and while introducing it, he said that Amazon did a great job in creating the Market. He gave credit where it was due and ate some humble pie at the same time.
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
and while introducing it, he said that Amazon did a great job in creating the Market. He gave credit where it was due and ate some humble pie at the same time.
In a way yes.
This is where more research and less posting would be helpful. Look up iPad in Corporations, iPads in medical, iPads in the field. These are real world uses where lugging a PC is less desirable.
A digital book you will have forever. This does not covert print media not available in a used book store.
Your stuck in 1980. Replace your calendar (that's the problem with printed items, they get stale.)
Exactly, every tablet I know that's 7" is 16:10 and is a nice handheld pocket friendly shape and size.
Here is the Archos 8" 4:3, which is a pretty good device actually for the money.
I'm about to make the dumbest prediction of all time, here goes...
Ok did anyone else notice that this 7.85in screen exactly perfectly fits within the current 9.6in iPad's viewport MINUS the bezel? What if Apple's plan is to keep all on screen elements precisely the same size, but just make an ipad without a bezel? After all, the only reason a bezel is needed is for two handed operation, but a 7.85in iPad is just the right size for holding the thing with one (adult) hand, thus obviating the need for a bezel (kinda like an iPhone). And of course, if need be, the thing could display a virtual black bezel for a kid's hands. It's convenient because it would require no scaling change to iOS's screen elements.
Edit: not that I would necessarily prefer this scenario. What would happen to the physical home button? I like having a single physical button. But it just seems like too much of a coincidence that a 7.85inch panel nearly perfectly fits into the viewport of the current iPad. It seems like the obvious answer is right in front of our face!
Edit 2: and this would perfectly jibe with Steve Jobs's comment that current 7inch tablets are too small. They're too small because they have a bezel, leaving you with a viewport that isn't remarkably larger than a jumbo phone. But a 7.85 inch tablet without a bezel would keep the same screen real estate as the current iPad.
Ok did anyone else notice that this 7.85in screen exactly perfectly fits within the current 9.6in iPad's viewport MINUS the bezel? What if Apple's plan is to keep all on screen elements precisely the same size, but just make an ipad without a bezel? After all, the only reason a bezel is needed is for two handed operation, but a 7.85in iPad is just the right size for holding the thing with one (adult) hand, thus obviating the need for a bezel (kinda like an iPhone). And of course, if need be, the thing could display a virtual black bezel for a kid's hands. It's convenient because it would require no scaling change to iOS's screen elements.
Edit: not that I would necessarily prefer this scenario. What would happen to the physical home button? I like having a single physical button. But it just seems like too much of a coincidence that a 7.85inch panel nearly perfectly fits into the viewport of the current iPad. It seems like the obvious answer is right in front of our face!
Edit 2: and this would perfectly jibe with Steve Jobs's comment that current 7inch tablets are too small. They're too small because they have a bezel, leaving you with a viewport that isn't remarkably larger than a jumbo phone. But a 7.85 inch tablet without a bezel would keep the same screen real estate as the current iPad.
Last edited:
I completely disagree. The Fire is doing a great job (if indicative sales figures are to be trusted). It was a great idea to not attempt to catch up to the iPad. This way, they can get their devices in, get users hooked and then by the time the realize they want something more: Kindle Fire - Pro; vertical bootstrapping. It'll be an amazing business case if they pull it off, and chances are - they will. It certainly is the best attempt to disrupt Apples momentum that I've seen so far.
My only gripe is Android, which seems to create an overly sluggish experience at that spec-point. Then again, its somewhat understandable. Its positioned well with the existing Amazon app store. Still, they should have (and still should) reached out to MSFT and make a deal. Win-win for both; MSFT probably would prefer safe rather than sorry this time around. The bet is too huge to lose.
Amazon gets an OS that performs well, and tight integration in the phone-line. MSFT gets Amazons help in pushing things forward (which is potentially huge).
Not gonna do it!
Nah gah
Nah gah
Nah gah
Nah gah!
Not gonna do it
And I'm nah gah!
I say I'm not nah gah..
Nah gah
Nah gah
Nah gah
Nah gah!
Not gonna do it
And I'm nah gah!
I say I'm not nah gah..
