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

Production of 7.85-Inch iPad Rumored for 3Q 2012 at the Earliest

I wonder if Apple or its fanboys will admit that holding back from giving consumers the choice for a smaller tablet was a mistake.

I wonder how many Apple fanboys will still bash the Playbook's size.....
 
I'd be VERY interested in a smaller iPad for use as an iTunes remote. The iPhone is too small for easy browsing of my music library.
 
Perhaps this is the remote control that will come with the Apple HDTV. It could also serve as a mini iPad, but would only be available as remote with the new TV.
 
till said:
Still no. This is not a product that Apple wants to make. A lower price (to get anywhere near the Kindle Fire) undoubtedly means lower profit margins, and it would cannibalize sales of the iPad. It's another damn platform for iOS developers to support, and there's no way to sell it as magical and revolutionary.

Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Tim Cook said

Tim Cook said:
“And the way that we already view cannibalization is, we prefer we do it than have somebody else do it.”
Click to expand...

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and...-Cannibalization-Good-for-PC-Industry-477883/

I'm not sure Apple cares about cannibalization as long as they're in control. The developers don't have to make much changes. The reason why 7.85 is chosen as the screen size is because it's the same 4:3 ratio 1024 x 768 screen which means the UI elements get smaller but developers do not have to create new artwork.
 
Not going to happen, but keep dreaming year after year. After Retina comes out no one is going to care about smaller or less capacity. Go buy a dell if you want that. 🙄
 
I just don't see any chance of this happening, there isn't that much of a difference between the two to require two models. Just because other companies are doing it doesn't mean that Apple will.
 
wikus said:
I wonder if Apple or its fanboys will admit that holding back from giving consumers the choice for a smaller tablet was a mistake.

I wonder how many Apple fanboys will still bash the Playbook's size.....
Click to expand...

only handful of 7" tablets have a good resolution or at least 1024x768. not sure about playbook though.

I think it is eventually it is software.
 
Xtremehkr said:
I just don't see any chance of this happening, there isn't that much of a difference between the two to require two models. Just because other companies are doing it doesn't mean that Apple will.
Click to expand...

Apple will do a small tablet right. I think 16x9 in a small tablet is silly. I'd be ok with a 4:3 nigh 8" tablet.
 
but, but, but you have to file your fingers down because DJ (Dead Jobs) said so.

hmm. If the Kindle Fire and other 7" tabs are having no effect on Apple, as claimed by Cook, why is Apple building this device?
 
shanmugam said:
only handful of 7" tablets have a good resolution or at least 1024x768. not sure about playbook though.

I think it is eventually it is software.
Click to expand...

1024x768 translates to 4:3. That aspect ratio is a disgrace.

I've no idea why Apple is using it. 16x10 should be the standard.
 
wikus said:
1024x768 translates to 4:3. That aspect ratio is a disgrace.

I've no idea why Apple is using it. 16x10 should be the standard.
Click to expand...

Because most web sites are based on a 1024x768 and not 16x10. The iPad is still predominantly a productivity tool rather than a media tool for movies.
 
wikus said:
I wonder if Apple or its fanboys will admit that holding back from giving consumers the choice for a smaller tablet was a mistake.

I wonder how many Apple fanboys will still bash the Playbook's size.....
Click to expand...


I don't think the Playbook was bashed for its size, it was bashed for having to have a Blackberry to access native calendar and email apps (which was finally fixed with the latest OS update), and a lack of 3rd party apps from its app store.

The Playbook wasn't doing all that great, and subsequently, RIM slashed prices on Playbooks, and took a half-billion dollar hit doing so.


I don't think Apple has to acknowledge any "mistake," RIM does.
 
wikus said:
1024x768 translates to 4:3. That aspect ratio is a disgrace.

I've no idea why Apple is using it. 16x10 should be the standard.
Click to expand...
Why? Because it's the best aspect ratio for a device designed for all types of use. It's better for web browsing, it's better for reading books, it's good for gaming and okay for movies, and most important of all, it's best for building apps.

At 16:9 or 16:10, it's too tall and too skinny in portrait, and in landscape, it's too short and too wide. However 4:3 is really just perfect.

>>>>>

I don't believe this report. I think it's wrong. I can't see Apple ever doing this.
 
