People decide to buy cheaper version of iPad 2 instead of Amazon tablet. Apple wins again.

I will admit that Amazon is the biggest threat that apple has faced in the tablet space. They have a established quality name, and people like the kindle, so this could get interesting. If anything it will prove again that competition only helps consumers.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:07 PM
New potential good competitor with Amazon tablet at 7". Apple spreads rumor of smaller cheaper iPad in spring. People hold off buying new amazon tablet waiting to see if rumor pans out. Amazon tablet is released, and is semi failure like all Android tablets. In spring new iPad 3 is released with crazy retina display, iPad 2 sticks around as cheaper option (ala iPhone 4/iPhone 3GS still avail now). People decide to buy cheaper version of iPad 2 instead of Amazon tablet. Apple wins again.

Heheh! It couldn't have been said any better than that! Rumors could be a very powerful marketing weapon.

For example, consider how much time we have all wasted so far talking about it. I'm getting back to work now! :eek:

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:07 PM
This makes even less sense than the (many) previous mini ipod rumors.

The main advantage of smaller tablets would be:

1: Comfortable to hold in one hand.
2: Fit in a pocket.

To you maybe. How about not as heavy? more portable? thinner? You know, stuff that Apple likes to tout every time they roll out a next big thing. I think filling the hole between the Touch/Phone and iPad with a smaller tablet at a lower price will simply take that market niche from the players trying to grab it now. It won't kill the bigger iPad nor kill the smaller iPod/Phone space: just put something in the middle... just like we have small Air's at 11" and "big" laptop screens at 17", there are still lots of buyers at 13" and 15" too.

kingsmuse
Oct 18, 2011, 12:08 PM
History tends to repeat itself over and over:
Just recall the zillion Android Tablets that have come out so far and their impact on Apple products (do you see any impact???).
Same happened with the iPod. None of their competitors could steal the iPods market (Zune, Sansa, Sony, etc.).

True but Amazon has what all those other Android tablets lacked.

A viable extensive inexpensive eco system already in place.

Books, Movies, TV, Music, shopping.

People buy Apple mobile products because of the elegant design AND the killer eco system.

Amazon has them matched if not beaten in the eco system department and a $199 price tag could cause people to overlook the slightly less elegant design.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:09 PM
To you maybe. How about not as heavy? more portable? thinner? You know, stuff that Apple likes to tout every time they roll out a next big thing. I think filling the hole between the Touch/Phone and iPad with a smaller tablet at a lower price will simply take that market niche from the players trying to grab it now. It won't kill the bigger iPad nor kill the smaller iPod/Phone space: just put something in the middle... just like we have small Air's at 11" and "big" laptop screens at 17", there are still lots of buyers at 13" and 15" too.

I could use a 22" Tablet for the kitchen. Great to read recipes and entertain the person cooking.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:10 PM
A billion might seem big to you, but compare it to Apple's total revenues over the past 3 years. Fraction of a percent. Compare it to Apple's operating costs over the same time period, and it barely covers any of it.

But that's no excuse. You can't count Apple's total operating costs (of all business operations) against their profits of just one piece of their revenues to try to make this point. Sure, it's small relative to all profits or all costs, but he wasn't claiming it was small against all profits: he was just inferring that there is "very little profit" in Apple taking 30% share of iTunes transactions.

If you're going to weigh Apple's total operating costs against anything, it should be Apple's total revenues... not just iTunes transactional revenues alone.

osx11
Oct 18, 2011, 12:13 PM
I think the biggest problem with the Kindle Fire will be it's small widescreen. A small widescreen is just horrible for web browsing.

I like the 4:3 ratio on the iPad's.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:14 PM
I could use a 22" Tablet for the kitchen. Great to read recipes and entertain the person cooking.

Wait for OS X 10.8 or 10.9, then buy an iMac. Lion makes it look like iMacs are future maxi-iPads in waiting.;)

DeathChill
Oct 18, 2011, 12:15 PM
Didn't Apple just share that they had paid out $3 billion to developers? You can do your own math to calculate how much/little Apple has made with their 30% cut. Personally, I lean to the "much" vs. the "little" or "very little".

You do understand that Apple has to employ staff to manage the App Store, app reviewers, and server storage and bandwidth costs? This is not free.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:15 PM
True but Amazon has what all those other Android tablets lacked.

A viable extensive inexpensive eco system already in place.

Books, Movies, TV, Music, shopping.

People buy Apple mobile products because of the elegant design AND the killer eco system.

Amazon has them matched if not beaten in the eco system department and a $199 price tag could cause people to overlook the slightly less elegant design.

When the time comes for people to want to synchronize their tablet's content (Music, address book, calendar, etc.) to their computer and phone, they realize how easy it would have been if they just got an iPad.

True, there's Gmail and I have been using it to synchronize with my MAC and WinMo 6.5 Phone, but it keeps messing up my contacts, mixing phone numbers.
And Calendar sync works but is limited too.
I'm getting an iPhone as soon as my contract with T-Mobile expires, and all my problems will be gone. Everything will work in harmony.

I don't declare the Kindle Fire a failure; I'm sure it will succeed to a point, but not for long.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:16 PM
I think the biggest problem with the Kindle Fire will be it's small widescreen. A small widescreen is just horrible for web browsing.

So the smaller screens of the iPhone and iPod Touch are "just horrible" for browsing too?

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:18 PM
Wait for OS X 10.8 or 10.9, then buy an iMac. Lion makes it look like iMacs are future maxi-iPads in waiting.;)

LOL... by then the iMAC will support multi-touch. :D

(But no, it will still be to big and heavy. I want it as thin as the current iPad.)

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:20 PM
You do understand that Apple has to employ staff to manage the App Store, app reviewers, and server storage and bandwidth costs? This is not free.

I'm not attacking the 30% per se. I merely pointed out that taking 30% of those iTunes transactions is not "very little" as THAT poster implied.

qtx43
Oct 18, 2011, 12:21 PM
So the smaller screens of the iPhone and iPod Touch are just horrible for browsing too?
Yes, they are. But YMMV.

PracticalMac
Oct 18, 2011, 12:23 PM
This makes even less sense than the (many) previous mini ipod rumors.

The main advantage of smaller tablets would be:

1: Comfortable to hold in one hand.
2: Fit in a pocket.

7.85" screen gives you neither, with a 4:3 aspect and bezels it would still be about 6" wide. Which would NOT be comfortable to hold in a one handed grip and would not fit in a pocket.


NO, NO, NO!

I do NOT want iPad to fit in pocket!
I do NOT want an iPad I can hold for hours on end like a Kindle!

