Apple Does Have a 7.85″ iPad in their Labs

[TallManNY]

I think it would be irresponsible for Apple not to prototype an iPad model that could compete with the Kindle Fire and other, smaller tablets. However, I am at a loss for use-cases where the smaller screen would be preferable or compelling.

Although that might be a lack of imagination on my part; I would never dream about buying a Kindle.

On a workday, over 4 million people ride the New York City Subway system. The current iPad is just a little large for a straphanger to easily use one handed on a crowded train. I see a lot more Nooks, Kindles and Android tablets in those tight quarters. I also think an 8" tablet would fit in winter coat pockets, eliminating the need for a Man-Bag.

I think it will sell and is inevitable if only to satisfy Apple's need to make stuff smaller.

 

[b11051973]

I would trade in my new iPad for a smaller one in a second. I often times just use my iPhone for things because I find my iPad to be too big. I don't love using the iPhone because it is too small. So, I'd love something in the middle. (or a bigger iPhone)

 

[xgman]

I would trade in my new iPad for a smaller one in a second. I often times just use my iPhone for things because I find my iPad to be too big. I don't love using the iPhone because it is too small. So, I'd love something in the middle. (or a bigger iPhone)

Or both.

 

[PlaceofDis]

at first i was against the idea of a smaller iPad, but i think i would prefer it over the current size. since i've sold my iPad a few months ago there is really only one great thing i miss about it more than anything else: reading on it. Everything else i can do easy enough on my iPhone or MBA but for books the iPad was the best so a smaller size would actually be great for that.

 

[tbrinkma]

In half? I think you need a calculator. I'm sure there's an app for that.

A 7.85" inch screen would be 80% of the size of the 9.7" iPad.

No, it would be 80% as tall, and 80% as wide, or about 65% the total size of the current iPad's 9.7" screen. Half was over-stating the size change, but not by much.

 

[fredf]

I don't currently have an iPad because, for me the 9.7" size is too big to be carrying around.

I think a smaller (but not a 5") form factor is ideal...whether 7 or 7.85.

But I don't think Apple should be looking to compete with the Kindle Fire price wise. That's never been their strategy and it shouldn't be here either.

I don't want a watered down iPad with only wifi and 8 gig of memory.

I want a decent screen, 16 gig memory and LTE with decent battery life. And I (and I believe many others) am willing to pay a premium for this. I wouldn't buy an iPad mini to save money (although it should be cheaper with the smaller size) but rather for power with increased portability.

$350, even $399 would be a nice price for such a machine.

 

[Ryth]

I don't currently have an iPad because, for me the 9.7" size is too big to be carrying around.

I think a smaller (but not a 5") form factor is ideal...whether 7 or 7.85.

But I don't think Apple should be looking to compete with the Kindle Fire price wise. That's never been their strategy and it shouldn't be here either.

I don't want a watered down iPad with only wifi and 8 gig of memory.

I want a decent screen, 16 gig memory and LTE with decent battery life. And I (and I believe many others) am willing to pay a premium for this. I wouldn't buy an iPad mini to save money (although it should be cheaper with the smaller size) but rather for power with increased portability.

$350, even $399 would be a nice price for such a machine.

Agree.

I want it to have everything the iPad has plus a flash on the back side.

There is no reason for them to not make it retina also. You'll have those that want the 10" and those that want the 7"...it's a win win either way for them.

 

[bdkennedy1]

Why is this guy allowed to leak so much information?

 

[deftdrummer]

As an App developer, I disagree with this. You can't simply cut the size of the interface in half and expect Apps to still work in a good way. Would every interface element be half as big? Would that be useable?

edit: not saying we would have to "remake" our apps. But It would certainly be a third size. Right now we really have two screen sizes to target: iPhone sized and iPad sized. The resolution is not important, the size is.

I respect your comments and work as a developer. However one need only to take a look at Moog's software on both iPhone and iPad and it instantly becomes clear that there is immense potential between the two sizes.

 

[js369]

I doubt that apple would release an ipad with a ppi of 163 at this point. Given how much they've been marketing their products as "retina" displays, this would look like a step backwards in the public eye.

