I agree with you. Simply iPod - for gaming, navigation and so on. Bigger than iPhone, smaller than iPad...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Working with Suppliers on 8-Inch iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree with you. Simply iPod - for gaming, navigation and so on. Bigger than iPhone, smaller than iPad...
Maybe.
I see most parents opting for a cheaper laptop than a MBP or Air, unless they get a used one.
Then again I was in Starbucks the other day and there were two 15-year-old kids in there with their own MBPs and iPhones. Wish I had that kind of stuff given to me on a silver spoon in 8th grade.
This will never happen!
If you look at the picture that MacRumors provided. Just by scaling down the same picture by like 20% you are not getting a smaller iPad! Stop all the rumors. I don't know how many time this rumor floats and everyone has same comments. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! It just doesn't make sense. Apple is not in business of building remote controls (Wozniak did that when he left Apple year ago) and they are not in OEM business to provide car manufacturers in-dash display.
Let's leave those small screen form factor for Android tablets! Give it a rest - There is and there will be no Mini iPad!
If you look at the picture that MacRumors provided. Just by scaling down the same picture by like 20% you are not getting a smaller iPad! Stop all the rumors. I don't know how many time this rumor floats and everyone has same comments. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! It just doesn't make sense. Apple is not in business of building remote controls (Wozniak did that when he left Apple year ago) and they are not in OEM business to provide car manufacturers in-dash display.
Let's leave those small screen form factor for Android tablets! Give it a rest - There is and there will be no Mini iPad!
Idk, I sometimes find that the iPad is *too* large. Can't really hold it comfortably while trying to watch a movie while lying down for example. I think a 7" device would be perfect.
+ Since Apple is focusing on K-12 textbooks, perhaps they see a market for kids (who obviously have smaller hands than most adults)
This would be a mistake for Apple and I doubt that it's anything other than one of dozens of projects that will never see the light of day.
This is the type of move that RIM or other companies would make. Apple isn't going to kill their margins, confuse the marketplace, make developers suffer through something for a lesser product.
If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat. (not really, that's just an expression)
This is the type of move that RIM or other companies would make. Apple isn't going to kill their margins, confuse the marketplace, make developers suffer through something for a lesser product.
If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat. (not really, that's just an expression)
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 smaller form factor and slightly smaller interface elements may be a good fit for small hands using the planned K-12 text books.
The smaller form factor and slightly smaller interface elements may be a good fit for small hands using the planned K-12 text books.
I'd be interested in a smaller iPad.
I have a Kindle Fire, and I think the 7" size is really good, when using apps designed for that size. However, the user experience with apps designed either for smart phones or desktops (e.g., web pages in desktop mode) is poor.
I think this is the unspoken assumption behind SJ's comment, that you'd need to sandpaper your fingers to work with a 7" tablet. Sure you would, if the app was designed for a larger screen and was squeezed down to fit on a smaller tablet.
Smart phone apps aren't very good on 7" tablets either. The apps just look awful when stretched to fill the screen, and the range-of-motion required for typical actions is too much. You could leave the UI at original size floating in the middle of a huge border, but that looks like a cheap compromise.
The 7" screen works beautifully and looks great with apps designed specifically for that size. No sandpaper required.
I bet SJ knew that quite well, but he just didn't like the idea of creating yet another UI framework in which apps would have to be optimized for 7" screens. So he did one of those reality-distortion things with his sandpaper comment.
I hope that, if Apple decided to make a smaller tablet, they'd want to do it right by creating a UI framework optimized for that size. No stretching or squeezing to try and adapt apps designed for other screen sizes. I think the combination of Apple quality and attention to detail in a very portable tablet would be compelling.
But would that be too many frameworks for Apple to support? And would developers be willing to work in yet another framework? I think that's the crux of this decision.
I have a Kindle Fire, and I think the 7" size is really good, when using apps designed for that size. However, the user experience with apps designed either for smart phones or desktops (e.g., web pages in desktop mode) is poor.
I think this is the unspoken assumption behind SJ's comment, that you'd need to sandpaper your fingers to work with a 7" tablet. Sure you would, if the app was designed for a larger screen and was squeezed down to fit on a smaller tablet.
Smart phone apps aren't very good on 7" tablets either. The apps just look awful when stretched to fill the screen, and the range-of-motion required for typical actions is too much. You could leave the UI at original size floating in the middle of a huge border, but that looks like a cheap compromise.
The 7" screen works beautifully and looks great with apps designed specifically for that size. No sandpaper required.
I bet SJ knew that quite well, but he just didn't like the idea of creating yet another UI framework in which apps would have to be optimized for 7" screens. So he did one of those reality-distortion things with his sandpaper comment.
I hope that, if Apple decided to make a smaller tablet, they'd want to do it right by creating a UI framework optimized for that size. No stretching or squeezing to try and adapt apps designed for other screen sizes. I think the combination of Apple quality and attention to detail in a very portable tablet would be compelling.
But would that be too many frameworks for Apple to support? And would developers be willing to work in yet another framework? I think that's the crux of this decision.
Is the smaller iPad a great idea now? Have all of the ones here who said it would be stupid changed their minds?
:creepy monotone: Looks like Apple has done it again. I believe an 8 inch tablet is a brilliant idea. One which I've always supported. The 10 inch iPad is too large to carry around with me everywhere, and does not support my busy, on the go lifestyle.
O_O
I think they realized that a retina screen at that size could still look nice and they realize only offering one size is like only offering the 17" MBP. Some people want the smaller cheaper one and Apple sees this and knows this. As long as they keep you buying their product and spending money in iTunes, I honestly think Apple could care less about which you bought.
