or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rumors of new 7-inch iPad from Apple persist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumors of new 7-inch iPad from Apple persist - Page 3

post #81 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Not if the resolution and aspect ratio is the same. In fact if they make it and price it lower than current iPad I'll get one and I already got an iPad.

If the resolution and aspect ratio are kept the same the actual OS elements will have smaller phisical sizes, ie, a 50x50 (1x1cm?) button would no longer be 1x1 cm but 0.8cm etc.
post #82 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Yes, a BAiT (Big-Assed-iPad-Tablet) would be ideal for some uses:

-- a light table for picture and video editing
-- a drafting / design table
-- a larger drawing/sketching/painting surface
-- a wall-mounted multipurpose TV/Movie/Shop Plans/Recipe display
-- part of a video wall
-- table-top multiplayer games, puzzles,

.

I keep on being astounted how many of us (I am not immune) tend to think more solely on the utility of a product from our narrow perspective, and then project that many should react that way.

"What is good for me, others must feel the same. Any other choice would be foolish, stupid or wrong."

It is the kind of thinkng that breeds intolerance, causing many of the social ills of our society today. We forget that nature achieved its "dynamic stability" from a contradiction of diversity.

I myself would want the iPad form for the Mac Pro notebooks. This will happen when the electronic keyboard is almost a given to fenerations that were so ingrained with the physical keyboard. In fact, for the larger world beyond the usual alphanumeric characters (Chinese, Indians, and quite a great proportion of the larger world) would welcome the electronic keyboard for its unlimie=ted verstaility. With the electronic keyboard that has been popularized by Apple iOS products, one may type in the alphanumeric languages, that can then be "translated" with the appropriate symbolic characters for some other languages, using the same device.

I am sure I would still need a keyboard, that I wuold want that separate from the "iPad-like" OSX portable computer of the future.

CGC

N.B. Thanks for picking up on the "larger" that was not included in my original post. It is quite often that I thought I typed what was in mind, only to find much later that the mind is usually faster than the fingers.
post #83 of 138
I would be nicer if they put in a 1920x1200 retina display within that 7 inch package. I would think that a retina display would fit. It would then be good to use as a HD player in the back of the car as well as super clear display for working on a smaller tablet.

Still probably wouldn't hit their price points though. I've like a 7inch....
post #84 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

If you read the article, it mentions that the reason for the 7" model is because the current iPad is too heavy. This is the opposite of what most people say about the iPad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

type in "iPad too heavy" into a google search and see what comes up.

There are a lot of people complaining about the weight. Everyone I know who owns one has "mentioned" that it is on the heavy side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

But type in "iPad too light" into a google search and see what comes up.

Now type in iPad is just right.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #85 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryn View Post

I would be nicer if they put in a 1920x1200 retina display within that 7 inch package. I would think that a retina display would fit. It would then be good to use as a HD player in the back of the car as well as super clear display for working on a smaller tablet.

Still probably wouldn't hit their price points though. I've like a 7inch....

Right now, it would cost a fortune and Apple suppliers would not be able to provide enough parts to cover the anticipated demand. Heck, Apple's manufacturing partners are unable to keep up with current demand of the 3.5" Retina Display for the iPhone as well as the 9.7" IPS display for the iPad.

My guess is that we are still 3-4 years away from seeing a Retina Display in an iPad.
post #86 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

.... The report claimed that the original, 9.7-inch iPad is too big and heavy for many consumers, and the new model will cut weight down from 700 grams to 500 grams.

I agree with the report, the iPad is too heavy for most in-hand use.. but great size..
However, I'd say 700 down to 500 grams is not enough. It needs to get down to at least 300g in order to truly work as something you hold in your hands for more than just 10 minutes. That would require a lighter battery, a display (e-ink?) that doesn't draw as much power, and a lighter weight shell. Have you read an iBook with the iPad? I find myself leaning it to something.. It's too heavy for in-hand reading... but works good for on-lap, on-table use.

Hey, wait a second.. maybe the 7 inch version is not an iPad, but a stand alone light weight iBook, to further compete with the Kindle?
post #87 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldfullerton View Post

I think this is a rubbish rumour because after using my iPad now for several months I don't think it is in any way too big. I find it quite convenient to take with me wherever I go so I can find an answer to any question that may arise at any time. The display is magnificent, so I would not be particularly interested in an iPad with a smaller screen.

I'm intrigued that you take your iPad everywhere with you. How do you carry it? Do you have a bag that you take with you or do you carry it in your hand? Neither seems practical when compared with a pocketable device.

My iPod touch is small enough to go everywhere, but it has two fatal flaws:
1. it requires WiFi
2. the screen is way too small for the web.

I think a mega size touch with an iPad 3G data plan would be perfect: fits in one hand, fits in a pocket, works everywhere, screen is big enough that browsing wouldn't be an endless game of zoom and scroll. A 50% larger touch would have a 5.5" diagonal screen size.

