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

[douglaswilliams]

Extreme Lack of Logic in this Article - READ THIS

If this device existed as stated, it would have a smaller ppi than the original iPhone. It is safe to say that Apple is done with low pixel density displays for their handheld devices. That is absolutely clear.

Old NON Retina displays, in order of increasing screen size AND decreasing pixel density:

iPhone: 480x320 @ 3.5 = 164.83 ppi
iPad 1 & 2: 1024*768 @ 9.7 = 131.96 ppi

This places the Rumored Small iPad out of order:

iPhone: 480x320 @ 3.5 = 164.83 ppi
Rumored Small iPad: 1024*768 @ 7.85 = 163.06 ppi
iPad 1 & 2: 1024*768 @ 9.7 = 131.96 ppi

It makes more sense, is logical and is more likely for the Retina-screen-loving Apple to double the iPhone 4's resolution in both directions, thus:

iPhone 4: 960*640 @ 3.5 = 329.65 ppi
More Likely Small iPad: 1920x1280 @ 7.85 = 293.96 ppi
iPad 3: 2048*1536 @ 9.7 = 263.92 ppi

This would be slightly higher ppi than the iPad 3, but slightly less than the iPhone 4. Right where it should be based on it's size, and viewing distance from your eyes. Plus developers still get the whole benefit of being able to easily remake apps by doubling the pixels on their iPhone 4 app screens.

It's just logical. Can I get some props for that at least?

Anything else is nonsense, rubbish, and doesn't even deserve a rumors post.

 

[RalfTheDog]

It's not a small iPad, it is a big iPhone!

 

[deconstruct60]

You can't tell me that it's a coincidence that a 7.85" iPad has precisely the same sized tap targets for UI elements as an iPhone and iPod Touch. The best argument that iPad-optimized apps scaled down to a 7.85" iOS device is usable is Apple's own devices. .

But it would not be iPad optimized apps the screen is targeted to. Your later posts are more on track. This is far more likely replacement for the iPod Touch. However, in being a replacement for the iPod Touch, it is iPod Touch optimized apps that is the porting target. Not iPad ones.

What this will be is a device for which people who find the iPhone/Touch screens "too small" to a better fit without being "too big" (and more expensive) as the iPad.

Even the price points scream iPod Touch. Currently iPod Touch :

$199 8GB $299 32GB $399 64GB

Apple is unlikely to go to a long term situation where the $399 touch price point overlaps the $399 iPad2. With these high res displays selling the gimped 8GB model isn't a good option. Long term it would not be surprising for the iPad(n-1) offering to disappear if Apple intros a "in between" model.

The other problem for the Touch is that the ~7" Kindles/Nooks are also in that $199 position. That is going to set an expectation with a growing number of people that $199 buys a screen that size.

If the new 7.5" iPod Touch (non retina) is same size and price points at Touch it could roll out at the larger sizes. The "next gen" (2013) Touch update could be to a Retina display and larger flash storage on the entry model. In 2013, the iPad2 would disappear ( as opposed to the current iPad 2012 being gimped to 8GB and sold into that price point. )


Apple could "wipe out" the iPod nano with a lower priced 4" Touch. Not sure if they want to go there or not. (would be easier for them if the nano could move down to shuffle prices but harder if can't limbo that low. )

 

[69650]

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.

I've never heard anything so ridiculous. You're assuming Apple customers are all idiots who need herding like sheep coz they don't have a brain. Last time I checked there were 3 iPhone models to chose from, 2 MBAs, 3 MBPs, 2 iMacs, several iPods, etc, etc.

 

[seong]

If this device existed as stated, it would have a smaller ppi than the original iPhone. It is safe to say that Apple is done with low pixel density displays for their handheld devices. That is absolutely clear.

