I am more inclined to believe a 7" iPad is coming to maybe replace the iPod touch. A 7" model makes sense because if you keep the resolution the same and decrease the size to 7", the user interface elements are about the same size as the iPod Touch.
The Touch as a device that can easily be pocketed fills an important niche. A 7" device would not fit into that niche.
I for one love that I can slip my Touch into my pocket and use it for entertainment purposes during lunch breaks at work. Go up to 7" and now you've got a device that you can't use that way. I don't have any where to securely store such a unit at work and I certainly can't carry it around with me. I work in retail and am on the move all day, not tied down to a desk.
So I'd be considering the 7" iPad in place of the standard version. Myself, I'd rather pay a little more and live with the extra weight to gain a more enjoyable larger screen. Most would.
But a somewhat larger Touch, now that would have some appeal because it would be handy for situations in which neither the 7" or 9.7" iPad would get it done. But the current Touch is not quite perfect. It's fine as a portable gaming machine, is useable, though not ideal, as a reader, good for media consumption, yet pretty awful as a browser or for inputing via a virtual keyboard. Increase the screen size and all of those activities are improved, in the case of browsing, dramatically. Do it just enough and portability doesn't suffer.
A review of Dell's Streak shows how finding the right balance works. The reviewer found that the Streak's 5" screen represents a major improvement over devices with 3.5" screens but didn't think that size offered much of an upgrade on devices with 4.3" screens. It doesn't have to be exactly a 5" device. Maybe the right number is 4.3", 4.6" or whatever. A larger screen is preferable but there are portability concerns that need to be considered. Getting that right is just the sort of detail Apple is famous for getting right.
type in "iPad too heavy" into a google search and see what comes up.
Amazing! 305,000 hits.
But type in "iPad too light" into a google search and see what comes up.
In any event, by the time you remove all the posting prior to April 3rd, duplications, comments or references to the original, or links to links and all the trolls, you end up with a smidgeon of 'real' postings complaining about the weight of the iPad.
Probably about 0.5% of all the actual iPad owners, if any, would be my educated guess. But I would have to read every link to really determine it.
Ahh... for portability, the 7" form factor would be about half the size and easily fit in large pockets (cargo pants, cargo shorts, jackets), camera bags, and especially most women's purses!
.
I'm a middle aged guy. So no purse and just plain ordinary garden variety pants. A 7" iPad would not end up being something I could take to work with me considering portable devices are not in use with what I do. So I couldn't bring the device with me, hence for what I want, it's useless.
If you want something to use when puttering around the house, there's the current iPad.
This rumor is highly unlikely as Apple asked developers to natively size their applications for the iPad's 9.7" screen. Are they going to ask them to do it again for a 7"? I doubt it.
Speaking for myself and having a number of iPhone developers as colleagues and met at Apple's seminars, there is no question that we would do it again for a 7" iPad. Heck, how about a 6", 5" or even an 11" or a mini-IMAX version.
Resizing apps at this point in time is virtually a no-brainer. Certainly Apple will, as proven before, make it very easy to port one to another just using a magnification button.
Changing the content/functionality is another thing. This gives us another reason to customize our apps to suit particular uses. More important, another revenue opportunity.
Well documented by who? Apple has been selling every single iPad they make, pretty much as fast as they can make them, ever since release. I've seen other people try and claim this before, but I have yet to see any evidence of it.
The 9.7" display is an inhibitor of the number of iPads Apple can produce.
A 7" display is just a smidgeon over half the size of a 9.7" display - Apple could make a lot more iPads with 7" displays, and still sell them all. It would allow Apple to aggressively take marketshare in the tablet market, which is developing very quickly, and this is probably a priority for Apple.
Again, you should go read the studies about iPad pricing, who is buying this device, and purchase hesitancy due to pricing.
Do the studies neglect the fact that for every person who thinks it is too expensive, there is another person waving their credit card to buy it? Pricing is just fine as Apple has yet to hit a saturation number for people w/at least $500 in disposable cash who want to buy it. Until they do, lower price just means less money for Apple. When they start actually keeping them well stocked, maybe, but even then they will still likely be doing a brisk business at current prices. You know Apple does the math to figure out if they sell X units at Y dollars, how many would they need to sell at Z price to make the lower price worthwhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
The 9.7" display is an inhibitor of the number of iPads Apple can produce.
