Different needs for different people. Your individual usage case isn't the only valid one; you are not the center of the universe. If Apple feels there is a large enough market for a smaller iPad, it is likely they will pursue it.
Plus, the smaller iPad would likely be cheaper. It has been widely reported that price has been a big barrier to iPad adoption.
Dude, if the iPad were any cheaper, it would be cheaper than the iPod Touch.
iPad 16GB WiFi = $499
iPod Touch 64GB = $399
There is no room in the pricing scale for a cheaper iPad. Not to mention the smaller size would be a nightmare for developers.
Agreed. Seems to me a larger Touch would make a lot more sense. Something along the lines of a 5" Touch. Still small enough to fit into a lot of pockets but a larger screen would allow it to be better suited to being used as a reader, display device, gaming platform, browser etc.
The 7" iPad would be less enjoyable to use than the current iPad and yet not offer any more portability. It would be easier to handle but at a heavy cost considering the loss of valuable screen real estate and you would not have the ability to slip it into a pocket ala the Touch.
Make the Touch a little larger, on the other hand, and many of the advantages of having a 7" iPad would be there (though not to the same degree) without losing the ability to pocket the device.
I can't imagine Apple going with both in that the price point of the 7" iPad and the larger Touch would be similar.
If you're not going to have a device that you can slip into your pocket, reducing screen real estate is pretty much pointless. You lose the enjoyment that comes from working with a generously sized screen with a marginal weight gain and modest price reduction to show for it. Not a worthwhile trade-off.
I was thinking the same thing. Sure eliminating the current iPod Touch would be null, but a slightly bigger would could have some market appeal. I have the iPhone and i don't use it as a home (couch-potato) device, it works in a pinch. A 5" screen could be tempting for some. The forums here would agree with you too, historically speaking.
7" ipad doesn't interest me, but it would probably be a good size for a woman's handbag, for using as a portable visual phone ( a facetime phone), for a aging population with visual acuity problems, ( like SJ flipping his glasses on and off during his live demos) for lower cost for educational ebook market penetration, for greater display of games or as a dashboard GPS function. It could also lower cost do to potentially greater yields of larger retinal displays at time of manufacture. It would also be a better size for those point of sale devices that Apple uses the itouch for now. Handing the touch back and forth for transactions and being able to show the total and such would be eliminated.
It also might be a step up in retinal display manufacture technique, where yield and cost would be prohibitive for the 9" ipad now. A smaller ipad with the retinal display might be interesting to see.
Frankly, I would think that a larger Ipad, near 8" by 11", would allow greater penetration of the business market. That would be in medical and marketing.
Sorry - that sounds ridiculous. I can use a laptop, on my lap for more than an hour, so why on EARTH can't you cope with a tablet which ways less than a third of a standard laptop? Get down the gym.
Go to the gym.. Just to be able to lift a pound and a half tablet. That's funny...
Makes sense to me -- different form factors for different uses. Apple needs to have more hardware variation than 5 years ago to accommodate the needs of a broader user base and fight off Android. Screen size is one of the most important physical characteristics of the iPad, so I think it makes perfect sense to have more variety.
What I don't understand is the benefit of a dual core processor in iDevices, at least at this stage in the game. Even in Macs, the number of apps that can really use more than one core is pretty small, and tend to be things like video encoding. Dual core can be useful in Macs because of multi-tasking, but in iDevices, you really don't want to be doing multiple CPU-intensive things at once due to battery concerns. So why not just have a faster single core chip (like an A4, but one that can go up to 2 GHz when circumstances require?) Or, spend the space/power on a faster GPU?
Significantly cheaper than $499, but more expensive than $199?
$299 to $399 is the only viable option and that might start to canibilise iPod Touch sales at $199, $299 & $399
Somewhere between $199 and $299 would probably do the trick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
A device operated by remote control is different to both mouse and touchscreen. So it would be a 3rd type of GUI. Unless the magic trackpad is intended for use with the new Apple TV?
Sorry - that sounds ridiculous. I can use a laptop, on my lap for more than an hour, so why on EARTH can't you cope with a tablet which ways less than a third of a standard laptop? Get down the gym.
"on my lap"
Many people hold the iPad up, either with both hands for reading, like a book, or with one hand whilst using the other for touch control.
In that case, 1.5lbs over an extended duration can be tiring.
It's not about going to the gym, that's a ridiculous statement to make.