Old NON Retina displays, in order of increasing screen size AND decreasing pixel density:

iPhone: 480x320 @ 3.5 = 164.83 ppi
iPad 1 & 2: 1024*768 @ 9.7 = 131.96 ppi

This places the Rumored Small iPad out of order:

iPhone: 480x320 @ 3.5 = 164.83 ppi
Rumored Small iPad: 1024*768 @ 7.85 = 163.06 ppi
iPad 1 & 2: 1024*768 @ 9.7 = 131.96 ppi

It makes more sense, is logical and is more likely for the Retina-screen-loving Apple to double the iPhone 4's resolution in both directions, thus:

iPhone 4: 960*640 @ 3.5 = 329.65 ppi
More Likely Small iPad: 1920x1280 @ 7.85 = 293.96 ppi
iPad 3: 2048*1536 @ 9.7 = 263.92 ppi

This would be slightly higher ppi than the iPad 3, but slightly less than the iPhone 4. Right where it should be based on it's size, and viewing distance from your eyes. Plus developers still get the whole benefit of being able to easily remake apps by doubling the pixels on their iPhone 4 app screens.

It's just logical. Can I get some props for that at least?

Anything else is nonsense, rubbish, and doesn't even deserve a rumors post.

Your calculation makes sense in every aspect. Apple will undoubtably go with 1920x1280 rather than 1024x768, unless they want to make a room for an update for iPad Mini 2nd generation
Just my wishful thinking.

 

[perealb]

Frankly, I don't think this is likely to happen... Unless, Apple changes its strategy and start making different sizes for its iOS devices. I'm not sure they have not done this already. If they want to simplify their production line, I would suggest to concentrate in combining all the current configurations they have today into one. For instance, having only one memory size and an expanding slot; unique model that includes wifi + cell data (no wifi only); have a slot (like the sim card) for the specific hardware required for cell provider or have all of them included already. Then have one product that combines the iPhone and iPad with 3 or 4 different sizes. Apps would have a "mobile" mode to adapt to smaller screens with that being switchable in any device. Only one version of the iOS for all devices.

 

[Mjmar]

I might be the minority here, but 7.85" seems like the perfect size iPad to me. Doesn't anybody else think that 10" is too big to feel comfortable?

 

[deconstruct60]

If this device existed as stated, it would have a smaller ppi than the original iPhone.

That is only because stretching to 7.85. If simply move to a 7" screen (exactly 2 times the iPhone size) then the density says exactly the same. I'm not sure what the extra 0.85" diagonal really buys besides drama. Both 7" and 7.85" are substantially bigger. That's the part that doesn't make sense. I could see 7.85 if include edge backlights but not the actual display surface area.

It makes more sense, is logical and is more likely for the Retina-screen-loving Apple to double the iPhone 4's resolution in both directions, thus:

iPhone 4: 960*640 @ 3.5 = 329.65 ppi
More Likely Small iPad: 1920x1280 @ 7.85 = 293.96 ppi
iPad 3: 2048*1536 @ 9.7 = 263.92 ppi

Again it doesn't really make sense to stretch to 7.85. The other issue is cost. Not sure going to get almost 8 inches are the "lowest possible cost" if push too hard. It is easier for the larger iPad to make its density because it is smaller.

For the first generation ( where Apple isn't 100% sure it will be a hit) it is safer go with the easier to product display for the first generation (and still maintain high margins) and then switch to higher densities when have an extremely good idea of what the expected volumes are going to be.

It's just logical. Can I get some props for that at least?

Anything else is nonsense, rubbish, and doesn't even deserve a rumors post.

The problem with the "Apple only sells retina" assertion is the 3GS that is still being sold. It is still around. Which means there is still a growing body of users out there with a need for apps with that kind of density.

The other issue is that Apple also has left the iPod Touch basically unmodified for a year. It is still doing OK. It isn't like folks are going to have an alternative if they don't offer a retina option.

 

[fruitycups]

Wirelessly posted

No need for this. Dont be driven by greed apple.

 

[PracticalMac]

The kindle is a completely different product.

1. Cheaper to make smaller device, attract those who are tight on budget.
2. Kids love kid sized stuff. I read a lot of "I got Kindle for kids", and Amazon ads.
3. Kindle sold millions, despite being below spec hardware
4. Their are those who want a small iPad. Even 10% equates to MILLIONS of units, likely increase of more iPad sales.

----------

Apple is unlikely to go to a long term situation where the $399 touch price point overlaps the $399 iPad2. With these high res displays selling the gimped 8GB model isn't a good option. Long term it would not be surprising for the iPad(n-1) offering to disappear if Apple intros a "in between" model.

