or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Pulled article claimed LG will make displays for 'iPad mini' & 4-in. iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pulled article claimed LG will make displays for 'iPad mini' & 4-in. iPhone - Page 2

post #41 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

We will never have a 7" tablet - Steve Jobs.

Funny how when the original Galaxy Tab came out, people on here were bashing the 7" screen size.

Look at the same people now, honoring praise for a 7" tablet on Apple.

Hypocracy at its best.

For the record, your very questionable record, I never "bashed" a 7-inch screen. I did say a 16:9 screen was wrong, in 7 or any other tablet size. But I always thought a 7 could be useful. So there. Find somebody else,
post #42 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Wow, it is pretty obvious which of the posters have never been laid.

LOL ouch.
I'd have said, "Remove balls and put back in purse"

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #43 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

LOL ouch.
I'd have said, "Remove balls and put back in purse"

Those are under 7"; they should be fine.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #44 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

And 7" will be less battery life (inevitable from smaller battery.)
I can see use for a 7", and of course Steve was the master of the head fake.
The only issue is how to handle up/down scaling vs 3rd format.
Windows 8 is onto something with a dev environment that lets you lay out separate layouts for different screen sizes (tile, phone, tablet) from the git go.
I think that this is inevitable for Apple as well, with the only question being, what is the plan for the interim period as the 7" first comes out. Blown up sucks, and shrunk is too small to use.

7" gets the same res as current gen iPad, 10" iPad gets bumped res. Yes you still add the need to support a new scale, but I think the 10" bump is inevitable and retaining the same res at 7" limits the number of formats. Pair the 7" with the current iPad "guts" from a chipset perspective and you can probably price it around $299 (8-16GB?) and $399 (16-32GB?). In competition with the Kindle Fire, it can be marketed as the full iPad experience in a smaller package versus a watered-down** Android device.

However they would introduce it I'm sure the $300 mark would be the sweet spot to move them.

** = I only say this as a marketing approach based on reviews! Sounds like a great device for the price but limited to a subset of the Amazon market for apps, etc. Not trying to stir up Android hate!!
post #45 of 68
Neither displays nor prices have to be changed!

Maybe the iPhone could work out with slightly below 4'' but nothing else has to be changed.
Remind yourselves that Amazon is selling the Fire with a loss! How could Apple, used to50%+ margins, try to compete with a device that loses 50$ on each sale ? Even further, that 199$ Fire, costing Amazon 250$, is just made of plastic and lacks cameras and nearly all other sensors of todays iOS device lineup.

Why should Apple sell a 7'' tablet, costing them 250$+, for 250$-300$ ? Just to take customers away from Amazons tablet ? Customers who cannot and want not afford the extra 200$ for buying a much better equipped and software powered full Post-PC tablet ?

Are these the customers typically switching to a Mac, to an iPhone, buying an AppleTV2 ? Are these the customers typically buying apps, music or renting movies ? Are these the customers upgrading their tech after 2+ years when new technology usually gives strong arguments for that ? You don't have to be at every party out there and surely not on this one! Maybe they'd kill the Fire but what then? Compete with the next contender, which sports a 6'' display and selling for 150$ ?

Apple should keep their price tag and add value as they did with iPad2. CPU, Memory, camera, sensors, battery life. Maybe replace the DockConnector by Thunderbolt + a nice MagSafe for power supply or even wireless, inductive battery charging. In the end, people are thrilled by innovative features, not by price. People LOVE their iPads because of their style and capabilities not because they might have been a cheap buy.

7'' neither fits iPhone nor iPad screen designs and a third option would fragment the ecosystem too much. It's no argument that there might be people having use for 7''. There might also be lots of people wanting 15'' tablets or Cinemascope 21:9 aspect ratios, but you have to make a point here! We're probably 5-8 years away from having the required GUI design patterns supporting these flexible visualizations. With current tech & cost constraints it's best as Apple does it: 2 display sizes. For the rest why don't use AirPlay ? Cars, Trains, Planes : support AirPlay on Inseat displays and there you go.

Always remember: A good Apple lineup is the one, where you can imagine having one product from each category at home: iPhone (mobile), iPad (couch,table), MacBook (couch work, wife going shopping), iMac/Mini (true work), AppleTV (now...). I'm sure there are millions of households having that. Well, I have and each one has its domain. Not one of us misses 7'' here. Apple should not produce for people who think they can bundle all these tasks in that 7'' ultra-compromise.
post #46 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

But fragmentation is still a problem, and Apple still already makes a mini-tablet: the iPod Touch.

