or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple rumored to use 'slim bezel display' for 7.85-inch iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rumored to use 'slim bezel display' for 7.85-inch iPad - Page 2

post #41 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

I use both a 9.7" tablet as well as a 7" tablet, and both have their uses.

Main problem with a 9.7" tablet is, you're always walking around with your tablet, whereas the 7" tablet can be put in a pocket (jacket preferably So for business use, where you're not using it 100% of the time a 7" tablet is much easier to carry along.

The 7" tablet already has a much slimmer bezel than the iPad, and because you can hold in on one hand (between thumb and finger even), the bezel can easily be slimmed down more.

Exactly the right specs: it would most likely be with you most of the time whereas the current iPad would not. The current iPads are too big, the iPhone is too small (for most anything but normal phone use).

I'd be happy to pay $1000 or more for a 7" iPad that also has phone capabilities. To each, his/her own.
post #42 of 133
When looking at rumors like this, consider the source. Digitimes has a perfect record - zero correct out of 13 tracked rumors:
http://stupidapplerumors.com/news/20...h-rumor-Report

Of course, even the best of the conventional rumors sites are in the 20-25% range for accuracy. So the next time you see a rumor, flip a coin - you are twice as likely to be correct as the rumors sites.

OTOH, some sites (WSJ and Bloomberg) are reasonably accurate. So, again, consider the source.
"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 #43 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Digitimes has a perfect record - zero correct out of 13 tracked rumors:

Oh, that's not true. DigiTimes has failed WAY more than 13 times.

Quote:
Of course, even the best rumors sites are in the 20-25% range for accuracy.

Yeah, because we reblog DigiTimes' stuff…

Is that enough DigiTimes ribbing, or can I keep going?

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 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeasar View Post

If its true then Apple would have to supply a filer for us to file down our fingers to hold the "thinner" screen bezel without accidental touches.

Other than that, if it is true, then it would mark the end of iPod touch or iPod classics.

I am like others. I don't believe that there will ever be a smaller iPad. What I don't doubt Apple is working on is a larger iPod Touch to fill in that gap.

What is the difference? The UI for an iPad cannot scale down well without, as others have said, filing down the size of a finger. The UI for the iPod Touch and iPhone however, can scale up and will actually make it easier to select controls since those controls will get larger. This being said though, I am not sure that I think they will move to a screen in the 7" range. Mainly because I see this being too large for an iPod. I could see them releasing something in the 5" range though.
post #45 of 133
Add a phone option for those who need a tablet and a phone and don't want to carry two devices. This would also leapfrog Android efforts to differentiate from iPhone by offering bigger screens. Wouldn't be MY choice, but could be attractive to others.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #46 of 133
I'm with Minnesota on this one.

A smaller iPad just needs a solid use case for Apple to push it. At 7.85 I'd gather most of the iPad interface elements are large enough, though it is true that the web experience would certainly be diminished, requiring much more zooming and feeling a bit more like the iPhone/touch experience.

However, put a solid 4S-style camera lens system on there (or better), maybe make the larger bezel on one side only and grippy(?). Make the volume up button longer for easier pressing and it becomes THE camera version of the iPad. Of course, it would be way more thought out than that little brainstorm, but it could find a new solid niche while still leaving room for the other guys.

All this just to say that it's possible for Apple to make a successful and useful product in that category.

That whole Steve Jobs quote about size of tablet gets brought up too much. Yes, he said it. Yes, he was using hyperbole to make his point. Yes, he was right about the iPad size (look at sales, for instance.) No, that doesn't mean he would have been against a smaller size if it had a purpose that made it the best in some category.
post #47 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcartesius View Post

Exactly the right specs: it would most likely be with you most of the time whereas the current iPad would not. The current iPads are too big, the iPhone is too small (for most anything but normal phone use).

I'd be happy to pay $1000 or more for a 7" iPad that also has phone capabilities. To each, his/her own.

