Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

It wouldn't need any less processing power.
 
So then there'd be 3 screen sizes iOS apps would have to take into consideration. 4 if rumors the iPhone 5 will have a bigger screen. Why does everyone want iPhones to have bigger screens and iPads to have smaller screens? Maybe people from both camps of thought should just swap devices.
Yes, you have a point there. I'm not feeling the urge to jump to 4" on my iPhone (I use my iPad for all "serious" browsing - it's playing in an entirely different division for that), but I'll also not complain if they do it. IF they do that, I hope they just keep the "Retina" resolution from the 4/4s. I wonder if it would really make a difference. Slightly larger pixels, but noticeable?
 
A smaller iPad is just stupid. Stick with the one size and you're good. Don't go and fragment the iPad market. That would be dumb. That is IF Apple is doing this. It's still hear say at the moment.'

But from the WSJ article this is the most important part:
In the quarter ending in December, Apple hit new sales and profit records based on runaway holiday demand for its iPhone and iPad tablet devices. The company's share price has climbed in the wake of those results, closing above $500 a share for the first time on Monday.
 
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.

What makes you think a 264 PPI iPad is not a "retina" display ? Remember, the "Retina" marketing is not just about a fixed PPI, but a given PPI for a viewing distance.

If Apple believes you hold the iPad from farther away than your typical smartphone, then 264 PPI could very well fit into the "retina" marketing, just like a 48 PPI TV could be retina with a couch placed sufficiently far away from it.

Object size varies depending on the distance on which you view it.
 
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.

Processing power... processing power... I remember running a 1600x1200 desktop, double buffered at 60 hz off a 4 MB Matrox Millennium II back in 1996. Resolutions have barely come up since the late 90s (especially on the vertical side), but GPU power has skyrocketed. The A5's GPU would literally trash whatever we had running those huge desktops back then, what makes you think it would break a sweat running anything above 1024x768, much less a PowerVR series 6 that's rumored for the iPad 3 ?
 
This is rubbish in my opinion. I'm sure they have tested it but come on, do we really believe Apple is going to come out with an 8" iPad with the iPad 2's resolution?

Also, I love how people say WSJ is almost 100% accurate on their reports. They just said earlier that iPad 3 will come March 7th with quad-core, LTE on AT&T and Verizon, retina display, and everyone has taken it as the absolute truth. Then WSJ puts out this schlock of a report. I'd have to say they don't know anymore than the average macrumors reader does.
 
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)

I'm sure apple has worked with suppliers on larger and smaller iPads than the 9.7.. Doesn't mean they will be available to the public.
 
retarded thought ... 8", 10" and 12" iPads, with the 12" wriggling into 'laptop replacement' territory, MAYBE has a kickstand.

Yes, a massive iPad might seem stupid, but if Steves / Apples vision was / is that computer use will drift into the tablet space and away from the desktop OS, then for it to mature, you're going to need to offer more than one model to satisfy different users.

While Apple might scoff at competitors attempts to copycat the iPad, there is enough variation and testing in the market place for Apple to see where there is potential outside of the 9.7" form factor.

What Apple needs to foster now, is developers enthusiasm to code for varying devices. Apple won't stick with 3.5" and 9.7" form factors until time ends, so they have to start building APIs to deal with keeping UI usability consistent throughout a wider range of products. We need to start seeing proper scalable iOS apps, that aren't just developed for two sizes.
 
Why the heck would an 8" iPad need to exist. That's just too close to 9.7"

7" maybe. It's kinda hard to tell where the line should be drawn when these devices are already so small. But even then, 8" seems slightly too close.

I don't see it happening. It would mean SERIOUS fragmentation. Some apps would have to be completely redesigned to function on a lower resolution.

MUCH better option would be to just discount the price of the iPad2 when the iPad3 comes out. A cheaper iPad2 would be much more tempting to a kindle fire buyer.
 
I don't see it happening. It would mean SERIOUS fragmentation. Some apps would have to be completely redesigned to function on a lower resolution.

Who's to say they would lower resolution though ? Screen size and pixel count are quite independant.

----------

Could not work on a smaller screen, I don't think this would work.

You are not everyone else. Because it wouldn't work for you does not mean it wouldn't work for others. Choices and differences, the things life is made of.
 
