I think a 7" would be cool too, but at what price? $499 for a 16gb iPad.... $199 for a Touch.... So were talking $299-$399? Gonna be a hard sell at $399, when you can get a full iPad for $100 more..... and not going to have anywhere near the margins they normally get at $299. Although $299 would be an incredible deal and I'd be all over it for my wife.
And 7" will be less battery life (inevitable from smaller battery.)
I can see use for a 7", and of course Steve was the master of the head fake.
The only issue is how to handle up/down scaling vs 3rd format.
Windows 8 is onto something with a dev environment that lets you lay out separate layouts for different screen sizes (tile, phone, tablet) from the git go.
I think that this is inevitable for Apple as well, with the only question being, what is the plan for the interim period as the 7" first comes out. Blown up sucks, and shrunk is too small to use.
Steve was just talking trash. Nothing wrong with a smaller iPad. Apple just wasn't ready to release one at that time. Women will love it since it will fit in their purses.
It would seem that you are the one "talking trash." You have no basis for these opinions at all, no facts to base them on, and then you throw in a trashy sexist remark for good measure.
I can see why Apple would want to make a 7" iPad, but I think the bigger news is the larger iPhone display. 3.5" is simply too small. It seemed huge when it was first released since most phones only had about a 2.2" display back then, but now 3.5" seems too small. I doubt Apple will ever release something like the Samsung 4.65" displays, but something around 4 to 4.2" would be a nice compromise. But what Apple giveth they also taketh away. So if they make a larger screen, no doubt they will leave out some other compelling feature to entice us to upgrade yet again.
It would seem that you are the one "talking trash." You have no basis for these opinions at all, no facts to base them on, and then you throw in a trashy sexist remark for good measure.
I should know better than to argue with you, but I will point out that the iPhone has a tiny screen and requires no fingertip sanding. Second, I have it on good authority that at least some women will indeed like a smaller iPad. I'm thinking there are probably no significant women in your life other than your mother, otherwise you would know that it was not a sexist comment.
Steve was just talking trash. Nothing wrong with a smaller iPad. Apple just wasn't ready to release one at that time. Women will love it since it will fit in their purses.
Because all women carry the same size purse. 7" is trash. Are you saying women cannot handle more than 7"?
1) I would imagine any such device would be a larger iPod Touch, not a smaller iPad.
I agree. I think a ~5" Touch would cover much of the same functional capability as a 7" model while being much more portable/pocket-able/affordable/light weight.
I really don't like the 7" size and it has nothing to do with Steve's comments.
Simply that 7" doesn't really offer that much more over a 5" screen, while trading off significant portability.
7.35" with Apples 4:3 ratio would also make the table too fat to get a nice one handed spanning grip across it. This is the kind of thing that the obsessives at apple would figure out if they were aiming for a mid size device. Just more evidence that this is yet another in the long list of meaningless rumors about 7" iPads (which i think started within days of the of the iPad release). This one is complete BS like the rest.
AAPL should not worry about cannibalizing the iPad2 or the iPod Touch with a lower cost 7 inch unit. The race is to capture market share. Some folks cannot afford the entry price for the iPad2. Why leave that market to Samsung, et al?
As a previous commenter noted, a 7 inch unit would be more portable for pockets and purses.
Absolutely NOTHING could compete with a $399 iPad 2… except the $499 iPad 3.
I mostly agree with this.
Another poster made a good point about the finger filing thing. Siri could be the magic excuse that makes it work. The biggest problem is the interface. I wonder how bad an iPhone style interface would be at retina display resolution on a 7 inch screen. Buttons might seem gigantic, but it should still look pretty good. Maybe the 5 inch iPod touch would be more useful.
Seems like a good middle ground could be found. On the other hand, I'm glad I can type this on the full-ish keyboard of an iPad while waiting for my car to be fixed rather than a tinier keyboard.
Steve was just talking trash. Nothing wrong with a smaller iPad. Apple just wasn't ready to release one at that time. Women will love it since it will fit in their purses.
