or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs was 'very receptive' to 7-inch iPad idea, court documents show
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs was 'very receptive' to 7-inch iPad idea, court documents show - Page 2

post #41 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

I didn't know Apple had a patent on rectangles.

LOL. Guys like you are simply more proof that someone needs to cater to the great-unwashed segment of the market too. Glad that Samsung is the one. I'd be embarrassed to be in the same tech-consuming segment as someone like you!
post #42 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I sure hope if the mini is real, that all the leaks of prototypes and cases are wrong because they all show a 16:9 device.  

Not one iPad Mini leak has indicated a 16:9 device.
post #43 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The idea that I have in mind is high quality small size
Filet%20Mignon.jpg

LOL I'm reminded of the Taco Bell scene from Demolition Man (1993).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Not one iPad Mini leak has indicated a 16:9 device.

I certainly haven't seen anything but the 4:3 aspect ratio. Not even a 3:2 aspect ratio that would indicate a large iPod Touch. The only ≈16:9 device has been the new iPhone.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #44 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

but in reality... having an email stating someone used a 7" Samsung tablet and perceived there was going to be a market at that size. That's considered 'copying' a device?

Honda: "I've driven a Ford Explorer, and I think people will buy them, Let's Build a Honda Pilot..." (Ford: "You owe us Royalties... we've patented the general size category"

Seems a ludicrous argument.

Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Anyway... It's interesting to see all the 're-writing of history' going on within the Apple ranks lately.

Really? Where do you see that?

Quite a few people (myself included) thought a 7" iPad wouldn't be a bad idea even before this testimony came out. A number of others thought was a terrible idea before and still think it's a terrible idea.

So where's this 'rewriting of history' (other than in your fantasies, of course)?
"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 #45 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Really? Where do you see that?
Quite a few people (myself included) thought a 7" iPad wouldn't be a bad idea even before this testimony came out. A number of others thought was a terrible idea before and still think it's a terrible idea.
So where's this 'rewriting of history' (other than in your fantasies, of course)?

What interesting about his comment is that he's making a claim against people that would like a smaller iPad that didn't think the previous small tablets (which originally were as much or more than the iPad) yet there is still no smaller iPad. So how exactly are people rewriting history to support Apple with something that doesn't exist?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #46 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

I didn't know Apple had a patent on rectangles.

Mmmmm ... Don't think Apple minds anything being rectangular, look at all the crap designs Sammy had before copying Apple. They were rectangular too and I can assure you no one at Apple would mind of Sammy returns to those rectangular designs.. Kind of makes that silly comment redundant, pathetic and ignorant.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #47 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

This is proof that Apple copied the smaller Tablet idea from Samsung.
How much clearer can it be after the email clearly states it.
The press is going to have a field day with this.

A field day based on Eddie's email? Seems to me what Steve said carries a bit more weight. Did you read all of the article?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #48 of 97

Some sample resolution densities:

1920x1280 3:2 4" (double iPhone current res) 576.89ppi

 

1920x1080 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 550.73ppi (2x:1.6875x increase)

1600x900 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 458.94ppi (1.67x:1.40625x increase)

 

1366*768 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 391.77ppi (1.4229x:1.2x increase)

1280x720 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 367.15ppi (1.33x:1.125x increase)

 

 

1024x768 4:3 7.85" (iPad 1/2 res) 163.06ppi

2048x1536 4:3 7.85" (current New iPad res) 326.11ppi

 

 

Since people are bouncing around various resolutions and screen sizes I decided to see what a few possible iPhone and 7.85" iPad resolutions would look like.  The widescreen iPhone options have the math for what the resolution changes would be from the current iPhone 4S.  Since Apple did simple resolution doubling for the iPad to use iPhone apps, they could put a bit of automatic math to stretch iPhone apps for it.  

 

Yeah I was bored :)

post #49 of 97

OK, really, honestly this doesn't mean much at all.  First things first, Jobs being receptive to an idea doesn't mean that it was being actively developed.  It could mean nothing more than Steve placating Eddie on one hand knowing he wasn't going to release it anyhow.  It could also mean that he liked the idea, but rejected it for other reasons.  There just isn't enough context since all we have is Eddie and his opinions.  Steve can't comment on it with his personal opinions.  For all we know he rejected it not long after being "very receptive".

