Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you just pull stuff out of your butt?

There are several demonstrated cases with hospitals adopting the iPad. And the reason is simple: because the product... the whole product with the ability to create good, enterprise driven Apps... with the high res screen... the ease of use... has been catching at hospitals. Yes, nurses and doctors use them. They use them to do rounds, for charting and for XRAY and MRI analysis.

What I find interesting is that hospitals are starting to use custom Microsoft Kinect computer systems in the ER (yes, the Xbox Kinect). The purpose is to allow doctors to operate computers without needing to touch a keyboard/mouse, which always requires the doctors to scrub their hands after each use. No keyboard/mouse, no scrubbing. Search for "Microsoft Kinect in hospitals" for more information.
 
What I find interesting is that hospitals are starting to use custom Microsoft Kinect computer systems in the ER (yes, the Xbox Kinect). The purpose is to allow doctors to operate computers without needing to touch a keyboard/mouse, which always requires the doctors to scrub their hands after each use. No keyboard/mouse, no scrubbing. Search for "Microsoft Kinect in hospitals" for more information.

Wow -- What a great use!
Exellent example of the right technology for the right situation.
 
Could what people are "thinking" is going to be the new iPad Mini, actually be a touchscreen remote for the new Apple TV Set? A very basic, cheap to produce piece of hardware. With very limited specs. Just a nice screen and some custom firmware based on iOS.
 
Could what people are "thinking" is going to be the new iPad Mini, actually be a touchscreen remote for the new Apple TV Set? A very basic, cheap to produce piece of hardware. With very limited specs. Just a nice screen and some custom firmware based on iOS.

No. That makes even less sense. Why create a unitasking remote that simply duplicates the existing functionality of iPhones, iPod Touches and iPads?
 
Everyone didn't know anything about Retina displays that I wrote. If they did, they wouldn't have clung to thinking they'd make a 1024 x 768 resolution screen and that a screen like that on a 7.85" size could be Retina at 163 ppi.

Her's a little project for you:
Go and find some posts of people saying the mini could be introduced at 1024 x 768 and calling that retina resolution. They have been saying Apple will likely start at that resolution, and with to retina in a year or two to gently encourage users to part with their money to upgrade. How can you possibly confuse that with them not understanding what "retina" means?


Second, the only thing ridiculous is your lack of understanding computers and software.

YOU MUST CHANGE THE UI ON A 7.85" SCREEN. YOU MUST CHANGE THE UI ON A 7.85" SCREEN.

You almost have a bit of a point here, so I have another project for you below.

Visual to help you understand it. I'll go slow:

There's no need at all for your "visual". If you go back to post #39 in this thread you can do this all in the real world, not just your imagination. I've already been doing this for months.

Imagine your iPad Mini with a 1024 x 768 screen at 7.85".

Now imagine the iPad 1024 x 768 standard iBookstore on the Mini. What happens? You don't know, do you? In order to fit everything on the screen, everything becomes smaller because it has to squish to fit a smaller screen (the pixels are significantly smaller). All of a sudden the UI breaks down: touchpoints are smaller, too close together, etc. The whole thing starts to collapse upon itself. This is what Jobs meant about applying sandpaper to your fingers on tweeners.

Imagine this for many, many Apps that will have to be revamped to accommodate a tweener.

I have been looking at many, many apps scaled down in reality, not just my imagination

None of this is trivial and involves a lot of user testing and a complete revamp of iOS and Apps. It's what landed Android in hot water because there were virtually no Apps for tweeners and none of the smartphone designed Apps for 10" designed Apps worked well on the tweener size.

In other words, tweeners demand their own unique UIs that take into consideration the size of the screen and number of pixels.

