I think the beauty of Apple's insanely high profit margins is that it allows them to sell last years model of an iPhone or an iPad at $100 discount over the current model and still make a larger profit than other manufacturers. They didn't do this with the first iPad and iPad 2, but I think that is very possible with the 2 and 3. They would probably just sell one version of the iPad 2 at $399 (the 16GB WiFi only) That would allow them to compete in the lower end market and probably steal some Amazon Fire sales.
The other possibility is this 8" rumor is true and they want to compete in the $399 space with a smaller form factor. The good news is it doesn't look like we will have to speculate very long. We will probably find out what Apple plans to do in a few short weeks.
Yup! Not going to happen! only 1.7" smaller than the current one?! LOL
The best chance of anything remotely close to this would likely be a larger iPod touch.
While I'm not saying you are wrong that this wouldn't ever happen, note that while it's "only 1.7" " smaller which seems like not much, but in overall screen size that translates into around a 1/4 reduction in screen size (just a guesstimate, I haven't done the exact math). So it's a bigger change than 1.7 inches might imply. Recall that a 7" screen is only about 1/2 the size of a 9.7" screen dispite being only 2.7" smaller diagonally.
As for how likely it is to happen, I remember a lot of people here declaring with certainty that Apple would never sell a Verizon iPhone, or if they did there was no way it would be a CDMA version, they would wait for LTE. Just saying...
I wonder if you make blanket statements because you're trolling or because you really can't see how it makes your comments pointless.
Lets go thorough a couple examples...
Apple releases a 4" iPhone but reduces the border and thickness so that that you can still sweep the thumb across the display in one hand as easily as you can with the iPhone 4S. That's a winner!
Apple releases a 4.65" mammoth but keeps the edge border about the same and still maintains their 3:2 aspect ratio. That's a failure!
I don't even think you understand why I'd even mention the aspect ratio or how that can affect its usefulness of the device. Take it from me it's important.
i am getting just as much use (actually more) out of mine than if i had an iphone. 4g, better battery life (2100mah battery) and something that is a pleasure to view for long periods of time (movies, web sites, kindle).
i am getting just as much use (actually more) out of mine than if i had an iphone. 4g, better battery life (2100mah battery) and something that is a pleasure to view for long periods of time (movies, web sites, kindle).
the iphone is just dated.
No one is saying you aren't or that there is one device that will suit everyone's needs, but your comments aren't a rebuttal for how and why Apple would logically introduce a larger display on the iPhone.
What is Apple's motivation for bringing out such a device.
One potential consideration could be availability of screens. Apple is struggling to keep up with demand. If screens are a major bottleneck in the supply chain, creating another device that uses a smaller, cheaper screen could ease up that constraint. Right now Apple has to settle for phased rollouts of their products because they can't make enough of them. The longer they delay, the more sales competitors will have in countries that Apple's device isn't available in yet. Not because the competitor's devices are better, but because that's all that's available.
Foxconn can open all the assebly factories in Brazil and elsewhere they want, but if they can't keep those factories supplied with components it won't do them any good.
No one is saying you aren't or that there is one device that will suit everyone's needs, but your comments aren't a rebuttal for how and why Apple would logically introduce a larger display on the iPhone.
apple claims they won't cuz they have found the 'perfect' size for phone and for ipad. i think they will be forced to eat those words down the line. thats all i am saying.
apple claims they won't cuz they have found the 'perfect' size for phone and for ipad. i think they will be forced to eat those words down the line. thats all i am saying.
Really? Show me some evidence that Apple will never use anything besides the 3.5" or 9.7" displays for their smartphone and tablet, respectively.
And don't confuse Apple testing multiple sizes to the find the best size for an initial rollout as meaning it's the only size or perfect size for everyone. You need to consider that for each new size and resolution will come a new UI and new SDK that will add time and cost for Apple and 3rd-party devs, which includes issues for the consumer. They are trying to scale in a way that minimizes this impact.
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.
While I agree with much of what you say, it's worth pointing out that it wouldn't be the first time Apple has forced developers to change (or, indeed, start over) if they wanted to play on Apple's playground. Don't think for 1 second that Apple would hesitate to make the change if they felt it was best for them, regardless of the impact on the developers. So saying it would place hardships on the developers really isn't a very good argument (again, assuming Apple had other reasons to add a screen size).