I want a smaller iPad that is easier (then full size iPad) to carry and use while one the move, even walking.
I needs to be < 1Lb (current iPad 2 Weight: 1.35 pounds (613 g)
(Wi-Fi + 3G model)).
It can loose 1 of 3 batteries in iPad 2 if it provides 6~7 hours of use (over 10 for iPad 2).

I will pay the SAME price as iPad 2, PROVIDED it has extras like the iPhone 4S 8MP camera, tougher water resistant case (being a travel Pad), and 1GB of RAM.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:23 PM
So the smaller screens of the iPhone and iPod Touch are just horrible for browsing too?

Once you get used to the larger screen of the iPad, it may be hard for you to get used to a Phone's screen for browsing. It happened to me; typing becomes difficult, and having to zoom in and out a lot to read the page becomes a pain.
I may just need to get used to it, but as for now, I certainly prefer to browse on my iPad more than on my phone.

Bytor65
Oct 18, 2011, 12:26 PM
NO, NO, NO!

I do NOT want iPad to fit in pocket!
I do NOT want an iPad I can hold for hours on end like a Kindle!

I want a smaller iPad that is easier to carry and use while one the move, even walking.
I needs to be < 1Lb (current iPad 2 Weight: 1.35 pounds (613 g)
(Wi-Fi + 3G model)).
It can loose 1 of 3 batteries in iPad 2 if it provides 6~7 hours of use (over 10 for iPad 2).

I will pay the SAME price as iPad 2, PROVIDED it has extras like the iPhone 4S 8MP camera, tougher water resistant case (being a travel Pad), and 1GB of RAM.

A 5.5" iOS device would certainly be less than a pound... You are delusional if you think you are getting the 4S camera.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:26 PM
LOL... by then the iMAC will support multi-touch. :D

(But no, it will still be to big and heavy. I want it as thin as the current iPad.)

Exactly. See the future. There's already been rumors of OS X being developed to also run on ARM processors. If there is an iPad 3 with Retina display, it will be a screen that is currently much higher resolution than the laptop line. If you could run OS X on that hardware too, you could have a hybrid device: iOS for the content consumers, OS X for the content creators. Bluetooth keyboard & mouse and you have a super portable laptop when you need a laptop and tablet when you need a tablet. When talking about A6 Quad Core rumors, people are already asking why they need quad core power in iDevices.

Now, if all that comes together, iMacs of the future could further thin down and what do you have? Lion already appears to be pointing toward multi-touch Macs. If you can run widgets in a dedicated screen, how long until you could run iOS apps in a dedicated screen? Macs get options to run iOS apps and iDevices get options to run Mac apps. Imagine that!

tigress666
Oct 18, 2011, 12:27 PM
I know my roommate is just waiting for an iPad that small (he wants one for use in his plane and the current one is just too big. He really wants something like 7").

Even I if I had the money might actually consider that a useful size (right now the iPad is so big I feel I'd rather just deal with the extra size/weight and take my 13" MBP for anything I'd bring the iPad too).

Personally, I disagree with Jobs about 10" being the perfect size. I think 7" is much more nice.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:32 PM
Exactly. See the future. There's already been rumors of OS X being developed to also run on ARM processors. If there is an iPad 3 with Retina display, it will be a screen that is currently much higher resolution than the laptop line. If you could run OS X on that hardware too, you could have a hybrid device: iOS for the content consumers, OS X for the content creators. Bluetooth keyboard & mouse and you have a super portable laptop when you need a laptop and tablet when you need a tablet. When talking about A6 Quad Core rumors, people are already asking why they need quad core power in iDevices.

Now, if all that comes together, iMacs of the future could further thin down and what do you have? Lion already appears to be pointing toward multi-touch Macs. If you can run widgets in a dedicated screen, how long until you could run iOS apps in a dedicated screen? Macs get options to run iOS apps and iDevices get options to run Mac apps. Imagine that!

Well, the fact that my second display becomes useless when running an App in full-screen under Lion, leaves a lot of room for speculation on what would happen next. In the future, my second display may actually be a second computer linked to the primary computer (sort of a mini-farm for the desktop, with no limit to how many you may link together) to behave as one in the sense of file and application sharing.
And thinking about how Thunderbold works, I think that's the main reason why Apple implemented it.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:35 PM
Once you get used to the larger screen of the iPad, it may be hard for you to get used to a Phone's screen for browsing. It happened to me; typing becomes difficult, and having to zoom in and out a lot to read the page becomes a pain.
I may just need to get used to it, but as for now, I certainly prefer to browse on my iPad more than on my phone.

No argument from me on this: just pointing out how this particular argument against the Fire would seem to also apply to some even smaller-screen Apple products. As is often the case, we're so quick to attack everything non-Apple to the point of offering rationale that then would have to also apply to some other Apple products. At which point, the argument usually goes silent or starts twisting into something else.

Of course, a bigger screen has benefits for web browsing. If this rumor is true though, every pixel a web browsing user can see on a current iPad would ALSO appear on this smaller form factor. The smaller iPad rumor is not getting smaller by cutting away at pixels. It would be just moving toward a "retina" concept: exact same pixels packed closer together. If a user's eyes are good enough, they would see the exact same amount of every web page on this rumored model.

Slurpy2k8
Oct 18, 2011, 12:36 PM
I'd snap one of these up in a heartbeat. 9.7>7.85 is not such a massive change that they could get away with using the same resolution. It shouldn't make anything unreadable. This would be the perfect size for me, iPad just feels a bit bulky for my uses.

And for those of you screaming 'no way Apple would do this' , 'this will never happen'.. have some damn humility, instead of pretending you know what Apple will and wont do. Especially when posters on this board have been so wrong, so many times, about so many things. Yes, SJ did knock smaller tablets. But he also knocked alot of things before Apple came out with competing products (ie. video ipod, etc). For many people, the current iPad might be the optimal size, but for others maybe not. Coming out with a smaller one WILL expand their potential market. Apple adjusts and responds to changing market conditions. They have strong convictions, but won't shoot themselves in the foot because of irrational stubborness, or something SJ said once. And if they do release this next year, it's guaranteed that SJ greenlit it, and is obviously not something they went and did against his wishes when he went out of the picture.

lukarak
Oct 18, 2011, 12:37 PM
They should make everything from 3'' iPhone mini, to 13'' iPad MaxHardcorePro
And have models spaced 1'', or even less, apart. Their 5-6'' devices should be called iPhad, as they could be both a phone and a tablet. And also, make the one from six months ago not get the latest OS update. That's the way to get to 50% market share obviously.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:38 PM
I know my roommate is just waiting for an iPad that small (he wants one for use in his plane and the current one is just too big. He really wants something like 7").