So here's your little project:

Here's a link to Apple's Human Interface Guidelines -- http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#DOCUMENTATION/UserExperience/Conceptual/MobileHIG/Introduction/Introduction.html

I've already shown you a quick and simple way to scale down any app in reality, so why don't you take a bit of quiet time and start going through the apps in the app store, and make a list of apps that don't scale down to mini size and stay within Apple's guidelines. For each app record exactly what the problem is. I know there are some cases of problems out there -- I've seen one with my own two eyes!!! You should have no problem coming up with a nice long list of them.

Please, take you time and make a nice list. Please, feel free to take all the time in the world.

Once you're done, come back and show us all these problems, so we can see clearly just how much work needs to be done.


What else would you like to learn tonight?

knucklehead replies: "Duh... you just make no sense."

" ... ... ... How thoughtful"
 
No. That makes even less sense. Why create a unitasking remote that simply duplicates the existing functionality of iPhones, iPod Touches and iPads?

I guess not everyone that would eventually choose to buy the new TV set would own an iPhone/iPad. Not every single person that owns a Macbook or iMac etc also owns an iPhone. Most people use this hardware for productivity.

Samsung provide a touch screen remote with their new 8000 series TVs, even though thier smartphones are also capable of operating the TV.
 
I'm still laughing at that line.:D

I'm still laughing at that line.

----------

I guess not everyone that would eventually choose to buy the new TV set would own an iPhone/iPad. Not every single person that owns a Macbook or iMac etc also owns an iPhone. Most people use this hardware for productivity.

Samsung provide a touch screen remote with their new 8000 series TVs, even though thier smartphones are also capable of operating the TV.

You people are insane. There won't be a touchscreen remote like a tablet for the Apple TV. Your iPhone or iPod or iPad can be purposed for whatever you want, including a TV remote. So doing this would be completely unnecessary. Second, it would add to the cost of the TV. And third, Apple wants to drive customers to their iPhone and iPad and Mac. So if you don't already have one, an Apple TV is the hook into Apple's ecosystem.

And fourth, Apple TV will probably use voice in addition to a basic remote and link to your iDevice.
 
" ... ... ... How thoughtful"

Her's a little project for you:
Go and find some posts of people saying the mini could be introduced at 1024 x 768 and calling that retina resolution. They have been saying Apple will likely start at that resolution, and with to retina in a year or two to gently encourage users to part with their money to upgrade. How can you possibly confuse that with them not understanding what "retina" means?


boomhower

Why does the resolution have to be an issue? Make it the same resolution as an iPad 2 just in the smaller size? Plus it will get it in the ballpark of being retina.

As I pointed out, it is nowhere near the ballpark of a Retina.

And then yourself with this confused post:

The exact same screen technology that's used in the current iPhone and Touch could be used to make a retina mini today. Either will work right now. The lower resolution could just be done at lower cost.

And another one of your confused posts:

The mini could be currently made at 163 PPI for shooting for low cost, or 326 PPI, for far in excess of retina resolution for the mini's closer viewing distance than the iPhone retina as you just went over to excess (I think pretty much everyone here already knew all that). That's Apple's choice.

The Mini does NOT have a closer viewing distance than the iPhone. It's held farther from the face, but not as far as an iPad 9.7. Let me go over it again: the smaller the screen, the closer to your face. Ergo, you don't need as high a pixel density on the Mini as you do on the iPhone. And creating a 326 ppi screen on a Mini would never happen: the resolution of that screen would far exceed the iPad 3, yet the Mini would have to do it with half the size battery, etc.

And then here's you saying it's ridiculous that the UI would have to change on a 7.85" Mini:

And again, there you go making no sense.

You fill up a page typing out things everyone already knew about "retina" displays, and then fall back to the ridiculous claim that the iPads UI is required to change to scale it to 7.85".


And then you just admit that the UI would need to change on some Apps:

You almost have a bit of a point here...

For each app record exactly what the problem is. I know there are some cases of problems out there -- I've seen one with my own two eyes!!!


All. Over. The. Map.
 
I'm still laughing at that line.

