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

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 113
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Pure guess:

    This is different because the iPhone was never too heavy to hold for extended periods of time. The point being: you shouldn't have to put the iPad down because it's too heavy.



    I won't comment about your physical condition, or lack of, but it seems obvious to me that if a hardcover book has a shipping weight of 2.5 lbs. ... then 1.6 lbs for the heaviest iPad is not excessive.



    Amazon.com: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7 ...

    Hardcover: 784 pages; Publisher: Arthur A. Levine Books; 1ST edition (July 21, 2007) ... Shipping Weight: 2.5 pounds (View shipping rates and policies) ...
  • Reply 102 of 113
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


    First of all, if the iPad, Touch and this rumored 7" iPad were all sold for the same price, one or more of these devices would never be sold, or very little would be sold. Right now, if the iPad and the touch were equal in price, I guarrentee you that no one would buy the touch, because why by this tiny screen when, for the same price, you can get this huge screen? It seems as though (ON THIS FORUM AT LEAST) that the consensus is that if Apple offered a 7" iPad they would buy it over the 10" iPad. So with that logic in mind, this rumored device would probably cannibalize sales of the 10" and the 3.5" touch. Then if you make them all at the same price point, you'd probably have 90% sales of the 7" and 10% shared between the 10" and the touch.



    Secondly, part are much more expensive for each device. The logic you and AIaddict is flawed. Price doesn't equal better product. Price equals quality and cost of components, plus profit. When I purchase a product that has different sizes, I don't think that the bigger product must mean it's better. Look at the Macbooks. There's absolutely no difference between the 15" and 17" MBP's, except for screen size. To me, my choice would be about applicability.



    Mostly I agree with this, however --



    I wouldn't want to trade the 9.7" screen -- which I've had since day one in April -- for a 7," but I would get the smaller one if it had two cameras for FaceTime, and maybe 3G. And then I would probably carry the little one in a jacket pocket for using when standing in line at the post office or wherever. Smaller is better for some things, like using it as a camera and standing in line. Bigger is better for long reads. Smallest, the iPod touch, is better for when you want to travel really light, obviously. Buy all of them if you can afford it.



    Let a dozen form factors bloom. The computer is going wherever we go. FaceTime is going to drive a revolution in communication such that the world has not seen for 510 years, when the Aldine portable book appeared. (Hats off to Clay Shirky and Elizabeth Eisenstein, not to overlook Marshall McLuhan.)
  • Reply 103 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


    The computer is going wherever we go. FaceTime is going to drive a revolution in communication such that the world has not seen for 510 years, when the Aldine portable book appeared.



    I'd argue that the telephone is a bigger revolution than FaceTime. Perhaps Facetime's the biggest revolution in communication since the telephone, but the portable book? No.
  • Reply 104 of 113
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,472moderator
    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.



    They could certainly maintain the two if they had the same resolution. They'd cut the battery in half in the 7" one so it should be a good bit lighter. The sizes should look something like the following:







    I think it would still need fairly big pockets but dropping the weight would be a good idea. The 10" iPad does feel a bit heavy.



    If it makes them cheaper, I'd be all for it but I already found the 10" screen to be a bit small, especially when the over-sized keyboard pops up.



    I'd ideally like a 12-14" display capable of 720p minimum at half the iPad weight and 3/4 the price but even if they had the 10" at half the weight and 3/4 the price, that would be pretty good. If they had to cut the 10" battery life in half, that would be ok for me. People are reporting 12 hour usage times so if they can hit 6-8 hours at half the weight, that would be fine and just reducing the virtual key height a bit would give more screen space. Finger-tips are wider than they are tall so the keys can be half the height and it should mean typing is a bit quicker as there is less travel between keys.
  • Reply 105 of 113
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post


    I'd argue that the telephone is a bigger revolution than FaceTime. Perhaps Facetime's the biggest revolution in communication since the telephone, but the portable book? No.