If you think women need an iPad that small so it will fit in their purse you are dating the wrong women.
I agree. I think a ~5" Touch would cover much of the same functional capability as a 7" model while being much more portable/pocket-able/affordable/light weight.
I really don't like the 7" size and it has nothing to do with Steve's comments.
Simply that 7" doesn't really offer that much more over a 5" screen, while trading off significant portability.
7.35" with Apples 4:3 ratio would also make the table too fat to get a nice one handed spanning grip across it. This is the kind of thing that the obsessives at apple would figure out if they were aiming for a mid size device. Just more evidence that this is yet another in the long list of meaningless rumors about 7" iPads (which i think started within days of the of the iPad release). This one is complete BS like the rest.
I have stated this on a number of occasions and firmly believe that a larger Touch makes a lot of sense. As a pocket computer, the Touch is too small. There are a large percentage of consumers who could comfortably pocket a 5" iPod Touch so to me the question is why has Apple failed to go there. Seems to me that for browsing, e-reading, movie watching, gaming etc. the bigger the screen the better. So the trick is to make the biggest iPod possible without losing the ability to pocket the device. This is a very different scenario than one finds with a smart phone. I don't think a phone should have a 5" screen but the iPod Touch is not a phone.
You could maintain the resolution of the current Touch and it would still make for an outstanding screen. No need to make it look as if Jobs has been ignored posthumously. Call it the new Touch. After all, with a lower-priced pocketable tablet in the mix, what would be the point of having the Touch soldier on in its present form. Make the Nano a little more capable and you'd have all your bases covered.
The way I see this unfolding is, a new Touch being unveiled alongside the next iPad featuring something like a 4.7" screen and pricing of (in US currency) $279 for a 16GB version, $349 for a 32GB version and $449 for a 64GB version. Maybe improve the camera add a faster processor.
Having a $279 computer that is still small enough to pocket is something that could very much appeal to a lot of consumers. It would even be likely that a lot of people would consider owning both, i.e. an iPad for puttering around the house and what amounts to a supersized Touch for the road.
A 7" iPad, on the other hand, would offer the worst of both. You lose the portability of the current Touch and the advantages of a larger screen like the one on the iPad. Lose/lose.
I think Apple doesn't have the sweet spot nailed down in regards to a device like the Touch. Easily corrected and hopefully Apple does.
Steve was just talking trash. Nothing wrong with a smaller iPad. Apple just wasn't ready to release one at that time. Women will love it since it will fit in their purses.
The way I see this unfolding is, a new Touch being unveiled alongside the next iPad featuring something like a 4.7" screen and pricing of (in US currency) $279 for a 16GB version, $349 for a 32GB version and $449 for a 64GB version. Maybe improve the camera add a faster processor.
Having a $279 computer that is still small enough to pocket is something that could very much appeal to a lot of consumers. It would even be likely that a lot of people would consider owning both, i.e. an iPad for puttering around the house and what amounts to a supersized Touch for the road.
A 7" iPad, on the other hand, would offer the worst of both. You lose the portability of the current Touch and the advantages of a larger screen like the one on the iPad. Lose/lose.
...
I think this pretty much nails the ideal path, particularly the issue with 7" being the worst of all worlds.
The question is that clearly, iPad apps wouldn't be downsized, but how would iPhone apps look on a 4.7" screen? Hopefully not as bad as they look in full screen on an iPad.
Apple has received world wide acclaim for its current iPad form factor and Steve Jobs unambiguously stated that the 7" form factor sucks. So this "new information" is highly suspect.
steve said a lot of things. and guy kawasaki said that Jobs was the only guy who could change his mind and make you think he was right twice...lol
Comments
I think a 7" would be cool too, but at what price? $499 for a 16gb iPad.... $199 for a Touch.... So were talking $299-$399? Gonna be a hard sell at $399, when you can get a full iPad for $100 more..... and not going to have anywhere near the margins they normally get at $299. Although $299 would be an incredible deal and I'd be all over it for my wife.
