As others have said, I see no actual reason for Apple to produce this product in the first place. What would it benefit them?
I am somewhat surprised (ok, not really) that this rumor continues to persist. The only reason ever given, really, is "to compete with the Amazon Fire." Huh? I don't care how much added profit Amazon makes on the back-end through content, they are selling the things at a loss. Apple is making billions of dollars from selling the iPad.
In what way does Apple need to "compete with the Fire" at all?
Some people are simply turned off by the iPad's starting price of $499... so they will be drawn to the Kindle Fire at $199
If Apple had a 7" iPad at $299.... that might cause those people to re-consider Apple.
Plus... Apple has margins to manage. The iPad has $330 worth of parts for the 16GB model (prices from March 2011... they might have dropped a little by now)
The 9.7" screen is the most expensive part of that. Selling the current iPad at $349 or even $399 probably wouldn't give Apple the kind of margins they are used to.
But a 7" screen might cut costs enough to make a $299 7" iPad possible.
Some people are simply turned off by the iPad's starting price of $499... so they will be drawn to the Kindle Fire at $199
If Apple had a 7" iPad at $299.... that might cause those people to re-consider Apple.
Plus... Apple has margins to manage. The iPad has $330 worth of parts for the 16GB model (prices from March 2011... they might have dropped a little by now)
The 9.7" screen is the most expensive part of that. Selling the current iPad at $349 or even $399 probably wouldn't give Apple the kind of margins they are used to.
But a 7" screen might cut costs enough to make a $299 7" iPad possible.
I'm not seeing a 7" or especially this new 7.85" display being much cheaper than the 9.7". We're probably talking the same resolution so there is some uniformity but if not, we're still talking a denser display.
And is $300 really a competitor to the Kindle Fire since it's 50% more expensive? The 3.5" iPod Touch is $199 and by all indications it's outselling the Kindle Fire by about 5x (though that may drop this quarter because of the Fire, Vita and no update to the Touch before the holiday season).
Some people are simply turned off by the iPad's starting price of $499... so they will be drawn to the Kindle Fire at $199
If Apple had a 7" iPad at $299.... that might cause those people to re-consider Apple.
Apple has standards and there is a threshold which they will not go below in order to please those sorts of people. LIke Steve Jobs once said, Apple won't ship junk.
Apple doesn't need to accommodate every bum and poor person in the world. Those people should look elsewhere besides Apple for their tech products. Let them all buy Kindles.
$500 is not expensive for a tablet. If somebody thinks that it is, then they have no business being an Apple customer.
When the next iPad gets released, the iPad 2 will be cheaper and only a moron would choose an Android 7" tablet over a 9.7" iPad 2.
I see no use for 7" tablets, and I couldn't care less if Apple makes them or not. I think that it would be a waste. If somebody wants portability, there's the iPod Touch or iPhone.
7" is too big to fit into somebody pocket, so it's not like people are walking around with 7" tablets in their pocket, and if somebody is going to put their tablet into a bag, then the 9.7" is far better, as it's more than double the display size and far better to use.
So in conclusion, screw all 7" tablets. People who buy them are too poor to afford the real deal.
You might want to see how big that proposed iPad mini actually would be before making misstatements (a 7" screen Nook color does fit in a lot of pockets).
There's a link here that would let you print a full-size mockup. After looking at it you may change your opinion. . .
The 3.5" iPod Touch is $249 and by all indications it's outselling the Kindle Fire by about 5x (though that may drop this quarter because of the Fire, Vita and no update to the Touch before the holiday season).
The iPod Touch (lowest version) is only $190. I know because I bought one for X-Mas as a present for somebody.
You might want to see how big that proposed iPad mini actually would be before making misstatements (a 7" screen Nook color does fit in a lot of pockets).
There's a link here that would let you print a full-size mockup. After looking at it you may change your opinion. . .
So you printed it out and tried the keyboard size for yourself?
No, there's no need for me to print anything out.
They had an actual size PDF that can be viewed on an iPad, and that's exactly how I saw it, on my iPad 2. It looks tiny, and the icons are too small and the text also too small. As for putting it in a pocket, there's no way that I would ever walk around with that 7.85" thing in my pocket.
Remember when $999 was expected and everyone had to scramble after the iPad was announced
That's true. When I was watching the keynote for the first iPad, I wasn't even considering getting one. But when I saw the dirt cheap price, I knew that it would be mine soon enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You're right. I meant $199. Was thinking of the Nook for some reason when I wrote the price. Point still holds.
Yeah, it's $199 from Apple. I ordered one from one of those Mac retailers, so I get free shipping, no tax, and the total was around $190.
You might want to see how big that proposed iPad mini actually would be before making misstatements (a 7" screen Nook color does fit in a lot of pockets).
