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.
Why a 7.85" Screen for the Rumored 'iPad Mini' Makes Sense
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When Apple and Jobs said it was the smallest usable screen size they were referring specifically to apps. As Job stated, any smaller and you wouldn't really be able to create apps that were any different than phone apps.
What makes the iPad so nice is not just that the apps are larger. The apps on the iPad are actually designed using a different UI that better takes advantage of the screen size.
If you look at the nicer universal iPad apps, they are quite different from their iPhone counterparts in design and functionality. They aren't just simply larger versions of phone apps. The smaller devices competing with the iPad don't allow enough room to offer anything more than just scaled up phone apps.
Last edited:
Guys, at some point, there will be different screen sizes. Apple definitely will extend the portfolio covering a number of screen sizes.
iMacs at 21", 27". Use to come at 17", 24", 30" (others?)
MacbookPros at 13", 15", 17"
At some point, Apple will definitely introduce different screen sizes for the iPad as well as the iPhone. It was and has been, always the trend.
iMacs at 21", 27". Use to come at 17", 24", 30" (others?)
MacbookPros at 13", 15", 17"
At some point, Apple will definitely introduce different screen sizes for the iPad as well as the iPhone. It was and has been, always the trend.
If you go into iTunes and browse the app store you will see there is a section for the iPhone another for the iPad. iPad apps, when designed properly, have user interfaces optimized for the larger display.
All this discussion of whether or not we need a mid-sized screen between the iPod/iPhone and the iPad and I think you're all forgetting a key point:
Many of us want a smaller-than-iPad device WITH 3G/4G LTE data capability!
In other words, an iPhone without the phone and "minutes" calling plans that cost an arm and a leg.
Apple & Wireless Carriers: Why can't I have an iPad data-only plan on an iPhone sized device???
Many of us want a smaller-than-iPad device WITH 3G/4G LTE data capability!
In other words, an iPhone without the phone and "minutes" calling plans that cost an arm and a leg.
Apple & Wireless Carriers: Why can't I have an iPad data-only plan on an iPhone sized device???
I don't agree with this part. If you have a 44x44 button in an app on an iPad, and then you run that app on a 7.85 inch 1024x768 iPad, it's going to be roughly 30% smaller physically on the screen. That may make it difficult to tap, especially for those with larger fingers. And on top of that, if apps use some smaller controls, then it'll be even more difficult.
They absolutely reference this in pixels not points. Why would they give you the diagonal pixels per inch as a guideline. Makes no sense. See below, the author doesn't know what a point is.
The author of this article doesn't know anything about PPI. It is not calculated by simply taking the pixelWidth and dividing by widthInInches. You have to calculate the diagonal in pixels and divide by the diagonal in inches.
In other words, sqrt(pixelHeight^2 + pixelWidth^2) / diagonalInches = PPI
sqrt(1024^2 + 768^2) / 7.85 =
sqrt(1,638,400) / 7.85 =
1280 / 7.85 = 163.057 PPI
It is coincidence that they got 163 PPI from their ridiculous calculation. Get the facts straight before writing.
Last edited:
I always thought that the idea of a device filling the space between iPhone and iPad was terrible, until I (reluctantly) had to use a Galaxy Tab for work. While the Android experience is dreadful, the form factor is nice. I can see how each product would have a place in the lineup.
From what I understand in many countries you can have a strictly data plan with our iPhone. Or for that matter a strictly voice plan. US carriers unfortunately get away with a lot more BS.
You should go measure the relative sizes of icons and buttons on an iPad versus on an iPhone or iPod Touch. People manage to hit those buttons just fine, even though they are significantly smaller.
People didn't think the iPod Mini's would do well either.
Steve jobs also said he wasn't interested in making a phone or a tablet in 2003.
There are no plans to make a tablet. It turns out people want keyboards. When Apple first started out, "People couldnit type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this." "We look at the tablet and we think itis going to fail." Tablets appeal to rich guys with plenty of other PCs and devices already. "And people accuse us of niche markets." I get a lot of pressure to do a PDA. What people really seem to want to do with these is get the data out . We believe cell phones are going to carry this information. We didnit think weid do well in the cell phone business. What weive done instead is weive written what we think is some of the best software in the world to start syncing information between devices. We believe that mode is what cell phones need to get to. We chose to do the iPod instead of a PDA.
I wouldn't doubt anything at this point.
Steve jobs also said he wasn't interested in making a phone or a tablet in 2003.
