How are you any better than these Chinese sources? Why should I take your word over some other source? You're no more reliable than they are. You're just random person ranting on the 'net on MacRumors.
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.
There will NOT be an iPad Mini
- Thread starter freudling
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How are you any better than these Chinese sources? Why should I take your word over some other source? You're no more reliable than they are. You're just random person ranting on the 'net on MacRumors.
Forget the Chinese rumour sites. They're a waste of time. Focus on the topic, not the person. What's rational, what isn't. What do we know as a fact, what don't we know. That's what I've done. We know what Apple does: they make great products not cheap ones. They don't want to fragment their OS. Making a Retina screen is hard in that form factor. Tweeners have failed in the market and have major shortcomings as a form factor... etc.
knucklehead, knuck knuck, knucklehead.
Let's try this one more time. I'll keep it very simple.
Let's focus on the iPad iBookstore App, mmmkay? You can easily insert other Apps like the iPad Facebook App... do that conceptually after you've read this.
Ok, we have 2 iPads sitting in front of us. 1 is an iPad 2 with a 9.7" display at 1024 x 768. The other is the famed iPad Mini at 7.85" with a 1024 x 768 screen. Both have the same resolution. But there's one big difference with the Mini: it's pixels are smaller than the iPad 2s are. In order to fit the same number of pixels in a smaller space, the pixels must become smaller. Let's assume that the screen of the Mini is 30% smaller than the iPad 2. That means the pixels should roughly be 30% smaller on the Mini than they are on the iPad 2's screen. *I haven't done the exact math on the pixel size decrease.
What happens is, if you take the iPad 2 iBookstore App, the one designed for a 1024 by 768 screen that is 9.7", and try to just run it as is on the iPad Mini... in a way that you change nothing about the UI, you just want it to work on the Mini... that is, you want to see everything you see as it is on the iPad 2.
Everything will become smaller. All of the cover images on the wood bookshelf would be 30% smaller. All of the buttons in the top navigation would be 30% smaller. The distance between the buttons would be less. The distance between all UI elements would be less. Everything is smaller. Everything is cramped and squished more because of the smaller pixels. When everything is smaller like this, the user interfaces start breaking down (e.g., your hit areas become too small, distance between cover image thumbnails is too close, etc.). You would need to decrease the number of cover images you have per shelf and make them bigger... you would need to increase button sizes and in some cases rethink navigation. On and on.
The Mini is simply taking an App that is designed for a 9.7" screen at 1024 x 768 and scaling it down to the same resolution but in a lot less space.
It's like drawing a square on a piece of standard paper. Than taking another piece of paper that's 30% smaller and trying to fit that square on the smaller piece. The only thing you can do is make the square smaller to fit.
This is what Jobs meant when he said:
7" Tablets should come with sandpaper so users can file down their fingers.
Now you say, why don't you scale the iBookstore App up so the UI elements become the same size as the iPad 2's? Afterall, the resolution is exactly the same so everything should fit.
Well, if you did that, UI elements would push off of the screen because you have less screen size to deal with. It's like trying to scale up the big square and place it on the small piece of paper: some of it will shoot off of the piece of paper.
So there you go: you MUST change the UIs on several Apps for the Mini. In other words, you need to rethink and revamp your user interfaces for this oddball screen size.
Please tell me you understand this now.
Last edited:
Your example presumes the app's UI already falls outside of Apple's UI guidelines.
Your argument is weak and shows that you don't even understand what knucklehead has stated.
I get what he stated about Apple's UI guidelines. We could write books on this subject. I'm addressing the larger point about UI changes needing to happen. Let me guess, you're just jumping in now and haven't read the previous pages and pages of discussion on this. Nice hijack pal.
Anyway, explain specifically what is wrong with the thought experiment I've posted. How is it in anyway incorrect? In your words, what would happen to the iBookstore App that's used for an iPad 2 on an iPad Mini?
Explain specifically how my argument of having to change UIs for smaller screen tablets like 7" tweeners is weak. How it's weak to conclude an iPad Mini equals more fragmentation for iOS. Explain how you would be able to use existing Apps without any UI changes. Layout for all of us what you would have to do as a developer to your Apps if you wanted them to properly display on an iPad Mini.