I see no point in a 7" iPad. It still wouldn't fit in a pocket so you'd have to make a conscious effort to take it with you. At that point I'd much rather have 9.7" than 7".
post #88 of 138
Agree. I didn't buy an iPad (although have many Apple products: MacMini, iMac, 2 iPhones, 1 Touch, Apple TV, iPod 5G and Nano) because of its size. I already have to carry a laptop for work and my backpack on biz trips is already full. I would buy a 7" iPad so as not to watch movies on a 3.5 inch screen anymore.
post #89 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

You can look at the current iPad, see what proportion of the width and height is border, assume something similar and figure out what the WxH would be in a 4:3 ratio, at least I think that is the ratio for the iPad screen. That would be 7x5.6x4.2.

Here are the figures for the current iPad.

9.7"x7.76"x5.82" Screen

9.56x7.47 iPad

1.8"x1.65" Extra size beyond screen


Comparing the screen sizes, we see:

9.7" 438.08 in^3
7" 164.64 in^3

2.66x the size of the 7"

Divide the extra size from above by 2.66 and you get reductions of:
.68
.62

1.8-.68 and 1.65-.62 added onto the 7x5.6x4.2 dimensions above gives you a total 7" iPad size of 6.62x5.23 instead of 9.56*7.47. This is significantly smaller and, as we can see, predictable if they follow similar bezel margins.


Key terms
: "Overall size" and "proportional scaling" are implied in my prior post.

Even before the iPad came out, Apple to my knowledge has emphasized that the Apps must not be too confined by the size of the early IPhones. As revealed by Steve Jobs himself, it was because the iPhone is a serendipiituous invention while the iPad was being perfected.

There was therefore already an Apple mindset of smaller and larger family of related mobile devices. There must be a game plan for proportional scaling of these similar devices, but only those who are so full of themselves would be so sure that the smaller device would be exactly be a "6.7-inch iPad". I am sure that they considered different potential functions for a smaller or even larger IPads, and played with the dimensions.

However, Apple based from their earlier actions did not anticipate how significant third party Apps have defined the success of the iPhone.

What even Apple/Steve Jobs may not have fully appreciated is the impact of the larger real estate in the iPad, as it impacted the Apps. Thus, even if the Apps that worked and engrossing on the iPhone/iPod Touch, might appeal boring or out of place in the iPad.

To drive this point, you do not make your furniture larger to suit a larger living room. You get more furniture or rearrange the way the contents interact. The point here is that proportional scaling would be nice but need not become the determining factor given a different size.

If developers can sell a different modified version of their previous iPhone Apps, and consumers will buy them, who would care about exact compatibilities in proportion? Same concept game, different product evolution, more sales.

To repeat myself, everyone was predicting the iPad to be 10", but Apple came up with the magic 9.7". I am not sure if they slightly changed the screen size of the iPhone 4 or it was just the overall size that can be changed because of the more sharp rectuagalar shape over the "cuevy" earlier versions.

Such change to adjust to the size the real estate may suit the IPad but may not scale properly in the smaller iPhone/iPod Touch.

The other reality is that the "7-inch iPad" is still a figment of our imagination, just like the 10" iPad materilized as "9.7"-inch iPad. As such, who can really be so certain that the smaller iPad would exactly be "7-inch iPad"?

The other point is that the dimensions can even vary slightly. At these sizes, the difference from proportional scale may not be as noticeable. The choice of colors can have an impact on that. The impaxt of our perception depending on how it is presented.

***********
Coming from research, and dealing images for publishing, or presentation by audio-visual or poster. We aim for proportiately scaled figures, but unless the difference is very glaring, no one would be so anal to take actual measurements.
***********

I am sure Apple would try to make the products as close to the correct proportial scale for the screen, and change the dimensions accordingly.


But, who is to compel that prior precedent will dictate future design? I do not think the Classic Mac dimensional ratios resemble any of the existing Macs. Even the earlier versions of the MacBook is different from the more recent versions. It adjusted to the needs of the time based on converging and new technologies.



CGC
post #90 of 138
To me the 10-inch iPad is perfect. Seven is too small for reading books, especially interactive ones. No, to me there doesn't need to be a 7-inch iPad.
Also from watching my sister tote hers around in her purse, and watching my 3- and 5-year old nephews carry it around the house, the current iPad is not too heavy for them.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
post #91 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

[B]There must be a game plan for proportional scaling of these similar devices, but only those who are so full of themselves would be so sure that the smaller device would be exactly be a "6.7-inch iPad".

As such, who can really be so certain that the smaller iPad would exactly be "7-inch iPad"?

Not full of myself, just really bored at work and I figure that if the magic 7" is what the next iPad used, how would it scale down? It was an exercise of my curiosity and I put the results out there. I just disagree that we can't know roughly how large the overall dimensions would be. Somewhere between 6.4x5 up to 7x5.5. Roughly, of course. This range even allows for variations like a 6.7 or a 7.2" screen.

