Completely unreliable and totally made up sources that have no names and claim they have a clue just revealed to a website set up ten minutes ago that Apple has hired a special guest presenter to replace the boring and lackluster executives as well as perform the closing musical number
This mystery host? Deep Roy
I was hoping for the duo of Meg and Slim Whitman...
If it's worth doing... it's worth doing wrong... then yodeling about it!
That would have the added benefit of causing iPhobes' heads to explode, like in "Mars Attacks".
You have to understand that there are a number of people who are adamantly opposed to Apple releasing a smaller iPad (or, in fact, any product that said person doesn't agree with) and will come up with any bizarre excuse as to why it doesn't make sense. After their excuses are shot down, they'll come up with more - with no regard for reality or logic.
So you're talking about melgross, then, who agrees with me.
Oh, wait, no, you're just on this pathetic vendetta against me, spreading lies and whatnot for your own benefit. I see.
Apple was brilliant with the timing of this announcement. The buzz is around this event, not Microsoft Surface. And because Microsoft announced the Surface several months before announcing pricing and availability they allowed the rumor mill to get bogus pricing In people's heads and now you've got people complaining that $499-$699 is too expensive. And these touch covers that all the fanboys we drooling over in July don't look so drool worthy priced at $120-$130. That's why I'd love to see Apple do something bold next week, so we'd have one event this year that the details weren't leaked beforehand and we could truly be surprised.
It isn't a given that there will be no retina. In fact I suspect Apple is working real hard to deliver just that in the Mini
The size of the type would not change.
Not really. The screen and text on iOS devices is not drawn in pixels. Unless the app uses a lot of bit maps the textural appearance should look relatively the same.
There are a lot of things you're saying that's not happening on the real world. I've got over 300 apps on my iPad, and more than a few don't follow the conventions you say they should.
You can blame the developers, and that's fine, but it is happening.
I'm also sure they'd like a retina screen, but that's a problem for several reasons. One is that doubling the display Rez as they did it with the phone and iPad would be a bit absurd. The iPad now has a Rez of 264 ppi. The old iPhone had a rez of 164, I believe.Doing what they did there would give the Mini a Rez of 328 ppi, a high number for an 8" screen.
So unless Apple does what they avoided doing, which is to go to some intermediate Rez, I can't see why they would want to go an do what they've done before.
I think 29.6 in square is plenty of room, even without considering the advantage of an interactive book.
Sol, do you have an iPad? If so, simply turn it horizontal, and look at any magazine page. Or get one of the free textbooks from the iBook store and do it. It's basically unusable.
<p id="user_yui_3_5_1_1_1350413446272_656" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">32nm A5X vs 45nm A5X (i.e. higher yields per wafer). Same kind of panel as in the iPod Touch 5th gen (cheaper type of panel than in the iPhone). Other cost savings just because we're 6 months later than the original iPad 3 launch.</p>
<p id="user_yui_3_5_1_1_1350413446272_653" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">$299 for the current iPod touch. Add the costs for a bigger panel and the A5X and you can guesstimate the price of a retina iPad mini viable around $399-$449 for 16GB...or $100-$50 cheaper than the current iPad. I favor $399 for price parity with the iPad 2 but you can go $449 if you like.</p>
<p id="user_yui_3_5_1_1_1350413446272_623" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Come spring the 4th gen iPad will get the A6. $399 for a retina mini based on the A5X, $399 for the iPad 3 and $499 for a full sized iPad based on the A6X.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Or if you really prefer: $399 for the iPad 3 with 32nm A5X, $449 for the retina mini with the 32nm A5X and $499 for the iPad 4 with A6X.</p>
At $250 probably not. But there's no reason that the $250 model isn't based on the older 3GS panel type and the higher end models use the iPhone 4 or the current iPod Touch panel type. If there are 24 freaking SKUs that's a viable option...especially if they are using the newer iPod Touch panels and are supply constrained.
You have old eyes. I have old eyes. Right before my near vision went to hell I could easily read very very small fonts on my iPhone 4. Folks younger than 40 are wondering what we are talking about.
A 44pt by 44pt target on the iPad is around a quarter inch instead of around a third on an inch. That's the size delta between a full sized iPad and a mini iPad.