A 7" display is just a smidgeon over half the size of a 9.7" display - Apple could make a lot more iPads with 7" displays, and still sell them all. It would allow Apple to aggressively take marketshare in the tablet market, which is developing very quickly, and this is probably a priority for Apple.
Ahh but see, you're actually including an argument for why it would be needed, unlike some who just claim pricing is an issue, but provide no proof. Yes, Apple could enlarge the market for the iPad, I don't think I've ever said otherwise. I can see some people preferring a smaller iPad. I wouldn't, but that's me, they can go buy it if they want. Fine by me. My comment you referred to was me disagreeing that current price is inhibiting the sales of the iPad, not screen size.
The 7" iPad would have the same 1024x768 resolution as the iPad, just a higher pixel density. There would be no change from a developer point of view.
Personally I think 7" would be the sweet spot. I find the current model cumbersome for reading in bed and can't stand the very visible pixels compared to the iPhone 4. And more RAM please. It's starting to drive me nuts the way a web page has to reload from scratch every time I hit the back button on chunky, ad-heavy sites. Love my iPad but look forward to version 2.
Agreed.
I'm thinking it'll be kind of like when they came out with the 4GB iPhone and then quite quickly removed it as an option and gave 8GB for the same price. I'm awaiting the 7" 512MB iPad. Slightly smaller so fits more readily into jacket pockets, etc., etc. but still larger than the iPhone. If they add a front-facing camera, that'd be appreciated as well.
And, wheere in the world did people think that 9.7" is the perfect size? For what? I would not mind a larger iPad, also? Others urely may want slightly, either for convenience or for some specific applications.
CGC
Yes, a BAiT (Big-Assed-iPad-Tablet) would be ideal for some uses:
-- a light table for picture and video editing
-- a drafting / design table
-- a larger drawing/sketching/painting surface
-- a wall-mounted multipurpose TV/Movie/Shop Plans/Recipe display
If Apple does, in fact, come out with a 7" iPad, then I imagine they'll probably add something to the 9.7" version to differentiate it from it's smaller counterpart. There will have to be more than just a 2.7" difference between the two devices to keep the smaller version from cannibalizing the sales of the larger version. It could potentially be something as simple as more storage (a 64GB version), but each unit will have to have something unique about it other than size.
type in "iPad too heavy" into a google search and see what comes up.
Huffington Post
PC World
CNet Reviews
Business Insider
There are a lot of people complaining about the weight. Everyone I know who owns one has "mentioned" that it is on the heavy side.
Only narrow-minded people like many of the tech bloggers you mendioned would equate size and weight, always come together. Thus, reducing the size must be because we want something lighter. That is stupid.
Examples. "Well made" tripods are way too heavy. They came up with lighter (and yet the same sizes and sometimes even more furable) tripods by using different materials. Even the latest Boeing ariplanes now use a lot of such non-metallic products to make the plane lighter. And so do cars, and all sorts of products.
As to Apple products, did we all forget now about the much hyped liquid metal? Thinner yet as strong (so it would be lighter Apple products if the price is right. But considering the number of iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, and all those various Macs nowadays, the economies of scale might just be there.
Projected decrease in profit margin.
There was a very signficant decrease in the projected profit margin of Apple for the coming quarters, in spite of the fact thaat the high profit margin iPhone is an increasing component of the Apple product mix. There are possible reasons for this. Apple may agressively lower its prices (or subsidy from carries) to compete more agressively. Remember how the iPods were priced with respect to the Zune. Another possibility is that Apple may indeed consider the very expensive LiquidMetal, no only for much thinner and lighter but as sturdy products, if used as casings (not just specialty components). They may consider both, but still maintain the price. The use of :LiquidMetal would be a thing of beauty, and maybe the cause of envy among those who hate Apple/Steve Jobs.
Add a front facing camera too, for chat. And there will be a market fot that. One of the features I am waiting for, as far as the iPad is concerned..
More realistically however, if ever Apple would introduce the LiquidMetal in its high end product -- MacAir and perhaps to be followed by the Mac Pro notebooks. A 2-3 pound Apple notebook perhaps, instead of the 5.6 ;ns 13-inch notebook? The iPad, if it is economically feasible, might be under a pound.
Appropriate size follows function
You do not need to sacrifice the size to make something lighter. In science and technology, the size is made smaller or bigger to tailor to a specific function.
