Apple Working with Suppliers on 8-Inch iPad

[milo]

I don't see why the size would be a big deal, the whole notion that 7 is too small makes no sense considering there's an iPhone.

Obviously they'd have to find the right way to do interface and apps, seems like some iPad apps would be fine while others would be better taking the iPhone version and scaling up. And there are many things like web browsers that scale easily to any size.

With Kindle Fire selling millions, you can be sure Apple is taking a serious look at the size and the price point. Although if they do keep the iPad 2 and drop the price enough ($349 would put a serious dent in Fire sales), people might be happy enough to buy that and be fine with the size.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

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.

Consensus estimates are that Amazon sold 5m Kindle Fire units last quarter. You don't think Apple wouldn't like to have a share of that pie? Again it's NOT about Kindle's competition w/ iPad, they are two very different tablets. It's about growing the customer base. Fire sales show there is a large market for a simpler, ultra low cost tablet.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Apple has the exact same cloud capabilities as Amazon, so an 8" model could mimic the Fire, but with a stronger, slicker OS than the Fire's, rather than be just a smaller screen iPad. It would be a totally different product much like the iPod nano and iPod touch.

 

[Geekbabe]

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

Yeah, but it's not just $500, add in tax, Applecare an/or another warranty plan to offers protection against loss or accidental damage, add the price of a cover & other accesories etc. The cost is a factor particularly if you've got more than one tween/teenager in the family.


Also, as good as tablets are they are not yet a replacement for a computer, an ipad that's going to cost around $700 after factoring in taxes, insurance and accessories is going to put average parents in the position of saying you either get a netbook/notebook or an ipad.


A less expensive entry model makes it much more likely that a parent will say yes to that ipad and much more open & receptive to the idea of a Macbook Pro or Air when it comes time to buy that college bound high school senior a graduation gift.

 

[iScott428]

I think people are just taking the 4" iPhone rumor and doubling it for an 8" iPad.

 

[BhaveshUK]

I think the iPad 2 is a perfect size considering the iPad is more than a book reader. The iWork apps work less well on the iPhone due to screen size so some apps might not work well on the smaller screen.

I'm suprised people find the iPad hard to hold for more than 10 minutes. I thought it was incredibly light no matter where I am.

 

[Henriok]

I don't know why no-one in this thread has done the math.
An iPad with a 7.75" 1024x786 px screen would have the ppi of 165, virtually identical to the original iPhone. The issue of the touch targets would be too small for fingers, or to small for eyes to see is non existent since the resolution was perfectly fine for the first three versions of iPhone.

 

[Rogifan]

Consensus estimates are that Amazon sold 5m Kindle Fire units last quarter. You don't think Apple wouldn't like to have a share of that pie? Again it's NOT about Kindle's competition w/ iPad, they are two very different tablets. It's about growing the customer base. Fire sales show there is a large market for a simpler, ultra low cost tablet.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Apple has the exact same cloud capabilities as Amazon, so an 8" model could mimic the Fire, but with a stronger, slicker OS than the Fire's, rather than be just a smaller screen iPad. It would be a totally different product much like the iPod nano and iPod touch.

I could definitely see a bigger iPod touch filing this space. That's one product where sales are declining. A larger Touch would keep the iPod product line viable.

 

[GenesisST]

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.

I think OCP will challenge Apple and revamp Detroit!

 

[mrgreen4242]

I'm wondering if the "retna display" screen on the iPad 3 is going to add enough to the price that they can't start it at $499. They need to keep a $499 (or less, imo) entry level price point and so have two options - keep the iPad 2 around in some limited configurations as the entry level device or build a new, lower cost option. I'm hoping for the latter, personally.

I'd like to see a lineup something like this:

$299 - iPad mini (A5/512mb RAM/7.85" 1024*768 screen/.75lbs/7.5hrs battery life) 16gb, wifi
$399 - iPad mini 32gb wifi (note the lack of a 16gb mini 3G model - it'd be very Apple to force the upsell on capacity to get the 3G)
$499 - iPad mini 32gb 3G
$699 - iPad 3 (A6/1gb RAM/2048*1536/iPad 2 form factor) 32gb wifi
$799 - iPad 3 64gb wifi and 32gb 3G
$899 - iPad 3 64gb 3G
maybe $999 - iPad 3 128gb wifi and $1099 3G, though I wonder if they'll eventually do a 11-12" model and use 128gb as a selling point on that

I'd personally be all over a $299 7.85" iPad, and I would strongly consider the $499 model hypothesized above.