Umm the Samsung Galaxy 7.7 is pretty fantastic, I just got one last Friday. It's not a iPad but you'll get a lot done on it regardless. You can use it as a phone, the screen is the best I have ever seen period, it includes a miniSD, it has DLNA to stream movies to your TV, HDMI, it's very fast and it costs $550. Before you say you hate Android, I'm going to have to ask if you've ever used one with Android 3.2 or 4.03. Especially a Samsung Galaxy, their quite neat but don't take my word for it go check it out your self. Even the Galaxy Note at 5.3" is outstanding, hands down the best cell phone on the market. However, I'm with you 7" is the perfect size for a tablet.

If you do decide to go down this way give me private message and I can hook you up with everything you'll need to make the experience just divine. Trust me you will not be disappointed, they are really incredible tablets, man that screen.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #48 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Exactly, just like Apple gave the iPhone 3GS a complete internal redesign and the A4 chip and stopped selling the iPhone 4 oh, right.

Forgive me, but I don't think they'll 'refresh the iPad 2' instead of dropping the price of the iPad 3.

You're missing the point. Apple has made the iPad 2 available at $399 to cover a wider price range. The company's goal is not to keep lowering the price of the iPad. What I see happening is that Apple will offer two grades of iPad and by so doing appeal to a wider group.

I don't understand why it is that you think this a strange foreign concept for Apple. For example, all of it's portable laptops, including the Air line, are set up along these lines. The iMac and Mac Mini come in different flavours as well.

I don't see that Apple has anywhere to go once you are talking an ultra-high-resolution display and that pricey technology makes for a logical differentiator between the lower-cost range and the upscale range.

I just picked up an iPad 2 yesterday and so far I'm happy with it. It would be an even better device if it were lighter but the screen, while not incredible, is entirely serviceable. I see no reason why Apple would stop offering such a resolution on a tablet within the next year, which is what you seem to be implying.

Seems to me that what Apple has done is kept the $499 price point and used that for a state-of-the-art iPad and handled challenges from competitors looking to offer a cheaper option by making a $399 iPad available. I don't think Apple's goal is to be charging $399, within a year's time, for the iPad, even in it's most advanced form. This allows Apple to maintain a higher price point - very much what the company likes to do - while fending off the competition.

Bottom line is lots of people would be perfectly happy to be using an iPad that doesn't have a spectacular resolution yet we're not talking a poor product. The iPad 2 is a decent, usable device, as evidenced by tremendous sales. There are millions of iPads out there not sporting a Retina display and millions more that consumers like me will be buying in the year ahead. There is a place for such a device today and likely the next few years.

Yet Apple knows there is a market for a $499 tablet and has no intention of abandoning that price point. What I see happening next year is a refresh of the iPad 2 and a move to screen tech in the successor of the iPad 3 that will offer gains in weight and battery life. But I doubt Apple will just migrate the iPad 3 screen tech over to a $399 model because it would be much easier to achieve gains in weight and battery life in the lower-cost model by not trying to engineer in a Retina display all that quickly. There is no need. The screen tech on the current iPad 2 is viable. It was viable two months ago. It's viable today and it will remain viable next year. Millions have been using and will continue to use it without complaint. What's the problem with that?
post #49 of 133
other than the fact that Steve Jobs did not like the 7" size
There is nothing wrong with it
i have the Blackberry Playbook and i have never had an issue with the icons being too small or my finder touching multple icons.
and no i have not filed down my fingers
and before you all accuse me of being an android troll etc
i use an iphone 4s and my main tablet is the ipad 2 (till friday when i get my ipad3)
i just have the HP touchpad and the playbook as toys since i'm a geek

keep in mind the 7" screen will probably have a resolution of 1024x768 (same as ipad and ipad2) so its a very easy fit, with no issues for developers supporting yet another setup.

only issue is price
the 16Gb ipod touch is 299
and the 16Gb ipad 2 is 399
so will this be $349?
and who would pay 349 for a 7" mini ipad when for only 50$ more they get the ipad 2?
unless this will replace the ipad 2
post #50 of 133
Folks, it's clear with the new iPad name we are headed to an iPod, MacBook, iMac like naming system with roughly annual category refreshes. This year and maybe next year will be the last for the iPad 2. Instead we will have products across a wide range of price points. Maybe a no retina display, low flash memory model at the lowest entry point all the way up to the 4G LTE, retina 64+ (128, 256?) GB high end.