The other problem for the Touch is that the ~7" Kindles/Nooks are also in that $199 position. That is going to set an expectation with a growing number of people that $199 buys a screen that size.

Consider that Apple may completely change the current price structure?

iPod Touch for $149
iPad 7.8 for $249 or $299
iPad 2 could simply go away, replaced by 7.8"

 

[Amazing Iceman]

I've never heard anything so ridiculous. You're assuming Apple customers are all idiots who need herding like sheep coz they don't have a brain. Last time I checked there were 3 iPhone models to chose from, 2 MBAs, 3 MBPs, 2 iMacs, several iPods, etc, etc.

I'm not assuming that. I can see you have no experience in sales whatsoever.
This is something that applies to any product for sale. The more choices you give the buyer, the more confused they get, which could result in losing a sale. It could be a phone, a car, a Computer or even a hot air balloon.
Just ask any real salesmen and you'll understand what I mean.

Those 3 iPhone models are identical except for storage capacity. It's a very simple decision to make.
The iPad is a similar situation: Once you decide WiFi or LTE, you choose your Carrier preference, and then select your model based on storage capacity.
There's always a guided path towards a final decision.

But If Apple was to release an iPad Mini, that would complicate things even more:
Do I need a large display? maybe not
But I want Retina!?
Oh, it has a slower processor, will I ever need the A5x.
Darn, the battery lasts only 6 hours; I'm not sure if that would be enough.
Oh, there's no camera on that one!?
I'm not sure if I'll need a camera...
Mmm.. If it doesn't have a camera, maybe I should just buy the Kindle Fire... Well... you now what, let me ask my father for advice. I'll come back some other day...
RESULT = LOST SALE

As simple as that...! And you don't need to thank me for the free Sales Lesson.

 

[mrgreen4242]

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...

If it's replacing the iPad 2 (which I don't agree with) why does it need an A5X? It wouldn't have the higher resolution screen to drive, and it will have a smaller battery so putting in a more power hungry SoC makes even less sense.

Put the A5 in it, and use the battery tech from the new iPad to make a battery similar in capacity the the iPad 2 battery in a smaller package. It could be as much as 20% LESS than the iPad 2 capacity and still be very reasonable (8 hours of battery).

I think $299 is a pretty realistic price point for something that has a smaller, cheaper screen and, by the time of it's release, is based on 18 month old technology.

This would match up with Apples business model well. They sell a decent prodict at the low end, but entice upgrades with just the right features at just the right price. 16gb iPad mini, $299. For another $100 though you can get the "bigger, better" model. And another $100 gets you the "faster, retina display". They would likely sell more devices than before - people who weren't considering buying an iPad will look at them because of the $299 price tag and either get upsold to the higher end or buy the cheap one (as opposed to nothing at all).

If this device existed as stated, it would have a smaller ppi than the original iPhone. It is safe to say that Apple is done with low pixel density displays for their handheld devices. That is absolutely clear.

Old NON Retina displays, in order of increasing screen size AND decreasing pixel density:

iPhone: 480x320 @ 3.5 = 164.83 ppi
iPad 1 & 2: 1024*768 @ 9.7 = 131.96 ppi

This places the Rumored Small iPad out of order:

iPhone: 480x320 @ 3.5 = 164.83 ppi
Rumored Small iPad: 1024*768 @ 7.85 = 163.06 ppi
iPad 1 & 2: 1024*768 @ 9.7 = 131.96 ppi

It makes more sense, is logical and is more likely for the Retina-screen-loving Apple to double the iPhone 4's resolution in both directions, thus:

iPhone 4: 960*640 @ 3.5 = 329.65 ppi
More Likely Small iPad: 1920x1280 @ 7.85 = 293.96 ppi
iPad 3: 2048*1536 @ 9.7 = 263.92 ppi

This would be slightly higher ppi than the iPad 3, but slightly less than the iPhone 4. Right where it should be based on it's size, and viewing distance from your eyes. Plus developers still get the whole benefit of being able to easily remake apps by doubling the pixels on their iPhone 4 app screens.

It's just logical. Can I get some props for that at least?

Anything else is nonsense, rubbish, and doesn't even deserve a rumors post.