With gaming so profitable and successful on the iPhone and iPad, I wonder if this new AMD chip will be for gaming? Are we talking Wii level performance or higher? I can't imagine it would be anywhere near 360 or PS3 level, but then again, those systems are 5 years old now. Anyone have any stats on the AMD chip?
As for iOS on the big screen, it makes a lot of sense, but only with properly retooled apps. When paired with a motion sensing Wiimote style controller a lot of games would work pretty well, leaving the touch screen ones off limits unless more significantly reworked. Combine it with a cable killing subscription plan (admittedly, this would be something of an epic achievement if anyone pulled it off), and you'd have a pretty compelling box.
The AMD Fusion could do near-PS3 level graphics at 1080p. If CPU and GPU is utilised thoroughly and intelligently. A Radeon 5500 series GPU, for example, can do 1080p PC games at low detail settings. On a Fusion chip, I really can imagine near-PS3 or PS3-level graphics...
AppleTV can become cloud-streaming and gaming and apps. Apple just has to pull the trigger. I think though it may not happen in first-half of 2011. Not until Fusion is a bit more proven, perhaps. By mid-2011, ARM+PowerVR(??) may have very compelling packages that can do 1080p games at PS3-level graphics.
Well its for those who don't understand the point of a "big iPod Touch". Now they get medium size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs
How exactly would iOS work on apple TV? It's a completely different category of device to iPhone, iPod Touch & iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by exscape
My thought exactly. Not only UI wise (touch interface), but the underlying architecture (ARM vs x86) is all different too.
iOS has no limit on what hardware it runs. (Recompiled Mach Kernel, drivers,etc)
Developers already can run it on any Mac using iPhone Simulator. iOS is all about simple interfaces. I think it might look something like Nintendo Wii's home screen. Magic Trackpad makes sense, but who knows, they might release a multitouch remote.
There will be another Developer category for AppleTV apps. These are not like iPhone, iPad apps but they are more TV-minded. I'm not sure if this would be universal app. [arm + x86] binary? It would be cool to see IMDB.app working across all devices.
Checking up on patentlyapple.com, there suggests you can run iPhone, iPad apps on AppleTV via [iPhone Simulator]. Maybe for the mean time, is to help developers transition iOS apps to the new AppleTV.
AMD Fusion opens a whole new possibilty. With it supporting ATI 4000/5000 GPU architecture, AppleTV could compete in another market: Console Gaming...
"Hey Unity3D! Are you listening to this?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
AppleTV can become cloud-streaming and gaming and apps. Apple just has to pull the trigger. I think though it may not happen in first-half of 2011. Not until Fusion is a bit more proven, perhaps. By mid-2011, ARM+PowerVR(??) may have very compelling packages that can do 1080p games at PS3-level graphics.
Okay, I see that you have a problem with myopia as the answer is right there in front of your face.
There is a very large and established marketplace for a device with a screen size of 6-7 inches: the eReader market. Again, the cost reduction is spur many others to purchase.
If you've actually used the iPad and the iPod touch, the latter is not a replacement for the former. In the same way, a swimming pool and hot tub aren't equivalent.
Lastly, I will point out that iMacs, MacBooks and iPods all come in different sizes. No doubt, someone at Apple has noticed this. The fact that Apple debuted one iPad doesn't mean that it's the only valid size, but they needed to start somewhere.
you have a point, there is a marketplace for that screen-size, but not this kind of device. There is the Archos as well, running Android, but most average consumers have probably never heard of it, and it's a lot cheaper than the current iPad.
Unless Apple wants to dumb-down the iOS and produce a 5"-6" device that just does what the Kindle/Nook/Kobo/Sony eReader do, then I don't see any of those adopters switching over to the iPad. Price ($150 average), E-Ink display (better for reading) are too great of hurdles to be a eReader killer. heck, you can't even buy the iPod Touch for the cost of the Kindle Standard.
With gaming so profitable and successful on the iPhone and iPad, I wonder if this new AMD chip will be for gaming? Are we talking Wii level performance or higher? I can't imagine it would be anywhere near 360 or PS3 level, but then again, those systems are 5 years old now. Anyone have any stats on the AMD chip?
It'll be using Ontario most likely, a dual-core chip with Radeon 5450 level graphics (~80 shaders, clock speed unknown), but the exact specs aren't known, apart from likely significantly better than Intel's Atom (in terms of CPU power), and vastly superior graphically (better than Wii, but not XBox 360 levels (that's around 240 shaders)).
