Rumored 'iPad mini' event to focus on iBooks, report says

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 131
    irelandireland Posts: 17,747member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    The new "iBook" instead of "iPad mini"?


     


    Trust Spam to think of this. You're a genius, on par with the likes of... me :P


     


    What handheld device I'd love from Apple more than anything is an e-ink reader.

  • Reply 22 of 131
    rogifan wrote: »
    Funny I use my iPad to read books all the time. I'm guessing people use the Fire and Nexus 7 for that purpose too. I guess we're all epic failures? :lol:

    No- but your eyes are just cooked.
  • Reply 23 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Wasn't that the same focus they put on the original iPad?





    Not quite. Reading was one of various activities described.

  • Reply 24 of 131


    Well, that article hardly claims the PW to be 'innovative, groundbreaking' - just better than the Nook. That was my point - nothing to argue about here - move on. 

  • Reply 25 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Now that we've been spoiled by Retina or HiDPi displays, the answer to your questions is YES, the original iPad & iPhone 3GS are bad for reading.  The iPad Mini with a 326dpi 2048x1536 display would be killer. I'd be first in line to buy one.  Once you go retina there's no going back, at least not for me.

    But you need to consider the other factors when talking about this. Tech isn't created in a bubble. There are trade offs with all options. They could go with the same PPI on the iPhone 5 to give it the same resolution as the iPad (3) on a 7.85" display but you'll need the 4 GPU cores and even with the 32nm lithogprahy you're simply not going to cut down on power usage enough to make it as light as I imagine such a device needs to be. And this is all without even considering price, which I think is another huge factor for this mass purchase for schools and businesses, and those that want both a cheaper and smaller tablet.
  • Reply 26 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I doubt it, but I would much prefer iBook over iPad mini as I've posted previously.

    Not really. It was included, as an App Store app, not as a default app, when they announced the iPad in 2010, and they didn't even have iBooks Author until January of this year.


     


    Gruber is sticking with the moniker iPad Air. I think there are good reasons to side with him.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post



    It simply cannot compete with the new innovative, groundbreaking PaperWhite display of a KindlePW

    unless someone here can tell me how? That is for book reading.


     


    Groundbreaking? Do you even know how PaperWhite works? Do you know what groundbreaking means?


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post





    No- but your eyes are just cooked.




    That's absurd. Millions and millions of people stare at LCDs all day and their eyes are not cooked. Do you not care about credibility at all?

  • Reply 27 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji View Post


    Now that we've been spoiled by Retina or HiDPi displays, the answer to your questions is YES, the original iPad & iPhone 3GS are bad for reading.  The iPad Mini with a 326dpi 2048x1536 display would be killer. I'd be first in line to buy one.  Once you go retina there's no going back, at least not for me.





    I agree that some of us are getting accustomed to Retina Display everywhere. But, with iPhone 3GS discontinued, Apple has no other reason to manufacture the 163 ppi LCDs. Might they get larger economy of scale by making more 326 ppi panels. So let's not take it for granted that we won't see Retina on iPad Air, although one could argue it would be typical Apple to bring that out in the second edition.

  • Reply 28 of 131


    I think iBooks and education iTextbooks(?) makes alot of sense on the smaller device.  It'll be cheaper than a regular iPad, have all the same apps and video capabilities but will be lighter which makes a big difference for book reading.  Not as light as a kindle but maybe around 3/4 of a pound (12 oz) will make it much easier to hold in one hand and read.  That's only about the weight of 3 iphone 5s, which is pretty light.

  • Reply 29 of 131


    The iBooks focus makes great sense. First of all, Apple doesn't introduce a product for its own sake. They usually come at the design with a specific user angle. Second, reading on the iPad is akin to reading a hardcover while reading on the iPad Air would be like reading a paperback; at least from the portability perspective (particularly if it will be notably light as Gruber predicts). The analogy is imperfect, but I think it is not completely an ill fit.

  • Reply 30 of 131
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    rogifan wrote: »
    If they start competing in a race to the bottom they dilute their brand. If Apple is going to compete on price I fear we'll get an inferior quality device so Apple can sell it cheap yet make decent margins on it.
    And this is why it won't be like any of the speculation going on in these threads.

    Apple simply will not crank out a device just to gain market share. If they are indeed creating a mini-tablet, it will not simply be a miniaturized iPad designed to take on Amazon, Google, Samsung and the rest. It will redefine the 7" tablet space, for better or worse, but they will not simply throw their hat into the ring and be just one more mini-tablet maker, with better design and finish. They will lead the field. They have to.

