Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I thought about that too, and it occurs to me that the haptic feedback rumour that surfaced just prior to the iPad 3 launch would be a superb differentiator for this device, particularly if it were promoted as a gaming device/TV remote.

That's an interesting idea. I still don't know if a $249-299 remote will fly but if Apple can find some ways to do a better integration on the device with the Apple TV, etc, that could be a great marketing point.

Also isn't Apple supposed to be working hard on maps? Perhaps it might have some future as GPS navigation device or something...

I'm not sure if developers will like having another screen size to support though. :\

I'm not convinced that the 7" size is really enormously more portable than the 10". I've held a Playbook and while I probably could fit it in some of my coat pockets I think it would be pretty awkward given it's size and rigidity. ... This isn't to say that I think a smaller iPad is non-starter. If the 7.85" size meant that it could be made lighter and more cheaply than I think it could find it's place.

Pretty much how I feel about the Playbook. The size is still too big to be truly portable. On the other hand, one place I could think it works better is on subway and bus. In crowded seats during commutes, the 7 inch devices do come pretty handy and less awkward. IMHO this partly explains why these 7" devices and the Galaxy Note saw better success in Korea where the subway usage is probably more important than in North America.
 
I'd be willing to bet that most who are criticizing the notion of a smaller iPad will suddenly be touting it's excellence if Apple does indeed produce it.
 
Well I do not see having to create an entire new App store at all for it providing it followed the same screen ratio as the iPad so point 2 is a non issue.
They'd need to use the same resolution though, even if it used the same aspect ratio, existing iPad apps wouldn't fit and there's no way to scale them up or down without them looking horrible.
Point 1.) I have to more agree with most of the sales would come from iPad owners shifting down but at the same time it might be enough to push quite a few people over the edge.

Point 3.) Weight is not the issue with the ipad but more the size is. It is not something that could easily be shoved into a purse or coat pocket. Another pocket that it could be nice to shove it into is the outside backpack pocket.
That's true, I suppose a smaller size would be better in that sense.
For example I will toss my kindle in the outside pocket of my backpack every now and then because it is easier to pull things out of there for a quick use but compare that with my Galaxy tab 10.1 which has to go into my main 2 pockets, it is a lot harder to pull things out of those 2 larger pockets.

It sometimes would be nice for the inbetween area.

Now I would go for the 10in area over the 7in but I figure those are good examples in terms of size. It is useful to look at and I have seen some reviews that more compare the galaxy 10.1 to 7in and the talk about how the size is pretty nice for what it is used for but yeah it is more of a nich product
It'd likely have weaker specs too, which would make it less appealing as well.
So you are saying that many people would love to buy such device but at the same time you say that many people would not draw many customers? WTF?
You know, before you insult someone you should generally make sure you're actually reading what they're saying correctly.

I said it wouldn't draw many new customers. Re-read what I wrote if you still don't understand.
Smaller battery? Yes and smaller SCREEN ALSO (!!??) and the battery life would be just the same.
Yes the screen would be smaller, but the battery would be significantly smaller. You'd get maybe 60-70% of the battery life that the iPad 2 does.
And that about the screen being too small.. nonsense. There is plenty of same PPI Android 7" tablets and people love them.

I cannot understand Apple Fanboys logic.

Oh yes I can. There is none.
Again, you should read what someone's saying properly before you insult them, it doesn't look well on you.

You can't compare the PPI between devices running different software in this instance and say small content will be large enough, because it won't necessarily have similarly sized content.

The problem is, a 40x40 button is about as small as you can go before it starts to become too difficult to touch on the iPad 2, but on the 7 inch slate it would be roughly 30% smaller physically, and much too difficult to touch.

There's a lot of apps with tiny controls and it'd be a real problem.
 
Let me help you with the logic part:

* Apple is the greatest company in the World
* Apple products are the best products in the World
* Steve Jobs is a genius
* iPad is the best tablet in the World
* I hate everything Apple is not producing (including non iPad sized tablets)
* When Apple releases iPad mini I will change my mind
* I Love Apple

And BTW, what's logic?

