or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › iPad 3 with Retina display, new device sized between iPad and iPod in Apple's pipeline
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPad 3 with Retina display, new device sized between iPad and iPod in Apple's pipeline

post #1 of 138
Thread Starter 
While conflicting rumors have described both a larger screen and a smaller, cheaper iPhone model purportedly planned for this summer, one connected industry expert tells AppleInsider that Apple is also working to expand its tablet offerings with a Retina Display iPad 3 and new device that may be either a smaller iPad or larger iPod touch.

Word of the so-called "tweener" tablet from Apple arrived last month, when Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of Concord Securities informed AppleInsider of detailed component plans attributed to iPad 2. The analyst also outlined Apple's expected production ratios of WiFi, CDMA and GSM/UMTS iPad 2 models.

iPad 3: double resolution IPS/FFS display

A third point relayed by Kuo was that a successive iPad 3 model would incorporate a 9.7 inch IPS panel with FFS (fringe-field switching) technology, which enables a wider viewing angle and clearer visual quality under in sunlight. Kuo previously reported last May that the upcoming iPhone 4 would incorporate a double resolution, 960x640 display using IPS/FFS, which Apple subsequently released under the name Retina Display. He was also correct in nailing down in advance that iPhone 4 would supply twice the RAM of the iPad.

Kuo now claims that iPad 3 will deliver a Retina Display-like quality and resolution doubling to 2048x1536, an enhancement originally thought to make it into the more immediate release of iPad 2.

However, Kuo told AppleInsider last month that iPad 2 isn't getting the new panel yet because of limited manufacturing yield rates. "At this point," he said in January, "making a high resolution and bright IPS/FFS panel is not easy and the production volume and cost couldnt meet Apples requirements." Upcoming iPad 2 models are instead said to be using a thinner panel with "anti-reflection" to deliver a better experience in bright sunlight.

iPad mini, or big iPod touch

Kuo also described a new iOS device that is undergoing evaluation for a potential release during the second half of 2011, with a screen size between that of the current iPad and the iPhone. Speaking of this new product, Kuo said he was "not sure" whether it would be "a 'Super iPhone' or a 'iPad mini.'" Subsequent speculation by a variety of Apple observers, including a new posting from Vláďa Janeček of Czech site SuperApple, similarly suggest an iPad with a screen close to 6 inches.

Given the company's regular criticisms of competitor's half-sized tablet offerings, Apple will almost certainly not deliver a tweener iPad with a 5 to 7 inch screen size.

However, Apple may be interested in delivering an oversized iPod touch intended to fill the gap between its 3.5 inch, smartphone sized iOS devices and its full sized 9.7 inch iPad.

The company has strongly expressed its contention that "tweener" sized tablets smaller than the iPad are not capable of delivering a real tablet experience. However, there does appear to be a market for oversized smartphones, with some Android models offering 4 inch or larger displays that simply blow up the screen rather than offering more to see. Some consumers, particularly older individuals with limited vision, have expressed keen interest in these larger phones.

With a 5 inch screen, a "big iPod touch" at its existing resolution would offer a 230ppi screen density; stretched across a 7 inch screen the same resolution would deliver 164ppi, still higher than the existing iPad's pixel density of 132ppi. Rather than trying to crush the full sized iPad's resolution into a smaller screen, something Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs quipped last fall would require filing down users' fingers, such a device could simply serve as an expansion of the iPod family, offering a larger view of the simpler iPod touch user interface.

Along similar lines, between 2001 and 2006 Apple offered two iBook models offering the same 1024x768 resolution on either 12.1 and 14.1 inch screens, aiming the larger model at people who simply wanted a bigger view of the same desktop. The company now sells its 15.4 inch MacBook Pro and 13.3 inch MacBook Air with the same 1440x900 resolution.

A 4 to 7 inch iPod touch could serve to expand Apple's iPod offerings, enabling the company to more directly compete with handheld gaming devices by leveraging iTunes media, compatibility with third party apps, and iOS' existing support for features like push email, FaceTime video calling, Game Center, and upcoming features such as expected music and photo cloud features and voice activated assistance services.




On page 2 of 2: Expanding the definition of tablet

Expanding the definition of tablet

Apple's iPod touch is currently not counted as a tablet (not even a "media tablet") by market research firms such as IDC and Gartner, but that practice would be harder to maintain if Apple were to ship a larger version of the device with the same 960x640 resolution.

Other companies, including Dell and Samsung, have delivered devices with lower resolutions on "tweener" sized tablets, which are counted as "media tablets," even though they have found minimal interest among consumers.