Could Apple go an entirely different route? Of course, but they already have a specific design in place for the iPad. I can't imagine that they would do a complete body revamp for the first revision of the product. Never say never, but it feels like a safe assumption. Like I said this was more just some fun math on my part and a way to say that we can have a rough idea how big it would be. Seeing these dimensions makes the 7" feel a bit more pocketable than just thinking "7"? I dunno about that"
post #92 of 138
Here's my theory, based on the question, "Why did Apple create the iPod touch?"

I don't think Apple created the touch as a continuation of the iPod line. In order to get the concessions they wanted from ATT, Apple was forced to agree to a multi-year exclusive contract with the carrier. But they knew this would limit the customer base for their new iPhone OS because there would also be some customers who could not, or would not, switch to ATT. So for those customers, they created an iPhone without a phone. They made it the same size as the iPhone to gain economies of scale, and the iPad concept wasn't mature enough to market yet.

If you look at admob data from last summer, worldwide the iPhone-to-touch sales ratio was roughly 2-1. Yet in the US it was 1-1. This may suggest that people wanted an iDevice, but didn't want ATT. So more people in the US purchased touches than in other countries where carrier limitations were less of a factor.

So the iPod touch was a stop-gap measure to increase market share of what are now iOS devices. But now we have the iPad, so why keep the touch around? Size is the main factor. People want something that is pocketable. Fair, enough. But why not just get an iPhone then? Well, because, some would argue, ATT sucks.

But if other rumors are to be believed, the iPhone will soon be available on Verizon in the US (and perhaps Sprint and Tmobile). Once that happens, iPod touch sales will drop in the US because you'll be able to get a pocketable iOS device from the carrier of your choice.

So I think once the iPhone is available on other networks in the US, the iPod touch will be discontinued. If you want that form factor, get an iPhone. Just like people outside the US do today. That will open up a spot in the lineup for a smaller iPad instead of it being awkwardly positioned between the current low-end iPad and high-end iPod touch. Apple will then up the capacity of the iPod nano to take place as the highest capacity iPod in the lineup.
post #93 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

The current iPad is absolutely too heavy to use while laying on your back on a bed/couch and trying to read a book. A smaller and/or lighter iPad would be much appreciated.

And comparing the weight of an iPad to a laptop is a moot point, because you don't lay on your back and try to hold a laptop above you to read something.

You're holding it wrong!
post #94 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Here's my theory, based on the question, "Why did Apple create the iPod touch?"

I don't think Apple created the touch as a continuation of the iPod line. In order to get the concessions they wanted from ATT, Apple was forced to agree to a multi-year exclusive contract with the carrier. But they knew this would limit the customer base for their new iPhone OS because there would also be some customers who could not, or would not, switch to ATT. So for those customers, they created an iPhone without a phone. They made it the same size as the iPhone to gain economies of scale, and the iPad concept wasn't mature enough to market yet.

If you look at admob data from last summer, worldwide the iPhone-to-touch sales ratio was roughly 2-1. Yet in the US it was 1-1. This may suggest that people wanted an iDevice, but didn't want ATT. So more people in the US purchased touches than in other countries where carrier limitations were less of a factor.

So the iPod touch was a stop-gap measure to increase market share of what are now iOS devices. But now we have the iPad, so why keep the touch around? Size is the main factor. People want something that is pocketable. Fair, enough. But why not just get an iPhone then? Well, because, some would argue, ATT sucks.

But if other rumors are to be believed, the iPhone will soon be available on Verizon in the US (and perhaps Sprint and Tmobile). Once that happens, iPod touch sales will drop in the US because you'll be able to get a pocketable iOS device from the carrier of your choice.

So I think once the iPhone is available on other networks in the US, the iPod touch will be discontinued. If you want that form factor, get an iPhone. Just like people outside the US do today. That will open up a spot in the lineup for a smaller iPad instead of it being awkwardly positioned between the current low-end iPad and high-end iPod touch. Apple will then up the capacity of the iPod nano to take place as the highest capacity iPod in the lineup.

Many of your assumptions appear to be wrong

First of all, the iPod touch was already in preproduction prototyping when the original iPhone launched. Don't forget that the original devices had no apps beyond what was included by Apple. The original iPod touch was really an overpriced media player with a web browser, e-mail and a couple of basic widgets.

The iPod touch's demographics skew much younger than the iPhone. There is clearly a different audience for the iPod touch. iPod touch users also download more apps than iPhone users. Note that Apple sells two iPod touches for every three iPhones they sell. It's not an insignificant chunk.

The fact that AT&T is the sole iPhone carrier in the United States is irrelevant. Note that iPod touch sales have not fallen off a cliff in international markets where there is no carrier exclusivity. It is foolish to assume that Apple's mobile device strategy is solely based on their interaction with one carrier, AT&T. Also, you should not discount the possibility that the contract was rewritten and that exclusivity may be on a year-by-year basis. We do know that with the iPhone 3G, AT&T stopped sharing subscriber revenue with Apple and moved to a direct one-time subsidy payment.

