Apple Working with Suppliers on 8-Inch iPad

[brewcitywi]

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

The first priority of a smaller iPad is price point. If everyone wants a retina display, then it will be $429.

To work in the marketplace, it's got to be between $249 and $349.

To keep the perception of pricing being low, I wouldnt be surprised if it was wi-fi only.

It has to make someone think, for an extra $79, I could get an iPad instead of a kindle fire? I'm in. If it doesn't, then i believe that the 8" iPad won't be released.

Unless the 8" version is like an ePad, made exclusively for the education market, and bulk sales to schools? Not a bad thought, actually.

 

[Geekbabe]

Another thought to consider is the next generation of consumers, I saw a study somewhere that said 44% of teenagers who were asked wanted an iphone or ipad for Xmas last year. Apple already markets the itouch heavily to tweens/teens.

The thought of having to fork over $500 plus tax, plus Apple care for an ipad seems excessive & overly indulgent for a parent, particularly when you have more than one teenager in the house. $300 is not much more money than the cost of an itouch, it would give a teen a lot more screen real estate at 8 inches & the price point would seems a lot more reasonable to parents to spend for a birthday or Xmas gift.

Apple pleases the parents (who just might decide to treat themselves to a new device while they are shopping) and it brings young people, the next generation of consumers into the Apple ecosystem.

 

[Bear]

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.

It might eat some sales and yet, it will in all likelihood generate new sales (me for one possibly).

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

You may be right, however, you may be wrong. Remember everything else that people have said Apple wouldn't do.

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.

This. Also, putting books on a Nook is a stupid process if they're not ones you've bought from Barnes & Nobles.

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.

You may not buy it. Others would probably buy it. I've seen plenty of discussion and there is apparently a desire for a smaller iPad.

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.

Based on my iPod touch usage, I would want a 64GB (min) iPad. Although I might be able to do with 32GB. Anyway, you've touched on the important question. Actual specifications of an ~8" iPad. The same screen resolution as the iPad 2 is fine. Processing power, flash memory and ram sizes cover the rest of the important questions for me. For others, the question s might include will be it be Wi-Fi models only or will their be 3G (or $G LTE) versions as well?

To sum up all of the above, peoples needs and desires (and what they can afford or think it's worth paying) are all different. And I don't think a smaller screen at the same resolution will be much work at all for the developers since they still need to make things work on the iPad 2 since there will be a lot of them out there for a long while after the iPad 3 is released.

 

[mentholiptus]

I'd like to see a 13"-15" quad core iPad with at least 128gb-256gb of storage, and touch versions of Aperture, Logic, FCP, and Motion.

 

[Jiz]

This will be the iPad for the schools.

 

[Bear]

This is for the remote control of the iTV ....

It could be the recommended remote and maybe one it comes with, but the tv remote app should also work with iPod Touch/iPhone and the larger iPads since you could search the available shows on the iPod/iPhone/iPad and then someone changes the show on the TV

It wouldn't need any less processing power.

Actually I think the point that was trying to be made is that the ~8"iPad could come with similar processing power to the iPad 2 and then the iPad 3 has the A6. So it's not just screen size that differentiates the iPad models.

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.

True. However, it's also possible they will be sold.

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

Huh? Um it works on the iPod Touch and iPhones which have a smaller screen than the current iPads.

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.

Clean your glasses? Seriously tho', I can see a smaller iPad for a lower price point to gather those who won't (or can't) afford to buy the 10" iPad.

 

[coolspot18]

Could this be the perceived replacement for the entry level 16GB iPad? It makes sense, I've stated elsewhere on the site they I think Apple will drop the 16GB and start the ipad3 range at 32GB rising to 128 for the top end model.

If Apple were to release a 128GB model, I hope they improve iTune's pitiful backup system. The current backup/restore model gobbles disk space to no end!

 

[oliversl]

oh no, a smaller screen means Google + BlackBerry + Amazon won. No please.

 

[ericinboston]

1)Before the iPad ever existed, I had hoped for a smaller one...such as 7" dedicated more towards the book-reading crowd...

2)...but nobody uses an iPad to read a book so I guess it's no big deal to have a larger screen. Let's face it, the iPad is simply not designed to be used as a book reader as staring at the screen for long periods of time reading a book stresses the eyes. Before people harp on this point, you need to understand there is a world of difference (on your eyes) of reading a website article/playing a game/reading an email vs. staring at black/white text all day on the iPad. The Kindle is designed to be a book reader and it rocks...but it also lacks everything else the iPad does...and this was by design.

3)Why would Apple bother releasing a cousin product that is simply 1" smaller? Doesn't make sense for time/money/marketing/etc. And how much cheaper can it really be? $100?

4)Since nobody (including our family) uses the iPad to read books, it's a great device for checking email, surfing the web, and playing some apps. I don't see how/who the iPad Mini would lure at this stage of the game with the regular iPad size being so successful.

 

[greenmeanie]

My son went with the kindle fire because he wanted something small to carry around campus.