    I'd go along with that for sure, but only add that with the addition of live moving picture, the telephone is finally a mature technology; it just took a hundred years or so.



    The reason I think it will be the biggest deal since the portable book is that we'll now be able to communicate face to face around the world in real time without being restricted to symbolic communication like written or printed language, or to disembodied voice like the telephone.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    They could certainly maintain the two if they had the same resolution. They'd cut the battery in half in the 7" one so it should be a good bit lighter. The sizes should look something like the following:



    Great image, thanks!
  • Reply 106 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post


    this is true. I liked the tab, it looked good, the few apps that I saw. I was probably more wowed by the 7" size personally.



    They seemed to be really focusing on showcasing the flash games/video etc. at least that's what everyone who picked it up seemed to be playing with.





    That is because no apps are built specifically for it. Give it some time (just like how the iPad had little applications upon launch).
  • Reply 107 of 113
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    That is because no apps are built specifically for it. Give it some time (just like how the iPad had little applications upon launch).



    The iPad is attracting targeted development because Apple sells them by the ton and they're all more or less the same.



    Even if the Tab does relatively well (and there's pretty much zero chance that it's going to sell in iPad like numbers-- it takes a dozen different Android phones to approach the iPhone's sales), it's going to be competing against other Android tablets which have no standardized resolution, UI or form factor (since other manufacturers will likely have their own solutions for tablet-izing Android). So whatever problems developers might be having with fragmentation are going to be seriously amplified by a lot of divergent ideas about what an Android Tablet is supposed to look like or how it's supposed to behave.



    I think it's much more likely that most Android devs will just elect to allow their phone apps to be their "tablet" apps, at least until Google makes some kind of "Android Tablet Edition" that gives devs a stationary target.
  • Reply 108 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    The iPad is attracting targeted development because Apple sells them by the ton and they're all more or less the same.



    Even if the Tab does relatively well (and there's pretty much zero chance that it's going to sell in iPad like numbers-- it takes a dozen different Android phones to approach the iPhone's sales), it's going to be competing against other Android tablets which have no standardized resolution, UI or form factor (since other manufacturers will likely have their own solutions for tablet-izing Android). So whatever problems developers might be having with fragmentation are going to be seriously amplified by a lot of divergent ideas about what an Android Tablet is supposed to look like or how it's supposed to behave.



    I think it's much more likely that most Android devs will just elect to allow their phone apps to be their "tablet" apps, at least until Google makes some kind of "Android Tablet Edition" that gives devs a stationary target.



    if this were even remotely true, then windows should have tanked completely. Developers would have run screaming...



    But as with many other things, it'll be an interesting year to watch things unfold.
  • Reply 109 of 113
    irelandireland Posts: 17,747member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    I won't comment about your physical condition, or lack of, but it seems obvious to me that if a hardcover book has a shipping weight of 2.5 lbs. ... then 1.6 lbs for the heaviest iPad is not excessive.



    I don't get your point. I don't care what anything else weighs in or out of its box. We're talking about the iPad itself.



    I'm quite fit, actually. But physical fitness is not the point. Apple made some choices and tradeoffs, and in my humble opinion they made the wrong ones and made the iPad 'slightly' too big, and 'slightly' too heavy. Trouble is you don't notice this until you've lived with it for a few weeks. I'd prefer, and I'd bet most other iPad-oeners would too, if the iPad was 9" or so, rather than nearly 10. Thus reducing size and weight just that little bit to make it perfect at what it does.



    I still like the iPad quite a bit. But I remain convinced, as a device, it's slightly too big and slightly too heavy to call it "just right".
  • Reply 110 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post


    if this were even remotely true, then windows should have tanked completely. Developers would have run screaming...



    But as with many other things, it'll be an interesting year to watch things unfold.