This just makes no sense whatsoever. I don't even know where to begin. First, they'd need to produce entirely new panels which would be an expensive proposition compared to just cutting larger versions of the old technology in the non-retina iPhones (the 3GS is still being made, so they're still making these panels. Someone also mentioned they were using the same PPI displays in the iPod classics). I'm not even sure anyone is making that pixel density at those sizes at this point. Either way, it would be cost prohibitive for a "low end/introductory" model.

Second, that would be a 3:2 screen format (the iPhone aspect ratio). Exisiting iPad apps wouldn't work (properly) on it anymore. You'd be limited to pixel doubled iPhone apps, which are often designed around one hand usage and the needs of phone users. Using the iPad's 4:3 aspect ratio means you get iPad apps (with a decrease in element size - basically iPhone sized buttons on an iPad). An ~8" device is still a tablet (no matter what Android phone makers seem to think) and needs tablet apps, not phone apps.

Semi-related, I was dissapointed when Apple released the original iPad as a 4:3 device. I didn't want a 16:9 like a lot of people, but would have rather they stuck with the 3:2. It's a nice comprimise between widescreen media consumption and apps/written word content, imo. The 4:3 works fine, and is better than 16:9, but I still think 3:2 might have been better.

 

[notabadname]

Doesn't make sense that Apple would release a non-retina display at this point of game.

Apple is succeeding rather well with it's current hardware. Don't know that they are interested in making a product to cover every size made by competitors. Simple product line, at very high quality. It has worked so far.

 

[DotCom2]

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...

Not if it would also serve as a remote for the upcoming Apple TV console!

 

[mrgreen4242]

I'm not assuming that. I can see you have no experience in sales whatsoever.
This is something that applies to any product for sale. The more choices you give the buyer, the more confused they get, which could result in losing a sale. It could be a phone, a car, a Computer or even a hot air balloon.
Just ask any real salesmen and you'll understand what I mean.

Those 3 iPhone models are identical except for storage capacity. It's a very simple decision to make.
The iPad is a similar situation: Once you decide WiFi or LTE, you choose your Carrier preference, and then select your model based on storage capacity.
There's always a guided path towards a final decision.

But If Apple was to release an iPad Mini, that would complicate things even more:
Do I need a large display? maybe not
But I want Retina!?
Oh, it has a slower processor, will I ever need the A5x.
Darn, the battery lasts only 6 hours; I'm not sure if that would be enough.
Oh, there's no camera on that one!?
I'm not sure if I'll need a camera...
Mmm.. If it doesn't have a camera, maybe I should just buy the Kindle Fire... Well... you now what, let me ask my father for advice. I'll come back some other day...
RESULT = LOST SALE

As simple as that...! And you don't need to thank me for the free Sales Lesson.

This is a really weak argument. The 3 iPhone's only difference is in the capacity? The 3GS lacks the retina display and front facing camera, and it only comes in the same capacity as the 4, which has those things. The 4S is EXACTLY the same as the 4, for most people, except it comes in higher capacities and it adds those "little choices" you say are so bad - faster processor, better camera, Siri, etc. And it's only moderately more expensive, so it's a pretty tough choice for most people to make.

The iPad has gone exactly the opposite direction as you say is ideal - they've kept the 2 around as an available as new, still advertised discount model. You have to decide if you want the faster processor, the better camera, the retina display, 3G/LTE already before you even see what your capacity options are.

 

[pmz]

Oh just knock it off please. The iPad mini idea is ridiculous.

I hate when people take a fictional idea and try to warp reality to come up with a stance to support the fiction.

It doesn't exist, and won't exist, because there is NO reason for it. Just get over it. Stop pretending that somehow, magically a smaller iPad would in ANY way be better than its counterpart. what a joke.

 

[spacemanspifff]

and I quote...

Everyone thought that the original iPad would eat into MacBook sales. It did.

To paraphrase Steve Jobs on the release of the original iPad "Don't worry about a new product cannibalizing sales of your existing products, because if you don't cannibalize your own products, you can be damn sure your competitors will."

This is why there could be a smaller iPad... bigger iPod touch.