However, I could see them keeping the same resolution as the new ipad which will give it a ppi of 326. Would it be a little excessive to have such a high ppi on a device that you'd hold farther than an iphone? Yeah. Would it be worth it to spend a few extra bucks on production for a product that aligns perfectly with the values and aesthetics that your company's built a reputation around? Yeah.

I don't think that a smaller iPad would be a flagship apple item. They would simply be releasing it to fill a void that is currently occupied by the Fire. It is against their philosophy to release a subpar device similar to the Fire, but if it means total market domination they might be able to see some value in it.

It is really hard to know where they would position it price wise though. If they could release a 7.85 inch mini with 8GB of storage for $199, it is pretty obvious it would completely kill the Fire. But I really doubt they would even think about starting it where the iTouch currently starts, so $249 or most likely $299 is a much more logical starting point. Even with a relatively useless storage capacity of 8GB like the Kindle a $249 price would kill the Fire, but would likely not provide the profit margins apple is accustomed to. Most likely they would only be able to offer an iPad mini with one option of limited storage space for now just to fill this void and keep it from actively eating into the sales of other products. A mini iPad for $299 with only 8GB storage and no upgrade options would force people to keep their other devices if they wanted more storage while still offering a mid-price alternate size option, but it wouldn't be enough to kill the Fire.

Otherwise if they would offer upgraded options it could be such a mess that they would likely need to change prices and offerings on both the iTouch and the iPad lineups. They could offer a 8GB iPad mini for $249 with upgrades to 16GB for $299 & a 32GB for $399. Then they could kill the 16GB iPad and the iPad 2, so a 32GB would be the starting model at $499, with 64GB for $599 & 128GB for $699. A low price iPad mini would totally kill the larger iPod touches so they would probably need to drop those prices like $50 so an 8GB would be $149 or start with a 16GB for $199 with the 32GB for $249 & 64GB for $349 & a new 128GB for $449.

I just can't see them finding a way to fit an iPad mini into the lineup without needing to trim their margins on all the other products they are making tons of money on.

 

[spcopsmac21]

If by console quality you mean PS2 graphics, then sure.

There is are no physical controls. Therefore they can not compete with the Vita. The DS on the other had, is a casual gimmicky handheld for overweight Mom's and 6 year olds. Apple can currently compete in neither market.

I'm sick of going into detail as to why gaming will never be console like on iOS anytime soon.

----------

[/COLOR]

If you read my full post, you'll understand, instead of just nitpicking.

The vita is already a credible failure. Sony can't get rid of them at a steady pace.
With apple Rolling out cloud storage with a more " idisk " like enviorment for you apple tv next year you will see a more "on live" experience with the apple tv and full fledged console size and near graphical games.
The iPad 3 is as powerfull or more than the vita. The new ipad has 89% of the GPU capabilities as the PS3 and already surpass the 360. Yet hardly any games have not been developed to take full advantage.No developer has brought a game out yet using the full capabilities of the new iPad. But it is happening.

I'm not making a guesstimate. When you things to be fact it's easy to present.

The iphone ,iPod ,and iPad sell more games in a week than Sony does for a handheld in a quarter. EA, Atari,ID software, Square Enix have all already set up IOS only development teams to port games and develop games exclusively. They obviously know where the money is.

Apple will be moving into gaming on the iPad and apple tv very soon. It's already begun.

 

[Westside guy]

Might want to check your math again. And remember that the diagonal of a rectangle is not linearly proportional to the area of a rectangle.

It's actually about 65% the size. So not quite 50%, but also not 80%.

You're going by area. Measuring the length of the side, which is closer to what people tend to do visually when comparing objects sizes, yields 80.9%.

I'd buy a 7.85" iPad in a heartbeat. My wife's iPad is larger and heavier than I'd like (and yes, I've used it a lot). This would be closer to the overall size of my Kindle 3, although heavier - but it's an ideal size for putting in a coat or large cargo pant pocket.

Interestingly, a 165ppi display would be roughly the same as the Kindle's e-ink 'Pearl' display.

 

[bpaluzzi]

You're going by area. Measuring the length of the side, which is closer to what people tend to do visually when comparing objects sizes, yields 80.9%.

On what planet do people do that? Area is what you use to compare size. Everywhere. Everyone.

