Ten inches is just about right to accommodate an almost-full-size keyboard. Turned vertical, it would contain a full-size page of typical nine-inch-tall book.
The smallest "full-sized" keyboard is about 11" whereas this device would be between 9 and 9.75" on the longest side.
This means the standard iPhone "landscape" keyboard would end up with the physical size of the average netbook keyboard but still no where near a full-sized or "normal" keyboard (even a "compact" one).
ARTICLE: "...solutions to strengthen the glass of the 10-inch panel for the" tablets
Seems to me strengthened glass would preclude the use of the nifty little screen that was a hot news item a day or two ago--the one with little bumps that rose on the screen to help users discern edges of keys and buttons. IF we believe this rumor, we write off the enhanced touch-sensitive screen, right?
Indeed you are right, well spotted.
Quote:
You'll be surprised by how you react with your device.
I'm still of the opinion that ten inches is to big.
Pick up a DVD case, that's 9" across the diagonal, and it feels small in the hand. Add 1" to that and you got a decent sized small multi-touch screen. And a bezel to place your thumbs on and pop-out rest on the back for when typing on a flat surface like a table. Now make this device in a sleek curved shape on the back and add some MacBook-like material for grip and you got one awesome and more importantly "useable" device! Not to mention you now as a software developer at Apple have room for a awesome software keyboard that's about 8.5" wide.
It's called Museum Glass® and it has a anti-reflective outer layer bonded to the glass in some sort of patented process.
One can buy Museum Glass® at local art framing shops, it costs more but for certain objects it's necessary for accurate viewing as reflections and glare distort the true image.
I've see it in use and it's really nice compared to regular glass, not as good as a anti-glare film in eliminating glare, but superior in sharpness and vision to what Apple is forcing down our throats now.
So the better quality glass and or coating has existed for quite some time, it's just Apple doesn't want to use it because they are forcing cheap crap on us for premium prices and margins.
Graphic artists and even the glossy screen lovers will love this type of glass. It's clearly superior. (pun intended)
Disclaimer: other glass and coating companies exist to serve the industry, I use this company and product as a example because they have a product sold in art stores, I don't know them or receive any compensation for mentioning their product or company.
Since you're so incensed at Apple's dreadful cheapness and general shoddiness on this count, can you point me to a PC of any description at any price that uses Museum Glass® for a display?
If not, why are you so convinced that failure to do so is proof of Apple being remiss?
It should be. It's not like they're experts on the matter. They don't have one. And 7 inches is far bigger than their equivalent, 'the bean.' So they can make wit the shut up wit their put downs and demands, right? Most guys are between 5-7. That's it folks. Not many guys have more than that. Mystery over.
Women don't know what they want and don't have one.
And even the biggest guy can't compete with the size of a baby. So you can see how 'greedy' and 'insatiable' a woman's parts are...ie no guy's going to be compete with something that can pop a baby out.
Mother says, 'It's in our nature to be dissatisfied...'
It'll never be big enough...going by that logic...coming from a sex that never knows what it wants.
Don't beat yerself up.
Speaking for myself...a 10 inch tablet is about right. Hmm. Or was I arguing for a 7 inch one? Maybe 7 inches will do...but those people who aren't satisfied will go for the ten incher?
Y'see that? All that blurb was a metaphor for a tablet, right?
236p on a 7 in screen would look quite poor and in no way comparable to a 32" 1080p viewed at 7 feet. The math just doesn't work that way. By that reasoning, a 118p video at 9 inches would also look just as good as that 32" TV. When in fact all you'd see are a bunch of big, fat pixels.
Exactly! Up close you need more pixels per inch to deliver a similar experience. The DPI needs to be high enough that your eye doesn't easily resolve the individual pixels. If your eyes try to do that you may experience pain or fatique.
Quote:
The equivalent to a 32" 1080p TV viewed at 7 feet, on a 7" screen viewed from 18" would be...1080p. (I'm ignoring the fact that the human eye can not resolve all of the detail on a 32" 1080p screen 7 feet away.)
Yep you got that right! The close in screen does have a problem though in that many people can resolve to much detail to the point it becomes distracting.
Avatar is a good example of where to much detail becomes distracting. While the movie leaves a lot to be desired plot wise the technical quality is pretty amazing. The problem is all that detail sometimes distracts from the picture as a whole. Your eyes literal cause the brain to focus on subsections of the scenes somtimes missing out on the greater scene and the overall flow of the movie.
