or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › AUO reportedly tapped to supply displays for Apple's rumored 7.85-inch iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AUO reportedly tapped to supply displays for Apple's rumored 7.85-inch iPad - Page 2

post #41 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Apple will never make a 7" iPad, however they will make a 7" iPod, which is what will happen. The iPod Touch already owns the $200 price point, just right for a bigger screen iPod Touch.

Where are you guys coming up with this stuff?

Clearly you've never worked in marketing before.

iPod have a defined category. They primarily play music. The Touch is really the only iPod that can surf the internet, check email etc.

iPads are tablets they read books, play music, web surf and run apps.


There is absolutely no foundation for calling a 7" device an iPod.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

If Apple updates the Touch at this time I have a one-word explanation for that timing - V-I-T-A.

The handheld that sold 72,000 units in its second week of existence? The handheld that sold fewer units that week than the PSP? The one that the 3DS is trouncing all up and down the boardwalk?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Apple will never make a 7" iPad, however they will make a 7" iPod, which is what will happen. The iPod Touch already owns the $200 price point, just right for a bigger screen iPod Touch.

I think that seems more likely but you put yourself in a hole by saying never. We can deduce potential routes a company might take and be right most of the time but there are plenty of things we can't know that go into make a decision.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #44 of 89
It could be marketed as an iReader.. oops that name is already taken.
post #45 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Where are you guys coming up with this stuff?

Clearly you've never worked in marketing before.

iPod have a defined category. They primarily play music. The Touch is really the only iPod that can surf the internet, check email etc.

iPads are tablets they read books, play music, web surf and run apps.


There is absolutely no foundation for calling a 7" device an iPod.

Unless you call it an iPod Touch. Oops. There goes your argument.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Doesn't Pegatron also manufacture in China? I think this has more to do with not putting too much of your manufacturing in the hands of one company (Foxconn), which also helps to stimulate a little price competition between suppliers. I've noticed over the past few years that supply chain leaks in the end tend to be the most reliable source of future product information.

I've no idea why 7.85". Seems too close to the current 9.7" iPad but I'm sure there is a reason. Maybe instead of a genuine tweener device this is just a slightly smaller iPad with a lower price to compete with the Kindle. Same principle as the they do with the MacBooks - 13" versus 15", etc.

7.85" is not close to 9.7" - we're working on a square law to get area from a dimension.

7.85" diagonal (although 81% of 9.7") gives a screen area of 65% of the current iPad.

There is in fact a significant difference between this and the 7" form factor - which is only 50% of the current iPad screen size. Essentially two-thirds verse half the area.
post #47 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrodo View Post

Would like to see this for car audio applications. Double din is 4x7 with a 8.06" diagonal. Most modern cars have double din head units so adding this would be easy to implement. I've been wanting to see this for a while, car manufactures make gps systems that rarely if ever get updates and they have clunky interfaces. I could see OEM's adding this to cars from the factory too, why invest millions in making your own interface when you can use apple instead?

I don't think apple will make a 7" iPad, but they could do an iOS based Car Stereo with that rumored screen. Apple was recently hiring engineers with knowledge related to that industry besides, fall is more about music and unveiling an iPodCar sounds more likely
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Unless you call it an iPod Touch. Oops. There goes your argument.

The point was the iPod Touch is an anathema to an iPod lineup where %75 of the lineup is heavily skewed towards music playback.

Apple could call it whatever they want but at this point the simple question is "What brand is hotter right now..the iPod brand or the iPad brand?"
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #49 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto View Post

3M reportedly tapped to supply sandpaper for Apple's rumored 7.85-inch iPad!

Why does someone always bring this up whenever this topic comes up?

It was a joke. Part of the marketing hoopla to deflect attention away from the emerging 7" tablets and to demonstrate how a 9.7" screen size was much better.

Do you get a supply of sandpaper with the iPhone & iPod? How can it be that people are able to use the 3.5" screens with their fingers. Surely not.
post #50 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Why does someone always bring this up whenever this topic comes up?