It's thought now that some of those SKUs are actually new iPads that have been updated with the Lightening connector, and possibly other advances.
That's a target, but not a type font. Designers can use whatever size type they want to. Even on my original 3G iPhone, some type was just tiny. And with some color combinations, it was essentially unreadable. If type is black and white, even 4 points on my retina iPad is readable. But change a parameter, and 6 points becomes very difficult. Even 8 points can be difficult to read with so e color combo's, and designers are always trying to show how cool their work is by putting the wrong colors together when type is involved.
Google has shown no propensity to sue anyone over IP. Apple could identically copy the Nexus 7 look with little danger that Google would sue over it IMHO. At the worst I think it would only be a bargaining chip in what I suspect is an on-going discussion over licensing.
Total BS. They've been doing it through proxies. Well before the Motorola Google deal finished, Motorola was accused of doing Google's bidding in their suits against Apple and Microsoft. Saying that they sued a company because they were "pretty sure" they were going to be sued first is crap. In addition, unlike Apple, Microsoft and others, Google flat out refused to state that they would treat FRAND patents they way they are supposed to be used, and the way Motorola, a Google division is using them is getting them in big trouble in the EU, and the USA as well.
If they didn't want to do this, they could have told Motorola to drop all the suits, or to just not begin them fortunately, they are losing most of them anyway.
At any rate, stealing others work, and taking it for your own, while crying that you are the one innovating, is a joke!
Because it's not true. The same amount of text and images will fit on a 7.85" 1024x768 iPad as a 9.7" 1024x768 iPad. You do not need to change the layout for an app or an ebook between the iPad Mini and iPad 2.
For normal iPad apps (not games) devs target a screen size of 1024x768 points for UI layouts. I don't know how many times that needs to be repeated and these apps work the same on the iPad 2 and the iPad 3.
This is no different between a saying that 1080x1920 content is laid out exactly the same whether the display device is 7" or 70" as long as they are both 1080x1920 displays.
Text, images, video all the same. Where you choose to sit in relation to the display device may differ but everything else is the same.
Oh boy! The problem is that that text, and graphics will then be half the size it was before, in addition to all of the touch points. You really need to download a textbook and look at it.
A few will reformat to a dual page format, and that's fine. But if there is just ONE half size page, it's not so fine. And when it doesn't reformat, it's way too difficult to use. Try it.
You have to understand that there are a number of people who are adamantly opposed to Apple releasing a smaller iPad (or, in fact, any product that said person doesn't agree with) and will come up with any bizarre excuse as to why it doesn't make sense. After their excuses are shot down, they'll come up with more - with no regard for reality or logic.
I don't know who you may be talking about, but I intend to buy one, the first day it comes out, the same way I bought the original iPad, the iPad2, and two new iPads.
I'm certainly not trying to make a case against it. I'm trying to explain why it's not the same as a full sized model, and why there will need to be changes in some of the software for it.
A couple of people think its exactly the same as a 10" model, except, well, a lot smaller. It's not.
It doesn't matter. While 132 ppi on the first two iPads was coarse at the distance, 164 wasn't bad on the older iPhones, and 164 is pretty good on an 8" device. If you take two devices, which are pretty much the same, and they are the same price, the one that a lot bigger, unless a person specifically wants a smaller device, will win most all the time.
We need to see the other specs of the Mini of course, but if the iPad two has better battery life, and it certainly could, with the new SoC, and a measured life of 14 hours, compared to 10.5 for the original version, that would make it a much better tool for many people. Of course, Apple never updated the battery life specs.
It doesn't matter. While 132 ppi on the first two iPads was coarse at the distance, 164 wasn't bad on the older iPhones, and 164 is pretty good on an 8" device. If you take two devices, which are pretty much the same, and they are the same price, the one that a lot bigger, unless a person specifically wants a smaller device, will win most all the time.
We need to see the other specs of the Mini of course, but if the iPad two has better battery life, and it certainly could, with the new SoC, and a measured life of 14 hours, compared to 10.5 for the original version, that would make it a much better tool for many people. Of course, Apple never updated the battery life specs.
The Nexus 7 has 240 ppi. I'm hoping that the iPad mini gets IGZO at 217 ppi and the devs will just have to deal with another layout which is what you were saying earlier would be necessary anyway just because of the physical dimensions.
anyone else think the colourful banner may indicate colourful iPad minis?
