Why a 7.85" Screen for the Rumored 'iPad Mini' Makes Sense

I don't care about the hardware anymore.
It's good.

If Apple wants to get people excited they need to totally overhaul iOS

It needs a file system that we can store documents from eMails and things like that and find them all in one place.

Also the endless rows of icons is pretty dumb. It's disorganized unless you spend hours dealing with wiggling icons.

I also want to see some live icons.

Fix all that before we start talking about different sizes

newagemac said:

When Apple and Jobs said it was the smallest usable screen size they were referring specifically to apps. As Job stated, any smaller and you wouldn't really be able to create apps that were any different than phone apps.

What makes the iPad so nice is not just that the apps are larger. The apps on the iPad are actually designed using a different UI that better takes advantage of the screen size.

If you look at the nicer universal iPad apps, they are quite different from their iPhone counterparts in design and functionality. They aren't just simply larger versions of phone apps. The smaller devices competing with the iPad don't allow enough room to offer anything more than just scaled up phone apps.

Click to expand...

I get this argument, but rather than explain why it's wrong, I'll show you with a picture I made:



[This is using the 7.85" iPad mockup that Macrumors made, with an iPod Touch laid on top of it for comparison.]

You can't tell me that it's a coincidence that a 7.85" iPad has precisely the same sized tap targets for UI elements as an iPhone and iPod Touch. The best argument that iPad-optimized apps scaled down to a 7.85" iOS device is usable is Apple's own devices. For some reason, no one has really made this point yet despite the rumor being around for months.

msonic77 said:

Wirelessly posted

I say people happily will. One condition "if" - Retina display + possible iPhone4-4S ridge side design.

Click to expand...

I think it also would need to offer a great camera like the iPhone 4S/new iPad has and with a flash. You could make it more of the mobile 'photo/recording' device. You wouldn't look as silly compared to holding up an iPad and would have a much better viewer window for working. Could fit in your jacket/coat pocket or just a lot easier to carry around.

I think this 7" size is the perfect item for this type of work.

Personally, would be nice to give it voice plan also but I know that's not happening..but as long as its wifi/4G, I'd be all over it.

4" - 7" - 10" ...I think honestly it works for all of them. To each their own.

MythicFrost said:

I don't agree with this part. If you have a 44x44 button in an app on an iPad, and then you run that app on a 7.85 inch 1024x768 iPad, it's going to be roughly 30% smaller physically on the screen. That may make it difficult to tap, especially for those with larger fingers. And on top of that, if apps use some smaller controls, then it'll be even more difficult.

Click to expand...

Again the proof is in the pudding. Look at the above picture. If the iPad interface is unusable at that size, then so must be the iPod Touch and iPhone according to the same logic.

Slow news day, obviously!

jcooperman said:

They absolutely reference this in pixels not points. Why would they give you the diagonal pixels per inch as a guideline. Makes no sense. See below, the author doesn't know what a point is.

The author of this article doesn't know anything about PPI. It is not calculated by simply taking the pixelWidth and dividing by widthInInches. You have to calculate the diagonal in pixels and divide by the diagonal in inches.

In other words, sqrt(pixelHeight^2 + pixelWidth^2) / diagonalInches = PPI

sqrt(1024^2 + 768^2) / 7.85 =
sqrt(1,638,400) / 7.85 =
1280 / 7.85 = 163.057 PPI

It is coincidence that they got 163 PPI from their ridiculous calculation. Get the facts straight before writing.

Click to expand...

So you went from pixels on the sides to pixels on a diagonal, and they went from inches on the diagonal to inches on the sides.

It is not a coincidence, it's called Pythagorean theorem

Works for any resolution, any dimensions, any aspect ratio, as long as the screen is a rectangle.

appleguy123 said:

I don't think that this product will ever exist, unless Apple really cuts their margins. The Kindle Fire has the brand awareness in this size area. I don't think that people will buy the iPad mini unless its ≤$249. That leaves some room for the "Apple Tax" but I doubt that people will pay much more.

Click to expand...

Ah but see that's the genius of a 7.85" device with a 1024x768 resolution. The way screens are made is that they are manufactured from large sheets of display material, and then cut down to the desired size. If Apple's manufacturing has mastered production of 163 ppi screens by producing iPhones and iPods in such high volumes, then those large "sheets" of displays can then be multipurposed into a display (cut into 7.85" rectangles) for an "iPad mini", thus completely avoiding the costs associated with retooling and manufacturing ramp-up.

AKA this has Tim Cook written all over it; it's an extremely clever way for Apple to sell $200-250 iPads and still make high margins, while Amazon struggles selling the Kindle Fire at a loss.

(And no, this 7.85" device isn't meant to compete with the Fire, it's meant to replace the iPod Touch, which conspicuously was hasn't been upgraded in almost 2 years. This is going to be the "new iPod", and it's meant to finally give iPhone owners an actual reason to buy an iPod. Consider it inversed-cannibalism.)

tl;dr: Apple can actually make a 7.85" device, price it at $200-250, and still make a healthy margin.

soundr said:

However: If 10" is the smallest usable screen size, how do you explain the popularity of the iPhone?

Click to expand...

Steve Jobs said 10" is the minimum screen size for a tablet concept, not a phone.

leukotriene said:

tl;dr: Apple can actually make a 7.85" device, price it at $200-250, and still make a healthy margin.

Click to expand...

What's healthy?

Could they even make this thing for around $150 in parts?

The problem I see is this: if you could get "an Apple iPad" for $250.... not many consumers would go for the $500 iPad anymore...

