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

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post



    I didn't know Apple had a patent on rectangles.


    I didn't know you couldn't think for yourself, so you let the media do the talking for you.

  • Reply 62 of 105
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,695member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
    Size is always important! It works in conjunction with the owners intended usage. Usage is where an iPad mini will find its niche. By this I mean owners will find such a device to be optimal for certain tasks and will prefer it over the original iPad. It is no different than users developing preferences for specific size of MacBooks.
    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.
    Size would be the overriding distinction.

    As to the smaller SoC, apparently they are already being "tested" or maybe better "ramped up" in some of Apples new products. So the big question would be is that specific chip destined for the new devices? I'd say no because I suspect a move to at a minimal USB3 so at the very least a slight overhaul of the SoC is required. If they embed Thunderbolt that would be a major overhaul. There is also the question of saving even more power as the devices currently shipping with the 32 nm parts don't seem to be reducing power usage that significantly.

    This also highlights the horrors of backlight power. Cutting power in the SoC doesn't have as big of an impact as controlling display power. Apple could do more for run time by optimizing the display / backlight system, this however generally requires more advanced components which leads to more expenses.
  • Reply 63 of 105
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post



    I told you guys what Steve poo-poos in public he works on in secret.


     


     


    so Steve didn't know what he was talking about?

  • Reply 64 of 105
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    His biography is reported to be full of similar incidents also.  


     


    The people trying to catch him in a lie or inconsistency have the viewpoint of the average twelve year old IMO.  Intelligent adults with open minds change them all the time based on whatever new information arises.  


     


    If he was really as close minded and certain of his rightness at all times and afraid to be caught in a "mistake" or changing his opinion he couldn't have run the company at all.  His best job prospect would be to be an Internet troll ...



     


    I agree with this..  What bothers me about most AI'ers (ie, Apple fanboys) is that they think everything in absolute terms - everything Steve Jobs or Apple does is always "right."    I think a lot of anti-Jobs / anti-Apple sentiment is a reaction to such closed mind-set. 

  • Reply 65 of 105
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    tooltalk wrote: »
    I agree with this..  What bothers me about most AI'ers (ie, Apple fanboys) is that they think everything in absolute terms - everything Steve Jobs or Apple does is always "right."    I think a lot of anti-Jobs / anti-Apple sentiment is a reaction to such closed mind-set. 

    Funny how it's the Apple haters who are rewriting history.

    In this very thread, there are a number of people disagreeing with Jobs. For example, read Tallest's posts about how he thinks a 7" tablet is a terrible idea. So where do you get the idea that Apple fans automatically think that everything Jobs says is right?
  • Reply 66 of 105
    The Nexus 7 is all about the beauty of the Tablet and the Beauty of the Jelly Bean Experience.

    Bwahaahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the laughs!
  • Reply 67 of 105


    Are you sure the 7" wasn't there just to keep stock traders pinning for iPad mini happy?

  • Reply 68 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    This also highlights the horrors of backlight power. Cutting power in the SoC doesn't have as big of an impact as controlling display power. Apple could do more for run time by optimizing the display / backlight system, this however generally requires more advanced components which leads to more expenses.


     Isn't Sharp displays rumoured to be in iPhone 5 made to fix that problem? If that's the case, wait for another one and a half year for Sharp to make them in 7" size, with enough yield to launch iPad mini with. For now just get enough of them in 4" size for iPhone 5 is all Sharp could manage.


     


    Until the yield goes up, iPad mini will have to wait. Just my opinion of course.

  • Reply 69 of 105
    ...who's nowhere near as bad as daHarder....

    I am updating my block list. Has anyone compiled a list of AI characters with obvious NPD? Here is my list so far.

    Tune
    4TheLoveOfTech
    eric475
    ZZZ
    lamewing
    DaHarder
    stelligent
    tooltalk

    Judging from the quotes, I don't think I am missing much. If I need more information about the competition, I just go to the nearest Best Buy or Staples. First hand experience pretty much confirms that the competition still doesn't get it and probably never will. I don't need some NPD joker use me to validate his or her worth in life.
  • Reply 70 of 105
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post

    I am updating my block list. Has anyone compiled a list of AI characters with obvious NPD? Here is my list so far.