A new, larger iPad touch model could potentially deliver an additional competitor to the low end tablet market currently represented by the Samsung Galaxy Tab and Dell Streak, while still remaining well differentiated from the more sophisticated iPad in order to avoid direct competition.

Such a strategy would resemble Apple's efforts to expand the market of the original iPod with the iPod mini, a product which targeted the lower end of flash RAM music players while leaving the iPod to service its original market as a high capacity device.

A big iPod touch would also help differentiate the general purpose, full sized iPad from other smaller, low end tablet devices, forcing them to compete against Apple's media-centric iPod touch rather than being drawn into comparison next to iPad. Both IDC and Gartner group include media-centric tablets as small as 5 inches in the same category as the iPad while completely ignoring the tens of millions of iPod touch devices Apple already sells.

An iPod-branded small tablet strategy would also explain why Kuo cited a delivery target of the second half of 2011, likely coinciding with Apple's fall iPod event rather than being connected to the firm's spring launch of iPad 2 or the summer debut of iPhone 5.

At the launch of the original iPod touch, Apple worked to differentiate the new model with a unique physical design and limited software features compared to iPhone. While the iPod touch continues to be styled as uniquely different than iPhone, Apple has since relaxed its artificial limitations related to functionality, cultivating the product with a focus on gaming. This has resulted in iPod touch sales helping to support the iOS development platform, an element missing from most other smartphone platforms.

post #2 of 138
They should keep any iterations of the iPad with 7 inch screen or more. Any smaller and its intention is lost. Make the iPod Touch bigger, don't make the iPad smaller.
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
post #3 of 138
Sure, nailed it, that's it...
post #4 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevemost View Post

Sure, nailed it, that's it...

How is this "breaking news"?
post #5 of 138
Reasonable
post #6 of 138
If the new screen is denser pixel wise, it would work. 1024 by 768 in a smaller form would be the way to go.
post #7 of 138
I'm convinced it will be a 6" iPod Touch to compete directly with the Sony NGP and a colour Kindle, targeted at gamers and ebook readers. This would allow Apple to rejuvenate flagging iPod sales and re-invent the brand once again. It would also enable them to maintain margins in an increasingly competitive marketplace for cheap 3" media players.

Apple could then target the iPad more towards business, education and productivity apps so they can maintain it's price levels. If anything I think we may see larger not smaller iPads in the future as more and more people use them as laptop replacements.
post #8 of 138
This supports what I've been saying since the first rumors that smaller and larger iPhone were going to be released. These are really iPods. The larger one is an expansion of the iPod touch size, and the smaller one is the replacement of the iPod Classic. Anything smaller than the current iPhone/touch is too small, so it will be a simplified UI and simplified hardware (no Retina display, slower processor, no internet) and the savings will be used to cram in as much flash storage as possible so it can replace the Classic. The larger touch will still have only 64 GB max storage in order to keep the current price points with the larger screen. The Classic replacement will have 128 GB (maybe 172 GB using 3 x 64 GB chipsets).
post #9 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... Apple is also working to expand its tablet offerings with a Retina Display iPad 3 and new device that may be either a smaller iPad or larger iPod touch. ...

Whether or not they make a tweener device, I don't buy the argument presented here that it's more likely to be a "big iPod touch" than a "small iPad."

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. The argument for why they would/wouldn't make a small iPad is exactly the same as to why they would/wouldn't make a large iPod. I think the author is just fooling himself to think these are different arguments or that the products are essentially different.

It's like coming up with an argument as to why ghosts aren't real but claiming that this same information proves on the other hand, that "spirits" do exist. It seems nonsensical to me.
post #10 of 138
On feb 5th, I wrote a speculative blog entry abut how Apple should make a 5" iPod Touch, calling it iPod Play or iPlay entirely. The reasoning being that 3.5" is a screen size for 1 hand use - a phone. People use their iPod Touches with 2 hands in landcape most of the time and so the device should be bigger. I argued that the size of most pockets limit what an big iPod Touch is and where we cross the line into small iPads.

I think 6" may be a bit too big for an iPod Touch. I also think, Apple will put in a retina display at 1024x768 pixels so at dev can just use the iPad-class images with it, while the UI will be redrawn automatically. To maintain 300 dpi or more, the screen at that resolution cannot be bigger than 5".

The articles is here:
http://lantinian.blogspot.com/2011/0...ipod-play.html

The second blog post deals more with the name "iPod Touch", I am 100% that should the iPod be rebranded to "iPlay", Apple will see success and buz rivaling that of the iPad and iPhone. Right now the iPod Touch is a hiding with the other iPods.

http://lantinian.blogspot.com/2011/0...pod-brand.html
post #11 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Whether or not they make a tweener device, I don't buy the argument presented here that it's more likely to be a "big iPod touch" than a "small iPad."

