Steve Jobs Criticizes 7-Inch Tablets, Says 10-Inches Minimum

[baleensavage]

For those who are cheering the lack of choice and stating emphatically that 7" is too small, why do the iPhone and iPod touch work so well with such a small screen?

A mini tablet would be perfect for some users who don't need/want a large screen but want more than a phone-sized interface.

Jobs has it wrong and will release a 7" iPad in 2011/12.

My sentiments exactly. I can understand why Apple wouldn't want to release a smaller iPad right now when the current one is selling so well, but I won't be buying one until they're smaller, lighter and have a camera for Facetime. For me, the 10 inch iPad is just too big.

 

[headfuzz]

Everyone here is missing the point steve was really making. You make a 7" iPad and then you can put it in your larger pockets. iPads are meant to be out in the open so people can see how technologically apt you are.

This I agree with, Apple prefers their product to be viewable, despite the fact from a practical standpoint something you can put in a large pocket is far more portable.

Anyway, most of you are idiots that dont understand how these devices work, screen resolutions, button sizes vs touch sensors, scaling. the 10" just makes more sense. Also you loose preformance with a smaller size and i like when my apps launch in the blink of an eye.

This I do not. Granted the 10" iPad is exactly double the resolution of the iPod Touch and iPhone. But that's not innovation. That's just producing a product which allows the native applications for the previous product using the same UI to scale well.

Innovation would be bringing out the resolution independence we were all promised for Leopard (HA!) and implementing it on the iOS family of devices, instead of a convenient workaround. Make no mistake, the reason the 10" iPad is the size it is is down to the constraints imposed on the UI by the iPhone and iPod Touch resolutions and Apple's inability to deliver on resolution independence, not because they set out to create a 10" device in the first place.

 

[Evangelion]

The stock is at its maximum potential value. With Android devices coming on strong and taking market share Apple no longer has dominance over the smartphone space and will soon see the same competition in the budding "pad" space. Lack of competition is what kept the Apple machine going but now that is coming to an end.

Let's have a reality-check, shall we? Android is a successful product. Does that mean that Apple is "doomed"? No it does not. Just look at computer-business. Apple has about 10% share in that market, yet they earn more money on computers than HP (the market-leader) does with it's 30% (or so) share.

Fact is that Apple is not about market-share. Never has been. Of course they want their products to succeed. But does that mean that they need iPod-sized market-dominance? No, it does not. Apple is a product-driven company, who wants to make best possible products possible. Those products might end up dominating the market (like iPod did), or they do not. But they all earn lots of money for the company (like Macs do).

The fact that Jobs gets on an earnings call and bashes other devices as being DOA is no greater example of executive panic.

What absolute bullcrap.

The fact that the iPad is now being sold at Wal-Mart is no better example of how far Apple will go to keep the sales train going. Once you're in Wal-Mart, you are no longer unique.

So Apple wants maximum number of sales-points and that somehow means that Apple is doomed? Yeah, whatever dude.

 

[Evangelion]

He used the exact same terminology with regard to the Google TV, then produced an Apple branded variant.

Um, GoogleTV was released few months ago, AppleTV was released in the same keynote as iPhone was released in 2007....

 

[Gasu E.]

He didn't say he was against a 5 inch or 7 inch iPod touch...

That's correct. It's clear Apple has a very different notion of the usage of an iPod Touch vs. an iPad. The only real downside of a big iPod is reduced portability, which some people would be willing to sacrifice.

The iPod Touch is NOT good for surfing the internet, reading books, watching video or any other kind of browsing of large-format presentations of information. Yes, it is excellent at displaying internet-based information, but it is only ideal for presenting nuggets of information that have been carefully chosen for a specific purpose.

 

[Alvi]

Absolutely, I really find that 9.7" Is just right, I would even accept a 13" Tablet, but not a 7", it's too small to be useful, people don't like the 9.7" iPad because they find it "heavy", maybe apple can fix that making it lighter, but making two iPad sizes makes a huge App Store fragmentation

 

[headfuzz]

Um, GoogleTV was released few months ago, AppleTV was released in the same keynote as iPhone was released in 2007....

Yes but the original Apple TV had the ability to store media locally. The new variant, which I was referring to in that post, does not and is based on a rental/subscription model à la Google TV, AFTER Google released their product.

