Rumors of 7-inch iPad persist; Apple parts with developer of tablets - Page 2

And I want ice cream! Ice cream!

So... you all are starting to come around to my vision of a 5.5"x8.5" form factor (although I admit to initially doubting the existence of the iPad)? Where's Ireland?

Your ship has come in. The newest Kindle.

Sometimes the optimal tool for a specific job is the tool that is purpose built for that task only.

On the other hand, if you want a swiss army knife that'll do a lot things well enough . . .

PS - Yeah, where IS Ireland?

I don't think you understand the idea of the tablet as Apple has presented it. It could have a USB port, HDMI port, Athlon processor, access to the file system, full MS Office, Flash, etc. But rather than throw in the kitchen sink Apple chose to consign all that legacy to the dustbin of history and try a new approach to personal computing.

The iPad is utterly cool and I mean that in the sense of its temperature. Before getting it I suspected it would get hot to the touch like a Macbook Pro. It doesn't and that is why an Athlon chip would inevitably change the user experience. You also would be unlikely to have 10 hour battery life which allows you to usually not care or notice power issues. Ditto for Flash.

Complexity issues behave like the nose of the camel poking into the tent. Allowing direct access to the hierarchical file system, unrestricted desktop style multitasking, legacy daisy chain ports, and so forth would make the pad just another form factor of the traditional PC. Don't worry, Microsoft has been selling just such devices for the past decade and plan to introduce even more.

Concerning the browser, I would argue that the iPad's browser is the most satisfying I have ever used. Using multitouch for web interaction is something a mouse and keyboard can't touch. Opinions may vary but mine is correct.

Like the transition from mainframe and minicomputer to PC there will be much further evolution of the pad from the PC. In both cases the successor will become more unlike its predecessor and a much more useful tool for its owner.

Never, really. If you design the app correctly, there's no problem.


Ummm, resolutions on iPad (http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/) and iPhone 4 (http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html) are not the same. 1024x768, and 960x640 respectively. And, see answer to first question.


As soon as the new one comes out.

I think you are just making up arbitrary distinctions here.

"Pocketable" is a relative term. The current iPad is definitely not "pocketable" but it almost is. A 7" iPad would be easily pocketable. It would in fact be almost precisely the size of a paperback novel which I have "pocketed" for many years now.

The deal behind a 7" iPad, is that it would hopefully be something you could actually type on with some speed, and therefore much more of a portable computer than the current iPad, which is more like a portable screen. Right now, I can type about twice as fast on my iPhone as I can on my iPad. There's just no comparison at all.

I think the iPhone is transitional until the carriers' perverse dominance is diminished. This is the direction indicated by the iPad 3G which allows wifi to be augmented by 3G on a month to month basis and also by rumored FaceTime capability for iPod touch over wifi.

I'd say it's true 'cause as an owner of an iPad weight is an issue it has. Your hands get very tired.

3 iPads, like iMacs.

16 GB 7" iPad (weight is perfect)
32 + 64 GB 10" iPads. (size is perfect)

You decide what is more important to you: weight or screen size?

a 7" form factor must have always been a consideration by apple, and I think they were wise to go with the larger screen. 9.7" are already small for most web tasks and apps, and as for reading books, well, let's be absolutely frank (some people can and do read on the ipad, but most get eye strain), e-ink or similar tec is the udisputed king and there 7" just for reading books makes sense.

So, in essense the 7" is a small dubious niche that many will exploit for whatever small margin they can get from it but apple won't go there when they have the small phone factor and the ipad proper form factor. So this is one of the most garbage rrumors for sure.

The only advantage the 7" model could have is that it would be lighter. But if Apple can engineer out some weight from the current iPad, that would make more sense. Also, up the ante in terms of resolution and you've got a tough-to-beat product.

Replace the Touch with a device that sports a 5" screen if there is concern over offering a more portable device. Then at least you've got something pocketable.

