Apple Working with Suppliers on 8-Inch iPad

[mw360]

What would be the point? The iPad mini would still be about 2x the price of a Kindle Fire so even if Apple thought the Fire were a threat this wouldn't address the Fire's only real strength. Add to that the fiddly small icons, the 50% smaller (by volume) battery and you've got an unattractive product compared to the real thing. Then there's fragmentation. Apple specify 11mm as the smallest touch UI element, so devs will have to scale up for the mini. Or will Apple suddenly say, 'guys we were wrong about that 11mm thing'? Doesn't seem likely...

 

[Clancycoop]

Here's my guess-
The screen of the smaller iPad will actually be the same size as now, only without the border. Essentially you will have the same visible screen real estate. So while the device will become smaller, the experience won't become compromised.

Eh? Eh?

 

[spacemanspifff]

No!

I would imagine that somewhere in the ether the spirit of Steve Jobs is getting very angry!!

 

[mw360]

Here's my guess-
The screen of the smaller iPad will actually be the same size as now, only without the border. Essentially you will have the same visible screen real estate. So while the device will become smaller, the experience won't become compromised.

Eh? Eh?

You ever held an ipad? The border is there for a reason.

 

[Crissov]

Going “Retina” then, and only then

The Wall Street Journal reports that Apple is working with suppliers on a smaller iPad carrying a display in the range of 8 inches on the diagonal, down from the 9.7-inch display in the current iPad…

They mean a ca. 20cm (7.9in) diameter screen, down from ca. 25cm (9.8in, 15cm × 20cm).

Anyhow, with this reduction to 80% the size, i.e. 64% the area, a QXGA 2048px × 1536px display would actually have about 330 px/in (vulgo “dpi”) and therefore qualify for Apple’s self-proclaimed “Retina” standard (i.e. more than 300 px/in), unlike the same enhanced resolution at the current display size, because there it had 264 px/in.

According to the report, Apple has played with various tablet sizes in the past,

Sure they have, and with different aspect ratios, too. Unlike some other major companies, Apple pays close attention to ergonomics, especially anthopometric and kinesiologic studies. (That’s why the iPhone and iPod screen is limited to 9cm, to be able to reach every point on-creen with your thumb when holding it with one hand, even if you’re a 1,60m girl.) Nevertheless, the iPad display in particular is a trade-off between what is desirable and what was possible or affordable.

Squeezing the current iPad's resolution down to a smaller screen would also reduce the size of the interface elements on the device, and Apple is indeed said to be planning to move the current iPad's 1024x768 resolution to the smaller iPad in a move that would allow current iPad apps to "just work" on the new device. Testing with our "iPad mini" mockup suggests that interface elements would remain usable even at the smaller size.

That’s borderline rubbish. When touch interface elements become 80% of the height and width they were designed for (i.e. less than 2/3 the area), they of course still work, but not as good as expected. Apple certainly has conducted user studies to find out whether they would have to increase the virtual (pixel) size to stay closer to the original physical (centimeter) size. If they discovered they’re to small that might be good enough a reason not to build a 20cm iPad – unless it would become the new exclusive size.

 

[MattInOz]

I cant see this happening. At least not until Apple make iOS able to resize apps to fit multiple displays (i.e like any android app, or a proper desktop app). As it stands, iOS apps are severely limited in that you have to set the exact display sizes.

It's already an annoyance that during development we need 4 sets of images (iPhone 3Gs, iPhone 4, iPad, iPad 3), adding more just bumps up the file size of apps even more and slows development.

IMO the current size is fine. Its very usable, the keyboard is a great size, etc.

Well they bring the new AutoLayout that was added to Cocoa in Lion to iOS 6 and the two screen size think is less of a problem. Although i think the point of the 7.85 size is that it would bring the tap targets the same size as the iPhone.

It would explain why the iPad interface has been left so loose. The plan was there along. I think if they do they should half the size of the screen border and get a larger screen still into a device the same size of the current iPad.

 

[MythicFrost]

No, no, and no. It's not an iPad, at least. This would cause a heap of problems, and it'll only eat into the sales of 9.7 inch iPads.

 

[Crissov]

Fitts’s law

For the most part things would "just work". Experimentation with our mockups suggests that most interface elements are still usable at the slightly smaller size.

I’m confident Apple designers know about Fitts’s law, I’m not sure about the average fanboy.

 

[nagromme]

There’s zero doubt that Apple has had many different sizes of iOS device in the works for a very long time. Bigger ones too, I bet. They keep every avenue open in R&D (such as OS X on Intel).

That doesn’t mean any of those other sizes are coming out soon. That time will come (look at all the sizes of MacBook) but it feels much too soon to me; the benefit seems too small (how many sales will really be lost because people won’t stand for an iPad that’s 1.7” too large? enough to offset the manufacturing and logistics costs of two product lines?) and the penalty seems too great (fragmentation, developer hassle, reduced “good enough I guess” user-experience). One day, yes, but I’ll be surprised if it’s in 2012.

Here's my guess-
The screen of the smaller iPad will actually be the same size as now, only without the border. Essentially you will have the same visible screen real estate. So while the device will become smaller, the experience won't become compromised.

Eh? Eh?

That sounds neat to me, BUT... any tablet with a border smaller than the iPad is poorly-planned. You have to hold the thing, securely and comfortably, without constant accidental touches on the touchscreen. (A phone is smaller and different: you can cup both edges and not need to grip the front.)