The iPod touch is a toy. Processor is a generation old, screen is too small, battery life when using WiFi and apps is terrible, camera is a joke, 3G data isn't even an option. It's the only iOS device called an iPod. That should tell you everything you need to know about where Apple thinks it fits into their product matrix.

eReaders like the Kindle and Kobo fall into a space in the marketplace where Apple has nothing, but I believe that's because Apple doesn't want to compete.

- much less expensive (Apple unlikely to enter a low margin segment of the market)
- much lighter (Apple has gone to great lengths to use Al and glass and include large batteries therefore they cannot compete even if they introduce a smaller model iPad)
- small enough to fit in more bags/purses than an iPad can (Apple could do something here, but would need a new screen resolution: fragmentation)

One of the great things about developing for iOS is the clear split between phone size devices and the iPad. You do completely different UI for the two because they clearly target different audiences. I like the fact that graphics can be pixel perfect. Elements are never stretched or shrunk to fit a different screen resolution like they are on a certain other mobile OS.

I can see Apple putting a 4" display in their next phone. Most people either wouldn't be able to see or simply wouldn't care whether the display is 326ppi or 290ppi. At the same time a lower pixel density would make it easier for baby boomers to read small text. Given the percentage of wealth controlled by boomers it makes sense to design devices they can use without having to reach for their reading glasses.

A larger display is very practical with a case redesign. At my desk I currently have an iPhone 4 and an iPod touch in a hard shell case. The touch in its case is a little wider than the iPhone, but feels better in my hand because it's smooth and rounded. By comparison the iPhone 4 feels like a brick.
post #47 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

The iPod touch is a toy. Processor is a generation old, screen is too small, battery life when using WiFi and apps is terrible, camera is a joke, 3G data isn't even an option. It's the only iOS device called an iPod. That should tell you everything you need to know about where Apple thinks it fits into their product matrix.

so wrong. the $200 touch is an incredibly powerful mini-tablet. the only valid point you have is the hardware specs are one year behind the iPhone 4S now. Apple choose not to do a spec bump this year. which is why it is reasonable to expect a major hardware upgrade in 2012. you don't like its FaceTime camera or lack of 3G? then you must LOVE having those on the Fire ... along with GPS, retina display, and AirPlay. oh, wait ...

but i do agree Apple should add a second larger model of the touch next year.

in fact, i think new 5.25" models (50% increase in diagonal = 125% more screen area) of both the iPhone and iPod touch would make the most sense. both could have new state of the art retina screens with their pixel count doubled to 1920 x 1280, which results in an approximate 425 dpi compared to the their current 326 dpi. iPhone apps would still look good with more room for your fingers to tap. browsing, video, and games (about same size as Sony Vita and Nintendo 3DS) of course all much nicer. at $300 a 5.25" iPod touch would be a big hit.

i bet the real reason Apple held back on the iPhone 5 this year was because a larger retina screen with high enough dpi wasn't perfected yet. the resolution has to be doubled, no matter what the screen dimension is, to 1920 x 1280.
post #48 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

The iPod touch is a toy. Processor is a generation old, screen is too small, battery life when using WiFi and apps is terrible, camera is a joke, 3G data isn't even an option. It's the only iOS device called an iPod. That should tell you everything you need to know about where Apple thinks it fits into their product matrix.

And yet no competitor even remotely challenges this "toy". Compromises have to be made to get a $600 smart phone reduced to $200.

A 5" Touch would cover the same uses as a 7" tablet, while actually being pocket-able. It would also be lighter/cheaper/easier to hold in one hand.

7" is small, but not really portable, pocket-able. Apple isn't there because it is a size that doesn't offer much benefit over pocketable devices.
post #49 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

For the record, your very questionable record, I never "bashed" a 7-inch screen. I did say a 16:9 screen was wrong, in 7 or any other tablet size. But I always thought a 7 could be useful. So there. Find somebody else,


I dont care if you, specifically, were bashing or not.

At least you've acknowledged that others were bashing the 7" form factor.

That is all I wanted to know.