Depends on the size of your hands
Since I'm 6'3" with huge hands a 7 inch iPad wouldn't work for me at all, I like my 10 inch one just fine. But a 7 inch iPad with the exact same number of pixels (or double if it comes in a retina version) would be perfect for schoolchildren or people with small hands. My 10 year old daughter would probably love it.
If this were to happen, Apple definitely needs to keep the 4:3 aspect ratio as opposed to the 16:9 widescreen of the other 7 inch tablets.
Since I'm 6'3" with huge hands a 7 inch iPad wouldn't work for me at all, I like my 10 inch one just fine. But a 7 inch iPad with the exact same number of pixels (or double if it comes in a retina version) would be perfect for schoolchildren or people with small hands. My 10 year old daughter would probably love it.
If this were to happen, Apple definitely needs to keep the 4:3 aspect ratio as opposed to the 16:9 widescreen of the other 7 inch tablets.
16:10 is the sweet spot in many ways. 16:9 is way to narrow (i have a u2311 running in portrait), 4:3 is too broad. 3:2 would be ok as a compromise, but offers very few advantages over 16:10 - if any, really.
I love how so many here bashed Samsung for offering a 7 inch tab, and now rumours that good 'ol Apple just might release such a size, it's now a welcome idea. There is no way in heck that anyone can bash "OPTIONS." 7 inches, 8.9 inches, or 10.1 inches. Forget the brand itself, blind followers actually bashed the very fact of having this many choices in size. How do you bash of having more choices in size? But now that they may have a choice of a more portable size, they seem to be singing a different tune. No shame with these blind followers, just like the company they blindly follow.
Yeap, just the same as the posters on here that seem threatened by the Kindle Fires success and so feel the constant need to rubbish it and proclaim it as crap and spin lies about it, ignoring the very fact the two devices are very different and not really comparable!
Just let it go. That's is his usual propaganda.
------------
If there is a 7' iPad, I'll get. 10' is too big for to be portable enough for me.
The iPad's screen size is 9.6" and the bezel is additional space. A 7.85" iPad without a bezel would still have a 7.85" screen, amd be venerable to Steve's criticisms.
How much less would be the cost of producing a 7.85" iPad compared to a regular 10" iPad? Would it be enough to be sold at an attractive low price while maintain a proportional profit margin?
In other words:
Would you rather drive 20 miles to work for 10 hours and get paid $100.00 or drive 15 miles to work 10 hours and get paid $90.00, putting the same work effort in either case?
In other words:
Would you rather drive 20 miles to work for 10 hours and get paid $100.00 or drive 15 miles to work 10 hours and get paid $90.00, putting the same work effort in either case?
I want to make it clear that you were quoting the article. My apologies if my post led you (and consequently, others) to believe that you were not. The fault is mine.
Yeah, that's the problem. Apple creates fragmentation if they introduce some intermediate resolution for this hypothetical device, but the old 1024x768 is low by today's standards (and certainly by next year's standards), but it seems unlikely to use 2048x1536 packed into such a small screen too, that'd be overkill, and expensive. Ideally it'd be around maybe 1600x1200 for that size, but that creates issues for developers. Also, reducing the size would probably reduce battery life, and people really like their ~10 hr. battery life on the iPad.
I never argued that point. I argued the OP's comment which said that Amazon planned to rip people off with their content. Did you actually read what I was originally quoting/commenting on?
I ask sincerely because all too often it seems like people are quick to hit the reply button without understanding the context of the discussion at the time.
Yes. Amazon is selling the unit at or below their costs. Yes - they know they will make it up with revenue from their content. But in no way does that imply they are going to "rip customers off." As I noted - content for music and many books is actually CHEAPER than iTunes.
So in actuality - they are doing the opposite of ripping their customers off, aren't they. They are offering the device "at cost" or below cost and then also offering content at a fair and reasonable amount.
Compare that to Apple's model. And I am not suggesting that Apple is ripping people off (before some people start getting in a tizzy).
I'm not even sure you read what I was responding to... and you seem to have gone off into some kind of misplaced rant. However, your rant is hilarious. I made you a first world problem picture.
I might make another one that says "Reading a book makes me feel like I'm stuck in 1980.
"iPad 3 and iPad Nano
Only thing better will be the iPad Inviso! Wait until Amazon gets a load of that!
Only thing better will be the iPad Inviso! Wait until Amazon gets a load of that!
Until devices change or the format is no longer supported.
"Forever" doesn't really exist. Never has.