This rumor is highly unlikely as Apple asked developers to natively size their applications for the iPad's 9.7" screen. Are they going to ask them to do it again for a 7"? I doubt it.
And how would you know the dimension (WxH) of a yet non-existent 7" iPad to be able to be so sure that it would be incompatible with the general scaling of the iPhone/iPad Touch to the IPad?
Didn't they just slightly tweak the size of the iPhone 4 (and thus like the iPod Touch" Maybe Apple is thinking an array of iOS products that would be more likely be within the proportionate scaling in their dimensions.
Many were so so sure with a 10" iPad. Then Apple came up with 9.7" And some proclaimed it to be the "perfect size". What happened if Apple came up with 9.5" or 10.2''? Would those who proclaimed 9.7" as the perfect size, consider what could have been other choices, as less than perfect?
If you look at the overall sizes of the iPad vs the iPhone/i{iPod Touch), just at a glance, they are not the same in proportional scale. Because the size differences require other considerations, like the border space.
As important, we are talking about diagonal size here, not a specification of the dimension (WxH). There many dimensional permutations to come up with the same diagonal size.
If you read the article, it mentions that the reason for the 7" model is because the current iPad is too heavy. This is the opposite of what most people say about the iPad.
The article does say that and I think that it is a valid point for some but I think a major unstated motive for releasing such a size is the price umbrella.
Smaller iPad size, lower iPad price ... more sales and throwing a bit of a block to lower priced competitors who will release their own smaller/lighter tablets for less ...
Exactly. I remember my family's first TV! It was about the size of a microwave oven with a Black & White 7" screen, and 13 (count 'em) push-button channels (including channel 1).
Too bad the industry didn't standardize on these little beauties...
.
Wow and I thought my parents were abusive for making me grow up with a 19" black and white tv.
If you look at the overall sizes of the iPad vs the iPhone/i{iPod Touch), just at a glance, they are not the same in proportional scale. Because the size differences require other considerations, like the border space.
As important, we are talking about diagonal size here, not a specification of the dimension (WxH). There many dimensional permutations to come up with the same diagonal size.
CGC
You can look at the current iPad, see what proportion of the width and height is border, assume something similar and figure out what the WxH would be in a 4:3 ratio, at least I think that is the ratio for the iPad screen. That would be 7x5.6x4.2.
Here are the figures for the current iPad.
9.7"x7.76"x5.82" Screen
9.56x7.47 iPad
1.8"x1.65" Extra size beyond screen
Comparing the screen sizes, we see:
9.7" 438.08 in^3
7" 164.64 in^3
2.66x the size of the 7"
Divide the extra size from above by 2.66 and you get reductions of:
.68
.62
1.8-.68 and 1.65-.62 added onto the 7x5.6x4.2 dimensions above gives you a total 7" iPad size of 6.62x5.23 instead of 9.56*7.47. This is significantly smaller and, as we can see, predictable if they follow similar bezel margins.
I agree the current iPad is too big and heavy. That's why I took mine back and bought an iPhone 4.
The iPhone 4 makes the iPad look obsolete.
I really don't get the iPad at all. It's just a big iPod Touch with no phone, no camera.
We're all sorry for you that you don't get the iPad but whether or not the device has a place in the market is no longer a point of debate.
Besides, describing the iPad as just a big iPod Touch is like wondering what the point is of a 50" HDTV when, after all, isn't it just a big TV. That doesn't stop consumers from regarding the 50" HDTV as a different product than a 19" portable.
When Apple itself made note of the fact that the iPad, right out of the gate, runs apps designed for the Touch, I find it rather amusing that some folks think they're displaying remarkable powers of observation by noting there are similarities between the two products. No kidding. Two touchscreen devices that run the same apps. Thank God there are observant folks among us to connect those dots for the rest of us.
By the way, how long did it take you to figure out the iPad makes a lousy smartphone.
Not if the resolution and aspect ratio is the same. In fact if they make it and price it lower than current iPad I'll get one and I already got an iPad.
If the resolution and aspect ratio are kept the same the actual OS elements will have smaller phisical sizes, ie, a 50x50 (1x1cm?) button would no longer be 1x1 cm but 0.8cm etc.
Comments
I am more inclined to believe a 7" iPad is coming to maybe replace the iPod touch. A 7" model makes sense because if you keep the resolution the same and decrease the size to 7", the user interface elements are about the same size as the iPod Touch.