And for the record, none of my statements were referring to you specifically.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #50 of 68
A 7" iPad *could* work but the problem is UI designs. They're all currently designed for either the iPhone or current iPad display sizes. 7" is different enough that iPad sized UI's could become awkward, while iPhone sized ones would look wrong as well.

When the iPad was first announced there was a 4 moth lag for devs to get apps geared up to work (and look good) on the new size/resolution display. The scaling for using iPhone apps on the iPad works, but looks awful. The way Apple managed the iPad intro helped mitigate the period where a serious lack of iPad native apps would have hurt the user experience.

Before I believe that an actual 7" iPad is on the way I'd expect to start seeing evidence in the dev tools for crafting apps in such a way as to make the user experience as pleasant as it is with the existing iPhone and iPad.
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
post #51 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancho View Post

A 7" iPad *could* work but the problem is UI designs. They're all currently designed for either the iPhone or current iPad display sizes. 7" is different enough that iPad sized UI's could become awkward, while iPhone sized ones would look wrong as well.

When the iPad was first announced there was a 4 moth lag for devs to get apps geared up to work (and look good) on the new size/resolution display. The scaling for using iPhone apps on the iPad works, but looks awful. The way Apple managed the iPad intro helped mitigate the period where a serious lack of iPad native apps would have hurt the user experience.

Before I believe that an actual 7" iPad is on the way I'd expect to start seeing evidence in the dev tools for crafting apps in such a way as to make the user experience as pleasant as it is with the existing iPhone and iPad.

Jobs was really definitive that there will NOT be a 7" iPad. i don't know why people still carry on about it at all. that emphatic "no" meant, and still means, "no."

as you said, it would have to compress iPad apps way too much, or it would have to expand iPhone apps way too much. it just is wrong - neither fish nor fowl.

and i'm also in agreement with those who see a 16:10 aspect as a mistake for 7" and larger screens. it's just not flexible. portrait mode is pretty worthless. it's different on smaller screens, where the iPhone's 3:2 (=15:10) aspect feels natural.

and yes, a somewhat larger screen iPhone/iPod touch makes a lot of sense, as i rambled on about here a while ago ...
post #52 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

it was more like: You need to use sand-paper to file-down your finger tips

And yet even when Steve made that comment, Apple seemed to have no issues with offering a couple of products in the iPhone and the Touch with very small screens yet they are designed to perform many of the same tasks as the iPad.

Did Apple offer to file down customers' fingertips to better make use of those devices? Missed it if they did.
post #53 of 68
A 4" iPhone with the same resolution is not developer fragmentation, but a so-named "iPad mini" would be. I personally don't see this iPad mini happening.

I wouldn't mind, however, seeing them develop a dedicated 7.35" book reader. Let's call it iBook. Although in my dream scenario this iBook would have an e-ink display, and books and only books. No experimental web browser, no x-ray feature, no magazines or newspapers, just books, but done in an Apple-manner. An e-ink book reader done to Apple's tastes, I'd pay 199 for that. It won't happen, but that would be my dream e-book reader. Amazon can't make hardware, the K3 is garbage.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #54 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

And yet even when Steve made that comment, Apple seemed to have no issues with offering a couple of products in the iPhone and the Touch with very small screens yet they are designed to perform many of the same tasks as the iPad.

Obviously there is an implication that there is little need for a smaller device that limits you to phone like applications, but yet doesn't fit in pockets, especially given that buyers could have a smartphone/Touch for these activities that will fit in pockets.
post #55 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


in fact, i think new 5.25" models (50% increase in diagonal = 125% more screen area) of both the iPhone and iPod touch would make the most sense. both could have new state of the art retina screens with their pixel count doubled to 1920 x 1280, which results in an approximate 425 dpi compared to the their current 326 dpi. iPhone apps would still look good with more room for your fingers to tap. browsing, video, and games (about same size as Sony Vita and Nintendo 3DS) of course all much nicer. at $300 a 5.25" iPod touch would be a big hit.

i bet the real reason Apple held back on the iPhone 5 this year was because a larger retina screen with high enough dpi wasn't perfected yet. the resolution has to be doubled, no matter what the screen dimension is, to 1920 x 1280.

