Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why a 7.85" Screen for the Rumored 'iPad Mini' Makes Sense

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,950
39,946



Screenshot-2012-15-21-06.15.55.jpg
Rumors of an "iPad mini" have been persistent over the past couple of years, despite an early dismissal of the 7" tablet form-factor by Apple's Steve Jobs:
There are clear limits to how close elements can be on the screen before users can't touch accurately. We believe 10-inch screen is minimum necessary.
Click to expand...
Jobs' dismissal centers around an interface issue that a 10-inch screen is believed to be the minimum necessary to provide a good user interface.

Still, rumors of a smaller iPad have persisted with the latest rumors pinpointing a 7.85" screen for such a device. Apple has reportedly received samples of 1024x768 7.85" screens with rumors of mass production of the device sometime this fall.

AppAdvice digs into this exact screen size and reveals why the 7.85" size is not as arbitrary as it might seem.

The site calculates the points per inch (PPI) of such an imaginary 7.85" 1024x768 display and finds it to be 163 PPI. This is the exact same pixel density as the original iPhone and iPod Touch before the Retina Display. Apple's human interface guidelines for iOS development for both iPad and iPhone outline that the minimum size for tappable user interface elements at 44 x 44 points (0.27 x 0.27 inches on the original iPhone screen).

This 44 x 44 point size recommendation is true for the original iPhone and the original iPad, even though the original iPad was slightly less pixel-dense. (On Retina-enabled displays, the recommendation remains at 44 x 44 points, but with each point represented by 2 pixels)

What this means is that any iPad application that was designed with these guidelines in mind would never drop below Apple's recommended 44 x 44 point (0.27 x 0.27 inches) when displayed on a 7.85" miniaturized iPad. As we noted in our paper mockup of a iPad mini, that the user interface elements seemed perfectly usable on the smaller screen, and this would explain why. iPad apps would run without modification on a 7.85" iPad without any elements dropping below what Apple considers the minimal tappable size.

None of this means that Apple will definitely be producing such a device, but does show the 7.85" size is not an arbitrary decision. Existing iPad apps would run reasonably well without modification on such a device.

Article Link: Why a 7.85" Screen for the Rumored 'iPad Mini' Makes Sense
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/27/why-a-7-85-screen-for-the-rumored-ipad-mini-makes-sense/
I like my HP TouchPad, but I wouldn't mind a smaller iPad in addition to my Touchpad. Pretty cool IMO
 
One how is the new news.
This exact analysis has been discussed in these very forums many times. It's like someone finally got a round to reading.

Two - Not going to happen till Cocoa AutoLayout gets ported to CocoaTouch.
 
Highly unlikely. Why does Apple need this? Is the iPad not selling well all of a sudden? The kindle is a completely different product. If this is what Apple does as a way of "finding it's own non-Jobsian" vision we're in trouble
 
Smaller would be nice, but I have a hard time believing Apple will introduce a non-Retina device. I think that they've made it clear where they stand on display quality.
 
I don't think that this product will ever exist, unless Apple really cuts their margins. The Kindle Fire has the brand awareness in this size area. I don't think that people will buy the iPad mini unless its ≤$249. That leaves some room for the "Apple Tax" but I doubt that people will pay much more.
 
After upgrading everything from the iPod Touch to the iPad to "retina" pixel density, they are now going backwards to offer a 163ppi non-retina display on a brand new great product? I don't think it will happen.
 
This calculation works for a 2048 x 1536 display at the iPhone's 326 ppi resolution as well - I would have though it more reasonable to expect a theoretical 7.9 inch 'iPad Mini' at that resolution, rather than the old non-retina resolution (the iPad 2 is the only device still sold at that resolution).

Certainly would make for an interesting product! :)
 
Last edited:
I don't mean to argue with a dead man, who knew a lot more about what people want than I do.

However: If 10" is the smallest usable screen size, how do you explain the popularity of the iPhone?
 
Actually, if you calculate the retina display on the new iPad and dived it by the new screen you get 326 ppi which the exact amount of ppi on the iPhone.

2048/6.28=326
 
Think something smaller, size and functionality (compared to an iPad)
To augment something larger

Only time will tell ;)
 
slrandall said:
Smaller would be nice, but I have a hard time believing Apple will introduce a non-Retina device. I think that they've made it clear where they stand on display quality.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Producing a non-retina device would be taking a step back when they've been making efforts to increase screen resolution/pixel density with all of their devices as of late. I don't see them compromising this quality to "be competitive" in a "market" that only currently exists because it's between the sizes of Apple's current, immensely popular devices. Desperate competitors are desperate. They're trying their hardest to get a leg up anywhere they can—even if it means trying to create a "market" for less-than-sensible tablet sizes (an area Apple has purposely not pursued).
 
Yes, this would be a move backwards.

Let's remember that this rumor originally appeared about a year and a half ago, and at that time, only one device was retina display in the lineup, the iPhone 4.

Sure, the mathematics make sense now as they did then. But the only thing this recent detective tells work me, is that these rumors were from plans made a long, long time ago, and now things are much different so these plans have been scrapped, and the course has been changed.

The PPI on this display would be much too low for a new 2012 device.
 
OziMac said:
This calculation works for a 2048 x 1536 display at the iPhone's 324 ppi resolution as well - I would have though it more reasonable to expect a theoretical 7.9 inch 'iPad Mini' at that resolution, rather than the old non-retina resolution (the iPad 2 is the only device still sold at that resolution).

Certainly would make for an interesting product! :)
Click to expand...

seanwes said:
Exactly. Producing a non-retina device would be taking a step back when they've been making efforts to increase screen resolution/pixel density with all of their devices as of late. I don't see them compromising this quality to "be competitive" in a "market" that only currently exists because it's between the sizes of Apple's current, immensely popular devices. Desperate competitors are desperate. They're trying their hardest to get a leg up anywhere they can—even if it means trying to create a "market" for less-than-sensible tablet sizes (an area Apple has purposely not pursued).
Click to expand...

Sure, except the rumors were specific about 1024x768 at 7.85"

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/18/ipad-mini-rumors-revived-with-claims-of-7-85-inch-screen/

arn
 
Nope

Won't happen. Not a chance in the world. They don't need another product between the iPod touch and the iPad. If you want a smaller screen, buy an iPod touch. How would they even market this. I got a Kindle Fire for Christmas and haven't touched it since. Apple got it right the first time around.
 
Why a 7.85" Screen for the Rumored 'iPad Mini' Does Not Make Sense

They practically sell iPads as fast as they can make them. Why under cut that with a cheaper tablet? This is just silly non-sense to get people like me worked up! lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back