This is What a 7.85-Inch iPad Looks and Feels Like

[Can't Stop]

Neither would i, but they would certainly be better achieved on a 7" than a 3.5", just like those things would be better done on a 11" mba than a 9" iPad. Theres a tradeoff to everything. 9" trades of portability for use. 3.5" trades of use for portability. 7" would be no different. Still, it would do some things better than the 3.5", and provide higher portability than the 9". I really don't get the problem here. The 7" has a clear use case on its own, a use case neither the 3.5" nor the 9" can really fill. Especially not when taking other devices into consideration (e.g. a laptop already in the bag).

I personally don't see how 7.x" device would be that much more portable than existing 9.7" device. Even if you are running with this all day

it will feel pretty heavy at the end of the day.

And, even if 10" is the better size, that in itself is no reason not to offer the second-best size too. Evidently, iMacs come in different sizes, MacBook pros and airs too. Why need this be any different?

Because difference between 21.5" and 27" iMac is much smaller than difference between 9.7" and 7.x".

if it makes sense to make a smaller iPad it should make sense making a smaller Air too for example. Apple hasn't and won't be doing that.

 

[MythicFrost]

And the benefit of the cheaper device would be the ability to maintain a higher profit margin, while simultaneously expanding the product line increasing overall sales. The problem is not so much the iPad3 - that is a given. The problem is rather the lost opportunity in making a "nano" (or iPod maxi, for that matter).

The problem is though it wouldn't be that much cheaper. Plus they have to put time and money into designing (internally) the iPad Mini. And I just don't think there's a large enough market of people who don't want a 9.7 inch iPad but think a 7.85 inch iPad is the right size -- I don't see it drawing many new customers at all.

The way I see it is, at the end of the day, they'd be making less on a $399 iPad Mini than they do on a $499 iPad. (I don't see the BoM of this iPad Mini dropping less than $50.) The majority of sales from the iPad Mini will be from those already willing to purchase an iPad, rather than new customers who are only interested in a 7.85 inch iPad Mini.

Apple would also need to spend time and money designing (internally) the iPad Mini. It'll have less battery life, and will just add another device for developers to support. (It won't be much of a hassle if they maintain the current resolution and use similar specs to the iPad 2.)

If they opted for less powerful hardware in the iPad Mini, it would mean it wouldn't compete with the competitors not only on price, but hardware also. I just can't see it happening.

I think this is a 100% not ever going to happen, but at least we know if it does happen, Apple will do it right.

 

[Abazigal]

As if I wasn't already having a hard enough time choosing between the 16gb, 32gb and 64gb versions, now I have to choose between 10" or 7"?

At least they aren't coming out in more colours, right?

 

[mrgreen4242]

I'm rather curious about just how this would work if Apple did make it. I mean with the exception of the screen and case the internal components would be exactly the same as the current size. And if they did put in a better display I would assume the cost would be very close to the current model.

So while I can see them making one I don't see how they would be able to get the cost down enough. Some people would like one (myself included) but I don't think I would be willing to pay virtually the same amount. So, to me, the question is, is Apple willing to make a lesser profit?

The way I see it, Apple could make a 7.85" with the iPad 2 internals (A5, 512mb RAM, 1024x768 screen, same cameras, etc) and a smaller battery (probably same battery life, though, as the smaller screen should be less power hungry) and an iPad 3 with next years hardware - A6, 1gb RAM, 2048x1532 screen, etc.

The smaller screen and battery should be a little cheaper, and using last years hardware will keep the price down. They'd probably be willing to take a slightly lower profit on the smaller device as way to get people looking at the iPad (someone might be comparing the iPad "mini" and a Kindle Fire, for example, if they are within $50 or $100 of one another and then decide to upgrade, either on that purchase or a future one, to the full sized iPad).