Really? Show me some evidence that Apple will never use anything besides the 3.5" or 9.7" displays for their smartphone and tablet, respectively.
And don't confuse Apple testing multiple sizes to the find the best size for an initial rollout as meaning it's the only size or perfect size for everyone. You need to consider that for each new size and resolution will come a new UI and new SDK that will add time and cost for Apple and 3rd-party devs, which includes issues for the consumer. They are trying to scale in a way that minimizes this impact.
Why would you need to change a program in any way to run on a 4.7-inch screen vs. a 3.5-inch screen if the resolution is identical. Seems to me that the interactive elements would remain unchanged.
This is not like comparing what is needed in software to run on an iPhone as opposed to an iPad. That is an entirely different scenario.
There is no reason to alter software in the slightest to run on a 4.7-inch Touch with a resolution identical to the current 3.5-inch Touch. It's simply not a factor.
If, for example, Apple decided to make the iPhone with a slightly larger screen but retained existing resolution numbers, what software would need to be altered from its current form? I suspect the answer is none of it. All the current software would run on such a device with no issues whatsoever.
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.
/s
Isn't that kind of like saying that Bashar al-Assad is the best person to lead Syria because he won the presidential election by a landslide?
[No, I'm not comparing morals or saying Apple is evil. Just saying that when there is only only choice (like al-Assad's competition on the ballot, Apple's tablet competition is weak), obviously that choice is going to get the majority. So of course the iPad is the best selling device, but to attribute that to size alone is an insult to the rest of Apple's design team. I'd bet that if Apple had come out with a different size originally instead of 9.7" it would have been just as wildly successful.]
Why would you need to change a program in any way to run on a 4.7-inch screen vs. a 3.5-inch screen if the resolution is identical. Seems to me that the interactive elements would remain unchanged.
This is not like comparing what is needed in software to run on an iPhone as opposed to an iPad. That is an entirely different scenario.
There is no reason to alter software in the slightest to run on a 4.7-inch Touch with a resolution identical to the current 3.5-inch Touch. It's simply not a factor.
If, for example, Apple decided to make the iPhone with a slightly larger screen but retained existing resolution numbers, what software would need to be altered from its current form? I suspect the answer is none of it. All the current software would run on such a device with no issues whatsoever.
It's really that simple.
You've been having a lot of issues with comprehension lately so I'll try to speak as plainly as possible.
If you increase the display size but keep the resolution the same you are using larger pixels. This means that items on screen will be larger then they would be on the smaller device.
If you go the other way and increase the pixel density but keep the display size the same you are using smaller pixels. This means that items will be smaller if they only matching pixel to pixel.
Perhaps you're not familiar with Apple but they have a very strict dedication and focus to their UIs (that stands for user interfaces), especially on their iDevices. Just as Apple revamped the UI for the iPhone 4 when they quadrupled the number of pixels, even going so far as using a different system font for that phone, they will do the same for the any change in the UI size or resolution for their iDevices.
Vendors using Android OS seem to be perfectly fine with having the on-screen elements be smaller or larger without any consideration for their usability but Apple doesn't do that. You might that a 4.7" iPod Touch would be good enough with the UI from the 3.5" iPod Touch but Apple would want to consider another row of icons, or keeping the same number but making spacing them differently, or adding more controls to apps because there is more screen real estate, or adding a new kind of split view because there almost double the screen area.
I'm not quite sure why there is this level of speculation that Apple would pursue a smaller form factor. They have proven the worth of different size ipods, macbooks, and imacs; why wouldn't this apply to the ipad line? I personally would purchase an 8" ipad to supplement my ipad in an instant. In all honesty, the 9.7" form factor is not all that portable.
This is the internet, so I'm allowed to take both sides of the debate...