    Frankly if they don't do this I will be very disappointed, and I think it will mark a negative turning point in the company's philosophy.
  • Reply 31 of 131



    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
    iBook app for Mac, please.


     


     
  • Reply 32 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    harbinger wrote: »

    I agree that some of us are getting accustomed to Retina Display everywhere. But, with iPhone 3GS discontinued, Apple has no other reason to manufacture the 163 ppi LCDs. Might they get larger economy of scale by making more 326 ppi panels. So let's not take it for granted that we won't see Retina on iPad Air, although one could argue it would be typical Apple to bring that out in the second edition.

    1) They aren't manufacturing any 163 PPI iPhones or iPod Touches is one of the key reasons they would use that same equipment they long ago paid for and perfected in these new tablets.

    2) There is also diseconomies of scale. Aren't some of the rumours on the iPhone delays based on the display not being easily manufactured? So why add to that by creating millions of displays that are 4.27x the size of the current iPhone 5 display just so they are also 326 PPI?

    3) At 326 PPI the 7.85 iPad mini would have the same resolution of the iPad (3) which is already very heavy, expensive, and simply doesn't have the room to put all that in a smaller device without getting thicker. You can loose some battery bulk with the smaller backlight and 32nm process but not enough to counter more than a fraction of it. It's simply not feasible. It could also wind up being more expensive than the 9.7" version because in technology using smaller, more power efficient components is more costly... not less.

    4) The iPad (3) has a 264 PPI display so why do would you think that isn't good enough? Why not at least something that is closer to the PPI of the current iPad as you hold a tablet farther from your face than a phone? 1600x1200 would be 255 PPI.
  • Reply 33 of 131
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    There little point in an iPad mini exceeding the main iPad's dot pitch. The idea is to put pixel density just below perceptibility, not waste pixels just because specs are cool.

    I just don't see Apple scaling the exact same UI down to a screen half the surface area, it needs a smarter translation than that, much like how good iPad apps aren't just scaled up iPhone apps.
  • Reply 34 of 131


    SolipsismX nailed it. The size is very specific: 7.85". At 163 dpi that's exactly 1024 x 768. Is it a coincidence that the iPad Mini is being introduced (if it is) just as the 3GS drops out of the bottom of the lineup and there's surplus capacity to make 163-dpi mother glass? No way—that's the screen of the iPad Mini.


     


    At the distance you're going to hold it, it will be just fine for reading. I've read hundreds of books on a 15" screen with the same resolution, so that's only 85.33 dpi. Also just fine. The antialiasing on all of Apple's screens is very good. Don't worry about it.


     


    Of course iSheldon is either a paid troll or just insane and doing it for free, but e-ink is crap. I thought it sounded cool when people started talking about it 25 years ago, but remember that was when LCD displays were like a digital watch. The main advantages were supposed to be that they could be made in any size and would be cheap as dirt. Well, they finally showed up and they're tiny, expensive (for what you get—cheaper than a good LCD of the same size of course), coarse (with antialiasing impossible), and most importantly, display gray type on a very, very slightly lighter gray background—and of course, have to be brightly lit to be read at all. How anybody can tolerate these things is beyond me.

  • Reply 35 of 131
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    1) They aren't manufacturing any 163 PPI iPhones or iPod Touches is one of the key reasons they would use that same equipment they long ago paid for and perfected in these new tablets.

     


    I don't know much about the actual manufacturing process but if you examine the path Apples usually takes with the evolution of technology you will rarely see them go backwards. I would guess they will use the in cell technology like the iPhone and that may require a completely new manufacturing process anyway so they are free to create whatever display resolution they want. I don't think the old 3Gs screen technology needs to be reused for expediency or for the sake of price reduction. I hope we see a first class device and not some lowest common denominator competitor with a price similar to the other small tablets on the market. That will make me sad.

  • Reply 36 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    And this is why it won't be like any of the speculation going on in these threads.

    Apple simply will not crank out a device just to gain market share. If they are indeed creating a mini-tablet, it will not simply be a miniaturized iPad designed to take on Amazon, Google, Samsung and the rest. It will redefine the 7" tablet space, for better or worse, but they will not simply throw their hat into the ring and be just one more mini-tablet maker, with better design and finish. They will lead the field. They have to.

    Frankly if they don't do this I will be very disappointed, and I think it will mark a negative turning point in the company's philosophy.




