No one is going to buy a 7" tablet when they already have 10" tablets and a 3.5 - 4" phone.
Words from a wise Apple genius.
Quote:
You'll need to sharpen your fingers.
Words from the kingpin of them all.
My point: Don't knock a competitors product before you try it.
It's quite obvious that Apple realizes there IS a market for finger-sharpening-required tablets.
This is to those naysayers who thought that Samsung and Amazon's idea of a tablet in-between a 10" and a mobile phone is a train wreck waiting to happen.
I specifically remember some on here stated that Apple will "never" release a mid size tablet when there is the iPad and the iPhone.
I have names of those individuals but I wont post them.
If on or about October 10 invitations go out, this thing is a go. If, on the other hand, if we get some claims that yield problems have delayed this device for a few more weeks, forget about it. There is no iPad Mini coming.
I have to think that if this thing is for real, the iPad 2 will be discontinued and it will come in at around $399. After all, if the 4-inch Touch is $299, how realistic is it to think a 7-inch iPad would come in for much less than $400.
I have to think that if this thing is for real, the iPad 2 will be discontinued and it will come in at around $399. After all, if the 4-inch Touch is $299, how realistic is it to think a 7-inch iPad would come in for much less than $400.
I don't get how we now have a reversal of logic about technology when it comes to this rumoured product. We all know that when you shrink tech to fit into a smaller package it costs more money, but for some reason this doesn't apply to this one product?
If you use that scenario on the iPhone and iPad the iPad should cost a lot more simply because it's bigger, but that's not accurate. Even with the Retina display, crazy powerful GPU to push that display, and huge battery it's still cheaper than the iPhone.
This rumoured iPad mini is much the same way except it's pushing the not envelope in performance, it's pushing the envelope in weight and cost reduction. It's rumoured to use the same PPI as the original iPhone and Touch. That''s 1/2 the PPI of the Touch. If it doesn't use in-cell touch or have full sRBG it could actually be a cheaper overall display than the new Touch display.
I agree, and have said so all along since these mock-ups have been showing up.
Now I could be wrong, and often am, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Unless Apple is gearing this thing solely at the gamer and movie watching audience in landscape orientation -- and while that may be a critical base for it, I don't see Apple doing this -- then the bezels in portrait orientation are simply too small to hold it comfortably in one hand using the thumb, without accidentally touching the screen.
I don't see any reason for Apple to change the general iPad dimensions when shrinking it smaller. The reason iPhones have no side bezels (and arguably Apple intends it to be used primarily in portrait orientation) is because it is gripped in the palm. A mini tablet is held the same way as the regular one, whether it is 16:9, 16:10, or 4:3.
Also, considering Apple's iPhone 4-5 is all retina displays, along with the iPod Touch line, I find it hard to believe the iPad mini wouldn't be either, thus conforming their entire iOS product line to the same display resolution, if not aspect ratio. I mean, retina is one major way Apple can distinguish itself from other 7" tablets, aside from style. But style alone is not going to allow Apple to charge a premium in the sub-tablet space. They need to raise the bar for other manufactures and motivate customers used to budget tablets to spend a "little more" for better quality. Actually the more I think about it, the move to 16:9 in iPhone and iPod Touch necessitates a 16:9 mini-tablet., while the iPad will be 4:3, and who knows, perhaps if Apple keeps the smaller iPhone 4/s form factor alongside the 5 form factor, then it will be conformed to the slightly narrower 1.33:1, from the 1.5:1 bringing it in line with the iPad for scalability.
I agree, and have said so all along since these mock-ups have been showing up.
Now I could be wrong, and often am, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Unless Apple is gearing this thing solely at the gamer and movie watching audience in landscape orientation -- and while that may be a critical base for it, I don't see Apple doing this -- then the bezels in portrait orientation are simply too small to hold it comfortably in one hand using the thumb, without accidentally touching the screen.
I don't see any reason for Apple to change the general iPad dimensions when shrinking it smaller. The reason iPhones have no side bezels (and arguably Apple intends it to be used primarily in portrait orientation) is because it is gripped in the palm. A mini tablet is held the same way as the regular one, whether it is 16:9, 16:10, or 4:3.