 

Second, who cares what Steve Jobs thinks any more regarding Apple's product line today?  I really like Apple and I want them to succeed, but Steve Jobs is dead and is buried in the ground.  Apple has been without him for over a year now.  And by all that we have heard before, Tim Cook has been running things for months before Steve resigned.  Even if Steve was very receptive, that doesn't mean that it ever went anywhere outside of that and that Tim Cook is any more or less receptive to the idea.  Jobs famously did not want people to think "What would Steve do".  In my mind, that makes anything he said and never did, carry about as much meaning as the infamous "I cracked it" comment that people are touting as proof positive of an Apple television set even though it means no such thing.  Steve Jobs is not the CEO of Apple.  Tim Cook is and he is the one whose opinion matters in the end and I doubt that his decision is going to be based on anything Steve allegedly was receptive to.

 
post #50 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Some sample resolution densities:
1920x1280 3:2 4" (double iPhone current res) 576.89ppi

1920x1080 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 550.73ppi (2x:1.6875x increase)
1600x900 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 458.94ppi (1.67x:1.40625x increase)

1366*768 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 391.77ppi (1.4229x:1.2x increase)
1280x720 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 367.15ppi (1.33x:1.125x increase)


1024x768 4:3 7.85" (iPad 1/2 res) 163.06ppi
2048x1536 4:3 7.85" (current New iPad res) 326.11ppi


Since people are bouncing around various resolutions and screen sizes I decided to see what a few possible iPhone and 7.85" iPad resolutions would look like.  The widescreen iPhone options have the math for what the resolution changes would be from the current iPhone 4S.  Since Apple did simple resolution doubling for the iPad to use iPhone apps, they could put a bit of automatic math to stretch iPhone apps for it.  

Yeah I was bored 1smile.gif

I'm alwasy glad to see people doing the math but I don't think there is a need for an increased pixel density at this point in time. The best way to bring about a 4" iPhone is by keeping the exact same PPI as they use now, just with a bigger display. Since we're at Retina (assuming you have 20/20 vision or worse) there simply isn't a need for adding that big of wrench to devs again. Plus, battery life and other areas of the display and performance need to be worked on, too.

For this proposed iPad Mini the entire math, which was done well before the current iPad was ever announced, was just to take the original PPI of the iPhone and expand that to 1024x768. That's how 7.85" was born. It certainly makes sense from that viewpoint. It also makes sense now as Apple has 6 years experience with that display resolution so the cost to continue making these 163 PPI sheets (cut to 1024x768 instead of 480x320) could be what makes the iPad Mini a low cost and yet profitable tablet for Apple.


PS: It's interesting that Android's big push was to use a few different resolutions but with an infinite number of pixel densities, yet Apple has been very consistent and careful with pixel densities to keep the elements exactly the size as the developers expect them to be.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #51 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

my wife says I have the patent on 7" devices....  

Tip your waitresses... I'm here all week.

Seven inches?

How do you fold it in half like that without hurting yourself?

Buggered if I'm going to try doing that to myself!

;-)
I always appreciate an Android fan who puts his energy into advertising Apple products.
Reply
I always appreciate an Android fan who puts his energy into advertising Apple products.
Reply
post #52 of 97

Size does matter? Indeed. And weight. Apple should bring a lighter and smaller Mac (whatever form factor of clamshell, slider or tablet; 400 to 600 g and 7-inch or so). Great for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations. The Mac in your pocket. Always.

post #53 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Size does matter? Indeed. And weight. Apple should bring a lighter and smaller Mac (whatever form factor of clamshell, slider or tablet; 400 to 600 g and 7-inch or so). Great for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations. The Mac in your pocket. Always.

For a one-handed tablet I think weight will become very important to the usability and feel of the product. For the current iPad it's certainly 'a' factor, but not it's not the most important factor.

Hopefully that if they do have a 7-8" tablet they will be using a 28-32nm SoC and with the display being only 1024x768 they can hopefully have something very thin and light, perhaps with a distinction in the same vain as the iPod Touch to the iPhone.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #54 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

I didn't know Apple had a patent on rectangles.

I didn't know you couldn't think for yourself, so you let the media do the talking for you.

post #55 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

For a one-handed tablet I think weight will become very important to the usability and feel of the product. For the current iPad it's certainly 'a' factor, but not it's not the most important factor.
Size is always important! It works in conjunction with the owners intended usage. Usage is where an iPad mini will find its niche. By this I mean owners will find such a device to be optimal for certain tasks and will prefer it over the original iPad. It is no different than users developing preferences for specific size of MacBooks.
Quote:
Hopefully that if they do have a 7-8" tablet they will be using a 28-32nm SoC and with the display being only 1024x768 they can hopefully have something very thin and light, perhaps with a distinction in the same vain as the iPod Touch to the iPhone.
Size would be the overriding distinction.