Remember this 15 pound piece of crap that sold for nearly $400? The fanboys even defended Apple on THAT. Jesus Jobs even called it 'Home Stereo. Reinvented.' I've heard that reinvented line so many times from Apple... almost as many times as ive heard apple fanboys actually believe that Apple's invented certain devices (mp3 players, smartphones and now tablets).

hifi_ipod.jpg
 
Last edited:
They'd need to use the same resolution though, even if it used the same aspect ratio, existing iPad apps wouldn't fit and there's no way to scale them up or down without them looking horrible.

Why should it unless the Apps are design piss poorly and use poor design standards. Assuming the app uses proper design standards it really a non issue. The resolution stuff is more of an Apple made up issue to justify not changing the resolution.

Unless you want to tell me that computer programming dealing with all the different resolution monitor is an issue. Oh wait is not.

----------

Remember this 15 pound piece of crap that sold for nearly $400? The fanboys even defended Apple on THAT.

Image

and to boot that 15 lb pound of crap was mead even more worthless because it uses firewire to charge the iPod. This means that it does not work with the iPod touches or iPhone because Apple desided to not support firewire any more on the iPods even though Apples own POS used only firewire.

The fanboys defend that as well.
 
Why should it unless the Apps are design piss poorly and use poor design standards. Assuming the app uses proper design standards it really a non issue. The resolution stuff is more of an Apple made up issue to justify not changing the resolution.

Unless you want to tell me that computer programming dealing with all the different resolution monitor is an issue. Oh wait is not.
It's nothing to do with that, you simply can't take an app coded to run at 1024x768 and then downscale it and expect it to not look like rubbish.

Android supports multiple resolutions, so from the beginning apps were coded with that in mind, and thus they adjust to fit the screen. Every app on iOS would have to be resubmitted with support for varying resolutions.

Why would they change the resolution? Both 480x320 and 1024x768 are good for their respective devices. Whether they're the best resolutions for their respective devices is highly debatable, but even if there were better resolutions available, the gain would only be slight.
 
Remember this 15 pound piece of crap that sold for nearly $400? The fanboys even defended Apple on THAT. Jesus Jobs even called it 'Home Stereo. Reinvented.' I've heard that reinvented line so many times from Apple... almost as many times as ive heard apple fanboys actually believe that Apple's invented certain devices (mp3 players, smartphones and now tablets).

Image
I think it would be fair to say that Apple reinvented the desktop OS, the MP3 player, the smartphone, and the tablet computer, as manufacturers of all of these products made significant changes imitating Apple's products after Apple popularized new concepts in each of these areas. I don't think that anyone with any reasonable knowledge of the history of these devices would claim that Apple actually invented them, however.

And that Apple stereo? While not a piece of crap, it was way over-hyped, and over-priced. I remember being massively disappointed after that product introduction, was expecting to see something revolutionary and ended up with something that seemed to be more Apple's take on a Bose one-piece tabletop home stereo: nice to look at (well, OK, even that is debatable), but nowhere near separate components in terms of sound quality, and way overpriced for what it was. Of all the products Apple has ever made, that is near the top of the ones I'm glad I never bought.
 
That's an interesting idea. I still don't know if a $249-299 remote will fly but if Apple can find some ways to do a better integration on the device with the Apple TV, etc, that could be a great marketing point.

Also isn't Apple supposed to be working hard on maps? Perhaps it might have some future as GPS navigation device or something...

I'm not sure if developers will like having another screen size to support though. :\

My thoughts:

I think the Apple TV remote would simply be an app that runs on any iOS device (in addition to Siri, and gesture recognition, so you don't actually need a remote). The remote app lets you continue to watch full screen video on the TV while you search for something else to watch. Without the remote, you can browse an on-screen program guide using gestures and voice, or just ask Siri to find the show you want or make a Genius suggestion.

You could buy a new 7" iPad and use it as a dedicated remote, if you like, but if you have an old iPod Touch or original iPad lying around, you could use that too. But when you're not using it as a remote, you can still play Angry Birds on it, because it's not a single-purpose device. When your friends come over, they can use their iOS devices (if you give them access) as the remote.