Going to a multi-carrier market isn't going to change the fact that the Total Cost of Ownership for an iPhone under a two-year service contract is way more expensive than an iPod touch, regardless of which carrier is getting your money. Assuming a $200 handset, $80 monthly service over twenty-four months, plus $40 activation fee, you are looking at $2,160. You can buy two iPod touches a year and still save money. There are still many people who are willing to make that sort of commitment.

Don't use AdMob data for sales figures. These numbers only describe what people are doing when they're looking at an ad-supported app or webpage. Again, the demographics are quite different. Also, I wouldn't quote year-old ad data anyhow. This is a rapidly growing market that has nowhere plateaued.
post #95 of 138
The iPad is not big enough. I always wanted a 22 inch macbook pro.
post #96 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

This could only lead to fragmentation:

480 by 320 iPhones/iPod touches
960 by 640 iPhone
9.7" iPad
7" iPad

Too many devices with different resolutions is not good! Just look at the android market to see that for yourself.

Nope cause both pads would have 1024 x 768 resolution. Simples.
post #97 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

I'm intrigued that you take your iPad everywhere with you. How do you carry it? Do you have a bag that you take with you or do you carry it in your hand? Neither seems practical when compared with a pocketable device.

I take my iPad with me almost everywhere. It is the WiFi + 3G model.

I bought the Apple case & in addition to protecting the iPad, it makes it much easier to schlep around:

-- it has a non-slip surface of pseudo suede
-- it can easily be gripped (and held firmly) with one hand (or under your arm) with the flap closed
-- the flap acts like a tent in that you can insert your index finger (or more) in the opening between the flap and the case, with on remaining fingers on the back of the flap. The palm and thumb are used to cradle the front of the iPad. This is quite comfortable and gives the iPad lots of support-- easy to type while standing or walking.

For example, I went to 2 soccer matches last Saturday. I took the following:

-- Shoulder-strap camera bag containing videoCam, camera, batteries, HDSC cards. iPhone 4.
-- Tripod for cameras
-- Water bottle
-- Folding sports chair
-- Hat


With my hat on my head, my camera bag over my shoulder, I insert my arm through the leg of the folded chair and grab the tripod-- now I carry the chair and tripod with one hand, comfortably at my side..

With my other arm, I cradle the iPad between my side and arm and hold the water bottle in my hand.

I can free up the hand by inserting the water bottle in a section of the adjustable strap... but either works fine.

Also, I have a larger (heavier) camera bag that would hold everything-- including cameras, water bottle and iPad.


So, it works for me.


During time between games I can upload photos to the iPad via the Camera Connection Ki). The videoCam video is compressed and not (yet) recognized by the iPad.

If I wish, I can email photos, or upload videos to YouTube or MobileMe.


Also, it is good for looking up calendar dates, practices, snack schedules, and the league web site for stats, standings, etc.


Finally, if there is a long time between games, I can watch videos, show others last week's highlights, or just watch a NetFlix movie.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #98 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Here's my theory, based on the question, "Why did Apple create the iPod touch?"

I don't think Apple created the touch as a continuation of the iPod line. In order to get the concessions they wanted from ATT, Apple was forced to agree to a multi-year exclusive contract with the carrier. But they knew this would limit the customer base for their new iPhone OS because there would also be some customers who could not, or would not, switch to ATT. So for those customers, they created an iPhone without a phone. They made it the same size as the iPhone to gain economies of scale, and the iPad concept wasn't mature enough to market yet.

If you look at admob data from last summer, worldwide the iPhone-to-touch sales ratio was roughly 2-1. Yet in the US it was 1-1. This may suggest that people wanted an iDevice, but didn't want ATT. So more people in the US purchased touches than in other countries where carrier limitations were less of a factor.

So the iPod touch was a stop-gap measure to increase market share of what are now iOS devices. But now we have the iPad, so why keep the touch around? Size is the main factor. People want something that is pocketable. Fair, enough. But why not just get an iPhone then? Well, because, some would argue, ATT sucks.

But if other rumors are to be believed, the iPhone will soon be available on Verizon in the US (and perhaps Sprint and Tmobile). Once that happens, iPod touch sales will drop in the US because you'll be able to get a pocketable iOS device from the carrier of your choice.

So I think once the iPhone is available on other networks in the US, the iPod touch will be discontinued. If you want that form factor, get an iPhone. Just like people outside the US do today. That will open up a spot in the lineup for a smaller iPad instead of it being awkwardly positioned between the current low-end iPad and high-end iPod touch. Apple will then up the capacity of the iPod nano to take place as the highest capacity iPod in the lineup.

Or, how about you don't feel like paying ridiculous money to maintain an iPhone account but you do want to be able to do a lot of what the iPhone does.