A strategy like this is not really intended to sell the lowest price point for highest profit and biggest volume, but rather to drive people into the Apple ecosystem. Once you make the choice to go Apple there will be a willingness to splurge a little for some upgrades. How many buy the most basic 11" MacBook air with no upgrades? Once you get hooked on the MacBook Air, fluid trackpad, best in class small screen optimized OS, long lifetime product, the next machine will have high potential to be an Apple.
post #51 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronsullivan View Post

I'm with Minnesota on this one.

A smaller iPad just needs a solid use case for Apple to push it. At 7.85 I'd gather most of the iPad interface elements are large enough, though it is true that the web experience would certainly be diminished, requiring much more zooming and feeling a bit more like the iPhone/touch experience.

However, put a solid 4S-style camera lens system on there (or better), maybe make the larger bezel on one side only and grippy(?). Make the volume up button longer for easier pressing and it becomes THE camera version of the iPad. Of course, it would be way more thought out than that little brainstorm, but it could find a new solid niche while still leaving room for the other guys.

All this just to say that it's possible for Apple to make a successful and useful product in that category.

That whole Steve Jobs quote about size of tablet gets brought up too much. Yes, he said it. Yes, he was using hyperbole to make his point. Yes, he was right about the iPad size (look at sales, for instance.) No, that doesn't mean he would have been against a smaller size if it had a purpose that made it the best in some category.

Jobs had no problem developing a Touch device employing a 3.5-inch screen and the reason is that there is a point to having a device small enough to slip into one's pocket. Some are claiming that a 7-inch device is that portable but I just don't see it. iPad has one segment covered, namely a portable device not intended to be pocketed. The Touch covers the pocket segment and all it needs to be just right is to grow a little larger because you can pocket a device that is a little larger than the current Touch. As you reduce size to allow a device to be pocketed, you are losing something in a tablet so the question is, how large can a device be while remaining a pocket-friendly unit. That should be Apple's next target.
post #52 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarei View Post

other than the fact that Steve Jobs did not like the 7" size
There is nothing wrong with it
i have the Blackberry Playbook and i have never had an issue with the icons being too small or my finder touching multple icons.
and no i have not filed down my fingers
and before you all accuse me of being an android troll etc
i use an iphone 4s and my main tablet is the ipad 2 (till friday when i get my ipad3)
i just have the HP touchpad and the playbook as toys since i'm a geek

keep in mind the 7" screen will probably have a resolution of 1024x768 (same as ipad and ipad2) so its a very easy fit, with no issues for developers supporting yet another setup.

only issue is price
the 16Gb ipod touch is 299
and the 16Gb ipad 2 is 399
so will this be $349?
and who would pay 349 for a 7" mini ipad when for only 50$ more they get the ipad 2?
unless this will replace the ipad 2

I really don't think price has anything to do with it, I have a iPad 2 and I want a smaller tablet. Samsung sells a premium 7.7" tablet, people don't look at it and go well for only 50 bucks more I can have a bigger screen. No, they look at it and go well this is the best one in that size that I want, sure wish Apple had one, oh well.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #53 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I really don't think price has anything to do with it, I have a iPad 2 and I want a smaller tablet. Samsung sells a premium 7.7" tablet, people don't look at it and go well for only 50 bucks more I can have a bigger screen. No, they look at it and go well this is the best one in that size that I want, sure wish Apple had one, oh well.