Also, considering Apple's iPhone 4-5 is all retina displays, along with the iPod Touch line, I find it hard to believe the iPad mini wouldn't be either, thus conforming their entire iOS product line to the same display resolution, if not aspect ratio. I mean, retina is one major way Apple can distinguish itself from other 7" tablets, aside from style. But style alone is not going to allow Apple to charge a premium in the sub-tablet space. They need to raise the bar for other manufactures and motivate customers used to budget tablets to spend a "little more" for better quality. Actually the more I think about it, the move to 16:9 in iPhone and iPod Touch necessitates a 16:9 mini-tablet., while the iPad will be 4:3, and who knows, perhaps if Apple keeps the smaller iPhone 4/s form factor alongside the 5 form factor, then it will be conformed to the slightly narrower 1.33:1, from the 1.5:1 bringing it in line with the iPad for scalability.
1) He says they are too wide and you agree by saying they are too small?
2) You also say it's for a gamer and movie watching audience because of the side bezels being smaller than you would find comfortable but don't seem to realize that the bezel width is not a determination of the aspect ratio of the display. These mockups are all using a 4:3 display.
3) The reason the iPhone can have smaller side bezels is because of the size and weight. Because this would be considerably smaller and lighter than the 10" iPad it can have smaller side bezels and still be held comfortably with one hand without obstructing the display.
4) There is nothing that necessitates a 16:9 tablet and nothing that ever shown the iPad mini to be anything other than 4:3.
If, on the other hand, if we get some claims that yield problems have delayed this device for a few more weeks, forget about it. There is no iPad Mini coming.
Do you say that because we're at the point where the buildup to it is… Hmm. Can't articulate it right now. Maybe I should wake up more.
I agree, and have said so all along since these mock-ups have been showing up.
Now I could be wrong, and often am, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Unless Apple is gearing this thing solely at the gamer and movie watching audience in landscape orientation -- and while that may be a critical base for it, I don't see Apple doing this -- then the bezels in portrait orientation are simply too small to hold it comfortably in one hand using the thumb, without accidentally touching the screen.
You're agreeing with me, but are asking for the opposite.
I said the 'side' bezels are too wide, not too narrow:
(given that the home button is on the bottom, I think you'll now see what I mean by the side bezels)
P.S. The Apple logo is a tad too big, also.
The whole reason why the side bezels don't need to be a wide as a regular iPad is that your fingers will stretch across most of the rear of the device. Your thumb just needs to catch the edge on this smaller iPad, and to that end this iPad looks ugly with these sized side bezels. They are neither small enough to look small (and nice) or large enough to look thumb-sized, as on iPad 3. Either go full size of make them a little smaller than they are here. Not a lot, just a little, for more visual appeal.
Here's the correct size:
(this looks far more 'correct')
The black image above implies "try to fit your thumb here, it might fit". But smaller wouldn't imply trying that, which would be intelligent design given the size and weight of iPad mini and the average size and strength of an individual's hand.
1) He says they are too wide and you agree by saying they are too small?
1) My appologies. I completely misread his post. I think I scanned it as they are "not wide enough." Sorry for the confusion. Addressing your other points above:
2) I say gamer and movie watcher, because a smaller tablet is going to work best in landscape orientation as everything will be larger, whether 16:9 or 4:3. This is primarily how gamers and movie watchers use the iPad. It is also how I turn the iPad to increase the text size of things without zooming. And again, this is all my opinion.
3) I have never seen anyone hold the iPhone with their thumbs on the edge in one hand. It is always held cupped in the palm of the hand with the thumb being used to navigate, except in landscape mode, which is almost always used for games and media.
4) I never said I have ever seen anything rumored to be other than 4:3. This is my personal feeling that the screen should be 16:9 to fit more into the market which I believe Apple is trying to reach, combined with Jobs earlier derision of 7" screens needing sandpaper to be shipped with it for users fingers. So why would Apple just make a mini-version of iPad if they believe it would be an inadequate user experience? They wouldn't is my guess. Since we're just looking at mockups primarily and not the actual tablet, my feeling is the mockups are potentially completely wrong. I'm looking at Apple's move to 16:9 in iPhone and iPod Touch, and think that a 7" tablet makes a much better iPod touch than it does an iPad. I also think the iPod touch is sort of redundant (especially now that there are free iPhones and most kids have cell phones these days), and Apple is running an experiment with the new mini-tablet ... If they sell more 7" tablets than new iPod touches, then the iPod touch might be EOL next year.