Even I if I had the money might actually consider that a useful size (right now the iPad is so big I feel I'd rather just deal with the extra size/weight and take my 13" MBP for anything I'd bring the iPad too).

Personally, I disagree with Jobs about 10" being the perfect size. I think 7" is much more nice.

Too big??? The charts and logbooks and much larger and heavier. Why do you think American Airlines has been giving their pilots iPads to replace all that heavy paperwork?

The current iPad size is at par with most paper notebooks, books and magazines. Just that one to a bookstore and compare it's size.

jouster
Oct 18, 2011, 12:38 PM
I'm not attacking the 30% per se. I merely pointed out that taking 30% of those iTunes transactions is not "very little" as THAT poster implied.

It's substantially less than they make from hardware. So it seems unlikely that they will be interested in making a device -- like the Fire -- that is designed solely to sell content rather than to generate profit itself.

Piggie
Oct 18, 2011, 12:40 PM
This may upset some me saying this:

But who cares what Steve said. Steve was the past, Now Apple are moving onto the Post Steve future & things will obviously naturally change.

Be honest. How many years or decades would you want Apple the company to worry about what someone who used to run the company would think, and not try new things?

All companies need fresh blood and have to change over time.

You can't say, well I'm not doing that as my great great grand pappy would not like it.

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:43 PM
No argument from me on this: just pointing out how this particular argument against the Fire would seem to also apply to some even smaller-screen Apple products. As is often the case, we're so quick to attack everything non-Apple to the point of offering rationale that then would have to also apply to some other Apple products. At which point, the argument usually goes silent or starts twisting into something else.

Of course, a bigger screen has benefits for web browsing. If this rumor is true though, every pixel a web browsing user can see on a current iPad would ALSO appear on this smaller form factor. The smaller iPad rumor is not getting smaller by cutting away at pixels. It would be just moving toward a "retina" concept: exact same pixels packed closer together. If a user's eyes are good enough, they would see the exact same amount of every web page on this rumored model.

I think you have just gave us all a wake up call. We are here complaining about something we have no power to control. Whether Apple wants to make a smaller or larger iPad, we could discuss here all day, but in the end it's not our decision. We are just speculating based on our own experiences, which for the sake of argument and entertainment are good to share, but beyond that, we have no real influence on what's to come.

Having said that, I'm now really getting back to work! :D

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:46 PM
It's substantially less than they make from hardware. So it seems unlikely that they will be interested in making a device -- like the Fire -- that is designed solely to sell content rather than to generate profit itself.

I didn't say that AT ALL. You're adding new information to twist it into a different argument. I completely agree that Apple has NO INTEREST in making anything on which they will try to solely make money on their 30% cut of iTunes transactions. First, they don't have to do that. Second, if they wanted to do that, current iDevices would be sold at cost instead of current pricing.

This rumored smaller iPad/bigger iPod Touch is NOT about that at all either. I'm sure that if Apple chose to build this iPad, they would do it with their usual margins in mind. I'm confident that if others can create and sell the hardware at prices below $499 and make a profit (on the hardware itself), Apple can figure out a way to do that too.

The person to which I originally responded was not making such a suggestion either. He simply implied that the 30% cut has "very little profit" in it for Apple and I suggested that a 30% cut on over 3 Billion in revenues is not "very little".

Amazing Iceman
Oct 18, 2011, 12:46 PM
This may upset some me saying this:

But who cares what Steve said. Steve was the past, Now Apple are moving onto the Post Steve future & things will obviously naturally change.

Be honest. How many years or decades would you want Apple the company to worry about what someone who used to run the company would think, and not try new things?

All companies need fresh blood and have to change over time.

You can't say, well I'm not doing that as my great great grand pappy would not like it.

True, most people don't like to follow the same successful path as their predecessors...

Look at what happened to George W. Bush...

Piggie
Oct 18, 2011, 12:48 PM
Let's all be honest.

Apple could keep the exact same screen res and offer a 7" and a 12" model to complement the current 10" model and all three sizes would sell well.

It would be nice if the consumer had the ability to select the model they wanted for the function they wanted.

Smaller for reading books perhaps
Larger for watching movies & playing games perhaps.

It would not kill Apple to offer a simple choice.

Naturally when the screen res is increased a larger model would be even more viable due to the detail on the screen benefiting from a slightly larger screen.

Eidorian
Oct 18, 2011, 12:49 PM
Is it going to be $199?

lilo777
Oct 18, 2011, 12:51 PM
That would be very disrespectful to Steve Jobs. The guy has just past away and Apple is going to repudiate his strongly held believes about uselessness of this type of device?

PracticalMac
Oct 18, 2011, 12:51 PM
I don't want a cheaper iPad mini,

I want a smaller iPad 2.5!

Give me a better version of iPad 2 (like 8MP camera, better GPS, rugged case, maybe SD slot) but smaller.
Consider it done, but don't expect to pay less.

That would never happen. Apple already has a market for the iPod Touch, the iPad and the iPhone, and it's very easy for the consumer to decide what they want to purchase. Adding a product in between would negatively affect the products above and below it (in this case the iPod Touch and iPad), making it more confusing for the consumer to decide what to buy.

And every good salesman knows that giving the consumer too many choices is bad. Most of the time leads to frustration, resulting in a lost sale.

You funny!!
I said I will pay the same as full size iPad, but then you said don't expect to pay less.
Smaller sizes with better features then iPad 2, same price.

It is true more choices = bad, but Apple is very smart in not having meaningless names with 4 digit numbers (look at DeLL!!)

Apples selection is actually very well thought out and easy to navigate, and most important of all, easy to understand!


..., people don't know they want it until they see it. Apple's genius is precisely that nobody saw it coming.

I a way everyone saw it coming!
Table computers existed since the early 90's, and in imagination longer, but what Apple did was make it USEABLE.
Apple/Jobs, I am sure after a lot of experimentation and thought, found the right combination.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 12:54 PM
That would be very disrespectful to Steve Jobs. The guy has just past away and Apple is going to repudiate his strongly held believes about uselessness of this type of device?

Com'on. Steve Jobs did this himself often. He was notorious for putting down something until Apple's version of that something came out. Then it was "great", "magical", etc. Do a little research. Try searching for "Apple flip flop" for starters and read some of those lists of times when Steve and/or Apple wailed against something until they rolled out an Apple version of it... and then it was the best thing ever (until the next best thing ever was ready). It's not being disrespectful. It's just doing more of the same.

Datalinks
Oct 18, 2011, 12:56 PM
A couple of hours ago I was thinking about when that rumor would be stirred up again...this is getting pathetic... Large screen iPhone...small screen iPad...large screen iPhone...small screen iPad.

lukarak
Oct 18, 2011, 12:57 PM
I a way everyone saw it coming!
Table computers existed since the early 90's, and in imagination longer, but what Apple did was make it USEABLE.
Apple/Jobs, I am sure after a lot of experimentation and thought, found the right combination.