I suspect the same experience will manifest themselves on a screen that is extremely sharp and up close. A 40" 1080P screen, hanging on the wall, just doesn't have the pixel density to ever be percieved as being sharp. It really doent matter if you are close or far away. When you are far away the lack of sharpness is just the same, however your eyes are focused dramatically differently. It is the way that the brain and eye handle distant objects that make comparisons of resolutions on different devices difficult.
Precisely my point, Apple will be looking to cut as many costs as possible. And they want your screen to break, rest assured they do. They make a lot of money from Apple Care, and if you drop it they make extra money.
So is it Apple's refusal to make your various predictions fast enough, or at all, that's turned you bitter?
Do you actually imagine that Apple wants to make a tablet that is fragile so you'll have to replace or have it repaired a lot? Does putting a product in the market place that quickly gets a reputation as having an easily broken screen strike you as a strategic move?
Jobs: "We wont sell very many of them once people figure out we've engineered them to shatter, but we'll make it up on that sweet Apple Care money!"
You were lucky, I have had two broken iPhone screens in two years on two different models.
I think that's more like "you were unlucky." Obviously, no glass can survive every encounter with a hard surface while accelerating, but the iPhone is generally regarded as having a pretty robust screen.
If it was HDTV aspect ratio, it'd be about 4.9" x 8.7".
If it was iPhone aspect ratio, about 5.6" x 8.4".
These are not counting the frame around the display.
Not unreasonably big, but I think I'd still prefer something about halfway between the current touch and those dimensions, as a good compromise between size and portability.
I?m so sure that is ideal for portrait reading. The 7? tablet seems too small and while 10? seems large at first we?re talking about the display measured at a diagonal. If they keep the "HW margins down? it could still be only 6? wide. 6? isn?t huge but it?s enough to be pleasing (that?s what she said).
The problem is that this is a retread of a rumour presented last summer. We all know how that turned out.
Everything points to a Touch follow-up with a larger screen but a 10-inch form factor is simply not a logical next step. By the way, to put this in perspective, holding a 7-inch tablet close to your face to watch a movie would be roughly equivalent to watching a movie on a 32-inch monitor sitting maybe 7 feet away. Not a bad way to go. In regards to the issue of resolution, if a 32-inch monitor is seen as high def at 1080p, on a 7-inch screen a resolution of around 236p would produce a similar resolution level. So something like 378X236 would be the equivalent of the resolution needed to do 1080P on a 32-inch monitor. I mention this because the Touch is already at 480X320, meaning that existing apps, movies set up for the current Touch, etc. would look amazingly good on a 7-inch display, sserving up more perceived resolution than you experience off a 32-inch 1080P monitor viewed from a reasonable distance. A small jump up in resolution on the 7-inch unit would be more than enough to produce a terrific viewing experience.
It's true that full-bore typing, using multiple windows etc. would require more than a 7-inch screen but the problem is that it requires more than a 10-inch tablet also. I would suggest that if you want an experience comparable to running software as if you were on a desktop what would be needed is a physical keyboard and a screen larger than 10 inches. Wait, I think that's been done, aka in the form of a laptop, which has been around for a long, long time. What is the point of a 10-inch tablet meant to allow the same functionality as a standard laptop when in fact that tablet would not be much more portable or cost much less than your standard garden-variety laptop, especially the cheaper stuff pumped out by Apple's competitors.
Instead, I think what Apple should be aiming for is a device that improves on the Touch as opposed to trying to replace your typical laptop which is a mature, perfectly adequate product that meets a particular set of requirements rather effectively. Instead of seeing the Touch follow-up as an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink sort of beast, I would think Apple is likely considering how to make a device that is outstanding at doing specific tasks and simply not focused on others to which its not really suited. Sure netbooks are all the rage these days, mainly because they are convenient and cheap but a typical netbook, like the one I am typing on right now, is good for some things and horrible for others. I have given up on this thing in certain situations, including activities that require multiple windows, any sort of activity that calls for meaningful horsepower, and so on and so on. Browsing, no problem. Minor tasks, sure. Go past that and you're setting yourself up for a lot of aggravation.
So a 7-inch Touch would make sense for assorted tasks like watching movies, browsing, and portable gaming. That's what the Touch does already but on a screen that's really not big enough for the uses that the device has grown into. Going with a 7-inch form factor would fix that and make for a device also better suited to activities like reading, serving up magazine and newspaper content, etc. Battery life would be decent considering its not that large a screen, files could continue to be efficient meaning tons of memory capacity and best of all affordability all-around would be in the sweet spot. That sweet spot is not up around $700 which is likely what Apple would need to charge for a 10-inch tablet at this time.