You're agreeing with me, but are asking for the opposite.
I said the 'side' bezels are too wide, not too narrow:
The whole reason why the side bezels don't need to be a wide as a regular iPad is that your fingers will stretch across most of the rear of the device. Your thumb just needs to catch the edge on this smaller iPad,
Again my sincere apologies ... Totally misread that.
As to your point, I totally understand what you are saying. However, I'm basing my experience on handling Kindles and Nooks, which have relative iPad-sized bezels. A lot of the bezel size is of course determined by the actual weight. It's hard to say how light it will actually be compared to the iPad. But, regardless how light it is, I don't necessarily agree that the thumb will rest on the edge, needing less bezel width. Even with the significantly smaller and lighter Kindle and Nook (even the 6-inch models), I tend to sit my thumb flush with the width of the bezel. It just feels more comfortable. Also, a thicker bezel allows Apple to expand the width of the screen (in landscape) from 4:3 to 16:10, or even 16:9, assuming any part of this mockup turns out to actually be real. And this also assumes that I am right that Apple's philosophy will be that the mini-iPad will be used differently than the regular iPad, or more like an iPod Touch than an iPad. In other words, Apple tends to set out to define a specific market, so rather than just churn out a 7" version of the iPad to compete with all the android tablets (and eat crow in the process over Jobs "sandpaper" comment), they will look to re-invent the 7" market space, possibly with an eye toward replacing the iPod Touch in the process.
I say gamer and movie watcher, because a smaller tablet is going to work best in landscape orientation as everything will be larger, whether 16:9 or 4:3. This is primarily how gamers and movie watchers use the iPad. It is also how I turn the iPad to increase the text size of things without zooming. And again, this is all my opinion.
The whole point of this specific size 7.85" at 1024 x 768 is it hits the lowest end of the sweet-spot for how small Apple thinks icons can be on an iOS device. Basically, icons on the home screen at this size and resolution will be, for example, physically the same size as icons on an all iPhones. They'll be smaller than iPad 2 and (3), but not smaller than Apple thinks makes sense.
With that said, I prefer to use my iPads and iPhones in portrait, and with owning an iPad (3) I won't be purchasing an iPad mini any time soon.
Also, a thicker bezel allows Apple to expand the width of the screen from 4:3 to 16:10, or even 16:9.
That would be Apple expanding the height of the screen, btw, and I don't see that happening on any iPad any time soon. The iPhone is different, the iPad is like a notepad, which have always been 4:3 or thereabouts.
The whole point of this specific size 7.85" at 1024 x 768 is it hits the lowest end of the sweet-spot for how small Apple thinks icons can be on an iOS device. Basically, icons on the home screen at this size and resolution will be, for example, physically the same size as icons on an all iPhones. They'll be smaller than iPad 2 and (3), but not smaller than Apple thinks makes sense.
Yeah I don't know about that.
This article sums up my thinking in this matter ...
Again, given Apple's move to Retina displays in iOS, I would expect they would not introduce another standard resolution display, especially if the goal is direct competition with the Android tablets.
Also, iOS tends to be moving toward 16:9 orientation in the smaller form factors, and a mini-tablet feels more like something smaller.
Considering Steve's comments about needing sandpaper with smaller tablets and not competing in the low-end market just to compete for profit, I can't imagine that the 7" mini-tablet will be a scaled down version of the iPad, with home screen icons the same size as those on the iPhones. It just goes against everything that's been said about Apple's philosophy about iPad.
So I reiterate my belief that if Apple really does have a 7" mini-iPad in the works, it will re-invent the 7" tablet space, not directly compete with it. That said, I doubt Apple would allow certain Apps like iPhoto to be used on it, and instead make it even a more of a consumer oriented device than even the iPad, focusing on being the perfect portable gaming device, and everything the iPod Touch does (to eventually replace it), and just happens to do iBooks, and some other apps. And it will probably be perfect for something i havent even yet imagined, nor has Google. Otherwise, to do it your way, Cook & Co. would be doing what the Register article suggests: going against Apple's earlier philosophy, or making a liar out of Steve.