Because it holds true.

Quote:
It was a joke. Part of the marketing hoopla to deflect attention away from the emerging 7" tablets and to demonstrate how a 9.7" screen size was much better.

No, it wasn't. It was a serious comment.

Quote:
Do you get a supply of sandpaper with the iPhone & iPod? How can it be that people are able to use the 3.5" screens with their fingers. Surely not.

I can only assume you're pretending not to understand the inherent differences in these devices.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #51 of 89
The sandpaper quip from Steve set off my RDF alert.

Didn't buy it then...don't buy it now.



That's why I always admired Steve Notes. He'd sell us on the most inane concepts and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. But he was persuasive and was going to swing for the fences on whatever he needed to do.

I had no doubt that he'd deliver a smaller tablet for the masses. Apple's ethos has always been "The computer for the rest of us"

Steve was just not going to accept the current pre-dominant 7" form factor which is really made for video playback devices.


http://9to5mac.com/2012/03/05/study-...arket-in-2011/

Quote:
Further analysis of the SMB market depicts 34 percent of iPad users as tech-savvy and financially successful. The larger portion of the segment, approximately 72 percent, portrays iPad users in the SMB market as college educated with an annual household income of $176,000. Moreover, their small businesses have existed about 28 years and have an average $9.2 million in annual sales.

big emerging market
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

The sandpaper quip from Steve set off my RDF alert.

Didn't buy it then...don't buy it now.

Steve wasn't wrong. He said that the current 7" tablets were DOA. A bit hyperbolic but they certainly didn't fare well on the market.

He also made that comment about sanding down your fingers when they already had 3.5" iOS-based devices on the market for 4 years. Clearly didn't mean that 7" was impossible. If you look at the 7" tablets running Honeycomb it's the same UI as Honeycomb tablets that are 10". That's the problem!

Jobs also comments on Apple understanding this market very well and eluded to needing to change the UI if you change the size of the display. There is no one-size-fits-all solution like you have with a windowed OS.. and even you still have limitations.

PS: I detailed in another thread how the icons would be too small if you just shrunk the iPad to half the area. I also showed that enlarging the area by 4x from the iPod Touch display (one half the size of the iPad's area) would get you an icon size that is halfway between iOS for iPhone/Touch and iOS for iPad.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #53 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnt View Post

I don't think apple will make a 7" iPad, but they could do an iOS based Car Stereo with that rumored screen. Apple was recently hiring engineers with knowledge related to that industry besides, fall is more about music and unveiling an iPodCar sounds more likely

Yes, because how great would it be to have an audio system in your car with a touch screen, and not tactile controls, so you have to be looking at the screen to use it instead of watching the road!
post #54 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Yes, because how great would it be to have an audio system in your car with a touch screen, and not tactile controls, so you have to be looking at the screen to use it instead of watching the road!

This could be where a feedback system would work. They wouldn't have to worry about power needs like they would in a wireless device. I wouldn't expect an after-market solution though so buttons on the steering wheel would included.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Steve wasn't wrong. He said that the current 7" tablets were DOA. A bit hyperbolic but they certainly didn't fare well on the market.

.

He was correct but not because consumers showed much a preference for size. Samsung readily admits their sales of the Galaxy Tab 10" tablets are in the toilet.

The triumph here was iOS. It was ready to go on a tablet when Android could only compete with a blown up OS tailored for phones.

It was the software the really dictated iPad success and likely Apple would have been successful with a smaller iPad as well.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #56 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Yes, because how great would it be to have an audio system in your car with a touch screen, and not tactile controls, so you have to be looking at the screen to use it instead of watching the road!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This could be where a feedback system would work. They wouldn't have to worry about power needs like they would in a wireless device. I wouldn't expect an after-market solution though so buttons on the steering wheel would included.

Are you guys crazy? Tactile feedback on the touchscreen? Buttons on the steering wheel?

WE HAVE SIRI. BUILD SIRI INTO CARS AND JUST TALK TO YOUR CAR. It's the ULTIMATE in hands-free.