If they put the iPad 2 internals into a 7.85" device with at least 8 hours of battery and weighing around .8lbs I will be all over it. I want a Kindle (the regular ebook reader) because my iPad 1 is too heavy to hold for long reading sessions and the iPhone is a tad too small for reading. Assuming the price is <$300 I'll probably preorder one to replace my iPad 1. (Real question is whether I would sell the original iPad to fund it or hand me down to the kids )

My only concern is that they'll "gimp" the 8" model to sell more regular sized units. Do something stupid like make only 8 and 16gb models, for example (though the 16gb MIGHT be enough for me), or remove the cameras (I'm hooked on FaceTime with my out of town relatives!) - though the latter is seems unlikely, the former seems all too possible; Apple has been doing that for years.

 

[Can't Stop]

Assuming the price is <$300 I'll probably preorder one to replace my iPad 1.

And how would that look compared to 32 GB 299 iPod touch?

P.S. When you read a book on your iPad you are not holding it in the air are you? You rest it on some surface.

 

[adildacoolset]

7 inch is exactly the wrong size to have. If they want it portable, make it 5-inch so it can fit into pockets. And also keep a 9.7 inch version. 7 inch isn't as good as 9.7 in terms of content exploration and not as portable as the 9.7. There's a reason why Jobs dismissed 7-inch.

 

[divinox]

I personally don't see how 7.x" device would be that much more portable than existing 9.7" device. Even if you are running with this all day

Image

it will feel pretty heavy at the end of the day.



Because difference between 21.5" and 27" iMac is much smaller than difference between 9.7" and 7.x".

if it makes sense to make a smaller iPad it should make sense making a smaller Air too for example. Apple hasn't and won't be doing that.

1) If you don't get why say a Kindle Fire, is more portable than the iPad, you just don't get it.
2) Heavy? Are you that weak?
3) Actually the difference is substantially larger, due to the larger resolution
4) They already made a smaller Air, its called MacBook Air 11". Further, the iPad is already smaller than the 11" so once more, your point flies out the window.

 

[divinox]

The problem is though it wouldn't be that much cheaper. Plus they have to put time and money into designing (internally) the iPad Mini. And I just don't think there's a large enough market of people who don't want a 9.7 inch iPad but think a 7.85 inch iPad is the right size -- I don't see it drawing many new customers at all.

a) Cheaper for you, or Apple?
b) Well, i and many others do. Especially, if we look a few years into the future.

The way I see it is, at the end of the day, they'd be making less on a $399 iPad Mini than they do on a $499 iPad. (I don't see the BoM of this iPad Mini dropping less than $50.) The majority of sales from the iPad Mini will be from those already willing to purchase an iPad, rather than new customers who are only interested in a 7.85 inch iPad Mini.

a) And how are they going to sell the iPad(1) at 499 if the iPad3 is selling at 599?
b) You wouldn't be far from 50, and you'd make the rest up on added sales by keeping the baseline 8GB, relying iCloud for content storage.
c) Not necessarily, and not that relevant either if it brings enough people who wouldn't buy iPads but would buy minis.
d) That problem is no different than selling iPad 1 2 and 3 concurrently. In fact, the latter would make it larger (less differentiation, more cannibalization).

Apple would also need to spend time and money designing (internally) the iPad Mini.

Yes, you mentioned that already. Peanuts though, relatively. Plus, they probably did most of the job already during prototyping anyway.

It'll have less battery life, and will just add another device for developers to support. (It won't be much of a hassle if they maintain the current resolution and use similar specs to the iPad 2.)

a) The iPhone has less battery life than the iPad. The MBA 9" has less battery than the 13" MBA. The 13" MBP has less battery life than the 17" MBP. Point?
b) Apple aren't in shortage of developers; if the device sells, developers would be stupid not to support it.
c) the iPad(1) won't have the same specs as iPad3. Nor does the 3GS have the same specs as the 4S. Running the same specs on a device with a different use case would be wasteful in my opinion.

If they opted for less powerful hardware in the iPad Mini, it would mean it wouldn't compete with the competitors not only on price, but hardware also. I just can't see it happening.

Specs schmecs. That said, your phrasing is quite messed up; stay away from double negations that only adds confusion. Second, why would this matter this time?