Who wants to pay mid-range laptop prices for a 10-inch tablet? I suspect a very select few. Perhaps such a device could find a small, insignificant niche market. I doubt that right now Apple is worried about making that small group happy, especially when there is a rather obvious market for a Touch with a larger screen. I think it logical that Apple would pursue that opportunity first and then, maybe, down the road consider a 10-inch tablet as a small-volume halo product.
In short, if the rumours of Apple placing a big order for 10-inch screens was a load of nonsense last summer, chances are they're equally credible now. Logic suggests it's not where Jobs and Co.are headed.
Pick up a DVD case, that's 9" across the diagonal, and it feels small in the hand. Add 1" to that and you got a decent sized small multi-touch screen. And a bezel to place your thumbs on and pop-out rest on the back for when typing on a flat surface like a table. Now make this device in a sleek curved shape on the back and add some MacBook-like material for grip and you got one awesome and more importantly "useable" device! Not to mention you now as a software developer at Apple have room for a awesome software keyboard that's about 8.5" wide.
Really take a Pocket Reference book which are normally about 8" on the diagonal as an example of a properly sized tablet. A device sized like that should be able to easily handle a 7 to 7.5" screen and remain pocketable, transportable and usable just about any where.
As to typing on these sorts of devices I'm still of the opinion that most people on this forum are nuts. Honestly these are not machines for document production. Maybe E-Mails and quick comments on Appleinsider forums but certainly not a device for document production normally associated with laptops. This would especially be the case if the machine has a rounded back as typing would have the screen rolling like a boat in the water.
The only way tablets will be successful is if they are seen as primarily consumptive devices. That is a device for Internet services and media consumption. No one is going to write War and Peace on one and probably not even a letter to Penthouse. I see people here making references to Photoshop and a bunch of other apps that will have a very difficult time transitioning to a Touch based tablet and being useful.
That does not perclude the introduction of apps that work around a tablets limited ability to handle input. I still see this as a viable place for voice input, parsing and dictation.
It's a little larger than half a sheet of paper. Eh. I guess we'll see how well that works out but I still prefer a 7" device for greater pocketability.
I'll probably buy a 10" tablet just because I like tablets and I have a scad of them anyway. Who knows, maybe it'll be insanely great enough that I'm willing to have a man bag to tote it around everywhere.
I'd agree with you here. My wife's kindle is roughly 7-1/2x5x3/4", and is not very "portable". Anything larger and it is a netbook; clamshell or not it's still gonna be a pain in the ass to bring around. If this rumored device is to be a reader foremost and a secondary browser/file storage type thing, it will have its market however small. Kindle was $399, so you can assume $600 from Apple just because they do things better. The 3G on the Kindle has no monthly subscription, either. I wonder how and with whom Apple will work that out.
Also, in a tablet form factor, laying it flat is also going to be tedious to type on, regardless of how innovative Apple are with the design, it's a problem in a tablet form factor. The approximately perpendicular design of a net/note-book keeps the function buttons on your lap while you view the screen. Holding a 7 or 10-inch device to watch a movie to me seems rather annoying.
Maybe I'm just not keen on the tablet form factor regardless of size. The above mentioned problems (problems...IMO) are what Apple solves best, so I am eagerly anticipating the release, although I probably won't buy one anyway.
I'd probably expect 720 (1280*720), since it's a perfect fit for movies and reading web content.
I agree, but because Apple is pushing the iTunes LP and Extras as 720p. I speculate that the creation of the format and APIs were likely first used for publishers to make nice layouts using open source web-code.
236p on a 7 in screen would look quite poor and in no way comparable to a 32" 1080p viewed at 7 feet. The math just doesn't work that way. By that reasoning, a 118p video at 9 inches would also look just as good as that 32" TV. When in fact all you'd see are a bunch of big, fat pixels.
The equivalent to a 32" 1080p TV viewed at 7 feet, on a 7" screen viewed from 18" would be...1080p. (I'm ignoring the fact that the human eye can not resolve all of the detail on a 32" 1080p screen 7 feet away.)
You're right that I didn't take all the factors into account but you're last commet is rather significant.