A lot of pockets? Front pockets that can take a 5" x 8" device? Back pocket that take a 5" x 8" device? These aren't exactly iPad thin either! the only common pockets that will work are cargo pants pockets, but it's still sticking out of your cargo pants unless it's 8" deep so you can secure the device. That pretty much leaves lab coats but that's an occupation based use and I'm not sure the Nook is being used in that capacity.
Now lets consider a 7.85" iPad with a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's not only larger it also is closer to being square. Using similar bezel dimension we're talking about 1.5" of width on the short side. What pockets can accommodate a 6.5" device? Are we inventing new tablet compatible fanny packs that are actually stylish for all to wear?
The 7" inch screen if for an infotainment system Apple is making for the VW Group. It will debut in the 2013 Audi A3. It will include Siri, Apple Maps and Directed Audio for private calls. Audi has been chompin at the bit for years to have a partnership with Apple. Another industry changer.
Now if the VW group made cars that last with the quality of an iPad it would be a good thing.
You might want to see how big that proposed iPad mini actually would be before making misstatements (a 7" screen Nook color does fit in a lot of pockets).
There's a link here that would let you print a full-size mockup. After looking at it you may change your opinion. . .
What the hell sorts of pants are people wearing that something like that fits in a "lot" of pockets?
The only advantage I see is that it would easily fit in a purse. Though, given the size of a lot of bags these days, so would an iPad.
Jobs was able to remind people that 7" screen is half the area of a 10" one. 49% using those numbers.
A 7.85" one is significantly bigger than a 7" - and to be more precise 10" was really 9.7"
That is actually much less of a reduction 65% in screen area.
I think Apple will go for this to counteract the only significant competitor - even if it's not a direct competitor - the Kindle. Large number of kindles sold (even if it's at a loss) = developers focusing effort on the Android Tablet market.
Jobs' "you have to file your fingers down" argument was always tenuous at best - after all, iOS works fine on a3.5" screen. His other argument was always far more compelling - we're sticking with 10" to keep the developer base with us. Let them develop for this size, without additional sizes to worry about.
If Apple stuck with the same 1024x768 for a 7.85" tablet, they'd get significant increase in pixel density - a better quality image because of the reduction in size. And then doubled resolution for a 10" retina tablet (as rumoured) it would be simple to develop for, and in smooth in transition as the iPhone 4 was. Pixels are just doubled until the higher res is exploited in updates.
As for the third-generation iPad, Blair expects that to arrive in the late March or early April timeframe. He sees key features being a retina display, 4G compatibility and Siri functionality, along with higher-resolution cameras in a 1-megapixel front-facing camera and a 3-to-5-megapixel rear-facing camera.
Apple has extensive guidelines on widget sizing, icon sizing, etc for both iPhone/iPod and iPad form factors. If they were to release an iPad mini with the same resolution screen, it would break all these assumptions that Apple has been recommending developers follow since day 1. There is no way Apple would do that. If you read through the full set of guidelines, it's obvious that Apple has spent considerable time and effort on them. You couldn't get less Apple than deciding what the "right" thing is, then break it just because of what the competition is doing.
If Apple were to release an iPad mini, it would have to become its own form factor with apps designed specifically for it. It would run iPhone/iPod apps using the same mechanism the iPad does now. Maybe it would be able to run existing iPad apps with reverse behaviour - either view them at full size with the ability to pan around, or shrink them to fit entirely on the screen. But that all depends on how intuitive they can get it to work. They already do have pan and zoom ability for accessibility so who knows. But regardless, IMHO Apple won't want to fragment the iOS ecosystem with a third form factor. Developers already have to write two completely separate UIs, I can't see Apple introducing a third.
Also, what kind of pants are you people buying?!? I know a 7" device is easier to carry around but can anyone seriously pocket that thing? As someone who is average build, 5'8", I find even a 4.3" screen device to be uncomfortable in my pocket. A 4:3 7.85" device wouldn't even fit in any of my pockets, let alone allow me to walk and sit comfortably. Maybe if you're 6'6" and 300lbs I guess...
What the hell sorts of pants are people wearing that something like that fits in a "lot" of pockets?
The only advantage I see is that it would easily fit in a purse. Though, given the size of a lot of bags these days, so would an iPad.
Without going all thru this again (for the third time), a Nook Color fits in the back pocket of a pair of 34" waist Levi Jeans fine, some pairs more snugly than others even in the same brand and style. I imagine 36" waist and up have room to spare.
The purse comment is very appropriate as women reportedly prefer the smaller 7" devices over the larger iPad's.
Comments
I am somewhat surprised (ok, not really) that this rumor continues to persist. The only reason ever given, really, is "to compete with the Amazon Fire." Huh? I don't care how much added profit Amazon makes on the back-end through content, they are selling the things at a loss. Apple is making billions of dollars from selling the iPad.