 

[ReallyBigFeet]

I still would have preferred a 7" iPad. But I'm spending so little time reading books on it as-is (such an inferior experience to my Kindles) that I don't mind so much sticking with the larger screen factor. Its great for working with pictures and images, which is the main reason I bought the iPad in the first place, so no big deal really.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Yes but the original Apple TV had the ability to store media locally. The new variant, which I was referring to in that post, does not and is based on a rental/subscription model à la Google TV, AFTER Google released their product.

And how is this different from the iTunes streaming feature of the original AppleTV?

 

[Cydonia]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Wow someone gets it - goto the top of the class mate ;-)

7" screen is just a big iPod Touch!
7" screen is just a small iPad!

It would have to be another product class. That class is just not required.

 

[kdarling]

"And this size is useless unless you include sandpaper so users can sand their fingers down to a quarter of their size."

That makes me wonder how I've been hitting those itty-bitty teeny-tiny web links in mobile Safari on a iPhone or iPod, all these years.

"Given that tablet users will have a smartphone in their pocket, there's no point in giving up screen size.

Half the market doesn't have a smartphone in their pocket.

Just like when he showed off the imac I think it was. He said something to the tone of "who would ever want anything bigger then a 15" screen?". His blanket statements are always funny looking back.

One of my favorite turnarounds was about allowing third party apps, or using the iPhone like a computer.

Jan 2007 - No apps allowed. "We define everything that is on the phone. You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers.”

Oct 2007 - He gives in, after trying to push web apps. "We are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our users."

The "hundreds of apps" part kills me. Always aim high, Steve.

 

[Bytor65]

For those who are cheering the lack of choice and stating emphatically that 7" is too small, why do the iPhone and iPod touch work so well with such a small screen?

I think you missed his point that 7" is not enough of a size improvement over smartphone/touch to be worth giving up being pocketable.

I would like a 5" Touch as Retina is wasted on my presbyopic eyes. Still pocketable but easier to see. Also since it is scaling up the Touch, you don't have to worry about shrinking interface elements, like you would when downsizing an iPad.

Once you give up pocket capability, I want as close to A4 paper as practical.

 

[Evangelion]

Yes but the original Apple TV had the ability to store media locally. The new variant, which I was referring to in that post, does not and is based on a rental/subscription model à la Google TV, AFTER Google released their product.

So, you are claiming that Apple copied Google? It doesn't quite work that way. Just because Google released something vaguely similar shortly before Apple released their product, does not mean that Apple copied Google. That kind of turnaround would take time.

It's obvious that the change to AppleTV was long in the making. And it's apparent that AppleTV and GoogleTV have totally different approaches to this particular problem that it would be disingenious to claim that AppleTV is a copy of GoogeTV. Especially when we consider the fact that AppleTV 2 is quite obviously a continuation on the first AppleTV (which was released years ago). First AppleTV did the same thing as second AppleTV does (streaming). So couldn't we also make the claim that Google copied Apple? Hell, even the names of the products are similar!

 

[Alvi]

the "ten inch" is the perfect size for the living room, and the bedroom.I think you had better look at the big ten. After all,
Size does matter...lol

Bad News:
It's 9.7"


JK

 

[ViViDboarder]

make this:

usable on the device on the left:

Forgive me, but I'm skeptical.

You'd have to develop new apps. Apple apparently wants there to be only 2 screen sizes for their developers to develop for.

 

[maflynn]

I really take what Steve says with a grain of salt.

He's just being an "evangelist" for apple products so its in his best interest to put down the competition and marginalize their products.

He'll do something similar tomorrow when he highlights any Mac refreshes and previews 10.7.

 

[pmz]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Finally. And thank god. It never made any sense to begin with.

 

[The Man]

make this:

usable on the device on the left:

Forgive me, but I'm skeptical.

This is what the main point is about, not the screen size itself. The iPad UI elements - not iPod/iPhone UI elements - designed for the 10" physical size shrink when putting it on a 7" screen. And some iPad UI elements become really small, so that apps that work on a 10" iPad won't necessarily work on a 7" iPad. So they they have to create new UI elements for 7" display, and developers have to adapt to three screen sizes. That is what Steve is talking about. He didn't say it wasn't possible, but you are asking a lot from the developers.