If it is using Llano, it would be (rumoured) ~400 shaders - far superior to the 360 and PS3. But Llano is a higher-end chip, and not appearing until 2011.
I still think the new Apple TV would use an ARM based chip to reduce cost.
If they can deliver it for significantly less than the 10" version then think of how it could be used for specific tasks rather than an all-in-one device. (i.e. an alarm clock, digital photo frame, children's learning device, in-car entertainment/GPS etc)
The iPod Touch has iOS and the iPad has iOS. dumbing down the iOS won't save money, in fact the OS is probably the cheapest aspect of the iPad. That would be pointless.
they could develop and interface with the new Magic Trackpad. They do have a remote that already works with the current aTV. Plus they have apps for the iPhone and Touch that interface with aTV.
Dude, if the iPad were any cheaper, it would be cheaper than the iPod Touch.
iPad 16GB WiFi = $499
iPod Touch 64GB = $399
There is no room in the pricing scale for a cheaper iPad. Not to mention the smaller size would be a nightmare for developers.
I think this says a lot about the cost of the iPod touch. It's getting updated soon, it'll either be $399 128GB, or cheaper (despite retina display, cameras, etc) to allow a 7" iPad to slot in at $399 (16GB 7"), with the base 10" having 32GB.
iOS on AppleTV will run on apps, and will include FaceTime, just attach a web cam to your HDTV and you have the Jetson's TV-Phones... "Hi grandma, hasn't JR. gotten big?"
Of course there is a market for a 7" iPad, the iPod Touch/iPhone screens are just a little too small to be comfortable, 7" will fit nicely in between. It's called "segmenting the market". Apple will want to fill that medium screen size void before people buy someone else's "mid-size slate"
Just imagine having several different sized screens from iPhone size, mid-sized iPad, regular iPad, probably a larger iPad at some point, up to HDTV screens running Facetime and iOS Apps...
It would be cheaper for corporations to buy an Apple TV (iTV?) to run their HDTV Video Conferences than the current crop of expensive dedicated Video Conferencing solutions...
While I agree with the rest of your post, gotta strongly disagree with the slimming of the Bezel.
As Gruber has pointed out several times, if you slim the bezel, how do you hold the iPad without touching and covering the screen?
The bezel is as thick as it is for a good reason.
That would depend upon how you hold it. I wasn't suggesting eschewing the bezel completely, but I think the bezel could easily be reduced to half its current thickness and still guard against screen smudges for those who bear grip the device. Of course, doing so would require Apple to rework the iPad's internal design (shrinkage). Whether or not that's possible given the size of the batteries is anyone's guess.
Significantly cheaper than $499, but more expensive than $199?
$299 to $399 is the only viable option and that might start to canibilise iPod Touch sales at $199, $299 & $399
yes, Apple has priced themselves into a hole for sure. Unless the iPod Touch gets a huge price reduction in September, I don't see a 6"-7" iPad in the near future.
Of all of these, the 7" iPad seems the least probable.
I'm an iPhone/iPad developer, so I have some experience with what's involved in programming these things. One of the key differences between iPhone and say, Android is that iOS has no real provision for automatically supporting different screen sizes.
Porting from iPhone to iPad means redesigning your interface for a different screen size and aspect ratio. This isn't automatic - it requires a complete manual redesign of each screen. You'll notice that most iPad buttons aren't twice the size of iPhone ones - they aren't scaled up - they are still exactly the right size for your finger, they're just further apart. (I'm talking about native iPad apps, not upscaled iPhone apps and I'm referring to buttons on modals and tab bars not the keyboard).
Supporting the retina display is simpler because switching image sizes works automatically but that's only possible because the retina display is exactly double the resolution of the 3GS and the screen is the same size. If the screen were bigger or smaller or the pixels weren't an exact multiple of the 3GS then that would have to be done manually as well.
So consider this, if the iPad buttons are the correct size for your finger on a 10" iPad then what happens when you reduce the screen size? If you downscale everything then the buttons will be too small to touch accurately. If you keep them the same size then you break the layout. This can't be done automatically - developers will have to update their apps.
So maybe Apple will just expect developers to update their apps - it wouldn't be the first time. But it would seem a bit strange after launching the iPad only a few months ago to suddenly release an update that breaks half the existing apps. And if Apple knew this was coming you would think there'd be some hint in the developer documentation, like "don't design your apps for a fixed screen size" or "make sure the buttons in your iPad interfaces are a bit bigger than they need to be".