Steve changed his mind, and was also assuaged further by the fact that the market for 7" tablets was bigger than he origially thought, and the fact that icons on this size of a tablet (which is 8") will be no smaller than on their current best selling device.
Again, given Apple's move to Retina displays in iOS, I would expect they would not introduce another standard resolution display, especially if the goal is direct competition with the Android tablets.
If anyone can sell a non-retina Apple tablet at a cheap-sounding price to a mega-large audience globally, it's Apple. Expect non-retina too, because Apple has to get the price down as low as possible, within reason, and they won't want to canabilize the larger iPad.
Steve changed his mind, and was also assuaged further by the fact that the market for 7" tablets was bigger than he origially thought, and the fact that icons on this size of a tablet (which is 8") will be no smaller than on their current best selling device.
When did Steve change his mind? I've read absolutely nothing to that effect. The only thing we do know is that he said the current lot of 7" tablets would fail (and they did) and that the 9.7" iPad was a much a better position for Apple to start than a smaller tablet. He never said that no 7" tablet would sell. No 7.85" tablet would sell. He never said that Apple shouldn't have made a 9.7" tablet first. This warping of Jobs very simple and clear words is like Jobs suggesting that the iPod Mini would never sell simply because they started with a larger iPod. It's best to establish your product category first and then expand into it, not simply push as many sizes and types as possible to see what sticks. There are plenty of failing CE companies that still do that.
Comments
I don't know. Why would you take an iPad with you hiking?
Some people don't know how to enjoy the outdoors.
If it happens, I'll get one for the wife for Christmas.
Originally Posted by kcartesius
Let's see if they finally include phone capabilities
Why would they?
Quote:
No one is going to buy a 7" tablet when they already have 10" tablets and a 3.5 - 4" phone.
Words from a wise Apple genius.
Quote:
You'll need to sharpen your fingers.
Words from the kingpin of them all.
My point: Don't knock a competitors product before you try it.
It's quite obvious that Apple realizes there IS a market for finger-sharpening-required tablets.
This is to those naysayers who thought that Samsung and Amazon's idea of a tablet in-between a 10" and a mobile phone is a train wreck waiting to happen.
I specifically remember some on here stated that Apple will "never" release a mid size tablet when there is the iPad and the iPhone.
I have names of those individuals but I wont post them.
Heres to eating your own words (of many).
Originally Posted by Galbi
My point: Don't knock a competitors product before you try it.
I have, which enables me to knock 'em. It's just not big enough. Not even talking about the UI or the UX. It's teensy.
I have to think that if this thing is for real, the iPad 2 will be discontinued and it will come in at around $399. After all, if the 4-inch Touch is $299, how realistic is it to think a 7-inch iPad would come in for much less than $400.
I don't get how we now have a reversal of logic about technology when it comes to this rumoured product. We all know that when you shrink tech to fit into a smaller package it costs more money, but for some reason this doesn't apply to this one product?
If you use that scenario on the iPhone and iPad the iPad should cost a lot more simply because it's bigger, but that's not accurate. Even with the Retina display, crazy powerful GPU to push that display, and huge battery it's still cheaper than the iPhone.
This rumoured iPad mini is much the same way except it's pushing the not envelope in performance, it's pushing the envelope in weight and cost reduction. It's rumoured to use the same PPI as the original iPhone and Touch. That''s 1/2 the PPI of the Touch. If it doesn't use in-cell touch or have full sRBG it could actually be a cheaper overall display than the new Touch display.
Now I could be wrong, and often am, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Unless Apple is gearing this thing solely at the gamer and movie watching audience in landscape orientation -- and while that may be a critical base for it, I don't see Apple doing this -- then the bezels in portrait orientation are simply too small to hold it comfortably in one hand using the thumb, without accidentally touching the screen.
I don't see any reason for Apple to change the general iPad dimensions when shrinking it smaller. The reason iPhones have no side bezels (and arguably Apple intends it to be used primarily in portrait orientation) is because it is gripped in the palm. A mini tablet is held the same way as the regular one, whether it is 16:9, 16:10, or 4:3.