If you go back and read this thread, you'll start getting a clue.
But I'll save you the trouble. The smaller the screen goes, the more UI changes are implied, using the iPad 9.7" as a benchmark. For instance, with the iBookstore App, on the iPad it has 5 columns of cover thumbs in its bookshelf; on the iPhone side, it has 3. On the iPad, there are 5 button options in the top bar; on the iPhone, there are 3. Yes, the hit areas like "Edit" and "Store" buttons are smaller on the iPhone but there's a minimum threshold. If they want to fit all of the 5 buttons up there, the buttons need to be even smaller. But they won't do that because the measurements of the buttons have minimum requirements. So at the min. sizes, they can't fit the other buttons up there. Ergo, UI changes needed to happen because of the smaller screen. Patterns emerge like more list views on smaller stuff, more grids on larger screens.
Changing UIs is thus not trivial: you have to implement sometimes different userflows, cut out features, new user stories, more user testing, etc.
And tweeners can and do demand UI tweaks and changes. This is my point: Apple will be reluctant to throw another screen size into the mix that is itself an oddball: enough of an oddball size to demand new kinds of UIs.
Here's an example of what I went through with tweeners: Vogue magazine on the iPad looks decent. The screen is just big enough to make the content look good. On tweeners, the layouts and the App UI breakdown. We realized that you simply couldn't take the same approach to laying out content for an iPad at 9.7" compared to a tweener. Columns, for instance, are terrible. Picture spreads and certain layouts didn't work. Too much pinching and zooming. Navigation and UI elements also broke down, like content scrubbers, buttons in the top nav became too small and needed readjusting, etc. It's a nightmare. You have to do entirely new layouts and new UIs. This is reality.
Last edited:
OP is setting himself up for failure. None of us know what Apple's strategy is - we can only guess. There is no certainty. Only scenarios and probabilities.
Day by day, the evidence is pointing to a higher probability that an iPad Mini will come to reality. I myself would love to have one as well if the price point is under $300. No, I don't need a retina display.
Even if OP is correct, he'll only look like a jerk if he wallows in pride "see, I told you so". If incorrect and the iPad Mini is a reality, he'll look like even more of a jerk from taking such a militant stance.
Day by day, the evidence is pointing to a higher probability that an iPad Mini will come to reality. I myself would love to have one as well if the price point is under $300. No, I don't need a retina display.
Even if OP is correct, he'll only look like a jerk if he wallows in pride "see, I told you so". If incorrect and the iPad Mini is a reality, he'll look like even more of a jerk from taking such a militant stance.
Last edited:
If you had actually read the Joel Bernstein analysis I pointed you to in my earlier post, you would save yourself a lot of time typing pages of drivel.
http://castirony.com/post/26466421254/the-case-for-a-7-8-ipad
"44 point target on a 7.85″ iPad would be the same size as a 44 point target on the iPhone (0.27″). Millions of people use the iPhone every day, and have little trouble tapping a 0.27″ target"
You know what? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I'll admit it. But as of right now, nobody has taken my bet. Care to step up?
I didn't see this, but I just read it now. It changes nothing. The guy is out to lunch when it comes to UI design and what this would imply. Imagine holding this large tablet compared to an iPhone using the same size buttons in navigation? How would the user experience be? How much space would be between the buttons? What would happen to the UI? He grossly underestimates the UI/UX implications and the requirement to revamp content and UIs to display and behave appropriately on the Mini's screen.
There's Fitts law to worry about: larger hit areas reduce travel time from point A to target. Bigger screen, small buttons. Not good.
There's also the fact that the iPad Mini will have to be held further away from your face, and those buttons will look even smaller and be even harder to hit from that distance compared to the iPhone which is held much closer.
On and on. So while you could theoretically display the same size buttons on an iPad Mini as an iPhone, you wouldn't want to.
You must tweak and change the UI to fit the device.