In my case, I have a boring cell phone that costs me less than half of what it would cost to maintain an iPhone and I have a Touch. I can still make calls and I can still do a lot of the cool things the iPhone is used for but I'm paying closer to $30 a month than $60 a month. At that rate, in a year I've more than covered the cost of the Touch so over the course of a three-year period I'll have spent something like $1,300 instead of $2,400.

Basically I have 1,100 reasons to opt for the Touch over the iPhone.

I know a lot of younger consumers have the Touch probably for the same reason, namely parents are not inclined to drop thousands extra for their kids to be equipped with iPhones.


Why pay for a smartphone when what you want is a pocket computer?
post #99 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by oodlum View Post

Personally I think 7" would be the sweet spot. I find the current model cumbersome for reading in bed and can't stand the very visible pixels compared to the iPhone 4. And more RAM please. It's starting to drive me nuts the way a web page has to reload from scratch every time I hit the back button on chunky, ad-heavy sites. Love my iPad but look forward to version 2.


I don't think you really understand the iPad. It is meant to be the best platform for just about anything.

But not everything.
post #100 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


If you have read any of the smaller iPad rumors on any tech sites, you will have seen many others wishing for a slightly smaller iPad. You may count me amongst their numbers.


I'm sorry, but the geeks who post at tech sites are nothing like my grandmother or my Auntie Bertie. And they are currently typical iPad users. Apple doesn't make geeky stuff, but instead, they make dead simple stuff that real people can use easily. Regular people are scared to death of computers, but they can just pick up a iPad and start using it. The geeks don't understand why Apple made the iPad its current size.
post #101 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post

I agree the current iPad is too big and heavy. That's why I took mine back and bought an iPhone 4.

The iPhone 4 makes the iPad look obsolete.

I really don't get the iPad at all. It's just a big iPod Touch with no phone, no camera.

It is hard to believe that a guy that carries around a 4x5 view camera and a Contax 645 with a Leaf Aptus 75S 33 megapixel digital back that itself weighs nearly a pound and a half is concerned that the iPad is too big and heavy.

I would have thought that putting your bag on the iPad would be one hell of a way to show off your skills than pulling out your iPhone.

As for not having a camera, you're upset not having a 3-5 megapixel camera on a $500 iPad after spending over $20,000 on a camera back.

Something doesn't jive Douglas.
post #102 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by oodlum View Post

The 7" iPad would have the same 1024x768 resolution as the iPad, just a higher pixel density. There would be no change from a developer point of view.

Personally I think 7" would be the sweet spot. I find the current model cumbersome for reading in bed and can't stand the very visible pixels compared to the iPhone 4. And more RAM please. It's starting to drive me nuts the way a web page has to reload from scratch every time I hit the back button on chunky, ad-heavy sites. Love my iPad but look forward to version 2.

Download the Perfect Web Browser from the App store... it's wayyy better than using Safari. You also get tabbed browsing with it too. That was my two main reasons for going away from Safari on the iPad...tabs and that constant reload page.
post #103 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

I feel the same way,the iPad seems 'just right' as it is and having two size options could lead to app store fragmentation.

My sentiments exactly
post #104 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Many of your assumptions appear to be wrong

First of all, the iPod touch was already in preproduction prototyping when the original iPhone launched. Don't forget that the original devices had no apps beyond what was included by Apple. The original iPod touch was really an overpriced media player with a web browser, e-mail and a couple of basic widgets.

The iPod touch's demographics skew much younger than the iPhone. There is clearly a different audience for the iPod touch. iPod touch users also download more apps than iPhone users. Note that Apple sells two iPod touches for every three iPhones they sell. It's not an insignificant chunk.

The fact that AT&T is the sole iPhone carrier in the United States is irrelevant. Note that iPod touch sales have not fallen off a cliff in international markets where there is no carrier exclusivity. It is foolish to assume that Apple's mobile device strategy is solely based on their interaction with one carrier, AT&T. Also, you should not discount the possibility that the contract was rewritten and that exclusivity may be on a year-by-year basis. We do know that with the iPhone 3G, AT&T stopped sharing subscriber revenue with Apple and moved to a direct one-time subsidy payment.

Going to a multi-carrier market isn't going to change the fact that the Total Cost of Ownership for an iPhone under a two-year service contract is way more expensive than an iPod touch, regardless of which carrier is getting your money. Assuming a $200 handset, $80 monthly service over twenty-four months, plus $40 activation fee, you are looking at $2,160. You can buy two iPod touches a year and still save money. There are still many people who are willing to make that sort of commitment.

Don't use AdMob data for sales figures. These numbers only describe what people are doing when they're looking at an ad-supported app or webpage. Again, the demographics are quite different. Also, I wouldn't quote year-old ad data anyhow. This is a rapidly growing market that has nowhere plateaued.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

Or, how about you don't feel like paying ridiculous money to maintain an iPhone account but you do want to be able to do a lot of what the iPhone does.

In my case, I have a boring cell phone that costs me less than half of what it would cost to maintain an iPhone and I have a Touch. I can still make calls and I can still do a lot of the cool things the iPhone is used for but I'm paying closer to $30 a month than $60 a month. At that rate, in a year I've more than covered the cost of the Touch so over the course of a three-year period I'll have spent something like $1,300 instead of $2,400.