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. The argument for why they would/wouldn't make a small iPad is exactly the same as to why they would/wouldn't make a large iPod.

Yeah, I think the author's point is that Apple would market this device as a large iPod rather than as a small iPad, but I agree that there's not really any difference between the two other than marketing and what software is allowed to run on it.

The iPad was already criticized as a "bigger iPod touch" when it came out, so I wonder if this product did go in that direction, would be easier or harder for Apple to continue to distinguish between the two lines in people's minds?
post #12 of 138
I'm still sceptical.
post #13 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Whether or not they make a tweener device, I don't buy the argument presented here that it's more likely to be a "big iPod touch" than a "small iPad."

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. The argument for why they would/wouldn't make a small iPad is exactly the same as to why they would/wouldn't make a large iPod. I think the author is just fooling himself to think these are different arguments or that the products are essentially different.

It's like coming up with an argument as to why ghosts aren't real but claiming that this same information proves on the other hand, that "spirits" do exist. It seems nonsensical to me.

The difference is they run entirely different UIs for the OS and all the software.

I don't see how that's not obvious. The iPad UI can't be scaled down without making it difficult to use whereas the iPod UI can be scaled up without difficulty.
post #14 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by lantinian View Post

I think 6" may be a bit too big for an iPod Touch. I also think, Apple will put in a retina display at 1024x768 pixels so at dev can just use the iPad-class images with it, while the UI will be redrawn automatically. To maintain 300 dpi or more, the screen at that resolution cannot be bigger than 5".

The articles is here:
http://lantinian.blogspot.com/2011/0...ipod-play.html

The second blog post deals more with the name "iPod Touch", I am 100% that should the iPod be rebranded to "iPlay", Apple will see success and buz rivaling that of the iPad and iPhone. Right now the iPod Touch is a hiding with the other iPods.

http://lantinian.blogspot.com/2011/0...pod-brand.html

Interesting! iPlay is a great name but i think it would likely remain: iPod ______ ...there's no room in their website header baar for "iPlay" haha

The developers using iPad size would be genius.
post #15 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by YakkoW View Post

Yeah, I think the author's point is that Apple would market this device as a large iPod rather than as a small iPad, but I agree that there's not really any difference between the two other than marketing and what software is allowed to run on it.

The iPad was already criticized as a "bigger iPod touch" when it came out, so I wonder if this product did go in that direction, would be easier or harder for Apple to continue to distinguish between the two lines in people's minds?

It's not what software is 'allowed' to run on it, it's what software is suited for it.
And this is exactly the difference between a tablet (experience) and that of an iPhone or iPod touch.
So what you are saying is that there is not difference, except for the difference...
Your also implying you know better than Apple with all of its research in this area, kind of arrogant, I think. Or did you do comparable research?

J.
post #16 of 138
It's essentially a small iPad, but it's marketed as a big iPod Touch.

That is just brilliant.
post #17 of 138
Didn't Steve Jobs said that a tablet smaller than 10" will be DOA. So, NO.
post #18 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Whether or not they make a tweener device, I don't buy the argument presented here that it's more likely to be a "big iPod touch" than a "small iPad."

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. The argument for why they would/wouldn't make a small iPad is exactly the same as to why they would/wouldn't make a large iPod. I think the author is just fooling himself to think these are different arguments or that the products are essentially different.

It's like coming up with an argument as to why ghosts aren't real but claiming that this same information proves on the other hand, that "spirits" do exist. It seems nonsensical to me.

I disagree. They are different devices. Remember when the iPad was about to be released and people were saying it's going to be "just a big iPod" and what would be the point of that! But then Apple showed that the UIs were indeed different. The iPad's larger screen allowed for a more detailed and complex UI with flyouts and such. The iPod UI is very one-dimensional, while the iPad is a bit more "layered" (for that lack of a better term) and rich. Think of the difference between the address book on the iPod and the iPad.

I would expect a larger iPod to remain a mostly a one-dimenional UI, and that will remain as the difference between an iPod and an iPad, regardless of what the screen sizes are.

The real question to me is what additional features the iPod would gain? A 5-6" iPod touch with the photo import capabilities of the iPad would be the perfect device to me.
post #19 of 138
It's good to see that Apple has finally gotten proactive here, and is starting to just feed-out every bitch-ass crazy rumor they can so that nobody knows what the hell is going on.
...About time.
post #20 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

I'm convinced it will be a 6" iPod Touch to compete directly with the Sony NGP and a colour Kindle, targeted at gamers and ebook readers. This would allow Apple to rejuvenate flagging iPod sales and re-invent the brand once again. It would also enable them to maintain margins in an increasingly competitive marketplace for cheap 3" media players.