Also, considering Apple's iPhone 4-5 is all retina displays, along with the iPod Touch line, I find it hard to believe the iPad mini wouldn't be either, thus conforming their entire iOS product line to the same display resolution, if not aspect ratio. I mean, retina is one major way Apple can distinguish itself from other 7" tablets, aside from style. But style alone is not going to allow Apple to charge a premium in the sub-tablet space. They need to raise the bar for other manufactures and motivate customers used to budget tablets to spend a "little more" for better quality. Actually the more I think about it, the move to 16:9 in iPhone and iPod Touch necessitates a 16:9 mini-tablet., while the iPad will be 4:3, and who knows, perhaps if Apple keeps the smaller iPhone 4/s form factor alongside the 5 form factor, then it will be conformed to the slightly narrower 1.33:1, from the 1.5:1 bringing it in line with the iPad for scalability.
1) He says they are too wide and you agree by saying they are too small?
2) You also say it's for a gamer and movie watching audience because of the side bezels being smaller than you would find comfortable but don't seem to realize that the bezel width is not a determination of the aspect ratio of the display. These mockups are all using a 4:3 display.
3) The reason the iPhone can have smaller side bezels is because of the size and weight. Because this would be considerably smaller and lighter than the 10" iPad it can have smaller side bezels and still be held comfortably with one hand without obstructing the display.
4) There is nothing that necessitates a 16:9 tablet and nothing that ever shown the iPad mini to be anything other than 4:3.
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
If, on the other hand, if we get some claims that yield problems have delayed this device for a few more weeks, forget about it. There is no iPad Mini coming.
Do you say that because we're at the point where the buildup to it is… Hmm. Can't articulate it right now. Maybe I should wake up more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
I agree, and have said so all along since these mock-ups have been showing up.
Now I could be wrong, and often am, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Unless Apple is gearing this thing solely at the gamer and movie watching audience in landscape orientation -- and while that may be a critical base for it, I don't see Apple doing this -- then the bezels in portrait orientation are simply too small to hold it comfortably in one hand using the thumb, without accidentally touching the screen.
You're agreeing with me, but are asking for the opposite.
I said the 'side' bezels are too wide, not too narrow:
(given that the home button is on the bottom, I think you'll now see what I mean by the side bezels)
P.S. The Apple logo is a tad too big, also.
The whole reason why the side bezels don't need to be a wide as a regular iPad is that your fingers will stretch across most of the rear of the device. Your thumb just needs to catch the edge on this smaller iPad, and to that end this iPad looks ugly with these sized side bezels. They are neither small enough to look small (and nice) or large enough to look thumb-sized, as on iPad 3. Either go full size of make them a little smaller than they are here. Not a lot, just a little, for more visual appeal.
Here's the correct size:
(this looks far more 'correct')
The black image above implies "try to fit your thumb here, it might fit". But smaller wouldn't imply trying that, which would be intelligent design given the size and weight of iPad mini and the average size and strength of an individual's hand.
2) I say gamer and movie watcher, because a smaller tablet is going to work best in landscape orientation as everything will be larger, whether 16:9 or 4:3. This is primarily how gamers and movie watchers use the iPad. It is also how I turn the iPad to increase the text size of things without zooming. And again, this is all my opinion.
3) I have never seen anyone hold the iPhone with their thumbs on the edge in one hand. It is always held cupped in the palm of the hand with the thumb being used to navigate, except in landscape mode, which is almost always used for games and media.
4) I never said I have ever seen anything rumored to be other than 4:3. This is my personal feeling that the screen should be 16:9 to fit more into the market which I believe Apple is trying to reach, combined with Jobs earlier derision of 7" screens needing sandpaper to be shipped with it for users fingers. So why would Apple just make a mini-version of iPad if they believe it would be an inadequate user experience? They wouldn't is my guess. Since we're just looking at mockups primarily and not the actual tablet, my feeling is the mockups are potentially completely wrong. I'm looking at Apple's move to 16:9 in iPhone and iPod Touch, and think that a 7" tablet makes a much better iPod touch than it does an iPad. I also think the iPod touch is sort of redundant (especially now that there are free iPhones and most kids have cell phones these days), and Apple is running an experiment with the new mini-tablet ... If they sell more 7" tablets than new iPod touches, then the iPod touch might be EOL next year. Again my sincere apologies ... Totally misread that.