As to the smaller SoC, apparently they are already being "tested" or maybe better "ramped up" in some of Apples new products. So the big question would be is that specific chip destined for the new devices? I'd say no because I suspect a move to at a minimal USB3 so at the very least a slight overhaul of the SoC is required. If they embed Thunderbolt that would be a major overhaul. There is also the question of saving even more power as the devices currently shipping with the 32 nm parts don't seem to be reducing power usage that significantly.

This also highlights the horrors of backlight power. Cutting power in the SoC doesn't have as big of an impact as controlling display power. Apple could do more for run time by optimizing the display / backlight system, this however generally requires more advanced components which leads to more expenses.
post #56 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

I told you guys what Steve poo-poos in public he works on in secret.

 

 

so Steve didn't know what he was talking about?

post #57 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

His biography is reported to be full of similar incidents also.  

 

The people trying to catch him in a lie or inconsistency have the viewpoint of the average twelve year old IMO.  Intelligent adults with open minds change them all the time based on whatever new information arises.  

 

If he was really as close minded and certain of his rightness at all times and afraid to be caught in a "mistake" or changing his opinion he couldn't have run the company at all.  His best job prospect would be to be an Internet troll ...

 

I agree with this..  What bothers me about most AI'ers (ie, Apple fanboys) is that they think everything in absolute terms - everything Steve Jobs or Apple does is always "right."    I think a lot of anti-Jobs / anti-Apple sentiment is a reaction to such closed mind-set. 

post #58 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

I agree with this..  What bothers me about most AI'ers (ie, Apple fanboys) is that they think everything in absolute terms - everything Steve Jobs or Apple does is always "right."    I think a lot of anti-Jobs / anti-Apple sentiment is a reaction to such closed mind-set. 

Funny how it's the Apple haters who are rewriting history.

In this very thread, there are a number of people disagreeing with Jobs. For example, read Tallest's posts about how he thinks a 7" tablet is a terrible idea. So where do you get the idea that Apple fans automatically think that everything Jobs says is right?
"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 #59 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

The Nexus 7 is all about the beauty of the Tablet and the Beauty of the Jelly Bean Experience.

Bwahaahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the laughs!
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #60 of 97

Are you sure the 7" wasn't there just to keep stock traders pinning for iPad mini happy?

post #61 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

This also highlights the horrors of backlight power. Cutting power in the SoC doesn't have as big of an impact as controlling display power. Apple could do more for run time by optimizing the display / backlight system, this however generally requires more advanced components which leads to more expenses.

 Isn't Sharp displays rumoured to be in iPhone 5 made to fix that problem? If that's the case, wait for another one and a half year for Sharp to make them in 7" size, with enough yield to launch iPad mini with. For now just get enough of them in 4" size for iPhone 5 is all Sharp could manage.

 

Until the yield goes up, iPad mini will have to wait. Just my opinion of course.

post #62 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

...who's nowhere near as bad as daHarder....

I am updating my block list. Has anyone compiled a list of AI characters with obvious NPD? Here is my list so far.

Tune
4TheLoveOfTech
eric475
ZZZ
lamewing
DaHarder
stelligent
tooltalk

Judging from the quotes, I don't think I am missing much. If I need more information about the competition, I just go to the nearest Best Buy or Staples. First hand experience pretty much confirms that the competition still doesn't get it and probably never will. I don't need some NPD joker use me to validate his or her worth in life.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #63 of 97
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post
I am updating my block list. Has anyone compiled a list of AI characters with obvious NPD? Here is my list so far.

Judging from the quotes, I don't think I am missing much. If I need more information about the competition, I just go to the nearest Best Buy or Staples. First hand experience pretty much confirms that the competition still doesn't get it and probably never will. I don't need some NPD joker use me to validate his or her worth in life.

 

Just this last week, and for the first time ever, I started a list of… let's call it "users that aren't here because they have any interest in Apple in any fashion whatsoever".

 

It's already far too long for my tastes. I'm of the belief that we need stronger rules here. I can think of just two rules that would fix everything up tout de suite

post #64 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Just this last week, and for the first time ever, I started a list of… let's call it "users that aren't here because they have any interest in Apple in any fashion whatsoever".

