Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:25 PM   #26
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
I wonder if Apple or its fanboys will admit that holding back from giving consumers the choice for a smaller tablet was a mistake.

I wonder how many Apple fanboys will still bash the Playbook's size.....
wikus is offline   -5 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:25 PM   #27
emaja
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
I'd be VERY interested in a smaller iPad for use as an iTunes remote. The iPhone is too small for easy browsing of my music library.
emaja is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:25 PM   #28
currentinterest
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Perhaps this is the remote control that will come with the Apple HDTV. It could also serve as a mini iPad, but would only be available as remote with the new TV.
currentinterest is offline   -3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:27 PM   #29
nuckinfutz
macrumors 603
 
nuckinfutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Middle Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by till View Post
Still no. This is not a product that Apple wants to make. A lower price (to get anywhere near the Kindle Fire) undoubtedly means lower profit margins, and it would cannibalize sales of the iPad. It's another damn platform for iOS developers to support, and there's no way to sell it as magical and revolutionary.

Not gonna happen.
Tim Cook said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Cook
“And the way that we already view cannibalization is, we prefer we do it than have somebody else do it.”
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-...dustry-477883/

I'm not sure Apple cares about cannibalization as long as they're in control. The developers don't have to make much changes. The reason why 7.85 is chosen as the screen size is because it's the same 4:3 ratio 1024 x 768 screen which means the UI elements get smaller but developers do not have to create new artwork.
nuckinfutz is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:28 PM   #30
HishamAkhtar
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
I'm skeptical.
HishamAkhtar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:30 PM   #31
kiljoy616
macrumors 68000
 
kiljoy616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Not going to happen, but keep dreaming year after year. After Retina comes out no one is going to care about smaller or less capacity. Go buy a dell if you want that.
__________________
AppleTV 2 + Ipad 2 64 GB (My jukebox) + iMac 27" i5 2.8Ghz 256GB SSD + 1TD HD + Macbook Air 2011 13" SSD 128GB iPhone 4S White
kiljoy616 is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:31 PM   #32
Xtremehkr
macrumors 68000
 
Xtremehkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
I just don't see any chance of this happening, there isn't that much of a difference between the two to require two models. Just because other companies are doing it doesn't mean that Apple will.
__________________
i7 iMac, iPod Nano. iPod Touch. 3TB Time Machine. iPhone 4. 15" MacBook Pro i7 SSD. TV3.
Xtremehkr is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:32 PM   #33
shanmugam
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blazer town!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
I wonder if Apple or its fanboys will admit that holding back from giving consumers the choice for a smaller tablet was a mistake.

I wonder how many Apple fanboys will still bash the Playbook's size.....
only handful of 7" tablets have a good resolution or at least 1024x768. not sure about playbook though.

I think it is eventually it is software.
__________________
iPhone 5| iPad 4 | iPad mini | Nexus 7 | Kindle
Nov2012| Mac Mini| Core i7 2.3GHz QC | 330 240GB USB 3 | Viewsonic 21.5" 1920x1080
Sep2012|Toshiba 14" | i5 2.5Ghz 1366x768 |Win 7 | x-25M 120GB
shanmugam is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:33 PM   #34
nuckinfutz
macrumors 603
 
nuckinfutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Middle Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtremehkr View Post
I just don't see any chance of this happening, there isn't that much of a difference between the two to require two models. Just because other companies are doing it doesn't mean that Apple will.
Apple will do a small tablet right. I think 16x9 in a small tablet is silly. I'd be ok with a 4:3 nigh 8" tablet.
nuckinfutz is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:35 PM   #35
kresh
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a strange land, waiting on the arrival of my King!
but, but, but you have to file your fingers down because DJ (Dead Jobs) said so.

hmm. If the Kindle Fire and other 7" tabs are having no effect on Apple, as claimed by Cook, why is Apple building this device?
kresh is offline   -7 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:35 PM   #36
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post
only handful of 7" tablets have a good resolution or at least 1024x768. not sure about playbook though.

I think it is eventually it is software.
1024x768 translates to 4:3. That aspect ratio is a disgrace.

I've no idea why Apple is using it. 16x10 should be the standard.
wikus is offline   -10 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:36 PM   #37
shanmugam
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blazer town!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
1024x768 translates to 4:3.

