i still laugh at Jobs comment. I guess he forgot that the iphone had a small touch screen. that, or apple forgot to ship the sandpaper with your purchase.
I feel obligated to tell you that you're insane if you think the iPad's UI use case and the iPhone's UI use case have anything to do with one another.
Obligated even though you'll ignore it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
You don't have to change the resolution of the device if it goes from 3.5 inches to let's say 4.7 inches.
You're joking, right? OF COURSE YOU DO.
And the resolution is MEANINGLESS. Change the PHYSICAL screen size and you HAVE to redo all of your UI elements. It doesn't matter if it's the same resolution. Existing applications will look absolutely terrible if you don't change them to work on the new device.
Quote:
You can do more with a Touch right now than a Fire and if Apple makes the Touch a little larger, it will be a rather compelling option at that price point.
I'm sure it's not just me, but I don't see Apple forcing developers to code for three different modern sizes for the sake of competing with a device that doesn't even do a quarter of what any iOS device does.
What do I mean by that. 480x320 isn't modern anymore, but apps can still be made compatible with it. Come March, 1024x768 won't be modern anymore, but apps will still be made compatible with it.
So implying a screen SIZE change will mean that people will forced to make apps that run with FOUR different UI configurations.
I feel obligated to tell you that you're insane if you think the iPad's UI use case and the iPhone's UI use case have anything to do with one another.
Obligated even though you'll ignore it.
You're joking, right? OF COURSE YOU DO.
And the resolution is MEANINGLESS. Change the PHYSICAL screen size and you HAVE to redo all of your UI elements. It doesn't matter if it's the same resolution. Existing applications will look absolutely terrible if you don't change them to work on the new device.
I'm sure it's not just me, but I don't see Apple forcing developers to code for three different modern sizes for the sake of competing with a device that doesn't even do a quarter of what any iOS device does.
What do I mean by that. 480x320 isn't modern anymore, but apps can still be made compatible with it. Come March, 1024x768 won't be modern anymore, but apps will still be made compatible with it.
So implying a screen SIZE change will mean that people will forced to make apps that run with FOUR different UI configurations.
It only gets WORSE if you take all the other rumors into account.
iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPod touch 4: 3.5" 960x640
iPhone 6: 3.7" 960x640
iPad 2: 9.8" 1024x768
iPad 3: 9.8" 2048x1536
iPod Ginormo: 4.7" ????x????
I think you are way overestimating how much elements would have to be changed to have software running on a 4.7-inch device vs. a 3.5-incher. I'm sure, for instance, that you could easily run existing software made for the 3.5-inch Touch on the 4.7-incher with no hitches. The beauty of the current resolution on the Touch and iPhone is that it can comfortably accommodate a bit of a bump in screen size.
From a developer's perspective, this would not cause any issues. Chances are there would be little if any change in how a program is designed for a 3.5-inch device and a 4.7-inch device. Leaping up to 9.7 inches, that is another matter and yet how difficult has it been to accommodate the 9.7-inch iPad. If that transition was relatively seamless, what sort of silliness is it to think the world would come to an end of the iPod was bumped up to 4.7 inches.
I'm sure, for instance, that you could easily run existing software made for the 3.5-inch Touch on the 4.7-incher with no hitches.
Run? Yes.
Look in any way good? Absolutely not.
Quote:
The beauty of the current resolution on the Touch and iPhone is that it can comfortably accommodate a bit of a bump in screen size.
Resolution? Yes.
UI usability? Absolutely not.
Quote:
From a developer's perspective, this would not cause any issues. Chances are there would be little if any change in how a program is designed for a 3.5-inch device and a 4.7-inch device.
Hey, solipsism, come on over here and tell these guys why virtually everything has to be redone if the size changes. You're much better at it than I.
Quote:
If that transition was relatively seamless, what sort of silliness is it to think the world would
come to an end of the iPod was bumped up to 4.7 inches.
The same "sort of silliness" that is grounded in the reality that the transition was in no way "seamless".
What, you think developers changed "RunsOniPad" to "1" and were done with it? No. They had to rebuild their apps' UI from scratch. And they'd have to do the same for a physically larger device.
The report also came with a caveat, noting that Apple works with suppliers to test new designs regularly, but that such a device may never see the light of day.
There's the key point. Apple tests tons of stuff, even patents tons of stuff, that either never happens or doesn't happen from Apple but they make some cash off the licensing.