No buttons to hit at all, just have it always listening for the comment delineator (its name).

"Siri, give me directions to the nearest Carl's Jr. It's three in the morning and I have a hankering for not food."

*ding-ding* "Okay, I'll tell you directions to the nearest Carl's Jr."

(This sentence is spoken during the processing time where the car gets your location via GPS, gets the location of the restaurant from the database, and is calculating the route. By the time the sentence is spoken, the data is queued up and Siri starts giving directions immediately.)

Siri: "Turn left at the next stop light. Once you do that, I'll tell you where to go next."

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #57 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

He was correct but not because consumers showed much a preference for size. Samsung readily admits their sales of the Galaxy Tab 10" tablets are in the toilet.

The triumph here was iOS. It was ready to go on a tablet when Android could only compete with a blown up OS tailored for phones.

It was the software the really dictated iPad success and likely Apple would have been successful with a smaller iPad as well.

iOS was the key which is why I was saying for years usually against Ireland on this board that it won't be Mac OS and probably a version of iOS using CocoaTouch with a UI designed for the display. I am applying the same rationale. It will be a UI designed for each display size.

I don't think Jobs ever said that 7" or non-9.7" devices could work. I think the only thing he mentioned was that they decided that 9.7" 4:3 was the most ideal option... not the only option.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Are you guys crazy? Tactile feedback on the touchscreen? Buttons on the steering wheel?

WE HAVE SIRI. BUILD SIRI INTO CARS AND JUST TALK TO YOUR CAR.

No buttons to hit at all, just have it always listening for the comment delineator (its name).

"Siri, give me directions to the nearest Carl's Jr. It's three in the morning and I have a hankering for not food."

*ding-ding* "Okay, I'll tell you directions to the nearest Carl's Jr."

(This sentence is spoken during the processing time where the car gets your location via GPS, gets the location of the restaurant from the database, and is calculating the route. By the time the sentence is spoken, the data is queued up and Siri starts giving directions immediately.)

Siri: "Turn left at the next stop light. Once you do that, I'll tell you where to go next."

I think we are a long way off from an always-on system that listens to your voice and knows when you are addressing it.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Where are you guys coming up with this stuff?

Clearly you've never worked in marketing before.

iPod have a defined category. They primarily play music. The Touch is really the only iPod that can surf the internet, check email etc.

iPads are tablets they read books, play music, web surf and run apps.

There is absolutely no foundation for calling a 7" device an iPod.

What's the difference between an iPod Touch and an iPad apart from the screen size?

If you read Apple's own website and look at the "Features" section for both products there isn't much of a difference: music, videos, games, photos, internet, apps, facetime, etc.

It essentially comes down to portability versus usability. The iPod is more portable but you can do a lot more on the iPad.

If they are going to launch a 7" device in Sept/Oct one might expect it to be marketed as an iPod given the annual iPod refresh around that time, but it's by no means certain. It's just as likely that they will create an entirely new product based around a combination of both elements and call it something entirely new like the iPlay.
post #59 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

What's the difference between an iPod Touch and an iPad apart from the screen size?

If you read Apple's own website and look at the "Features" section for both products there isn't much of a difference: music, videos, games, photos, internet, apps, facetime, etc.

It essentially comes down to portability versus usability. The iPod is more portable but you can do a lot more on the iPad.

If they are going to launch a 7" device in Sept/Oct one might expect it to be marketed as an iPod given the annual iPod refresh around that time, but it's by no means certain. It's just as likely that they will create an entirely new product based around a combination of both elements and call it something entirely new like the iPlay.

There are lots of HW differences, for starters. Even the aspect ratios are different.

On the SW side there are a lot of differences, too. You've only listed apps that have been made for both devices but if you look at the apps they look and feel different when that best effects the user experience.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because it holds true.

No, it wasn't. It was a serious comment.

I can only assume you're pretending not to understand the inherent differences in these devices.

No it doen't hold true. It can use an iPod without sanding my fingers down.

