IF the iPad's sole function, was to play video, then 16:9 would be perfect.
Fortunately, Apple wasn't stupid enough to do that. 16:9 or 16:10 works great for landscape video, but sucks for everything else.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Production of 7.85-Inch iPad Rumored for 3Q 2012 at the Earliest
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fortunately, Apple wasn't stupid enough to do that. 16:9 or 16:10 works great for landscape video, but sucks for everything else.
Agreed. 4:3 might be outdated for TVs but 3:4 is much better than 10:16 or 9:16 for reading documents.
If anything, the aspect ratio is even more appropriate now that iPad will become more readable in portrait with the higher resolution display. Sometimes I have to turn my iPad 2 to landscape just to get a better text legibility but that shouldn't be a problem with the new resolution.
Got to love the rumor mill!
Hey, did you hear that Microsoft released Windows 8? It was a HUGE announcement. Saw it on TV. The TV guy talked about how it had a nice fresh look, worked on big screens, and finished with . . . "Apple was announcing the iPad 3 on Wednesday." It was one of those moments where you know the people of Redmond cried!
Hey, did you hear that Microsoft released Windows 8? It was a HUGE announcement. Saw it on TV. The TV guy talked about how it had a nice fresh look, worked on big screens, and finished with . . . "Apple was announcing the iPad 3 on Wednesday." It was one of those moments where you know the people of Redmond cried!
My iPad is great for home use, but I also wanted a more mobile tablet. Had a 7 inch iPad been available I'd have snapped it up.
Instead I got a PlayBook and love it.
Instead I got a PlayBook and love it.
Definitely. I've played with the Fire and whatever other widescreen tablet they had in Sams Club and it is great for movies, but lousy for everything else. You only have to play with the Kindle App for a few minutes to realize how wonderful it is to switch between single and dual page mode on an iPad versus Fire. It is like having a built in zoom on the iPad.
Anyone who appreciates the portrait mode of the iPad while reading book, magazines, certain web pages, will appreciate that the current 10" form factor makes a lot of sense. I only use landscape mode while watching videos or using iTunes. Steve was right about the iPad size, but the iPod Touch size was too small.
A smaller iPad is a bad idea - look at the Android market - total confusion with so many different styles and sizes. I like that the fact the iPad is the "iPad"
Yes I have no problem with them improving it, higher resolution screens, faster cpu, LTE, thinner body but keep the form factor the same.
If they did a smaller body, I would prefer them do it to iPod Touch. So it competes with eReaders - also lower price abilities for cheaper unit. But not not so close to size of iPad.
Yes I have no problem with them improving it, higher resolution screens, faster cpu, LTE, thinner body but keep the form factor the same.
If they did a smaller body, I would prefer them do it to iPod Touch. So it competes with eReaders - also lower price abilities for cheaper unit. But not not so close to size of iPad.
8GB iPad2 for $399. Why not. Many people use iPad just to browse internet. They usually don't need more than 8GB.
for those of you saying you've "never seen one a Fire in the wild"
you clearly do not work on or near a college campus... since Christmas i've seen WAY way more Kindle Fire's being used all over campus than iPads.
plus I know 3 people who got one for Christmas and nobody in my immediate family has an iPad
is it a giant threat to the iPad? no. is it a market that Apple would love to have a good share of? you bet.
personally while I have an iPad 2 through work, it's too large for me to take out and use on my 45 minute bus commute (morning & afternoon), but i would certainly buy a smaller iPad for that if it were to come out (i see a lot of Kindle's and other eReaders on the bus, but rarely iPads)
you clearly do not work on or near a college campus... since Christmas i've seen WAY way more Kindle Fire's being used all over campus than iPads.
plus I know 3 people who got one for Christmas and nobody in my immediate family has an iPad
is it a giant threat to the iPad? no. is it a market that Apple would love to have a good share of? you bet.
personally while I have an iPad 2 through work, it's too large for me to take out and use on my 45 minute bus commute (morning & afternoon), but i would certainly buy a smaller iPad for that if it were to come out (i see a lot of Kindle's and other eReaders on the bus, but rarely iPads)
I agree with your point. If Apple wants to move into the Education market or into the Asian market a smaller iPad that weighs less and fits smaller hands plus being cheaper would make some sense . I don't trust Digitimes though, this is probably click bait. It seems that the rumors get craziest in the week before an event so I generally try to ignore them and adopt a wait and see attitude.
K-6 ed unit to coincide with school year start. Also for consumers with smaller hands and bodies.
Rocketman
I'd buy one. I have a Kindle Fire now, but I prefer iOS to Android. I vastly prefer Apple's integration with Exchange server to what is available in the Android market. The current iPad is both too large and too expensive for what I need in a tablet, which is why I chose the Kindle.
Resolution Unlikely
If this device existed as stated, it would have a smaller ppi than the original iPhone. It appears to me that Apple is done with low pixel density displays.