 

[Bear]

Can somebody please explain something to me... the majority seem to be negative towards the idea of an 8" iPad on the basis that it would be "unusable"...

...but the iPhone is less than half that size and it's pretty damn usable!

So, is this "hate" just irrational fanboyism or have I missed something?

Nope you haven't missed anything. When Apple originally say they weren't considering a smaller iPad, one of the issues was the available screen resolutions at a reasonable price on the smaller screens. This has changed, which is why I think an 8" iPad is a string possibility.

For what it's worth, I would be a buyer of a smaller iPad if one was available as long as there wasn't too much battery life loss. But that's a personal choice because I find the iPad 2 too heavy after more than 10 minutes use in bed! Which is the location of more than 50% of my iPad 2 usage.

This. Everyone has different comfort points on what they hold. And where they would be using an iPad would also have an impact based on the size of the iPad.

I can see them keeping iPad 2 around and dropping the price or making a slightly bigger iPod Touch. But a smaller iPad would essentially be telling the market 'Kindle Fire is a threat' and there's no evidence to suggest Apple does. If they feel they need to compete on the low end they'll drop the price on iPad 2 when iPad 3 comes out.

But would the price drop enough? an 8" iPad would probably be a much nicer price.

Fine,as long as I can have the original size.

Good attitude here. You buy the iPad3 and others will by the 8" iPad.

Please, no! The iPad is fine as it is. Having an 8-inch model will only complicate things for developers. Doesn't Apple pride its lack of fragmentation? Well, having another display to deal with makes devs' jobs harder and makes the consumer's search for compatible apps a pain, also.

Not really. it will apparently be the same resolution as the iPad 2. Therefore almost every application will just work.

I do think that Apple is seriously looking at an 8" iPad at 1024x768 resolution that is Wi-Fi only that will be much less costly than the current iPad 2. It will use almost identical internals as the iPad 2 except the A5 CPU/GPU and all related chipsets will be reduced in size to reduce power usage.

Don't be surprised if Apple releases two models, a 16 GB for US$299 and and a 32 GB for 349.

32 GB would be a little smaller than I really wanted. maybe as large as 64 GB and the iPad 3 could go to 129 GB?

This is the same strategy Apple followed with the iPod lineup. Once you've become the dominate device in the category you offer a more "Budget" model (Nano) to steal back and dominate that Budget space that devices like the Kindle Fire chip away at occupy.

The earliest we something like this is Xmas or a full year from now.

I think it would have to be no later than September, but personally I would like to see it sooner. And you're right about the strategy.

 

[ericinboston]

Another thought to consider is the next generation of consumers, I saw a study somewhere that said 44% of teenagers who were asked wanted an iphone or ipad for Xmas last year. Apple already markets the itouch heavily to tweens/teens.

Interesting...it would be neat if Apple decided to make this thing the next iPod Touch...larger of course with the screen...but probably too large since it wouldn't fit in your pocket...especially for all the folks who walk/run/exercise/etc with it.

Apple has so many iOS products that essentially do 90% of the same stuff (the 10% is the "phone" part of the iPhone) that Apple is/has diluting itself with so many similar choices. But fun times ahead I am sure.

I am EXTREMELY interested to see what iPad 3 has in store. I really hope the price drops a bit...$499, IMO, is still pricey for the things we do on our iPad 1 (check email a few times a week, 2 year old plays a few apps, surf the web a few times a week, 1-2 youtube videos a week).

 

[colinwil]

The thought of having to fork over $500 plus tax, plus Apple care for an ipad seems excessive & overly indulgent for a parent...

Presumably that's why Apple are emphasising 'Education' so much. A $500 toy is expensive indeed. A $500 investment in your children's future is easy to justify

 

[GenesisST]

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.

I remember trying that res every month or so, but reverting back to 1280x1024 because it was interlaced and my eyes hurt...

I think it may have been on a Matrox Mystique (might be wrong, but memory is fuzzy).

 

[Krazy Bill]

oh no, a smaller screen means Google + BlackBerry + Amazon won. No please.

This is about Apple "winning"? Are you sure you want the largest company in the world to continue unchallenged? I really hope this means Apple is being pressured into finally competing with everyone.

Then... we win as well.

 

[jman240]

My guess is if there is a smaller one it will retain the current iPad resolution but because it's a smaller screen it will have a higher PPI.

If, and that's a big if, they decide to do a cheaper model to keep something like that on the market at a sub $500 price point (think more useful iPod touch) then they may differentiate it more by shrinking the size of it from the iPad 3.

You'd have the new iPad 3 with a 4x resolution display
And you'd have the new iPad lite or whatever with the same 1024x768 but on an 8 inch display instead of 10. Price it at $350 and you attract more people focused on price.

As for the controls being too small or difficult, have someone hold your iPad a little further away then you would normally to simulate the effect of an 8 inch vs 10 inch screen. I don't think it will make that big of a difference.

 

[ImageWrangler]

I prefer to only post to add to the discussion, so in that spirit...