I have an iPad 2 and want a smaller tablet also. Id buy one day one. But until Apple makes it, I won't buy it.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #54 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

I think we have seen Apple's response to the lower-cost tablets which is a $399 iPad like the one I'm typing on right now and bought yesterday.

When you can have a $399 tablet as capable as the iPad 2, It's rather a no-brainier to opt for that option over the many inferior options available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

What makes it even more absurd is that now the iPad line starts at $399 US.

What about replacing the iPad 2 with a smaller size to be the low-end option? Who says they would both co-exist? It's a stretch, but one argument as to why the new iPad isn't the iPad 3 is because Apple knows that down the road the low-end iPad isn't going to simply be last year's model, as they've been doing with the iPhone, but a different size device.

If there were going to be two parallel models (ie, a family of iPads just like Apple has a family of iMacs, MacBooks, MacBook Airs, etc), then sequentially numbering the models becomes problematic. What would they do, release the iPad 4 and then explain to everyone that it's a low-end model vs the iPad 3? Dropping the number allows Apple to create a line of different size iPads and follow the same naming convention as every other computer product Apple sells. Remember, the iPhone is the exception to Apple normal naming convention, not the rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gimpyviper View Post

Even if Apple were to bunk Steve Job's wishes against a 7" device...

Steve Jobs' "wishes" or Steve Jobs' marketing. I believe those comments were far more about marketing than any other factor. Of course he's saying Apple has the best option. When's the last time you saw a CEO compliment a competitor's products? But even though the current iPad may well be the best single option (ie, if you were only going to make one size), why does everyone automatically assume that it's the only viable option? Just because a CEO said his products were better than his competitors?
post #55 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

Jobs had no problem developing a Touch device employing a 3.5-inch screen and the reason is that there is a point to having a device small enough to slip into one's pocket. Some are claiming that a 7-inch device is that portable but I just don't see it. iPad has one segment covered, namely a portable device not intended to be pocketed. The Touch covers the pocket segment and all it needs to be just right is to grow a little larger because you can pocket a device that is a little larger than the current Touch. As you reduce size to allow a device to be pocketed, you are losing something in a tablet so the question is, how large can a device be while remaining a pocket-friendly unit. That should be Apple's next target.

Hmm well 5.3" is pretty pocketable but the 7" also fits pretty good in my Jacket pocket. I can tell you one thing though 3.5" is way to small for me now. After owning the Galaxy Note I don't think I could ever own a phone less then 4". The iPod and iPhone just feels really cramped to me now. I think there is a market for 7" Apple tablets. Look if Apple makes them and charges 300 for it they'll have a frenzy on their hands. No one in there right mind would ever buy a Amazon or Barnes & Noble tablet gain.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #56 of 133
Apple does not follow anyone. They won't release a 7" tablet to compete with the fire or any other tablet unless Apple has decided there is a market.

Jobs was known for saying Apple won't make this or that and then doing exactly the opposite. Why show your cards or reveal your plans?

A 7" iPad would work, but the screen size, pixel size, and thus interface/icon size would have to be adjusted. iPhone's are 3.5" and no one complains about icon size.

So it could be done and work, but there is nothing to indicate Apple is going this way except these rumors.
post #57 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

I have an iPad 2 and want a smaller tablet also. Id buy one day one. But until Apple makes it, I won't buy it.

Yea see we have another one, Apple give us a 7".

Samsung does really make the best under 9" tablets on the market though at least until Apple gets in the game. The Galaxy 8.9, 7.7, and 5.3 are all wonderful tablets. I'm telling you'll fall in love with the screens, I have never scene colors so vibrant. Sure the new iPad 3 will beat them hands down in resolution but under 9" 1280 x 800 is enough and no one does it better then Samsung.

Plus I really like Android 3.2 and 4.03, give me a open source OS any day. My Samsung Note dual boots into Ubuntu for goodness sake, I hook up a mouse and keyboard and a HDMI monitor and I have a computer, not sure why anyone would do this but it's cool.

