I guess MacBook Pro 13" is a silly device when you have a ginormous 17" version. Different horses for different courses, yea?
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
I guess MacBook Pro 13" is a silly device when you have a ginormous 17" version. Different horses for different courses, yea?
Is it just me?, or does this conflict a tad with your username?
Count me as another that would love a 7" something iPad. In the past, I have had a 7" android tablet, but, for me, the os just wasn't quite right. I am not trying to bash android (it was an earlier version), it's just not my type.
For one-handed reading and even more portability, the smaller iPad would be sweet.
I don't see the iPad Mini's BoM dropping more than $50 from the iPad's BoM, with the A5 and similar hardware. That would mean if Apple dropped the price to $399 they'd be making $50 less profit per iPad Mini sold.
It's not really, they always have a base model with the least amount of storage but if so, they could call the base model "2S" which has improved hardware but no retina display.
They have though. There are more powerful 7 inch devices than the A5 in the iPad, and the Kindle Fire is probably going to dominate all considering it's $200 price.
Actually, it is. You see developers go where they can make money and there's two major components to that; the first is how easy the development process is, the faster they can get an app out the better, and the second is as you said, how many paying users the App Store has.
Apple's got both nailed on the head. There's only three devices to worry about and two of them are essentially the same, iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad, and that makes the development process simple. To support any devices with a retina display you simply supply HD images.
The resolution of the iPad Mini would need to be 1024x768 to have the least impact on developers. The only other option would be to have a different resolution, and a different App Store section for iPad Mini apps, and they'd also need to make it so you can code for the iPad Mini in XCode as well -- that option is much a hassle.
To be honest I probably will. I'm not much a fan of Android, but it's just so cheap! I'll still probably get my retina iPad 3 though
It is if you're spending time and money producing this other product (which you make less profit from) and all it does is eat away at existing sales of the other more profitable product. That's okay, but it needs to draw a lot of new customers to make such an endeavor profitable, and I don't think it will.
Looking at absolutes, yes.
If they called it 2S, it wouldn't be an iPad3.
KF will do well, and there will be updates to its line. Just don't see Amazon as a company i want to rely on for software. As for the rest, its pretty much an unbroken market. Something has to open the flood gates.
Still, thats your opinion. I have heard complaints from more than one company when it comes to making Apps for Apple; one of them, the CEO of a former #1 (Mac) App store application. Last, the above is hardly the full picture. For example, it ignores saturation, crowding out effects, margin pressures and filter failures. Either way, i have no need discussing it.
Not at all. For example, you're ignoring the obvious solution in upscaling their 3:2 line.
To be honest I probably will. I'm not much a fan of Android, but it's just so cheap! I'll still probably get my retina iPad 3 though
OK.
You think. Others think different. Pun intended.
Seems like a lot of people are warming up to the idea of iPad mini.
As long as it has all the features of the full size iPad 3, I will be happy!
As long as it has all the features of the full size iPad 3, I will be happy!
I love my iPad 2 and don't want anything smaller. I don't find it as a problem to travel with and it extremely comfortable to me for (reading, surfing etc). Like they say different stroke for different folks. Those who want smaller, that's there choice, I'd still to what I like and that's what I have.
...But my point of this response is to address the bold areas. I have had the same experience with other tablet I have used. In fact I just helped a friend set up a Pandigital Novel 7 (first time I even heard or saw the thing). Browsing was a mess but the touch also made me want to slight my wrist. Also while it was smaller it weighed a TON. I got bored/frustrated after like 10 mins with touch response and gave it back to her.
Foxy
Anybody who thinks the fire didn't eat up large numbers of what would have been iPad sales is kidding themselves.
The average consumer wants to surf the web and play angry birds. For three hundred bucks less, they can now do that where before it was iPad or nothing. I, personally, bought a fire as a gift. If the fire didn't exist, it would have been an iPad.
You may buy into that mumble jumbo about them being for different markets, but the iPad used to be the only game in town for all markets, so just by sucking up some sort of niche, the fire takes away iPad sales.
The average consumer wants to surf the web and play angry birds. For three hundred bucks less, they can now do that where before it was iPad or nothing. I, personally, bought a fire as a gift. If the fire didn't exist, it would have been an iPad.