I think this is a 100% not ever going to happen, but at least we know if it does happen, Apple will do it right.

Thats the mentality around here. Yet i rarely see any Pippins out there...

----------

And how would that look compared to 32 GB 299 iPod touch?

P.S. When you read a book on your iPad you are not holding it in the air are you? You rest it on some surface.

"You're holding it wrong!!"

 

[divinox]

7 inch is exactly the wrong size to have. If they want it portable, make it 5-inch so it can fit into pockets. And also keep a 9.7 inch version. 7 inch isn't as good as 9.7 in terms of content exploration and not as portable as the 9.7. There's a reason why Jobs dismissed 7-inch.

Thats a ratio issue more than a inch issue (naturally, its both of course). 5" doesn't make much sense; most people will have a smartphone at hand (if not now, soon). Second, being pocketable naturally depends on the pocket. However, if you're old enough to own for example a suit you ought to know that its pockets are fairly large (while far from large enough to support a 7.85 4:3 though).

Sony has a subnetbook ultraportable in the P-series. Its a 8" device, 16:9. Definitely pocketable.

p.s. i assume you got that line of yours wrong. that 9" should be more portable than 7" really makes no sense.

 

[Can't Stop]

1) If you don't get why say a Kindle Fire, is more portable than the iPad, you just don't get it.
2) Heavy? Are you that weak?
3) Actually the difference is substantially larger, due to the larger resolution
4) They already made a smaller Air, its called MacBook Air 11". Further, the iPad is already smaller than the 11" so once more, your point flies out the window.

1. I don't because there is no effective difference in portability between these devices. Both are too big for a pocket.

2. Raise your arm in front of you and try holding it for half an hour. Your empty hand. Feels pretty heavy in the end. So a hundred or two grams plus or minus it's till heavy.

4. I doubt you can apply same logic.
----------

Sony has a subnetbook ultraportable in the P-series. Its a 8" device, 16:9. Definitely pocketable.

Looks like a nighmare and how comfortable one must feel with it.

 

[MythicFrost]

a) Cheaper for you, or Apple?
b) Well, i and many others do. Especially, if we look a few years into the future.



a) And how are they going to sell the iPad(1) at 499 if the iPad3 is selling at 599?
b) You wouldn't be far from 50, and you'd make the rest up on added sales by keeping the baseline 8GB, relying iCloud for content storage.
c) Not necessarily, and not that relevant either if it brings enough people who wouldn't buy iPads but would buy minis.
d) That problem is no different than selling iPad 1 2 and 3 concurrently. In fact, the latter would make it larger (less differentiation, more cannibalization).


Yes, you mentioned that already. Peanuts though, relatively. Plus, they probably did most of the job already during prototyping anyway.



a) The iPhone has less battery life than the iPad. The MBA 9" has less battery than the 13" MBA. The 13" MBP has less battery life than the 17" MBP. Point?
b) Apple aren't in shortage of developers; if the device sells, developers would be stupid not to support it.
c) the iPad(1) won't have the same specs as iPad3. Nor does the 3GS have the same specs as the 4S. Running the same specs on a device with a different use case would be wasteful in my opinion.



Specs schmecs. That said, your phrasing is quite messed up; stay away from double negations that only adds confusion. Second, why would this matter this time?



Thats the mentality around here. Yet i rarely see any Pippins out there...

It wouldn't be much cheaper for Apple, and consequently, not much cheaper for us.

I expect the iPad 3 will be introduced with a $499 model with a faster Cortex A15 processor and a regular display, and then 32GB and 64GB models with the retina display and faster graphics, for $649 and $799 respectively.

We're probably going to go around in circles a bit at this point, both of us are just speculating based on our personal opinions and experience. I just don't see this being a big enough market for it to be profitable, you might and that's fair enough but I'll bet my virtual dollar we won't be seeing a 7 inch iPad.

Oh and the reason developers flock to iOS is because of how easy Apple has made it to develop apps. They've got a very simple, straight forward process, and there's only two devices to support, the iPhone and iPad. I wouldn't want to see a third.