 

[Westside guy]

Nope, it would not "just work". It would mean that ALL apps are reduced to 75%. All hit target would be smaller. All buttons would be smaller. And, as famously said by Steve Jobs, you'll need to sand your finger tips.
A app designed natively for a 7" tablet would be OK. But an app designed for a 10" tablet and scaled down to è3 would be a pain to use.

Sometime you should set an iPad next to an iPhone and measure the icons - you'll notice that the iPhone's icons are significantly smaller than those on an iPad. Do you need to "sand your fingertips" to use an iPhone?

 

[WLS]

I don't know why no-one in this thread has done the math.
An iPad with a 7.75" 1024x786 px screen would have the ppi of 165, virtually identical to the original iPhone. The issue of the touch targets would be too small for fingers, or to small for eyes to see is non existent since the resolution was perfectly fine for the first three versions of iPhone.

You are comparing Apples and Oranges so to speak.
the iPhone has a different standard ratio and pixel count. The icons and user interface are different sizes.

 

[cvaldes]

Remember those Apple new hires who work on fake projects?

 

[Wordsmithmac]

I'd like a smaller ipad. much easier to carry and use on the road than the current size. Jobs isn't around anymore, he was rigid in his beliefs but ppl are flexible so not give people options?

 

[Thunderstrike76]

No, there would be 5, as we already have 4:

1 - iPhone 1, iPhone 3g, iPhone 3G
2 - iPhone 4, iPhone 4
3 - iPad 1, iPad 2
4 - iPad 3

5 - Rumored "iPad Mini"

----------



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 within the next five years we will see a hybrid version of OS X and iOS running on all desktops and iOS devices. Steve Jobs said OS X would set them up for the next 20 years. So we'll see where the next 10 years takes us.

 

[NixPix]

You are comparing Apples and Oranges so to speak.
the iPhone has a different standard ratio and pixel count. The icons and user interface are different sizes.

Really? In what way are the ratios different and what do you mean by "different sizes"? Different in the number of pixels or in mm?

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

I don't understand all this hate. Firstly, if Apple releases a 7.85" iPad, no one is forcing you to buy it. The 9.7" will definitely still be available. I think people focus too much on wanting Apple to release ONE of everything. ONE new iPhone, ONE new iPad.. there is nothing wrong with opening up to different types/sizes of devices if there is a market for it. And there is, which I will describe. Even if you don't fit in the category.

This is what I am imagining. A 7.95" tablet starting at a pricepoint of $300.

Education- with the new textbook initiative, Apple will really try to push iPads into the classroom. $300 vs $500 will really make a huge different in penetration into the school system. They will then also be lighter and less weildly for elementary school kids to carry around with them. Screen size would definitely be sufficent.

Children- parents just don't typically spend $500 on "toys" for their children. The limit seems to be right around the $300 pricepoint of video game consoles. Instead of getting their kid an Xbox for Christmas, they will get an iPad mini.

In business- so many businesses have been implementing iPad initiatives. Sure the price would help, but I'm mostly thinking about the size. Imagine waiters taking your order on an iPad mini. Imagine retail employees becoming mobile cashiers walking around with iPad mini's to help you check out (or order out of stock items for you from anywhere around the store).

The kindle fire lovers- a lot of people love what the kindle fire is about. Portable, inexpensive, good reader, good for casual games/browsing. Remember what is so great about the iPad in the first place? It's a computer-lite. Well this is an iPad-lite. Some people just don't need all that the iPad is. it's hard to convince someone looking at a Fire to spend an extra $300 for something they don't need, but an extra $100 to get the iPad name? That's do-able.

And I'm sure there are many more reasons

 

[D.T.]

I don’t believe an iPad with smaller display, but otherwise the same materials/internals as an iPad 2 will be much cheaper [than the 9.7” model]), and I certainly don’t think it will creep into the price territory of the KF (~$299).

Even if it managed to hit the market at $100 less (which I think would be a pretty significant difference), that’s $399 for a 16GB model, and the KF could still be marketed as “You can get a Kindle to read and a KF to watch movies”.

Maybe an 8GB, 7.xx” model for $349? Maybe a 16GB model but with a plastic chassis?