I think the 7" iPad makes perfect sense
At the moment the 10" iPad is a run-away success, but there is a large gap between the 3.5" iPod & iPhone, and the 10" iPad
- this allows competitors to jump in here, and offer something a bit different from Apple, treading the middle ground, so to speak.
- a competitor to iPad would have a difficult job to be much better at 10" (apart from adding cameras), but at 7" there is a 'gap'

So, if Apple plugs this gap with their own 7" device, they kill-off (most of) the competition in this area
- as any competitor would then be offering a similar product, but without the brand-recognition, & iOS & App store etc.
- so, even though the iPad is doing really well, the sooner Apple plugs this gap the better, to stop others getting established, and to stop Apple being seen as a 'follower' in this mid-size tablet area.

To the customer, the advantages of a 7" device, are that it would be quite a bit smaller & lighter, a little cheaper, holdable in one hand, and can fit in a not-too-large pocket.

The larger screen than the 3.5" devices would allow for a lot more interesting apps, without the incongruousness of the 10" device. (e.g. a more convenient size for Games & Media than the 10")

That's all good and well, smaller, lighter, cheaper, holdable... but what about actually usable? What will the users be using it for? This size doesn't lend itself to any user friendly browsing experience, it's not required for ipod functionality as a smaller size does what it needs to do, it doesn't lend itself well to magazine reading, it's smaller screen might allow for ebook reading but one would be better off with a much cheaper and more conducive to reading e-ink device, etc. etc.

So yes of course to all the advantages you mentioned, but these advantages are of no consequence when the actual device form factor doesn't lend itself to anything well at all that the iphone/ipods and the current ipad form factor do not do better and/or with more portability. Why would you need a pocketable 7" to check email and for an occasional googling, when you have a perfectly pocketable ipod/iphone? Why would you need it for an ipod?

And how much weight/size/etc. would you actually save with a couple or so inches off the diagonal? Negligible. It won't be considerably lighter for the screen compromise, it won't fit more bags than the ipad already does. It won't do anything that much better or with more functionality that would warrant a different model. A 7" would be the mini tower of tablets. Offering some questionable functionality that a small part of users might think is welcome, while apple and the rest of the buying public understand that it really isn't.

A 7" is an advantageous format only for apple competitors, and that mostly for price, it's a cheat and a compromise since they can't match the price/built quality/apps/ecosystem. Apple doesn't need to do that. Apple knows that 7" is the wrong number for now and with this technology. Apple doesn't diversify products for no good reason. They diversify them only for a compelling reason. The air had compelling reasons to exist, so did the mac mini, as well as the ipod mini/nano and the shuffle. All the other in between models didn't so they never materialized.

I agree that Apple doesn't usually like to give their customers too many choices, and prefers to offer just a few well chosen products, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Personally, I can see the benefit of a 7" device, and I quite like the form factor.
I think the wieght differences would be quite significant - probably 30% or more.

The problem I have with the 3.5" devices such as the iPod Touch & iPhone is that the screen is too small for a lot of uses (basic browsing, emailing is a chore, typing anything, watching a movie, playing games)
- so, I think a larger screen would be a benefit here.....
- and the iPad is a little too big for convenient, hand-held use....

- so, this is the space into which a 7" device might fit....

- but, I also think a 5" iPhone would be a good idea, for similar reasons...

I see what you mean. Let's see how this plays out. I am not 100% convinced either with what I am saying. But I am 95% or so convinced.

That is pretty much how Anand of AnandTech feels. He likes the 4.x display smartphones and the 5 Dell Streak, because of the increased real estate.

Personally, I dont what that kind of size in a phone. I can see a tablet smaller than the iPad, though 10 seems pretty perfect all around if I do plan on using it for copious amounts of reading. I figured it might be a few years for that market to saturate first and so Apple can introduce yet another UI and SDK for developers to cater their apps for, but much of this depends on factors we just arent privy too, like supply of those 10 IPS displays.



That is pretty much what they did. The iPad is 7.75 x 5.83.

This guy Anand is the common techie, too much detail, too little common sense. Doesn't surprise me that he would consider such a type of phone practical or useful. Doesn't help that he is too young to know a bit better either.

I do like the detail in their reviews even though I dont often agree with his/their personal feelings. Whats funny is that they have plenty of readers who are so long into Windows and building machines that they vehemently oppose any of AnandTechs reviews of Apples product. Its pretty funny to read these comments.