There is a significant difference between the iOS devices and those other devices you mention. For MacBooks and iMacs, the UI is windowed. If an application only needs part of the screen, it only makes a window that big and leaves the rest of your screen for other things. If it needed a bigger screen, it make the window scrollable. But iOS devices are full screen. Each application has to operate in the same amount of screen space. So changing the sceeen size/resolution isn't trivial (but also not rocket science as some would have us believe). [Note that many argue that the drive to make Lion apps full screen is a mistake for the same reasons.]
As for the non-iOS iPods, for the most part there are/were no 3rd party apps. So no real concerns about changing the screen size or resolution because Apple controlled everything you would ever seen on the screen. There were no concerns about someone trying to run an iPod Classic app on an iPod nano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
I seem to remember Steve also saying that Apple would never build a phone and that they wouldn't sell eBooks through iTunes because "nobody reads anymore". Let's be kind and say that Steve was prone to change his mind on occasion.
+1 Many people forget that Steve/Apple has not always followed their own publicly stated decisions/opinions. If Apple were a politician, they'd be called a flip-flopper on many counts.
You've been having a lot of issues with comprehension lately so I'll try to speak as plainly as possible.
If you increase the display size but keep the resolution the same you are using larger pixels. This means that items on screen will be larger then they would be on the smaller device.
If you go the other way and increase the pixel density but keep the display size the same you are using smaller pixels. This means that items will be smaller if they only matching pixel to pixel.
Perhaps you're not familiar with Apple but they have a very strict dedication and focus to their UIs (that stands for user interfaces), especially on their iDevices. Just as Apple revamped the UI for the iPhone 4 when they quadrupled the number of pixels, even going so far as using a different system font for that phone, they will do the same for the any change in the UI size or resolution for their iDevices.
Vendors using Android OS seem to be perfectly fine with having the on-screen elements be smaller or larger without any consideration for their usability but Apple doesn't do that. You might that a 4.7" iPod Touch would be good enough with the UI from the 3.5" iPod Touch but Apple would want to consider another row of icons, or keeping the same number but making spacing them differently, or adding more controls to apps because there is more screen real estate, or adding a new kind of split view because there almost double the screen area.
It's really that simple.
The problem with your logic is that we're talking a minor change, all things considered. Your logic holds if you are talking about going from a 3.5-inch iPhone to a 9.7-inch iPad but that is not what we're talking about, not even close.
As such, you are quite simply wrong in your contention that a relatively minor increase in screen size would cause all sorts of problems. It is, likewise, unlikely that developers would bother to have two distinct versions of their software, one for the 3.5-inch Touch and another for the 4.7-inch Touch. Instead, the same software would be viable on either version and that would be the end of that. The IOS, meanwhile, would require virtually no adjustment.
Clearly you are confused in that you are taking the process that occurred when the iPad came along and applying it with no real thought to making the Touch screen a little larger. It is not the same thing, not even close.
It may well be that Apple has no interest in increasing the screen size of the Touch or the iPhone. But I doubt the reason for not making such a change would have anything to do with thinking it is too much trouble. The decision would be based on marketing considerations, user experience, etc., not how to make it happen. Making it happen would be a matter of changing the iPod Touch itself. It's not a software matter. That's simply not a factor in this case.
Basically, I can't fathom a software program built for the current iPod Touch looking at all out of place on a slightly larger Touch. It would translate just fine. No reason to think otherwise.
The problem with your logic is that we're talking a minor change, all things considered. Your logic holds if you are talking about going from a 3.5-inch iPhone to a 9.7-inch iPad but that is not what we're talking about, not even close.
As such, you are quite simply wrong in your contention that a relatively minor increase in screen size would cause all sorts of problems. It is, likewise, unlikely that developers would bother to have two distinct versions of their software, one for the 3.5-inch Touch and another for the 4.7-inch Touch. Instead, the same software would be viable on either version and that would be the end of that. The IOS, meanwhile, would require virtually no adjustment.
Clearly you are confused in that you are taking the process that occurred when the iPad came along and applying it with no real thought to making the Touch screen a little larger. It is not the same thing, not even close.
It may well be that Apple has no interest in increasing the screen size of the Touch or the iPhone. But I doubt the reason for not making such a change would have anything to do with thinking it is too much trouble. The decision would be based on marketing considerations, user experience, etc., not how to make it happen. Making it happen would be a matter of changing the iPod Touch itself. It's not a software matter. That's simply not a factor in this case.