I have a 32-inch TV with a native resolution of 1360X768 that I use withPe my Mac Mini and I find that at 28 inches away, there is discernable dot structure but the image is by no means unusable. At about 5 feet dot structure is undetectable by me on that 720P monitor. To match that dot structure on a 7-inch screen would require a resolution 4.57 times less than the 720p, i.e. 158P. Being as you would be using the device more like 12 inches away than 28, that would have to be multiplied by 2.33 to get a comparable result to my 32-incher. That takes us to 369P. This would not yield an ideal result but far from a bad one. The current Touch has a native resolution of 320P. I think I have a ballpark idea of what the current Touch files would look like on a 7-inch screen on account of it's similar to what I'm getting on my desktop set-up. It's far from unusable.
Any jump up in resolution that Apple were to implement would get the job done. Of course ideally what you'd want is to recreate the effect of being five feet away from the 32-inch 720P monitor. That would mean multiplying that 158P figure by a factor of 5 givng you 790P. In other words, a 720P resolution on the 7-incher would produce an image so convincing that anything beyond that would be overkill. Apple would not need to introduce a new standard on account of 720P is already with us. Better still, even at 320P, the 7-inch device would look fine for many uses. Such a device would be compatible with a vast library of existing content at both ends of the spectrum.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake, by the way. I'm in retail and in recovery mode after living through the latest Christmas buying season including a long shift on Boxing Day. Hopefully I have it right this time.
So is it Apple's refusal to make your various predictions fast enough, or at all, that's turned you bitter?
I'm not bitter, you're just over-defensive. If I was to make money every time a person dropped their phone I'd want them to keep dropping them. It's purely common sense. So yes, Apple won't waste a lot of money make this glass "unbreakable", and they'll make extra money when you try to get your dropped one fixed.
Comments
Based on?
I have a 24" & 21" screens and Word docs with "standard margins" displayed on the screen are between 1" and 18" wide, depending on many factors.
I suspect he's referring to an "actual size" page that matches real-world paper.
Ten inches is just about right to accommodate an almost-full-size keyboard. Turned vertical, it would contain a full-size page of typical nine-inch-tall book.
The smallest "full-sized" keyboard is about 11" whereas this device would be between 9 and 9.75" on the longest side.
This means the standard iPhone "landscape" keyboard would end up with the physical size of the average netbook keyboard but still no where near a full-sized or "normal" keyboard (even a "compact" one).
ARTICLE: "...solutions to strengthen the glass of the 10-inch panel for the" tablets
Seems to me strengthened glass would preclude the use of the nifty little screen that was a hot news item a day or two ago--the one with little bumps that rose on the screen to help users discern edges of keys and buttons. IF we believe this rumor, we write off the enhanced touch-sensitive screen, right?
Indeed you are right, well spotted.
You'll be surprised by how you react with your device.
Bullshit.
Hate to disagree with you but my Iphone (not in a case) has survived several drops on concrete...
You were lucky, I have had two broken iPhone screens in two years on two different models.
I'm still of the opinion that ten inches is to big.
Pick up a DVD case, that's 9" across the diagonal, and it feels small in the hand. Add 1" to that and you got a decent sized small multi-touch screen. And a bezel to place your thumbs on and pop-out rest on the back for when typing on a flat surface like a table. Now make this device in a sleek curved shape on the back and add some MacBook-like material for grip and you got one awesome and more importantly "useable" device! Not to mention you now as a software developer at Apple have room for a awesome software keyboard that's about 8.5" wide.
It's called Museum Glass® and it has a anti-reflective outer layer bonded to the glass in some sort of patented process.
One can buy Museum Glass® at local art framing shops, it costs more but for certain objects it's necessary for accurate viewing as reflections and glare distort the true image.
I've see it in use and it's really nice compared to regular glass, not as good as a anti-glare film in eliminating glare, but superior in sharpness and vision to what Apple is forcing down our throats now.
http://www.tru-vue.com/Tru-Vue/Produ...ti-reflective/
Also one will notice on this page that their optical coatings:
http://www.tru-vue.com/Specialty-Applications/
High performance, optical coatings that:
* Are anti-reflective
* Increase brightness
* Improve contrast and clarity
* Minimize eye strain
* Reduce dust build-up
* Reduce glare
So the better quality glass and or coating has existed for quite some time, it's just Apple doesn't want to use it because they are forcing cheap crap on us for premium prices and margins.