I believe the likeliness of this hitting the market is:

1) Price - without creating a new price segment, and just creating a new “usage” segment won’t be enough for Apple

2) Usability - i.e., using an existing resolution (1024x768) on a 7.xx” display - I’m convinced Apple won’t introduce a new resolution into the existing product lineup.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I could definitely see a bigger iPod touch filing this space. That's one product where sales are declining. A larger Touch would keep the iPod product line viable.

The touch is declining b/c the iPhone took over that space. It's not where the growth is. The growth is in tablets and the iPad is the marquee brand right now. That is the brand name Apple wants to exploit. The iPod is last decade.

But the name moniker is irrelevant to the discussion here whether it's a bigger iPod or smaller iPad it's still essentially the same product -- you know a rose is still a rose by any other name.

 

[rhett7660]

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

This is the first thing I thought of when I read this. Great minds think a like!!

 

[PracticalMac]

Children will LOVE an 8" iPad.
And quite a few adults would appreciate something more portable)

(PS, I told you so)

----------

I don't understand all this hate. Firstly, if Apple releases a 7.85" iPad, no one is forcing you to buy it. The 9.7" will definitely still be available. I think people focus too much on wanting Apple to release ONE of everything. ONE new iPhone, ONE new iPad.. there is nothing wrong with opening up to different types/sizes of devices if there is a market for it. And there is, which I will describe. Even if you don't fit in the category.

Same here.


Same kind of hate we saw with original 5GB iPod.

Look now.

 

[Thunderstrike76]

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.)

If they shrink the bezel that means they they might have to change the home button. Yeah, apple doesn't like buttons but the home button is essential. If they did change it i suppose they could raise it close to the screen and elongate it or heck they could even go with face detection. But overall this entire rumor is just nonsense.

 

[Henriok]

You are comparing Apples and Oranges so to speak.
the iPhone has a different standard ratio and pixel count. The icons and user interface are different sizes.

What matters is the size of standard widgets in _pixels_ and they are exactly the same for the 480x320 px 163 ppi iPhone screen and the 1024x768 px 132 ppi iPad screen.
Every widget is drawn exactly the same on those devices (they have the same pixel count) but the resulting real world size is larger on the iPad since the ppi of the iPad screen is smaller. I.e.

A standard button on an iPad is larger in the real world, than a standard button on an iPhone. Increasing the ppi of a smaller iPad mini screen would give the widgets the exact same real world size as it would on an iPhone.

The aspect ratio of the devices is of exactly zero concern.

 

[Crissov]

“Retina” is wishy-washy and doesn’t have to

In that very first presentation you linked to, Steve mentions the viewing distance. It's very much part of the definition.

I linked it specifically because that was basically the first and last time the viewing distance was rightfully mentioned by Apple. Everywhere else you’ll see “Retina display” equated with “300 dpi or more”. Journalists are stupid, they’re like Gentlefury, they will nitpick – and wrongly so – that the iPad 3 has not really a “Retina display”, because its pixels are larger than the ones of the iPhone.

Apple should have a document explaining their marketing term “Retina display” that explicitly mentions viewing distance, like Steve Jobs did (in front of a audience composed mostly of developers). Their retina promo site does not do that right now, making it hard for the laymen public come 7 March.

 

[KnightWRX]

I linked it specifically because that was basically the first and last time the viewing distance was rightfully mentioned by Apple. Everywhere else you’ll see “Retina display” equated with “300 dpi or more”.

Not everywhere else no :

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/10/iphone-4s-retina-display-claim-put-under-the-math-microscope/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

The claim is that Retina basically means you can't see the individual pixels. That is a function of size of the pixel (PPI) and the distance at which you view it. There's just no other way to define it. 300 PPI is not "Retina" since you can see the pixels at 1 inch away for example, just due to the natural arc.

 

[Winter Charm]

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.

A small form factor iPad with a 16GB capacity, aimed at entry level users and those who want an ultra portable device would make sense.

This kinda makes sense, but it would still cause fragmentation and issues with UI sizing. Apple could possibly keep the same screen resolution that it has on the iPad 2, but you will run into issues with the size of some buttons... :/

I really think the only reasonable use would be as a powerful remote for Apple TV... that ALSO doubled as a tablet - albeit without the app store - but still had all the basic apps out there.