Your assumption that an iPod Touch that gets nearly double the display area will look and feel exactly the same and only make a difference once it gets to 9.7" is bullocks.
Quote:
Basically, I can't fathom a software program built for the current iPod Touch looking at all out of place on a slightly larger Touch. It would translate just fine. No reason to think otherwise.
Your inability to comprehend doesn't negate the facts.
Your assumption that an iPod Touch that gets nearly double the display area will look and feel exactly the same and only make a difference once it gets to 9.7" is bullocks.
Your inability to comprehend doesn't negate the facts.
You don't have to climb all the way up 9.7 inches to run into issues with software implementation but you do need to go beyond 4.7 inches for that to happen. It is not accurate to claim that the display area nearly doubles unless the term nearly is used in a rather sloppy, imprecise fashion.
The question that needs to be asked is, how would software developed for the current Touch look and perform if run on a Touch with a somewhat larger screen. At some point there would be an issue but that point is likely not 4.7 inches. Besides if it got to be an issue at 4.7 inches but wasn't at let's say 4.4 inches, then 4.4 inches would constitute the sweet spot for the next Touch design. It is simply incorrect to claim that current Touch software would be ruined if the Touch happened to sport a screen size other than precisely 3.5 inches.
Determining the wiggle room, if you will, that Apple has to work with is not something that I can carry out with precision but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 3.5 inches precisely is not cast in stone. Some variation is doable with no issues. The exact numbers I don't have but the premise that Apple can't alter the Touch, ever, seriously, that's clearly a mistaken notion. Apple can and might tinker with the Touch screen size and do so with no ill effects, within reason. I don't know if Apple wants to but that's another matter.
You don't have to climb all the way up 9.7 inches to run into issues with software implementation but you do need to go beyond 4.7 inches for that to happen. It is not accurate to claim that the display area nearly doubles unless the term nearly is used in a rather sloppy, imprecise fashion..
3.5" 3:2 = 5.65"^2
4.7" 3:2 = 10.20"^2
That is nearly double the display area. So much for it being only a little bigger.
That is nearly double the display area. So much for it being only a little bigger.
Double would be 11.24 so 10.2 falls well short of double. If the number was closer to 11 than 10 then you could reasonably use nearly double.
It's also misleading to talk about screen area because what matters is how much larger objects would be on the screen and I don't think going to 4.7 inches would result in close to a doubling up of the image. After all, you're adding screen real estate in both directions. It's not as if you'd see twice the height and twice the width on a 4.7-incher. To do that you'd have to go with a screen that measures 6 inches across by 4 inches in height, approximately. That would result in a device that had a screen size of about 7.2 inches. That's what it would take to cause images to effectively double in size.
A 4.7-inch device would mean a jump up from something like 3 inches by 2 inches in the current unit to something more like 3.75 by 2.5 inches. This does not add up to everything being displayed at anywhere close to double the size.
Even though the 7.2 inch device would effectively display everything at twice the size. the screen area would be four times as much, effectively amounting to placing four current Touches side by side.
Double would be 11.24 so 10.2 falls well short of double. If the number was closer to 11 than 10 then you could reasonably use nearly double.
That's the definition of nearly?
Quote:
Even though the 7.2 inch device would effectively display everything at twice the size. the screen area would be four times as much, effectively amounting to placing four current Touches side by side.
It would 4x the size. You can test this out with a photocopied is the simple math of using two dimension is confusing.
I could DEFINITELY see a niche for a 7-8" ipad or upscaled iTouch.
Think of it more as a "utility version" -- use it in classrooms, or in the kitchen. It can have a lower quality screen, and enough horsepower to do the job.
Target it at $200 - $250. Downside; It might kill the Kindle.
But even if you enjoy the iPad, there are times when you don't need that much to just do a task but the phone is too small to do work on.
The target market would be kiosk, schools, hospitals, POS and such.
It's all well and good that Apple reduces their platforms to reduce costs --- but having a middle option between the iTouch and iPad only makes sense; they've already got all the tech and software and this is just slapping on the next generation iTouch to a larger screen and battery (rather than scaling down an iPad).