    Judging from the quotes, I don't think I am missing much. If I need more information about the competition, I just go to the nearest Best Buy or Staples. First hand experience pretty much confirms that the competition still doesn't get it and probably never will. I don't need some NPD joker use me to validate his or her worth in life.


     


    Just this last week, and for the first time ever, I started a list of… let's call it "users that aren't here because they have any interest in Apple in any fashion whatsoever".


     


    It's already far too long for my tastes. I'm of the belief that we need stronger rules here. I can think of just two rules that would fix everything up tout de suite

  • Reply 71 of 105
    Just this last week, and for the first time ever, I started a list of… let's call it "users that aren't here because they have any interest in Apple in any fashion whatsoever".

    It's already far too long for my tastes. I'm of the belief that we need stronger rules here. I can think of just two rules that would fix everything up tout de suite

    Tout à fait!

    Probably not going to happen anytime soon. From the ad analytics perspective, NPDs generate plenty of buzz, even if at the expense of everyone else. Which is why shills exists.

    A potential compromise might be a graded or temporary ban right before a permanent ban. In other words, as an example, after four strikes, the offender's subsequent posts show up as blank from a few days to up to two weeks, depending on how frequent they post. This way the ad analytics counter stay up, but not at the expense of regular posters.

    It would still take the moderator's personal judgement (I don't huddles allows for anything complicated) to make the call, though.

    All I am saying is the intended audience of this site (it IS an Apple enthusiast site, no?) should not be punished for posting just because of some group of people's unchecked mental illness.
  • Reply 72 of 105
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,107member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

    so Steve didn't know what he was talking about?


    On the contrary.  He has been known to publicly dismiss products or features (like video on an iPod) and then release one that does the very same thing.  he does change his mind or at least never lets on what he is thinking.

  • Reply 73 of 105
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    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.


     


    I think the 1280x720 is the most likely resolution for a 4" iPhone, but we will of course have Android users crowing about how they have had that res w/the Galaxy S III for months etc.  Of course, we wouldn't have the awful PenTile in Apple's version :)  I just wanted to look at some of the common resolutions and see how they all stacked up.  I also agree that 1024x768 is the most likely for the smaller iPad, but given how popular the hi-res 3rd iPad has been, I wanted to see what the ppi jumped up to.

  • Reply 74 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    ssquirrel wrote: »
    I think the 1280x720 is the most likely resolution for a 4" iPhone, but we will of course have Android users crowing about how they have had that res w/the Galaxy S III for months etc.  Of course, we wouldn't have the awful PenTile in Apple's version :)  I just wanted to look at some of the common resolutions and see how they all stacked up.  I also agree that 1024x768 is the most likely for the smaller iPad, but given how popular the hi-res 3rd iPad has been, I wanted to see what the ppi jumped up to.

    I'm not sure how you can say that. Look at the historical data. Apple let the iPhone resolution linger at very low resolution because it wasn't ready for a pixel perfect doubling of the resolution (4x the total pixels). With the iPad the display was ready but the cost to power such a display wasn't quite there so they had to a much larger battery, going backwards toward the original iPad size and weight.

    There is absolutely no evidence that they would use a a pixel density that didn't scale perfectly and I see absolutely no reason why they would need to add 10% to the pixel density to make the product better. Everything says it would just make it even more complex for Apple and devs thus reducing the user experience.
  • Reply 75 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    eriamjh wrote: »
    On the contrary.  He has been known to publicly dismiss products or features (like video on an iPod) and then release one that does the very same thing.  he does change his mind or at least never lets on what he is thinking.