You guys do realize that if Apple releases a small one, you won't have to buy it, right? For reading textbooks and things, a smaller iPad would be great for holding for long periods of time. For me, it would be good, if it's not good for you, stick with the 9.7". It's like gay marriage: don't like it, don't get one :p
 
Ok the minute I see Kindle Fire in these stories I call BS on them. Where is the evidence that Apple needs to compete with Kindle Fire or that Fire has eaten into iPad sales?

Maybe Apple will decide to make slightly bigger iPod Touch, but I can't see them making a smaller tablet under the iPad name.
 
Ok the minute I see Kindle Fire in these stories I call BS on them. Where is the evidence that Apple needs to compete with Kindle Fire or that Fire has eaten into iPad sales?

Maybe Apple will decide to make slightly bigger iPod Touch, but I can't see them making a smaller tablet under the iPad name.



Based on unofficial Kindle Fire sales, there is a nice developing market for a lower cost, limited functionality tablet. Most people looking to buy a compact econo car do not drive away from the dealership in a luxury sedan or vice versa. There is a base for each, so why dismiss either it if it leads to sales and profit growth?

Apple has indicated for sometime now that tablets are the future and PCs are a dead end so it makes sense it would be studying a broader tablet line to catch the lower end customers. Apple has iCloud, Amazon Cloud Drive. Apple has iBooks, Amazon the Kindle Store. Apple has iTunes, Amazon the MP3 Music store + Cloud Player. We know Apple is kind of like the old BASF ad -- they don't make X, they make it better. Makes sense they would come out with a Cloud-based iPad similar to the Fire, just with AppleMagic inside.

An Apple iPad Cloud tab might be a loss leader, just like the Fire is for Amazon. But it gets customers to buy exclusive Apple content - iBooks & iApps so that when they are ready to graduate to a full featured tablet or expand their hardware it only makes sense to stick w/ Apple lest they have to rebuy so much content again.
 
MUCH better option would be to just discount the price of the iPad2 when the iPad3 comes out. A cheaper iPad2 would be much more tempting to a kindle fire buyer.

I could see a cheaper iPad 2 before another iPad with a smaller screen size. But I doubt Apple leadership is making product decisions based on 'we have to compete with Kindle Fire'. There really isn't any evidence that Fire is taking away would be customers from Apple. If anything the Fire is probably eating into other Android tablet sales.
 
Cant see Apple ever bringing out a bigger one, there would be practically zero market for it. The only time you'll see iOS get bigger is when Apple inevitably caves and ditches OS X in favor of iOS. I dont look forward to that day.
I think you're quite off on the market-bit. I have yet to ever experiencing that my iPad is too large, but I have experienced several scenarios where I'd prefer it to be bigger. For reading it is OK, but for a lot of productivity task I've used it I've longed for more screen real-estate.
 
This rumor is about persisent as the iphone mini rumor :rolleyes:

I know this is MacRumors, but are we really going to have to put up with this junk until June?

I really want a 5" 16:9 iPhone screen, but I'm not going to get it, no matter how much sense it makes (no bigger than a 3GS, measure it out).
 
I think there would be a farely sizable market for the smaller tablet, and it won't screw developers, theyre keeping the resolution of the iPad 2.

The screen will look better than the iPad 2 too, being higher DPI, of course buttons and such will be smaller, but I don't see it being too much of a problem. I think a lighter, smaller and (probably) cheaper iPad will fly off the shelves.
 
Last edited:
I'm on the side to think 8" is 1" too big; 7" sounds ok for me; I would not oppose a 12" iPad either ...

The smaller iPad would be ideal in Japanese commuter trains.

But hey, actually let's focus first on the iPad 3 ; this one will come first into our reality;
 
Processing power... processing power... I remember running a 1600x1200 desktop, double buffered at 60 hz off a 4 MB Matrox Millennium II back in 1996. Resolutions have barely come up since the late 90s (especially on the vertical side), but GPU power has skyrocketed. The A5's GPU would literally trash whatever we had running those huge desktops back then, what makes you think it would break a sweat running anything above 1024x768, much less a PowerVR series 6 that's rumored for the iPad 3 ?

Sure, almost any processor and graphics chip can do 1024 X 768 but rendering 3D in real-time still requires more power for higher resolutions. In a lower resolution iPad the most cutting edge processor would be over-kill, especially if it makes the full-size iPad seem slow.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.