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

[Samdx927]

Iam waiting for iPad mini.. but i do have temp one

I bought this one.. perfect size i would love the iPad but anyways apple here it is against the iPad .. the competitions has already begun

The iPad is just to big for my hand ..7.85 iPad mini is perfect for reading and portability and could be second choice after iPod touch

the problem apple might be facing is the price.. where will the place it and operations

next we might see 2 sizes of iPod touch and iPhone.. the bigger size can be named as iPod Touch X and iPhone X with 4.6 inch screen along side the normal size... and the new iPad should be named as iPad X

...i think i dreaming... This product will end all competition and customers will some option now

 

[Asmod4n]

There won't be a iPad with another screen size, they will introduce another Product with another name. It won't be called iPad.

 

[marcusj0015]

So... Someone did some math, and found a coincidence...?

 

[Samdx927]

No there is no need for new product name.. theres already enough spent on the trademark .. apple next focus for trademark would be the iTV the big thing of this year

I think there might be two size of each portable device.. giving consumer the freedom to choose like the MacBooks

iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad for normal screen sizer
iPod Touch+/X, iPhone+/X, iPad+/X for bigger screen with + or X as suffixes

 

[MythicFrost]

44x44 points was recommended for iPad and iPhone apps. The iPad recommendation happened to be 30% bigger than the iPhone recommendation. So yes, it is 30% smaller than the iPad was... but it's the same size as the iPhone recommendation.
arn

Ah right, I gotcha.

Again the proof is in the pudding. Look at the above picture. If the iPad interface is unusable at that size, then so must be the iPod Touch and iPhone according to the same logic.

That's not right, the iPhone and iPod touch are running apps designed for 163 PPI, and the iPad is running apps designed for 132 PPI, if you then run an iPad app on a 7.85 inch 1024x768 iPad, everything will be 30% smaller than on the 9.7 inch iPad, and thus a 44x44 button will actually be smaller than it is on the iPhone. See where I'm coming from?

However, Arn pointed out that 44x44 is actually about 30% larger physically on the iPad than it is on the iPhone, so it would work out at the same physical size as the iPhone, which would be fine.

----------

So the current iPad's screen elements are BIGGER than the iPhone's?

What does the pixel density have to do with the size of anything on screen anyway? As the transition from non-retina devices to retina ones has shown, it has no effect on interface element size since you can always upscale and downscale elements via software.

Why would Apple use a non-retina display after transitioning all of their devices to retina? That would be stupid, wouldn't it? What would be their reason? Couldn't they just use a smaller screen with the same pixel density as the iPad, just less pixels in total?

As for the resolution of the iPad Mini then not being a multiple of the normal iPad's resolution, who cares? They can use downsampling with interpolation to make things look smooth. Downsampling is not a problem, it doesn't decrease quality.

And I'm pretty sure the thinking behind the 44 points is not to count how many pixels that means, but to have a stable, well-defined physical size to elements even on screens with varying pixel size and density. I guess they could have used millimeters, but that would never directly translate into an integer number of pixels.

Actually, it absolutely does decrease quality, it'd be horrible. That's why we'll never see it done.

 

[wolfpackfan]

Well I didn't upgrade my iPad 1 to a 3 hoping that Apple would come out with a smaller iPad this Fall. I am so tired toting my big iPad 1 around everywhere. My wife has a Nook Color and I just love it's size. I guess if Apple doesn't come out with a smaller iPad this Fall, I'll be looking to get a Nook Fire. It is a shame because I really do like IOS.

 

[Dionte]

Bigger iPhone, not smaller iPad.

 

[Born Again]

People said apple would never release a product with seams but it did.

Remember those days guys? When our own members cried when the lost prototype had seams?

 

[blipsman]

I just don't see Apple making a new, non-retina display tablet at this point...

Perhaps such a display -- if Apple is actually buying them -- is actually for the universal remote for an iTV.

 

[ModerateFKR]

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.

You're wrong on so many levels. When Steve said: "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." it was during Apple's earnings call in October 2010. It's now nearly April 2012. Technology has moved on and the market has matured. And Steve Jobs often demonstrated the more contrarian aspects of his personality in his public statements.