In what way does Apple need to "compete with the Fire" at all?
If Apple had a 7" iPad at $299.... that might cause those people to re-consider Apple.
Plus... Apple has margins to manage. The iPad has $330 worth of parts for the 16GB model (prices from March 2011... they might have dropped a little by now)
The 9.7" screen is the most expensive part of that. Selling the current iPad at $349 or even $399 probably wouldn't give Apple the kind of margins they are used to.
But a 7" screen might cut costs enough to make a $299 7" iPad possible.
Some people are simply turned off by the iPad's starting price of $499... so they will be drawn to the Kindle Fire at $199
If Apple had a 7" iPad at $299.... that might cause those people to re-consider Apple.
Plus... Apple has margins to manage. The iPad has $330 worth of parts for the 16GB model (prices from March 2011... they might have dropped a little by now)
The 9.7" screen is the most expensive part of that. Selling the current iPad at $349 or even $399 probably wouldn't give Apple the kind of margins they are used to.
But a 7" screen might cut costs enough to make a $299 7" iPad possible.
I'm not seeing a 7" or especially this new 7.85" display being much cheaper than the 9.7". We're probably talking the same resolution so there is some uniformity but if not, we're still talking a denser display.
And is $300 really a competitor to the Kindle Fire since it's 50% more expensive? The 3.5" iPod Touch is $199 and by all indications it's outselling the Kindle Fire by about 5x (though that may drop this quarter because of the Fire, Vita and no update to the Touch before the holiday season).
Some people are simply turned off by the iPad's starting price of $499... so they will be drawn to the Kindle Fire at $199
If Apple had a 7" iPad at $299.... that might cause those people to re-consider Apple.
Apple has standards and there is a threshold which they will not go below in order to please those sorts of people. LIke Steve Jobs once said, Apple won't ship junk.
Apple doesn't need to accommodate every bum and poor person in the world. Those people should look elsewhere besides Apple for their tech products. Let them all buy Kindles.
$500 is not expensive for a tablet. If somebody thinks that it is, then they have no business being an Apple customer.
When the next iPad gets released, the iPad 2 will be cheaper and only a moron would choose an Android 7" tablet over a 9.7" iPad 2.
I see no use for 7" tablets, and I couldn't care less if Apple makes them or not. I think that it would be a waste. If somebody wants portability, there's the iPod Touch or iPhone.
7" is too big to fit into somebody pocket, so it's not like people are walking around with 7" tablets in their pocket, and if somebody is going to put their tablet into a bag, then the 9.7" is far better, as it's more than double the display size and far better to use.
So in conclusion, screw all 7" tablets. People who buy them are too poor to afford the real deal.
You might want to see how big that proposed iPad mini actually would be before making misstatements (a 7" screen Nook color does fit in a lot of pockets).
There's a link here that would let you print a full-size mockup. After looking at it you may change your opinion. . .
or not.
http://cdn.macrumors.com/downloads/i...i/iPadMini.pdf
Another view on this over at 9to5:
http://9to5mac.com/2011/12/23/analys...know-and-love/
The 3.5" iPod Touch is $249 and by all indications it's outselling the Kindle Fire by about 5x (though that may drop this quarter because of the Fire, Vita and no update to the Touch before the holiday season).
The iPod Touch (lowest version) is only $190. I know because I bought one for X-Mas as a present for somebody.
You might want to see how big that proposed iPad mini actually would be before making misstatements (a 7" screen Nook color does fit in a lot of pockets).
There's a link here that would let you print a full-size mockup. After looking at it you may change your opinion. . .
or not.
http://9to5mac.com/2011/12/23/analys...know-and-love/
Yeah, I know. I saw the comparison picture on macrumors earlier.
Yeah, I know. I saw the comparison picture on macrumors earlier.
So you printed it out and tried the keyboard size for yourself?
$500 is not expensive for a tablet. If somebody thinks that it is, then they have no business being an Apple customer.
Remember when $999 was expected and everyone had to scramble after the iPad was announced
The iPod Touch (lowest version) is only $190. I know because I bought one for X-Mas as a present for somebody.
You're right. I meant $199. Was thinking of the Nook for some reason when I wrote the price. Point still holds.
So you printed it out and tried the keyboard size for yourself?
No, there's no need for me to print anything out.
They had an actual size PDF that can be viewed on an iPad, and that's exactly how I saw it, on my iPad 2. It looks tiny, and the icons are too small and the text also too small. As for putting it in a pocket, there's no way that I would ever walk around with that 7.85" thing in my pocket.
Remember when $999 was expected and everyone had to scramble after the iPad was announced
That's true. When I was watching the keynote for the first iPad, I wasn't even considering getting one. But when I saw the dirt cheap price, I knew that it would be mine soon enough.