Do please explain what the difference is between an iPod Touch and an iPad apart from the screen size?
post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

What's the difference between an iPod Touch and an iPad apart from the screen size? iPad offer more multi finger gestures. iPad UI has more popover and different UI elements that take advantage of more screen real estate.

If you read Apple's own website and look at the "Features" section for both products there isn't much of a difference: music, videos, games, photos, internet, apps, facetime, etc.

It essentially comes down to portability versus usability. The iPod is more portable but you can do a lot more on the iPad.

If they are going to launch a 7" device in Sept/Oct one might expect it to be marketed as an iPod given the annual iPod refresh around that time, but it's by no means certain. It's just as likely that they will create an entirely new product based around a combination of both elements and call it something entirely new like the iPlay.

iPod Touch Safari presents itself as a mobile device for Web sites. iPad presents itself as a full browser.

iPod marketing is about playing back music. I still run into people that don't know iPod Touch can surf the web and do other PDA things

Marketing isn't about date it's about how the customer will perceive your product by appearance and name. Apple has billions pumped into iPod marketing and few people will forget the dancing silhouettes holding their iPod.

Apple can call it whatever they want but the iPad brand is hot right now and calling it an iPod makes very little sense when you're talking about a device that people are less likely to carry around like a music player.

Creating a new product category means educating the public about how this product differs from existing product. That cost a lot of money. It makes more sense to leverage the billions in marketing that you've already paid.
  • Call it an iPod ..but then people will expect it to be highly portable and focused on music.
  • Call it and iPad and they'll understand that it's a more general purpose device.
  • Call it something else and spend millions and hours telling people what exactly the device is and what it's supposed to do only to be told "why didn't you just call it and iPad?"
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #62 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

The point was the iPod Touch is an anathema to an iPod lineup where %75 of the lineup is heavily skewed towards music playback.

Apple could call it whatever they want but at this point the simple question is "What brand is hotter right now..the iPod brand or the iPad brand?"

I suspect the iPod name will be left alone and a 7.85" device would be called an iPad mini, if not something altogether different. I also bet that a 7.85" device, with the resolution of an iPad 2 will be a huge success. It will be a much superior gaming platform, and I would argue a better reader. It would be as good for email and many other functions. It will appeal to a younger audience. I would by 2 right out the gate for my kids. Moving on up from iPod touches.

I also think that such a form factor will replace the iPad 2, as already mentioned.
post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I suspect the iPod name will be left alone and a 7.85" device would be called an iPad mini, if not something altogether different. I also bet that a 7.85" device, with the resolution of an iPad 2 will be a huge success. It will be a much superior gaming platform, and I would argue a better reader. It would be as good for email and many other functions. It will appeal to a younger audience. I would by 2 right out the gate for my kids. Moving on up from iPod touches.

I also think that such a form factor will replace the iPad 2, as already mentioned.

They've used the "mini" designation for both iPod and Mac. iPad mini would be pretty natural IMO.

I'd also buy my son and iPad mini at about $300. The games are cheaper than say getting a higher end Nintendo or Sony game playing device.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

There are lots of HW differences, for starters. Even the aspect ratios are different.

On the SW side there are a lot of differences, too. You've only listed apps that have been made for both devices but if you look at the apps they look and feel different when that best effects the user experience.

I've only listed the apps Apple uses on it's own website to market the devices.

So you're saying some apps work better on a larger screen I presume? That would hold true if you made a 5", 6", 7", 8", 9", 10", 12" 52" screen.

The only difference between an iPod Touch and an iPad is that some apps look better on a larger screen.
post #65 of 89
http://teucher.posterous.com/about-p...e-ipad-and-why

Quote:
You can actually see this problem already on Apples iPad website. Why do you think Apple doesn't ship iPad versions of the calculator, the clock, the weather app or the stocks app? Because they wouldn't live up to Apples standards, if you'd just blow them up to the iPads screen. Another example for this is the contacts app. It sure looks good in horizontal mode, but if you rotate the iPad, you're left with ugly black borders on the top and bottom, because they didn't have any content to make use of that space
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

iPod Touch Safari presents itself as a mobile device for Web sites. iPad presents itself as a full browser.

iPod marketing is about playing back music. I still run into people that don't know iPod Touch can surf the web and do other PDA things

Marketing isn't about date it's about how the customer will perceive your product by appearance and name. Apple has billions pumped into iPod marketing and few people will forget the dancing silhouettes holding their iPod.

