So? In 2007, Google was showing off a version of Android that copied Blackberry instead of iPhone. What's your point?
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.
Steve Jobs Criticizes 7-Inch Tablets, Says 10-Inches Minimum
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So? In 2007, Google was showing off a version of Android that copied Blackberry instead of iPhone. What's your point?
The key word in your last sentence is "also".
I stated that the 2 generations of Apple TV follow 2 different paradigms.
In effect, they are different products. The original was capable of downloading content and storing it. The new model is not.
The latter cannot be viewed as an upgrade to the former because they perform 2 different functions. The elder could ALSO stream, it was a feature, but it was not required in order to watch or listen to media at any given point.
In the words of Steve Jobs himself "The television industry fundamentally has a subsidized business model that gives everyone a set-top box, and that pretty much undermines innovation in the sector. Ask TiVo, ask Roku, ask Google in a few months. The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it. But right now, there’s no way to do that….The TV is going to lose until there’s a viable go-to-market strategy."
My point is not that Apple may have copied Google or vice versa, it's that he made an issue of pointing out a flaw with the industry and instead of bringing out a game changing device, as Apple have done in the past, Apple chose to develop and bring to market a product which as it turns out is a direct competitor to the Google TV, and suffers all the same pitfall of being abstracted from a cable company's set top box.
What Apple could have done was bring out a new cable box, with integrated iTunes rental, local storage for purchasing content from iTunes where desired, and Front Row interface for both television functions and all the integrated Youtube et al functionality we see from the new Apple TV and Google TV, which would be desirable to the consumer because it would give them greater functionality over the freebie doled out by their cable company. But they chose not to. They chose to make a separate box, as did Google.
In context of the thread (which you have veered from), my point was that what Apple say and what they do are not always the same thing.
The Google TV comment was simply an illustration of this, as was the comment about the removal of Firewire from the aluminium Macbook due to the fact that "all current cameras use USB", which was hastily rectified with the next refresh under a thinly veiled rebranding when they realised there was still a market for a Firewire enabled laptop at that price point.
Just because Steve Jobs currently says there is no market for 7" tablet devices, doesn't mean they won't change their stance and put 10 tons of marketing spin on a new product if we see success in the area from their competitors over the next 12-18 months.
Hopefully this answers your question.
Comic Books
Magazine Apps
Pages
Numbers
Full-screen PDF readers
...
The list goes on and on.
These apps work well, but would be instantly rendered unusable if the screen was reduced by 50%
C.
Magazine Apps
Pages
Numbers
Full-screen PDF readers
...
The list goes on and on.
These apps work well, but would be instantly rendered unusable if the screen was reduced by 50%
C.
50% of an iPad screen is the exact resolution of an iPod Touch / iPhone screen.
The iPad screen is double the resolution precisely because it was the easiest and least unattractive way in which to get all the existing iPod Touch / iPhone apps to display on an iPad.
This is the crux of the issue. A 7" screen is perfectly readable; paperbacks have been published in this size region for decades without complaint. The problem is Apple have not implemented resolution independence in their operating systems as they said they would 4 years ago prior to the release of Leopard (and of course the iPhone).
If they had then a 7" screen would be perfectly adequate for displaying existing iOS apps without doubling the resolution.
The reading functionality of the iPad is secondary in nature, not the only functionality. If you want a smaller reading device, buy an iPod Touch or an iPhone with Retina display. Also, what this doesn't rule out by Jobs' comments is the possibility of a larger screen iPod or iPhone, but they will continue to be iPods running Apps in the iPod manner under the iPod API requirements for designing a User interface. The iPad frees some of those restrictions because you have more finger real estate to work with.
I have an iPhone and an iPad. Job's is right, they each serve their specific purposes and I don't want nor do I see a need for an iPad with a smaller surface. The iPhone could get slightly larger however.
Also, that home button needs to go.
I really don't like this kind of marketing. Apple has great products that speak for them self. It is absolutely not necessary to dismiss other products or companies. But this way it just sounds like delusional disorder. Maybe one of the products he is going to show tomorrow will convince me, maybe not. But I am able to judge other products for myself.
I know other people who are the same opinion. Maybe it has to do with regional mentality and this kind of marketing is perceived in a better way in the US than here in Germany, I don't know.
Christian
I know other people who are the same opinion. Maybe it has to do with regional mentality and this kind of marketing is perceived in a better way in the US than here in Germany, I don't know.
Christian
What about an 8"?
Jobs hasn't convinced me that he isn't considering a smaller than 10" ipad version. There's an enormous additional market for people to slip things into pockets, handbags (yes even the girlie men) or to hold more casually.
I agree that the 7" smart things are a nonsense except for just reading things. Touch tech is only just beginning.
And the obsession with having to do things constantly with your fingers instead of using the mind to think will remain for the microsoft me-too dinosaurs.
If I were Jobs I would be talking to Levi about making ipad holders (that's a metaphor for those uncreatives).
Jobs hasn't convinced me that he isn't considering a smaller than 10" ipad version. There's an enormous additional market for people to slip things into pockets, handbags (yes even the girlie men) or to hold more casually.