Add also the mentioned possible test for leaks with a fake product or even the possibility that they might be looking at making the iPod Touch larger to make it more than 'an iPhone that isn't a phone'
rather than an iPad mini. That actually makes sense to me. Something in the 6 inch range could be a good gaming machine or even a good controller for games that work alongside an apple tv.
Agreed. Plus any rumor that implies they're doing something because of competition (read: kindle fire) I call BS on. It was a media meme that the Fire would eat into iPad sales. But according to Tim Cook there is no evidence of that. If anything the Fire is probably eating into the sales of Nook or other Android tablets.
Agreed on the rumors. Apple has never acted based on what the other boys are doing. Doesn't need to now either.
As for the whole Fire thing. Yeah they sold something like 1.5 million Kindle models during the holiday quarter but how many of the what 5 models were Fires. We never found out. How many of those were returned within a week of using them. I know of an easy 20 folks between friends, family and workers that got and returned a Fire. 5 because they just don't feel the need to have any kind of tablet. Another 4-5 because they just want an ereader and they got a regular Kindle. The rest because they felt the Kindle Fire sucks for one reason or another and are waiting for the next iPad. Of those 10, I know that 3 of them mentioned the lack of parental controls or even just requiring your password to make a purchase (if you log out completely nothing from your media or books works so that's no good) as a major issue. But those are still 20 sales that Amazon can and will count.
Are displays in cars standard sizes or dimensions? I'd like for Apple to crack this market but it seems to me this is where they'd have to license there tech over selling a stand alone device.
As for the whole Fire thing. Yeah they sold something like 1.5 million Kindle models during the holiday quarter but how many of the what 5 models were Fires. We never found out. How many of those were returned within a week of using them. I know of an easy 20 folks between friends, family and workers that got and returned a Fire.
I have an 11" Air, but wanted to get a Kindle. Returned the Fire after a week. It's a great size/form factor. The Amazon UI and constant lag that be-riddles Android just got old, quickly.
I find it incredible that anyone still listens to these rumours. It's just not going to happen.
General consensus, at least in the past, was that the WSJ was being fed information by Apple. If any rumors are to be believed, the ones from the WSJ would be it.
I would expect that this is true. Not smart, 8" is too big for a small tablet, but true.
He said that manufacturers of those devices would need to ship sandpaper with their 7-inch tablets so users could file down their fingers to the point where they could hit smaller targets on the screen.
Hey, solipsism, come on over here and tell these guys why virtually everything has to be redone if the size changes. You're much better at it than I.
The same "sort of silliness" that is grounded in the reality that the transition was in no way "seamless".
What, you think developers changed "RunsOniPad" to "1" and were done with it? No. They had to rebuild their apps' UI from scratch. And they'd have to do the same for a physically larger device.
Be that as it may, the notion that Apple can handle offering an IOS device at 3.5 inches and one at 9.7 inches but the whole eco system would come crashing down if it attempted to work with a 4.7-inch device is, well, sorry, but silly is the one word that comes to mind.
Obviously, if Apple decides that a 4.7-inch device makes sense to the end user, your suggestion that it is beyond the company's ability to handle introducing such a device seems rather absurd. Clearly if Apple wants to make this happen, I'm sure it's got the clout to do so. I would consider it a mistake to think it's beyond the company's capabilities or outside of the range of the IOS system to accommodate such a product. If it never comes to market it's because it does not make sense to Apple in the context of the bigger picture. It's not going to be because it's too tough an assignment for Apple to cope with.
Obviously, if Apple decides that a 4.7-inch device makes sense to the end user, your suggestion that it is beyond the company's ability to handle introducing such a device seems rather absurd.
Apple should take Samsung's approach and release a device at 1" increments between 3" and 10" just to see what sticks and sells well. Oh wait, the 10" is best selling tablet device by a wide margin? Well the fanboys do like spending money.
Comments
i still laugh at Jobs comment. I guess he forgot that the iphone had a small touch screen. that, or apple forgot to ship the sandpaper with your purchase.
I feel obligated to tell you that you're insane if you think the iPad's UI use case and the iPhone's UI use case have anything to do with one another.
Obligated even though you'll ignore it.
You don't have to change the resolution of the device if it goes from 3.5 inches to let's say 4.7 inches.
You're joking, right? OF COURSE YOU DO.
And the resolution is MEANINGLESS. Change the PHYSICAL screen size and you HAVE to redo all of your UI elements. It doesn't matter if it's the same resolution. Existing applications will look absolutely terrible if you don't change them to work on the new device.