Apple can call it whatever they want but the iPad brand is hot right now and calling it an iPod makes very little sense when you're talking about a device that people are less likely to carry around like a music player.

Creating a new product category means educating the public about how this product differs from existing product. That cost a lot of money. It makes more sense to leverage the billions in marketing that you've already paid.
  • Call it an iPod ..but then people will expect it to be highly portable and focused on music.
  • Call it and iPad and they'll understand that it's a more general purpose device.
  • Call it something else and spend millions and hours telling people what exactly the device is and what it's supposed to do only to be told "why didn't you just call it and iPad?"

When was the last time Apple used the dancing silhouette to advertise the iPod Touch?

The current iPod ad is all about iMessages. Recent adverts have focussed on Games, Facetime, HD Video, etc. They are clearly trying to move the perception away from it being just about music playback.
post #67 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

When was the last time Apple used the dancing silhouette to advertise the iPod Touch?

The current iPod ad is all about iMessages. Recent adverts have focussed on Games, Facetime, HD Video, etc. They are clearly trying to move the perception away from it being just about music playback.

First sentence was a non sequitur.

The second pertains to features that cover the entire ecosystem so iPad, iPhones and iPod Touches all enjoy those features and soon Macs.

The foundational piece here is common usage scenario and marketing.

The iPod lineup has been flat or declining in sales/revenue for the most recent quarters while the iPad is exceeding expectations.

What impetus would exist for Apple to attach a 7.85" tablet to the iPod brand that happens to be declining in both sales and revenue?
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

The only difference between an iPod Touch and an iPad is that some apps look better on a larger screen.

Come on, man, you're smarter than that!

You really can't see how the HW in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?

You really can't see how the UI in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?

You can't see that one has a 3:2 display and the other 4:3 display? I use this example because it affects both the HW and UI. I've detailed how the icons don't even use the same number of pixels.



Here is another one that directly shows that scaling the OS without considering the user experience is not an option:

The iPad icons are larger in both size and pixels and have more space between them. I'd say the icons would be too small if everything was simply adjusted down without concern for usability as we've seen with vendors using Android. They might even be smaller than on the iPhone but with more space between them (I'll have to run the numbers). This means that they would need to adjust the spacing to idealize the contents for the primary I/O and form factor.

iPhone app icons are 57x57 px and 114x114 px. iPad apps icons are 72x72 px. That means iPhone icons are 0.34"x0.34" and iPad icons are 0.55"x0.55" in size. To shrink the iPad down to 7" with the 1024x768 display you get 0.39"x0.39" icons. That's actually doable being that close to the iPhone icon sizes yet being 4x the display area and having all that extra space between icons is not how Apple would release a UI. It will be idealized or I'll short the company.

Taking the 960x640 resolution of the iPod Touch and making that 7" reduces the PPI back to what it was on the original iPod at 480x320 which really isn't a bad thing in a tablet because you do hold it farther from your face, especially when you consider that such a move would be to capture the lower-end of the market. It would be 165 PPI which would make the icons 0.44"x0.44" which is right between what they are on the iPod Touch and iPad. That actually make this sounds reasonable as many aspects of the UI would fall in-line unlike doing a shrink of the iPad UI making it easier for Apple and devs. BTW, the Kindle Fire and Nook Color displays are 169 PPI.

So if the only difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that "some" apps look different then why do we have so much effort taken just with the number of pixels and spacing of icons used on these otherwise exactly the same devices? The only rational answer is that these devices are not identical, not made to be identical, and that a lot of effort was taken to idealize the HW and SW to maximize the user experience.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

What impetus would exist for Apple to attach a 7.85" tablet to the iPod brand that happens to be declining in both sales and revenue?