As much as I love Apple, at the point I'm buying a 7 inch device I'll go pick up the Kindle Fire for $200.

(PS: I like my phrasing )

 

[Can't Stop]

It wouldn't be much cheaper for Apple, and consequently, not much cheaper for us.

I expect the iPad 3 will be introduced with a $499 model with a faster Cortex A15 processor and a regular display, and then 32GB and 64GB models with the retina display and faster graphics, for $649 and $799 respectively.

We're probably going to go around in circles a bit at this point, both of us are just speculating based on our personal opinions and experience. I just don't see this being a big enough market for it to be profitable, you might and that's fair enough but I'll bet my virtual dollar we won't be seeing a 7 inch iPad.

Oh and the reason developers flock to iOS is because of how easy Apple has made it to develop apps. They've got a very simple, straight forward process, and there's only two devices to support, the iPhone and iPad. I wouldn't want to see a third.

As much as I love Apple, at the point I'm buying a 7 inch device I'll go pick up the Kindle Fire for $200.

(PS: I like my phrasing )

What i think, except the buying kindle fire part.

 

[divinox]

1. I don't because there is no effective difference in portability between these devices. Both are too big for a pocket.

Not everyone wears jeans and black turtle necks; i have pockets it would fit - and if 12cm is too wide, fix it. (Both P-series and KF are apparently 12cm wide).

2. Raise your arm in front of you and try holding it for half an hour. Your empty hand. Feels pretty heavy in the end. So a hundred or two grams plus or minus it's till heavy.

Why would i carry my iPad nano that way? I'm not retarded.

4. I doubt you can apply same logic.

----------

I doubt there was a logic to begin with, perhaps other than: "Apple doesn't do it, therefore it can't be done - until they do it, then they will do it right".

Looks like a nighmare and how comfortable one must feel with it.

Of course, it lacks an Apple logo so it must be god awful.

 

[Can't Stop]

Of course, it lacks an Apple logo so it must be god awful.

Now you are just attacking for no good reason. I guess we will have to disagree on this one. Good luck.

 

[divinox]

It wouldn't be much cheaper for Apple, and consequently, not much cheaper for us.

On the contrary, it could be significantly cheaper for Apple... which is part of the problem given Apples massive margins.

I expect the iPad 3 will be introduced with a $499 model with a faster Cortex A15 processor and a regular display, and then 32GB and 64GB models with the retina display and faster graphics, for $649 and $799 respectively.

I dont. Sounds confusing to call both iPad3 and only have "retina" on one.

We're probably going to go around in circles a bit at this point, both of us are just speculating based on our personal opinions and experience. I just don't see this being a big enough market for it to be profitable, you might and that's fair enough but I'll bet my virtual dollar we won't be seeing a 7 inch iPad.

Apples loss. Someone'll fill the gap, and do so good. Hopefully Win 8 will be ready for ARM in just 6 months.

Oh and the reason developers flock to iOS is because of how easy Apple has made it to develop apps. They've got a very simple, straight forward process, and there's only two devices to support, the iPhone and iPad. I wouldn't want to see a third.

No. The reason developers flock to iOS are first and foremost its (paying) user-base. Second, i wouldn't say its that simple, or that straightforward. But hey, to each his own. As for the third point, its not necessarily relevant if they maintain ratio, and even if not, its not that big of a deal - if you don't want to develop for a platform, don't.

As much as I love Apple, at the point I'm buying a 7 inch device I'll go pick up the Kindle Fire for $200.

Do so. Personally, a 7" ipad is just about the only device i'd buy from Apple using my own cash.

 

[Sixtafoua]

Is it just me that wants one in the 15" to 20" range? The current iPad is too small for watching movies, and too similar to my iPhone.

15-20 inches would be too big for me, but I definitely agree that apple should make a bigger iPad. Maybe like somewhere in the 13 inch range. I use my iPad primarily as a drawing and note taking tablet, and the 9.7 inch screen can feel cramped at times.