Echoes my sentiments exactly, in both his analysis, his commentary as well as the rampant anti apple sentiments of the readers (who of course can (perpetually) build their perfect humongous systems much better than apple), sometimes very funny to read, sometimes grating. As soon as a positive comment on apple is mentioned all hell breaks loose.

Thanks for this comment. I'm sick of people thinking that smaller is better. Well, bigger is better in my country

And I can type much faster on my iPad than I can on my iPhone. Your point being?

The lightest and most portable iPad is the one you leave on the shelf.

you obviously don't understand. Now with the iOS in both the iPad and iPod Touch, they are the EXACT SAME device, except for screen size.

Surely your post is missing a sarc mark. You think these are the EXACT SAME? If it was "the EXACT SAME except for the screen size” then all the UI element would simply be enlarged, like it is when you put an iPhone/Touch app on the iPad and hit the 2x button.

Dude, that's a pretty lame argument...do all the UI enhancements change your over-all experience of each device, perhaps (i'd say no)...but is it enough to call them completely different devices? Absolutely NO. They are the same device.

That screen shot you posted demonstrates exactly why I hate the safari browser on the iPad. They moved all the hot buttons that were at the bottom of the screen (in easy reach of your thumbs) and placed them at the top, where your hands never rest. IMO they should re-design the UI of Safari so that all the controls are at the bottom of the screen. It's very distracting to take your hand off the iPad and touch the top of the screen every time you want to access a bookmark, or go back/forward a page, etc.

1) You said it was the EXACT SAME. The capitalization for emphasis was yours.

2) Yes, the UI is how the user interfaces with the device. The underlying OS is inconsequential at that point until you want to qualify your statement to exclude the UI, but even then its not the EXACT SAME.

3) Are you going to say an TV with iOS for the OS foundation is the EXACT SAME as the iPhone as the iPad when it will use BackRow or an evolution of backRow for the UI. Would you say the current TV is the EXACT SAME as Mac OS X Tiger despite one using Aqua and the other using BackRow? I surely wouldnt.

4) The differences in Safari you dont like show that you understand that the OSes arent the EXACT SAME, so why state that they are?

5) I dont care for Safari on the iPad, either. Its the reason I returned mine, but it goes beyond the button placement. It includes the slow windowing of open pages without an option for tabs and the 25.2 kiobits of pages caching that means I cant type up forum comments on the iPad and switch windows or apps for a second without the real risk of the page reloading, this losing all my data. The other iOS devices is virtually unlimited.

6) Again, saying its the EXACT SAME is silly when even at the surface the UI has been radically altered to fit the display size and dimensions. Regardless of whether you or I like what they did with iOS for the iPad its been re-imagined for to fit the device. They did not simply smear iOS for the iPod Touch into the iPad then call it a day.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of doing so...you just want to see yourself talk. Most of what you're saying here is semantics.

No, the Apple TV is not the exact same as the iPad or the touch, no touch screen and not portable, which would indicate a drastic difference in the user experience and interface.

Do both the touch and the iPad use iOS? Yes.
Do they both have a touch screen? Yes.
Are they both portable devices? Yes.
Do they both have the same features in the UI, 90%-99% They may look difference but they both accomplish the same tasks. Looks and actual Function are two different things.

There have been a score of people posting how this rumored 7" device is basically a bigger iPod touch, so I'm not the only one who thinks they are the same device. Say what you want, you're not going to convince anyone that what you're saying is any more right or wrong than what i'm saying.

Yes, tabs would be a great idea, or better yet why not open up the iOS to Google Chrome, FF and Opera (like the Bing App) without opening it in a safari window first.

I dont expect everyone to be logical or rational, but I do expect people to use words with definite meanings to stand between their claims to qualify them appropriately. Youve clearly stated that the iPod Touch and iPad are the EXACT SAME and Ive clearly shown you that they are far from being the EXACT SAME. Apple spent a great deal of time optimizing the UI for the device. You dont have to believe this, but youd be a fool not to.

You also dont have to believe that a 7 iPad wouldnt just expand the UI elements by 4x from a 3/5 display, but again, youd be a fool to think Apple will simply smear an OS and UI designed for a smaller device into a larger one and call it a day.