It's already far too long for my tastes. I'm of the belief that we need stronger rules here. I can think of just two rules that would fix everything up tout de suite

Tout à fait!

Probably not going to happen anytime soon. From the ad analytics perspective, NPDs generate plenty of buzz, even if at the expense of everyone else. Which is why shills exists.

A potential compromise might be a graded or temporary ban right before a permanent ban. In other words, as an example, after four strikes, the offender's subsequent posts show up as blank from a few days to up to two weeks, depending on how frequent they post. This way the ad analytics counter stay up, but not at the expense of regular posters.

It would still take the moderator's personal judgement (I don't huddles allows for anything complicated) to make the call, though.

All I am saying is the intended audience of this site (it IS an Apple enthusiast site, no?) should not be punished for posting just because of some group of people's unchecked mental illness.
Edited by uguysrnuts - 8/4/12 at 9:23am
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #65 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post
so Steve didn't know what he was talking about?

On the contrary.  He has been known to publicly dismiss products or features (like video on an iPod) and then release one that does the very same thing.  he does change his mind or at least never lets on what he is thinking.

post #66 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm alwasy glad to see people doing the math but I don't think there is a need for an increased pixel density at this point in time. The best way to bring about a 4" iPhone is by keeping the exact same PPI as they use now, just with a bigger display. Since we're at Retina (assuming you have 20/20 vision or worse) there simply isn't a need for adding that big of wrench to devs again. Plus, battery life and other areas of the display and performance need to be worked on, too.

 

I think the 1280x720 is the most likely resolution for a 4" iPhone, but we will of course have Android users crowing about how they have had that res w/the Galaxy S III for months etc.  Of course, we wouldn't have the awful PenTile in Apple's version :)  I just wanted to look at some of the common resolutions and see how they all stacked up.  I also agree that 1024x768 is the most likely for the smaller iPad, but given how popular the hi-res 3rd iPad has been, I wanted to see what the ppi jumped up to.

post #67 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

I think the 1280x720 is the most likely resolution for a 4" iPhone, but we will of course have Android users crowing about how they have had that res w/the Galaxy S III for months etc.  Of course, we wouldn't have the awful PenTile in Apple's version 1smile.gif  I just wanted to look at some of the common resolutions and see how they all stacked up.  I also agree that 1024x768 is the most likely for the smaller iPad, but given how popular the hi-res 3rd iPad has been, I wanted to see what the ppi jumped up to.

I'm not sure how you can say that. Look at the historical data. Apple let the iPhone resolution linger at very low resolution because it wasn't ready for a pixel perfect doubling of the resolution (4x the total pixels). With the iPad the display was ready but the cost to power such a display wasn't quite there so they had to a much larger battery, going backwards toward the original iPad size and weight.

There is absolutely no evidence that they would use a a pixel density that didn't scale perfectly and I see absolutely no reason why they would need to add 10% to the pixel density to make the product better. Everything says it would just make it even more complex for Apple and devs thus reducing the user experience.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #68 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

On the contrary.  He has been known to publicly dismiss products or features (like video on an iPod) and then release one that does the very same thing.  he does change his mind or at least never lets on what he is thinking.

If you read what Jobs actually said his comments were very clear about why the current lot of 7" tablets would fail. He never said that a 7" tablet could never have a place at Apple and it seems very clear to me that Apple has been planning to grow out their iPad brand across multiple sizes, eventually.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #69 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


If you read what Jobs actually said his comments were very clear about why the current lot of 7" tablets would fail. He never said that a 7" tablet could never have a place at Apple and it seems very clear to me that Apple has been planning to grow out their iPad brand across multiple sizes, eventually.

 In your opinion, what wasn't there in 2009-2010 but are here now that makes smaller iPad more feasible today?

post #70 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairthrope View Post

 In your opinion, what wasn't there in 2009-2010 but are here now that makes smaller iPad more feasible today?

32nm SoCs are one thing. Why is this important? Because if size and weight (i.e.: the battery) are important to making a great 7-8" (i.e.: one handed) tablet, and I think they are then a 45nm or 65nm SoC just won't cut it.

But I think that reason comes second to the fact that in 2009 there was no iPad. There was no tablet market. The iPad was released in April 2010. Jobs has stated many times to the point of using a very select and ideal HW for a giving release. You don't come out of the gate with all sizes you expect to eventually release. You do it in a ver calculated way. You bring out the one that is best for business at the time. When that market segment gets saturated (or you see competition potentially making inroads) you then release another.