 

[Crissov]

Bezel-free unlikely

The screen of the smaller iPad will actually be the same size as now, only without the border. Essentially you will have the same visible screen real estate. So while the device will become smaller, the experience won't become compromised.

Although it’s quite possible the bezel will shrink, the WSJ is explicitly talking about screen size. The accessory industry would love to produce and sell another set of cases and covers.

The current display is about 20cm × 15cm (25cm diagonal), the physical dimensions of the device itself are around 24cm × 19cm, i.e. plus 4cm in both width and height, resulting in a ca. 1.30 aspect ratio and a diagonal of slightly more than 30cm (12in).

 

[leukotriene]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

It's not an iPad mini, it's the new iPod Touch, or maybe even just the "iPod". This is why they haven't updated the iPod Touch in over a year.

And if Apple can give a reason for existing iPhone owners to actually buy an iPod, that just makes more business sense.

 

[leukotriene]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Hey arn, what we really need are some more mockups with actual apps being shown that are scaled down to the 7.75" size. Do all the iOS iPad app widgets work well when scaled down to 7.75"? I think some particularly good apps to test this with would be iOS Numbers, GarageBand, and iMovie.

 

[gpat]

An iPad with a screen size different from the current one won't happen anytime soon.

 

[MattInOz]

. Apple specify 11mm as the smallest touch UI element, so devs will have to scale up for the mini.

Apple doesn't specify the size in mm in any document I've seen. Always Pixels.

 

[chameleon81]

What would be the point? The iPad mini would still be about 2x the price of a Kindle Fire so even if Apple thought the Fire were a threat this wouldn't address the Fire's only real strength. Add to that the fiddly small icons, the 50% smaller (by volume) battery and you've got an unattractive product compared to the real thing. Then there's fragmentation. Apple specify 11mm as the smallest touch UI element, so devs will have to scale up for the mini. Or will Apple suddenly say, 'guys we were wrong about that 11mm thing'? Doesn't seem likely...

I think they will lower the price maybe little bit more expensive than the Kindle Fire. Many people will go for an iPad. I have a Kindle Fire. It"s user interface is a nightmare.

 

[leukotriene]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

A couple people are saying that it would be a bad idea to shrink to bezel for a hypothetical 7.75" iPad. I think that's wrong, and bear with me so I can explain why:

At 7.75", an adult hand *can* hold the thing with one hand, thus eliminating the need for a bezel in the first place. So what about kids? (lol "think of the children!")

They obviously have to hold everything with two hands anyways. But since their fingers and thumbs are smaller to begin with, you *can* shrink the bezel down to a significantly slimmer size. And a slimmer bezel maximizes screen real estate while minimizing device footprint.

Whether or not this type of device is actually desirable is a whole other argument altogether, but I don't think that it's valid at all to say that the bezel can't be shrunk.

(again, this is just one of many arguments against Apple creating a 7.75" iPad; I'm just saying there are better arguments out there than the Apple-can't-shrink-the-bezel line of thinking.)

 

[dr Dunkel]

I did most of my surfing on the iPhone 4 before I got the iPad 2 and I don't think the size of the iPad Mini would be an issue for me. I think it will be the perfect size! Oh, how I love options!

 

[newrocket]

No one wants a smaller iPad!!!! It is exactly like jobs said "its to small".
If anything, it should be a little bigger (11").

 

[MonkeySee....]

Can't see the need for a smaller iPad personally but 8inch would make an amazing touch screen remote for a television.

You could be right. It may just be a remote for the new supposed TV line up!

 

[mw360]

Apple doesn't specify the size in mm in any document I've seen. Always Pixels.

Well they'll also have to change all those documents...

 

[Cydonia]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Everything said by Apple regarding a smaller iPad <10" makes sence to me. With regards to actual iPad design app layout. Simple reducing an iPad app down to a smaller screen could create UI problems. However, increasing the screen size for iPod would be great. This would avoid the problems Steve Jobs outlined regarding tablets with screen sizes < iPad.

 

[leukotriene]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

You know what really discounts this rumor though?

When I saw that the WSJ was behind this story, I immediately believed it because they have an incredible track record when it comes to Apple rumors (they clearly have been used many times in the past as an unofficial mouthpiece by Apple). In fact, I think the most solid evidence for this particular rumor is the source.

But all the major WSJ leaks in the past have come from "sources within Apple" (i.e. Apple executives). This particular rumor though is sourcing seedy supply-chain vendors. In that capacity, it looks like the WSJ had taken to bottom-feeding just like many other publications (at least with this particular rumor). And as we all know, rumors from Asian supply-chain vendors tend to be non-predictive most of the time.

I don't know, after reconsidering the wording of the WSJ report, this one seems uncharacteristically fishy despite WSJ's track record.

 

[GunZi]

This is too small, considering its a tablet.

im not going to buy this F"""ing Sh"t.

Anyways, im buying the 9.7" iPad 3 though.


No hate here, i just think another size is just a bad idea.

 

[Xendren]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

It's not an iPad mini, it's the new iPod Touch, or maybe even just the "iPod". This is why they haven't updated the iPod Touch in over a year.

And if Apple can give a reason for existing iPhone owners to actually buy an iPod, that just makes more business sense.

This would make sense. The ONLY advantage the Fire has on the Touch is screen size. Other than that, the Touch smokes the Fire at the same price point.

 

[Sol]

1024 X 768 would look fine on an 8" screen and require less processing power. If the Mac product line is any indication, Apple will give people an incentive to buy the bigger iPads for more powerful hardware and higher resolution screen.