The 7" size would be more convenient as a GPS device. I like that idea.

A 7" device would probably have XGA resolution like the iPad 2 (Just a higher PPI, because it's smaller). Developers would need to do nothing to support it, because nearly all current iPad apps would work fine. Over time, the presentation of some apps could be optimized for the smaller screen.

A $299 price point would be more attractive to parents and schools to replace textbooks.

I wonder if the decision to drop the number from the iPad name could indicate that Apple plans to offer the iPad in different sizes. Would a first-generation 7" iPad be part of the iPad 3 line?
 
7,85in with a thin bezel sounds like the dimensions of a 2-DIN car dash slot. I'm betting and hoping this is not an iPad or iPod but a car radio, a whole new category of product.

I've read other rumors in this direction somewhere else.

It would also be aligned with the "7in iPad? Never!" Jobs' strategy.
 
7,85in with a thin bezel sounds like the dimensions of a 2-DIN car dash slot. I'm betting and hoping this is not an iPad or iPod but a car radio, a whole new category of product.

I've read other rumors in this direction somewhere else.

It would also be aligned with the "7in iPad? Never!" Jobs' strategy.

Well Steve Jobs died, did you not notice the news last year?

I need 7" tablet. And I dont care what you need.
 
It's nothing to do with that, you simply can't take an app coded to run at 1024x768 and then downscale it and expect it to not look like rubbish.

Android supports multiple resolutions, so from the beginning apps were coded with that in mind, and thus they adjust to fit the screen. Every app on iOS would have to be resubmitted with support for varying resolutions.

Why would they change the resolution? Both 480x320 and 1024x768 are good for their respective devices. Whether they're the best resolutions for their respective devices is highly debatable, but even if there were better resolutions available, the gain would only be slight.

Well that sounds like an Achilles heel to me?
How silly to think that Apple could't handle downscaling, resolutions etc and did you not notice that iOS and OSX is already emerging together strongly?

And talks about battery life and CPU power is rubbish!!
There is 7" Nvidia Tegra-3 tablets coming this year from GOOGLE and I cannot wait to get my hands on that sucker! Sad that Apple is stupid and not see the potential billion business in mid-sized tablets... So sad.

Well, there is major bubble anyway on AAPL that is obvious. They have even invested 30 billion dollars on FED bonds, lol, if Euro collapses suddenly AAPL will lost over 30billion in that crash when those CDS's will trigger off. :)

You really think that Apple is worth more than IBM or Samsung? With some iOS gaming toys? :) yeaaaaaaaaaaah for sure.
 
Well that sounds like an Achilles heel to me?
How silly to think that Apple could't handle downscaling, resolutions etc and did you not notice that iOS and OSX is already emerging together strongly?
Where did I say they couldn't handle it? I didn't. I said downscaling would look like absolute and total rubbish, and that to support multiple resolutions (which is totally unnecessary when you've only got one model of product) every developer would need to update to support it.
And talks about battery life and CPU power is rubbish!!
There is 7" Nvidia Tegra-3 tablets coming this year from GOOGLE and I cannot wait to get my hands on that sucker! Sad that Apple is stupid and not see the potential billion business in mid-sized tablets... So sad.
So? That doesn't mean they'll have good battery life.
 
Hybrid product

How about a 7" product combining:-

SatNav (car mount & power adaptor in the box/optional)
in-car iPod (via Bluetooth in many cases)
All the stock iPad apps with all the uses they bring
App store apps
IR transmitter for remote control usage


To me, this could be a product which would compete with many other existing and separate items:-

Kindle/eReaders
TomTom/Garmin
Marantz & Phillips universal remotes
Archos-like media players
Other 7" tablets

It would perhaps cannibalise sales of iPod Touches and iPads - since I have no expertise in assessing the market, which Apple clearly does, I can;t judge whether the risk is worth taking but it would be a call between increased market penetration and sales for a "utility" device and the cannilbalisation rate against Apple's own existing products.