And, conversely, a giant, 7-inch, iPod Touch would, for very similar reasons, not work well either without developers having to redesign their app UIs.
Comments
Different needs for different people. Your individual usage case isn't the only valid one; you are not the center of the universe. If Apple feels there is a large enough market for a smaller iPad, it is likely they will pursue it.
Plus, the smaller iPad would likely be cheaper. It has been widely reported that price has been a big barrier to iPad adoption.
Dude, if the iPad were any cheaper, it would be cheaper than the iPod Touch.
iPad 16GB WiFi = $499
iPod Touch 64GB = $399
There is no room in the pricing scale for a cheaper iPad. Not to mention the smaller size would be a nightmare for developers.
Agreed. Seems to me a larger Touch would make a lot more sense. Something along the lines of a 5" Touch. Still small enough to fit into a lot of pockets but a larger screen would allow it to be better suited to being used as a reader, display device, gaming platform, browser etc.
The 7" iPad would be less enjoyable to use than the current iPad and yet not offer any more portability. It would be easier to handle but at a heavy cost considering the loss of valuable screen real estate and you would not have the ability to slip it into a pocket ala the Touch.
Make the Touch a little larger, on the other hand, and many of the advantages of having a 7" iPad would be there (though not to the same degree) without losing the ability to pocket the device.
I can't imagine Apple going with both in that the price point of the 7" iPad and the larger Touch would be similar.
If you're not going to have a device that you can slip into your pocket, reducing screen real estate is pretty much pointless. You lose the enjoyment that comes from working with a generously sized screen with a marginal weight gain and modest price reduction to show for it. Not a worthwhile trade-off.
I was thinking the same thing. Sure eliminating the current iPod Touch would be null, but a slightly bigger would could have some market appeal. I have the iPhone and i don't use it as a home (couch-potato) device, it works in a pinch. A 5" screen could be tempting for some. The forums here would agree with you too, historically speaking.
It also might be a step up in retinal display manufacture technique, where yield and cost would be prohibitive for the 9" ipad now. A smaller ipad with the retinal display might be interesting to see.
Frankly, I would think that a larger Ipad, near 8" by 11", would allow greater penetration of the business market. That would be in medical and marketing.
Why do you think the kindle is doing so well
The Kindle is doing well?
Sorry - that sounds ridiculous. I can use a laptop, on my lap for more than an hour, so why on EARTH can't you cope with a tablet which ways less than a third of a standard laptop? Get down the gym.
Go to the gym.. Just to be able to lift a pound and a half tablet. That's funny...
I don't understand the need for a smaller iPad...
Makes sense to me -- different form factors for different uses. Apple needs to have more hardware variation than 5 years ago to accommodate the needs of a broader user base and fight off Android. Screen size is one of the most important physical characteristics of the iPad, so I think it makes perfect sense to have more variety.
What I don't understand is the benefit of a dual core processor in iDevices, at least at this stage in the game. Even in Macs, the number of apps that can really use more than one core is pretty small, and tend to be things like video encoding. Dual core can be useful in Macs because of multi-tasking, but in iDevices, you really don't want to be doing multiple CPU-intensive things at once due to battery concerns. So why not just have a faster single core chip (like an A4, but one that can go up to 2 GHz when circumstances require?) Or, spend the space/power on a faster GPU?
Significantly cheaper than $499, but more expensive than $199?
$299 to $399 is the only viable option and that might start to canibilise iPod Touch sales at $199, $299 & $399
Somewhere between $199 and $299 would probably do the trick.
A device operated by remote control is different to both mouse and touchscreen. So it would be a 3rd type of GUI. Unless the magic trackpad is intended for use with the new Apple TV?
Wiimote!
Sorry - that sounds ridiculous. I can use a laptop, on my lap for more than an hour, so why on EARTH can't you cope with a tablet which ways less than a third of a standard laptop? Get down the gym.
"on my lap"
Many people hold the iPad up, either with both hands for reading, like a book, or with one hand whilst using the other for touch control.
In that case, 1.5lbs over an extended duration can be tiring.
It's not about going to the gym, that's a ridiculous statement to make.
With gaming so profitable and successful on the iPhone and iPad, I wonder if this new AMD chip will be for gaming? Are we talking Wii level performance or higher? I can't imagine it would be anywhere near 360 or PS3 level, but then again, those systems are 5 years old now. Anyone have any stats on the AMD chip?