There are no plans to make a tablet. It turns out people want keyboards. When Apple first started out, "People couldnit type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this." "We look at the tablet and we think itis going to fail." Tablets appeal to rich guys with plenty of other PCs and devices already. "And people accuse us of niche markets." I get a lot of pressure to do a PDA. What people really seem to want to do with these is get the data out . We believe cell phones are going to carry this information. We didnit think weid do well in the cell phone business. What weive done instead is weive written what we think is some of the best software in the world to start syncing information between devices. We believe that mode is what cell phones need to get to. We chose to do the iPod instead of a PDA.
I wouldn't doubt anything at this point.
I think it's a lot more likely now that the new iPad is just named the "iPad".
Think about it.
Imagine how weird it would be if they released the 4th-gen iPad and still sold the 3rd one in terms of naming scheme. I'm sure Apple thought about this before removing the numbers and that may mean the new iPad won't be sold alongside the new-new iPad.
Right now, Apple offers 3 iPhone models: iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S. The iPhone 3GS may be old and low-res but it still sells a lot of units to a lower-budget market. Apple definitely shows interest for the lower-end market judging by this, otherwise they would have discontinued the 3GS for not meeting Apple's 2012 standards.
Now Apple may want to do the same and offer multiple iPad models at different price points. I doubt a 1 generation old iPad will ever be less than 100$ under the new model's price (399$), so if they wanted to offer a model at around 299$, they would have to offer the 2-year old model like they do with the iPhone 3GS.
The screen of the iPad 2 is the part that costs the most to produce, representing 44% of the cost of a 16GB device (an iPhone display is only 12%). If they wanted to reduce the production cost of the iPad 2 to put it at a very competitive price (249-299$), the first place to cut would be the screen size, which is what makes the display pricy (an iPhone 4S Retina display costs 23$ to make while an iPad 2 non-Retina display costs 127$).
Now this would make sense if terms of :
Think about it.
Imagine how weird it would be if they released the 4th-gen iPad and still sold the 3rd one in terms of naming scheme. I'm sure Apple thought about this before removing the numbers and that may mean the new iPad won't be sold alongside the new-new iPad.
Right now, Apple offers 3 iPhone models: iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S. The iPhone 3GS may be old and low-res but it still sells a lot of units to a lower-budget market. Apple definitely shows interest for the lower-end market judging by this, otherwise they would have discontinued the 3GS for not meeting Apple's 2012 standards.
Now Apple may want to do the same and offer multiple iPad models at different price points. I doubt a 1 generation old iPad will ever be less than 100$ under the new model's price (399$), so if they wanted to offer a model at around 299$, they would have to offer the 2-year old model like they do with the iPhone 3GS.
The screen of the iPad 2 is the part that costs the most to produce, representing 44% of the cost of a 16GB device (an iPhone display is only 12%). If they wanted to reduce the production cost of the iPad 2 to put it at a very competitive price (249-299$), the first place to cut would be the screen size, which is what makes the display pricy (an iPhone 4S Retina display costs 23$ to make while an iPad 2 non-Retina display costs 127$).
Now this would make sense if terms of :
- Naming scheme : just iPad and iPad mini, no numbers and no two iPad just named "iPad" sold at the same time.
- Price point : It would be hard to offer an iPad 2 for 299$ or less with the cost of making the current display being so high. Making a smaller screen would reduce considerably the manufacturing costs.
- Marketing : People will obviously be more tempted by a new iPad model than a two-year old iPad 2, even if it shares the exact same resolution, CPU, GPU, RAM and storage.
- Market segment : Some people show no interest for larger tablets and would only consider smaller ones. They are currently stuck only with Android tablets which aren't the best software-wise. Apple could sell to new customers in the market for a small tablet but currently unsatisfied with Android-based tablets' offering.
They're definitely not anywhere near 30% smaller though, I sold my iPad several weeks ago, so I've nothing to check it against right now.
So true, but that is the old Apple who know what they new Apple will be.
Maybe they will in time go down hill just like before but I like to think they won't.
Small little iPad for the little kiddies. Really people, really.
No need for Apple to do this.
I would NOT want a smaller iPad. I'm very satisfied with the screen size of my iPad and iPhone and the sizes of the apps on my iPad and iPhone, and I'm sure many others are too. Do you hear of anybody wanting smaller size tablets? If so, have they really used an iPad to make this statement?
If Apple's making a smaller iPad, then their only intention would be to kill off their competitors, which I don't think they need to do. They're way ahead of the game, and from what I see, there's no chance for any competitor to beat Apple in the slightest way.