Basically I have 1,100 reasons to opt for the Touch over the iPhone.

I know a lot of younger consumers have the Touch probably for the same reason, namely parents are not inclined to drop thousands extra for their kids to be equipped with iPhones.


Why pay for a smartphone when what you want is a pocket computer?

The vast majority of the needs you express can be met by a smaller iPad. Yes, some with those particular needs, who insist that it must be pocketable, and who are unwilling to get an iPhone, wouldn't be served by my scenario. But since when has Apple been about making 100% of the people happy? You could still have your boring cell phone and get an iPad without a data contract. In exchange for a bigger screen you loose some portability. But I assume that your choice of a separate touch and cell phone means the ultimate in portability isn't your primary concern as you are willing to carry two devices (or you don't take your touch everywhere you go)? Perhaps the ultimate in portability for your wifi-only data device isn't as important then (at least for most people).

Either the iPod touch needs to be bigger to be better at things like web browsing and reading, or the iPad needs to get smaller to be more portable. Apple can't do both because it would lead to over-lapping product lines.

(PS: I admit that I was being a bit over-zealous when saying the entire iPod touch line would be discontinued. I wanted to see what people's reactions would be. A perhaps more likely scenario is Apple limits the feature growth of the touch or lowers the price but removes features to avoid overlap with the iPad. It will be interesting to see what Apple does. They can't give it all the iPads features. The screen just isn't big enough. And I still see sales dropping if/when the iPhone becomes available on other carriers.)
post #105 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

The vast majority of the needs you express can be met by a smaller iPad. Yes, some with those particular needs, who insist that it must be pocketable, and who are unwilling to get an iPhone, wouldn't be served by my scenario. But since when has Apple been about making 100% of the people happy? You could still have your boring cell phone and get an iPad without a data contract. In exchange for a bigger screen you loose some portability. But I assume that your choice of a separate touch and cell phone means the ultimate in portability isn't your primary concern as you are willing to carry two devices (or you don't take your touch everywhere you go)? Perhaps the ultimate in portability for your wifi-only data device isn't as important then (at least for most people).

Either the iPod touch needs to be bigger to be better at things like web browsing and reading, or the iPad needs to get smaller to be more portable. Apple can't do both because it would lead to over-lapping product lines.

(PS: I admit that I was being a bit over-zealous when saying the entire iPod touch line would be discontinued. I wanted to see what people's reactions would be. A perhaps more likely scenario is Apple limits the feature growth of the touch or lowers the price but removes features to avoid overlap with the iPad. It will be interesting to see what Apple does. They can't give it all the iPads features. The screen just isn't big enough. And I still see sales dropping if/when the iPhone becomes available on other carriers.)


You can make the Touch bigger somewhat and still allow it to slip with little trouble into a lot of folks' pockets. This would work for me. I don't like the Touch with a 3.5" screen. I find browsing with my netbook more enjoyable and I really don't like the netbook.

I think what should happen is that the current Touch soldiers on while a new Touch with a larger screen (something like 4.5") is introduced. If Apple doesn't alter the hardware on the Touch Classic (if you will) they might even be able to lower the price of that unit, especially if they offer it in a single configuration. Then bring out new 32GB and 64GB models featuring a larger screen, cameras front and back, etc. for the current price of the 32GB and 64GB Touch models.

Lots of bases covered and the need for a 7" iPad is eliminated.

If Apple goes that route I know that I'd likely buy both the new Touch and soon after the iPad. Otherwise it will be only the iPad because no matter what they put in a new Touch, if it still comes with a 3.5" screen, I see no reason to replace my current Touch.

I'd go with the iPad alone if it was pocketable but clearly it's not. Just as clearly, a 7" iPad would likewise not be pocketable which begs the question, what would be the point of such a device?

If weight is the biggest issue with the current iPad, the obvious solution is to not always be holding it in your hands. Need to do some typing then use a bluetooth keyboard (have one already) with a case that allows the iPad to be propped up.

I want two devices. One that slips into my pocket and a second one for puttering around the house with. I already have the Touch for the first one and will upgrade either when Apple offers me something worth upgrading to or the Touch dies.
post #106 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

I agree with the report, the iPad is too heavy for most in-hand use.. but great size..
However, I'd say 700 down to 500 grams is not enough. It needs to get down to at least 300g in order to truly work as something you hold in your hands for more than just 10 minutes. That would require a lighter battery, a display (e-ink?) that doesn't draw as much power, and a lighter weight shell. Have you read an iBook with the iPad? I find myself leaning it to something.. It's too heavy for in-hand reading... but works good for on-lap, on-table use.

Hey, wait a second.. maybe the 7 inch version is not an iPad, but a stand alone light weight iBook, to further compete with the Kindle?