I'd rock the smaller unit faster than the regular one. Not just because the price would be pretty stellar but because the smaller, lighter one would work better with me playing games and pulling it in and out easier than the current iPad.
Those jokes weren't funny when the device was first rumored. Now that it has been wildly successful, they are even more idiotic.
Look at it from a product deployment perspective.
Release V 1.0, crippled resolution, develop an ecosystem, get consumer preference feedback.
Release V 2.0, same resolution, better processor speed bump, ecosystem well developed, expand to include books and textbooks.
Release V 3.0, quad resolution, quad core, quad network speeds, fully evolved ecosystem, market penetration phase.
Release V 4.0 (3.2), second form factor between touch and pad (mini-pad) suitable for kids K-6 and high resolution, at least dual core, quad speed network capable, but fee upgradable.
There's a view.
Rocketman
Release V 1.0, crippled resolution, develop an ecosystem, get consumer preference feedback.
Release V 2.0, same resolution, better processor speed bump, ecosystem well developed, expand to include books and textbooks.
Release V 3.0, quad resolution, quad core, quad network speeds, fully evolved ecosystem, market penetration phase.
Release V 4.0 (3.2), second form factor between touch and pad (mini-pad) suitable for kids K-6 and high resolution, at least dual core, quad speed network capable, but fee upgradable.
There's a view.
Rocketman
Print out the graphic, lay it over top of your current iPad's screen. It is a perfect match.
The point about an adult hand being able to hold it without a bezel is valid. They could even include a very narrow bezel that is touch sensitive--giving the iPad the ability to recognize when a finger is not intentionally making a selection on the screen. A thin bezel makes sense anyway, as there will need to be a place to put the camera.
I don't necessarily see this potential product as a companion to the iPad or a mini version. I could envision it as a future redesign of the existing iPad.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. IMO a smaller iPad is essentially legitimizing the competition, i.e. that the Kindle Fire is in the same class, is a competitor with iPad. Unless Apple has tons of customer data/requests asking for a smaller iPad I don't see it happening. But I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar to iPhone with a price cut on iPad 2 when the iPad 3 comes out. iPod Touch was (not sure if it still is) the #1 mobile gaming device so I can see a profitable scenario where they increase its size (not 8"). Quite honestly I'd bet on a larger iPod Touch or iPhone 6 before they offer a smaller iPad.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B5141a Safari/7534.48.3)
Being an apple nut i'd buy both sizes but think my credit card might not be maxed out just yet if we believe the wise Mr Gruber
'This is not the iPad 3, which I believe will have a same-sized (9.7 inches) double resolution display. This is a different iPad, which, last I heard, Apple was only considering, not committed to bringing to market. I wouldnt bet on it.'
Being an apple nut i'd buy both sizes but think my credit card might not be maxed out just yet if we believe the wise Mr Gruber
'This is not the iPad 3, which I believe will have a same-sized (9.7 inches) double resolution display. This is a different iPad, which, last I heard, Apple was only considering, not committed to bringing to market. I wouldnt bet on it.'
Obviously you don't have kids... my 6-year old would love something smaller and lighter to read ebooks, surf the web and play games. For many games and other apps that we have both on my iPad and iPhone, she prefers the iPhone over the iPad, but something in between would be just perfect.
What incentive is there for having an 8 inch iPad? what ould it bring to the table? aside from complexity.
Kotex Lightdays.
I've got an 8 inch pad to choose from, or a 10 inch pad for more. WHICH ONE DO I CHOOSE? OH GAWD! THE COMPLEXITY! :goes catatonic:
iPadKids doesn't sound right either.
Are there difference sized iPod touchs? how about iPhones? then there won't be iPads either.
I agree, definitely important that people understand that distinction between simply having a certain amount of PPI and doing so while factoring in the viewing distance.
I've also been thinking that their term 'Retina Display' has more to do with just not being able to see pixels from the standard viewing distance but that it is also a clear and sharp picture from that distance as well. I know this sounds obvious and superfluous to point out but what I'm getting at is that even though you normally can't see pixels from the standard viewing distance of a TV it's clear whether the picture is 'HD' or not. Apple likely wouldn't label their own TVs as having Retina Displays if they simply had the same PPI as every other TV (unless of course that PPI is high enough to display a very sharp picture). Sort of went off on a tangent there but just a thought.
You are making a huge mistake if you think the target market for such 8 inch iPad is a grown up person. Notice that children are smaller, therefore the 8 inch is relatively large for kids! And remember that apple is now targeting the education market for children. An 8 inch would be perfect for children aging between 2 and 12. And such device would also not cost as much as a grown up retina display with 10 inch.
Conclusion: 8 inch will come as an education iPad for the mass market, retina display iPad 3 will be for grown ups with more money.
The small iPad might be called iPad mini.
What do I get when I have predicted that right?
Conclusion: 8 inch will come as an education iPad for the mass market, retina display iPad 3 will be for grown ups with more money.
The small iPad might be called iPad mini.
What do I get when I have predicted that right?
You are making a huge mistake if you think the target market for such 8 inch iPad is a grown up person. Notice that children are smaller, therefore the 8 inch is relatively large for kids! And remember that apple is now targeting the education market for children. An 8 inch would be perfect for children aging between 2 and 12. And such device would also not cost as much as a grown up retina display with 10 inch.
Conclusion: 8 inch will come as an education iPad for the mass market, retina display iPad 3 will be for grown ups with more money.
The small iPad might be called iPad mini.
What do I get when I have predicted that right?
Not a bad idea, I could possibly see a smaller, even cheaper iPad maybe being the fous for the digital textbook movement that Apple's leading. Makes sense to me.