And nuclear fission existed since forever, but somebody figured out to make it usable for us. That's the point. Everybody can have an idea. To implement it, that's a little more challenging.

Westside guy
Oct 18, 2011, 12:59 PM
I use an iPad quite a bit when I'm at home and I'm just curious, if there are people out there that would be interested in the iPad mini? I'm not opposed to an iPad mini, just wouldn't purchase it.

If you look through the old rumor threads, you'll see a lot of people (like me) who say they'd prefer that form factor.

You'll also see a lot of existing iPad owners who think the iPad is perfect, and who basically can't grasp how another person's opinion could possibly differ from theirs. :D

BTW as far as scaling goes (addressing other comments) - check the size of the icons on an iPhone/iTouch versus the size of the icons on the iPad. Somehow we manage to hit them even though they're significantly smaller.

Cory Bauer
Oct 18, 2011, 01:00 PM
Steve would come back from the grave to haunt Tim Cook if Apple released an iPad with a smaller screen. Steve was extremely adamant about 9.7" being the best size, and I'm sure many at Apple came to the same conclusion in their testing.

If they choose to, Apple will introduce a cheaper iPad model the exact same way they've done with the iPhone — by keeping last year's model around and cutting the storage in half. They could so very easily sell a $299 iPad 2 with 8GB of storage when the iPad 3 with Retina Display, A6 chip and 16GB of storage is released next spring for $499. And by doing so, they'll make any cheap 7" tablet appear as a fool's purchase; who in their right mind would spend $199 on a 7" Amazon Fire if for just $100 more they could get a 10" iPad 2?

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 01:00 PM
westside, nobody has said THAT better. Bravo!

lilo777
Oct 18, 2011, 01:08 PM
Com'on. Steve Jobs did this himself often. He was notorious for putting down something until Apple's version of that something came out. Then it was "great", "magical", etc. Do a little research. Try searching for "Apple flip flop" for starters and read some of those lists of times when Steve and/or Apple wailed against something until they rolled out an Apple version of it... and then it was the best thing ever (until the next best thing ever was ready). It's not being disrespectful. It's just doing more of the same.

Are you saying Steve Jobs was a flip flopper?

Piggie
Oct 18, 2011, 01:09 PM
Steve would come back from the grave to haunt Tim Cook if Apple released an iPad with a smaller screen. Steve was extremely adamant about 9.7" being the best size, and I'm sure many at Apple came to the same conclusion in their testing.

If they choose to, Apple will introduce a cheaper iPad model the exact same way they've done with the iPhone — by keeping last year's model around and cutting the storage in half. They could so very easily sell a $299 iPad 2 with 8GB of storage when the iPad 3 with Retina Display, A6 chip and 16GB of storage is released next spring for $499. And by doing so, they'll make any cheap 7" tablet appear as a fool's purchase; who in their right mind would spend $199 on a 7" Amazon Fire if for just $100 more they could get a 10" iPad 2?

So basically you are saying that due to public remarks made by Steve Jobs the former boss of Apple. Apple as a company can never, and I mean NEVER, be it in the next 5, 10 or 100+ years ever release any tablet computer smaller than the first iPad because of what Steve said?

toddybody
Oct 18, 2011, 01:11 PM
Do you have an iPod Touch 4G *and* iPad 2?[COLOR="#808080"]


Never have I owned a touch. I do own a 4S and iPad 2...used to have a 3G and 4 before that. Whats your point?

I think I'm in an OK position to comment on the difference between the two screen sizes. Peace Yo

Xenomorph
Oct 18, 2011, 01:14 PM
I'd like a 7" iPad.

My Nook Color is a great size.

Lesser Evets
Oct 18, 2011, 01:16 PM
As a pad--a computer for semi-desktop use--a 7.x" iPad mini would be tedious. As a media viewer for videos/music/books/documents on-the-go, the 7.x" iPad mini would be excellent: far better than an iPod Touch or iPhone for such uses.

It just seems that a price point of $249-$299 would put the iPod Touch down the toilet unless they reduce iPod Touches to $149+ or slowly eliminate the iPT line or squeeze it down into the Nano-type range of product.

carmenodie
Oct 18, 2011, 01:18 PM
Pah lease! Apple is always testing new things but most never leave R&D. Ipad mini? Think iphone 5 with a 4 or more inch screen and gestures.

Viper2005
Oct 18, 2011, 01:18 PM
I own a Samsung Galaxy Tab 7 and the original ipad and I love the small size of the Galaxy. I'm looking forward to the Galaxy Tab 7.7, due to its very impressive specs. I think an Ipad mini is a step in the right direction, but I think going ghetto with the specs isn't the way to go. Apple shouldn't be competing in the low end sector, they've been known for premium quality. Leave the sub standard junk to Acer and the other bottom feeder brands.

jouster
Oct 18, 2011, 01:18 PM
I didn't say that AT ALL. You're adding new information to twist it into a different argument. I completely agree that Apple has NO INTEREST in making anything on which they will try to solely make money on their 30% cut of iTunes transactions. First, they don't have to do that. Second, if they wanted to do that, current iDevices would be sold at cost instead of current pricing.

This rumored smaller iPad/bigger iPod Touch is NOT about that at all either. I'm sure that if Apple chose to build this iPad, they would do it with their usual margins in mind. I'm confident that if others can create and sell the hardware at prices below $499 and make a profit (on the hardware itself), Apple can figure out a way to do that too.

The person to which I originally responded was not making such a suggestion either. He simply implied that the 30% cut has "very little profit" in it for Apple and I suggested that a 30% cut on over 3 Billion in revenues is not "very little".

Fair enough. We agree that they would build such a device only if the profitability were in the same ballpark as their other devices.

However, I don't think you can look at their cut of the app revenue as being significant. Sure, it sounds like a big number -- 30% of 3 billion is 900 million, after all -- but I don't think it is. Not for a company that does what? $20b per quarter? And the number we have is not net of the cost of sales either. Didn't Apple always maintain that they broke even at best on iTunes sales?

andreiru
Oct 18, 2011, 01:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

What about an iPad maxi?

Cory Bauer
Oct 18, 2011, 01:26 PM
So basically you are saying that due to public remarks made by Steve Jobs the former boss of Apple. Apple as a company can never, and I mean NEVER, be it in the next 5, 10 or 100+ years ever release any tablet computer smaller than the first iPad because of what Steve said?
No. Apple didn't make the iPad 9.7" because Steve said so; they made it that size because after internally testing many sizes they concluded that 7" was a stupid-ass size for a tablet. It's what Apple learned that fueled Steve's comments, not the other way around. 7" is too large to fit in your pocket but too small to give a significantly different experience than a touchscreen smartphone. Apps designed for a 10" screen are not usable on a 7" screen unless we, as Steve said, file our fingers down to points.