And 7" will be less battery life (inevitable from smaller battery.)
I can see use for a 7", and of course Steve was the master of the head fake.
The only issue is how to handle up/down scaling vs 3rd format.
Windows 8 is onto something with a dev environment that lets you lay out separate layouts for different screen sizes (tile, phone, tablet) from the git go.
I think that this is inevitable for Apple as well, with the only question being, what is the plan for the interim period as the 7" first comes out. Blown up sucks, and shrunk is too small to use.
Steve was just talking trash. Nothing wrong with a smaller iPad. Apple just wasn't ready to release one at that time. Women will love it since it will fit in their purses.
It would seem that you are the one "talking trash." You have no basis for these opinions at all, no facts to base them on, and then you throw in a trashy sexist remark for good measure.
It would seem that you are the one "talking trash." You have no basis for these opinions at all, no facts to base them on, and then you throw in a trashy sexist remark for good measure.
I should know better than to argue with you, but I will point out that the iPhone has a tiny screen and requires no fingertip sanding. Second, I have it on good authority that at least some women will indeed like a smaller iPad. I'm thinking there are probably no significant women in your life other than your mother, otherwise you would know that it was not a sexist comment.
Steve was just talking trash. Nothing wrong with a smaller iPad. Apple just wasn't ready to release one at that time. Women will love it since it will fit in their purses.
Because all women carry the same size purse. 7" is trash. Are you saying women cannot handle more than 7"?
1) I would imagine any such device would be a larger iPod Touch, not a smaller iPad.
I agree. I think a ~5" Touch would cover much of the same functional capability as a 7" model while being much more portable/pocket-able/affordable/light weight.
I really don't like the 7" size and it has nothing to do with Steve's comments.
Simply that 7" doesn't really offer that much more over a 5" screen, while trading off significant portability.
7.35" with Apples 4:3 ratio would also make the table too fat to get a nice one handed spanning grip across it. This is the kind of thing that the obsessives at apple would figure out if they were aiming for a mid size device. Just more evidence that this is yet another in the long list of meaningless rumors about 7" iPads (which i think started within days of the of the iPad release). This one is complete BS like the rest.
Are you saying women cannot handle more than 7"?
In before all the innuendo?
Because all women carry the same size purse. 7" is trash. Are you saying women cannot handle more than 7"?
Wow, it is pretty obvious which of the posters have never been laid.
As a previous commenter noted, a 7 inch unit would be more portable for pockets and purses.
Some folks cannot afford the entry price for the iPad2. Why leave that market to Samsung, et al?
I see the most logical future conclusion being Apple keeping the low-end iPad 2 around when the iPad 3 comes out and dropping the price $100.
They've done it with every other iDevice to date once they hit the 3rd generation. Why wouldn't they do it with the iPad?
Absolutely NOTHING could compete with a $399 iPad 2… except the $499 iPad 3.
Absolutely NOTHING could compete with a $399 iPad 2… except the $499 iPad 3.
I mostly agree with this.
Another poster made a good point about the finger filing thing. Siri could be the magic excuse that makes it work. The biggest problem is the interface. I wonder how bad an iPhone style interface would be at retina display resolution on a 7 inch screen. Buttons might seem gigantic, but it should still look pretty good. Maybe the 5 inch iPod touch would be more useful.
Seems like a good middle ground could be found. On the other hand, I'm glad I can type this on the full-ish keyboard of an iPad while waiting for my car to be fixed rather than a tinier keyboard.
Funny how when the original Galaxy Tab came out, people on here were bashing the 7" screen size.
Look at the same people now, honoring praise for a 7" tablet on Apple.
Hypocracy at its best.
Steve was just talking trash. Nothing wrong with a smaller iPad. Apple just wasn't ready to release one at that time. Women will love it since it will fit in their purses.
If you think women need an iPad that small so it will fit in their purse you are dating the wrong women.