Graphic artists and even the glossy screen lovers will love this type of glass. It's clearly superior. (pun intended)
Disclaimer: other glass and coating companies exist to serve the industry, I use this company and product as a example because they have a product sold in art stores, I don't know them or receive any compensation for mentioning their product or company.
Since you're so incensed at Apple's dreadful cheapness and general shoddiness on this count, can you point me to a PC of any description at any price that uses Museum Glass® for a display?
If not, why are you so convinced that failure to do so is proof of Apple being remiss?
I was always told 7-inches is big enough.
It should be. It's not like they're experts on the matter. They don't have one. And 7 inches is far bigger than their equivalent, 'the bean.' So they can make wit the shut up wit their put downs and demands, right? Most guys are between 5-7. That's it folks. Not many guys have more than that. Mystery over.
Women don't know what they want and don't have one.
And even the biggest guy can't compete with the size of a baby. So you can see how 'greedy' and 'insatiable' a woman's parts are...ie no guy's going to be compete with something that can pop a baby out.
Mother says, 'It's in our nature to be dissatisfied...'
It'll never be big enough...going by that logic...coming from a sex that never knows what it wants.
Don't beat yerself up.
Speaking for myself...a 10 inch tablet is about right. Hmm. Or was I arguing for a 7 inch one? Maybe 7 inches will do...but those people who aren't satisfied will go for the ten incher?
Y'see that? All that blurb was a metaphor for a tablet, right?
Lemon Bon Bon.
236p on a 7 in screen would look quite poor and in no way comparable to a 32" 1080p viewed at 7 feet. The math just doesn't work that way. By that reasoning, a 118p video at 9 inches would also look just as good as that 32" TV. When in fact all you'd see are a bunch of big, fat pixels.
Exactly! Up close you need more pixels per inch to deliver a similar experience. The DPI needs to be high enough that your eye doesn't easily resolve the individual pixels. If your eyes try to do that you may experience pain or fatique.
The equivalent to a 32" 1080p TV viewed at 7 feet, on a 7" screen viewed from 18" would be...1080p. (I'm ignoring the fact that the human eye can not resolve all of the detail on a 32" 1080p screen 7 feet away.)
Yep you got that right! The close in screen does have a problem though in that many people can resolve to much detail to the point it becomes distracting.
Avatar is a good example of where to much detail becomes distracting. While the movie leaves a lot to be desired plot wise the technical quality is pretty amazing. The problem is all that detail sometimes distracts from the picture as a whole. Your eyes literal cause the brain to focus on subsections of the scenes somtimes missing out on the greater scene and the overall flow of the movie.
I suspect the same experience will manifest themselves on a screen that is extremely sharp and up close. A 40" 1080P screen, hanging on the wall, just doesn't have the pixel density to ever be percieved as being sharp. It really doent matter if you are close or far away. When you are far away the lack of sharpness is just the same, however your eyes are focused dramatically differently. It is the way that the brain and eye handle distant objects that make comparisons of resolutions on different devices difficult.
Dave
Precisely my point, Apple will be looking to cut as many costs as possible. And they want your screen to break, rest assured they do. They make a lot of money from Apple Care, and if you drop it they make extra money.
So is it Apple's refusal to make your various predictions fast enough, or at all, that's turned you bitter?
Do you actually imagine that Apple wants to make a tablet that is fragile so you'll have to replace or have it repaired a lot? Does putting a product in the market place that quickly gets a reputation as having an easily broken screen strike you as a strategic move?
Jobs: "We wont sell very many of them once people figure out we've engineered them to shatter, but we'll make it up on that sweet Apple Care money!"
You were lucky, I have had two broken iPhone screens in two years on two different models.
I think that's more like "you were unlucky." Obviously, no glass can survive every encounter with a hard surface while accelerating, but the iPhone is generally regarded as having a pretty robust screen.
If it was HDTV aspect ratio, it'd be about 4.9" x 8.7".
If it was iPhone aspect ratio, about 5.6" x 8.4".
These are not counting the frame around the display.
Not unreasonably big, but I think I'd still prefer something about halfway between the current touch and those dimensions, as a good compromise between size and portability.
I?m so sure that is ideal for portrait reading. The 7? tablet seems too small and while 10? seems large at first we?re talking about the display measured at a diagonal. If they keep the "HW margins down? it could still be only 6? wide. 6? isn?t huge but it?s enough to be pleasing (that?s what she said).
The problem is that this is a retread of a rumour presented last summer. We all know how that turned out.