As for iOS on the big screen, it makes a lot of sense, but only with properly retooled apps. When paired with a motion sensing Wiimote style controller a lot of games would work pretty well, leaving the touch screen ones off limits unless more significantly reworked. Combine it with a cable killing subscription plan (admittedly, this would be something of an epic achievement if anyone pulled it off), and you'd have a pretty compelling box.
The AMD Fusion could do near-PS3 level graphics at 1080p. If CPU and GPU is utilised thoroughly and intelligently. A Radeon 5500 series GPU, for example, can do 1080p PC games at low detail settings. On a Fusion chip, I really can imagine near-PS3 or PS3-level graphics...
AppleTV can become cloud-streaming and gaming and apps. Apple just has to pull the trigger. I think though it may not happen in first-half of 2011. Not until Fusion is a bit more proven, perhaps. By mid-2011, ARM+PowerVR(??) may have very compelling packages that can do 1080p games at PS3-level graphics.
I don't understand the need for a smaller iPad..
Well its for those who don't understand the point of a "big iPod Touch". Now they get medium size.
How exactly would iOS work on apple TV? It's a completely different category of device to iPhone, iPod Touch & iPad.
My thought exactly. Not only UI wise (touch interface), but the underlying architecture (ARM vs x86) is all different too.
iOS has no limit on what hardware it runs. (Recompiled Mach Kernel, drivers,etc)
Developers already can run it on any Mac using iPhone Simulator. iOS is all about simple interfaces. I think it might look something like Nintendo Wii's home screen. Magic Trackpad makes sense, but who knows, they might release a multitouch remote.
There will be another Developer category for AppleTV apps. These are not like iPhone, iPad apps but they are more TV-minded. I'm not sure if this would be universal app. [arm + x86] binary? It would be cool to see IMDB.app working across all devices.
Checking up on patentlyapple.com, there suggests you can run iPhone, iPad apps on AppleTV via [iPhone Simulator]. Maybe for the mean time, is to help developers transition iOS apps to the new AppleTV.
AMD Fusion opens a whole new possibilty. With it supporting ATI 4000/5000 GPU architecture, AppleTV could compete in another market: Console Gaming...
"Hey Unity3D! Are you listening to this?"
AppleTV can become cloud-streaming and gaming and apps. Apple just has to pull the trigger. I think though it may not happen in first-half of 2011. Not until Fusion is a bit more proven, perhaps. By mid-2011, ARM+PowerVR(??) may have very compelling packages that can do 1080p games at PS3-level graphics.
And selling at $99-199? *Hell freezes*
Okay, I see that you have a problem with myopia as the answer is right there in front of your face.
There is a very large and established marketplace for a device with a screen size of 6-7 inches: the eReader market. Again, the cost reduction is spur many others to purchase.
If you've actually used the iPad and the iPod touch, the latter is not a replacement for the former. In the same way, a swimming pool and hot tub aren't equivalent.
Lastly, I will point out that iMacs, MacBooks and iPods all come in different sizes. No doubt, someone at Apple has noticed this. The fact that Apple debuted one iPad doesn't mean that it's the only valid size, but they needed to start somewhere.
you have a point, there is a marketplace for that screen-size, but not this kind of device. There is the Archos as well, running Android, but most average consumers have probably never heard of it, and it's a lot cheaper than the current iPad.
Unless Apple wants to dumb-down the iOS and produce a 5"-6" device that just does what the Kindle/Nook/Kobo/Sony eReader do, then I don't see any of those adopters switching over to the iPad. Price ($150 average), E-Ink display (better for reading) are too great of hurdles to be a eReader killer. heck, you can't even buy the iPod Touch for the cost of the Kindle Standard.
With gaming so profitable and successful on the iPhone and iPad, I wonder if this new AMD chip will be for gaming? Are we talking Wii level performance or higher? I can't imagine it would be anywhere near 360 or PS3 level, but then again, those systems are 5 years old now. Anyone have any stats on the AMD chip?
It'll be using Ontario most likely, a dual-core chip with Radeon 5450 level graphics (~80 shaders, clock speed unknown), but the exact specs aren't known, apart from likely significantly better than Intel's Atom (in terms of CPU power), and vastly superior graphically (better than Wii, but not XBox 360 levels (that's around 240 shaders)).
If it is using Llano, it would be (rumoured) ~400 shaders - far superior to the 360 and PS3. But Llano is a higher-end chip, and not appearing until 2011.