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 01:27 PM
Are you saying Steve Jobs was a flip flopper?

Usually when a person is making a joke, they use the wink smily. Otherwise, it might be taken as a serious question. Have you seen: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/03/70546?currentPage=all but that one is only through 2006. And http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/01/26/steve-jobs-flip-flopper.html
Do some search for topics like Apple Flip flops and similar and read the lists. It has happened lots of times.

Piggie
Oct 18, 2011, 01:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

What about an iPad maxi?

From the very 1st moment I held my 1st iPad in my hands on the launch day of the iPad 1. My first reactions were. Oh, I thought it was bigger than that :(

I think my disappointment was due to the fact that a lot of the online reviews showed women holding and demonstrating them with smaller hands.

As a tall male, I have quite large hands, and the iPad feels quite small to me, and a lot smaller than it looks in most online photo's.

I'd buy a larger screen version over the current model in an instant.

mantan
Oct 18, 2011, 01:30 PM
I'd seriously consider buying one. It would be a great option to buy as a second tablet device for the family instead of dropping another $500-$800 on another iPad.

I think people are looking at the Kindle Fire as fighting the iPad. To me it's target is more around the iPod Touch and people looking to buy something with a more palatable price point. A lot of families who don't mind buying a kindle (back when it was $150) or iPod Touch (same price neighborhood) for their kids are not going to drop iPad money for their kids to use.

But a $200-$250 7 inch tablet would be VERY tempting...especially since I'd be able to use the same apps we've already purchased.

Bryguy78
Oct 18, 2011, 01:32 PM
iPod XL??!! Anyone?

Cory Bauer
Oct 18, 2011, 01:34 PM
I'd seriously consider buying one. It would be a great option to buy as a second tablet device for the family instead of dropping another $500-$800 on another iPad.
...

But a $200-$250 7 inch tablet would be VERY tempting...especially since I'd be able to use the same apps we've already purchased.
Wouldn't you rather have last year's model with the storage cut in half for $299? And by "last year" I mean the iPad 2 when the iPad 3 is released.

ECUpirate44
Oct 18, 2011, 01:37 PM
Apple is not smart enough to innovate. iPhone 4S = example

Your not really a favorite on this forum are you? First leaking the iPad 2 jailbreak, and now dumb comments like this. Whats your problem?

Certinfy
Oct 18, 2011, 01:40 PM
If I wanted a smaller iPad I would just buy an iPad and put it in the washing machine to be honest. :confused:

spazzcat
Oct 18, 2011, 01:48 PM
This. Will. Not. Happen.

There's not even any evidence here except some analyst talking out of his butt.

Is this one of the analyst that said the iPhone4S would flopp?

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 01:49 PM
Wouldn't you rather have last year's model with the storage cut in half for $299? And by "last year" I mean the iPad 2 when the iPad 3 is released.

Corey, why is Apple going to do that? Go into the Apple refurb store for "last years" iPad pricing and notice it is well above $299. You're now dreaming of them taking iPad2s and heavily cutting their pricing even further than what they've done with a more than 1-year old (not new, refurbished) iPad 1? Just to make the current model a real competitor against those attracted to the Fire's smaller size and much lower price? If we're just going to make up anything, I'd much rather have a 17" Macbook Air for $299 (I know, we're just making up "what ifs" to defeat the idea that someone may like a Fire size or price) instead of the Fire.

awdtrash
Oct 18, 2011, 01:50 PM
check out this review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEkymRd3xks

----------

News!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEkymRd3xks

D4F
Oct 18, 2011, 01:55 PM
Since Steve passed away this thing has high chance.
At least nobody will say he didn't stood up to his words and lets face it... it's market demand and it seems that 7" are getting popular. I see a lot of galaxy and even playbooks on the subway. Not so many "big" ones.

M-O
Oct 18, 2011, 02:17 PM
holy cow! a 13" iPad!

Robin4
Oct 18, 2011, 02:17 PM
I'd be tempted.

As a traveler, a smaller, lighter, high quality iPad sounds just right. It can slip into a purse easily.

I use my iPad constantly at home, that wouldn't change.

paintblock
Oct 18, 2011, 02:22 PM
While maintaining the current resolution would mean that iPad apps would display natively on the iPad mini, the interface elements would be somewhat smaller than on the iPad, a reduction that could introduce usability issues in some cases.


I think it would mitigate more problems than it would solve. People with big hands and fingers would get the 10 inch, and people with smaller hands (ie children) would get the 7 inch. It'd be like having an interface element size choice. Usually when you give people a choice to make, they make the one less likely to cause themselves a problem.

JS3
Oct 18, 2011, 02:22 PM
Isn't the iPod technically a mini ipad? lol.

And the iPad a big iPod?

TallGuy1970
Oct 18, 2011, 02:28 PM
This has probably been said, but the most telling comment in this article is, "Ticonderoga Securities analyst Brian White had noted just last week that his research among Asian suppliers..."

Once you see the word "analyst" stop reading and throw the article away!

mrsir2009
Oct 18, 2011, 02:28 PM
...Would be a bit hypocritical after Steve Jobs has said in a Keynote that "The current crop of 7 inch tablets out there are crap"

HobeSoundDarryl
Oct 18, 2011, 02:32 PM
...Would be a bit hypocritical after Steve Jobs has said in a Keynote that "The current crop of 7 inch tablets out there are crap"

That would be classic Steve with: "...but OURS is magical, wonderful, thinner than ever, lighter than ever, etc."

firewood
Oct 18, 2011, 02:33 PM
But what will NOT happen will be the simple release of a 7 incher intended to simply run blown up iPhone ... apps.

That's pretty much exactly what happened at the introduction of the iPad 1, as there was only a tiny percentage of apps for the native iPad resolution in the App store on that date. And iPhone apps at 2X would actually look much better on a 7" pad than on the current 9" iPads.

I think that the 9" iPad is a much better pure size than a 7" pad, but it weighs too much and costs too much for a large portion of the consumer market. The question is how much profit there is to be made from that segment of the market that won't buy the heavier and costlier 9" iPad.

lucasmonger
Oct 18, 2011, 02:39 PM
My 9 year old would absolutely love the iPad in the same resolution but smaller form faster. Also people with tiny hands (I shook the hand of a teacher the other day and her hands were absolutely tiny compared to mine (I'm 6'3" tall). So there would be many people who would like the smaller screen.