It could rejuvenate the iPod line.
It could use iPod Touch-grade HW instead of iPad-grade HW thus making it less expensive and therefore fitting into a lower price point.
It could use a 3:2 display, like the Touch, which is between 4:3 and 16:10/16:9.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think we are a long way off from an always-on system that listens to your voice and knows when you are addressing it.

Really? Not many words contain the set of phonemes that make up "siri". I think it would be fairly easy to parse.

And Apple could always give us the option to give Siri her own name.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #71 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Really? Not many words contain the set of phonemes that make up "siri". I think it would be fairly easy to parse.

And Apple could always give us the option to give Siri her own name.

There is serious. Remember it's the audible similarity, not the spelling that will trigger such a system.

Also, what I'm talking about Siri and it decides to start doing what it does. At that point we should start calling it Voldemorte so we can refer to it as He Who Must Not Be Named.

You've seen the smart TV on 30 Rock, right? You don't want your car radio to start telling your digital personal assistance what to do.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

There is serious.

I read that and thought, "Yeah, I said that." But of course I'd edited my post without me remembering it and hadn't said it.

That's about it though.

Quote:
You've seen the smart TV on 30 Rock, right? You don't want your car radio to start telling your digital personal assistance what to do.

Fine, a single button on the steering wheel for Siri. No buttons anywhere else in the car. Steve Jobs-level simplicity.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #73 of 89
FWIW Garmins's newer voice-controlled GPS models are always listening for commands, using a wake-up phrase of the user's choice to get it's attention. I haven't seen any complaints about it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Fine, a single button on the steering wheel for Siri. No buttons anywhere else in the car. Steve Jobs-level simplicity.

He does and yet all iDevices have that physical Home Button when they could have easily gone with a virtual Home Button. Even outside the logistics of Siri there is something psychological and useful about having certain physical buttons.

Same goes for the volume buttons. Even if a car gets Siri expect there to be a button that can adjust the volume even if there is a virtual method for doing so.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

First sentence was a non sequitur.

The second pertains to features that cover the entire ecosystem so iPad, iPhones and iPod Touches all enjoy those features and soon Macs.

The foundational piece here is common usage scenario and marketing.

The iPod lineup has been flat or declining in sales/revenue for the most recent quarters while the iPad is exceeding expectations.

What impetus would exist for Apple to attach a 7.85" tablet to the iPod brand that happens to be declining in both sales and revenue?

Merda taurorum animas conturbit. Absit invidia.
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

He does and yet all iDevices have that physical Home Button when they could have easily gone with a virtual Home Button.

Always gotta have a hardware 'out'.

Quote:
Same goes for the volume buttons. Even if a car gets Siri expect there to be a button that can adjust the volume even if there is a virtual method for doing so.

Or one of those light-dimming sliders, even.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Come on, man, you're smarter than that!

You really can't see how the HW in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?

You really can't see how the UI in the iPod Touch is different than in the iPad?

You can't see that one has a 3:2 display and the other 4:3 display? I use this example because it affects both the HW and UI. I've detailed how the icons don't even use the same number of pixels.



Here is another one that directly shows that scaling the OS without considering the user experience is not an option:

The iPad icons are larger in both size and pixels and have more space between them. I'd say the icons would be too small if everything was simply adjusted down without concern for usability as we've seen with vendors using Android. They might even be smaller than on the iPhone but with more space between them (I'll have to run the numbers). This means that they would need to adjust the spacing to idealize the contents for the primary I/O and form factor.

iPhone app icons are 57x57 px and 114x114 px. iPad apps icons are 72x72 px. That means iPhone icons are 0.34"x0.34" and iPad icons are 0.55"x0.55" in size. To shrink the iPad down to 7" with the 1024x768 display you get 0.39"x0.39" icons. That's actually doable being that close to the iPhone icon sizes yet being 4x the display area and having all that extra space between icons is not how Apple would release a UI. It will be idealized or I'll short the company.