So, the real question is: Why would Apple not do this - two years later? And your own Kindle Fire example is actually further proof of my point. Someone gave you the Kindle Fire, at a much lower cost to them than an Apple equivalent. I'm prepared to make three bets:

If they loved you enough to buy you a 7.85" iPad, you would use it.

If Apple release a 7.85" iPad at $100 more than the Kindle Fire, many people will buy it.

If Apple release a 7.85" iPad at $100 more than the Kindle Fire, it will increase Apple's share of the market.

If Apple release a 7.85" iPad at $100 more than the Kindle Fire, sales of the Kindle Fire and a few other 7" tablets and readers will fall.

Why? because that's what happens when Apple releases a product.

 

[Macist]

I don't think Jobs would have liked iPad Mini - it's too 'cheap Android'.

He wouldn't have liked the warm iPad 3 either - now I've felt it, it sucks compared to the cool to touch iPad 2.

Tim Cook seems to already be thinking about counting beans more than getting products just right.

On the upside, perhaps Tim will just start giving Mac users what they ask for - like a mini tower/smaller MacPro/headless iMac. I want to use my LaCie 324i without paying huge money for massive Xeon power I don't need.

 

[Tiger8]

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.

THANK YOU! Before getting my iPad, I got a no-name android tablet (horrible) then got a nook Color and put an SD card for it using both Honeycomb (3.0) and Gingerbread (2.3). The techie in me got them to work in great, but post the first few hours of excitement I just did not find a reason to use it. In fact, ended up leaving it for days and days on my nightstand.

I ebayed it all and got an iPad, I can't put it down. I understand the apps are similar and what not , but it is so usable. I love it!

 

[Bubba Satori]

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

Isn't the pertinant question 'do Apple's customers want this?'

Can't the largest mega-corporation in the galaxy produce two sizes
of iPads without destroying the time-space continuum?
Would offering two sizes of a gadget be the end of the world as we know it?
Shirley not.
Geez...

This just in...Jobsian is still dead.
Apple management considering innovating by offering
fanbois more than one choice. Mass hysteria feared.

----------

I don't think Jobs would have liked iPad Mini - it's too 'cheap Android'.

He wouldn't have liked the warm iPad 3 either - now I've felt it, it sucks compared to the cool to touch iPad 2.

Tim Cook seems to already be thinking about counting beans more than getting products just right.

On the upside, perhaps Tim will just start giving Mac users what they ask for - like a mini tower/smaller MacPro/headless iMac. I want to use my LaCie 324i without paying huge money for massive Xeon power I don't need.

Steve is dead. He can't buy anything.
Nobody cares what he liked.
He's gone. Get over it.

----------

Here's what Jony Ive has to say about an iPad Mini

Image

Jony's not going to buy 50 million iPads, Apple customers will.
Try to remember what goes in front, the horse or the cart.
Order of operation isn't just important in math.

 

[MaxCast]

I don't know if they will make a mini or not but I bet they will make one bigger than 10"

 

[69650]

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?

EXACTLY. All the doubters and naysayers and it'll never happen brigade on here always dodge this question because it totally blows their argument out of the water. How many millions of 3.5" iPhone and iPod Touch screens are there? I've never heard anyone say "I can't use it with my fingers coz the screen isn't 10 inches". Never, not once. It's a stupid argument which ignorant people keep making over and over and over again. Of course you can have a 7.85" iPad. Of course it would sell. It would almost certainly replace the current iPad 2 at the same price point with just one 16GB model available.

 

[Colpeas]

7.85" iPad would be too small, 4" iPhone would be way to big. Just leave the current sizes as long as your products are running of the shelves...

 

[fredf]

The only reason I haven't yet bought an iPad is that I'm waiting for a smaller version. What would be a killer, though, is if it is a spec'd down device.
I don't want to see a 7.85" device meant to compete on price with a Kindle Fire that has only 8g memory or a reduced screen.

I want a full fledged iPad but in a smaller size.

Otherwise I am still considering the Rim Playbook, which is the technically most advanced tablet other than the iPad.

 

[B777Forevar]

I don't see a need for a "iPad mini". The current iPad is perfect the way it is right now.

 

[andyjam]

A mini-iPad will not be $200. It would be a replacement for the $399 iPad 2, maybe with a small reduction in price. It would certainly be no cheaper than $350.