What you're suggesting would slow the device down and not provide a real perceptible increase in detail or smoothness . It's amusing how everyone talks about what they want and just assumes it will magically appear for them if apple writes a check for it.
post #56 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

What you're suggesting would slow the device down and not provide a real perceptible increase in detail or smoothness . It's amusing how everyone talks about what they want and just assumes it will magically appear for them if apple writes a check for it.

baloney. the A5 with its integrated graphics could probably handle it. if not, the next A6 chip will.

the problem of course (rolls eyes) is to maintain retina dpi. you understand, the resolution must double, right?
post #57 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

baloney. the A5 with its integrated graphics could probably handle it. if not, the next A6 chip will.

the problem of course (rolls eyes) is to maintain retina dpi. you understand, the resolution must double, right?

An A6 could likely handle it without slowing, but A5 will be slower pushing the additional pixels (simple logic). Moving triple to quadruple the pixels with with same GPU will take 3 to 4 times as long.

Beyond that your dreams don't approach reality. 5.25" is way too big a screen for a phone from a company like Apple (Though it would be a good size for Touch XL) and 425 DPI is ridiculous waste, even 300 DPI is overkill for most people.

I seriously doubt the next iPhone will even be 4", let alone 5.25".

Here is what is more likely (IMO):

iPhone Next's screen will be no larger than 3.8" because it is already near optimal size by the reckoning of Apple, and a 3.8" screen with the same current resolution will still be 300 dpi. The next Touch will get a matching screen size. I would like 5" screen on the touch, but I don't expect one. I

There will not be 7" iPad (just like that other five times this rumor came up).
post #58 of 68
Having touched, used and watched other people playing with Samsung Note. I am extremely worried.

The idea of 4" would still be great for a one hand holding phone. For people with larger hands, and holding the phone on edge rather then palm would still fit.

But the 5.2 inch is another category, for people who dont like bring bags to hold their iPad. And using it with both hands. While still fitting into your trousers pocket.

It is not a phone market, it is a combination of Phone + iPad.

Although i still dont think Apple will put one out. Unless someday the market forced Apple to do so.

4" is still too small of difference i think. 4.2 or 4.3 with Super Thin Sides would be better. Although that wouldn't be "Retina" Display anymore....
post #59 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65 View Post

An A6 could likely handle it without slowing, but A5 will be slower pushing the additional pixels (simple logic). Moving triple to quadruple the pixels with with same GPU will take 3 to 4 times as long.

Beyond that your dreams don't approach reality. 5.25" is way too big a screen for a phone from a company like Apple (Though it would be a good size for Touch XL) and 425 DPI is ridiculous waste, even 300 DPI is overkill for most people.

I seriously doubt the next iPhone will even be 4", let alone 5.25".

the equation Apple has to solve is to double the resolution to 1920 x 1280 with the smallest screen possible. the smaller the screen for any given resolution, the higher the dpi needed. the bigger, the lower the dpi needed.

i don't know what the current state of the art for dpi is - for a 2012 product - at a cost that will still support the margin Apple insists on. 326 dpi was state of the art two years ago now (when the iPhone 4 was in final design).

yeah, 5.25" is big. not for everybody. but a dpi @ 425 it would need could be within reach of current technology. sure, if an even higher dpi is possible, then Apple would make it smaller than that.
post #60 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


i don't know what the current state of the art for dpi is - for a 2012 product - at a cost that will still support the margin Apple insists on. 326 dpi was state of the art two years ago now (when the iPhone 4 was in final design).

*Sigh* you still don't get it. The level of detail is getting to the point where it's beyond the visual capability of most people to perceive further difference. There are other ways they can differentiate themselves. You seem to be stuck on resolution. The current display exceeds the resolution of printed photographs. Anyway even if you have perfect vision say technology permitted the creation of a display with 1000 dpi. If that was the only characteristic that was altered, it's unlikely that you'd be able to tell one from the other.

Now dots per inch doesn't mean anything in terms of gamma, gamut, contrast, brightness, uniformity, or consistency. There is always something that can be improved. It's just that resolution is to a point where even if they tell you you're getting more, that won't necessarily benefit you.
post #61 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

And yet even when Steve made that comment, Apple seemed to have no issues with offering a couple of products in the iPhone and the Touch with very small screens yet they are designed to perform many of the same tasks as the iPad.

Did Apple offer to file down customers' fingertips to better make use of those devices? Missed it if they did.