But if the margin on the $250 iPad is decent enough... they'll certainly sell enough of them to make it up in volume.

One thing's for sure... a $250 iPad would effectively destroy any other tablet's chance at survival. And that would be fun to watch!

Can't wait for a mini iPad! Checking porn at my desk at work will be far more surreptitious..

lozpop said:

Steve Jobs said 10" is the minimum screen size for a tablet concept, not a phone.

Click to expand...

SJ is famous for saying something is a bad idea or deny that he's working on something just to be THE ONE to do it.

Perhaps 10 WAS the minimum for the technology at the time. It doesn't mean he wasn't toying with the idea.

Michael Scrip said:

The problem I see is this: if you could get "an Apple iPad" for $250.... not many consumers would go for the $500 iPad anymore...

Click to expand...

That's why it's going to be marketed as an "iPod" and not an iPad

When they present it during the keynote, Phil Schiller will channel Jobs and spend a good 15-20 minutes explaining why this device is not a tablet, but rather a dedicated mobile entertainment device, and making it clear where this product fits in our lives. In other words. At 7.85", it out-iPods the iPod Touch itself by being a better video player, gaming device, one-handed book reading device, etc. But two-handed operation, typing, productivity, content creation, etc. is better on an iPad.

It's like the difference between a Mac mini and a Mac Pro; they both are essentially computers that plug into external monitors and do the same things, but when you think about how people use them, they're suited for vastly different purposes.

tl;dr: if the iPad is a post-PC device, then the "new iPod" is a post-iPod, post-Kindle, and post-Gameboy device and will be marketed as such.

Wirelessly posted

This is crazy. Make it 3/4 of the size with same resolution but denser pixels, and that meets apple's guidelines for minimum sizes of a tapable element?

I can tap smaller things as long as the ppi

I wouldn't want it. I chose the iPad since I wanted a "comfortable iOS" for longer sessions. The current iPad is large enough to be very portable, yet very usable. It's such a relief to go from an iPhone to an iPad when browsing. I wouldn't get the same feeling on a much smaller device. I think you're better off if choosing, in this case. Big or small - in between offer you to advantages of none. With a price only slightly higher than the current iPod, it could sell pretty well though.

ALL SPECULATION AND WILD ASSED GUESSING.

lets wait until there is [perhaps] something real to criticize

I personally would buy the smaller iPad immediately when it becomes available! I already bought the iPad2 for my mum. And although she loves it a lot, I personally found it too big for comfortable use (even for ebook reading). And it's especially too big and heavy for my kids. So smaller/lighter iPad is something I'm impatiently waiting for.

I'm sure they have one in the labs. It makes sense for many reasons: a smaller tablet would make it lighter and easier to hold for an extended period, better suited for everyday travelling, and still be large enough to be offer usable real estate. That Steve Jobs claimed otherwise is really of no significance; the guy was known for being a pathological salesman with a somewhat distorted view of the truth.

However, it doesn't make much business sense as of right now. The iPad is the most-selling device, and will remain so for some time. God knows how Windows 8 tablets will be received, but at the moment Apple stands little to gain from differentiating their line. Having one model simplifies their product chain, driving down costs and increasing margins. The iPad 2 is offered to cost-conscious customers. Apple can afford to lose those who absolutely need increased portability and can live with Android.

Let's see where the market stands in a years time. I doubt they will release a smaller version before then.

why does it matter if its non-retina? Iphone came out first in non-retina, ipod touch came out first in non-retina, ipad came out first in non-retina. No issue with a first device launch focusing on the benefits of the smaller screen size etc, and then saving retina for a later update. Also a good way to perhaps reuse ipad 2 internals to save costs.

163 ppi is also the resolution of the current iPod classic, whose screen is exactly half the size and pixel count of that of a 3GS.

they are using 163 ppi panels which they could cut at about any size they want. makes sense from a sourcing perspective.

So the current iPad's screen elements are BIGGER than the iPhone's?

What does the pixel density have to do with the size of anything on screen anyway? As the transition from non-retina devices to retina ones has shown, it has no effect on interface element size since you can always upscale and downscale elements via software.

Why would Apple use a non-retina display after transitioning all of their devices to retina? That would be stupid, wouldn't it? What would be their reason? Couldn't they just use a smaller screen with the same pixel density as the iPad, just less pixels in total?

As for the resolution of the iPad Mini then not being a multiple of the normal iPad's resolution, who cares? They can use downsampling with interpolation to make things look smooth. Downsampling is not a problem, it doesn't decrease quality.

And I'm pretty sure the thinking behind the 44 points is not to count how many pixels that means, but to have a stable, well-defined physical size to elements even on screens with varying pixel size and density. I guess they could have used millimeters, but that would never directly translate into an integer number of pixels.

With the iPad's popularity being what it is, the most important question for Apple is not if or how this smaller iPad would be possible but how much it would canibalise the full-size iPad sales.

I have no idea why anybody would want that though?

There have a lot of changed at apple recently, changes that differ to how sj ran it.

You can't live in the past but I worry if apple might loose its bravado, it's dominance and untouchable status.

Apple release products no one else has. A mini iPad will be a response to a Samsung tab or probably more the kindle fire. We don't need it apple. It's never going to be any more portable, so what's the point. It will cannibalise the sales of the original iPad and the smaller screen does give a less rich user experience.

The iPad is perfect as it is, dont loose focus and bloat the product lines, innovate again.

Here's what Jony Ive has to say about an iPad Mini