Apple could then target the iPad more towards business, education and productivity apps so they can maintain it's price levels. If anything I think we may see larger not smaller iPads in the future as more and more people use them as laptop replacements.

Even with the rumoured quicker GPU and CPU in the next iPhone, it would still have less than half the power of the NGP, plus of course, no physical buttons, which are essential for serious NGP level gaming.

It would be more of a Kindle competitor, but the Kindle is a *lot* cheaper...
post #21 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb View Post

They should keep any iterations of the iPad with 7 inch screen or more. Any smaller and its intention is lost. Make the iPod Touch bigger, don't make the iPad smaller.

What's the difference. Particularly if the iPad gets the cameras this year. Little to nothing.

As for the notion of making a bigger iPad. I doubt it. Apple seems to believe they have the form pretty close to perfect. So outside of small changes like maybe reducing the bezel to shave off a tiny bit, I think the iPad will get thinner with 'bigger' internals
post #22 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb View Post

They should keep any iterations of the iPad with 7 inch screen or more. Any smaller and its intention is lost. Make the iPod Touch bigger, don't make the iPad smaller.

I thought 7" was DOA according to SJ, the playbook was DOA because it was 7", the Tab was an epic fail according to many on the board because it is 7". I thought the current size was optimal. However a 7" iPad is now ok?
post #23 of 138
Very plausible rumors. The larger iPod Touch would also be way relatively costless way for Apple to experiment with the same same size factor for a 'pre-iPhone' product in the wild.

The only question I would have on the above is what a retina display would do to the cost of an iPad.
post #24 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

I thought 7" was DOA according to SJ, the playbook was DOA because it was 7", the Tab was an epic fail according to many on the board because it is 7". I thought the current size was optimal. However a 7" iPad is now ok?

Read more carefully, instead of jumping in with your usual troll-speak.
post #25 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by YakkoW View Post

Yeah, I think the author's point is that Apple would market this device as a large iPod rather than as a small iPad, but I agree that there's not really any difference between the two other than marketing and what software is allowed to run on it.

The key question is whether this ~5" device will have the resolution of the current (or previous) iPhone or of the current iPad (or naturally multiples of these). Since that will determine which software will run on it natively (excluding letterboxed modes like currently iPhone apps on the iPad).
I really doubt it will be the latter unless it is targeted at children with smaller fingers.

Anybody predicting different screen sizes is implicitly saying that either:
(a) iOS is getting 'resolution independent', at least in a way that spreads existing UI elements at the current size over a larger screen, essentially the way applications work on desktop OSs.
(b) iOS gets a third (or more) physical size target (ie, in addition to iPhone and iPad)
(c) Touch targets are getting bigger
(d) Touch targets are getting smaller

There is no other option than one of this four. And I highly doubt option (d) will be it. This works on a desktop OS where the size of elements on the screen is decoupled from the mouse or trackpad movement.

And I am seriously curious how Android is currently handling this. I know it is employing (a), watch the blown up UI of the Galaxy Tab, and I am sure it is also employing (b), causing some of the fragmentation developers complain about. I am not sure how much of (c) and (d) Android currently employs.
post #26 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

What's the difference. Particularly if the iPad gets the cameras this year. Little to nothing.

The small difference whether Apple allows you to run iPad apps on it or not (which I doubt as it would lead to smaller touch targets) or whether officially adds a new resolution iOS version or moves into some resolution independence (I doubt that too, so not as much).
post #27 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

It's good to see that Apple has finally gotten proactive here, and is starting to just feed-out every bitch-ass crazy rumor they can so that nobody knows what the hell is going on.
...About time.

Another decoy flare?
post #28 of 138
I don't care for the iPad 3 considering the iPad 2 isn't even out yet. These rumors are getting old. Yawn.
post #29 of 138
Just to put it plain and simple:

A larger iPod Touch would not run iPad apps (not even the iPad versions of + apps). Differentiation as simple as it gets.

On a smaller iPad, say 6' its unique UI features would be hard to do. Split view in landscape or pop up menus in either orientation would display the same content scaled down way too small (approx. 1/3 the size, 17 to 45 square inch) and if you display the content at the same size as on the 9.7' iPad, you'd only see one third of it, probably less if there is permanent UI chrome which cannot be scaled down as good (as the content) to stay usable.

So either filing your finger or steadily scrolling around.