I would NOT want a smaller iPad. I'm very satisfied with the screen size of my iPad and iPhone and the sizes of the apps on my iPad and iPhone, and I'm sure many others are too. Do you hear of anybody wanting smaller size tablets? If so, have they really used an iPad to make this statement?
If Apple's making a smaller iPad, then their only intention would be to kill off their competitors, which I don't think they need to do. They're way ahead of the game, and from what I see, there's no chance for any competitor to beat Apple in the slightest way.
Why, they are selling fine, I just don't see the allure of smaller, it adds nothing to the brand. Bigger I can see because of the books but smaller really, I just don't see it.
Lets see the stuff people want.
4 inch iphone (cloned android phone)
7 or 6 inch ipad (cloned android tablet)
Sound like way to many android fangirls on this forum. Welcome.
Same for TV poor people TV why would Apple do that. Who is going to buy a tv every year.
Now Google I could see putting Android in tv as an interface.
Value people that is what you make new things for. Not clones of things that are out and not selling.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you are being voted down for this.
Sure, a 27" iPad would probably become a new product line in itself (the iSlab?) but since their other product lines, all-in-one desktops (iMac), laptops (MacBook Air and Pro), media players (iPod shuffle, nano and touch) offer different sizes why the iPad would not?
Many of UI elements in iPad seems already a bit too small - for instance the Safari buttons. Even more crammed? The usability will suffer quite a bit. Although I guess for something like Safari they'll redo the UI.
A 7.85" tablet with iPad's screen aspect ratio is bigger than you think it is. Not only it's already wider than 7" Android tablets but the aspect ratio makes it still wider. I've just simulated the size on my iPad and it looks like that thing is a bit too wide for single hand usage unless it has a very thin bezel around the screen.
If Apple is simply looking to address the low end market with compatibility with current iPad apps, this sounds fairly reasonable. But this 7.85" size is close to the current iPad in size and too big to be pocketable.
A 7.85" tablet with iPad's screen aspect ratio is bigger than you think it is. Not only it's already wider than 7" Android tablets but the aspect ratio makes it still wider. I've just simulated the size on my iPad and it looks like that thing is a bit too wide for single hand usage unless it has a very thin bezel around the screen.
If Apple is simply looking to address the low end market with compatibility with current iPad apps, this sounds fairly reasonable. But this 7.85" size is close to the current iPad in size and too big to be pocketable.
I'd like a 7" iPad, I like the size of the Kindle Fire, and wouldn't mind seeing a similarly-sized device running iOS. I'm sure it would look odd to type on with a full keyboard, but it would be great with the split keyboard.
I honestly don't see the people clamoring against it. It doesn't hurt you if people would like another device size. Laptops have different screen sizes, why not tablets too? I would only be against it if it were truly arduous for developers to adapt.
I honestly don't see the people clamoring against it. It doesn't hurt you if people would like another device size. Laptops have different screen sizes, why not tablets too? I would only be against it if it were truly arduous for developers to adapt.
I thought this question was valid, and excellently answered by someone else [in that the 10" allows a whole new UI for an app, instead of a blown-up phone app]. Can we stop downvoting based on opinion, and instead use the voting system to show the substance a post brings to a thread? It's silly to use the votes to simply show who you agree and disagree with.
Again with the low end market, why would Apple do that. Why do you think Apple wants to be Dell. I can't think of any reason for them to go in that directions and make their products have less cool appeal. There are reason why you don't do that in business. If you dilute your product to please the poor you will loose top paying customers. Apple should never go in the directions of the low price PC or Android. There is no reason for it except people not having money which is not a reason.
I agree that it has to be more like the Kindle Fire's size. As it is, a 7.85" iPad "Mini" is right in the middle between the Kindle Fire and the iPad in terms of width. To me that seems too wide for a pocketable device.
That's true to an extent but I also don't think Apple wants to completely ignore the ~$300 market either. They aren't going to make $250-300 10" tablets, but if they can make a smaller high quality device, they might still do it. I thought they'd do it by making a bigger iPod Touch, but who knows. I do agree that this proposed iPad Mini is a bit too big to provide a unique selling proposition other than the price.
Never understood with Safari why they waste all that screen space on the address bar and search field for that matter. You only use them for a very short period then they could disappear. On the iPad it's easy to pull open a new tab then type address than it is to edit the address of the old tab. I fine i open and trash tabs all the time.
On a new tab everything is crammed into the top of the screen, the keyboard takes out the bottom quarter and your left with white space in the middle that could well be used. They could just put the address field as an accessory view on keyboard no need for it to take up any space at the top.