You may buy into that mumble jumbo about them being for different markets, but the iPad used to be the only game in town for all markets, so just by sucking up some sort of niche, the fire takes away iPad sales.
Well hard to compare anything whether the Fire or iPad to the Pandigital as that thing sucks, it's nowhere near as responsive or powerful as either the Fire or iPad nor on the same level as either. It's a barebones bargain basement tablet, if you can even call it that lol. My sister got one for a work gift, I don't even think they bothers with it as it's painful to use lol.
It doesn't have to be called iPad 3, it just has to be a new iPad with better hardware.
Indeed it will.
I'd doubt the complaints have anything to do with the ease of making apps, rather more likely something else like the restrictions in the App Store, etc.
It's not the full picture, but it's two key points of which are broad enough to be discussed. I also am not interested in discussing those things
That's because that'd be a bad idea. That would mean the iPad Mini couldn't run iPad apps, and only iPhone apps which have interfaces for 3.5 inch phones. It would also mean that you'd end up with iPhone apps written for the iPad Mini which will look terrible on a phone.
Ha. Ha. Anyway, we'll see eventually. My bets on no iPad Mini
Agreed. It would be an irrationale.
I wonder if there would be a market for a device between iPhone and the iPad with a rimless design and therefore a larger image to device size ratio as it is on the iPad with its wide bezel. If it had big storage space it could serve to all those who want more storage an iPad can offer (backing up all kinds of music, video, and photography files with the screen large enough for evaluation, but the device beings small enough to operate as a kind of digital storage. These devices exist, but only in small numbers for specialized markets.
Yes they are, it's all part of the process.
First there's all the criticism and outright bashing, as the Apple faithful vehemently reject the idea of a 7" iPad.
Then as it becomes apparent Apple has flip flopped, the faithful must get into acceptance.
With plenty of time before release, they've got time to do a U-Turn and suddenly it's the greatest thing ever.
Apples got some interesting people residing in their Eco System.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were in fact talking of the "iPad 3" - so it would have had to be the "iPad 3". If you want to suggest that Apple will release a 2S and a 3 at the same time, the latter being retina, feel free. All I'm asking for is for your to be clear.
In every way part of "the ease of making apps". Distribution is part of "making". What good would hazzle-free making do if distribution was a bitch? That said, i haven't seen any data that supports that the development itself is easier on iOS v. Android. (I have seen anecdotal evidence highlighting the ease of development on the WP-platform though.)
If you discuss something you do so properly or not at all. At least in my world :- )It's not the full picture, but it's two key points of which are broad enough to be discussed. I also am not interested in discussing those things
Says you. Again. Call it iPod maxi for all i care. As for the rest, it just keeps reminding me the burden of Apples path-legacy. Doubt the problem is really as big as you make it out to be though. And yeah, if you had apps developed for the specific device - apple would opt to make them device exclusive. So the last point is quite moot.
Apples loss. But yes, i wouldn't be surprised to see them mess up things up - again. "Its in their DNA..." as someone like LTD would say if tables were turned.Ha. Ha. Anyway, we'll see eventually. My bets on no iPad Mini
I thought it was clear enough. I was talking about the next generation iPad, which I was referring to as an iPad 3. After you replied and said you thought it would be confusing, I said that although I don't think it would be, that naming the base model "2S" would solve it.
Indeed it is, and it's quite easy to distribute your app on the App Store -- just don't break the rules in the process and you won't have to worry about problems later.
Why wouldn't development be easier? You've only got two device resolutions to support. It's at the very least a little easier, and possibly much more.
I was discussing it properly, and I made a point. There's no need to go overboard though, the two broad points I made were sufficient.
I was pointing out an error in what you said was "obvious". Regardless of what it's called, the only viable way to introduce a 7 inch iPad is with a 1024x768 resolution, any other will cause unnecessary problems.
Yes they are, it's all part of the process.
First there's all the criticism and outright bashing, as the Apple faithful vehemently reject the idea of a 7" iPad.
Then as it becomes apparent Apple has flip flopped, the faithful must get into acceptance.