We will never have a 7" tablet - Steve Jobs.
"Not an actual quote from Steve Jobs."
?Tallest Skil
I agree. I think a ~5" Touch would cover much of the same functional capability as a 7" model while being much more portable/pocket-able/affordable/light weight.
I really don't like the 7" size and it has nothing to do with Steve's comments.
Simply that 7" doesn't really offer that much more over a 5" screen, while trading off significant portability.
7.35" with Apples 4:3 ratio would also make the table too fat to get a nice one handed spanning grip across it. This is the kind of thing that the obsessives at apple would figure out if they were aiming for a mid size device. Just more evidence that this is yet another in the long list of meaningless rumors about 7" iPads (which i think started within days of the of the iPad release). This one is complete BS like the rest.
I have stated this on a number of occasions and firmly believe that a larger Touch makes a lot of sense. As a pocket computer, the Touch is too small. There are a large percentage of consumers who could comfortably pocket a 5" iPod Touch so to me the question is why has Apple failed to go there. Seems to me that for browsing, e-reading, movie watching, gaming etc. the bigger the screen the better. So the trick is to make the biggest iPod possible without losing the ability to pocket the device. This is a very different scenario than one finds with a smart phone. I don't think a phone should have a 5" screen but the iPod Touch is not a phone.
You could maintain the resolution of the current Touch and it would still make for an outstanding screen. No need to make it look as if Jobs has been ignored posthumously. Call it the new Touch. After all, with a lower-priced pocketable tablet in the mix, what would be the point of having the Touch soldier on in its present form. Make the Nano a little more capable and you'd have all your bases covered.
The way I see this unfolding is, a new Touch being unveiled alongside the next iPad featuring something like a 4.7" screen and pricing of (in US currency) $279 for a 16GB version, $349 for a 32GB version and $449 for a 64GB version. Maybe improve the camera add a faster processor.
Having a $279 computer that is still small enough to pocket is something that could very much appeal to a lot of consumers. It would even be likely that a lot of people would consider owning both, i.e. an iPad for puttering around the house and what amounts to a supersized Touch for the road.
A 7" iPad, on the other hand, would offer the worst of both. You lose the portability of the current Touch and the advantages of a larger screen like the one on the iPad. Lose/lose.
I think Apple doesn't have the sweet spot nailed down in regards to a device like the Touch. Easily corrected and hopefully Apple does.
Edit: should it be "on line and in the train" for those who speak East Coast?
I'm oncertain what you're saying...
"Not an actual quote from Steve Jobs."
?Tallest Skil
it was more like: You need to use sand-paper to file-down your finger tips
Steve was just talking trash. Nothing wrong with a smaller iPad. Apple just wasn't ready to release one at that time. Women will love it since it will fit in their purses.
Bingo! Well said.
...
The way I see this unfolding is, a new Touch being unveiled alongside the next iPad featuring something like a 4.7" screen and pricing of (in US currency) $279 for a 16GB version, $349 for a 32GB version and $449 for a 64GB version. Maybe improve the camera add a faster processor.
Having a $279 computer that is still small enough to pocket is something that could very much appeal to a lot of consumers. It would even be likely that a lot of people would consider owning both, i.e. an iPad for puttering around the house and what amounts to a supersized Touch for the road.
A 7" iPad, on the other hand, would offer the worst of both. You lose the portability of the current Touch and the advantages of a larger screen like the one on the iPad. Lose/lose.
...
I think this pretty much nails the ideal path, particularly the issue with 7" being the worst of all worlds.
The question is that clearly, iPad apps wouldn't be downsized, but how would iPhone apps look on a 4.7" screen? Hopefully not as bad as they look in full screen on an iPad.
Apple has received world wide acclaim for its current iPad form factor and Steve Jobs unambiguously stated that the 7" form factor sucks. So this "new information" is highly suspect.
steve said a lot of things. and guy kawasaki said that Jobs was the only guy who could change his mind and make you think he was right twice...lol