Chinese site claims design of Apple's 7-inch iPad is 'finished'

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I have to agree as it is right up there with the lack of RAM as a reason not to buy. Videos are of course one important aspect but the smaller size is important for other uses too. The aspect ratio is much more useful in that size for E-Books and magazines/newspapers. Portability is nothing to sneeze at either. I just hope Apple isn't stingy with the Flash storage.



  • Reply 62 of 113
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    There is no logical reason not to have a 3.5" iPod, 7" iPad and a 10" iPad all at the same price. It is not like people are asking for a 7" iPad because the 10" is too expensive and the iPod is too cheap. They want a larger screen than a iPod and a smaller lighter device than a 10" iPad. It could make perfect sense to make the 7" versions the same price as equivalent 10" versions and let people choose the form factor that fits their needs. Much like the Droid2 and DroidX.



    Two entirely different devices so pricing is no issue. It is no different than Ford having several vehicles in the $20000 range or the $30000 dollar range. The sticker may be the same but the markets served are different.



    Frankly I'm totally surprised that anybody out there thinks pricing is an issue to even bring up. It is your competition that you have to worry about.
  • Reply 63 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Frankly I'm totally surprised that anybody out there thinks pricing is an issue to even bring up. It is your competition that you have to worry about.



    Because people with no business background or marketing training seem to think they know what market segmentation means and they have had this long held belief that two different products must have different prices that denote which one is "better". In the Apple world, better seems to be a factor of inches so that any product witha 10" screen must cost more than another product with a 7" screen and less than the products with a 13" screen. This makes no sense at all but there are a lot of people on this forum who accept this as gospel.



    From Apple's perspective, the question is will having a 7" option expand demand and sales enough to justify the cost of developing a second form factor and the costs of selling and supporting another set of products. Some people will pick one size or the other, and some people will only buy an iPad if the size they want is available. The second group are the only people that count for this decision. If Apple thinks there are enough doctors, restaurants, book readers, and other groups who will not buy 10" iPads but who would find a slimmer 7" model to be very useful, they will make it. If they feel the right price for such a unit is $499, they will price it at $499 and not worry about the price in relation to a 10" model that certainly has a different set of strengths and weaknesses to different potential customers.
  • Reply 64 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post






    LMAO lol:



    You've set the trend. Can we have this in our smilies pleeze?
  • Reply 65 of 113
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaveyJJ View Post


    I'll ask the obvious question for anyone not familiar with Clayton Christensen's book, The Innovator's Solution ... What job does a 7" tablet form factor do? Or, what role would that size play?



    See this is your first problem, you are think too hard.

    Quote:

    The iPad's 1024x768 role is obvious ... people "hire" an iPad to do the jobs they'd rather not do on a laptop ... causal games, casual content creation, consume video, tweet, blog, email, balance their chequebook, etc. The screen real estate, battery life, form factor etc all make this possible.



    All of those are possible on an iPhone or a laptop so what is your point. I'm responding to you right now on an iPhone, that doesn't mean it is ideal nor that I "hired" it to respond to you. Rather it is the most convient device I have at the moment.

    Quote:

    An iPod touch or iPhone can't do some of these things as efficiently, that is, low enough cost of entry barrier to make me hire it do to those tasks.



    Cost of entry has nothing to do with it.

    Quote:

    Shooting out a decent sized blog post on the iPod touch is posible, but painful. Ditto web surfing. And I'd far rather read my newsgroups on an iPad, rather than the (comparatively) tiny screen of a touch or iPhone.



    Admittedly iPhones screen is a little tough on some sights. However on the vast majority of the sights out there you don't need a 4:3 screen. If anything text comes in columns best read with a wides screen device in vertical mode. Think about how text is delivered on newspapers and magazines. Or take a look at the TEXT on a sheet of letter paper.



    The fact is a 7" wide screen tablet would deliver a better reading experience in vertical mode than the current iPad.

    Quote:

    I'm not convinced the 7" form factor brings any efficiency to these sorts of jobs that the iPad perfectly fulfils.



    This one sentence is what set me off as it highlights a common issue, iPad is not perfect. It isn't even close. When you use a word like perfect and apply it to something like the entire iPad then people will rightfully dismiss you as a crack pot.



    A 7" inch device can't be perfect either, it is however a smarter choice for many people simply due to portability. In many ways my iPhone is a compromise too, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been one of my best investments. A seven incher can be seen in the same light, a compromise that will work really well for many users.

    Quote:

    The screen real estate and keyboard issues alone may make it a bit better than a touch-sized device, but I'm not sure enough that most won't go for the existing iPad factor instead.