I agree that it's too heavy for in-hand reading. I've spent a lot of time with one that a co-worker has and I spent a lot more time with it as well at a local Apple Store. It really is cool and I want one to take on weekend trips or vacations when I just don't want to deal with my 15" MacBook on such occasions, but I'll wait until I see what Apple comes out with the next iterations. I'd have to try a 7" one side by side with the current 9.7" and consider the tradeoffs. The e-readers like the Kindle are pretty easy to handle for extended periods of time and I tend to read more than watch movies and things like that, so a smaller screen that's easier to handle might be better.

At the same time, I think there's room for the "Pro" iPad that could genuinely replace the smaller laptops - perhaps a 12~13" screen? The current 9.7" size could be the mid-size model and then have one for the power user and one for people who need it as portable as possible. A few years down the road, I can easily envision an iPad for everyone in my family - wife and the two kids.
post #107 of 138
So you're saying that reports on a survey of people who don't actually own an iPad holds more weight than the fact that Apple can't meet demand with their manufacturing process which is currently making and then selling about 1 million iPads per month??



Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

You are in the 16% bracket i presume.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...aper-than-ipad

A new study from Retrevo (over 1,000 non-Retrevo users) looks at interest in the iPad ahead of Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference next week. The company emailed WebProNews with a round-up of significant findings.

So without beating around the bush, let's just get to them.

Study Highlights:

- 52% of people surveyed say they "don't need" an iPad
- 38% of people say the iPad is "too expensive"
- 10% of people are "waiting for a good excuse" to buy an iPad
Obviously competition for the iPad is on the way, and it has been widely speculated that Google's Android will play a major role in that. Retrevo asked people interested in buying a tablet, "What would make you buy an Android-based tablet over an iPad?"

- 53% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "If it was less expensive than the iPad."

- 33% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "If Verizon was the carrier."

- 28% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "If it was discounted as part of a subscription service (like a cell phone contract)."

- 22% say they'd get the Android-based tablet, "for other reasons."

- 16% say they would still buy an iPad, regardless.


another article:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-0...e-yahoo-sports

"Apple still has a ways to go in convincing many users of the full utility of the iPad. More than half of owners or would-be owners, 55 percent, said they still see the iPad as an expensive toy while 33 percent see it as a breakthrough product and 28 percent see it benefiting productivity.

For people who intend to buy the iPad, the main reasons are entertainment (58 percent), cool factor (42 percent), convenience (40 percent) and brand (28 percent). For people not interested in the iPad, 54 percent say they don't see a need for it, while 46 percent say it's too expensive."


and another:
http://www.ipadnewstracker.com/2010/...esearch-study/

"55% call the device “a very expensive toy.” They view it in terms of amusement as opposed to practicality. Because of the strong associations with entertainment and coolness, the top reasons for rejecting the iPad were related to its futility.
#1 (54%) — Unnecessary
#2 (46%) — It’s too expensive
#3 (17%) — Subscription fee required for 3G
#4 (16%) — Duplicates functions of other owned devices"
post #108 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post

I agree the current iPad is too big and heavy. That's why I took mine back and bought an iPhone 4.

The iPhone 4 makes the iPad look obsolete.

I really don't get the iPad at all. It's just a big iPod Touch with no phone, no camera.

I'm tired of hearing that...it's just a giant iPod Touch... Is that a bad thing? Your swimming pool is just a giant bath tub...how useless. Size is dependent on your personal needs. I find my giant iPod Touch (iPad) more useful than my real iPod Touch that just sits and collects dust. I can't understand how viewing web pages on a small screen is as enjoyable as my giant iPad.

Really who cares, small screen, big screen, obviously everyone has different likes and wants, not one is perfect for everyone.

I don't mean to direct this to you, it's for everyone that feels this way.

Ohh, sent from my iPad.
post #109 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

This could only lead to fragmentation:

480 by 320 iPhones/iPod touches
960 by 640 iPhone
9.7" iPad
7" iPad

Too many devices with different resolutions is not good! Just look at the android market to see that for yourself.

Actually programmer only need to design for two sides: iPhone and iPad. For iPhone, developer only need to create new resources suffixed with "@2x", e.g. button.jpg -> button@2x.jpg. If there is no @2x counterpart resource, it will fall back to ordinary one. No code changes is required.

I guess the 7" inch iPad will have same resolution as 9.7" iPad, so the old program will run smoothly on 7" iPad.
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #110 of 138
This is just too much too soon if it proves to be true, (which I highly doubt). Apple devices may be wildly popular, but introducing so many mobile idevices in rapid session can't be good for public perception. After buying an iPad, I upgraded my 3GS to an iPhone 4 about a week later. Frankly I'm iOSed out for now and tired of the upgrades and changes. A person only has but so many needs for these kinds of devices and those needs are already being met with the current line-up. Plus I hear the iPod line will be refreshed in a month or so. Enough already.

post #111 of 138
By the way, the article states that iOS 4 runs on the current crop of iPhones, iPod Touches and the iPad which is not true. iOS 4 is not available on the iPad yet.
post #112 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

I would sell my ipad and buy a smaller and lighter version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Not if the resolution and aspect ratio is the same. In fact if they make it and price it lower than current iPad I'll get one and I already got an iPad.