Alas, I'd like to do the opposite... give me a 17 inch iPad with lots of real estate. Native apps designed to work with the default larger resolution would benefit, and older Apps could run pixel-doubled.

archangel08
Oct 18, 2011, 02:40 PM
i thought apple/jobs stated there's no market for a tablet smaller than the current ipad?

Louis2907
Oct 18, 2011, 02:45 PM
I agree with Lucasmonger, I have had my iPad since day 1,I love it but if Apple should be doing anything it is make it bigger not smaller, say 15" Retina, so I can lay it on my lap at home and have some real estate to work with...

Just my 2˘...
--------------------------------------------------
Mac 128K, Mac 512K, Mac Plus, Mac Se30, Pismo Powerbook,Imac G5, 24" iMac 2.8 gig ext....

Thank you Steve RIP....

thenerdal
Oct 18, 2011, 02:53 PM
I agree with Lucasmonger, I have had my iPad since day 1,I love it but if Apple should be doing anything it is make it bigger not smaller, say 15" so I can lay it on my lap at home and have some real estate to work with...

Just my 2˘...
--------------------------------------------------
Mac 128K, Mac 512K, Mac Plus, Mac Se30, Pismo Powerbook,Imac G5, 24" iMac 2.8 gig ext....

Thank you Steve RIP....

That's too big.

mantan
Oct 18, 2011, 02:56 PM
i thought apple/jobs stated there's no market for a tablet smaller than the current ipad?

I think the Kindle Fire may answer that question....who knows....

Personally I think the stumbling block was price point. Given the iPod Touch's pricing, Apple would have had to price a 7 inch tablet at $349-$399. In that case I could see there being a limited market.

But the $199 price point is a deal changer...and well below what Apple was likely considering....

Tarzanman
Oct 18, 2011, 02:58 PM
I own a 7" Galaxy Tab (the original one), and I have a 10-inch HP Touchpad.

The 7" tablet is waaaaaaaaay more portable and can even fit into the front pocket on most of my pants/shorts. This means I can bring it with me into the restaurant/football game/whatever and not have to worry about leaving it somewhere or having someone drop something on it.

The 10" is nicer for browsing, but I rarely take it anywhere unless I'm carrying a backpack.

MartiNZ
Oct 18, 2011, 03:21 PM
Glad this is coming up again - hopefully they really are considering the smaller size, as it would be a great improvement, and might actually get me to buy an iPad - size & weight would be a much better fit for the use case; even the 2 is not comfortable to hold in the air for watching video content for very long. Unless there's somehow more to squeeze out of the 9.7", I think a 7.whatever would be the logical next step.

Then they'd have iPhone/iPod Touch at 3.5", iPad at 7.whatever / 9.7", Air at 11/13", and so on. By that pattern there needs to be something at 5" - could the iPhone 5 mockup pull it off? Maybe there's the marketing - "We know it's the 6th generation iPhone, but we're calling this one the iPhone 5"" - seriously, who wouldn't be all over both of these hypothetical products?

mrsir2009
Oct 18, 2011, 03:37 PM
http://www.pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/e8552f2b52fe_2953/2012iboard_thumb.jpg

BJNY
Oct 18, 2011, 03:37 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

Hoping 8" iPad 3 at 1024 x 768 becomes standard size.
Then, larger 12" iPad 3 at 2048 x 1536

paintblock
Oct 18, 2011, 03:47 PM
Image (http://www.pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/e8552f2b52fe_2953/2012iboard_thumb.jpg)

That's exactly what I want. My 17 inch MBP without that thick bit at the bottom with a keyboard.

malias4
Oct 18, 2011, 03:54 PM
i think its a clever idea for a 7inch ipad, but lets wait and see :cool:

Cory Bauer
Oct 18, 2011, 04:07 PM
Corey, why is Apple going to do that? Go into the Apple refurb store for "last years" iPad pricing and notice it is well above $299. You're now dreaming of them taking iPad2s and heavily cutting their pricing even further than what they've done with a more than 1-year old (not new, refurbished) iPad 1? Just to make the current model a real competitor against those attracted to the Fire's smaller size and much lower price? If we're just going to make up anything, I'd much rather have a 17" Macbook Air for $299 (I know, we're just making up "what ifs" to defeat the idea that someone may like a Fire size or price) instead of the Fire.
HobeSoundDarryl, Apple was clearing out 16GB WiFi-only iPad 1's at $349 when the iPad 2 was released; by slashing the storage to 8GB they could easily hit that $299 price when the iPad 3 is released. I checked the Apple store refurb page and the far more expensive models you're seeing are all 3G+Wi-Fi models with 32 or 64GB of storage.

Note how they were able to cut the iPhone 4's price in half this year and all that really changed was cutting the storage to 8GB.

I think Apple's spring iPad lineup could start like this:
$299 - iPad 2, Wi-Fi only, A5 processor, 8GB Storage
$499 - iPad 3, Wi-Fi only, A6 processor, Retina Display, 16GB Storage

----------

Glad this is coming up again - hopefully they really are considering the smaller size, as it would be a great improvement, and might actually get me to buy an iPad - size & weight would be a much better fit for the use case; even the 2 is not comfortable to hold in the air for watching video content for very long.
That's what your iPhone/iPod Touch is for.

thenerdal
Oct 18, 2011, 04:18 PM
[/COLOR]
That's what your iPhone/iPod Touch is for.

Screen is too small on the iPhone/iPod Touch. A 7 inch tablet is better.

Premonition
Oct 18, 2011, 04:42 PM
Horrible mock up, im looking at my iPad 2 now and it doesnt even look as big as the one they put under the 7inch mock up.

twoodcc
Oct 18, 2011, 04:48 PM
i think they'll do what they are doing with the iPhone - you'll get the current iPad next year at a lower cost.

drossad
Oct 18, 2011, 05:09 PM
To fight Kindle Fire: iPad 3 starts at $499. iPad 2 low-end model drops to $349.

I agree, I think Apple is just setting up their future market appeal. By testing 7" iPad prototypes they are just being smart business people and approaching every angle.
Ultimately I think they will do what they did with the iPhone: offer the previous generation at a lower price point, with the newer model at the current pricing.

iPad 2 (base model) = $299
iPad 3 (base model) = $499

This would help to get people considering the kindle fire to think twice and consider buying an iPad.

I am actually perplexed at why they didn't do this with the original iPad.

marksman
Oct 18, 2011, 05:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Take that android screen monkeys

h0mi
Oct 18, 2011, 05:19 PM
8gb iPad 2 for $299 would destroy the Android tablet market.

Amazon tablet included.