No no no no no no no no no no.

As in, no, this is not going to happen, as in please let this rumor just die already. Granted this site is called "MacRUMORS" for a reason. But this whole smaller iPad thing needs to just go away and/or find a sister site like "MacFantasy" or "MacNonReality" or "MacThingsThatWillNeverHappen."

 

[WLS]

I call BS on this too. It's not attributed to anyone at Apple which is a big red flag right there.
Also there is no need to compete with the Kindle when Amazon is selling them as loss leaders. Apple does not sell products at a loss. What I do expect is a new Touch with a larger screen. A 5 inch screen would serve the needs of those wanting a smaller more portable book reader and would fit better into Apples product line. This is more likely a fake product to flush out leaks.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

What about an unlocked version?

 

[Jezak]

Like many others, I find the iPad/iPad 2 too heavy and uncomfortable to hold for longer than 10 minutes or so. I do a lot of reading on my iPad and that's really my only complaint. A smaller model that could maintain the resolution of my iPad 2 or kick it up ala rumored iPad 3 is compelling for my use case. I would like having a choice.

 

[qtx43]

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...

The page number buttons at the bottom of this forum page are about 3.5 mm wide, 4 mm in landscape. The > and < buttons are slightly wider. So we know what MacRumors considers usable. Whether it's specified in pixels or not, I agree about 11 mm is minimum.

I am also one that would like a bigger iPad. But I can see, especially for people who carry purses, that 8" is more portable. And maybe those people don't mind teeny tiny buttons. People come in different sizes too.

 

[Rogifan]

It's not about direct "threats," its about expanding market share. Imagine if BMW had the mindset you suggest -- there would only be a 3 series. But, in fact, BMW goes way upscale from there with the $90K+ 7 series (and Rolls Royce to the extreme) all the way down to the $31K+ 1 series, and soon the $20K-something 0 series.

BMW has gone downscale from the 3 in recent years to capture the entry market w/ the idea of converting them later in life to higher end products. Remember the iPod originally was meant to get people hooked on Apple products to the point they buy a Mac. That largely worked but now Apple needs to pull people into the iWorld before they are too invested in Amazon or Android.

I can see Apple dropping the price on iPad 2 or making a bigger iPod touch. I'm not suggesting Apple should just coast but this idea that the media keeps floating that Apple needs to produce a smaller, cheaper iPad to compete with the Fire is nonsense, especially when there's no evidence that the Fire is eating away at iPad sales.

 

[Doombringer]

I fear a mid-range touch device (between iPhone and iPad) would just feel like an ugly duckling. What purpose would it serve exactly? Oversized phone/mp3 player? Undersized tablet? Do the competing 7-ish inch tablets truly sell well? Well enough that Apple is missing out in their market?

 

[Bear]

I call BS on this too. It's not attributed to anyone at Apple which is a big red flag right there.
Also there is no need to compete with the Kindle when Amazon is selling them as loss leaders. Apple does not sell products at a loss. What I do expect is a new Touch with a larger screen. A 5 inch screen would serve the needs of those wanting a smaller more portable book reader and would fit better into Apples product line. This is more likely a fake product to flush out leaks.

What is the size that would be the difference between a smaller iPad and a larger iPod Touch? I think the perfect size for portability and yet being decent for using as a book reader would be 4 1/8 in by 6 7/8 in (10.5 by 17.5 mm). This is the size of a paperback book (in the US at least). I have jacket pockets that this would fit perfectly in. And Apple doesn't need to sell it as a loss leader. I think it could come in at a price up to about $100 more than the Kindle Fire yet still sell well because it is an iPad and all the encompasses.

Like many others, I find the iPad/iPad 2 too heavy and uncomfortable to hold for longer than 10 minutes or so. I do a lot of reading on my iPad and that's really my only complaint. A smaller model that could maintain the resolution of my iPad 2 or kick it up ala rumored iPad 3 is compelling for my use case. I would like having a choice.

And with all the comments and noise about a smaller iPad, I'd say many people want the choice and the lowe price a smaller iPad would bring.

My son went with the kindle fire because he wanted something small to carry around campus.

This. Just this.

I fear a mid-range touch device (between iPhone and iPad) would just feel like an ugly duckling. What purpose would it serve exactly? Oversized phone/mp3 player? Undersized tablet? Do the competing 7-ish inch tablets truly sell well? Well enough that Apple is missing out in their market?

Smaller more portable. Easier to hold for longer periods of time. With the resolution the same as the iPad 2 it wouldn't be undersized considering how many others sell smaller tablets. And yes, I think Apple would sell enough for it to be worthwhile. I still have an older iPod Touch and would consider an 8" iPad. If the iPad doesn't come in at a price and size (etc) that interests me, I would probably just do a battery replacement on my iPod Touch when it needs one instead of buying a new Touch or iPad.

 

[MovieCutter]

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

That's what I'd buy one for. I use an iPad 1 at the moment as a HT remote and a smaller version would fit the bill nicely.