Right, a well known IOS developer who knows nothing about UI design.. And I am sure Apple IOS Human Interface guidelines (which properly designed iPad 2 apps scaled down to 7.85" 1024x768 screen are still compliant with) are incorrect as well.
You are a joke.
You guessed wrong, I've been following your rant for some time.
I don't need to explain anything, knucklehead and others have done a good job of explaining the UI ramifications of a 7.85" display already.
You are a joke.
The joke is the fact that you have an inability to read something where someone is talking about a particular point by not making huge logical leaps to concluding something else. Something you clearly don't fully understand.
Joel's main point is that the button size of an iPhone screen is the same size on an iPad 2 when that screen is scaled to 163 DPI. Scaling to 163 DPI "transforms" the iPad 2 1024 x 768 9.7" screen into a 7.85" diagonal one. That the button sizes for both the iPhone and the Mini would be 44 points if the Mini's screen were scaled to 163 DPI at 7.85" because they both have the same logical DPI. That Joel concluded since Apple's UI guidelines say that touchpoints should be roughly 44x44 points... by leaving both of them the same size, you wouldn't be contravening their UI guidelines. And that you wouldn't really have to change anything: you can use your UI buttons from your iPhone. From here he thinks he has had a stroke of brilliance, and evidence of a Mini iPad lurking.
Theoretically using the tiny iPhone buttons on a Mini may not contravene Apple's UI guidelines. Theoretically because the Tweener doesn't yet exist. And if it ever does, there's a good chance Apple's UI guidelines will be updated.
But even if Apple would let you do it, it's absurd for many reasons to keep the button sizes, etc. the same size as on an iPhone.
You don't pay attention to any logic or reason whatever. Nothing that you have said, or nothing that "Joel Barnstein from Portland who says he's an iPhone developer and has a Blog" has said, detracts and invalidates anything I have said about UI/UX for tweeners. Nothing. And the reason is because of:
1. Fitts Law: the smaller the hit area, the longer it takes to get to the hit area from a reference point. The Mini screen is bigger than an iPhone thus more space to be travelled to hit areas.
2. Because of the distance upon which you hold the device from your face, the buttons that are iPhone sized (44x44 points) on the Mini will look even smaller than they already do on the phone and will be even harder to hit; and,
3. Most importantly, because of how the entire App scales and looks... on a larger screen... not just buttons (go back to my earlier posts)... tweeners, just like the iPad 9.7 and just like the iPhone, demand new content reflow and new UIs because of the size of the screen and what can be displayed accordingly. To make this more clear, in Joel's example, both the iPhone and the Mini have the same logical DPI, but the Mini just has many more pixels because its screen is larger. So you could take your iPhone App and drop it onto the Mini unchanged and it wouldn't fill up the screen. It would leave a lot of pixels empty. Empty space. In others words, once again, you must change the UI on tweeners to fit the device.
Joel Bernstein, whoever the hell he is, and his misinterpreting followers, and everyone else on this planet, will not change the laws of physics.
Let me guess the replies: "You're a jerk." "You don't know what you're talking about." Etc.
Last edited:
I think there is a market for smaller tablets for sure. And cheaper tablets. Look at the kindle fire. It's not really all that feature rich. But it has been selling very well. It doesn't do half of what an iPad does, but being able to watch movies, read, browse the web, play games, etc, on a $200 super portable device is what a lot of people want. An iPad has more content and more creativity features, but if all you want to do is play games and watch netflix you can do it for a lot less money with a fire.
I'm not saying a fire is better than an iPad. I don't think it even comes close. But I think Amazon found a sweet spot at a good price and that's why the fire has been successful. If Apple made a device that was similar in size, with all the features of a iPad 2, for $200- forget about it. The fire would vanish. That's really the key though, price. If they can seriously compete with that price point than it will fly off the shelves.
I'm not saying a fire is better than an iPad. I don't think it even comes close. But I think Amazon found a sweet spot at a good price and that's why the fire has been successful. If Apple made a device that was similar in size, with all the features of a iPad 2, for $200- forget about it. The fire would vanish. That's really the key though, price. If they can seriously compete with that price point than it will fly off the shelves.