 

[headfuzz]

So, you are claiming that Apple copied Google? It doesn't quite work that way. Just because Google released something vaguely similar shortly before Apple released their product, does not mean that Apple copied Google. That kind of turnaround would take time.

It's obvious that the change to AppleTV was long in the making. And it's apparent that AppleTV and GoogleTV have totally different approaches to this particular problem that it would be disingenious to claim that AppleTV is a copy of GoogeTV. Especially when we consider the fact that AppleTV 2 is quite obviously a continuation on the first AppleTV (which was released years ago). First AppleTV did the same thing as second AppleTV does (streaming). So couldn't we also make the claim that Google copied Apple? Hell, even the names of the products are similar!

No, the point is the original Apple TV provided for the local storage of purchased content. The new Apple TV does not and as such follows a paradigm closer to the Google TV than the original Apple TV, which had the ability to standalone as media centre in it's own right without the requirement for a constantly connected internet connection.

 

[*LTD*]

I might be in the minority here, but I love surfing the web on my iPhone 4. In my home office the computer is a short few paces away from my recliner and the couch, but I find lounging on the couch surfing the web on my iPhone 4 much more convenient at times and quite enjoyable, probably because of the speed and retina display.

At work the situation is the same: we tend to discourage casual surfing on our work computers, so I'm mostly dependent on my iPhone and I have to say, I have very few complaints. Granted, it's not the same experience as on my 24-inch display hooked up to my MBP at home, but it's become a pleasant substitute more often than I thought it might. When I pick up an iPad (probably in January) I'm guessing I'll be pulled away from my MBP to an even greater degree.

Anyone else?

 

[roadbloc]

Anyone else?

I dunno. I'll tell you in a few weeks once I get round to buying my iPhone.

As for the topic... meh. 7' / 10' does it really matter?

 

[Evangelion]

No, the point is the original Apple TV provided for the local storage of purchased content. The new Apple TV does not and as such follows a paradigm closer to the Google TV than the original Apple TV, which had the ability to standalone as media centre in it's own right without the requirement for a constantly connected internet connection.

Let me repeat my question: are you saying that Apple has copied Google? Because AppleTV 2 and GoogleTV were released few months apart, a way too short time to make such a drastic changes to the device. Hell, rumours of the new AppleTV were spreading before Google released their box, and those rumours also said that AppleTV will focus on streaming. So obviously the new AppleTV was long in the making.

And like I said: First AppleTV also fully supported streaming, and that was released in 2007.

 

[headfuzz]

And how is this different from the iTunes streaming feature of the original AppleTV?

Precisely because in the previous gen it was a feature, not the requirement.

 

[burgundyyears]

I'm waiting for retina too and a bump in RAM.

A retina display on a 10" 4:3 iPad would be something on the order of 2048x1536. Higher than that actually. Not going to happen.

 

[Evangelion]

I might be in the minority here, but I love surfing the web on my iPhone 4. In my home office the computer is a short few paces away from my recliner and the couch, but I find lounging on the couch surfing the web on my iPhone 4 much more convenient at times and quite enjoyable, probably because of the speed and retina display.

At work the situation is the same: we tend to discourage casual surfing on our work computers, so I'm mostly dependent on my iPhone and I have to say, I have very few complaints. Granted, it's not the same experience as on my 24-inch display hooked up to my MBP at home, but it's become a pleasant substitute more often than I thought it might. When I pick up an iPad (probably in January) I'm guessing I'll be pulled away from my MBP to an even greater degree.

Anyone else?

It's the same with me. I do most of my surfing with my iPod touch, even when my laptop is just few meters away from me. So even if iPad isn't as "powerful" at web-browsing as a laptop is, it's a lot better than the iPod touch, so my web-browsing experience will be improved considerably. Even if it has less power than a laptop, it makes up for that with convenience, portability and ease of use.

Not only that, but there's other use as well. eBooks. Yeah, I could read those on the MacBook Pro, but the experience isn't that good. It will kick ass on the iPad. Or how about some other apps, like Solar Walk? I could see myself using that app with the iPad, but using it on a laptop doesn't really appeal to me at all.

iPad will open whole new use-scenarios for me. Scenarios that would be doable on a laptop, but simply do not appeal to me at all when done with a laptop.