Yes. especially because I believe that a mini-tablet is an eventual iPod Touch replacement.
I remain convinced Apple will be doing something in software to set this mini-tablet apart from the iPad, which is a lot easier to conceal than hardware leaks.
Oh boy! The problem is that that text, and graphics will then be half the size it was before, in addition to all of the touch points. You really need to download a textbook and look at it.
A few will reformat to a dual page format, and that's fine. But if there is just ONE half size page, it's not so fine. And when it doesn't reformat, it's way too difficult to use. Try it.
False. The touch points have a minimum size of 44x44 points if they meet the HIG. A 44x44 point button will be the exact same physical size on the new iPad mini as they are on the iPhone. If a 44 point button is unusable on the Mini then it would be likewise unusable on the iPhone and the HIG is broken.
A 44x44 point button on the 10" iPad would be 19% larger. Likewise the same font will be 19% larger on the iPad than the iPad mini. It is NOT twice as large.
There are many sites that have UI mockups of the 7.85" iPad. I suggest you look at the mockups on your existing iPad to see what the mini UI will look like.
Note that the font remains highly readable and the layout doesn't change. Ignore the slight fuzziness as it will not exist on the real iPad mini and is an artifact of his resizing the iPad UIs down to the 7.85" size.
If you don't have an iPad and would like to see on paper there are printable mockups here:
Everything would then simply stay the same. Buttons and touch targets would be smaller, but not unusably so. The "slack" that currently exists between 3.5-inch iPhone interface elements and 9.7-inch iPad elements would just disappear, and you'd have the same basic iPad look with the same basic iPhone feel.
A 7.85-inch iPad would still require two hands to use, but the shorter distances would allow slightly better accuracy, again equalizing out the slightly smaller interface elements and touch targets.
Keeping the current iPad interface and scaling it down would mean developers and users could run the same iPad apps they do today. Universal binary sizes could likewise remain the same, since no new interface sizes or asset sizes would be necessary. White space wouldn't increase, so the visual density of apps would remain the same.
It's the simplest solution, and those are the ones Apple typically implements.
The Nexus 7 has 240 ppi. I'm hoping that the iPad mini gets IGZO at 217 ppi and the devs will just have to deal with another layout which is what you were saying earlier would be necessary anyway just because of the physical dimensions.
217 PPI at what resolution? At what aspect ratio?
You do know that will hobble it out of the gate if it doesn't have a reasonable use ecosystem, right? Remember how people clalmed the iPad was a dud because there only a handful of apps and that iPhone apps looks horrible? It's a temporary problem if they do go with an odd PPI but more importantly it seems like a pointless one when they can leverage their current SW, ecosystem, and HW to make something great at a low price out of the gate.
If none of the models are retina then it'll likely be cheaper than what I suggested. If there is a retina expect a big price gap between the retina and non-retina models.
Retina is certainly no guarantee but it is not impossible.
It doesn't matter. While 132 ppi on the first two iPads was coarse at the distance, 164 wasn't bad on the older iPhones, and 164 is pretty good on an 8" device. If you take two devices, which are pretty much the same, and they are the same price, the one that a lot bigger, unless a person specifically wants a smaller device, will win most all the time.
We need to see the other specs of the Mini of course, but if the iPad two has better battery life, and it certainly could, with the new SoC, and a measured life of 14 hours, compared to 10.5 for the original version, that would make it a much better tool for many people. Of course, Apple never updated the battery life specs.
So your position is that retina doesn't matter? Mkay.
I disagree. And I believe that retina is worth paying a little more.
If this is not the case then why buy the iPad 3 over the iPad 2?
Also if you print out the paper mockups and trim down the side bezels down to iPhone side bezel size the result is a device around 1/4" taller and 1/4" wider than the original Kindle Fire. That's a much handier device than the iPad 2.
Comments
That would have the added benefit of causing iPhobes' heads to explode, like in "Mars Attacks".
Originally Posted by jragosta
You have to understand that there are a number of people who are adamantly opposed to Apple releasing a smaller iPad (or, in fact, any product that said person doesn't agree with) and will come up with any bizarre excuse as to why it doesn't make sense. After their excuses are shot down, they'll come up with more - with no regard for reality or logic.