Everything points to a Touch follow-up with a larger screen but a 10-inch form factor is simply not a logical next step. By the way, to put this in perspective, holding a 7-inch tablet close to your face to watch a movie would be roughly equivalent to watching a movie on a 32-inch monitor sitting maybe 7 feet away. Not a bad way to go. In regards to the issue of resolution, if a 32-inch monitor is seen as high def at 1080p, on a 7-inch screen a resolution of around 236p would produce a similar resolution level. So something like 378X236 would be the equivalent of the resolution needed to do 1080P on a 32-inch monitor. I mention this because the Touch is already at 480X320, meaning that existing apps, movies set up for the current Touch, etc. would look amazingly good on a 7-inch display, sserving up more perceived resolution than you experience off a 32-inch 1080P monitor viewed from a reasonable distance. A small jump up in resolution on the 7-inch unit would be more than enough to produce a terrific viewing experience.
It's true that full-bore typing, using multiple windows etc. would require more than a 7-inch screen but the problem is that it requires more than a 10-inch tablet also. I would suggest that if you want an experience comparable to running software as if you were on a desktop what would be needed is a physical keyboard and a screen larger than 10 inches. Wait, I think that's been done, aka in the form of a laptop, which has been around for a long, long time. What is the point of a 10-inch tablet meant to allow the same functionality as a standard laptop when in fact that tablet would not be much more portable or cost much less than your standard garden-variety laptop, especially the cheaper stuff pumped out by Apple's competitors.
Instead, I think what Apple should be aiming for is a device that improves on the Touch as opposed to trying to replace your typical laptop which is a mature, perfectly adequate product that meets a particular set of requirements rather effectively. Instead of seeing the Touch follow-up as an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink sort of beast, I would think Apple is likely considering how to make a device that is outstanding at doing specific tasks and simply not focused on others to which its not really suited. Sure netbooks are all the rage these days, mainly because they are convenient and cheap but a typical netbook, like the one I am typing on right now, is good for some things and horrible for others. I have given up on this thing in certain situations, including activities that require multiple windows, any sort of activity that calls for meaningful horsepower, and so on and so on. Browsing, no problem. Minor tasks, sure. Go past that and you're setting yourself up for a lot of aggravation.
So a 7-inch Touch would make sense for assorted tasks like watching movies, browsing, and portable gaming. That's what the Touch does already but on a screen that's really not big enough for the uses that the device has grown into. Going with a 7-inch form factor would fix that and make for a device also better suited to activities like reading, serving up magazine and newspaper content, etc. Battery life would be decent considering its not that large a screen, files could continue to be efficient meaning tons of memory capacity and best of all affordability all-around would be in the sweet spot. That sweet spot is not up around $700 which is likely what Apple would need to charge for a 10-inch tablet at this time.
Who wants to pay mid-range laptop prices for a 10-inch tablet? I suspect a very select few. Perhaps such a device could find a small, insignificant niche market. I doubt that right now Apple is worried about making that small group happy, especially when there is a rather obvious market for a Touch with a larger screen. I think it logical that Apple would pursue that opportunity first and then, maybe, down the road consider a 10-inch tablet as a small-volume halo product.
In short, if the rumours of Apple placing a big order for 10-inch screens was a load of nonsense last summer, chances are they're equally credible now. Logic suggests it's not where Jobs and Co.are headed.
Pick up a DVD case, that's 9" across the diagonal, and it feels small in the hand. Add 1" to that and you got a decent sized small multi-touch screen. And a bezel to place your thumbs on and pop-out rest on the back for when typing on a flat surface like a table. Now make this device in a sleek curved shape on the back and add some MacBook-like material for grip and you got one awesome and more importantly "useable" device! Not to mention you now as a software developer at Apple have room for a awesome software keyboard that's about 8.5" wide.
Really take a Pocket Reference book which are normally about 8" on the diagonal as an example of a properly sized tablet. A device sized like that should be able to easily handle a 7 to 7.5" screen and remain pocketable, transportable and usable just about any where.
As to typing on these sorts of devices I'm still of the opinion that most people on this forum are nuts. Honestly these are not machines for document production. Maybe E-Mails and quick comments on Appleinsider forums but certainly not a device for document production normally associated with laptops. This would especially be the case if the machine has a rounded back as typing would have the screen rolling like a boat in the water.