I'm gonna go with a 7.0 iPad, 7.7 iPad, 7.85 iPad, 9.7 iPad, 10.1 iPad, and 11.0 iPad. Wait, there is already a company that does this?
 
Business would lap such a tablet up by the thousands.

YeahBuddy said:
I used to really doubt this, but with the success of the Kindle Fire I actually think it'd be a smart move. Consumers are buying the Fire because of it's price point, not because of its specs and user experience. If Apple releases a Kindle Fire competitor, they could truly dominate the tablet market.

I personally wouldn't be interested in a 7.85" tablet, but at $249 you have to also wonder what will happen to their 8GB iPod Touch.
Click to expand...

Size has a lot to do with the Fires success. Everybody dismisses that but it is fact.
 
shanmugam said:
what is that resolution (just to understand) is it 1024 x600?
Click to expand...

The typical LCD monitor at that aspect ratio is usually a 24" monitor; 1920x1200 pixels. About 10% taller than a typical 16x9 HDTV.

For movies and gaming, 16x10 wins big time. For reading, I would imaging it'd be a lot better as the 'page' would be taller, much more like a real book.

If you've ever seen the playbook, it'd be very similar, just a little taller when in landscape mode.
 
LOL, this site is turning into an SNL parody of itself.

What next? Matte-screen G5-powered iPad running OS X Leopard for $99?
 
MythicFrost said:
Why? Because it's the best aspect ratio for a device designed for all types of use. It's better for web browsing, it's better for reading books, it's good for gaming and okay for movies, and most important of all, it's best for building apps.

At 16:9 or 16:10, it's too tall and too skinny in portrait, and in landscape, it's too short and too wide. However 4:3 is really just perfect.

>>>>>

I don't believe this report. I think it's wrong. I can't see Apple ever doing this.
Click to expand...

4:3 is an old and dated aspect ratio, going back 10+ years to old CRT monitors and tube television sets.

16:10 would be far superior for movies, tv shows and other video content, especially since basically everything now is either 16x9 or 16x10.

For gaming, this isnt even debatable.

For reading, a huge majority of books were all much taller than wide on a single page, and this is especially true with newspapers.

4:3 may work for you. The reality is, its gotta go.

Personally, I don't care for tablets, I think theyre all useless toys that fail miserably to replace my laptop. But if I was going to get any one of them, it'd be either a playbook (i like its size and aspect ratio, as well as it is quite fast) or an Asus Transformer... and I'd probably go with a Transformer seeing how much more there is available on Android as well as the ability to root and flash the device with a custom rom.
 
Not this again. Gruber should've never started this rumor last year.

I guess I don't see the draw of a 7" model for Apple at this point in the game. The fact is that no one else has yet produced a tablet that can go toe to toe with the iPad (no, not even the Fire). Apple doesn't need to address a competitor that doesn't yet exist.

I travel a lot and have yet to see a 7" device of any kind outside of a few ereaders here and there (even those seem to be scarce all of a sudden), let alone a Fire. I think the notion that the Fire is this huge threat to Apple is completely fabricated.
 
nuckinfutz said:
Because most web sites are based on a 1024x768 and not 16x10. The iPad is still predominantly a productivity tool rather than a media tool for movies.
Click to expand...

Won't matter, 16x10 gives you extra screen space. Nobody has any problems browsing the net on their macbooks or imacs, the screens are all 16x10. If your logic were to hold true, individuals browsing on a laptop or desktop would be complaining.

Websites don't 'magically' worsen with more screen real estate.
 
wikus said:
The typical LCD monitor at that aspect ratio is usually a 24" monitor; 1920x1200 pixels. About 10% taller than a typical 16x9 HDTV.

For movies and gaming, 16x10 wins big time. For reading, I would imaging it'd be a lot better as the 'page' would be taller, much more like a real book.

If you've ever seen the playbook, it'd be very similar, just a little taller when in landscape mode.
Click to expand...

thanks for the explanation.
 
wikus said:
4:3 is an old and dated aspect ratio, going back 10+ years to old CRT monitors and tube television sets.
Click to expand...
Actually, the 4:3 aspect ratio goes all the way back to the era of silent film. The addition of an optical track next to the image changed everything and eventually the Academy ratio of 1.375:1 was settled on in 1929.

The 4:3 aspect ratio was repopularized with television since it could adequately broadcast films shot in the 1.375:1 Academy ratio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back