The Touch as a device that can easily be pocketed fills an important niche. A 7" device would not fit into that niche.
I for one love that I can slip my Touch into my pocket and use it for entertainment purposes during lunch breaks at work. Go up to 7" and now you've got a device that you can't use that way. I don't have any where to securely store such a unit at work and I certainly can't carry it around with me. I work in retail and am on the move all day, not tied down to a desk.
So I'd be considering the 7" iPad in place of the standard version. Myself, I'd rather pay a little more and live with the extra weight to gain a more enjoyable larger screen. Most would.
But a somewhat larger Touch, now that would have some appeal because it would be handy for situations in which neither the 7" or 9.7" iPad would get it done. But the current Touch is not quite perfect. It's fine as a portable gaming machine, is useable, though not ideal, as a reader, good for media consumption, yet pretty awful as a browser or for inputing via a virtual keyboard. Increase the screen size and all of those activities are improved, in the case of browsing, dramatically. Do it just enough and portability doesn't suffer.
A review of Dell's Streak shows how finding the right balance works. The reviewer found that the Streak's 5" screen represents a major improvement over devices with 3.5" screens but didn't think that size offered much of an upgrade on devices with 4.3" screens. It doesn't have to be exactly a 5" device. Maybe the right number is 4.3", 4.6" or whatever. A larger screen is preferable but there are portability concerns that need to be considered. Getting that right is just the sort of detail Apple is famous for getting right.
type in "iPad too heavy" into a google search and see what comes up.
Amazing! 305,000 hits.
But type in "iPad too light" into a google search and see what comes up.
In any event, by the time you remove all the posting prior to April 3rd, duplications, comments or references to the original, or links to links and all the trolls, you end up with a smidgeon of 'real' postings complaining about the weight of the iPad.
Probably about 0.5% of all the actual iPad owners, if any, would be my educated guess. But I would have to read every link to really determine it.
Ahh... for portability, the 7" form factor would be about half the size and easily fit in large pockets (cargo pants, cargo shorts, jackets), camera bags, and especially most women's purses!
.
I'm a middle aged guy. So no purse and just plain ordinary garden variety pants. A 7" iPad would not end up being something I could take to work with me considering portable devices are not in use with what I do. So I couldn't bring the device with me, hence for what I want, it's useless.
If you want something to use when puttering around the house, there's the current iPad.
Where does the 7" iPad fit in?
This rumor is highly unlikely as Apple asked developers to natively size their applications for the iPad's 9.7" screen. Are they going to ask them to do it again for a 7"? I doubt it.
Speaking for myself and having a number of iPhone developers as colleagues and met at Apple's seminars, there is no question that we would do it again for a 7" iPad. Heck, how about a 6", 5" or even an 11" or a mini-IMAX version.
Resizing apps at this point in time is virtually a no-brainer. Certainly Apple will, as proven before, make it very easy to port one to another just using a magnification button.
Changing the content/functionality is another thing. This gives us another reason to customize our apps to suit particular uses. More important, another revenue opportunity.
The iPad is the perfect size. Why in the world would Apple make something the wrong size? I don't believe this rumor.
The iPad is too large, it needs to be a little smaller, and lighter. And maybe a little cheaper!
What works for you might not work for someone else.
Well documented by who? Apple has been selling every single iPad they make, pretty much as fast as they can make them, ever since release. I've seen other people try and claim this before, but I have yet to see any evidence of it.
The 9.7" display is an inhibitor of the number of iPads Apple can produce.
A 7" display is just a smidgeon over half the size of a 9.7" display - Apple could make a lot more iPads with 7" displays, and still sell them all. It would allow Apple to aggressively take marketshare in the tablet market, which is developing very quickly, and this is probably a priority for Apple.
Again, you should go read the studies about iPad pricing, who is buying this device, and purchase hesitancy due to pricing.
Do the studies neglect the fact that for every person who thinks it is too expensive, there is another person waving their credit card to buy it? Pricing is just fine as Apple has yet to hit a saturation number for people w/at least $500 in disposable cash who want to buy it. Until they do, lower price just means less money for Apple. When they start actually keeping them well stocked, maybe, but even then they will still likely be doing a brisk business at current prices. You know Apple does the math to figure out if they sell X units at Y dollars, how many would they need to sell at Z price to make the lower price worthwhile.