With plenty of time before release, they've got time to do a U-Turn and suddenly it's the greatest thing ever.
Apples got some interesting people residing in their Eco System.
I would not consider it a "flip flop".
For the initial iPad design, the 10" was exactly right, after all the most consumed form of print media (after news paper) is magazines.
But we also have paper back books, smaller then magazines, but still easy to read, and guess what, much more portable.
i.e. releasing both an iPad 3 and a 2S simultaneously. Full circle.
Your opinion. Evidently, and not necessarily, the opinion of others.
I take it your not a developer then.
Science would disagree, as i scientist i am inclined to do the same. Lets just leave it.
Your opinion.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, but yes that's what I was saying.
I guess so?
Uh, yes actually I am.
Science? What? I made two points relevant to the discussion and you seem intent on diverting it. You can discuss "what's profitable" without having to go into margins and whatnot, neither of us have access to that kind of information. Last I checked science didn't mean you have to discuss everything in the most complex and detailed way possible, else not at all. It's not like we were talking about anything but our own opinions, neither of us has said anything that isn't an opinion.
What opinion would you be talking about? You're being very vague and unclear. You said I overlooked the obvious fact that they could use the 3:2 ratio of the iPhone, and I replied, pointing out that would cause several problems.
It is your opinion that it would cause more severe problems to scale up than scale down. Its your opinion that Apples best shot at a 7" device is a downscaled 4:3.
Cant be bothered to comment on the rest. This is boring.
Yes, those two things are indeed my opinions. Good, it's about time this is over, I also am bored of it.
It _is_ a flip flop... because Steve Jobs bashed the idea and said Apple would not build the 7" size. That's why so many people are making excuses as to why it's a bad idea.
The reality is Apple makes different sizes of MBA, MBP, and so on and so forth. Users here argue about the 3.5" display of the iPhone being perfect and in no need of change.
Yet if Apple changes they'll flip on that as well, like a right wing politition and claim the new size is brilliant.
It's the Apple way, and has been for years.
They do make different sizes of laptops but there's a substantial difference between each one, including weight, physical size, price, more powerful hardware, and so on. The 7.85 inch iPad on the other hand would be little different from the 9.7 inch iPad, and it would have less battery life, a little less weight, and cost a little less -- the difference is small.
It's different with the iPhone too. The 3.5 inch display is perfect for a small phone, but not everyone wants a small phone. There is a market for a device with a larger display, as can clearly be seen with the competition and it's likely Apple will take advantage of that with their sixth release.
I hope to see a 3.5 inch and a 4.4 inch iPhone released next year, as well as a 3.5 inch and 4.4 inch iPod touch. They would sell! But I'm not so sure about a two inch smaller iPad.
I read that they spent a long time deciding on the size, aspect ratio, and resolution of the iPad. They tried twenty or so different models to find just the right size for a slate, and they decided with a 4:3 1024x768 9.7 inch display and Steve Job's also said that a 7 inch slate isn't ever going to happen. So, I think the odds stack up greatly against the rumours of a 7.85 inch iPad.
I have both iPad models and they were both a pain to carry. I love my iPad 2 but it isn't all that practical when I am trying to carry it in my purse, in fact I have to carry a second bag if I want to take my iPad with me. The whole point of a tablet is to have the functionality of most computers and the PORTABILITY as well. Several of my friends have one model of tablet or another and in LOVE the size of the Kindle Fire. I love my iPad but if they release a mini iPad or whatever they are going to call it I will be preordering that puppy ASAP.
Last edited:
Yep, but we don't know what form came in second place
Jobs said, "7-inch tablets are tweeners: too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with the iPad."
He was just looking at it the wrong way. Seven inchers don't compete with either the smartphone or iPad. Instead, they are a complementary device to get in addition to those.
Seven inchers are in a class by themselves, because they're like a paperback book or daytimer, portable but big enough to see easily.
That's a good point, but considering his statement against 7 inch slates I'd expect it wouldn't be that.Yep, but we don't know what form came in second place
To be honest I'm against a 7 inch slate but regardless I see Apple sharing Steve Job's mentality about this. I considered a Kindle Fire for myself but I fear it's too small.