He was talking about downscaling the iPad UI. iPhone apps usually have a different interface made for the smaller screen, and Apple didn't want to add a third interface.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #62 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Hypocracy at its best.

Hypocracy - government of hippos.
post #63 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL View Post

He was talking about downscaling the iPad UI. iPhone apps usually have a different interface made for the smaller screen, and Apple didn't want to add a third interface.

And yet it is viable to provide touchscreen functionality on a screen smaller than 9.7 inches otherwise why does Apple offer small products like the iPhone and Touch with such technology.

I agree with Mr. Jobs that 9.7 inches is the ideal size for a device like the iPad but I think you can go larger than the current Touch and still have a significant amount of portability. Such a device has merit. What is questionable, though, is the validity of a 7-inch tablet that is not portable enough and less enjoyable to use than a larger iPad.

Jobs was wrong, though, to argue that one couldn't make a touchscreen interface work on a 7-inch screen. If that were the case, then the iPhone or Touch should be utterly unusable and that is not the case. Sticking with the 9.7-inch screen, though, was the right move when the iPad was launched and it should remain the iPad's basic form factor, which I'm sure it will.
post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

Jobs was wrong, though, to argue that one couldn't make a touchscreen interface work on a 7-inch screen.

He never said that they couldn't make it work on a 7-inch screen.

Most apps have different UIs when running on iPhones and on iPads - optimized for the screen size.

What he said was that Apple didn't want to introduce a third UI optimized for 7-inch screens (more work for the app developers), which means that a 7-inch iPad would either upscale the iPhone UI (ugly and with very big buttons) or downscale the current iPad UI.

Downscaling the current iPad UI wouldn't work very well because buttons and more would be too small, which is why he mentioned the sand-papering of the finger tips.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #65 of 68
i think people would buy a 7" or even a 5" ipad (iphone?)
i would love a 5" iphone. why? cuz i want a tablet/phone that i can take to meetings, etc, and basically have with me 24/7
the current iphone screen is too small for that and ipad too big. i could carry 5" phone in my pocket.

the samsung Note would be ideal if it was made by Apple and actually worked well.

people want good products. a good 7" tablet would sell. a crappy 7" would not. that's what the other vendors can't figure out...
post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

i think people would buy a 7" or even a 5" ipad (iphone?)
i would love a 5" iphone. why? cuz i want a tablet/phone that i can take to meetings, etc, and basically have with me 24/7
the current iphone screen is too small for that and ipad too big. i could carry 5" phone in my pocket.

the samsung Note would be ideal if it was made by Apple and actually worked well.

people want good products. a good 7" tablet would sell. a crappy 7" would not. that's what the other vendors can't figure out...

Must admit after trying a few peoples 7" tablets I do find them an uncomfortable size for me to type on(which I can just about manage on the IPAD). Personally what I would really like is for apple to work out a way to get rid of the border around the iPad while

a, still avoiding light bleeding through and
b, keeping good battery life without increasing the depth

This could give a 10" tablet while still knocking 2" or so off the iPads dimensions. For that I would update my 1st gen IPAD
post #67 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by themind View Post

Must admit after trying a few peoples 7" tablets I do find them an uncomfortable size for me to type on(which I can just about manage on the IPAD). Personally what I would really like is for apple to work out a way to get rid of the border around the iPad while


That border is there because you need somewhere to put fingers/thumbs while holding a tablet of any size. I don't really see any way around that from an ergonomic perspective.
post #68 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65 View Post

That border is there because you need somewhere to put fingers/thumbs while holding a tablet of any size. I don't really see any way around that from an ergonomic perspective.

Being a multi-touch device I always wondered if iOS software could not be smartened up to understand where your thumb is touching the screen while holding it - and ignore those touches.

It might be perfectly OK to obscure some small part of the screen while holding it. Certainly for reading text where many e-readers have a white border around the text anyway.
And it's no big deal to move your hand a bit when you want to read what's below your thumb. That is how many people read magazines or books anyway. It works there.

Might not work for games that need some kind of touch-and-hold functionality, but those are typically not played while holding the iPad with the other hand in mid-air. For that kind of gameplay requiring touch-and-hold functionality you would likely prop the iPad up against your legs or put it on some other surface anyway.


With smarter iOS software I think a bezel-free iPad could be made possible.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Pulled article claimed LG will make displays for 'iPad mini' & 4-in. iPhone