Apple reportedly 'noodling with' 7.85-inch iPad prototype

1235»

Comments

  • MarvinMarvin Posts: 13,539member, moderator
    I think tablets around 8" are fine to work with. The issue I'd have with Apple making one is that I believe it would drive people towards the 8" size because it will have to be cheaper. If they sell a 7.85" 16GB iPad Mini for $299, I think that would take the majority of the sales, not because it's better but because it's cheaper.
  • dshandshan Posts: 53member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MusicComposer View Post


    If it's a 7.85" screen shouldn't we be rounding it up to 8"? It's only .15" shy of that. To me it just doesn't make sense to call it a 7" screen when it's much closer to 8"..... I'm just saying.



    Exactly. Many keep saying it won't happen because Steve said 7" tablets don't work, they're too small to tap regions accurately, would require apps be updated, and so forth. But what Apple are apparently testing isn't a 7" iPad, it's really an 8" iPad, and that makes a significant difference. Steve wasn't lying, Apple really did test (and probably still are) various sizes for the iPad and found 7" doesn't work, but he didn't say anything about 8" tablets (deliberately I'm sure).



    The Kindle Fire and several other early failed Android tablets really are closer to (in some cases exactly) 7" than 8" though and they really do suffer for this small but vital difference in screen size (aside from other shortcomings of course).



    If Apple don't do a smaller/cheaper "iPad mini" it'll be because they don't see it as being necessary/profitable, not because a smaller screened iPad is impossible.



    BTW - we should stop referring to the current iPad screen as a 9" too, at 9.7" it's closer to a 10" screen.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I think tablets around 8" are fine to work with. The issue I'd have with Apple making one is that I believe it would drive people towards the 8" size because it will have to be cheaper. If they sell a 7.85" 16GB iPad Mini for $299, I think that would take the majority of the sales, not because it's better but because it's cheaper.



    $299...hmm. That is $200 less than the current iPad. How much does the smaller display and battery save? Are any of the other components weakened or completely removed?



    I'm not against a smaller tablet, but I do question the apparent logic that because it's a little smaller it will be $200 cheaper. It sounds like that price point is devised separately to the device people are imagining. A "sweet spot" a little bit more than the Kindle Fire, but less than the current iPad.



    I can't see $299 with the current HW but with a silly smaller display and battery. I can see that with iPad 2 ASIC and other inferior HW the way the Touch is inferior to the iPhone.
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 804member
    In a way it makes perfect sense, because what else are they gearing up for the the generation of full size iPads? The retina display was the huge selling point of the latest one. They wouldn't release a new model without a similarly special aspect, and what's on the horizon? Will the faster processor available by year's end make the experience better (or just keep up with the new hardware)? More storage? Faster network? I see all those, or whatever, as being either needing another retina-like breakthrough to make the next model special or else being more an obvious evolution of available technology. Banging out an in-between size would at least enable Apple to make a big splashy unveiling of a new thing that no one thought they needed before and now maybe they think they do, with the least amount of new R & D effort. I think a slightly under $300 smaller iPad with older iPad 2 specs and hardware would have some potential.
  • mercury99mercury99 Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dshan View Post


    The Kindle Fire and several other early failed Android tablets really are closer to (in some cases exactly) 7" than 8" though and they really do suffer for this small but vital difference in screen size (aside from other shortcomings of course).



    Amazon reportedly sold 6 million Kindle Fires over the holiday season alone. Amazon also sold millions of 6" ereader Kindles. Samsung claims 5 million Galaxy Notes sold with display of only 5.3". Samsung sells in Europe a very nice 7.7" tablet (banned in US) with first Super AMOLED display .



    So there is a significant demand for 5.3-7.7" tablets. And it's a sweet market for all these companies because there is no competition from Apple, just like there is no competition from Apple in 4"-5.3" smartphone market.
  • MarvinMarvin Posts: 13,539member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    $299...hmm. That is $200 less than the current iPad. How much does the smaller display and battery save? Are any of the other components weakened or completely removed?



    The iPad 2 is $399 with a 1024 x 768 display. A 7.85" tablet would have the same resolution and they couldn't sell it for $399. 7" Android tablets with IPS panels and capacitive touch sell for under $199:



    http://www.amazon.com/Ainol-NOVO-Elf...3711326&sr=8-1
  • jordanskywalkerjordanskywalker Posts: 9member
    I think it will be good if iPad have different size and "family" too.



    Since Steve Job position iPad as the post PC era and from the great sales they have from iPad in just 3 over years, iPad will really soon become the PC we need.



    So it will be good that iPad to just not to have one size, make it more like the mac books, have different size and family (like air and Pros) or iPods with the classic, nano, iPod touch models etc. this can attract more buyers as some may like bigger size while some like it small.
  • captain jcaptain j Posts: 313member
    I don't think the major issue would be price or competing with Kindle.



    The issue is form factor and that many people would pay $399 for an 8" vs a 10". If people like the iOS but they need something smaller and more portable than the 10", they will buy it. If people don't need the smaller form, most would spend the extra hundred (or buy the iPad2) for the same price to get the bigger screen.



    I really do think Porf. Peabody hit the nail on the head with his post above. iOS needs to become the software at the heart of a family like the MacOS is.
  • jeremkojeremko Posts: 3member
    In my opinion, the iPad3,2 are 'tweeners. I find the size to be very awkward. I would rather use my MacBook if I'm using it out. Now a 7" (or so) iPad Mini with a retina display would blow my mind. For me, it would be the perfect size and the display would be even tighter than the iPad 3.
Sign In or Register to comment.