 

[Old Smuggler]

im sure they have all kinds of goodies hidden at apple

 

[musicdude2013]

If you ask me, I think this is a pointless product. If you want a bigger screen, get an iPad. If you want something smaller, get an iPod.

 

[js369]

I don't currently have an iPad because, for me the 9.7" size is too big to be carrying around.

I think a smaller (but not a 5") form factor is ideal...whether 7 or 7.85.

But I don't think Apple should be looking to compete with the Kindle Fire price wise. That's never been their strategy and it shouldn't be here either.

I don't want a watered down iPad with only wifi and 8 gig of memory.

I want a decent screen, 16 gig memory and LTE with decent battery life. And I (and I believe many others) am willing to pay a premium for this. I wouldn't buy an iPad mini to save money (although it should be cheaper with the smaller size) but rather for power with increased portability.

$350, even $399 would be a nice price for such a machine.

It looks like a lot of the users here just want to have a choice between the original 10 and an 8 inch variant with the same specs. If they offered a mini with a retina display it would not be sold for very cheap as it would hurt the profit margins, so if that starts at $399 as 16GB wifi only with the same upgrade pricing scheme I'm not sure how many new sales it would bring in. Even though it is twice as nice as a Fire I think consumers would find it hard to justify double the price. It would be more likely to eat into the sales of the big iPad more than it would take sales away from the Fire or any other low price competitor.

It seems more likely they would aim to slow down the Fire if they even bother to release a smaller iPad. Going lower spec on the screen would be the easier way to do this even if it goes against progress. Now that I have used the retina iPad I don't think I would have interest in a lower spec one like this, but I still would like to see it get released. I just feel like there would be a lot more demand for a much cheaper lower spec iPad than a barely cheaper full apple quality 8 inch one. Every time I see a child under the age of 10 using a iPad I just want to slap the parents for giving a $500+ toy to a spoiled little brat. If I knew it were only a $300 toy I wouldn't be quite as mad. Then every time a school invests in buying a crapton of iPads for the kids I could at least hope they are getting them the cheaper, smaller ones with their wasteful spending.

 

[fruitycups]

Im sure this will sell a lot if it came out with a lower price. But really unnecessary.

Hope they dont release. Hurts apple more than help

 

[Kblakeshot]

Everyone keeps calling this the iPad Mini. I think if this comes out, it will be an iPod Pro, not iPad Mini. Then they could release/announce it in September with the other iPods and have it out in time for Christmas. Just the release schedule alone would be a nightmare if they branded it as an "iPad" because then what happens in March 2013?

Why are some many people acting like numerous Apple devices are a bad thing. Android releases "Flagship" phones once a month! Let people choose what they want. Why limit us... more importantly why do so many people want to be limited. Why would anyone be against another Apple product ever... if you don't want that one, then there are other options to buy. People are so used to "the Apple way" of 1 iPhone per year & iPad per year that they start looking silly saying less is better. SMH.

 

[mbell1975]

If you ask me, I think this is a pointless product. If you want a bigger screen, get an iPad. If you want something smaller, get an iPod.

So what if you could only get an 11 inch MacBook or a 17 inch MacBook? See how ridiculous that sounds? There is a reason there are also 13 and 15 inch versions too...

 

[js369]

On what planet do people do that? Area is what you use to compare size. Everywhere. Everyone.

I'm not entirely sure that square inches of screen area is the best way to compare the two sizes of devices. The iPhone screen in square inches is only 12% the size of the iPad screen. I'm not sure I would go around saying that no one should ever try to do anything on the iPhone just because the iPad screen is 8 times as large as the iPhone. I don't think a 7.85 inch screen would instantly be 1/3 less useful due to it's smaller square inches of screen size.

In the end I am really curious to see if they ever do a smaller iPad or a larger iPhone/Touch. If they did an 8" iPad and a 5" iPhone they would look kind of odd next to each other. It would become really obvious how odd of a decision it was to use different aspect ratios on them. The 3:2 aspect ratio makes the phone feel like the perfect dimensions when you are using it. I understand that the 4:3 ratio on the iPad makes it work better for reading in portrait mode, but considering people watching movies and playing games on them it feels weird. Given that everyone has spent the last decade convincing us that wider screens are better, which always made sense for tvs but not so much for computer monitors, it seems odd for apple to be the one to revert back to a more squared off shape. Now that the new iPad has the option to airplay games to the apple tv I was showing someone some games over it and the 4:3 window in the middle of the 16:9 tv is just bizarre (I'm just glad movies airplay at the correct ratios). No matter what it will be interesting to see what apple comes up with and also if their developments cause their stock to break $1,000 anytime soon.