If Apple is to release a device of that size it would be an large iPod Touch (hehe) with a 3:2 aspect ratio, most probably at 960x640 pixels, and not a 4:3 1024x768 small iPad. (uh, there was another differentiation hidden..)

just saying
Ciao, Alex
post #30 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by makingdots View Post

Didn't Steve Jobs said that a tablet smaller than 10" will be DOA. So, NO.

Get real. I suppose you would believe anything a salesman tells you. Jobs probably said that because Apple did't have a smaller tablet available yet. It's obvious that there is a market for tablets of different sizes. Apple does have a challenge, though, as iOS software have been designed for exactly two screen sizes, so they need a design to deal with any additional sizes they decide to offer.
post #31 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb View Post

They should keep any iterations of the iPad with 7 inch screen or more. Any smaller and its intention is lost. Make the iPod Touch bigger, don't make the iPad smaller.

Totally agree. Bigger iPod Touch and make it a specifically designed controller for games on the AppleTV when Apple opens an app store on it. Have it lead the way in portable gaming and media experiences.
post #32 of 138
Apple should make a real mobile Mac. Whatever form factor (clamshell, slider or tablet). 300 to 600 g and 4 to 7 inches. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
post #33 of 138
You're making predictions on the iPad 3 already. It's release is so far off I wouldn't trust this story if your source was Steve Jobs himself.
post #34 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

The key question is whether this ~5" device will have the resolution of the current (or previous) iPhone or of the current iPad (or naturally multiples of these). Since that will determine which software will run on it natively (excluding letterboxed modes like currently iPhone apps on the iPad).
I really doubt it will be the latter unless it is targeted at children with smaller fingers.

Anybody predicting different screen sizes is implicitly saying that either:
(a) iOS is getting 'resolution independent', at least in a way that spreads existing UI elements at the current size over a larger screen, essentially the way applications work on desktop OSs.
(b) iOS gets a third (or more) physical size target (ie, in addition to iPhone and iPad)
(c) Touch targets are getting bigger
(d) Touch targets are getting smaller

There is no other option than one of this four. And I highly doubt option (d) will be it. This works on a desktop OS where the size of elements on the screen is decoupled from the mouse or trackpad movement.

And I am seriously curious how Android is currently handling this. I know it is employing (a), watch the blown up UI of the Galaxy Tab, and I am sure it is also employing (b), causing some of the fragmentation developers complain about. I am not sure how much of (c) and (d) Android currently employs.

Your analysis clearly shows the problem of having multiple screen sizes, as developers would really need to optimize UI and artwork for all of them in order for them to work well. I can see a developer owning an iPhone and an iPad, but some kind of mythical "tweener" device would just be a mish-mash between the two with no real benefits. It wouldn't fit in your pocket, and you'd feel unsatisfied with screen size. Only benefit is weight, but buttloads of rumors exist about Apple attempting to fix that with the iPad 2.

And any talk of this device competing with the NGP is silly. NGP is better for games because it has hardware controls AND a touch screen, letting developers optimize games for both (notice how rare typical handheld games are top 10 sellers in the App Store, they're clunky at best).
post #35 of 138
4 to 7 inches would be a reality in preperation for gaming becoming a more prominent feature.
I don't know if this would be called an ipad, however i'm sure Apple will categorize it properly.
post #36 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by makingdots View Post

Didn't Steve Jobs said that a tablet smaller than 10" will be DOA. So, NO.

Never believe what a CEO says, as they are never going to tell you about upcoming products unless they want to, and CEOs who are dumb enough to do so will quickly be out of a job. And there are plenty of occurrences of Jobs saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. Here's an article from Wired from about a year ago: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/steve-jobs/

Tablets, cellphones, eBooks, iPod Touch camera. All things Steve has at one point said his company wouldn't do because.
post #37 of 138
Maybe it is for a remote contrl for the first Apple television?
post #38 of 138
what's with all the iPad 3 talk???
Did I miss the event when Apple announced that they were going to skip iPad 2 and go straight to iPad 3???
This talk seems so premature.
post #39 of 138
I don't care what anyone says, there is NO difference between the iPod touch and the iPad. The only difference is in the User Interface of certain apps, and 3G. THAT'S IT!!! And UI adjustments is not enough to call these two devices different.
post #40 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Apple should make a real mobile Mac. Whatever form factor (clamshell, slider or tablet). 300 to 600 g and 4 to 7 inches. The Mac in your pocket. Always.

Honestly, what kind of work can you get done on a device such as you describe? Serious think about how that would work.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • iPad 3 with Retina display, new device sized between iPad and iPod in Apple's pipeline
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › iPad 3 with Retina display, new device sized between iPad and iPod in Apple's pipeline