As to your point, I totally understand what you are saying. However, I'm basing my experience on handling Kindles and Nooks, which have relative iPad-sized bezels. A lot of the bezel size is of course determined by the actual weight. It's hard to say how light it will actually be compared to the iPad. But, regardless how light it is, I don't necessarily agree that the thumb will rest on the edge, needing less bezel width. Even with the significantly smaller and lighter Kindle and Nook (even the 6-inch models), I tend to sit my thumb flush with the width of the bezel. It just feels more comfortable. Also, a thicker bezel allows Apple to expand the width of the screen (in landscape) from 4:3 to 16:10, or even 16:9, assuming any part of this mockup turns out to actually be real. And this also assumes that I am right that Apple's philosophy will be that the mini-iPad will be used differently than the regular iPad, or more like an iPod Touch than an iPad. In other words, Apple tends to set out to define a specific market, so rather than just churn out a 7" version of the iPad to compete with all the android tablets (and eat crow in the process over Jobs "sandpaper" comment), they will look to re-invent the 7" market space, possibly with an eye toward replacing the iPod Touch in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
I say gamer and movie watcher, because a smaller tablet is going to work best in landscape orientation as everything will be larger, whether 16:9 or 4:3. This is primarily how gamers and movie watchers use the iPad. It is also how I turn the iPad to increase the text size of things without zooming. And again, this is all my opinion.
The whole point of this specific size 7.85" at 1024 x 768 is it hits the lowest end of the sweet-spot for how small Apple thinks icons can be on an iOS device. Basically, icons on the home screen at this size and resolution will be, for example, physically the same size as icons on an all iPhones. They'll be smaller than iPad 2 and (3), but not smaller than Apple thinks makes sense.
With that said, I prefer to use my iPads and iPhones in portrait, and with owning an iPad (3) I won't be purchasing an iPad mini any time soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Also, a thicker bezel allows Apple to expand the width of the screen from 4:3 to 16:10, or even 16:9.
That would be Apple expanding the height of the screen, btw, and I don't see that happening on any iPad any time soon. The iPhone is different, the iPad is like a notepad, which have always been 4:3 or thereabouts.
This article sums up my thinking in this matter ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/16/jobs_on_ipad_mini/
Again, given Apple's move to Retina displays in iOS, I would expect they would not introduce another standard resolution display, especially if the goal is direct competition with the Android tablets.
Also, iOS tends to be moving toward 16:9 orientation in the smaller form factors, and a mini-tablet feels more like something smaller.
Considering Steve's comments about needing sandpaper with smaller tablets and not competing in the low-end market just to compete for profit, I can't imagine that the 7" mini-tablet will be a scaled down version of the iPad, with home screen icons the same size as those on the iPhones. It just goes against everything that's been said about Apple's philosophy about iPad.
So I reiterate my belief that if Apple really does have a 7" mini-iPad in the works, it will re-invent the 7" tablet space, not directly compete with it. That said, I doubt Apple would allow certain Apps like iPhoto to be used on it, and instead make it even a more of a consumer oriented device than even the iPad, focusing on being the perfect portable gaming device, and everything the iPod Touch does (to eventually replace it), and just happens to do iBooks, and some other apps. And it will probably be perfect for something i havent even yet imagined, nor has Google. Otherwise, to do it your way, Cook & Co. would be doing what the Register article suggests: going against Apple's earlier philosophy, or making a liar out of Steve.
Steve changed his mind, and was also assuaged further by the fact that the market for 7" tablets was bigger than he origially thought, and the fact that icons on this size of a tablet (which is 8") will be no smaller than on their current best selling device.
If anyone can sell a non-retina Apple tablet at a cheap-sounding price to a mega-large audience globally, it's Apple. Expect non-retina too, because Apple has to get the price down as low as possible, within reason, and they won't want to canabilize the larger iPad.
When did Steve change his mind? I've read absolutely nothing to that effect. The only thing we do know is that he said the current lot of 7" tablets would fail (and they did) and that the 9.7" iPad was a much a better position for Apple to start than a smaller tablet. He never said that no 7" tablet would sell. No 7.85" tablet would sell. He never said that Apple shouldn't have made a 9.7" tablet first. This warping of Jobs very simple and clear words is like Jobs suggesting that the iPod Mini would never sell simply because they started with a larger iPod. It's best to establish your product category first and then expand into it, not simply push as many sizes and types as possible to see what sticks. There are plenty of failing CE companies that still do that.