You can do more with a Touch right now than a Fire and if Apple makes the Touch a little larger, it will be a rather compelling option at that price point.
I'm sure it's not just me, but I don't see Apple forcing developers to code for three different modern sizes for the sake of competing with a device that doesn't even do a quarter of what any iOS device does.
What do I mean by that. 480x320 isn't modern anymore, but apps can still be made compatible with it. Come March, 1024x768 won't be modern anymore, but apps will still be made compatible with it.
So implying a screen SIZE change will mean that people will forced to make apps that run with FOUR different UI configurations.
iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 6, iPod touch 4: 3.5" 960x640
iPad 2: 9.8" 1024x768
iPad 3: 9.8" 2048x1536
iPod Ginormo: 4.7" 960x640
It only gets WORSE if you take all the other rumors into account.
iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPod touch 4: 3.5" 960x640
iPhone 6: 3.7" 960x640
iPad 2: 9.8" 1024x768
iPad 3: 9.8" 2048x1536
iPod Ginormo: 4.7" ????x????
'Till then, when mobility requires, I'm toting my 11" Air--pretty good screen, usable keyboard.
(I did notice the Kindle Fire fits perfectly :-)
Agreed. This is in the works.
It's been "in the works" for several years now going by press reports.
I feel obligated to tell you that you're insane if you think the iPad's UI use case and the iPhone's UI use case have anything to do with one another.
Obligated even though you'll ignore it.
You're joking, right? OF COURSE YOU DO.
And the resolution is MEANINGLESS. Change the PHYSICAL screen size and you HAVE to redo all of your UI elements. It doesn't matter if it's the same resolution. Existing applications will look absolutely terrible if you don't change them to work on the new device.
I'm sure it's not just me, but I don't see Apple forcing developers to code for three different modern sizes for the sake of competing with a device that doesn't even do a quarter of what any iOS device does.
What do I mean by that. 480x320 isn't modern anymore, but apps can still be made compatible with it. Come March, 1024x768 won't be modern anymore, but apps will still be made compatible with it.
So implying a screen SIZE change will mean that people will forced to make apps that run with FOUR different UI configurations.
iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 6, iPod touch 4: 3.5" 960x640
iPad 2: 9.8" 1024x768
iPad 3: 9.8" 2048x1536
iPod Ginormo: 4.7" 960x640
It only gets WORSE if you take all the other rumors into account.
iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPod touch 4: 3.5" 960x640
iPhone 6: 3.7" 960x640
iPad 2: 9.8" 1024x768
iPad 3: 9.8" 2048x1536
iPod Ginormo: 4.7" ????x????
I think you are way overestimating how much elements would have to be changed to have software running on a 4.7-inch device vs. a 3.5-incher. I'm sure, for instance, that you could easily run existing software made for the 3.5-inch Touch on the 4.7-incher with no hitches. The beauty of the current resolution on the Touch and iPhone is that it can comfortably accommodate a bit of a bump in screen size.
From a developer's perspective, this would not cause any issues. Chances are there would be little if any change in how a program is designed for a 3.5-inch device and a 4.7-inch device. Leaping up to 9.7 inches, that is another matter and yet how difficult has it been to accommodate the 9.7-inch iPad. If that transition was relatively seamless, what sort of silliness is it to think the world would come to an end of the iPod was bumped up to 4.7 inches.
Much ado about nothing.
No they're not.
lol...
I'm sure, for instance, that you could easily run existing software made for the 3.5-inch Touch on the 4.7-incher with no hitches.
Run? Yes.
Look in any way good? Absolutely not.
The beauty of the current resolution on the Touch and iPhone is that it can comfortably accommodate a bit of a bump in screen size.
Resolution? Yes.
UI usability? Absolutely not.
From a developer's perspective, this would not cause any issues. Chances are there would be little if any change in how a program is designed for a 3.5-inch device and a 4.7-inch device.
Hey, solipsism, come on over here and tell these guys why virtually everything has to be redone if the size changes. You're much better at it than I.
If that transition was relatively seamless, what sort of silliness is it to think the world would
come to an end of the iPod was bumped up to 4.7 inches.
The same "sort of silliness" that is grounded in the reality that the transition was in no way "seamless".
What, you think developers changed "RunsOniPad" to "1" and were done with it? No. They had to rebuild their apps' UI from scratch. And they'd have to do the same for a physically larger device.