    If you read what Jobs actually said his comments were very clear about why the current lot of 7" tablets would fail. He never said that a 7" tablet could never have a place at Apple and it seems very clear to me that Apple has been planning to grow out their iPad brand across multiple sizes, eventually.
  • Reply 76 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    If you read what Jobs actually said his comments were very clear about why the current lot of 7" tablets would fail. He never said that a 7" tablet could never have a place at Apple and it seems very clear to me that Apple has been planning to grow out their iPad brand across multiple sizes, eventually.


     In your opinion, what wasn't there in 2009-2010 but are here now that makes smaller iPad more feasible today?

  • Reply 77 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    fairthrope wrote: »
     In your opinion, what wasn't there in 2009-2010 but are here now that makes smaller iPad more feasible today?

    32nm SoCs are one thing. Why is this important? Because if size and weight (i.e.: the battery) are important to making a great 7-8" (i.e.: one handed) tablet, and I think they are then a 45nm or 65nm SoC just won't cut it.

    But I think that reason comes second to the fact that in 2009 there was no iPad. There was no tablet market. The iPad was released in April 2010. Jobs has stated many times to the point of using a very select and ideal HW for a giving release. You don't come out of the gate with all sizes you expect to eventually release. You do it in a ver calculated way. You bring out the one that is best for business at the time. When that market segment gets saturated (or you see competition potentially making inroads) you then release another.

    Apple's philosophy has never been to be first, but to be best. This is why the iPad and iPhone are the best in show despite being very late to both markets.
  • Reply 78 of 105
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I'm not sure how you can say that. Look at the historical data. Apple let the iPhone resolution linger at very low resolution because it wasn't ready for a pixel perfect doubling of the resolution (4x the total pixels). With the iPad the display was ready but the cost to power such a display wasn't quite there so they had to a much larger battery, going backwards toward the original iPad size and weight.

    There is absolutely no evidence that they would use a a pixel density that didn't scale perfectly and I see absolutely no reason why they would need to add 10% to the pixel density to make the product better. Everything says it would just make it even more complex for Apple and devs thus reducing the user experience.


     


    I'm not sure which part you are arguing w/me about.  Are you saying they wouldn't go 1024x768 on the smaller iPad or 1280x720 on the iPhone?  If they do anything less than 1280x720 the iPhone will have less resolution (altho still better density) than recent Android flagships.  They wouldn't do 1024x768 for the widescreen iPhone, b/c that is not a widescreen resolution.  1280x720 will increase the screen res by 1/3 in one direction and 1/8 in the other.

  • Reply 79 of 105
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post



    I told you guys what Steve poo-poos in public he works on in secret.


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post


     


     


    so Steve didn't know what he was talking about?


     




     


    Not that at all.  He was just the king of the swerve with an offhand remark.  That he might have said 7" tablets are a terrible idea and then gone right into the third meeting of the development of a 7" tablet doesn't really come off as a negative to me.  It's not like a stockholder meeting.   Screwing with people's heads was part of the fun for him.  I could see Jobs, however lacking in playing skill, as a great poker player for this reason, and can't imagine Ballmer, et al as such.


     


    If Ballmer said "We're not interested in making a 7" tablet" no one would even take notice.   Jobs says it and it's being written in stone by millions. 

  • Reply 80 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    ssquirrel wrote: »
    I'm not sure which part you are arguing w/me about.  Are you saying they wouldn't go 1024x768 on the smaller iPad or 1280x720 on the iPhone?  If they do anything less than 1280x720 the iPhone will have less resolution (altho still better density) than recent Android flagships.  They wouldn't do 1024x768 for the widescreen iPhone, b/c that is not a widescreen resolution.  1280x720 will increase the screen res by 1/3 in one direction and 1/8 in the other.

    Talking about the iPhone. The iPad's proposed resolution at 1024x768 for a 4:3 aspect ratio makes perfect sense on paper.

    Since when has Apple been OK with killing the user experience just to catch up with a competitor in a single spec that will have no postiive effect on usablity and plenty of downsides? What Android phones are using 1280x720 RGB pixels, not RG BG which means you take the number of pixels and reduce by 1/3rd.
Sign In or Register to comment.