Now let's just wait and see.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

This is a really weak argument. The 3 iPhone's only difference is in the capacity? The 3GS lacks the retina display and front facing camera, and it only comes in the same capacity as the 4, which has those things. The 4S is EXACTLY the same as the 4, for most people, except it comes in higher capacities and it adds those "little choices" you say are so bad - faster processor, better camera, Siri, etc. And it's only moderately more expensive, so it's a pretty tough choice for most people to make.

The iPad has gone exactly the opposite direction as you say is ideal - they've kept the 2 around as an available as new, still advertised discount model. You have to decide if you want the faster processor, the better camera, the retina display, 3G/LTE already before you even see what your capacity options are.

You forget that the iPhone 4 and iPhone 3Gs are older models. The new model is obviously the 4s. So it all comes down to whether you want a new model or an old model of the same product.
I have asked people what they would get and they say: "The new one, of course!".
For the rest of people who only need a cheap phone to make and receive calls, and check the internet, the decision is simple:
- iPhone 3Gs 8GB only (no 16GB, no 32GB; ever wondered why?), for $0 with a contract.
or:
- iPhone 4 8GB only (no larger capacity either; again, ever wondered why?), for $100 with a contract.


See the pattern??? You can get the older models, but only in 8GB. Again, a simpler decision for the consumer.

And the iPad 2 only comes in 16GB capacity.... ever wonder why!!!????

Will you people ever learn???

 

[the8thark]

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

You are right. If you are describing a product that will never see the light of day (past a development lab) in the near future. And this is the exact thing you are describing.

I'm glad there is no iPad mini - mid sized tablet from Apple. Apple have told us all the reasons why at this point in time this kind of mid sized tablet is just not the best thing for Apple to do. And I agree with them.

Call me in 5 years time. Maybe then it'll be the right time. But now it is most certainly not.

 

[Bear]

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.

At least it uses the existing resolution of the first 2 generations of iPads so apps will basically just work. That is one o fthe major reasons why it might happen. Another is so it doesn't cannibalize too many sales of the 10" iPad.

Think something smaller, size and functionality (compared to an iPad)
To augment something larger

Only time will tell

You mean like also being the remote for the rumored Apple TVs?

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

There is obviously a market for a 7" tablet. The Amazon Fire seems to prove that. Also, if it's being made to be the remote for a TV, selling it separately makes sense. After all the more the sell, the less it costs to make. And since it likely won't have a Retina display, it won't really undercut the 10" sales.

...Call me in 5 years time. Maybe then it'll be the right time. But now it is most certainly not.

I think you're wrong. I think there are many good reasons for it to happen some of which I've just outlined.

 

[the8thark]

I think you're wrong. I think there are many good reasons for it to happen some of which I've just outlined.

And that's exactly why we all have an opinion. It would be so boring if everyone always agreed on the same things.

I read your points. And I stick my by opinion that an iPad-mini should be revisited in 5 years time. It might be the right thing then but in my opinion it's not the right thing to do now (for Apple). You disagree with me and that's cool. We all have our differing opinion. You do make some valid points though.

 

[moderately]

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.

Bet someone is rolling around in their grave at the moment.

NOT

Steve Jobs was famous for making these absolute pronouncements (ie flash drives on an iPod) and sticking with them until he changed. If he was still alive I could easily see him introducing a larger iPod/ smaller iPod as if it was the greatest thing.

 

[dethmaShine]

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.

 

[knucklehead]

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

For this mini iPad thing to be really interesting, the bezel would have to go.

The big advantage of a smaller sized kicks in when you get to the size you can slip into a standard back pocket. Being able to walk around with your device, and have the option of having your hands free is where you get a big gain in convenience/usability.

Take this 7.85 screen that's being talked about here -- take away the bezel -- and you have something the overall size of the current 6in Kindles .... which just happens to be the largest size that's pocketable.

Apple will certainly make something like this at some point.

The sooner the better for me.

 

[manu chao]

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.

There is a small difference regarding how you hold your device. While holding my iPhone in one hand my thumb is more precise compared to my hand free floating.

----------

Your calculation makes sense in every aspect. Apple will undoubtably go with 1920x1280 rather than 1024x768, unless they want to make a room for an update for iPad Mini 2nd generation
Just my wishful thinking.

How many apps are there written for 1920x1280? And how many for 1024x768?