The report also came with a caveat, noting that Apple works with suppliers to test new designs regularly, but that such a device may never see the light of day.
There's the key point. Apple tests tons of stuff, even patents tons of stuff, that either never happens or doesn't happen from Apple but they make some cash off the licensing.
Add also the mentioned possible test for leaks with a fake product or even the possibility that they might be looking at making the iPod Touch larger to make it more than 'an iPhone that isn't a phone'
rather than an iPad mini. That actually makes sense to me. Something in the 6 inch range could be a good gaming machine or even a good controller for games that work alongside an apple tv.
Agreed. Plus any rumor that implies they're doing something because of competition (read: kindle fire) I call BS on. It was a media meme that the Fire would eat into iPad sales. But according to Tim Cook there is no evidence of that. If anything the Fire is probably eating into the sales of Nook or other Android tablets.
Agreed on the rumors. Apple has never acted based on what the other boys are doing. Doesn't need to now either.
As for the whole Fire thing. Yeah they sold something like 1.5 million Kindle models during the holiday quarter but how many of the what 5 models were Fires. We never found out. How many of those were returned within a week of using them. I know of an easy 20 folks between friends, family and workers that got and returned a Fire. 5 because they just don't feel the need to have any kind of tablet. Another 4-5 because they just want an ereader and they got a regular Kindle. The rest because they felt the Kindle Fire sucks for one reason or another and are waiting for the next iPad. Of those 10, I know that 3 of them mentioned the lack of parental controls or even just requiring your password to make a purchase (if you log out completely nothing from your media or books works so that's no good) as a major issue. But those are still 20 sales that Amazon can and will count.
If true I bet for automotive use
Are displays in cars standard sizes or dimensions? I'd like for Apple to crack this market but it seems to me this is where they'd have to license there tech over selling a stand alone device.
As for the whole Fire thing. Yeah they sold something like 1.5 million Kindle models during the holiday quarter but how many of the what 5 models were Fires. We never found out. How many of those were returned within a week of using them. I know of an easy 20 folks between friends, family and workers that got and returned a Fire.
I have an 11" Air, but wanted to get a Kindle. Returned the Fire after a week. It's a great size/form factor. The Amazon UI and constant lag that be-riddles Android just got old, quickly.
I find it incredible that anyone still listens to these rumours. It's just not going to happen.
General consensus, at least in the past, was that the WSJ was being fed information by Apple. If any rumors are to be believed, the ones from the WSJ would be it.
I would expect that this is true. Not smart, 8" is too big for a small tablet, but true.
-kpluck
He said that manufacturers of those devices would need to ship sandpaper with their 7-inch tablets so users could file down their fingers to the point where they could hit smaller targets on the screen.
Like so:
If true I bet for automotive use
Or the remote for the HDTV
Run? Yes.
Look in any way good? Absolutely not.
Resolution? Yes.
UI usability? Absolutely not.
Hey, solipsism, come on over here and tell these guys why virtually everything has to be redone if the size changes. You're much better at it than I.
The same "sort of silliness" that is grounded in the reality that the transition was in no way "seamless".
What, you think developers changed "RunsOniPad" to "1" and were done with it? No. They had to rebuild their apps' UI from scratch. And they'd have to do the same for a physically larger device.
Be that as it may, the notion that Apple can handle offering an IOS device at 3.5 inches and one at 9.7 inches but the whole eco system would come crashing down if it attempted to work with a 4.7-inch device is, well, sorry, but silly is the one word that comes to mind.
Obviously, if Apple decides that a 4.7-inch device makes sense to the end user, your suggestion that it is beyond the company's ability to handle introducing such a device seems rather absurd. Clearly if Apple wants to make this happen, I'm sure it's got the clout to do so. I would consider it a mistake to think it's beyond the company's capabilities or outside of the range of the IOS system to accommodate such a product. If it never comes to market it's because it does not make sense to Apple in the context of the bigger picture. It's not going to be because it's too tough an assignment for Apple to cope with.
Or the remote for the HDTV
I'd think that for a TV a better remote would be one that could fit in your hand, so a long and thin touchscreen.
This is the Intel concept phone from several years ago that I think would make fora good remote if a little thinner.Even then there is something about having buttons so you don't have to look at the remote while watching TV.
Obviously, if Apple decides that a 4.7-inch device makes sense to the end user, your suggestion that it is beyond the company's ability to handle introducing such a device seems rather absurd.
Right, which is why I said nothing of the sort.
/s