16gb tablet at $499 already is destroying the Android tablet market :)

Gapinwales
Oct 18, 2011, 05:25 PM
Being an ipad2 owner, i have to say, some apps would be okay on the smaller size, but most would just be awkward. Ipad is amazing as it is, and i dont ever see appler doing this because its a bad idea!

faroZ06
Oct 18, 2011, 06:26 PM
Stupid idea. If it doesn't fit in your pocket, don't worry about the size.

MythicFrost
Oct 18, 2011, 07:11 PM
That's... not going to happen.

At the worst, we'll see a "non-retina" base model (possibly the would-be old iPad 2) at $499 and then a $599 or $649 32GB model with a retina display, and then a $699 or $799 64GB model.

Jake1991
Oct 18, 2011, 09:00 PM
could be a 7" remote for the new apple tv

MartiNZ
Oct 18, 2011, 11:19 PM
That's what your iPhone/iPod Touch is for.

Umm yeah, that's where I go back to Steve's saying "no one wants to watch video on a screen that small".

Except I actually mean it!

stevemiller
Oct 19, 2011, 12:28 AM
i do honestly wish all you multi-size hopefuls the best of luck, but it might be instructive to look back at the hype roller coaster for the iPhone 4s/5.

i was really convinced that a 4" screen was a just modest enough upgrade amongst some of the android beasts to fit apple's m.o. likewise there's good industry precedent for apple to consider a slightly smaller tablet size...

but apple has a way of defying what everyone thinks needs to happen, and still sell 4 million units in 4 days. i'm not saying its right or wrong, but they do appear to be exceptionally good at making us lust after less than we expected.

wizard
Oct 19, 2011, 02:32 AM
I'm not a fan of the idea of a 7" screen, though I think an iPad min/iPod maxi with dimensions that align perfectly with a trade paperback would be a hit against the Fire.

Mind you I already own both an iPad and an iPhone. The thing is iPad is just too big for some uses and iPhone too small. Put a GPS in the base model without the need for 3G also. Such a device would be a knock out product.

wizard
Oct 19, 2011, 02:47 AM
Why would they make more money? In simple terms the current iPad is just to big for some use cases. Here are some examples:

Use in industry and the medical fields. Size does matter here, especially if you have to carry the device all day in a lab coat or tool satchel.

If the unit had GPS in the base unit that would be excellent as a smaller device would be great for people looking for a GPS system for enjoying the great outdoors. Even in a car the smaller screen would make for a nice guidance system. In both of these cases I suspect people will be more willing to pay for the extra functionality.

A greater focus on use as a book reader. Paperback size means it is just as portable.

Same as the 4" iPhone rumors: Just because some people would want it does not mean Apple is going to do it.

Now, I consider a smaller iPad more likely than a 4" iPhone, but I still don't see it happening this year or next.

Well obviously not this year as I would have expected it at the iPod event.


It may happen eventually. I'm not saying it's impossible. In fact, Apple probably DOES have a prototype of one. I'm just saying that I see no business need for them to offer one now.

There is no doubt Apple has lots of prototypes on hand. For them to move forward they need to know there is a market and the size of that market.

The biggest problem I have with this rumor though is the size. 7.85 inches isn't a significantly different size than the current iPad. In fact I really think they need to get under 7" but that is me.

wizard
Oct 19, 2011, 03:02 AM
Won't happen.
.
Don't be to sure about that.

Right now having only one iPad size is like selling only 15" MBPs. Different people have different needs, that is the biggest issue here.


The specs of these devices are a small portion of the equation, the majority of which is dominated by the software. (Which is dominated by third-party apps.)

Well not exactly. Software is certainly important but so is physical size and hardware performance. Look at iPhone 4s and all the negativity surrounding that hardware, in the end it is selling like hotcakes because rational people realize it is a significant hardware update.


Adding another smaller (physically) device with the same (or similar) resolution will result in developers having to write code/design graphics for a third scale. This is what Google got wrong, and Apple has (so far) gotten right.

It isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Apple has put a lot of effort into iOS to ake it resolution independent. Further APIs have been upgraded to help with controls layout. So while some software will have issues many apps would transition very smoothly to the device.

What Google got wrong has more to do with ethics than anything.

wizard
Oct 19, 2011, 03:19 AM
Right now I would have to say iOS is the largest resolution independent operating systems in wide distribution. Many apps would run on such a device just fine.

This simply comes down to the choice Apple will have to make between a possibly large (but unknown) market for a 7" pad on one hand, and fragmentation diluting of its overwhelming app advantage and the confusion that would go along with a 3rd development format.

The impact on the app market would be minimal. Remember this would have a screen with the same pixel counts as the current iPad. Many apps would only require minor tweaking.


I personally don't think 7" is a particularly bad idea, but in almost all cases it would require developers to write specific versions for it.

I disagree, I would have to say that the vast majority of the apps out there, written to the newer APIs will work very well. Some tweaking may be required but I dont see a big deal.


But what will NOT happen will be the simple release of a 7 incher intended to simply run blown up iPhone or shrunk down iPad apps.

IOS doesn't work that way! Elements drawn on screen do not use pixels but rather real dimensions. Beyond that Apple is continually updating its APIs to make differences in screen size less of an issue.


100% will not happen. And only Apple can decide if the risk of fragmentation and dilution is worth it.

100% is a huge over commitment. I see no reason for Apple not to offer something in a smaller size. All they need is the will to do so.

mrsir2009
Oct 19, 2011, 03:33 AM
I might buy one if its any cheaper than the current iPad. It would complement my 13" MBP and 21.5" iMac nicely :)

ll PiStoNs ll
Oct 19, 2011, 04:30 AM
The screen and memory are like 1/2 the manufacturing cost of the iPad.

A smaller panel and lower memory (base of 16GB) would drastically reduce the price.

Not to mention the prices of components falling since the last iPad manufacturing cost estimate came out.

I would guess that as there are samples being sent out - Apple is toying with the idea at this point. Seeing if they can come up with something that is profitable. Not meaning its a 100% guarantee.