The only way tablets will be successful is if they are seen as primarily consumptive devices. That is a device for Internet services and media consumption. No one is going to write War and Peace on one and probably not even a letter to Penthouse. I see people here making references to Photoshop and a bunch of other apps that will have a very difficult time transitioning to a Touch based tablet and being useful.
That does not perclude the introduction of apps that work around a tablets limited ability to handle input. I still see this as a viable place for voice input, parsing and dictation.
Dave
does anyone know what native resolution of a 10" display from Foxconn/Innolux would be?
I'd probably expect 720 (1280*720), since it's a perfect fit for movies and reading web content.
It's a little larger than half a sheet of paper. Eh. I guess we'll see how well that works out but I still prefer a 7" device for greater pocketability.
I'll probably buy a 10" tablet just because I like tablets and I have a scad of them anyway. Who knows, maybe it'll be insanely great enough that I'm willing to have a man bag to tote it around everywhere.
I'd agree with you here. My wife's kindle is roughly 7-1/2x5x3/4", and is not very "portable". Anything larger and it is a netbook; clamshell or not it's still gonna be a pain in the ass to bring around. If this rumored device is to be a reader foremost and a secondary browser/file storage type thing, it will have its market however small. Kindle was $399, so you can assume $600 from Apple just because they do things better. The 3G on the Kindle has no monthly subscription, either. I wonder how and with whom Apple will work that out.
Also, in a tablet form factor, laying it flat is also going to be tedious to type on, regardless of how innovative Apple are with the design, it's a problem in a tablet form factor. The approximately perpendicular design of a net/note-book keeps the function buttons on your lap while you view the screen. Holding a 7 or 10-inch device to watch a movie to me seems rather annoying.
Maybe I'm just not keen on the tablet form factor regardless of size. The above mentioned problems (problems...IMO) are what Apple solves best, so I am eagerly anticipating the release, although I probably won't buy one anyway.
I'd probably expect 720 (1280*720), since it's a perfect fit for movies and reading web content.
I agree, but because Apple is pushing the iTunes LP and Extras as 720p. I speculate that the creation of the format and APIs were likely first used for publishers to make nice layouts using open source web-code.
236p on a 7 in screen would look quite poor and in no way comparable to a 32" 1080p viewed at 7 feet. The math just doesn't work that way. By that reasoning, a 118p video at 9 inches would also look just as good as that 32" TV. When in fact all you'd see are a bunch of big, fat pixels.
The equivalent to a 32" 1080p TV viewed at 7 feet, on a 7" screen viewed from 18" would be...1080p. (I'm ignoring the fact that the human eye can not resolve all of the detail on a 32" 1080p screen 7 feet away.)
You're right that I didn't take all the factors into account but you're last commet is rather significant.
I have a 32-inch TV with a native resolution of 1360X768 that I use withPe my Mac Mini and I find that at 28 inches away, there is discernable dot structure but the image is by no means unusable. At about 5 feet dot structure is undetectable by me on that 720P monitor. To match that dot structure on a 7-inch screen would require a resolution 4.57 times less than the 720p, i.e. 158P. Being as you would be using the device more like 12 inches away than 28, that would have to be multiplied by 2.33 to get a comparable result to my 32-incher. That takes us to 369P. This would not yield an ideal result but far from a bad one. The current Touch has a native resolution of 320P. I think I have a ballpark idea of what the current Touch files would look like on a 7-inch screen on account of it's similar to what I'm getting on my desktop set-up. It's far from unusable.
Any jump up in resolution that Apple were to implement would get the job done. Of course ideally what you'd want is to recreate the effect of being five feet away from the 32-inch 720P monitor. That would mean multiplying that 158P figure by a factor of 5 givng you 790P. In other words, a 720P resolution on the 7-incher would produce an image so convincing that anything beyond that would be overkill. Apple would not need to introduce a new standard on account of 720P is already with us. Better still, even at 320P, the 7-inch device would look fine for many uses. Such a device would be compatible with a vast library of existing content at both ends of the spectrum.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake, by the way. I'm in retail and in recovery mode after living through the latest Christmas buying season including a long shift on Boxing Day. Hopefully I have it right this time.
So is it Apple's refusal to make your various predictions fast enough, or at all, that's turned you bitter?
I'm not bitter, you're just over-defensive. If I was to make money every time a person dropped their phone I'd want them to keep dropping them. It's purely common sense. So yes, Apple won't waste a lot of money make this glass "unbreakable", and they'll make extra money when you try to get your dropped one fixed.