That aspect ratio is disgrace. I've no idea why Apple is using it. 16x10 should be the standard.
what is that resolution (just to understand) is it 1024 x600?
__________________
iPhone 5| iPad 4 | iPad mini | Nexus 7 | Kindle
Nov2012| Mac Mini| Core i7 2.3GHz QC | 330 240GB USB 3 | Viewsonic 21.5" 1920x1080
Sep2012|Toshiba 14" | i5 2.5Ghz 1366x768 |Win 7 | x-25M 120GB
shanmugam is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:40 PM   #38
nuckinfutz
macrumors 603
 
nuckinfutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Middle Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
1024x768 translates to 4:3. That aspect ratio is a disgrace.

I've no idea why Apple is using it. 16x10 should be the standard.
Because most web sites are based on a 1024x768 and not 16x10. The iPad is still predominantly a productivity tool rather than a media tool for movies.
nuckinfutz is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:46 PM   #39
iWonderwhy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
I wonder if Apple or its fanboys will admit that holding back from giving consumers the choice for a smaller tablet was a mistake.

I wonder how many Apple fanboys will still bash the Playbook's size.....

I don't think the Playbook was bashed for its size, it was bashed for having to have a Blackberry to access native calendar and email apps (which was finally fixed with the latest OS update), and a lack of 3rd party apps from its app store.

The Playbook wasn't doing all that great, and subsequently, RIM slashed prices on Playbooks, and took a half-billion dollar hit doing so.


I don't think Apple has to acknowledge any "mistake," RIM does.
__________________
"As a Mac user, I love working with windows. Uh, I mean, windows, not Windows."-Craig Federighi, Back to the Mac Keynote 2010.
iWonderwhy is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:50 PM   #40
MythicFrost
macrumors 68040
 
MythicFrost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
1024x768 translates to 4:3. That aspect ratio is a disgrace.

I've no idea why Apple is using it. 16x10 should be the standard.
Why? Because it's the best aspect ratio for a device designed for all types of use. It's better for web browsing, it's better for reading books, it's good for gaming and okay for movies, and most important of all, it's best for building apps.

At 16:9 or 16:10, it's too tall and too skinny in portrait, and in landscape, it's too short and too wide. However 4:3 is really just perfect.

>>>>>

I don't believe this report. I think it's wrong. I can't see Apple ever doing this.
MythicFrost is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:55 PM   #41
dkersten
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
I'm gonna go with a 7.0 iPad, 7.7 iPad, 7.85 iPad, 9.7 iPad, 10.1 iPad, and 11.0 iPad. Wait, there is already a company that does this?
dkersten is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 11:59 PM   #42
wizard
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: May 2003
Business would lap such a tablet up by the thousands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YeahBuddy View Post
I used to really doubt this, but with the success of the Kindle Fire I actually think it'd be a smart move. Consumers are buying the Fire because of it's price point, not because of its specs and user experience. If Apple releases a Kindle Fire competitor, they could truly dominate the tablet market.

I personally wouldn't be interested in a 7.85" tablet, but at $249 you have to also wonder what will happen to their 8GB iPod Touch.
Size has a lot to do with the Fires success. Everybody dismisses that but it is fact.
wizard is offline   -3 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2012, 12:01 AM   #43
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post
what is that resolution (just to understand) is it 1024 x600?
The typical LCD monitor at that aspect ratio is usually a 24" monitor; 1920x1200 pixels. About 10% taller than a typical 16x9 HDTV.

For movies and gaming, 16x10 wins big time. For reading, I would imaging it'd be a lot better as the 'page' would be taller, much more like a real book.

If you've ever seen the playbook, it'd be very similar, just a little taller when in landscape mode.
wikus is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2012, 12:01 AM   #44
cvaldes
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: somewhere else
LOL, this site is turning into an SNL parody of itself.

What next? Matte-screen G5-powered iPad running OS X Leopard for $99?
cvaldes is offline   -3 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2012, 12:05 AM   #45
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MythicFrost View Post
Why? Because it's the best aspect ratio for a device designed for all types of use. It's better for web browsing, it's better for reading books, it's good for gaming and okay for movies, and most important of all, it's best for building apps.

At 16:9 or 16:10, it's too tall and too skinny in portrait, and in landscape, it's too short and too wide. However 4:3 is really just perfect.

>>>>>

I don't believe this report. I think it's wrong. I can't see Apple ever doing this.
4:3 is an old and dated aspect ratio, going back 10+ years to old CRT monitors and tube television sets.