I agree that the 7" smart things are a nonsense except for just reading things. Touch tech is only just beginning.
And the obsession with having to do things constantly with your fingers instead of using the mind to think will remain for the microsoft me-too dinosaurs.
If I were Jobs I would be talking to Levi about making ipad holders (that's a metaphor for those uncreatives).
When they're making millions of units (projected 10 million for this year), I don't think the cost of a custom panel is a big deal. It's probably several times the size of runs of off most the shelf panels. Panel manufacturers probably trip over each other to get orders that size.
Agreed, I'm convinced he's stalling with rhetoric that will keep the shareholders happy until Apple's skunkworks have nailed resolution independence and a smaller tablet can fit seamlessly into the Apple iOS ecosystem. Perhaps with less storage than the contemporary larger iPad to avoid price point overlap and cannibalization of sales.
Possibly he wants Android tablet manufacturers to test the water to see how well they sell against the existing iPad before pushing a smaller model to market to counter the competition.
No. It isn't.
If we look at size. If you cut 10" screen in half, you get a 7" screen.
Nope. The old iPhone pixel resolution was 480x320. The iPad is 1024x768.
It would be a sensible size for a reader. It is the best size for a reader. But it's the wrong size for these other applications.
How?
It's not just about resolution and visibility, it is about *size*. Size for finger targets - and size for layout purposes. Size for full-sized documents, and enough finger precision to select individual characters on those documents.
C.
For better or worse there has been a lot of media coverage about the future of smart phones and the tablet market, and managing narrative is terribly important when so many people are writing things are not necessarily correct.
Google has been aggressively pushing this narrative that Android is open and iOS is closed, and has been driving this home since the summer with little retribution from Apple. Up until yesterday, the only thing that Apple has used to combat Android in the market place are statistics on apps and on rubrics such as mobile browsing. At WWDC did Jobs take below the belt shots at Google? At the Music event? No, not really.
The truth is that because Android is open there is a major risk of the platform and user experience becoming fragmented. The truth is that because iOs is closed, it offers an integrated user experience for customers. With so much at stake, both companies have every right to combat each others messages.
On the tablet issue, for nearly a year we have heard about an impending landslide of tablets coming to market. CES was all about slates. Where are they? The truth is that when we speak of major OEMs there have been very few tablets announced and those that have either failed to disclose price or they have failed to demo a working prototype.
If RIM has the right to hold a media event and introduce a product that is based off of renderings on a video, with the likely goal of telling consumers not to buy the iPad this Christmas because RIM has something around the corner; then Apple has the right to say pretty clearly that from their perspective there exists no credible competition at the market.
The following point I think is very important. There are a limited number of ways that Apple communicates with the outside world: press releases, media events, and earnings calls. The rumor mill has persistently said that Apple is going to release a 7" iPad. If Apple has no intention of doing so and does not tamp down the rumors, then there is a significant issue. Jobs credibly killed any rumors about such a device. Maybe in two years or so such a device happens, maybe it doesn't, but if such a rumor continually persists and it never happens, it is irresponsible.
There is no doubt that Apple has benefited enormously from always being in the media, but in an era when anyone can pretty much write anything, forceful statements are sometimes necessary to have a stake in the narrative.
I never have understood this whole iPad thing, really 10" is too BIG. I have my iPhone, which can do just about everything the iPad can and I can touch anywhere accurately on it. Oh, and the iPhone is much smaller than the 7" that is considered too small.
Says Jobs, and merely echoed by you. It's probably perfectly fine. But jobs is doing what he should be doing - telling us why the competition doesn't match up. I don't blame him. But don't think the PR mouthpiece for a company is always right by default.
I can do everything fine on a non-retina display iPod touch. Jobs is dumping on his own products.
Actually, 1024 x 768 isn't twice the (old) iPhone resolution of 480 x 320 (maybe you're thinking of the retina display on new iPhones / iPods?)
IMO, the problem isn't resolution independence, but rather how small you want to make widgets and still make them easily usable with a finger: If you want to put (for example) a number of buttons across the bottom of the screen, then there are size constraints imposed by the physical size of the device (nothing to do with resolution).
An iPad is larger than an iPhone so can display more widgets of the same physical size on the screen. Same with a 7" display: It could display more than the iPhone but less than the iPad.
The alternative is to make the widgets smaller and fit the same number on the screen, but there comes a point where the issue is that fingers aren't an accurate enough pointing device to select the widgets because they are physically too small
I don't think many people would argue that putting an iPad application onto an iPhone (even though the actual resolutions are pretty similar) would be a good idea because it'd be pretty much impossible to use.
Steve Jobs' argument is that the same problem would occur with a 7" screen: It is physically too small to display an iPad application interface and be usable with your finger. Whether you agree with that sentiment or not is another matter, but that's the crux of his argument.
Resolution independence is useful where we are getting higher and higher resolution screens and people still want to see widgets at a sensible size (i.e. bigger): A 7" screen will still display an application designed for a 10" screen at a smaller size. The option then would be for developers to have different screen layouts for different size devices: Not insurmountable by any means but it appears to be something Apple are not (currently) keen to do.