 

[Can't Stop]

15-20 inches would be too big for me, but I definitely agree that apple should make a bigger iPad. Maybe like somewhere in the 13 inch range. I use my iPad primarily as a drawing and note taking tablet, and the 9.7 inch screen can feel cramped at times.

13 i'd buy that.

 

[JAT]

I'd love a 15" with high resolution.

Personally, a 7" would fit my use way better than a 9" would. Not because the device itself does the things i do worse (in fact, it probably does them better), but because i wouldn't have it with me in first place - and even if i did, i'd pick up my MBA 9 times out of 10 regardless.

I'd call the MBA and 10" iPad mutually exclusive. If someone thinks they need both, they have too much cash.

Maybe, but having a smaller 7 inch device at $399 is still going to eat away at sales just as much as an iPad 2 at $399. The iPad 3 will need to bring some good specs to the table to encourage consumers to buy it and I believe it will. The retina display, a more powerful GPU, and a Cortex A15 based dual-core or quad-core and who knows what else.

You do understand that "eating away at sales" in your own company is not really a problem. Cause you're still getting the sales. And Apple's margins are pretty similar on all products. So, when they sell 2 items totalling $500, as compared to 1 item for $500, it likely matters zero to them. I suppose if they had one product that cost them money (ie: PS3 at launch), that could be an issue, but they don't.

a) And how are they going to sell the iPad(1) at 499 if the iPad3 is selling at 599?

You keep saying this. Do you mean the original iPad? They don't make those anymore.

 

[WLS]

I would tend to doubt that Apple will make a 7 inch tablet. The price point would be too close to the iPad's especially if Apple retains the ipad2 at reduced price and brings out a ipad3 with an A6. also remember that Steve was heavily involved in setting the product road map for the next 3 or 4 years. He would not have agreed to a 7 inch tablet. Considering that there was no new iPod Touch model this year it seem much more likely that any new size tablet will come from that end. A 5inch Touch would be pocketable and be a logical step. I'd bet on that before I bought into those 7 inch tablet rumors. We shall see.

 

[hleewell]

The iOS product line-up can be seen this way:

iPhone (3.5" or 5") - communicator & messenger, for gen pop & professionals on-the-move

iPod Touch XL/iPad Mini (7") - gaming, music & social network, wifi only, for teenagers

iPad (9.7") - ultra-mobile computing, for creative professional, bloggers on the move (from convention to convention etc), traveling businessmen & folks with high disposable income & me.

 

[JAT]

& me.

LOL! Which are you?

 

[divinox]

I'd love a 15" with high resolution.

I'd call the MBA and 10" iPad mutually exclusive. If someone thinks they need both, they have too much cash.

You do understand that "eating away at sales" in your own company is not really a problem. Cause you're still getting the sales. And Apple's margins are pretty similar on all products. So, when they sell 2 items totalling $500, as compared to 1 item for $500, it likely matters zero to them. I suppose if they had one product that cost them money (ie: PS3 at launch), that could be an issue, but they don't.

You keep saying this. Do you mean the original iPad? They don't make those anymore.

I do too. Which is why a 7" companion makes sense, given that ultra books will become commodity soon enough.

Maybe not. I still see them being sold though. But yes, with the "3" out, i dont see them staying around for long.

 

[SurferMan]

I personally don't see how 7.x" device would be that much more portable than existing 9.7" device.

Well actually it is, although the Fire is my GF's, I can actually fit it in my suits/sport coat pocket if need be and it's lighter then the iPad. But she just throws it in her purse mainly and carries it around.... can't do either of those with an iPad, it's too large for that.

 

[Can't Stop]

Well actually it is, although the Fire is my GF's, I can actually fit it in my suits/sport coat pocket if need be and it's lighter then the iPad. But she just throws it in her purse mainly and carries it around.... can't do either of those with an iPad, it's too large for that.

Great for you and her then.

 

[Minimoose 360]

The iPad Mini is the silliest **** to come out of the rumor mill. I see no demand for a device that derives it's usefulness out of it's size.