    Apple only has to sell enough to make a profit. Well that and attract enough developers to leverage the platform. In any event I think you mis a couple of real issues here as iPad isn't portable, at least not in the sense that it can be dropped into a pocket.

    Quote:



    That's my 20 years of design and marketing input, anyway, worth about $0.02.



    If you really have 20 years of marketing under the belt you would realize that there is a wide variety of needs out there. Using your logic, expressed above, Apple would never of had innovated the iPod line up. After all if somebody at Apple didn't think there was a market for different sized iPods we wouldn't have the current lineup.



    Frankly I don't get this liberal attitude of one size fits all. It can be likened to the environmentalist and their insistance that everybody should drive an ultra compact car. That of course doesn't work because different people have different needs. If you are 6'-6" tall such vehicles may be impossible or you may have other needs. The market can decide which is profitable.



    Right now the market is voteing Apple's iPad for a multitude of reasons. We have remember though that there is one big fact here, it is the only viable device available.





    Dave
  • Reply 66 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post


    LMAO lol:



    You've set the trend. Can we have this in our smilies pleeze?



    Well, I can't take credit, which goes to nvidia2008, based on someone else's suggestion.
  • Reply 67 of 113
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    Because people with no business background or marketing training seem to think they know what market segmentation means and they have had this long held belief that two different products must have different prices that denote which one is "better". In the Apple world, better seems to be a factor of inches so that any product witha 10" screen must cost more than another product with a 7" screen and less than the products with a 13" screen. This makes no sense at all but there are a lot of people on this forum who accept this as gospel.



    I don't get it either!



    What is even stranger is that people focus on this issue but ignore other pricing issues that are similar in nature. For example the huge jump in Touch prices for another 8GB of flash storage.

    Quote:

    From Apple's perspective, the question is will having a 7" option expand demand and sales enough to justify the cost of developing a second form factor and the costs of selling and supporting another set of products. Some people will pick one size or the other, and some people will only buy an iPad if the size they want is available. The second group are the only people that count for this decision. If Apple thinks there are enough doctors, restaurants, book readers, and other groups who will not buy 10" iPads but who would find a slimmer 7" model to be very useful, they will make it. If they feel the right price for such a unit is $499, they will price it at $499 and not worry about the price in relation to a 10" model that certainly has a different set of strengths and weaknesses to different potential customers.



    Yes Apple has to be convinced the market is worthwhile to pursue. Personally I see demand being greater in the 7" segment than it is with the current iPad. The appeal should be broader than the largeness of the iPad.



    Whatever Apple decides isn't what is important in this discussion though. Rather I'm surprised at how many dismiss alternatively sized devices out of hand. I can actually see a range of devices in the <= 7" range and even a bigger iPhone being added to the line up.







    Dave
  • Reply 68 of 113
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, I can't take credit, which goes to nvidia2008, based on someone else's suggestion.



    I can't say I'm a fan of the jester jesture.



    1) It quotes the, um, jester.

    2) That lovable image could easily appear as if you are validating the offending poster's comment if they aren't aware of the reason you are using it?

    3) The image without the well reasoned reply could easily have the effect of making you look like the "troll", when that is not the case.



    Therefore I much prefer either completely ignoring them or having a well crafted reply that will do several things: bring a sense of reason to a hijacked thread and be witty so we can laugh at their expense.
  • Reply 69 of 113
    nceencee Posts: 855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lochias View Post


    Could someone (swtchdtomak) tell me what '"just sayin'" means, after, um, saying something. If it means that you are disengaged or in denial and therefor don't mean the words, why are you saying them? If you do mean them, why are you lying about it?



    And while your at it, tell me what "my bad" means. Just because that blond chick says it, now everyone is saying it. I mean, come on folks
  • Reply 70 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    ... Therefore I much prefer either completely ignoring them or having a well crafted reply that will do several things: bring a sense of reason to a hijacked thread and be witty so we can laugh at their expense.



    Well, with certain posters, any reply is a reply wasted, so, the jester provides an alternative to just ignoring them or wasting time with them. The original suggestion, if I recall, was to just think of these people as jesters, rather than trolls, and, I think the graphic gives them that little tip of the hat that is their due.
  • Reply 71 of 113
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, with certain posters, any reply is a reply wasted, so, the jester provides an alternative to just ignoring them or wasting time with them. The original suggestion, if I recall, was to just think of these people as jesters, rather than trolls, and, I think the graphic gives them that little tip of the hat that is their due.



    Then I suggest an intermediary suggestion between banning them where the mods add a passive-aggressive title in place of Registered User.
  • Reply 72 of 113
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I don't get it either!



    What is even stranger is that people focus on this issue but ignore other pricing issues that are similar in nature. For example the huge jump in Touch prices for another 8GB of flash storage.