No seriously they really are good tablets, the under 9" ones.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #58 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Apple does not follow anyone. They won't release a 7" tablet to compete with the fire or any other tablet unless Apple has decided there is a market.

Jobs was known for saying Apple won't make this or that and then doing exactly the opposite. Why show your cards or reveal your plans?

A 7" iPad would work, but the screen size, pixel size, and thus interface/icon size would have to be adjusted. iPhone's are 3.5" and no one complains about icon size.

So it could be done and work, but there is nothing to indicate Apple is going this way except these rumors.

Ok, just as well. The other manufactures need a area where they can shine. It's probably better that Apple stays out of this market as I'm pretty happy with my 5.3" note and 7.7" Galaxy to have someone else tease an already gadget addictive personality.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #59 of 133
The 7" iPad rumor is nicotine for tech rumor sites.

Every morning the editors get up and say they won't post another small iPad rumor but there is DigiTimes ready to deliver another one. The editors can't help themselves, they are addicted.

Isn't there a patch or something?
post #60 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia View Post

Isn't there a patch or something?

The patch is going back and reading all the iPhone nano rumors and how stupid they were, but no one seems to do that.

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 #61 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia View Post

The 7" iPad rumor is nicotine for tech rumor sites.

Every morning the editors get up and say they won't post another small iPad rumor but there is DigiTimes ready to deliver another one. The editors can't help themselves, they are addicted.

Isn't there a patch or something?

LOL - great comment!

I still want a larger than 3.5" iPod Touch like portable game player for the Apple ecosystem. So I will be a little noncompliant with my medication. :-)
post #62 of 133
Are these comments about the sandpaper jokes are do people really think Jobs said a smaller touchscreen was not possible?


Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Zooming is still required on a 9.7 Tablet. News sites in particular are link heavy. If people can manage on an iPhone 3.5 then it really strains credulity to attempt to tell them that web surfing on a device that is over twice as large would be difficult.

It waould be over 5x the display area.

3.5" 3:2 = 5.65" sq (1.94" x 2.91")
7.85" 4:3 = 29.6" sq (4.72" x 6.27")
9.7" 4:3 = 45.19" sq (5.83" x 7.75")

"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 #63 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

I don't believe these 7-8 inch iPad rumors.

I feel like I have to go on record and say that I believe Apple will release a smaller tablet within a year's time. I don't credit DigiTimes, I just believe it will happen and I believe it will sell...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Apple does not follow anyone. They won't release a 7" tablet to compete with the fire or any other tablet unless Apple has decided there is a market.

I agree they won't do it to "be like the Fire" they will do it because they think they can sell it. Certainly, they are not always the first. They made the MP3 market great, but they wern't first there. I remember that the rumors of a flash memory iPod were scorned by some, but Apple covered the WHOLE market from cheapest to most costly by the end. I assume they will find a way to do that profitably in the tablet arena...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #64 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Plus I really like Android 3.2 and 4.03, give me a open source OS any day.

I disagree. Give me a closed source OS. I've seen what havoc Open Source has done on Android. That App store is an atrocity.




BTW- If a 16GB iPad 2 with 3G costs Apple $248 to make, I'm sure they can make a much smaller screen, battery, no 3G/4G, 8GB, etc. and have a $199 7" iPod/iPad- Replace the iPod Touch, and still make a fortune.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #65 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarei View Post

keep in mind the 7" screen will probably have a resolution of 1024x768 (same as ipad and ipad2) so its a very easy fit, with no issues for developers supporting yet another setup.

This isn't a windowed OS. If you go with a new UI that have the size you have adjust all the elements. Scaling down to smaller icons and buttons on a touchscreen isn't going to work. This is what Jobs had an issue with. Tablets were hitting the market with the same UI for a 7" and 10" tablet. He said that the current 7" were DOA... he was right.

