Oh come now, even trolls like you should be off celebrating Christmas.
Last edited:
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.
This is What a 7.85-Inch iPad Looks and Feels Like
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh come now, even trolls like you should be off celebrating Christmas.
If every greedy company cared just as much as this one does it would be a perfect world. Customers seem to be happy. Customer satisfactions ratings are through the roof, again. Something's not right ...
----------
Apple should go for an Extra Large iPod Touch for music, gaming & general net surfing instead of iPad 7.85". I don't see the point of a smaller iPad now that Apple has cornered the 10" tablet market altogether. Allowing your competitors to offer alternatives in smaller format (Kindle & Galaxy 8") is a win-win situations for all.
iPad- mobile, light computing, Asus netbook killer
iPhone-pocketable messenger & communicator, BB killer
iPod Touch XL- gaming & music for teenagers, PSP killer (?)
Makes sense, but the problem here is really just a naming problem. You can name it iPod or iPad it's still the same thing since it runs same OS, etc.
While it is the same basic OS, there are many iPad-only apps. Although given the way iOS currently works, this device may need its own apps to take full advantage of its particular form factor.
I was talking about a possible 7" inch device. Naming it iPad or iPod doesn't really make a difference. Well on the other hand maybe it makes more sense naming it iPad since iPod is media player and it should at least fit in a pocket, right?
----------
There are things you just can't troll your way out of ...
What I'm saying is that if it is called an "iPad", then one might expect it to run iPad specific apps. "iPod" doesn't carry that expectation. However if it has its own apps, or at least its own optimized version of apps, then perhaps it shouldn't be called iPad or iPod, instead having a completely unique name.
Last edited:
Sounds like a complete mess to me
Chances are Apple came to the same conclusion.----------
iPad Mini, iPad Maxi ...
I understand that some people prefer one size over another but why would it matter as long as Apple keeps making the iPad in it's current size and made another size. To be honest if Apple wants to remain competitive they need to start offering more options and expanding the marketability of their products, because receiving revenue from only one source of devices isn't good for long term growth. Does that mean Apple needs to go crazy and release every single kind of product in every price range and category?, no it just means they should offer I few more options. I guess choice is over rated.
Long term growth ... That's why Apple is so successful, they think about long term growth all the time. 'More options' is something company defines and if it thinks that's all the options it or it customers need ...
15 years Apple is going only up, i think it's enough time to dive down if you are not thinking about long term growth. Which is not the case with Apple.
Running 3 products by slashing the prices means they'll likely see quite heavy cannibalization of their own high-margin products. In my book, thats a worse option than doing the engineering required to pull off a ~7" device.
----------
I fully agree that you are right in that it probably makes sense now for another tablet form factor to be released to appeal to as broad a consumer base as possible. What with the ipad having established market dominance and currently being viewed as the gold standard with which all subsequent tablets are inevitably compared with.
However, from what I see, people seem to want a 7" ipad primarily as a portable e-reader which they can fit in their coat pocket, for which there are already perfectly viable substitutes available. The main draw of the ipad is that it is crammed chock full of features, which in turn inevitably drives up the price. Which means that if these features do not work as well on a smaller screen, you are paying through your nose for stuff you don't need or cannot use properly.
My suspicion of why Apple did not offer a smaller ipad before is because that would make a number of the uses of the original ipad less efficient (garageband or simple word processing comes to mind), ultimately making it just an overpriced e-reader. The last thing they want is to be suckered into a price war with kindle or nook.
Feel free to flame away.
So, just make it less capable. I don't get the problem here. Apple never had any problem reducing functionality before, why start now? I agree though that the 7" (made right) has a distinct use case from the 9" (especially if they change the ratio); that is the main reason why people around here are asking for it in the first place. For example, lots of us are stuck carrying our computer, regardless. Bringing a 9" iPad on top offers little advantage and much redundancy. The 7" on the other hand is much more capable playing second violin, acting as a companion. And before someone brings up the phone, its as flawed as the iPad in this sense: we'll still end up picking up our laptop instead.
First to launch a truly useful and portable 7" device will rake in millions, if not billions. Sure, the market may not be there just yet - but it will be, sooner rather than later.
----------
Question: if everything'll suck on a 7", how come these things magically work on a 3.5" iPhone? If theres benefits to larger in one case, theres benefits to larger in the other. Similarly, if theres benefits to being smaller in terms of increased portability in one case, theres benefits to being smaller in terms of portability in the other.
Personally, a 7" would fit my use way better than a 9" would. Not because the device itself does the things i do worse (in fact, it probably does them better), but because i wouldn't have it with me in first place - and even if i did, i'd pick up my MBA 9 times out of 10 regardless.
Last, i disagree completely with your proposition that a 7" device wouldn't make sense given the overall line. Being a different (sub)class of device, theres certainly room for it. Heck, I'm sure more than a few will end up owning both (7 and 9").
iPad Maxi ...
I'd love it if Apple went with that, just so I could walk into a Best Buy and ask "Hey. You. Yeah. Do you have one of those little portable computer thingies in stock? Uh, what are they called? Maxi Pads, I think? I believe they're made by that company with the pear logo".
But other than pure humor value, I don't think that'd be the best name for Apple to go with. For obvious reasons. Neither would iReader or iBook, since that would make it sound more like a limited e-reader, rather than an app driven part of the iDevice family. If Apple were to make a 7 inch tablet, they'd probably use another nonspecific variation of the iPod/iPad naming scheme.