I hope Apple doesn't decide to opt for a smaller screen. The 10 inch screen size is ideal for a tablet, I would like to see a quad core processor fitted inside the next iPad tablet.
Comments
The other possibility is this 8" rumor is true and they want to compete in the $399 space with a smaller form factor. The good news is it doesn't look like we will have to speculate very long. We will probably find out what Apple plans to do in a few short weeks.
Yup! Not going to happen! only 1.7" smaller than the current one?! LOL
The best chance of anything remotely close to this would likely be a larger iPod touch.
While I'm not saying you are wrong that this wouldn't ever happen, note that while it's "only 1.7" " smaller which seems like not much, but in overall screen size that translates into around a 1/4 reduction in screen size (just a guesstimate, I haven't done the exact math). So it's a bigger change than 1.7 inches might imply. Recall that a 7" screen is only about 1/2 the size of a 9.7" screen dispite being only 2.7" smaller diagonally.
As for how likely it is to happen, I remember a lot of people here declaring with certainty that Apple would never sell a Verizon iPhone, or if they did there was no way it would be a CDMA version, they would wait for LTE. Just saying...
I wonder if you make blanket statements because you're trolling or because you really can't see how it makes your comments pointless.
Lets go thorough a couple examples...
- Apple releases a 4" iPhone but reduces the border and thickness so that that you can still sweep the thumb across the display in one hand as easily as you can with the iPhone 4S. That's a winner!
- Apple releases a 4.65" mammoth but keeps the edge border about the same and still maintains their 3:2 aspect ratio. That's a failure!
I don't even think you understand why I'd even mention the aspect ratio or how that can affect its usefulness of the device. Take it from me it's important.i am getting just as much use (actually more) out of mine than if i had an iphone. 4g, better battery life (2100mah battery) and something that is a pleasure to view for long periods of time (movies, web sites, kindle).
the iphone is just dated.
i am getting just as much use (actually more) out of mine than if i had an iphone. 4g, better battery life (2100mah battery) and something that is a pleasure to view for long periods of time (movies, web sites, kindle).
the iphone is just dated.
No one is saying you aren't or that there is one device that will suit everyone's needs, but your comments aren't a rebuttal for how and why Apple would logically introduce a larger display on the iPhone.
What is Apple's motivation for bringing out such a device.
One potential consideration could be availability of screens. Apple is struggling to keep up with demand. If screens are a major bottleneck in the supply chain, creating another device that uses a smaller, cheaper screen could ease up that constraint. Right now Apple has to settle for phased rollouts of their products because they can't make enough of them. The longer they delay, the more sales competitors will have in countries that Apple's device isn't available in yet. Not because the competitor's devices are better, but because that's all that's available.
Foxconn can open all the assebly factories in Brazil and elsewhere they want, but if they can't keep those factories supplied with components it won't do them any good.
No one is saying you aren't or that there is one device that will suit everyone's needs, but your comments aren't a rebuttal for how and why Apple would logically introduce a larger display on the iPhone.
apple claims they won't cuz they have found the 'perfect' size for phone and for ipad. i think they will be forced to eat those words down the line. thats all i am saying.
apple claims they won't cuz they have found the 'perfect' size for phone and for ipad. i think they will be forced to eat those words down the line. thats all i am saying.
Really? Show me some evidence that Apple will never use anything besides the 3.5" or 9.7" displays for their smartphone and tablet, respectively.
And don't confuse Apple testing multiple sizes to the find the best size for an initial rollout as meaning it's the only size or perfect size for everyone. You need to consider that for each new size and resolution will come a new UI and new SDK that will add time and cost for Apple and 3rd-party devs, which includes issues for the consumer. They are trying to scale in a way that minimizes this impact.
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.
While I agree with much of what you say, it's worth pointing out that it wouldn't be the first time Apple has forced developers to change (or, indeed, start over) if they wanted to play on Apple's playground. Don't think for 1 second that Apple would hesitate to make the change if they felt it was best for them, regardless of the impact on the developers. So saying it would place hardships on the developers really isn't a very good argument (again, assuming Apple had other reasons to add a screen size).