So you're talking about melgross, then, who agrees with me.
Oh, wait, no, you're just on this pathetic vendetta against me, spreading lies and whatnot for your own benefit. I see.
There are a lot of things you're saying that's not happening on the real world. I've got over 300 apps on my iPad, and more than a few don't follow the conventions you say they should.
You can blame the developers, and that's fine, but it is happening.
I'm also sure they'd like a retina screen, but that's a problem for several reasons. One is that doubling the display Rez as they did it with the phone and iPad would be a bit absurd. The iPad now has a Rez of 264 ppi. The old iPhone had a rez of 164, I believe.Doing what they did there would give the Mini a Rez of 328 ppi, a high number for an 8" screen.
So unless Apple does what they avoided doing, which is to go to some intermediate Rez, I can't see why they would want to go an do what they've done before.
This isn't the simple issue you think it is.
Sol, do you have an iPad? If so, simply turn it horizontal, and look at any magazine page. Or get one of the free textbooks from the iBook store and do it. It's basically unusable.
That would never sell. A mini model for the same, or higher price than the iPad 2? Why would anyone buy one of those?
It's thought now that some of those SKUs are actually new iPads that have been updated with the Lightening connector, and possibly other advances.
That's a target, but not a type font. Designers can use whatever size type they want to. Even on my original 3G iPhone, some type was just tiny. And with some color combinations, it was essentially unreadable. If type is black and white, even 4 points on my retina iPad is readable. But change a parameter, and 6 points becomes very difficult. Even 8 points can be difficult to read with so e color combo's, and designers are always trying to show how cool their work is by putting the wrong colors together when type is involved.
Total BS. They've been doing it through proxies. Well before the Motorola Google deal finished, Motorola was accused of doing Google's bidding in their suits against Apple and Microsoft. Saying that they sued a company because they were "pretty sure" they were going to be sued first is crap. In addition, unlike Apple, Microsoft and others, Google flat out refused to state that they would treat FRAND patents they way they are supposed to be used, and the way Motorola, a Google division is using them is getting them in big trouble in the EU, and the USA as well.
If they didn't want to do this, they could have told Motorola to drop all the suits, or to just not begin them fortunately, they are losing most of them anyway.
At any rate, stealing others work, and taking it for your own, while crying that you are the one innovating, is a joke!
Oh boy! The problem is that that text, and graphics will then be half the size it was before, in addition to all of the touch points. You really need to download a textbook and look at it.
A few will reformat to a dual page format, and that's fine. But if there is just ONE half size page, it's not so fine. And when it doesn't reformat, it's way too difficult to use. Try it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That would never sell. A mini model for the same, or higher price than the iPad 2? Why would anyone buy one of those?
Because it's retina and the iPad 2 isn't.
I don't know who you may be talking about, but I intend to buy one, the first day it comes out, the same way I bought the original iPad, the iPad2, and two new iPads.
I'm certainly not trying to make a case against it. I'm trying to explain why it's not the same as a full sized model, and why there will need to be changes in some of the software for it.
A couple of people think its exactly the same as a 10" model, except, well, a lot smaller. It's not.
Originally Posted by nht
Because it's retina and the iPad 2 isn't.
All signs have been pointing away from retina.
It doesn't matter. While 132 ppi on the first two iPads was coarse at the distance, 164 wasn't bad on the older iPhones, and 164 is pretty good on an 8" device. If you take two devices, which are pretty much the same, and they are the same price, the one that a lot bigger, unless a person specifically wants a smaller device, will win most all the time.
We need to see the other specs of the Mini of course, but if the iPad two has better battery life, and it certainly could, with the new SoC, and a measured life of 14 hours, compared to 10.5 for the original version, that would make it a much better tool for many people. Of course, Apple never updated the battery life specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It doesn't matter. While 132 ppi on the first two iPads was coarse at the distance, 164 wasn't bad on the older iPhones, and 164 is pretty good on an 8" device. If you take two devices, which are pretty much the same, and they are the same price, the one that a lot bigger, unless a person specifically wants a smaller device, will win most all the time.