    If you start out with a 95% market share, developers will come running, screaming or otherwise.
  • Reply 111 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    If you start out with a 95% market share, developers will come running, screaming or otherwise.



    i don't believe m$ started with 95% share.



    But the point was, their OS was on a huge, HUGE number of devices.



    My opinion, isn't that iOS isn't better, I'm just not so sure the differences in devices will put off developers. It hasn't yet, it's growing exponentially, just as it is for iOS.
  • Reply 112 of 113
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post


    i don't believe m$ started with 95% share.



    But the point was, their OS was on a huge, HUGE number of devices.



    My opinion, isn't that iOS isn't better, I'm just not so sure the differences in devices will put off developers. It hasn't yet, it's growing exponentially, just as it is for iOS.



    Except that the user experience on touch-based, hand-held devices is far more dependent on the particulars of software/hardware interaction than on a PC.



    The UI of a PC is dictated by a mouse and keyboard, and those remain functionally identical from PC to PC, no matter how the machine may otherwise vary.



    On an iPad-like device (at least as designed by Apple, and we're going to have to take that as the gold standard until someone does better) the UI/touch screen is the device, and the hardware is there only to deliver the screen and its UI as invisibly as possible. If you start changing up resolution, aspect ratio, size, button placement, file manipulation conventions, etc., you're changing the fundamental user experience in a way that's going to make it hard for motivated developers to maintain a standard of performance across multiple manufacturers/models (although I get the impression that the average Android developer isn't all that concerned with "standards of performance").



    The larger problem for Android on tablets (as opposed to cell phones) is that tablets don't have the built-in limits on functional variation that cell phones do. Manufacturers are free to differentiate as much as they want, and differentiate they will. Like Samsung, many will toss in their own UI shell to try and make Android more tablet friendly. By the time you've taken a non-tablet optimized OS and mucked with it and stuck it on a lot of hardware variations, you've probably done some real usability damage-- way more damage than just the equivalent of running your PC app on an low specced machine, and that's without even getting into the apps that may or may not play nice with your "enhancements." If you can't sell the result for a good bit less than a comparable iPad, you may have a bit of a problem on your hands.
  • Reply 113 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Except that the user experience on touch-based, hand-held devices is far more dependent on the particulars of software/hardware interaction than on a PC.



    The UI of a PC is dictated by a mouse and keyboard, and those remain functionally identical from PC to PC, no matter how the machine may otherwise vary.



    On an iPad-like device (at least as designed by Apple, and we're going to have to take that as the gold standard until someone does better) the UI/touch screen is the device, and the hardware is there only to deliver the screen and its UI as invisibly as possible. If you start changing up resolution, aspect ratio, size, button placement, file manipulation conventions, etc., you're changing the fundamental user experience in a way that's going to make it hard for motivated developers to maintain a standard of performance across multiple manufacturers/models (although I get the impression that the average Android developer isn't all that concerned with "standards of performance").



    The larger problem for Android on tablets (as opposed to cell phones) is that tablets don't have the built-in limits on functional variation that cell phones do. Manufacturers are free to differentiate as much as they want, and differentiate they will. Like Samsung, many will toss in their own UI shell to try and make Android more tablet friendly. By the time you've taken a non-tablet optimized OS and mucked with it and stuck it on a lot of hardware variations, you've probably done some real usability damage-- way more damage than just the equivalent of running your PC app on an low specced machine, and that's without even getting into the apps that may or may not play nice with your "enhancements." If you can't sell the result for a good bit less than a comparable iPad, you may have a bit of a problem on your hands.



    as it stands, that's kinda how it appears for android tablets. Though the UI was awesome, it ran beautiful, it's hard to know where this will be, a year from now. It likely won't ever have the single devices as iOS has to target, but I think things are, pretty out of the gate for this. I only say this as I was totally surprised by androids rise this past year, and it's projections. I take nothing for granted at this time, this is so in it's infancy despite so many 'calling it' already.
Sign In or Register to comment.