 

[bpaluzzi]

I'm not entirely sure that square inches of screen area is the best way to compare the two sizes of devices. The iPhone screen in square inches is only 12% the size of the iPad screen. I'm not sure I would go around saying that no one should ever try to do anything on the iPhone just because the iPad screen is 8 times as large as the iPhone. I don't think a 7.85 inch screen would instantly be 1/3 less useful due to it's smaller square inches of screen size.

You're conflating "size" and "usefulness". The size of the device is definitely not linearly related to the usefulness: you're correct in saying that an iPad isn't 8 times as useful as an iPhones, just because it's 8 times as large.

But it still IS 8 times the size. That's determined by the area. That was my point

 

[Xtremehkr]

It's not surprising that Apple has a working prototype of that size. I imagine Apple has all sorts of wonderful working concepts that will never see the light of day. I still don't see the point in a slightly smaller tablet, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a market for it as an alternative to the full sized iPad for kid and smaller people who want something lighter to carry around.

I remember seeing the prototype MBP that was sold on EBay with the detachable 3G antenna, it was an example of something that Apple was playing around with but never decided to adopt.

The opportunity to see inside of Apple's labs and R&D centers would be an amazing experience, but is completely unlikely since the last thing they want is for competitors to know what they're working on.

 

[Rogifan]

Jony Ive says:

 

[mayhone1]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]

Image

​

As noted by The Tech Block and The Next Web, during his Talk Show podcast with Dan Benjamin, DaringFireball's John Gruber offered up some additional confirmation of the existence of a 7.85" iPad. Gruber reports that he has been told by "numerous" people that this size iPad is something Apple has been "noodling with".

When asked by Benjamin if he thought a 7.85" iPad would ever be released, Gruber responded (at ~1hr 19min):Gruber has offered accurate information in the past and seems to have many contacts with Apple. Gruber does point out that Apple has many prototype products that never make it to market, and reminds us that Steve Jobs once said that he's was as proud of the products that Apple hasn't done as the ones they have.

It has been clear to us that a 7.85" iPad has been in late prototyping stages. Reports have been coming from the Chinese supply chain about such a device for months. This indicates that Apple isn't just toying around the the form factor in their labs in Cupertino, but is also working with supplies on possible production. As Gruber said, this still isn't a sign that Apple will necessarily release such a device.

The reason why a 7.85" screen might make sense for a new iPad has been detailed in the past, and we have a paper mockup that can be printed out to compare its size to a 9.7" iPad.

Article Link: Apple Does Have a 7.85" iPad in their Labs

I understand that these types of rumors are starting to feel tired, but for all those who really feel that way why waste the energy to click the link and read this stuff! Just let those interested in a 7"85 iPad click on the links and commits because all you do is look like fools, especially the people that don't want this to happen, your the biggest fools of all for wasting your time reading something which you can clearly see from the front page and than pressing the commit button. These rumors would made to fuel the hope of those of us who are actually interested in this, and honestly if I didn't want this to happen, or if I were truly sick of this, I would waste my time and commit. I would go off and do something that actually deserved my time.

 

[MacAddict1978]

when you listen to the actual podcast, gruber's recollection of the "7.85" number seems suspect. he misspeaks little details like this all the time; he even refers to instagram as "instapaper" in this very episode (twice!). i'm not doubting that there's a 7" ipad out there; i'm just doubting the number is exactly 7.85" (why go two decimal places?).

Because that display size will allows all apps to scale perfectly without distortion or requiring a developer to have to re-code the apps to support a new display size. That's why. That size display has also been leaked as being purchased by apple in an interesting quantity last year (probably for prototypes) and is also the size they have been working to source if you believe current rumors.

That .85" makes a huge difference when compared to a 7" display. That's an extra .85 in EACH direction. If the price is right, I'd consider it. 7" is just too small to really be useful for me.