----------



You people are insane. There won't be a touchscreen remote like a tablet for the Apple TV. Your iPhone or iPod or iPad can be purposed for whatever you want, including a TV remote. So doing this would be completely unnecessary. Second, it would add to the cost of the TV. And third, Apple wants to drive customers to their iPhone and iPad and Mac. So if you don't already have one, an Apple TV is the hook into Apple's ecosystem.

And fourth, Apple TV will probably use voice in addition to a basic remote and link to your iDevice.

Dont call me insane. Thats not very nice. Not everyone has an iDevice.

Whats crazier? Someone HAS to go and buy an iPad to control their TV? Or there is a limited cut down version of a touch screen device that ALL buyers of the TV can use?

Yes, Siri will function as an interface. But not everyone wants or feels the need to use voice control. Hell, some people are bloody deaf and still watch TV, so they cant speak properly or have speech impairments. BUT NO. Its insane to think there might be an ergonimic solution for disabled people as well?
 
And I'm assuming you know this because Tim Cook told you, right? You know everything in Apple's playbook?
After all, Tablets are your business. May I ask which business this is?
 
Her's a little project for you:
Go and find some posts of people saying the mini could be introduced at 1024 x 768 and calling that retina resolution. They have been saying Apple will likely start at that resolution, and with to retina in a year or two to gently encourage users to part with their money to upgrade. How can you possibly confuse that with them not understanding what "retina" means?


boomhower

Why does the resolution have to be an issue? Make it the same resolution as an iPad 2 just in the smaller size? Plus it will get it in the ballpark of being retina.

I said post's (as in plural). One somewhat confused poster does not mean the forum needs a basic reminder of Apples loose idea of retina.

As I pointed out, it is nowhere near the ballpark of a Retina.

And then yourself with this confused post:

The exact same screen technology that's used in the current iPhone and Touch could be used to make a retina mini today. Either will work right now. The lower resolution could just be done at lower cost.

The only confused part is your inability to understand the simplest of things. The current iPhone and Touch are 326 PPI.

And another one of your confused posts:

The mini could be currently made at 163 PPI for shooting for low cost, or 326 PPI, for far in excess of retina resolution for the mini's closer viewing distance than the iPhone retina as you just went over to excess (I think pretty much everyone here already knew all that). That's Apple's choice.

Yep, I made a misstatement there that is completely irrelevant to the point. The mini would have to be considered to have a closer viewing distance than the retina iPad (not the iPhone) which is 264 PPI -- so the retina mini would be far finer retina than the retina iPad

The Mini does NOT have a closer viewing distance than the iPhone. It's held farther from the face, but not as far as an iPad 9.7. Let me go over it again: the smaller the screen, the closer to your face. Ergo, you don't need as high a pixel density on the Mini as you do on the iPhone. And creating a 326 ppi screen on a Mini would never happen: the resolution of that screen would far exceed the iPad 3, yet the Mini would have to do it with half the size battery, etc.

Which is why I mentioned IGZO. The retina iPhone has been out for some time now. More efficient technology is available now to take care of the battery issue.
And you're still dodging the point that it's only in your opinion that it can only be released as a retina model.


And then here's you saying it's ridiculous that the UI would have to change on a 7.85" Mini:

And again, there you go making no sense.

You fill up a page typing out things everyone already knew about "retina" displays, and then fall back to the ridiculous claim that the iPads UI is required to change to scale it to 7.85".


And then you just admit that the UI would need to change on some Apps:

You almost have a bit of a point here...

For each app record exactly what the problem is. I know there are some cases of problems out there -- I've seen one with my own two eyes!!!


All. Over. The. Map.

Then simply provide some concrete examples that would be a deal breaker for the mini.
Try to make it more convincing than the "It must be retina or nothing" nonsense.

"What happened to him -- Who cares?"
 
Dont call me insane. Thats not very nice. Not everyone has an iDevice.

Whats crazier? Someone HAS to go and buy an iPad to control their TV? Or there is a limited cut down version of a touch screen device that ALL buyers of the TV can use?