    I agree that Apple will lead the field, but it will be A LOT subtler than most think.  I think that it's getting harder and harder to "redefine" (as you put it) any mobile device.  I just can't see many more dramatic changes that can be made.  We're maxing out on evolutionary changes (like screen resolution, camera quality, screen size, snappiness, voice recognition, etc.), I mean, how sexier can a smart phone or tablet get?  Don't get me wrong, there WILL BE improvements, but they'll be smaller defining moments...and these small improvements will be important, but just not as dramatic as the past.  But in a pragmatic sense, Apple as a corporation (& publicly held company), will continue its dominance especially in a post-PC era.


     


    Hey, I'm still hoping for something thrilling to be announced as well...one can only hope.  Maybe an enhanced gaming device/remote embedded into the iPad Mini's hardware/ios?!

  • Reply 37 of 131
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    SolipsismX nailed it. The size is very specific: 7.85". At 163 dpi that's exactly 1024 x 768.
    Why is this specification being quoted as if it's gospel? Isn't this just as big a rumor as Apple supposedly sending an invite out two days ago for an event next week?

    Bottom line, the display has to be "retina" for this thing to compete at all (but not necessarily the same density as the iP5 or new iPad). Since the 3GS is gone, that actually opens up the door to create a new third resolution for developers, in addition to the iPhone 5 and iPad (the iPad 2 will likely be dropped when this tablet comes out as well).
  • Reply 38 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    The antialiasing on all of Apple's screens is very good. Don't worry about it.

    I'm under the impression that only Mac OS X has anti-alising, which explains why the RMBP text looks so good despite only being around 200 PPI compared to the iPad (3).

    edit: http://daringfireball.net/2012/08/pixel_perfect
    mstone wrote: »
    I don't know much about the actual manufacturing process but if you examine the path Apples usually takes with the evolution of technology you will rarely see them go backwards. I would guess they will use the in cell technology like the iPhone and that may require a completely new manufacturing process anyway so they are free to create whatever display resolution they want. I don't think the old 3Gs screen technology needs to be reused for expediency or for the sake of price reduction. I hope we see a first class device and not some lowest common denominator competitor with a price similar to the other small tablets on the market. That will make me sad.

    They did with the iPod Touch. It was released after the iPhone and it always had a worse display (up until the latest one). Even when the iPhone 4 got an IPS display the 4th gen iPod Touch was stil only TN. I think this will be a low-cost device compared to the iPad (3), not unlike the iPod Touch is a low-cost device compared to the iPhone.
  • Reply 39 of 131
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

    the iPad 2 will likely be dropped when this tablet comes out as well


    I hope not. The education market is just getting off the ground with the iPad 2. I would hate to see them destabilize that initial momentum by discontinuing the super inexpensive option for schools. I also firmly believe that the 10" size is much better for textbooks as well as for pre-school aged children. The educational apps for younger children need the additional screen real estate because the UI is more pictographic in nature. A smaller screen is not a good platform for K-12 in my opinion.

  • Reply 40 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    Why is this specification being quoted as if it's gospel? Isn't this just as big a rumor as Apple supposedly sending an invite out two days ago for an event next week?
    Bottom line, the display has to be "retina" for this thing to compete at all (but not necessarily the same density as the iP5 or new iPad). Since the 3GS is gone, that actually opens up the door to create a new third resolution for developers, in addition to the iPhone 5 and iPad (the iPad 2 will likely be dropped when this tablet comes out as well).

    He said the size is very specific. That can't be argued! There is a very clear way as to how the 7.85" rumour came about. If you accept that 7.85" is a possibility then you have to assume that it's 163 or 326 PPI because those are the only two that even come close to making any sense for that size. If you want to hypothesis a smaller display or different aspect ratio and why its PPI and resolution will be different go right ahead but note that as you start to change additional variables you add work and cost for Apple, work and cost for devs, and cost and compatibility issues for customers.

    There is a reason why Apple used the 163 PPI display on the iPhone 3GS when other vendors were pushing well above it in 2009. There is a reason the weight and thickness increased dramatically on the iPad (3) to quadruple the pixels. There is a reason Apple choose to do a quad-rupling of the iPhone, Touch and iPad instead of simply adding an extra 50 PPI to their devices every year.

    I see no reason for a 9.7" tablet to be dropped because a 7-7.85" budget tablet is rumoured to be hitting the market. The 13" MBA wasn't dropped because the 11" MBA hit the market.
Sign In or Register to comment.