We need to see the other specs of the Mini of course, but if the iPad two has better battery life, and it certainly could, with the new SoC, and a measured life of 14 hours, compared to 10.5 for the original version, that would make it a much better tool for many people. Of course, Apple never updated the battery life specs.
The Nexus 7 has 240 ppi. I'm hoping that the iPad mini gets IGZO at 217 ppi and the devs will just have to deal with another layout which is what you were saying earlier would be necessary anyway just because of the physical dimensions.
I remain convinced Apple will be doing something in software to set this mini-tablet apart from the iPad, which is a lot easier to conceal than hardware leaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Oh boy! The problem is that that text, and graphics will then be half the size it was before, in addition to all of the touch points. You really need to download a textbook and look at it.
A few will reformat to a dual page format, and that's fine. But if there is just ONE half size page, it's not so fine. And when it doesn't reformat, it's way too difficult to use. Try it.
False. The touch points have a minimum size of 44x44 points if they meet the HIG. A 44x44 point button will be the exact same physical size on the new iPad mini as they are on the iPhone. If a 44 point button is unusable on the Mini then it would be likewise unusable on the iPhone and the HIG is broken.
A 44x44 point button on the 10" iPad would be 19% larger. Likewise the same font will be 19% larger on the iPad than the iPad mini. It is NOT twice as large.
There are many sites that have UI mockups of the 7.85" iPad. I suggest you look at the mockups on your existing iPad to see what the mini UI will look like.
Here is a good set: http://seveneightyfive.fscked.com
The flipboard example is closest to a textbook.
Note that the font remains highly readable and the layout doesn't change. Ignore the slight fuzziness as it will not exist on the real iPad mini and is an artifact of his resizing the iPad UIs down to the 7.85" size.
If you don't have an iPad and would like to see on paper there are printable mockups here:
http://www.macstories.net/news/get-a-sense-of-what-a-7-85-ipad-mini-would-be-like/
Here is a good summation:
Quote:
Everything would then simply stay the same. Buttons and touch targets would be smaller, but not unusably so. The "slack" that currently exists between 3.5-inch iPhone interface elements and 9.7-inch iPad elements would just disappear, and you'd have the same basic iPad look with the same basic iPhone feel.
A 7.85-inch iPad would still require two hands to use, but the shorter distances would allow slightly better accuracy, again equalizing out the slightly smaller interface elements and touch targets.
Keeping the current iPad interface and scaling it down would mean developers and users could run the same iPad apps they do today. Universal binary sizes could likewise remain the same, since no new interface sizes or asset sizes would be necessary. White space wouldn't increase, so the visual density of apps would remain the same.
It's the simplest solution, and those are the ones Apple typically implements.
http://admin.imore.com/solving-7-ipad-mini-interface
217 PPI at what resolution? At what aspect ratio?
You do know that will hobble it out of the gate if it doesn't have a reasonable use ecosystem, right? Remember how people clalmed the iPad was a dud because there only a handful of apps and that iPhone apps looks horrible? It's a temporary problem if they do go with an odd PPI but more importantly it seems like a pointless one when they can leverage their current SW, ecosystem, and HW to make something great at a low price out of the gate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
All signs have been pointing away from retina.
If none of the models are retina then it'll likely be cheaper than what I suggested. If there is a retina expect a big price gap between the retina and non-retina models.
Retina is certainly no guarantee but it is not impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It doesn't matter. While 132 ppi on the first two iPads was coarse at the distance, 164 wasn't bad on the older iPhones, and 164 is pretty good on an 8" device. If you take two devices, which are pretty much the same, and they are the same price, the one that a lot bigger, unless a person specifically wants a smaller device, will win most all the time.
We need to see the other specs of the Mini of course, but if the iPad two has better battery life, and it certainly could, with the new SoC, and a measured life of 14 hours, compared to 10.5 for the original version, that would make it a much better tool for many people. Of course, Apple never updated the battery life specs.
So your position is that retina doesn't matter? Mkay.
I disagree. And I believe that retina is worth paying a little more.
If this is not the case then why buy the iPad 3 over the iPad 2?
Also if you print out the paper mockups and trim down the side bezels down to iPhone side bezel size the result is a device around 1/4" taller and 1/4" wider than the original Kindle Fire. That's a much handier device than the iPad 2.