Quote:
only issue is price
the 16Gb ipod touch is 299
and the 16Gb ipad 2 is 399
so will this be $349?
and who would pay 349 for a 7" mini ipad when for only 50$ more they get the ipad 2?
unless this will replace the ipad 2

You've hit on a major marketing issue.

"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 #66 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

BTW- If a 16GB iPad 2 with 3G costs Apple $248 to make, I'm sure they can make a much smaller screen, battery, no 3G/4G, 8GB, etc. and have a $199 7" iPod/iPad- Replace the iPod Touch, and still make a fortune.

That's what Apple charges for an 8GB iPod Touch with a 3.5" TN panel and a lot less HW features than the 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 #67 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

Jobs had no problem developing a Touch device employing a 3.5-inch screen and the reason is that there is a point to having a device small enough to slip into one's pocket. Some are claiming that a 7-inch device is that portable but I just don't see it. iPad has one segment covered, namely a portable device not intended to be pocketed. The Touch covers the pocket segment and all it needs to be just right is to grow a little larger because you can pocket a device that is a little larger than the current Touch. As you reduce size to allow a device to be pocketed, you are losing something in a tablet so the question is, how large can a device be while remaining a pocket-friendly unit. That should be Apple's next target.

You were responding to my camera iPad thing and I'd say a smaller device that 7.85 would probably match that idea better. In the end, I think there's room for a larger iPod or smaller iPad and Apple just needs to find the BEST reason for it to exist so it can work out the details.

IF there is a 7.85" iPad coming to market, it certainly won't be marketed as a response to the Kindle Fire. It will be marketed towards some other well-planned purpose.
post #68 of 133
how about a 7 inch tablet with a stylus.... no wait, that would suck.
post #69 of 133
On the topic of LARGE iPads that has been brought up. I LOVE messing with iPhoto on the iPad now. Fixing photos, making journals. Better than the desktop experience and more convenient because sometimes you want to fix photos near the event where you took them.

Still, as I'm using this multitouch input that is slowly evolving into something really useful, I just want to get an iMac that let's me turn it down to a 45 degree angle, rest my arms on it and let me use iPad apps... only the buttons would be massive, I know. Plus, I want to play large board games on it... *sigh*.

The mouse driven apps are still necessary for many purposes, but there are some great multitouch use-cases for large screens now.

It's just not even around the corner, like completely user on demand movies and TV for all movies and shows. Easy to see in the mind's eyes and too much earth to move to lay a road to it.
post #70 of 133
The 7" iPad will be in my hands by Christmas this year and all the doubters on here will be eating their words with a large dose of humble pie and custard
post #71 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiD View Post

I don't like the idea of a smaller iPad and nor do i think they're gonna sell a smaller one.

iPad is THE ORIGINAL PAD and they should not copy others like evil Samsung etc.

They may not sell a "smaller" iPad, but Apple sure could sell a larger iPod. While speaking about narrower bezels, check out the bezel on a iPod Touch. Now THAT'S small!
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #72 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronsullivan View Post

On the topic of LARGE iPads that has been brought up. I LOVE messing with iPhoto on the iPad now. Fixing photos, making journals. Better than the desktop experience and more convenient because sometimes you want to fix photos near the event where you took them.

Still, as I'm using this multitouch input that is slowly evolving into something really useful, I just want to get an iMac that let's me turn it down to a 45 degree angle, rest my arms on it and let me use iPad apps... only the buttons would be massive, I know. Plus, I want to play large board games on it... *sigh*.

The mouse driven apps are still necessary for many purposes, but there are some great multitouch use-cases for large screens now.

It's just not even around the corner, like completely user on demand movies and TV for all movies and shows. Easy to see in the mind's eyes and too much earth to move to lay a road to it.

Just use an iTouch Pad with your iMac, or output the iPad to your iMac or TV.