Yes, Siri will function as an interface. But not everyone wants or feels the need to use voice control. Hell, some people are bloody deaf and still watch TV, so they cant speak properly or have speech impairments. BUT NO. Its insane to think there might be an ergonimic solution for disabled people as well?

Apple has had an Apple TV out for years, and they have an excellent remote control that comes with it. So no, they do not have to buy an iPad to control their TV. Sorry.
 
"What happened to him -- Who cares?"

The only confused part is your inability to understand the simplest of things. The current iPhone and Touch are 326 PPI.

It is not the case that I don't understand the simplest things. You have been confused and misinformed from the beginning. It is me that has corrected you and shown you how all of this works.

Here is your logic

"You don't understand the simplest things."

Vague, broad sweeping statement with nothing to support it. You then make a leap to this:

"The current iPhone and Touch are 326 PPI."

A fact that we all know, and one that I articulated first in this thread. Therefore, you're saying I don't understand the simplest things by repeating a fact that I relayed to everyone here. And the fact that the iPhone and iPod Touch has 326 ppi is a technology that Apple can use on the Mini? And after the pages of explaining how that is impossible you're still that XXX that you don't understand why that's not possible.

But if you mean technology in terms of an IPS LED-backlit display... yes, they can use an this display like the ones on the iPhone and iPod Touch. But it's at present impossible for it to have dense enough pixels to be a Retina display because it needs more ppi than the iPad 3 with half the battery size. So no, right now, they technically can't use the same technology to pump out a Retina screen in the Mini.

Yep, I made a misstatement there that is completely irrelevant to the point. The mini would have to be considered to have a closer viewing distance than the retina iPad (not the iPhone) which is 264 PPI -- so the retina mini would be far finer retina than the retina iPad

Yes, the iPad Mini would have denser ppi. "Finer" is a judgement. The closer it is the your face, the more pixelation can be seen. So no, not really "finer", it'll be about the same. But because of this high ppi requirement, it brings down the whole proposition of it being possible to outfit a Retina screen onto a Mini because of the requirement for higher ppi than the iPad 3.

Which is why I mentioned IGZO. The retina iPhone has been out for some time now. More efficient technology is available now to take care of the battery issue.
And you're still dodging the point that it's only in your opinion that it can only be released as a retina model.


Better technology is always, always around the corner. There's always something lurking. But right now, today, what's available for manufacturing in scale is all that matters. Retina screens are very good... IGZO are interesting as well. But the bottom line is you won't see a Retina iPad Mini because the current in scale technology doesn't cut the mustard. Apple has moved to use IPS across the board, and transitioning their products into Retina. In other words, they haven't even realized all of their products as Retina yet. This is just the beginning with the rMBP outside of their mobile gear.

As for Apple releasing a new model of a mobile device that doesn't have a Retina screen... they would never do that. Apple is about innovation and releasing breakthrough products. The only things you'll see non-Retina screens on are old gear, like the iPad 2 and iPhone 3G. But anything that's new will not go backwards. Apple moves forwards. And they're not about cheap products, never have been. They're about innovation and being the best they can be in whatever they're doing.

Then simply provide some concrete examples that would be a deal breaker for the mini.
Try to make it more convincing than the "It must be retina or nothing" nonsense.


The problem with you is that you're a bit slow and it takes a lot of education to help you to understand things. I won't take the time to list things. I gave a concrete example that demonstrates the problem that many Apps will have on a 7" screen when their UIs don't change. If you can't conceptualize this "sandpaper" problem as Jobs described I can't help you.
 
I'd like to bet an iPad mini that Apple will release an iPad mini (although it might not be called this!) Please contact me once released and I will let you know where to get it delivered ;)
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The only confused part is your inability to understand the simplest of things. The current iPhone and Touch are 326 PPI.

It is not the case that I don't understand the simplest things. You have been confused and misinformed from the beginning. It is me that has corrected you and shown you how all of this works.