Really? Show me some evidence that Apple will never use anything besides the 3.5" or 9.7" displays for their smartphone and tablet, respectively.
And don't confuse Apple testing multiple sizes to the find the best size for an initial rollout as meaning it's the only size or perfect size for everyone. You need to consider that for each new size and resolution will come a new UI and new SDK that will add time and cost for Apple and 3rd-party devs, which includes issues for the consumer. They are trying to scale in a way that minimizes this impact.
Why would you need to change a program in any way to run on a 4.7-inch screen vs. a 3.5-inch screen if the resolution is identical. Seems to me that the interactive elements would remain unchanged.
This is not like comparing what is needed in software to run on an iPhone as opposed to an iPad. That is an entirely different scenario.
There is no reason to alter software in the slightest to run on a 4.7-inch Touch with a resolution identical to the current 3.5-inch Touch. It's simply not a factor.
If, for example, Apple decided to make the iPhone with a slightly larger screen but retained existing resolution numbers, what software would need to be altered from its current form? I suspect the answer is none of it. All the current software would run on such a device with no issues whatsoever.
It's really that simple.
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.
/s
Isn't that kind of like saying that Bashar al-Assad is the best person to lead Syria because he won the presidential election by a landslide?
[No, I'm not comparing morals or saying Apple is evil. Just saying that when there is only only choice (like al-Assad's competition on the ballot, Apple's tablet competition is weak), obviously that choice is going to get the majority. So of course the iPad is the best selling device, but to attribute that to size alone is an insult to the rest of Apple's design team. I'd bet that if Apple had come out with a different size originally instead of 9.7" it would have been just as wildly successful.]
Why would you need to change a program in any way to run on a 4.7-inch screen vs. a 3.5-inch screen if the resolution is identical. Seems to me that the interactive elements would remain unchanged.
This is not like comparing what is needed in software to run on an iPhone as opposed to an iPad. That is an entirely different scenario.
There is no reason to alter software in the slightest to run on a 4.7-inch Touch with a resolution identical to the current 3.5-inch Touch. It's simply not a factor.
If, for example, Apple decided to make the iPhone with a slightly larger screen but retained existing resolution numbers, what software would need to be altered from its current form? I suspect the answer is none of it. All the current software would run on such a device with no issues whatsoever.
It's really that simple.
You've been having a lot of issues with comprehension lately so I'll try to speak as plainly as possible.
If you increase the display size but keep the resolution the same you are using larger pixels. This means that items on screen will be larger then they would be on the smaller device.
If you go the other way and increase the pixel density but keep the display size the same you are using smaller pixels. This means that items will be smaller if they only matching pixel to pixel.
Perhaps you're not familiar with Apple but they have a very strict dedication and focus to their UIs (that stands for user interfaces), especially on their iDevices. Just as Apple revamped the UI for the iPhone 4 when they quadrupled the number of pixels, even going so far as using a different system font for that phone, they will do the same for the any change in the UI size or resolution for their iDevices.
Vendors using Android OS seem to be perfectly fine with having the on-screen elements be smaller or larger without any consideration for their usability but Apple doesn't do that. You might that a 4.7" iPod Touch would be good enough with the UI from the 3.5" iPod Touch but Apple would want to consider another row of icons, or keeping the same number but making spacing them differently, or adding more controls to apps because there is more screen real estate, or adding a new kind of split view because there almost double the screen area.
It's really that simple.
I'm not quite sure why there is this level of speculation that Apple would pursue a smaller form factor. They have proven the worth of different size ipods, macbooks, and imacs; why wouldn't this apply to the ipad line? I personally would purchase an 8" ipad to supplement my ipad in an instant. In all honesty, the 9.7" form factor is not all that portable.
This is the internet, so I'm allowed to take both sides of the debate...
There is a significant difference between the iOS devices and those other devices you mention. For MacBooks and iMacs, the UI is windowed. If an application only needs part of the screen, it only makes a window that big and leaves the rest of your screen for other things. If it needed a bigger screen, it make the window scrollable. But iOS devices are full screen. Each application has to operate in the same amount of screen space. So changing the sceeen size/resolution isn't trivial (but also not rocket science as some would have us believe). [Note that many argue that the drive to make Lion apps full screen is a mistake for the same reasons.]