Apple simply cannot develop and build a small version of the existing iPad, with an A5X, decent camera, good quality components and excellent build quality cheaply enough to retain margins at $200. They can offer a far less complex, lower quality iPod touch, with a 3.5" screen and two year old technology at that price point, but certainly not something double the size with this years tech in it.

At a price point of say $350 for a 7" iPad, consumers will question the value proposition. The forums will be in uproar that Apple has discontinued the 10" iPad 2 in favour of a smaller product with only a moderate price drop.

Apple does not need to expand their competitive edge in this market... They own it anyway. Nobody else can touch them, not on product, not on price, not on features. Why waste $10bn and months developing a product you don't even need in the first place?

And I'm not understanding the rationale behind the suggestion that this would be the new iPod touch. This product would be much more closely aligned to the iPad in terms of price, style, product and market...

 

[Apple Key]

First of all the reason that they will make an iPad mini is because people like options. Some people will prefer a smaller form factor. It has nothing to do with calculated pixel density.

Second of all, if they do I'm sure it will be retina as well. If they can make a larger retina display, why would they have any trouble making a smaller one?

 

[jonnysods]

Wirelessly posted

I'd use one over a 9.7 as it would suit my needs. Not sure why Apple would go to all the trouble though. Low price points perhaps?

 

[Johnny Vegas]

Schools...

The iPad mini will happen, and no, it will not be designed for the majority of people that use this forum *gasp*... Get off your high horse, not everything apple makes has to be used by or even understood by "power users".

The iPad mini makes perfect sense for schools, particularly elementary schools. Most schools can't afford a 1:1 ratio with a $500 dollar iPad, nor can apple give the schools a huge discount. Hence, the iPad mini. Sold to schools at a reduced price, apple won't need to make a dime off the hardware sales. All the textbook purchases, year after year, will turn a huge profit.

Apple has always sold lighter versions of their hardware to school districts for a price reduction. For example, schools can now buy a 21.5" iMac with an i3 for $999. Why not do the same with iPads? There is too much money to be made off of software purchases for apple not to consider it.

~JV

 

[sterlingindigo]

With the bezel, it wont make a noticeable difference in size with that of the standard iPad (me thinks).

 

[Moonjumper]

I know a couple of people who would like a smaller device, one has a very good reason. His job often means working in prisons. The maximum bag size he is allowed to take in for security reasons doe not fit an iPad.

While a smaller device would be a nice option, I wouldn't like to see the fragmentation. Rather than reducing the screens size, I would like to see a smaller bezel to achieve the reduced dimensions.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

There won't be a iPad with another screen size, they will introduce another Product with another name. It won't be called iPad.

An iPud?

----------

A mini-iPad will not be $200. It would be a replacement for the $399 iPad 2, maybe with a small reduction in price. It would certainly be no cheaper than $350.

Apple simply cannot develop and build a small version of the existing iPad, with an A5X, decent camera, good quality components and excellent build quality cheaply enough to retain margins at $200. They can offer a far less complex, lower quality iPod touch, with a 3.5" screen and two year old technology at that price point, but certainly not something double the size with this years tech in it.

At a price point of say $350 for a 7" iPad, consumers will question the value proposition. The forums will be in uproar that Apple has discontinued the 10" iPad 2 in favour of a smaller product with only a moderate price drop.

Apple does not need to expand their competitive edge in this market... They own it anyway. Nobody else can touch them, not on product, not on price, not on features. Why waste $10bn and months developing a product you don't even need in the first place?

And I'm not understanding the rationale behind the suggestion that this would be the new iPod touch. This product would be much more closely aligned to the iPad in terms of price, style, product and market...

Not only cost and price point need to be considered to calculate profit, but also if this form factor would be big enough to host a 10-hour battery and all the components needed, unless some of these components get removed. If this is the case, the user experience will be downgraded, something Apple shouldn't allow.

Also, Apple is not going to release an inferior product that would cannibalize their main product, even if it's just to please a few people. They have set the iPad2 as their new iPad line entry point at $399.00. Going below that could be dangerous.

And finally, when you give the consumer too many choices, most of the time it results in frustration and regrets, as it's more difficult for them to make a decision.

----------

Here's what Jony Ive has to say about an iPad Mini

Image

"Jony don't do that!"
"Jony don't play that!"

Well, those were his final words.