It doesn't matter if people want it primarily for an ereader. If there's a demand for it, and it uses most of the same parts, hey, I can think of way worst investments. Ultimately people want a lot of gadgets to make their ecosystem complete. They can buy the kindle just to read, but if they want access to all their ios apps too, what options do they have? Try and read on an iphone, or read it on the much heavier ipad. Where's the options that come from having a variety of prouducts?I fully agree that you are right in that it probably makes sense now for another tablet form factor to be released to appeal to as broad a consumer base as possible. What with the ipad having established market dominance and currently being viewed as the gold standard with which all subsequent tablets are inevitably compared with.
However, from what I see, people seem to want a 7" ipad primarily as a portable e-reader which they can fit in their coat pocket, for which there are already perfectly viable substitutes available. The main draw of the ipad is that it is crammed chock full of features, which in turn inevitably drives up the price. Which means that if these features do not work as well on a smaller screen, you are paying through your nose for stuff you don't need or cannot use properly.
My suspicion of why Apple did not offer a smaller ipad before is because that would make a number of the uses of the original ipad less efficient (garageband or simple word processing comes to mind), ultimately making it just an overpriced e-reader. The last thing they want is to be suckered into a price war with kindle or nook.
Feel free to flame away.
I just want a 10" IPS-retina display, lighter than current iPad and running desktop operating system like OSX, Linux or Windows. Convergence is everything to me. I strongly dislike what I read from tons of forum members saying that they want separate gadgets for reading, music listening, browsing, etc. I want entertainment and work in the same device.
I read, listen to music, browse the web, check email, make notes, watch videos, and sketch all from my iPad. It does pretty much everything I need in this form factor. The only reason I use my computer anymore is for processor intensive tasks like Photoshop. The thing is even if your desktop OS could run on an ARM-based tablet, and the applications you need ran on ARM processors (no <em>current</em> Mac or Windows software do), you would still ultimately have to compromise on performance. Especially if you want to keep the tablet light and retain a good battery life.
I know what your saying. However, compromise on performance can be concerning today, but in a couple of years we could run Photoshop or XCode or a xAMP server in a tablet with acceptable performance. Two years ago no one would believe that we could run these apps on a netbook and then we had Macbook Air 11". Ok, we can't compare its performance with a Mac Pro but its pretty usable with productivity applications. Next versions will go further and we will have more battery life and processing power.
Maybe, but having a smaller 7 inch device at $399 is still going to eat away at sales just as much as an iPad 2 at $399. The iPad 3 will need to bring some good specs to the table to encourage consumers to buy it and I believe it will. The retina display, a more powerful GPU, and a Cortex A15 based dual-core or quad-core and who knows what else.
The only reason the naysayers are so determined to condemn this size is because Apple has not told them they need one...yet. Once Apple starts selling a 7" size (if they do) suddenly everyone will be bragging about how brilliant Apple is. It's the age old pattern that repeats itself over and over. Apple will sell anything to make a buck, as long as they don't let their ego stop them. I'm in no way being critical of Apple, just calling it like it is. Apple has always been highly skilled at convincing & selling.
Best of all is how dramatically my Apple stock has increased in value in the twenty years I've been a shareholder. I got in at $20 per share, now it's through the roof. Thanks to Apple Tax they've made me very wealthy. Never in a million years would I have guessed that all the shares I bought year after year would attain the current share price.
Best of all is how dramatically my Apple stock has increased in value in the twenty years I've been a shareholder. I got in at $20 per share, now it's through the roof. Thanks to Apple Tax they've made me very wealthy. Never in a million years would I have guessed that all the shares I bought year after year would attain the current share price.
I don't doubt there are many who do follow Apple's every word. Irrational devotion to something or another is part of human nature. But your own perception is far too black and white if you really think it is the only reason that anyone would shoot down the idea.
As you get go know the cult like followers that Apple has nurtured, you'll understand. Another way is to simply read the forum entries. Many people rely on Apple to tell them whats best for them and come right out, admitting it here.
----------
Well, in all fairness, human beings aren't exactly the best in terms of knowing what they want themselves...
Here's an example.
All games to me are a waste of time, so i personally see no loss here.
----------
And who said that exactly? To me those things that really work on iPad (text editing, VNC and such) are just something you can do on iPhone, but i wouldn't say it's something i'm comfortable with doing.
That's like digging with a spade compared to digging with hands. it's something you can do if you have no other options, but i wouldn't call it comfortable or working.
10" is a perfect size for most of the people and i think Apple will stick to it. We will know who's right soon anyway.
And the benefit of the cheaper device would be the ability to maintain a higher profit margin, while simultaneously expanding the product line increasing overall sales. The problem is not so much the iPad3 - that is a given. The problem is rather the lost opportunity in making a "nano" (or iPod maxi, for that matter).
----------
Neither would i, but they would certainly be better achieved on a 7" than a 3.5", just like those things would be better done on a 11" mba than a 9" iPad. Theres a tradeoff to everything. 9" trades of portability for use. 3.5" trades of use for portability. 7" would be no different. Still, it would do some things better than the 3.5", and provide higher portability than the 9". I really don't get the problem here. The 7" has a clear use case on its own, a use case neither the 3.5" nor the 9" can really fill. Especially not when taking other devices into consideration (e.g. a laptop already in the bag).
And, even if 10" is the better size, that in itself is no reason not to offer the second-best size too. Evidently, iMacs come in different sizes, MacBook pros and airs too. Why need this be any different?