    Or why Apple bothers having a 15" MBP when the 17" version can already do everything the 15" one does (which is apparently the only criteria for a previous poster).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Yes Apple has to be convinced the market is worthwhile to pursue. Personally I see demand being greater in the 7" segment than it is with the current iPad. The appeal should be broader than the largeness of the iPad.



    I was thinking the same thing, that if/when a 7" iPad comes out it will soon outsell the 10" version.



    Maybe Apple knows the 10" iPad is a little bigger than ideal. Perhaps higher density screens (to set/maintain the desired resolutions at a smaller size) were too expensive at the time, and they wanted to get it out the door to beat the competition. Maybe they figured the larger form factor would be more appealing to the magazine and newspaper publishers they wanted to get on board. Or perhaps they just wanted to leave room for improvement... you know how Apple loves to shrink things!
  • Reply 73 of 113
    nkhmnkhm Posts: 928member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Newtron View Post


    I sure hope they wake up and make it 16x9.



    If the price is right, the aspect ratio is right and it will be able to view 'net videos, I'd be interested.



    I sure hope not. Reading and web in portrait orientation on a 16:9 ratio would be awful. I'd rather have a ratio that works for 90% of the iPad's functions and have letter boxing on the rare occasion I watch a widescreen movie on such a small screen.
  • Reply 74 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Then I suggest an intermediary suggestion between banning them where the mods add a passive-aggressive title in place of Registered User.



    How about if they add the Jester icon under "Registered User"?



    But really, is it any different than replying with a or a ? I don't think so, just has a different meaning.
  • Reply 75 of 113
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    How about if they add the Jester icon under "Registered User"?



    But really, is it any different than replying with a or a ? I don't think so, just has a different meaning.



    I’m not sure if that is possible with the vBulletin default settings, but if it is I then vote for BioHazard symbol.



    Or Goatse as then everyone would have on their ignore lists. :barf:
  • Reply 76 of 113
    jmmxjmmx Posts: 341member
    700-500 grams...



    The two heaviest items are the battery and the screen. The latter also consumes the most juice. So reduce screen size and you can reduce the weight considerably.
  • Reply 77 of 113
    jmmxjmmx Posts: 341member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post




    Don't get any weird ideas, but for once, I agree with this. 1.5:1 is a good middle ground for the general gamut of media the devices will display, and it perfectly fits iPhone apps too. Making a device 16:9 just for one media type (widescreen videos) is unfortunate because it needlessly cramps every other use in my opinion because the smallest dimension is just too small for other uses.



    The one advantage of 16:9 is that it is skinnier - fits better into a pocket. Not sure what exact dimensions would be, but true in any case.
  • Reply 78 of 113
    nkhmnkhm Posts: 928member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jmmx View Post


    The one advantage of 16:9 is that it is skinnier - fits better into a pocket. Not sure what exact dimensions would be, but true in any case.



    But you have less screen real estate. I've held the 16:9 tablet, it feels that it can only be used landscape, nothing works portrait, at all.
  • Reply 79 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    There is certainly a market now for these tablets and I think a 7? model would thrive. Though one of Apple?s greatest strengths is also one of their greatest weaknesses when trying to come to market, which makes me wonder how legit this is. Apple isn?t going to simply crunch the 10? iPad UI into a 7? iPad display or spread the iPod Touch UI onto a 7? iPad display.



    They will tailor the UI and OS to be idealized for this device. They will also need a new SDK and App Store portal for these tailored apps. I can?t see Apple doing it any other way.



    It?s possible they worked on many different sizes simultaneously so that they can release the new size with a complete ecosystem addition within a year of the first iPad launching, but I have doubts about that. It may cause consumer confusion and, let?s be realistic, they aren?t even getting iOS 4.x for the iPad until November and Apple still only has one iPhone design per year, so a 7? iPad this soon seems very un-Apple to me (though I hope this does come out).



    A 7" iPad could work with little change to the SDK or App Store ecosystem-- smaller display with the same resolution (1024x768) and aspect ratio (4:3).



    Imagine an iPad in landscape cut in half vertically giving, 2, roughly 7", iPad Memos.



    .
  • Reply 80 of 113
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    A 7" iPad could work with little change to the SDK or App Store ecosystem-- smaller display with the same resolution (1024x768) and aspect ratio (4:3).



    Imagine an iPad in landscape cut in half vertically giving, 2, roughly 7", iPad Memos.



    .



    ?Little change?, sure, if we are speaking relative to iPhone/Touch to iPad, especially if it?s the same resolution between both tablet sizes, but this is Apple and having all the touch elements slightly smaller doesn?t seem like something will go for. I would think that they would redo the UI to be idealized for that display.
Sign In or Register to comment.