Apple's philosophy has never been to be first, but to be best. This is why the iPad and iPhone are the best in show despite being very late to both markets.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #71 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm not sure how you can say that. Look at the historical data. Apple let the iPhone resolution linger at very low resolution because it wasn't ready for a pixel perfect doubling of the resolution (4x the total pixels). With the iPad the display was ready but the cost to power such a display wasn't quite there so they had to a much larger battery, going backwards toward the original iPad size and weight.
There is absolutely no evidence that they would use a a pixel density that didn't scale perfectly and I see absolutely no reason why they would need to add 10% to the pixel density to make the product better. Everything says it would just make it even more complex for Apple and devs thus reducing the user experience.

 

I'm not sure which part you are arguing w/me about.  Are you saying they wouldn't go 1024x768 on the smaller iPad or 1280x720 on the iPhone?  If they do anything less than 1280x720 the iPhone will have less resolution (altho still better density) than recent Android flagships.  They wouldn't do 1024x768 for the widescreen iPhone, b/c that is not a widescreen resolution.  1280x720 will increase the screen res by 1/3 in one direction and 1/8 in the other.

post #72 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

I told you guys what Steve poo-poos in public he works on in secret.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

 

so Steve didn't know what he was talking about?

 

 

Not that at all.  He was just the king of the swerve with an offhand remark.  That he might have said 7" tablets are a terrible idea and then gone right into the third meeting of the development of a 7" tablet doesn't really come off as a negative to me.  It's not like a stockholder meeting.   Screwing with people's heads was part of the fun for him.  I could see Jobs, however lacking in playing skill, as a great poker player for this reason, and can't imagine Ballmer, et al as such.

 

If Ballmer said "We're not interested in making a 7" tablet" no one would even take notice.   Jobs says it and it's being written in stone by millions. 

post #73 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

I'm not sure which part you are arguing w/me about.  Are you saying they wouldn't go 1024x768 on the smaller iPad or 1280x720 on the iPhone?  If they do anything less than 1280x720 the iPhone will have less resolution (altho still better density) than recent Android flagships.  They wouldn't do 1024x768 for the widescreen iPhone, b/c that is not a widescreen resolution.  1280x720 will increase the screen res by 1/3 in one direction and 1/8 in the other.

Talking about the iPhone. The iPad's proposed resolution at 1024x768 for a 4:3 aspect ratio makes perfect sense on paper.

Since when has Apple been OK with killing the user experience just to catch up with a competitor in a single spec that will have no postiive effect on usablity and plenty of downsides? What Android phones are using 1280x720 RGB pixels, not RG BG which means you take the number of pixels and reduce by 1/3rd.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #74 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairthrope View Post

 In your opinion, what wasn't there in 2009-2010 but are here now that makes smaller iPad more feasible today?

I don't think that's the way to look at it. I suspect that it was more like this:

- Pre- 2009, Apple considered a variety of sizes.
- Before launching the iPad, they decided that they were only going to produce one size until they established the market to minimize investment and risk
- They decided that if they were only going to produce a single size, that 10" was a better choice
- After introducing the 10" iPad, the market grew dramatically to the point where Apple could consider adding a second size
- They looked at their earlier work and the market (where 7" appears to be the dominant size for non-iPad tablets) and decided that a 7" tablet would be a good second product

So, it may be that the 7" was feasible 3 years ago, but Apple decided not to release it so that they could focus on a single product. Or, it could be that they had to wait for costs to come down for them to be able to hit a target price (probably $299, but possibly $249). Either way, it's irrelevant. The fact that they didn't introduce a 7" tablet 3 years ago doesn't mean that they thought it was a terrible idea. There are plenty of other reasons why they might not have done it that have nothing to do with how good or bad an idea a 7" tablet might be.
"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 #75 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There are plenty of other reasons why they might not have done it that have nothing to do with how good or bad an idea a 7" tablet might be.

The only way to find out for sure is for Apple to release such a tablet. Of course, the potential for fragmentation of iOS ecosystem may simply be not worth the effort.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #76 of 97
Quote:
"With the email Samsung was trying to make the point that Apple watches and wants to emulate the products of other companies—a zinger considering Apple is accusing Samsung of "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad."

 

 

https://www.pcworld.com/article/260370/samsungs_big_zinger_in_patent_case_apple_exec_liked_7inch_galaxy.html
 

 

That is what hypocrites do.

 

Hypocritical company, Apple is.

 

Shipping off Jobs to Communist China at the expense of American jobs.

 

You call that an "American" company?

 

Shame shame shame.

 

At least Samsung, a Korean company, has a huge $9 Billion manufacturing facility in Austin, Texas of all places (even before the parts supply to Apple, back in 1995)


Edited by Galbi - 8/4/12 at 10:07am

"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 #77 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


https://www.pcworld.com/article/260370/samsungs_big_zinger_in_patent_case_apple_exec_liked_7inch_galaxy.html

 

That is what hypocrites do.

Hypocritical company, Apple is.

Shipping off Jobs to Communist China at the expense of American jobs.

Congrats. You just made it to my block list.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #78 of 97
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

You call that an "American" company?

 

Since virtually all of them do that, yes, I call that a troll American company.

post #79 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Talking about the iPhone. The iPad's proposed resolution at 1024x768 for a 4:3 aspect ratio makes perfect sense on paper.
Since when has Apple been OK with killing the user experience just to catch up with a competitor in a single spec that will have no postiive effect on usablity and plenty of downsides? What Android phones are using 1280x720 RGB pixels, not RG BG which means you take the number of pixels and reduce by 1/3rd.

 

So what resolution makes sense for Apple for the new phone?  I don't see them sticking with 960*640, the ratio is wrong for 16:9.  You haven't supplied anything else that seems suitable at all.  1138*640 would be almost the same pixel density as the current phone (3 ppi less), but that is a really wonky resolution.  1280x720 makes a lot of video work better as that is 720p and if they are bothering to switch to a widescreen resolution at this point, I don't see the point in not making sure you suit video better.


Edited by SSquirrel - 8/4/12 at 10:32am
post #80 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

So what resolution makes sense for Apple for the new phone?  I don't see them sticking with 960*640, the ratio is wrong for 16:9.  You haven't supplied anything else that seems suitable at all.  1138*640 would be almost the same pixel density as the current phone (3 ppi less), but that is a really wonky resolution.  1280x720 makes a lot of video work better as that is 720p and if they are bothering to switch to a widescreen resolution at this point, I don't see the point in not making sure you suit video better.

1136 × 640 would be a magic number for the purported size. That brings it from being 3:2 to 16:9 while maximizing the display size for the usability and, most importantly, uses the exact same pixel density as the current iPhone. This last item is very important which is why the 1024x768 Apple tablet was hypothesized before the iPad was ever announced.

It all comes down to production efficiency. If you can use the same display foundries that you've already invested heavily in -and- have great knowledge of you can save a lot of money. These displays aren't made in the tiny sizes we see. Essentially, they are made in large sheets that are cut to size.

Now that the original iPhone/Touch (163 PPI) display panels are becoming much less utilized if they can recommission this tech for another purpose they can save a huge amount of money in R&D and production costs. This is one important reason Apple has been so successful in the market. They rarely start from scratch, but build from their existing knowledge base and resources. This is how a smart company operates.

The same goes for the rumoured 4" iPhone, which is why it makes sense. Regardless of the actual size having it use the same 326 PPI pixel density panels saves them a lot of time, money and effort on every level.

I'm not exactly sure why people get hung up on a known aspect ratio. These are ultimately arbitrary. The value is absolutely irrelevant if what is designed to display on it is optimized for it. It's that simple! People didn't believe me when in 2009 amidst the "iTablet" rumours that a 4:3 aspect ratio (or thereabouts) would be the best balance for watching video -and- reading on a device about 10" diagonally. Note that reading isn't just books but pretty much what most of use do with out machine, often in an email or web page. It was also one of the reasons it was doomed from the start. Turns out Apple was right.

PS: Your argument that it has to be 720x1280 because of video simply doesn't hold water for many reasons. First of all, video plays just fine and doesn't need to be pixel perfect for it to work. Do you not watch movies on your HDTV or do you have a special HDTV with various resolutions for aspect ratios they are shot in? Of course not... and this is just a phone, whose purpose is not to replace your TV. That's just one issue. I've already mentioned cost for investment and purchases for the HW, OS, dev tools, and how that will affect usability.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/4/12 at 12:06pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs was 'very receptive' to 7-inch iPad idea, court documents show