For me personally I'd buy one - in addition to my iPad, a smaller eReader would be fantastic but I won't get a separate Kindle or other eReader as I simply can't be bothered with two infrastructures.
 
It's nothing to do with that, you simply can't take an app coded to run at 1024x768 and then downscale it and expect it to not look like rubbish.

The problem is the app coded to run at 1024x768. Properly designed GUI apps, going back to the original Macintosh, didn't make such assumptions because they ran in a Window which could be resized and scaled by the user.

Are iPad programmers incapable of writing proper GUIs that scale like the programmers of the last 30 years have done for Windowing systems ? Where does the fault lie there, with the way Apple made the framework or the way the programmers design their UIs ?
 
I know what KISS means and by that argument there would only be one screen size for all MBAs and MBPs because that would be keeping it simple.

You have a point yes. But I am getting at. Why fade the fade the line between iPhone and iPad? You want them as two separate products you shouldn't overlap each other.

Scenario.

I walk into a shop and see iPhone for $800 (yes Australia is a rip off)
I see iPad mini that is slightly bigger than iPhone for $300.

I walk out with iPad Mini and use it as a phone because it is still portable enough for one hand and less than half the price with probably the same performance.
 
If you look at Interface Builder and the way the scaling and resizing of views work, it's the same as the Mac version. It's the same XIBs, built with the same options, except using the UIKit objects rather than the AppKit objects.

I think the problem stems from iPad having "full screen" mode on all the time, and thus the programmers/interface designers just getting lazy. They make it work with static values for 1 resolution and that's it, even though the tools support proper resizing and scaling if they bothered to use it.

Apple could've prevented that by making apps resizable from the get go by the user, instead of just zoomable. Introduce dialog windows that pop-over the app for form entry, etc..

The thing is, that paradigm would work on a 1024x768 iPad, not so much on an iPod Touch and iPhone, which is why I think Apple went the way it did, which then led to the assumption by 3rd party developers everywhere that that was the way things needed to be, which now leads us to... resolution lock-in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys don't get it...the majority of Apple's customers don't care about resolution, aspect ratios, or any of that technical crap...as it stands $499 is a bit too expensive for the average consumer. A smaller tablet option would justify a lower price and extend Apple's reach in the tablet market...say what you will, but I see kindle fires and nooks more often than not and everyone that I know that DOES NOT have an iPad says "price" is the reason.
 
The problem is the app coded to run at 1024x768. Properly designed GUI apps, going back to the original Macintosh, didn't make such assumptions because they ran in a Window which could be resized and scaled by the user.

Are iPad programmers incapable of writing proper GUIs that scale like the programmers of the last 30 years have done for Windowing systems ? Where does the fault lie there, with the way Apple made the framework or the way the programmers design their UIs ?
They're capable of it of course, but why would a developer write the app that way when it's unnecessary? There's not even any way for you to test your app at a different resolution. I'd say most apps aren't hard coded for 1024x768, but I'd also say there would be components in almost every app, if not every app, which would break if the resolution changed -- mostly resulting in content getting cut off.

Like I've got a universal app I'm working on, and I simply get the width of the screen and height of the screen and use that to setup my UI, and for the most part it's the same. So it'd work fine at different resolutions. Some apps will be like that, others won't. For example, if I had a separate UI for the iPad, it'd obviously not work at different resolutions.
But if 7" Asus Tegra3 will have good battery life, will you promise to suck my balls?
... No. And it won't. I'd say maybe six hours.
Because FanBoys cannot understand that iPad is in fact a Computer wich runs a version of OSX.

They think that iOS is somekind of Magic
Uh what?
 
Last edited:
You have a point yes. But I am getting at. Why fade the fade the line between iPhone and iPad? You want them as two separate products you shouldn't overlap each other.

Scenario.

I walk into a shop and see iPhone for $800 (yes Australia is a rip off)
I see iPad mini that is slightly bigger than iPhone for $300.

I walk out with iPad Mini and use it as a phone because it is still portable enough for one hand and less than half the price with probably the same performance.
You won't use it as a phone, because there will be no cellular antenna inside wifi only
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.