The 9.7" display is an inhibitor of the number of iPads Apple can produce.
A 7" display is just a smidgeon over half the size of a 9.7" display - Apple could make a lot more iPads with 7" displays, and still sell them all. It would allow Apple to aggressively take marketshare in the tablet market, which is developing very quickly, and this is probably a priority for Apple.
Ahh but see, you're actually including an argument for why it would be needed, unlike some who just claim pricing is an issue, but provide no proof. Yes, Apple could enlarge the market for the iPad, I don't think I've ever said otherwise. I can see some people preferring a smaller iPad. I wouldn't, but that's me, they can go buy it if they want. Fine by me. My comment you referred to was me disagreeing that current price is inhibiting the sales of the iPad, not screen size.
The 7" iPad would have the same 1024x768 resolution as the iPad, just a higher pixel density. There would be no change from a developer point of view.
Personally I think 7" would be the sweet spot. I find the current model cumbersome for reading in bed and can't stand the very visible pixels compared to the iPhone 4. And more RAM please. It's starting to drive me nuts the way a web page has to reload from scratch every time I hit the back button on chunky, ad-heavy sites. Love my iPad but look forward to version 2.
Agreed.
I'm thinking it'll be kind of like when they came out with the 4GB iPhone and then quite quickly removed it as an option and gave 8GB for the same price. I'm awaiting the 7" 512MB iPad. Slightly smaller so fits more readily into jacket pockets, etc., etc. but still larger than the iPhone. If they add a front-facing camera, that'd be appreciated as well.
And, wheere in the world did people think that 9.7" is the perfect size? For what? I would not mind a larger iPad, also? Others urely may want slightly, either for convenience or for some specific applications.
CGC
Yes, a BAiT (Big-Assed-iPad-Tablet) would be ideal for some uses:
-- a light table for picture and video editing
-- a drafting / design table
-- a larger drawing/sketching/painting surface
-- a wall-mounted multipurpose TV/Movie/Shop Plans/Recipe display
-- part of a video wall
-- table-top multiplayer games, puzzles,
.
type in "iPad too heavy" into a google search and see what comes up.
Huffington Post
PC World
CNet Reviews
Business Insider
There are a lot of people complaining about the weight. Everyone I know who owns one has "mentioned" that it is on the heavy side.
Only narrow-minded people like many of the tech bloggers you mendioned would equate size and weight, always come together. Thus, reducing the size must be because we want something lighter. That is stupid.
Examples. "Well made" tripods are way too heavy. They came up with lighter (and yet the same sizes and sometimes even more furable) tripods by using different materials. Even the latest Boeing ariplanes now use a lot of such non-metallic products to make the plane lighter. And so do cars, and all sorts of products.
As to Apple products, did we all forget now about the much hyped liquid metal? Thinner yet as strong (so it would be lighter Apple products if the price is right. But considering the number of iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, and all those various Macs nowadays, the economies of scale might just be there.
Projected decrease in profit margin.
There was a very signficant decrease in the projected profit margin of Apple for the coming quarters, in spite of the fact thaat the high profit margin iPhone is an increasing component of the Apple product mix. There are possible reasons for this. Apple may agressively lower its prices (or subsidy from carries) to compete more agressively. Remember how the iPods were priced with respect to the Zune. Another possibility is that Apple may indeed consider the very expensive LiquidMetal, no only for much thinner and lighter but as sturdy products, if used as casings (not just specialty components). They may consider both, but still maintain the price. The use of :LiquidMetal would be a thing of beauty, and maybe the cause of envy among those who hate Apple/Steve Jobs.
Add a front facing camera too, for chat. And there will be a market fot that. One of the features I am waiting for, as far as the iPad is concerned..
More realistically however, if ever Apple would introduce the LiquidMetal in its high end product -- MacAir and perhaps to be followed by the Mac Pro notebooks. A 2-3 pound Apple notebook perhaps, instead of the 5.6 ;ns 13-inch notebook? The iPad, if it is economically feasible, might be under a pound.
Appropriate size follows function
You do not need to sacrifice the size to make something lighter. In science and technology, the size is made smaller or bigger to tailor to a specific function.
CGC
This rumor is highly unlikely as Apple asked developers to natively size their applications for the iPad's 9.7" screen. Are they going to ask them to do it again for a 7"? I doubt it.