To illustrate this, see the attached screenshots (all of the addressbook in landscape mode). The first is from an iPad (actually, the simulator) and the second from the iPhone 4 (again, the simulator). They have pretty similar resolutions but the iPad displays far more information because of its larger physical size. The third is from an old 480x320 resolution screen, which despite having only 25% of the pixels an iPhone 4 has it displays the same information (the constraint being the physical size, not the resolution)
A 7" interface would probably sit somewhere between the two
Attachments
It's true. I was merely echoing it before Jobs said a single word about it.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/11139518/
C.
Apologies, I stand corrected (and unlike a lot of MR users, don't mind admitting when I'm wrong
). The 2x icon on lesser resolution applications threw me off. I haven't used an iPad extensively, nor for a while, much less running iP/iPT apps on it.However, it does then suggest the fact that a middle device could be inserted at double the resolution of the iP/ iPT. Screen real estate could be sacrificed down to a resolution of 960x640 without the need for recoding of existing lower resolution iOS apps. Such a device would as you state be far more superior as an e-reader amongst other things.
With regard to iWork etc, I agree a larger screen is preferable, but at the end of the day I guess Apple's marketing as the iPad for a content creation device just hasn't worked on me. Occasional creation, yes. But to me it's predominantly an interactive presentation device, rather than a content creation device.
I can't see people finishing their presentation to the board on the train in to work on an iPad. I can certainly see them making that presentation, but not labouring over it for hours and hours on anything other than a proper computer. Likewise home video editing, web design and any other number of applications.
My guess is that Apple have already implemented a bunch of resolution independence schemes, and have discovered that it does not really solve the problem.
The best interfaces are created by designers who know the exact size, resolution and input method of the device. And that one-size-fits-all approaches don't really work.
C.
Agreed. It was in some sort of covering. The buttons were small, but not that small. I was pretty close, about 5-6 feet away looking over the guy's back shoulder. It looked damn much like the exact ipad design I have on my ipad, but was much smaller. Like I said, he was typing away with a bluetooth keyboard. I looked to see if it was some other brand, but the buttons looked incredibly iPad-like to me. Maybe it was a prototype, maybe it was one of the homemade mock-ups, I don't know. But it was definitely I small tablet with iPad-style buttons.
I really wanted to take a photo, but just felt somehow inhibited from busting out my phone and snapping this guy and his stuff.
Steve Jobs says "There are clear limits to how close elements can be on the screen before users can't touch accurately. We believe 10-inch screen is minimum necessary."
. . . sounds odd from the company that develops phones with 3.5 inch touch screens, and iPod Nano's with 1.5 inch touchscreens. Is he saying we can't touch accurately on those?
If you think about it, it really is a BS comment by Steve.
. . . sounds odd from the company that develops phones with 3.5 inch touch screens, and iPod Nano's with 1.5 inch touchscreens. Is he saying we can't touch accurately on those?
If you think about it, it really is a BS comment by Steve.
7" would be a perfect size for a reader, web browser, calculator, calendar, mobile games and so on. It might not be the perfect size for Pages and such but nobody uses iPad for that (except for some desperados) anyways. Steve Jobs has a problem understanding that people use computers/devices differently. I suspect that many (if not most) people would find 7" to be a good size. I am sure we'll see Android in all sizes: from 3 to 15 inches and people will be buying all of them. Steve Jobs also thinks that any phone screen but 3.5" is not acceptable and yet people are buying Android phones with 3, 3.2, 3.5, 3.7, 4 and 4.3 inch screens. have not they heard what Steve thinks? Stupid!
I think Apple have tried out 7" tablets.
I think they tried them out alongside 6", 13", 11" and a whole bunch of aspect-ratios, thicknesses and weights. If the stories are to be believed, Apple's design lab can prototype a (non-working) device into 3D in less than a day.
They have been working on the iPad before the iPhone. And I think the final form-factor is not an accident or an omission.
The form factor was chosen, because it best matches the design goals for the device.
It's not just about productivity. While it might be physically possible to read a comic book on a screen half the size of the iPad, would anyone want to?
There'll be a bunch of 7" devices in the shops soon. And we'll be able to see very clearly how great/dreadful this form-factor actually is.
C.
For books yes.
But not magazines or comics. Or for the virtual newspapers that are doing pretty good right now.
And how about a reading standard business document? Or a technical manual? Or a screenplay?
Tried reading those on a 7" screen?
I have. Even with e-ink its uncomfortable.
C.
Beg to differ on the web browser. Right now I'm reading macrumors on my iPad. I can just read the forum posts without zooming. If the screen size were any smaller, I would have to zoom to make out the letters. The same goes for the majority of other web sites I visit. A lot of iPhone apps are actually front ends for websites that present the site content in a format more readable on the iphone. With the iPad, the need for such apps is reduced dramatically. A 7" screen would be better for web browsing than the iPhone, but I doubt I'd feel it was perfect.