As for the non-iOS iPods, for the most part there are/were no 3rd party apps. So no real concerns about changing the screen size or resolution because Apple controlled everything you would ever seen on the screen. There were no concerns about someone trying to run an iPod Classic app on an iPod nano.
I seem to remember Steve also saying that Apple would never build a phone and that they wouldn't sell eBooks through iTunes because "nobody reads anymore". Let's be kind and say that Steve was prone to change his mind on occasion.
+1 Many people forget that Steve/Apple has not always followed their own publicly stated decisions/opinions. If Apple were a politician, they'd be called a flip-flopper on many counts.
You've been having a lot of issues with comprehension lately so I'll try to speak as plainly as possible.
If you increase the display size but keep the resolution the same you are using larger pixels. This means that items on screen will be larger then they would be on the smaller device.
If you go the other way and increase the pixel density but keep the display size the same you are using smaller pixels. This means that items will be smaller if they only matching pixel to pixel.
Perhaps you're not familiar with Apple but they have a very strict dedication and focus to their UIs (that stands for user interfaces), especially on their iDevices. Just as Apple revamped the UI for the iPhone 4 when they quadrupled the number of pixels, even going so far as using a different system font for that phone, they will do the same for the any change in the UI size or resolution for their iDevices.
Vendors using Android OS seem to be perfectly fine with having the on-screen elements be smaller or larger without any consideration for their usability but Apple doesn't do that. You might that a 4.7" iPod Touch would be good enough with the UI from the 3.5" iPod Touch but Apple would want to consider another row of icons, or keeping the same number but making spacing them differently, or adding more controls to apps because there is more screen real estate, or adding a new kind of split view because there almost double the screen area.
It's really that simple.
The problem with your logic is that we're talking a minor change, all things considered. Your logic holds if you are talking about going from a 3.5-inch iPhone to a 9.7-inch iPad but that is not what we're talking about, not even close.
As such, you are quite simply wrong in your contention that a relatively minor increase in screen size would cause all sorts of problems. It is, likewise, unlikely that developers would bother to have two distinct versions of their software, one for the 3.5-inch Touch and another for the 4.7-inch Touch. Instead, the same software would be viable on either version and that would be the end of that. The IOS, meanwhile, would require virtually no adjustment.
Clearly you are confused in that you are taking the process that occurred when the iPad came along and applying it with no real thought to making the Touch screen a little larger. It is not the same thing, not even close.
It may well be that Apple has no interest in increasing the screen size of the Touch or the iPhone. But I doubt the reason for not making such a change would have anything to do with thinking it is too much trouble. The decision would be based on marketing considerations, user experience, etc., not how to make it happen. Making it happen would be a matter of changing the iPod Touch itself. It's not a software matter. That's simply not a factor in this case.
Basically, I can't fathom a software program built for the current iPod Touch looking at all out of place on a slightly larger Touch. It would translate just fine. No reason to think otherwise.
The problem with your logic is that we're talking a minor change, all things considered. Your logic holds if you are talking about going from a 3.5-inch iPhone to a 9.7-inch iPad but that is not what we're talking about, not even close.
As such, you are quite simply wrong in your contention that a relatively minor increase in screen size would cause all sorts of problems. It is, likewise, unlikely that developers would bother to have two distinct versions of their software, one for the 3.5-inch Touch and another for the 4.7-inch Touch. Instead, the same software would be viable on either version and that would be the end of that. The IOS, meanwhile, would require virtually no adjustment.
Clearly you are confused in that you are taking the process that occurred when the iPad came along and applying it with no real thought to making the Touch screen a little larger. It is not the same thing, not even close.
It may well be that Apple has no interest in increasing the screen size of the Touch or the iPhone. But I doubt the reason for not making such a change would have anything to do with thinking it is too much trouble. The decision would be based on marketing considerations, user experience, etc., not how to make it happen. Making it happen would be a matter of changing the iPod Touch itself. It's not a software matter. That's simply not a factor in this case.