16:10 would be far superior for movies, tv shows and other video content, especially since basically everything now is either 16x9 or 16x10.

For gaming, this isnt even debatable.

For reading, a huge majority of books were all much taller than wide on a single page, and this is especially true with newspapers.

4:3 may work for you. The reality is, its gotta go.

Personally, I don't care for tablets, I think theyre all useless toys that fail miserably to replace my laptop. But if I was going to get any one of them, it'd be either a playbook (i like its size and aspect ratio, as well as it is quite fast) or an Asus Transformer... and I'd probably go with a Transformer seeing how much more there is available on Android as well as the ability to root and flash the device with a custom rom.
wikus is offline   -6 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2012, 12:06 AM   #46
Patriot24
macrumors 68000
 
Patriot24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Not this again. Gruber should've never started this rumor last year.

I guess I don't see the draw of a 7" model for Apple at this point in the game. The fact is that no one else has yet produced a tablet that can go toe to toe with the iPad (no, not even the Fire). Apple doesn't need to address a competitor that doesn't yet exist.

I travel a lot and have yet to see a 7" device of any kind outside of a few ereaders here and there (even those seem to be scarce all of a sudden), let alone a Fire. I think the notion that the Fire is this huge threat to Apple is completely fabricated.
__________________
iphone + air + ipad + time capsule + classic + shuffle + tv
Patriot24 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2012, 12:09 AM   #47
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckinfutz View Post
Because most web sites are based on a 1024x768 and not 16x10. The iPad is still predominantly a productivity tool rather than a media tool for movies.
Won't matter, 16x10 gives you extra screen space. Nobody has any problems browsing the net on their macbooks or imacs, the screens are all 16x10. If your logic were to hold true, individuals browsing on a laptop or desktop would be complaining.

Websites don't 'magically' worsen with more screen real estate.
wikus is offline   -5 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2012, 12:11 AM   #48
shanmugam
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blazer town!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
The typical LCD monitor at that aspect ratio is usually a 24" monitor; 1920x1200 pixels. About 10% taller than a typical 16x9 HDTV.

For movies and gaming, 16x10 wins big time. For reading, I would imaging it'd be a lot better as the 'page' would be taller, much more like a real book.

If you've ever seen the playbook, it'd be very similar, just a little taller when in landscape mode.
thanks for the explanation.
__________________
iPhone 5| iPad 4 | iPad mini | Nexus 7 | Kindle
Nov2012| Mac Mini| Core i7 2.3GHz QC | 330 240GB USB 3 | Viewsonic 21.5" 1920x1080
Sep2012|Toshiba 14" | i5 2.5Ghz 1366x768 |Win 7 | x-25M 120GB
shanmugam is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2012, 12:14 AM   #49
faheemsaeed
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by pewra View Post
Not gonna happen.
^^ THIS
There is a little science behind weight distribution and size of a product, a 7.85 inch 1Kg tablet would be easy to hold in one hand than a 1Kg 9.7 inch tablet, then again "Not gonna happen"
faheemsaeed is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2012, 12:16 AM   #50
cvaldes
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: somewhere else
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
4:3 is an old and dated aspect ratio, going back 10+ years to old CRT monitors and tube television sets.
Actually, the 4:3 aspect ratio goes all the way back to the era of silent film. The addition of an optical track next to the image changed everything and eventually the Academy ratio of 1.375:1 was settled on in 1929.

The 4:3 aspect ratio was repopularized with television since it could adequately broadcast films shot in the 1.375:1 Academy ratio.
cvaldes is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mass Production of 4.7-Inch iPhone 6 Set for July, 5.5-Inch Version Beginning in September MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 269 Apr 18, 2014 10:39 PM
Apple Suppliers Said to Begin Production of 12.9-Inch Retina Display for Early 2014 'iPad Pro' MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 495 Dec 10, 2013 07:30 AM
Apple Sourcing Components for 17-Watt Power Supply, Speculation Focuses on Rumored 13-Inch iPad MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 108 Sep 7, 2013 04:32 AM
iPhone 5S Production Rumored to Have Begun MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 308 Apr 10, 2013 09:32 AM
7.85-Inch iPad to Ramp Up Production in September at Foxconn Brazil MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 317 Nov 27, 2012 01:15 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC