Steve Jobs was 'very receptive' to 7-inch iPad idea, court documents show

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 105
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,221member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    I sure hope if the mini is real, that all the leaks of prototypes and cases are wrong because they all show a 16:9 device.  

    I am pretty sure a saw a 4:3 model pictures somewhere. Its not a lot smaller than the current ipad so if they sell it at a much lower price its going to sell like hotcakes.
  • Reply 42 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post







    Anyway... It's interesting to see all the 're-writing of history' going on within the Apple ranks lately.


     


    Yes, there are so many haters that are getting proven wrong about who was actually first. For example, the losers who always brought up the F700/Prada. Seeing that Apple had physical working prototypes long before there were rumors of these POS phones completely invalidates millions of their useless posts in Apple forums around the world.


     


    History is being made, and the more information that comes out in this trial the better Apple looks all the time.

  • Reply 43 of 105
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,772member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    Huuuuhhhhh?!  What was the deal with "sandpaper" and all that?! </sarcasm>


     


    Wouldn't be the first time Steve reneged on his philosophy! 



    Well you have to change your opinion for the better idea. Nothing wrong with that. 

  • Reply 44 of 105
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    rot'napple wrote: »
    Huuuuhhhhh?!  What was the deal with "sandpaper" and all that?! </sarcasm>

    Wouldn't be the first time Steve reneged on his philosophy! 

    Doesn't mean it will happen. Or that it will be a smaller iPad. Could be a bigger iPod touch, which has a UI that is better in tune for effective use on a smaller screen

    Keep in mind that we are hearing second, perhaps even third hand, what was said and happened. Even the quote doesn't say '7 inch iPad'. Steve was known for telling folks to convince him that he's wrong. So perhaps the conversation was about doing something at that size and Steve's reply was 'show me how we can do it with a compromise on quality.'
  • Reply 45 of 105
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,791member
    It is more a question of marketing what you have 100% at the time. Or in other words you can't sell what you don't have.
    eriamjh wrote: »
    I told you guys what Steve poo-poos in public he works on in secret.
  • Reply 46 of 105
    rogifan wrote: »
    Not as bad as MR.

    ...who's nowhere near as bad as daHarder....
  • Reply 47 of 105
    I didn't know Apple had a patent on rectangles.

    LOL. Guys like you are simply more proof that someone needs to cater to the great-unwashed segment of the market too. Glad that Samsung is the one. I'd be embarrassed to be in the same tech-consuming segment as someone like you!
  • Reply 48 of 105
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,791member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    I sure hope if the mini is real, that all the leaks of prototypes and cases are wrong because they all show a 16:9 device.  

    Not one iPad Mini leak has indicated a 16:9 device.
  • Reply 49 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    The idea that I have in mind is high quality small size
    Filet%20Mignon.jpg

    LOL I'm reminded of the Taco Bell scene from Demolition Man (1993).

    wizard69 wrote: »
    Not one iPad Mini leak has indicated a 16:9 device.

    I certainly haven't seen anything but the 4:3 aspect ratio. Not even a 3:2 aspect ratio that would indicate a large iPod Touch. The only ?16:9 device has been the new iPhone.
  • Reply 50 of 105
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    but in reality... having an email stating someone used a 7" Samsung tablet and perceived there was going to be a market at that size. That's considered 'copying' a device?

    Honda: "I've driven a Ford Explorer, and I think people will buy them, Let's Build a Honda Pilot..." (Ford: "You owe us Royalties... we've patented the general size category"

    Seems a ludicrous argument.

    Exactly.
    daharder wrote: »
    Anyway... It's interesting to see all the 're-writing of history' going on within the Apple ranks lately.

    Really? Where do you see that?

    Quite a few people (myself included) thought a 7" iPad wouldn't be a bad idea even before this testimony came out. A number of others thought was a terrible idea before and still think it's a terrible idea.

    So where's this 'rewriting of history' (other than in your fantasies, of course)?
  • Reply 51 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Really? Where do you see that?
    Quite a few people (myself included) thought a 7" iPad wouldn't be a bad idea even before this testimony came out. A number of others thought was a terrible idea before and still think it's a terrible idea.
    So where's this 'rewriting of history' (other than in your fantasies, of course)?

    What interesting about his comment is that he's making a claim against people that would like a smaller iPad that didn't think the previous small tablets (which originally were as much or more than the iPad) yet there is still no smaller iPad. So how exactly are people rewriting history to support Apple with something that doesn't exist?
  • Reply 52 of 105
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,227member
    I didn't know Apple had a patent on rectangles.

    Mmmmm ... Don't think Apple minds anything being rectangular, look at all the crap designs Sammy had before copying Apple. They were rectangular too and I can assure you no one at Apple would mind of Sammy returns to those rectangular designs.. Kind of makes that silly comment redundant, pathetic and ignorant.
  • Reply 53 of 105
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,227member
    This is proof that Apple copied the smaller Tablet idea from Samsung.
    How much clearer can it be after the email clearly states it.
    The press is going to have a field day with this.

    A field day based on Eddie's email? Seems to me what Steve said carries a bit more weight. Did you read all of the article?
  • Reply 54 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I would say the Nexus 7 is the best $199 tablet on the market but it's hard to say that it's an amazing product. It's like saying a McDonald's cheeseburger is an amazing product simply because they sold it at or below cost. Regardless of the price it ain't no steak dinner.


     


    Come on Sloppy.


     


    Do you own one?


    Have you tried the Jelly Bean Experience on the Beautiful Tablet?


     


    If not, then please don't make a comparison.


     


    I've got both the iPad (New, 3, Apple can't think of a name) and the Nexus 7.


     


    The Nexus 7 is all about the beauty of the Tablet and the Beauty of the Jelly Bean Experience.


     


    Edit:  The 7 inch Tablet is light easy to hold with 1 hand and the back of the tablet having the grip to comfortably hold it and not worry about scratching it without putting it into a case.  It's rugged beauty.

  • Reply 55 of 105
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member


    Some sample resolution densities:


    1920x1280 3:2 4" (double iPhone current res) 576.89ppi


     


    1920x1080 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 550.73ppi (2x:1.6875x increase)


    1600x900 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 458.94ppi (1.67x:1.40625x increase)


     


    1366*768 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 391.77ppi (1.4229x:1.2x increase)


    1280x720 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 367.15ppi (1.33x:1.125x increase)


     


     


    1024x768 4:3 7.85" (iPad 1/2 res) 163.06ppi


    2048x1536 4:3 7.85" (current New iPad res) 326.11ppi


     


     


    Since people are bouncing around various resolutions and screen sizes I decided to see what a few possible iPhone and 7.85" iPad resolutions would look like.  The widescreen iPhone options have the math for what the resolution changes would be from the current iPhone 4S.  Since Apple did simple resolution doubling for the iPad to use iPhone apps, they could put a bit of automatic math to stretch iPhone apps for it.  


     


    Yeah I was bored :)

  • Reply 56 of 105
    diddydiddy Posts: 282member



    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
    OK, really, honestly this doesn't mean much at all.  First things first, Jobs being receptive to an idea doesn't mean that it was being actively developed.  It could mean nothing more than Steve placating Eddie on one hand knowing he wasn't going to release it anyhow.  It could also mean that he liked the idea, but rejected it for other reasons.  There just isn't enough context since all we have is Eddie and his opinions.  Steve can't comment on it with his personal opinions.  For all we know he rejected it not long after being "very receptive".


     


    Second, who cares what Steve Jobs thinks any more regarding Apple's product line today?  I really like Apple and I want them to succeed, but Steve Jobs is dead and is buried in the ground.  Apple has been without him for over a year now.  And by all that we have heard before, Tim Cook has been running things for months before Steve resigned.  Even if Steve was very receptive, that doesn't mean that it ever went anywhere outside of that and that Tim Cook is any more or less receptive to the idea.  Jobs famously did not want people to think "What would Steve do".  In my mind, that makes anything he said and never did, carry about as much meaning as the infamous "I cracked it" comment that people are touting as proof positive of an Apple television set even though it means no such thing.  Steve Jobs is not the CEO of Apple.  Tim Cook is and he is the one whose opinion matters in the end and I doubt that his decision is going to be based on anything Steve allegedly was receptive to.


     
  • Reply 57 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    ssquirrel wrote: »
    Some sample resolution densities:
    1920x1280 3:2 4" (double iPhone current res) 576.89ppi

    1920x1080 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 550.73ppi (2x:1.6875x increase)
    1600x900 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 458.94ppi (1.67x:1.40625x increase)

    1366*768 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 391.77ppi (1.4229x:1.2x increase)
    1280x720 16:9 4" (possible new res for iPhone) 367.15ppi (1.33x:1.125x increase)


    1024x768 4:3 7.85" (iPad 1/2 res) 163.06ppi
    2048x1536 4:3 7.85" (current New iPad res) 326.11ppi


    Since people are bouncing around various resolutions and screen sizes I decided to see what a few possible iPhone and 7.85" iPad resolutions would look like.  The widescreen iPhone options have the math for what the resolution changes would be from the current iPhone 4S.  Since Apple did simple resolution doubling for the iPad to use iPhone apps, they could put a bit of automatic math to stretch iPhone apps for it.  

    Yeah I was bored :)

    I'm alwasy glad to see people doing the math but I don't think there is a need for an increased pixel density at this point in time. The best way to bring about a 4" iPhone is by keeping the exact same PPI as they use now, just with a bigger display. Since we're at Retina (assuming you have 20/20 vision or worse) there simply isn't a need for adding that big of wrench to devs again. Plus, battery life and other areas of the display and performance need to be worked on, too.

    For this proposed iPad Mini the entire math, which was done well before the current iPad was ever announced, was just to take the original PPI of the iPhone and expand that to 1024x768. That's how 7.85" was born. It certainly makes sense from that viewpoint. It also makes sense now as Apple has 6 years experience with that display resolution so the cost to continue making these 163 PPI sheets (cut to 1024x768 instead of 480x320) could be what makes the iPad Mini a low cost and yet profitable tablet for Apple.


    PS: It's interesting that Android's big push was to use a few different resolutions but with an infinite number of pixel densities, yet Apple has been very consistent and careful with pixel densities to keep the elements exactly the size as the developers expect them to be.
  • Reply 58 of 105
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    my wife says I have the patent on 7" devices....  

    Tip your waitresses... I'm here all week.

    Seven inches?

    How do you fold it in half like that without hurting yourself?

    Buggered if I'm going to try doing that to myself!

    ;-)
  • Reply 59 of 105
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member


    Size does matter? Indeed. And weight. Apple should bring a lighter and smaller Mac (whatever form factor of clamshell, slider or tablet; 400 to 600 g and 7-inch or so). Great for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations. The Mac in your pocket. Always.

  • Reply 60 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    zunx wrote: »
    Size does matter? Indeed. And weight. Apple should bring a lighter and smaller Mac (whatever form factor of clamshell, slider or tablet; 400 to 600 g and 7-inch or so). Great for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations. The Mac in your pocket. Always.

    For a one-handed tablet I think weight will become very important to the usability and feel of the product. For the current iPad it's certainly 'a' factor, but not it's not the most important factor.

    Hopefully that if they do have a 7-8" tablet they will be using a 28-32nm SoC and with the display being only 1024x768 they can hopefully have something very thin and light, perhaps with a distinction in the same vain as the iPod Touch to the iPhone.
Sign In or Register to comment.