Your assumption that an iPod Touch that gets nearly double the display area will look and feel exactly the same and only make a difference once it gets to 9.7" is bullocks.
Basically, I can't fathom a software program built for the current iPod Touch looking at all out of place on a slightly larger Touch. It would translate just fine. No reason to think otherwise.
Your inability to comprehend doesn't negate the facts.
Your assumption that an iPod Touch that gets nearly double the display area will look and feel exactly the same and only make a difference once it gets to 9.7" is bullocks.
Your inability to comprehend doesn't negate the facts.
You don't have to climb all the way up 9.7 inches to run into issues with software implementation but you do need to go beyond 4.7 inches for that to happen. It is not accurate to claim that the display area nearly doubles unless the term nearly is used in a rather sloppy, imprecise fashion.
The question that needs to be asked is, how would software developed for the current Touch look and perform if run on a Touch with a somewhat larger screen. At some point there would be an issue but that point is likely not 4.7 inches. Besides if it got to be an issue at 4.7 inches but wasn't at let's say 4.4 inches, then 4.4 inches would constitute the sweet spot for the next Touch design. It is simply incorrect to claim that current Touch software would be ruined if the Touch happened to sport a screen size other than precisely 3.5 inches.
Determining the wiggle room, if you will, that Apple has to work with is not something that I can carry out with precision but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 3.5 inches precisely is not cast in stone. Some variation is doable with no issues. The exact numbers I don't have but the premise that Apple can't alter the Touch, ever, seriously, that's clearly a mistaken notion. Apple can and might tinker with the Touch screen size and do so with no ill effects, within reason. I don't know if Apple wants to but that's another matter.
You don't have to climb all the way up 9.7 inches to run into issues with software implementation but you do need to go beyond 4.7 inches for that to happen. It is not accurate to claim that the display area nearly doubles unless the term nearly is used in a rather sloppy, imprecise fashion..
3.5" 3:2 = 5.65"^2
4.7" 3:2 = 10.20"^2
That is nearly double the display area. So much for it being only a little bigger.
3.5" 3:2 = 5.65"^2
4.7" 3:2 = 10.20"^2
That is nearly double the display area. So much for it being only a little bigger.
Double would be 11.24 so 10.2 falls well short of double. If the number was closer to 11 than 10 then you could reasonably use nearly double.
It's also misleading to talk about screen area because what matters is how much larger objects would be on the screen and I don't think going to 4.7 inches would result in close to a doubling up of the image. After all, you're adding screen real estate in both directions. It's not as if you'd see twice the height and twice the width on a 4.7-incher. To do that you'd have to go with a screen that measures 6 inches across by 4 inches in height, approximately. That would result in a device that had a screen size of about 7.2 inches. That's what it would take to cause images to effectively double in size.
A 4.7-inch device would mean a jump up from something like 3 inches by 2 inches in the current unit to something more like 3.75 by 2.5 inches. This does not add up to everything being displayed at anywhere close to double the size.
Even though the 7.2 inch device would effectively display everything at twice the size. the screen area would be four times as much, effectively amounting to placing four current Touches side by side.
Double would be 11.24 so 10.2 falls well short of double. If the number was closer to 11 than 10 then you could reasonably use nearly double.
That's the definition of nearly?
Even though the 7.2 inch device would effectively display everything at twice the size. the screen area would be four times as much, effectively amounting to placing four current Touches side by side.
It would 4x the size. You can test this out with a photocopied is the simple math of using two dimension is confusing.
Think of it more as a "utility version" -- use it in classrooms, or in the kitchen. It can have a lower quality screen, and enough horsepower to do the job.
Target it at $200 - $250. Downside; It might kill the Kindle.
But even if you enjoy the iPad, there are times when you don't need that much to just do a task but the phone is too small to do work on.
The target market would be kiosk, schools, hospitals, POS and such.
It's all well and good that Apple reduces their platforms to reduce costs --- but having a middle option between the iTouch and iPad only makes sense; they've already got all the tech and software and this is just slapping on the next generation iTouch to a larger screen and battery (rather than scaling down an iPad).