Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) He says they are too wide and you agree by saying they are too small?
1) My appologies. I completely misread his post. I think I scanned it as they are "not wide enough." Sorry for the confusion. Addressing your other points above:
2) I say gamer and movie watcher, because a smaller tablet is going to work best in landscape orientation as everything will be larger, whether 16:9 or 4:3. This is primarily how gamers and movie watchers use the iPad. It is also how I turn the iPad to increase the text size of things without zooming. And again, this is all my opinion.
3) I have never seen anyone hold the iPhone with their thumbs on the edge in one hand. It is always held cupped in the palm of the hand with the thumb being used to navigate, except in landscape mode, which is almost always used for games and media.
4) I never said I have ever seen anything rumored to be other than 4:3. This is my personal feeling that the screen should be 16:9 to fit more into the market which I believe Apple is trying to reach, combined with Jobs earlier derision of 7" screens needing sandpaper to be shipped with it for users fingers. So why would Apple just make a mini-version of iPad if they believe it would be an inadequate user experience? They wouldn't is my guess. Since we're just looking at mockups primarily and not the actual tablet, my feeling is the mockups are potentially completely wrong. I'm looking at Apple's move to 16:9 in iPhone and iPod Touch, and think that a 7" tablet makes a much better iPod touch than it does an iPad. I also think the iPod touch is sort of redundant (especially now that there are free iPhones and most kids have cell phones these days), and Apple is running an experiment with the new mini-tablet ... If they sell more 7" tablets than new iPod touches, then the iPod touch might be EOL next year.
Originally Posted by Ireland
You're agreeing with me, but are asking for the opposite.
I said the 'side' bezels are too wide, not too narrow:
The whole reason why the side bezels don't need to be a wide as a regular iPad is that your fingers will stretch across most of the rear of the device. Your thumb just needs to catch the edge on this smaller iPad,
Again my sincere apologies ... Totally misread that.
As to your point, I totally understand what you are saying. However, I'm basing my experience on handling Kindles and Nooks, which have relative iPad-sized bezels. A lot of the bezel size is of course determined by the actual weight. It's hard to say how light it will actually be compared to the iPad. But, regardless how light it is, I don't necessarily agree that the thumb will rest on the edge, needing less bezel width. Even with the significantly smaller and lighter Kindle and Nook (even the 6-inch models), I tend to sit my thumb flush with the width of the bezel. It just feels more comfortable. Also, a thicker bezel allows Apple to expand the width of the screen (in landscape) from 4:3 to 16:10, or even 16:9, assuming any part of this mockup turns out to actually be real. And this also assumes that I am right that Apple's philosophy will be that the mini-iPad will be used differently than the regular iPad, or more like an iPod Touch than an iPad. In other words, Apple tends to set out to define a specific market, so rather than just churn out a 7" version of the iPad to compete with all the android tablets (and eat crow in the process over Jobs "sandpaper" comment), they will look to re-invent the 7" market space, possibly with an eye toward replacing the iPod Touch in the process.Edited by Mac_128 - 10/7/12 at 1:41pm