Agreed^^
If they dont do the iphone legacy/old model permanent price drop thing, I could see this. Maybe they'll leave out 3g on the 7'' and keep it on the 10'' (kinda like ipod touch vs. iphone)
I kind of see the ipad becoming a product line like the macbook line and less like the iphone or ipod line. Cheaper smaller entry level with less features (macbook or mb air), more expensive more features (mb pro)

Heres a wild guess. 2 models:

1. A 7.85'' iPad, with a Matte Black or White plastic case, no 3g, no siri. 16 gb 299, 32gb 399. Call it the iPad. Targeted towards competing with ebooks readers, fire, etc. Perfect for schools, college students who dont want to lug around a macbook and just want to follow slides in class, people who wouldnt /dont need the current etc.
2. A current (9.7'') sized iPad 3, aluminum case, 3G STANDARD, siri, etc. 16gb 449, 32 gb 549, 64gb 649... Call it the iPad PRO :p Same market as they have now.

hstewart
Oct 19, 2011, 08:22 AM
Here is my thoughts

I personally do not care for smaller iPad - however - if Apple could do it at significant cost reduction - I think it would help. People often claim that that Apples are too expensive - especially iPads and this will help that

I would actually like a bigger version of iPad - but this is probably aim at specific market - it would be useful for graphic artists. Even better an iMacPad which would have the full power of say the MacBook AIR but in size of slightly larger than iPad - this would be able to run Photoshop CS. With up and coming Intel IvyBridge processors - this could be possible.

Going to smaller screen and especially higher resolution is bad idea, even now with iPad 2 - I have to used to zoom feature when reading - but that might be just I am getting older.

Digital Skunk
Oct 19, 2011, 08:26 AM
Looking at the mockup, and comparing it to the iPad on my desk . . . I'd have to say that 7.85" would be a bit too tiny. Kind of like those really large phone/really small tablet devices.

hstewart
Oct 19, 2011, 08:28 AM
1. A 7.85'' iPad, with a Matte Black or White plastic case, no 3g, no siri. 16 gb 299, 32gb 399. Call it the iPad. Targeted towards competing with ebooks readers, fire, etc. Perfect for schools, college students who dont want to lug around a macbook and just want to follow slides in class, people who wouldnt /dont need the current etc.
2. A current (9.7'') sized iPad 3, aluminum case, 3G STANDARD, siri, etc. 16gb 449, 32 gb 549, 64gb 649... Call it the iPad PRO :p Same market as they have now.


7.85 iPad Mini
9.7 iPad 3
14 iPad PRO
14 IvyBridge iMacPad run OS X

NuMystic
Oct 19, 2011, 08:56 AM
I would buy a 6-8" iPad in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd even pay more for it.

I've used the original a fair bit, and it's unwieldy size and weight has kept me from buying one. If Apple doesn't have a smaller one out in the next 18 months I'll be jumping ship to an android tablet even though I love my iMac, iPod, and iPhone.

PracticalMac
Oct 19, 2011, 09:17 AM
Umm yeah, that's where I go back to Steve's saying "no one wants to watch video on a screen that small".

Except I actually mean it!

You might, but nor for Apple.
They came out with a video playing iPod on a miniscule 2.5" screen a few months later.

Friscohoya
Oct 19, 2011, 11:46 AM
Im actually waiting for the iPad to get bigger. I think the size of an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper is ideal.No shrinking of documents and many people already carry around folios. If they go smaller they will call it an iPod touch and I could see them get to 5" maybe. I still think it needs to fit in pockets and purses (obviously that would be a large pocket, but I think people that would jump at that are children for games and women for purses so pocket matters less).

gerrian
Oct 19, 2011, 06:09 PM
Apple is not one to sit back and lose a market they created.
Of course we'll have to wait and see, particularly the price point. It may be a bit more $s than suggested, but I'm sure the Apple quality will justify it.

The other day I looked at another low priced eBook reader, unfortunately the first demo unit I tried was frozen, as was the case when I tried an earlier version of same make reader. It was $150, but I felt $50 would be plenty for that small B&W reader; if it worked !

vitzr
Oct 19, 2011, 06:27 PM
Drenched in fear, the fanbois are sweating now. Months ago there were endless threads trashing the "useless 7" size"...

Already there's some people carefully backing away from that stance, knowing they may have to eat their words.

As I see it the 7" is an excellent size, although another choice will cripple many fanbois decision making mechanism, it's a good move.

Whenever Apple even breathes "change" it really gets hilarious in here. :)

eye
Oct 19, 2011, 06:31 PM
A 7" tablet is dumb. That would be the first idiotic major release apple has made in a while if it's true. But I don't think it's true.

gerrian
Oct 20, 2011, 02:11 AM
Stupid idea. If it doesn't fit in your pocket, don't worry about the size.

I couldn't agree more.
An 8" tablet just doesn't make sense.
Apple has been known to throw up diversions, to keep the competition off track.

gus6464
Oct 20, 2011, 02:19 AM
I would trade my iPad 2 for a 7 in iPad in a heartbeat.

hokieputter
Oct 20, 2011, 03:32 PM
i think some of you guys may be missing the boat completely here. i think there clearly would be a market for smaller than ~10" tablets. tablets are becoming incredibly popular as people are finding more and more uses for them in their daily lives. let's be honest, iPad's are selling like hot cakes. but the key to there being a market for this smaller size tablet, is actually having high performance tablets on platforms that have a plethora of available app choices. look around, there is not a single 7"ish tablet currently available that meets both of those requirements.

sure samsung is coming out with the galaxy tab 7 plus and the galaxy tab 7.7, both of which look to be rock solid devices. however, at this point android tablets are still in their infancy stage as they've really only been around for roughly a year. the higher end ones all have very impressive hardware, but are seriously limited by the number of available tablet specific apps. with regards to the kindle fire, is that really what people want? maybe, but it's definitely not what i'd want. i'm sure they'll sell their fare share given the price point. but...

i'm in the market for a tablet. i would like a 7"ish device on a platform that has loads of apps to choose from. but currently there are no options that meet my needs. i know android app development will come around, but that will take time.

so here's to a non-stripped down 7"ish iPad. no one wants some cheap version. give us all of the goods and we'll pay for it. $249-349 for 8GB-16GB, A5, same resolution as iPad2, throw in the iPhone4 camera, etc. they would sell the hell out of something like this.

(this is coming from someone completely unbiased towards anything apple/android/whatever. the only apple product i own is a very early generation 60GB iPod. nor do i have any android devices. i unfortunately am stuck with a work provided POS blackberry. but that's a whole different story...)

hleewell
Oct 21, 2011, 04:21 PM
I would very much welcome the idea of Apple releasing a smaller iPad which is more portable than the 9.7" iPad. Most folks who buy iPad keep their iPad at home which is a shame. And many has envied the serious screen real estate that HTC & Sony Xperia & Samsung Galaxy Note have for Android users. A smaller iPad with Siri and good Internet connection could be a formidable digital assistant. No more peering through the tiny & cramped 3.5" iPhone when looking at a map, no more missing a detail in a photo image, no more squinting when browsing the Internet, no more cramped keypad, no more "spread-out" keypad, no more headaches trying to fit inside your favorite messenger bag. Apple would get around releasing a smaller iPad, an iPad Mini if you will. They are just not going to follow your cry-baby now-now-now timetable.