You're right. I meant $199. Was thinking of the Nook for some reason when I wrote the price. Point still holds.
Yeah, it's $199 from Apple. I ordered one from one of those Mac retailers, so I get free shipping, no tax, and the total was around $190.
You might want to see how big that proposed iPad mini actually would be before making misstatements (a 7" screen Nook color does fit in a lot of pockets).
A lot of pockets? Front pockets that can take a 5" x 8" device? Back pocket that take a 5" x 8" device? These aren't exactly iPad thin either! the only common pockets that will work are cargo pants pockets, but it's still sticking out of your cargo pants unless it's 8" deep so you can secure the device. That pretty much leaves lab coats but that's an occupation based use and I'm not sure the Nook is being used in that capacity.
Now lets consider a 7.85" iPad with a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's not only larger it also is closer to being square. Using similar bezel dimension we're talking about 1.5" of width on the short side. What pockets can accommodate a 6.5" device? Are we inventing new tablet compatible fanny packs that are actually stylish for all to wear?
The 7" inch screen if for an infotainment system Apple is making for the VW Group. It will debut in the 2013 Audi A3. It will include Siri, Apple Maps and Directed Audio for private calls. Audi has been chompin at the bit for years to have a partnership with Apple. Another industry changer.
Now if the VW group made cars that last with the quality of an iPad it would be a good thing.
You might want to see how big that proposed iPad mini actually would be before making misstatements (a 7" screen Nook color does fit in a lot of pockets).
There's a link here that would let you print a full-size mockup. After looking at it you may change your opinion. . .
What the hell sorts of pants are people wearing that something like that fits in a "lot" of pockets?
The only advantage I see is that it would easily fit in a purse. Though, given the size of a lot of bags these days, so would an iPad.
Secondary applications will see people incorporating this new larger size iPod Touch as a GPS for the car.
The iPhone 5 will grow to 4.3" with the same resolution by higher pixel density as this new Touch.
A 7.85" one is significantly bigger than a 7" - and to be more precise 10" was really 9.7"
That is actually much less of a reduction 65% in screen area.
I think Apple will go for this to counteract the only significant competitor - even if it's not a direct competitor - the Kindle. Large number of kindles sold (even if it's at a loss) = developers focusing effort on the Android Tablet market.
Jobs' "you have to file your fingers down" argument was always tenuous at best - after all, iOS works fine on a3.5" screen. His other argument was always far more compelling - we're sticking with 10" to keep the developer base with us. Let them develop for this size, without additional sizes to worry about.
If Apple stuck with the same 1024x768 for a 7.85" tablet, they'd get significant increase in pixel density - a better quality image because of the reduction in size. And then doubled resolution for a 10" retina tablet (as rumoured) it would be simple to develop for, and in smooth in transition as the iPhone 4 was. Pixels are just doubled until the higher res is exploited in updates.
As for the third-generation iPad, Blair expects that to arrive in the late March or early April timeframe. He sees key features being a retina display, 4G compatibility and Siri functionality, along with higher-resolution cameras in a 1-megapixel front-facing camera and a 3-to-5-megapixel rear-facing camera.
Retina display: No.
"4G": No!!
SIRI: Yes.
Decent cameras: Yes.
Speed Bump: Yes.
If Apple were to release an iPad mini, it would have to become its own form factor with apps designed specifically for it. It would run iPhone/iPod apps using the same mechanism the iPad does now. Maybe it would be able to run existing iPad apps with reverse behaviour - either view them at full size with the ability to pan around, or shrink them to fit entirely on the screen. But that all depends on how intuitive they can get it to work. They already do have pan and zoom ability for accessibility so who knows. But regardless, IMHO Apple won't want to fragment the iOS ecosystem with a third form factor. Developers already have to write two completely separate UIs, I can't see Apple introducing a third.
Also, what kind of pants are you people buying?!? I know a 7" device is easier to carry around but can anyone seriously pocket that thing? As someone who is average build, 5'8", I find even a 4.3" screen device to be uncomfortable in my pocket. A 4:3 7.85" device wouldn't even fit in any of my pockets, let alone allow me to walk and sit comfortably. Maybe if you're 6'6" and 300lbs I guess...
What the hell sorts of pants are people wearing that something like that fits in a "lot" of pockets?
The only advantage I see is that it would easily fit in a purse. Though, given the size of a lot of bags these days, so would an iPad.
Without going all thru this again (for the third time), a Nook Color fits in the back pocket of a pair of 34" waist Levi Jeans fine, some pairs more snugly than others even in the same brand and style. I imagine 36" waist and up have room to spare.
The purse comment is very appropriate as women reportedly prefer the smaller 7" devices over the larger iPad's.