Ahem...let's think this through, shall we?
Everyone needs to read this article on DaringFireball.
Not only does it point out how Steve Jobs regularly and radically changed his mind before releasing the iPod, the iPhone and even the iPad ('Think Different' clearly applied as much to his own ideas as anything else), but it also highlights how a 7" tablet could actually work - without the need for sandpaper.
The smaller the buttons, the bigger the distance you need to use them effectively - and the smaller the buttons, the bigger the distance you have. Hey presto, there's be enough space to make them effective on a 7" iPad mini. Don't believe me? Read the article and check out these arguments in much more depth there.
Finally the iPad mini would clearly be about marketing. Apple strives for product excellence, but it also knows how to win at marketing. If there's a space to make it work in the market, or if cheaper mini eReader models like the Fire risk stealing Apple's market domination, it would make sense for Apple to release a smaller, cheaper iPad to fill the gap. Doubtless it would be seen by Apple execs as a stepping stone to suck more people in and convince them to later upgrade to buy the better, full-size iPad...and hey, if the size makes it more popular Apple will say they saw it coming and look like geniuses for it.
Everyone needs to read this article on DaringFireball.
Not only does it point out how Steve Jobs regularly and radically changed his mind before releasing the iPod, the iPhone and even the iPad ('Think Different' clearly applied as much to his own ideas as anything else), but it also highlights how a 7" tablet could actually work - without the need for sandpaper.
The smaller the buttons, the bigger the distance you need to use them effectively - and the smaller the buttons, the bigger the distance you have. Hey presto, there's be enough space to make them effective on a 7" iPad mini. Don't believe me? Read the article and check out these arguments in much more depth there.
Finally the iPad mini would clearly be about marketing. Apple strives for product excellence, but it also knows how to win at marketing. If there's a space to make it work in the market, or if cheaper mini eReader models like the Fire risk stealing Apple's market domination, it would make sense for Apple to release a smaller, cheaper iPad to fill the gap. Doubtless it would be seen by Apple execs as a stepping stone to suck more people in and convince them to later upgrade to buy the better, full-size iPad...and hey, if the size makes it more popular Apple will say they saw it coming and look like geniuses for it.
i will be watching how the nexus sells and how it affects the sale of the KF2 when it debuts.
will i pick up the nexus7, more than likely, just to try it out and i want to see how Jb stands up to ICS
for me the smaller form works as long as i get a good OS with it that isn't as locked down as the fire (i use my ipad for work when out in the field and it's a bit awkward at time due to it's size)
now it apple decides to release a smaller version i will definitely drop the androids and pick it up, just prefer the all in one ecosystem
will i pick up the nexus7, more than likely, just to try it out and i want to see how Jb stands up to ICS
for me the smaller form works as long as i get a good OS with it that isn't as locked down as the fire (i use my ipad for work when out in the field and it's a bit awkward at time due to it's size)
now it apple decides to release a smaller version i will definitely drop the androids and pick it up, just prefer the all in one ecosystem
No the Kindle Fire is not successful. Sales tanked right after it launched during the holidays.
http://www.geekosystem.com/kindle-fire-2012/
If the Amazon looking to make a smartphone rumor is true... There you go. If they can't hit a tweener, try something else. Try a category that really is selling. What about a 10" Fire? They couldn't compete with the iPad directly.
It's still the best selling product on amazon. Amazon sells a lot of stuff so that's saying something. All I meant was if apple could seriously compete with the $200 price point they would sell a ton of iPads, regardless of the screen size.
You are so confused you don't know what's going on. The greater the distance from the face, the bigger those buttons should be. Iphone size buttons are fine close to your face. The Mini is held farther away.
And Gruber is mistaken on this too. Read my post above about Fitts, App scaling, the fact that a tweener has more space... more pixels to deal with etc. Thus, 44 points IS NOT ENOUGH. And the entire iPhone App UI will need to be revamped to fit a larger screen.
You must tweak and change the UI on tweeners to fit the device.