Think Different!
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #73 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

They may not sell a "smaller" iPad, but Apple sure could sell a larger iPod. While speaking about narrower bezels, check out the bezel on a iPod Touch. Now THAT'S small!

THe smaller the device the smaller the bezel can be as you can more easily cup it in your hand as the size decreases, but I think 7.85" is still quite large.

"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 #74 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

Is there a reason why you failed to mention the Touch?

The Touch is no better that the iPhone. There is a market for a device that is lighter, can fit into a coat pocket but is bigger than 3.5". There is no reason Apple has to be one size fits all. I do think they will see that market and take it.

I think the Touch will either be discontinued or reduced in price (and possibly storage) to make the space for the smaller iPad. It already is a second tier device and is barely upgraded anymore. iPhone gives you the iPod and phone.
post #75 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

The iPhone nano will be in my hands by Christmas this year and all the doubters on here will be eating their words with a large dose of humble pie and custard

Just saying.

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 #76 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Just use an iTouch Pad with your iMac, or output the iPad to your iMac or TV.

Think Different!

Really not close to what I was thinking of and I have tried those options. I just want a big screen iPad with all the interface scaled to fingertip size when I lay down my iMac. Requires many things to change at once unfortunately, so I'll just have to wait for the slow change.

Nice of you to try and help out though.
post #77 of 133
That's the market. Apple have just pushed out the TextBooks Author program and now what's needed is a Primary/Highschool-ffordable iPad to be able to read these textbooks.
post #78 of 133
I'm neutral on this matter. If it happens, I wouldn't be surprised. If it doesn't, that wouldn't surprise me either. If Apple decides to do it they must have a good reason for doing it. If not, there must be just as many good reasons as well. I myself don't see a need for one but I can see why some people would want it.

I travel a lot around the world and airports and inside of airplanes are a good place to see what's being used and what's not. I do see a decent number of people using smaller 7" tablets although the iPad is definitely the majority amongst people using a tablet. I also see less and less Kindles (just the e-readers) as it's obvious people want more than just books on their devices.

Whether a 7.85" iPad would be incremental business is a hard one to call but it's quite apparent that Apple is hellbent on dominating the emerging tablet sector in the same way it dominates the music player market with the iPod. The form factor would have to be right or it wouldn't really work. My gut feeling is that it's not necessary but we'll just have to see.
post #79 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Just saying.

Did you mean iPad Nano?

I'm not really interested in an iPhone Nano. I'd rather they make the iPod Nano a bit smaller and add bluetooth so you can wear it as a watch, then link it to the iPhone so you can answer calls, see RSS feeds and tweets, etc all from your iPod Nano rather than having to get your iPhone out.
post #80 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J View Post

The Touch is no better that the iPhone. There is a market for a device that is lighter, can fit into a coat pocket but is bigger than 3.5". There is no reason Apple has to be one size fits all. I do think they will see that market and take it.

I think the Touch will either be discontinued or reduced in price (and possibly storage) to make the space for the smaller iPad. It already is a second tier device and is barely upgraded anymore. iPhone gives you the iPod and phone.

Assuming that a 7.8 iPad comes to market I think it will be a home run, but I don't see them discontinuing the iPod touch. If anything I see them discontinuing the iPad 2 so there will be three devices and three sizes. A 7.8" size would cannibalize both its larger and smaller brethren but so it would even out.

As much as everyone is saying it makes no sense for Apple to introduce a new size, I would argue that it makes equally no sense NOT to. If tablets are overtaking PC sales and are becoming the favoured computing device for most people it makes no sense not to broaden the pallet. Apple has four different sizes of laptops to cater for different requirement.

I don't think a 7.8" version would be viewed as a budget alternative. The price would be competitive but not the cheapest.

A 7.8" iDevice would be fantastic in so many respects that I can't see it not happening. SOmehow, at some point.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple rumored to use 'slim bezel display' for 7.85-inch iPad