Hell, they even created a new font for the iPhone 4 specifically to take advantage of the double resolution. Ask yourself, if they are so conscientious of the UI that they would create a font to showcase for a higher pixel device with the same size display, why do you think they wouldnt idealize the UI for an iOS device with a larger display?

Ridiculousness...with this kind of BS rationale, one could argue that my iPhone 3GS is not EXACTLY the same as your iPhone 3GS just because i have different apps for mine than yours. Total semantics and a pointless argument. You'd be a fool to think anyone really gives a crap about what you call minor differences when making the comparison. When it all boils down to it, they are the same devices. I would even go as far to say that the iPhone is the same device as the Touch, minus the phone and 3G coverage.

Ok, so let's say the make a 7" iPad, if they put the iOS 3.2 on it, it would be exactly the same as the iPad, with a smaller screen, and the same as the Touch, which a bigger screen, and "minor" tweaks to the UI, that make it not better or worse than the Touch. In my mind (and many others beside you) that makes it the same.

Let's recap:
are all these devices a portable wireless device? Yes
do they all have touch UI? Yes
do they all have a touch screen? yes
are they all tablet-style devices? yes

Is the iOS the same for all the devices? Yes, if you look at the functionality of each application and how they work, yes...they may work slightly different, but the outcome is the same.

So bow you are conceding that they aren't the exct same. Nice!

Just like all the people who said I wa wrong for thinking that widescreen displays are not great for less than 12" displays and that Mac OS X would make for a horrible tablet OS (as witnessed by Windows on tablets and later Axiotron's Modbook, you will
Also be proven wrong that Apple will simply pop in the iPod Touch's iOS into a device with 4x the screen real estate without any consideration or changes to the UI, I they ever release a 7" iPad. It's unbelievably silly to still keep defending your positing that they would.

Do you not recall the separate SDKs for the iPad and iPhone/Touch when it was first released? Can you not see the overlays and additional menu items built into the iPad that are nor on the iPhone and Touch's iOS design for it's UI?


Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.


Don't be obtuse, of course not.


PS: Why do some forum posters insist on posting ABOVE the quoted text when the forum clearly reads DOWN? This isn't an email conversation.

Seems to me that the thing to do is come up with the largest device that still has the dimensions to fit in an adult's pockets.

In terms of the ideal screen size for many of the uses the touchscreen products are intended for, the iPad is ideal. So I don't believe there is any doubt that the more you drop down from that size, the poorer the user experience. But the point to a smaller device is that you can slip it into your pocket. Take that away and all you end up with is a less enjoyable variation on the current iPad form factor.

If there is a meaningful upgrade in portability one would be willing to live with the price paid for having a smaller screen. On the other hand, if the device is too large to pocket, and a 7" iPad would be, there isn't much practical gain from opting for that device instead of the full-sized iPad. Sure it would be lighter but it would not be nearly as immersive an experience. The problem is that many would expect it to be.

I think it would be like the dissatisfaction experienced with netbooks. Being a computer with most of the bits and pieces you'd expect to find on a laptop, many expect full-size laptop performance and wind up disappointed. On the other hand, something small enough to fit into one's pocket would not be expected by anyone to replace using a larger touchscreen device like the iPad. It would be understood that we're talking an entirely different class of equipment. A 7" iPad would tend to not be so well defined.

I have to say that if the competition's response to the 9.7" iPad is a large collection of 7" devices, the iPad will blow them all out of the water. The reason is that if you're engaging in an activity like browsing, that extra screen real estate impacts on a very tangible level the character of the user experience.

That said, there is a place for a device that offers a huge improvement in portability yet is still enjoyable to use, though unfortunately less so. Such a device could be used in a lot of situations where the iPad wouldn't fit in. And it would serve as a good response to your typical e-reader. If that device was less immersive, I think the average consumer would understand instantly that such would be the case.

I could easily imagine people owning both, namely the iPad and, for lack of a better name, the Touch Maxi or Jumbo Touch. The idea being to use them in different settings. A 7" iPad, on the other hand, would tend to cannibalize sales at both ends.

This post answers the question as to why you have an "obtuse" amount of posts on this forum.
you're one slick cat when it comes to posting. you're always making every conversation out as if you were the originator of the idea, way to go. Thanks for entering my ignore list.