I still think the new Apple TV would use an ARM based chip to reduce cost.
If they can deliver it for significantly less than the 10" version then think of how it could be used for specific tasks rather than an all-in-one device. (i.e. an alarm clock, digital photo frame, children's learning device, in-car entertainment/GPS etc)
The iPod Touch has iOS and the iPad has iOS. dumbing down the iOS won't save money, in fact the OS is probably the cheapest aspect of the iPad. That would be pointless.
With a Wiimote clone.
Think about it. It would work.
they could develop and interface with the new Magic Trackpad. They do have a remote that already works with the current aTV. Plus they have apps for the iPhone and Touch that interface with aTV.
Dude, if the iPad were any cheaper, it would be cheaper than the iPod Touch.
iPad 16GB WiFi = $499
iPod Touch 64GB = $399
There is no room in the pricing scale for a cheaper iPad. Not to mention the smaller size would be a nightmare for developers.
I think this says a lot about the cost of the iPod touch. It's getting updated soon, it'll either be $399 128GB, or cheaper (despite retina display, cameras, etc) to allow a 7" iPad to slot in at $399 (16GB 7"), with the base 10" having 32GB.
Of course there is a market for a 7" iPad, the iPod Touch/iPhone screens are just a little too small to be comfortable, 7" will fit nicely in between. It's called "segmenting the market". Apple will want to fill that medium screen size void before people buy someone else's "mid-size slate"
Just imagine having several different sized screens from iPhone size, mid-sized iPad, regular iPad, probably a larger iPad at some point, up to HDTV screens running Facetime and iOS Apps...
It would be cheaper for corporations to buy an Apple TV (iTV?) to run their HDTV Video Conferences than the current crop of expensive dedicated Video Conferencing solutions...
While I agree with the rest of your post, gotta strongly disagree with the slimming of the Bezel.
As Gruber has pointed out several times, if you slim the bezel, how do you hold the iPad without touching and covering the screen?
The bezel is as thick as it is for a good reason.
That would depend upon how you hold it. I wasn't suggesting eschewing the bezel completely, but I think the bezel could easily be reduced to half its current thickness and still guard against screen smudges for those who bear grip the device. Of course, doing so would require Apple to rework the iPad's internal design (shrinkage). Whether or not that's possible given the size of the batteries is anyone's guess.
``Apple to launch 22-inch touch-enabled all-in-one PC in 2010, says paper
Newswatch - Jan 18, 16:25' '
Significantly cheaper than $499, but more expensive than $199?
$299 to $399 is the only viable option and that might start to canibilise iPod Touch sales at $199, $299 & $399
yes, Apple has priced themselves into a hole for sure. Unless the iPod Touch gets a huge price reduction in September, I don't see a 6"-7" iPad in the near future.
Of all of these, the 7" iPad seems the least probable.
I'm an iPhone/iPad developer, so I have some experience with what's involved in programming these things. One of the key differences between iPhone and say, Android is that iOS has no real provision for automatically supporting different screen sizes.
Porting from iPhone to iPad means redesigning your interface for a different screen size and aspect ratio. This isn't automatic - it requires a complete manual redesign of each screen. You'll notice that most iPad buttons aren't twice the size of iPhone ones - they aren't scaled up - they are still exactly the right size for your finger, they're just further apart. (I'm talking about native iPad apps, not upscaled iPhone apps and I'm referring to buttons on modals and tab bars not the keyboard).
Supporting the retina display is simpler because switching image sizes works automatically but that's only possible because the retina display is exactly double the resolution of the 3GS and the screen is the same size. If the screen were bigger or smaller or the pixels weren't an exact multiple of the 3GS then that would have to be done manually as well.
So consider this, if the iPad buttons are the correct size for your finger on a 10" iPad then what happens when you reduce the screen size? If you downscale everything then the buttons will be too small to touch accurately. If you keep them the same size then you break the layout. This can't be done automatically - developers will have to update their apps.
So maybe Apple will just expect developers to update their apps - it wouldn't be the first time. But it would seem a bit strange after launching the iPad only a few months ago to suddenly release an update that breaks half the existing apps. And if Apple knew this was coming you would think there'd be some hint in the developer documentation, like "don't design your apps for a fixed screen size" or "make sure the buttons in your iPad interfaces are a bit bigger than they need to be".
And, conversely, a giant, 7-inch, iPod Touch would, for very similar reasons, not work well either without developers having to redesign their app UIs.