Taking the 960x640 resolution of the iPod Touch and making that 7" reduces the PPI back to what it was on the original iPod at 480x320 which really isn't a bad thing in a tablet because you do hold it farther from your face, especially when you consider that such a move would be to capture the lower-end of the market. It would be 165 PPI which would make the icons 0.44"x0.44" which is right between what they are on the iPod Touch and iPad. That actually make this sounds reasonable as many aspects of the UI would fall in-line unlike doing a shrink of the iPad UI making it easier for Apple and devs. BTW, the Kindle Fire and Nook Color displays are 169 PPI.

So if the only difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that "some" apps look different then why do we have so much effort taken just with the number of pixels and spacing of icons used on these otherwise exactly the same devices? The only rational answer is that these devices are not identical, not made to be identical, and that a lot of effort was taken to idealize the HW and SW to maximize the user experience.

To paraphrase "The difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that the icons are further apart". You're clutching at straws there lol.

I'm not taking the Mickey I'm just saying that fundamentally the iPod Touch and the iPad are basically the same. They use the same processor, same OS, same basic UI. The only real difference is the screen size and how the UI and apps utilise that difference to maximise the respective user experience.

Why would Apple make life hard for themselves by making them so radically different. Just means more man hours to update them. Makes no sense. Economies of scale and all that.
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

To paraphrase "The difference between the iPod Touch and the iPad is that the icons are further apart". You're clutching at straws there lol.

I'm not taking the Mickey I'm just saying that fundamentally the iPod Touch and the iPad are basically the same. They use the same processor, same OS, same basic UI. The only real difference is the screen size and how the UI and apps utilise that difference to maximise the respective user experience.

I gave you several examples of things Apple could have just not even had bothered with because they are minor and somehow you read the only additional difference is the spacing between icons? I ran the numbers. I did the math. I showed that Apple doesn't act sloppy with the UI and proved that the iPad is not just a large iPod Touch.

Quote:
Why would Apple make life hard for themselves by making them so radically different. Just means more man hours to update them. Makes no sense. Economies of scale and all that.

So it's dumb for them to spend time on a unique UI for a different size device YET THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID WITH THE iPAD. They uses iOS and they used CocoaTouch, but the UI is completely redesigned for the 9.7" 4:3 display.

Back to icons: if made no sense economically to idealize the UI for the device THEN WHY DID they alter them? As I pointed out they are clearly different pixel sizes. Developers have to include 3 different icon sizes today with Universal apps and on Wednesday it will be 4. So again, if they would never do it then why did they do it? The answer is in the proof. The iPad is only tablet worth getting because it's the only one that thought about the user experience.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It could rejuvenate the iPod line.
It could use iPod Touch-grade HW instead of iPad-grade HW thus making it less expensive and therefore fitting into a lower price point.
It could use a 3:2 display, like the Touch, which is between 4:3 and 16:10/16:9.

Exactly. In product/marketing terms it's called Product Rejuvenation. This is where a product is in the decline phase of its Product Life Cycle. In order to boost sales you seek to reinvent the product with a new form factor, new features, a new target market, etc.

In this case Apple could seek to shift the focus of the iPod Touch from music to games and eBooks both of which are exploding at the moment.
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Exactly. In product/marketing terms it's called Product Rejuvenation. This is where a product is in the decline phase of its Product Life Cycle. In order to boost sales you seek to reinvent the product with a new form factor, new features, a new target market, etc.

In this case Apple could seek to shift the focus of the iPod Touch from music to games and eBooks both of which are exploding at the moment.

At least we agree on this. I still question the validity of adding the complexity of a new size at this point but I still think that adding it to the iPod line over the iPad line seems like the better route for a multitude of reasons.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • AUO reportedly tapped to supply displays for Apple's rumored 7.85-inch iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › AUO reportedly tapped to supply displays for Apple's rumored 7.85-inch iPad