I would keep my iPad and buy the smaller one too. And I live alone.

Can't wait to buy the next top of the line iPod Touch next month.

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #113 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmoeser View Post

So you're saying that reports on a survey of people who don't actually own an iPad holds more weight than the fact that Apple can't meet demand with their manufacturing process which is currently making and then selling about 1 million iPads per month??

I believe they're producing and selling about 2 million iPads a month now. Plus they haven't even finished the global rollout yet and won't be fully deployed for sale everywhere they can for another 2 months. They really don't need to complicate the line up with a new iPad until sometime in 2011.

As long as they're selling as fast as they can be made, what's the point of making other sizes when their manufacturing capacity is already stressed to the limit for both iPads and iPhone 4s not to mention all the new iPods about to be introduced next month. Seems unlikely a 7" iPad fits into the current physical limits of parts supplies & manufacturing capacities doesn't it?

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #114 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

i agree, instead of a smaller form factor to reduce weight, why not improve the current model to reduce weight. I am one that subscribes to the fact that the current model is too heavy, comparatively speaking. The ipod Touch has the same guts in it, except for a larger battery and screen size, and it only weighs 4.05 oz. I can't imagine the screen and battery contributing that much more mass. Even if they reduced the current model to 500g (17 oz) it's still too heavy, but getting closer. After using the Nook (11 oz.) and the Kindle (8.7 oz), they both seem like the right weight for a device of this form factor.


There is at least one good reason why the iPad weighs more than the Nook and Kindle.
Glass

Here is another.
Screen size-6" (Kindle) vs. 9.7" (iPad).

If a one and a half pound device is too heavy for some people, then those same people should probably put the iPad down and go get some exercise.
post #115 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkKnightNine View Post

This is just too much too soon if it proves to be true, (which I highly doubt). Apple devices may be wildly popular, but introducing so many mobile idevices in rapid session can't be good for public perception. After buying an iPad, I upgraded my 3GS to an iPhone 4 about a week later. Frankly I'm iOSed out for now and tired of the upgrades and changes. A person only has but so many needs for these kinds of devices and those needs are already being met with the current line-up. Plus I hear the iPod line will be refreshed in a month or so. Enough already.


Apple now has many different lines so upgrades seem coming in rapid succession. But if you go to

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

you will actually see upgrades for each line is space between 230 - 340 days between upgrades, depending upon the product. Not too long ago people were wondering when the upgrade to the Mac Pro or MBP were coming.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #116 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckh1272 View Post

There is at least one good reason why the iPad weighs more than the Nook and Kindle.
Glass

Here is another.
Screen size-6" (Kindle) vs. 9.7" (iPad).

If a one and a half pound device is too heavy for some people, then those same people should probably put the iPad down and go get some exercise.

Nah, you just need the right kind of case... This might not look very impressive or fancy, but it is helpful. My iPad is almost like a netbook already (the good aspects of netbooks, not the lousy ones)

http://www.capdase.com/en/product5.p...d=991&pid=7092

For me, it's nice because I use the iPad almost always in landscape mode, portrait usage is too "small" for me. This case however doesn't have a "tilted portrait" mode though.
post #117 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

Amazing! 305,000 hits.

But type in "iPad too light" into a google search and see what comes up.

In any event, by the time you remove all the posting prior to April 3rd, duplications, comments or references to the original, or links to links and all the trolls, you end up with a smidgeon of 'real' postings complaining about the weight of the iPad.

Probably about 0.5% of all the actual iPad owners, if any, would be my educated guess. But I would have to read every link to really determine it.

I tried it, and got no links on the first few pages that mention anyone complaining about it being too light (weight-wise). There are plenty of complaints about it being too bright to read e-books.
post #118 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I tried it, and got no links on the first few pages that mention anyone complaining about it being too light (weight-wise). There are plenty of complaints about it being too bright to read e-books.

From people who can't find the brightness setting, no doubt.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #119 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

From people who can't find the brightness setting, no doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I tried it, and got no links on the first few pages that mention anyone complaining about it being too light (weight-wise). There are plenty of complaints about it being too bright to read e-books.

There needs to be an overall setting to reduce brightness way, way down for Safari use, etc. It's a massive feature request, which I'm sure will come in iOS 4 for iPad. The screen is so great it's too bright in the dark! Yes iBooks and other apps have finer brightness control, but there needs to be a system-wide "night mode" setting.
post #120 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Exactly. I remember my family's first TV! It was about the size of a microwave oven with a Black & White 7" screen, and 13 (count 'em) push-button channels (including channel 1).





Too bad the industry didn't standardize on these little beauties...

.

Dude, that thing rocks. Is it still operational?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rumors of new 7-inch iPad from Apple persist