And how would you know the dimension (WxH) of a yet non-existent 7" iPad to be able to be so sure that it would be incompatible with the general scaling of the iPhone/iPad Touch to the IPad?
Didn't they just slightly tweak the size of the iPhone 4 (and thus like the iPod Touch" Maybe Apple is thinking an array of iOS products that would be more likely be within the proportionate scaling in their dimensions.
Many were so so sure with a 10" iPad. Then Apple came up with 9.7" And some proclaimed it to be the "perfect size". What happened if Apple came up with 9.5" or 10.2''? Would those who proclaimed 9.7" as the perfect size, consider what could have been other choices, as less than perfect?
If you look at the overall sizes of the iPad vs the iPhone/i{iPod Touch), just at a glance, they are not the same in proportional scale. Because the size differences require other considerations, like the border space.
As important, we are talking about diagonal size here, not a specification of the dimension (WxH). There many dimensional permutations to come up with the same diagonal size.
CGC
If you read the article, it mentions that the reason for the 7" model is because the current iPad is too heavy. This is the opposite of what most people say about the iPad.
The article does say that and I think that it is a valid point for some but I think a major unstated motive for releasing such a size is the price umbrella.
Smaller iPad size, lower iPad price ... more sales and throwing a bit of a block to lower priced competitors who will release their own smaller/lighter tablets for less ...
Exactly. I remember my family's first TV! It was about the size of a microwave oven with a Black & White 7" screen, and 13 (count 'em) push-button channels (including channel 1).
Too bad the industry didn't standardize on these little beauties...
.
Wow and I thought my parents were abusive for making me grow up with a 19" black and white tv.
If you look at the overall sizes of the iPad vs the iPhone/i{iPod Touch), just at a glance, they are not the same in proportional scale. Because the size differences require other considerations, like the border space.
As important, we are talking about diagonal size here, not a specification of the dimension (WxH). There many dimensional permutations to come up with the same diagonal size.
CGC
You can look at the current iPad, see what proportion of the width and height is border, assume something similar and figure out what the WxH would be in a 4:3 ratio, at least I think that is the ratio for the iPad screen. That would be 7x5.6x4.2.
Here are the figures for the current iPad.
9.7"x7.76"x5.82" Screen
9.56x7.47 iPad
1.8"x1.65" Extra size beyond screen
Comparing the screen sizes, we see:
9.7" 438.08 in^3
7" 164.64 in^3
2.66x the size of the 7"
Divide the extra size from above by 2.66 and you get reductions of:
.68
.62
1.8-.68 and 1.65-.62 added onto the 7x5.6x4.2 dimensions above gives you a total 7" iPad size of 6.62x5.23 instead of 9.56*7.47. This is significantly smaller and, as we can see, predictable if they follow similar bezel margins.
I agree the current iPad is too big and heavy. That's why I took mine back and bought an iPhone 4.
The iPhone 4 makes the iPad look obsolete.
I really don't get the iPad at all. It's just a big iPod Touch with no phone, no camera.
We're all sorry for you that you don't get the iPad but whether or not the device has a place in the market is no longer a point of debate.
Besides, describing the iPad as just a big iPod Touch is like wondering what the point is of a 50" HDTV when, after all, isn't it just a big TV. That doesn't stop consumers from regarding the 50" HDTV as a different product than a 19" portable.
When Apple itself made note of the fact that the iPad, right out of the gate, runs apps designed for the Touch, I find it rather amusing that some folks think they're displaying remarkable powers of observation by noting there are similarities between the two products. No kidding. Two touchscreen devices that run the same apps. Thank God there are observant folks among us to connect those dots for the rest of us.
By the way, how long did it take you to figure out the iPad makes a lousy smartphone.
We're all sorry for you that you don't get the iPad but whether or not the device has a place in the market is no longer a point of debate.
Funny how 3M+ sales makes a spot for something isn't it?
By the way, how long did it take you to figure out the iPad makes a lousy smartphone.
The iPad would make an awesome conference call unit tho.
Not if the resolution and aspect ratio is the same. In fact if they make it and price it lower than current iPad I'll get one and I already got an iPad.
If the resolution and aspect ratio are kept the same the actual OS elements will have smaller phisical sizes, ie, a 50x50 (1x1cm?) button would no longer be 1x1 cm but 0.8cm etc.