Here is your logic

"You don't understand the simplest things."

Vague, broad sweeping statement with nothing to support it. You then make a leap to this:

"The current iPhone and Touch are 326 PPI."

A fact that we all know, and one that I articulated first in this thread. Therefore, you're saying I don't understand the simplest things by repeating a fact that I relayed to everyone here.

And we're back to "Delusional Much?" You believe that you enlightened everyone by mentioning that here?

And the fact that the iPhone and iPod Touch has 326 ppi is a technology that Apple can use on the Mini? And after the pages of explaining how that is impossible you're still that XXX that you don't understand why that's not possible.

But if you mean technology in terms of an IPS LED-backlit display... yes, they can use an this display like the ones on the iPhone and iPod Touch. But it's at present impossible for it to have dense enough pixels to be a Retina display because it needs more ppi than the iPad 3 with half the battery size.

It's the same PPI as the current iPhone, the iPhones battery powers the iPhone, so the iPad's battery doesn't matter -- even if you were right about the mini's being half it's size(which it wouldn't be). It could be made thick enough for the battery required.

So no, right now, they technically can't use the same technology to pump out a Retina screen in the Mini.

Yep, I made a misstatement there that is completely irrelevant to the point. The mini would have to be considered to have a closer viewing distance than the retina iPad (not the iPhone) which is 264 PPI -- so the retina mini would be far finer retina than the retina iPad

Yes, the iPad Mini would have denser ppi. "Finer" is a judgement. The closer it is the your face, the more pixelation can be seen. So no, not really "finer", it'll be about the same.

"Finer" has more than one meaning. You're locked on the wrong one. Get a dictionary

But because of this high ppi requirement, it brings down the whole proposition of it being possible to outfit a Retina screen onto a Mini because of the requirement for higher ppi than the iPad 3.

It only makes it more difficult, which is why people are saying it wouldn't likely come as a retina if it were to be introduced this year

Which is why I mentioned IGZO. The retina iPhone has been out for some time now. More efficient technology is available now to take care of the battery issue.
And you're still dodging the point that it's only in your opinion that it can only be released as a retina model.


Better technology is always, always around the corner. There's always something lurking. But right now, today, what's available for manufacturing in scale is all that matters. Retina screens are very good... IGZO are interesting as well. But the bottom line is you won't see a Retina iPad Mini because the current in scale technology doesn't cut the mustard. Apple has moved to use IPS across the board, and transitioning their products into Retina. In other words, they haven't even realized all of their products as Retina yet. This is just the beginning with the rMBP outside of their mobile gear.

We'll see screen technology change when it happens. The story is the the New iPad just missed having IGZO, so it's not unlikely we'll see it at any time now.

As for Apple releasing a new model of a mobile device that doesn't have a Retina screen... they would never do that. Apple is about innovation and releasing breakthrough products. The only things you'll see non-Retina screens on are old gear, like the iPad 2 and iPhone 3G. But anything that's new will not go backwards. Apple moves forwards. And they're not about cheap products, never have been. They're about innovation and being the best they can be in whatever they're doing.

Again, opinion.

Then simply provide some concrete examples that would be a deal breaker for the mini.
Try to make it more convincing than the "It must be retina or nothing" nonsense.


The problem with you is that you're a bit slow and it takes a lot of education to help you to understand things. I won't take the time to list things. I gave a concrete example that demonstrates the problem that many Apps will have on a 7" screen when their UIs don't change. If you can't conceptualize this "sandpaper" problem as Jobs described I can't help you.

If your "example" was mentioning iBookstore, then please point out the exact problem you're talking about in relation to Apple's Human Interface Guidelines.
I don't need to conceptualize "sandpaper" - I have sandpaper - I haven't needed it to use nany iOS device, and I haven't see where I would need it to use any mini scaled iPad apps. Please provide an example of here I might.

"Your phones ringing Dude" (different movie folks might know)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.