Rumored Small iPad: 1024*768 @ 7.85 = 163.06 ppi
iPad 1 & 2: 1024*768 @ 9.7 = 131.96 ppi
iPad 3: 2048*1536 @ 9.7 = 263.92 ppi
iPhone: 480x320 @ 3.5 = 164.83 ppi
iPhone 4: 960*640 @ 3.5 = 329.65 ppi
It makes more sense and seems more likely to me to double the iPhone 4's resolution in both directions, thus:
More Likely Small iPad: 1920x1280 @ 7.85 = 293.96 ppi
This would be slightly higher than the iPad 3, but slightly less than the iPhone 4. Right where it should be. Plus developers still get the whole benefit of being able to easily remake apps by doubling the pixels on their iPhone 4 app screens.
It's just logical. Can I get some props for that at least?
If this device existed as stated, it would have a smaller ppi than the original iPhone. It appears to me that Apple is done with low pixel density displays.
Rumored Small iPad: 1024*768 @ 7.85 = 163.06 ppi
iPad 1 & 2: 1024*768 @ 9.7 = 131.96 ppi
iPad 3: 2048*1536 @ 9.7 = 263.92 ppi
iPhone: 480x320 @ 3.5 = 164.83 ppi
iPhone 4: 960*640 @ 3.5 = 329.65 ppi
It makes more sense and seems more likely to me to double the iPhone 4's resolution in both directions, thus:
More Likely Small iPad: 1920x1280 @ 7.85 = 293.96 ppi
This would be slightly higher than the iPad 3, but slightly less than the iPhone 4. Right where it should be. Plus developers still get the whole benefit of being able to easily remake apps by doubling the pixels on their iPhone 4 app screens.
It's just logical. Can I get some props for that at least?
I don't really care about the marketing issues regarding a smaller iPad.
What I do know is that I am not interested in the larger 10" tablet format.
I would jump at an iPad Mini (7.85") for its form factor.... as long as it still had some reasonable specs, ie: good screen resolution and 16 meg of memory.
I would not be interested in a stripped down iPad that is put out solely to compete with a Kindle Fire. I don't mind paying significantly more than a Kindle for a real tablet not just an ereader.
I think there is a rationale for a smaller tablet (notwithstanding Jobs' opposition) and not just to compete with Kindle.
Right now I am holding off on buying a Rim Playbook in the hopes of an iPad Mini.
What I do know is that I am not interested in the larger 10" tablet format.
I would jump at an iPad Mini (7.85") for its form factor.... as long as it still had some reasonable specs, ie: good screen resolution and 16 meg of memory.
I would not be interested in a stripped down iPad that is put out solely to compete with a Kindle Fire. I don't mind paying significantly more than a Kindle for a real tablet not just an ereader.
I think there is a rationale for a smaller tablet (notwithstanding Jobs' opposition) and not just to compete with Kindle.
Right now I am holding off on buying a Rim Playbook in the hopes of an iPad Mini.
Aaaannnd we have a winner!
When I first saw this article I also dismissed it. But then I also came to view it from the iPod Touch angle. Suddenly it makes a lot if sense to me.
1, As has been mentioned before it works well with the whole education, iAuthor and back to school angle
2, It would be the perfect size to use as a game controller for an app enabled iTV
3, It would be just the perfect thing to launch as all those Windows 8 tablets enter the market.
4, Apple was quick to announce that the Fire does not eat into iPad sales but I expect that it has a noticeable effect on the iPT.
5, Did any one notice that the ipods received no love last go round?
6, estimated release time fits perfectly with all of the above.
If you ask me there are more reasons to do it than not
Agreed. You don't hold a monitor/tv in your hands, and the controls are either on the desk in front of you or held comfortably in your hand (except for when the remote has disappeared into the couch cushions, and you spend 5 minutes tearing apart the living room rather than get up and press the buttons on the TV itself. Can I get an "amen"??). Additionally, monitors are connected to true multitasking computers, so having extra space to the sides makes sense for both movies and multiple windows.
A tablet, however, is a full-screen, single-task-at-a-time device that IS held in your hands. I've played with the 16:9/16:10 variety, and they just feel awkward to me. Too tall in portrait, too wide in landscape. In a smaller size like the KF, it's a bit more manageable, physically--but still only really good for video. Web surfing is still more comfortable on 3:4, IMO.
Think of this: would you rather read a long document printed on 8.5x11 paper, or one printed on legal paper (8.5x14)? IMO, the longer legal paper is ungainly both to read and transport. And the numbers roughly play out to:
8.5x11=1:29:1
4:3=1.33:1
8.5x14=1.65:1
16:9=1.78:1
To compare, my beloved kindle screen (still my preferred device for novel reading) is 600x800--i.e., 4:3 (3:4
) ratio.-->iDv.
It would NOT be an iPod, then.
And why call it something other then iPad?
Well, maybe iNote (Pad).
functionally the iPad IS an iPod. It even has an iPod button just like my iPT
As for pocket-ability I too feel that that would be a loss. But for reading, gaming, remote controlling and browsing the larger screen provides a better experience.
Besides I think that Apple hopes this space will become a secondhand market for old iPhones that go off contract and get sold at upgrade time. They make more money off of new iPhones than iPod Touches.
I expect to see IOS backwards compatible to 4 generations starting with the iPhone 4