All John Gruber did was read that Joel guys article about 44 point buttons and logical DPI and then made a broad sweeping, illogical conclusion about not needing to change the UI: this is implicit in his article.
You do need sandpaper. Jobs was right. It is true and it's a fact. And because of this, it is not a case of Jobs disinformation. It's a case where he was telling the truth.
----------
Amazon was called out by the media over continuing to keep their products in the top seller list. That it contradicts shipment numbers. In other words, that they're lying in order to push their own stuff.
But even if they're not lying, it makes no difference if it's in the best seller list: that says nothing about actual sales numbers. And from the latest quarterly results, the Fire is barely selling better than the RIM PlayBook.
The sales have dropped off of a cliff. This is a fact.
Don't know why I keep wasting time trying to get through to you, but I will try last time.
Apple IOS Human Interface guidelines stipulate 44x44 targets for ALL shipping iOS devices. 44 points on 3.5" iPhone translates to 0.27". 44 points on iPad 9.5" translates to 0.33". This is a mere 22% increase for a device with over 250% larger screen! According to your twisted logic, iPad targets should be 0.68" or double of what IOS UI Guidelines stipulate.
So it's either iPad UI is unusable, or Apple's UI guidelines are wrong. Which one is it?
Experience and giant success of iPad proves that 44x44 point targets scale just fine going from iPhone 3.5" to iPad 9.7 screen! So then Apple's guidelines (which they spent years developing and testing) must be pretty good.
The final and obvious conclusion is that 1024x768 logical resolution of 9.7" iPad can easily scale down to 7.85" screen size, still be within Apple's UI guidelines, and does not result in any real usability degradation.
Case closed.
Last edited:
What you don't really understand is that the size of the button on a 7.85" screen WILL NOT be .33" like it is on a 9.7 iPad with a 1024 x 768 screen when both have the same resolution. It will be smaller.
I'll go slow.
It's because the logical DPI on the Mini is exactly the same as an iPhone (163 ppi). The iPad 2 is 132 ppi. Thus, the same button will be bigger and more pixelated on an iPad 2 because the pixels are bigger. Ergo, .33" on the iPad 2, .27" on the iPhone. Apple's UI guidelines allow for 44x44 point sizes because in the end, the size of the button on an iPad will be .06" bigger than on an iPhone... all using the same 44x44 point button. This accounts for the bigger screen (Fitts), the increased distance in which its held from your face, etc. With a 7.85" screen, the fact that you hold it farther from your face than an iPhone breaks down the assumption that Apple would encourage or even allow the same logically sized buttons on a 7.85" tablet compared to an iPhone. It becomes even smaller to the eye and harder to hit... there's Fitts principle, and then again, the whole App scaling problem and the need to revamp UIs to fill up all that extra space.
Tweener's UI's must be tweaked and changed to account for their screen size.
No need to keep it simple for me. I can see where you would really need something like that, seeing as you have a hard time understanding the finer points of the definition of "fine" (it's fine with me if you don't (<----Get it? Probably not)) or what size battery would go with a mini iPad...
I'll make it simple for you:
I've told you this a few times, but you just don't seem to able to grasp it -- You don't need to do your little thought experiments (which in your case, seem to be clouded up by visions of sandpaper...). Anyone can do it in reality and see exactly how the scaling fits with Apples Human Interface Guidelines -- and whether their fingers need to be sandpapered or not.
I't already been described several tines, so I won't go into that again, but here's a simple picture so it might start to sink into your head:
It's trivial to check any app this way. I have a few hundred apps, and have been checking them this way for months now -- you're making a big stink over a minor issue.
Among the parade of idiotic claims you've, you stated that a 7" tablet cannot be held in one hand, or fit into a pocket. Here's a 7.85 iPad screen size in both hand and pocket:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1358978/
People can see for themselves how a mini would work for them without all your pointless ramblings.
About all that can be said at this point is that Apple may or may not release a mini this year do later. You have done nothing to prove that they won't.
I would suggest that this thread be locked, as everything worthwhile has already been said, and the OP is just trolling at this point.