Rumors of new 7-inch iPad from Apple persist

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 137
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Yes, a BAiT (Big-Assed-iPad-Tablet) would be ideal for some uses:



    -- a light table for picture and video editing

    -- a drafting / design table

    -- a larger drawing/sketching/painting surface

    -- a wall-mounted multipurpose TV/Movie/Shop Plans/Recipe display

    -- part of a video wall

    -- table-top multiplayer games, puzzles,



    .



    I keep on being astounted how many of us (I am not immune) tend to think more solely on the utility of a product from our narrow perspective, and then project that many should react that way.



    "What is good for me, others must feel the same. Any other choice would be foolish, stupid or wrong."



    It is the kind of thinkng that breeds intolerance, causing many of the social ills of our society today. We forget that nature achieved its "dynamic stability" from a contradiction of diversity.



    I myself would want the iPad form for the Mac Pro notebooks. This will happen when the electronic keyboard is almost a given to fenerations that were so ingrained with the physical keyboard. In fact, for the larger world beyond the usual alphanumeric characters (Chinese, Indians, and quite a great proportion of the larger world) would welcome the electronic keyboard for its unlimie=ted verstaility. With the electronic keyboard that has been popularized by Apple iOS products, one may type in the alphanumeric languages, that can then be "translated" with the appropriate symbolic characters for some other languages, using the same device.



    I am sure I would still need a keyboard, that I wuold want that separate from the "iPad-like" OSX portable computer of the future.



    CGC



    N.B. Thanks for picking up on the "larger" that was not included in my original post. It is quite often that I thought I typed what was in mind, only to find much later that the mind is usually faster than the fingers.
  • Reply 82 of 137
    kerrynkerryn Posts: 87member
    I would be nicer if they put in a 1920x1200 retina display within that 7 inch package. I would think that a retina display would fit. It would then be good to use as a HD player in the back of the car as well as super clear display for working on a smaller tablet.



    Still probably wouldn't hit their price points though. I've like a 7inch....
  • Reply 83 of 137
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by esummers View Post


    If you read the article, it mentions that the reason for the 7" model is because the current iPad is too heavy. This is the opposite of what most people say about the iPad.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


    type in "iPad too heavy" into a google search and see what comes up.



    There are a lot of people complaining about the weight. Everyone I know who owns one has "mentioned" that it is on the heavy side.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Onhka View Post


    But type in "iPad too light" into a google search and see what comes up.







    Now type in iPad is just right.
  • Reply 84 of 137
    cvaldes1831cvaldes1831 Posts: 1,832member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kerryn View Post


    I would be nicer if they put in a 1920x1200 retina display within that 7 inch package. I would think that a retina display would fit. It would then be good to use as a HD player in the back of the car as well as super clear display for working on a smaller tablet.



    Still probably wouldn't hit their price points though. I've like a 7inch....



    Right now, it would cost a fortune and Apple suppliers would not be able to provide enough parts to cover the anticipated demand. Heck, Apple's manufacturing partners are unable to keep up with current demand of the 3.5" Retina Display for the iPhone as well as the 9.7" IPS display for the iPad.



    My guess is that we are still 3-4 years away from seeing a Retina Display in an iPad.
  • Reply 85 of 137
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,361member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    .... The report claimed that the original, 9.7-inch iPad is too big and heavy for many consumers, and the new model will cut weight down from 700 grams to 500 grams.



    I agree with the report, the iPad is too heavy for most in-hand use.. but great size..

    However, I'd say 700 down to 500 grams is not enough. It needs to get down to at least 300g in order to truly work as something you hold in your hands for more than just 10 minutes. That would require a lighter battery, a display (e-ink?) that doesn't draw as much power, and a lighter weight shell. Have you read an iBook with the iPad? I find myself leaning it to something.. It's too heavy for in-hand reading... but works good for on-lap, on-table use.



    Hey, wait a second.. maybe the 7 inch version is not an iPad, but a stand alone light weight iBook, to further compete with the Kindle?
  • Reply 86 of 137
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pauldfullerton View Post


    I think this is a rubbish rumour because after using my iPad now for several months I don't think it is in any way too big. I find it quite convenient to take with me wherever I go so I can find an answer to any question that may arise at any time. The display is magnificent, so I would not be particularly interested in an iPad with a smaller screen.



    I'm intrigued that you take your iPad everywhere with you. How do you carry it? Do you have a bag that you take with you or do you carry it in your hand? Neither seems practical when compared with a pocketable device.



    My iPod touch is small enough to go everywhere, but it has two fatal flaws:

    1. it requires WiFi

    2. the screen is way too small for the web.



    I think a mega size touch with an iPad 3G data plan would be perfect: fits in one hand, fits in a pocket, works everywhere, screen is big enough that browsing wouldn't be an endless game of zoom and scroll. A 50% larger touch would have a 5.5" diagonal screen size.



    I see no point in a 7" iPad. It still wouldn't fit in a pocket so you'd have to make a conscious effort to take it with you. At that point I'd much rather have 9.7" than 7".
  • Reply 87 of 137
    Agree. I didn't buy an iPad (although have many Apple products: MacMini, iMac, 2 iPhones, 1 Touch, Apple TV, iPod 5G and Nano) because of its size. I already have to carry a laptop for work and my backpack on biz trips is already full. I would buy a 7" iPad so as not to watch movies on a 3.5 inch screen anymore.
  • Reply 88 of 137
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    You can look at the current iPad, see what proportion of the width and height is border, assume something similar and figure out what the WxH would be in a 4:3 ratio, at least I think that is the ratio for the iPad screen. That would be 7x5.6x4.2.



    Here are the figures for the current iPad.



    9.7"x7.76"x5.82" Screen



    9.56x7.47 iPad



    1.8"x1.65" Extra size beyond screen





    Comparing the screen sizes, we see:



    9.7" 438.08 in^3

    7" 164.64 in^3



    2.66x the size of the 7"



    Divide the extra size from above by 2.66 and you get reductions of:

    .68

    .62



    1.8-.68 and 1.65-.62 added onto the 7x5.6x4.2 dimensions above gives you a total 7" iPad size of 6.62x5.23 instead of 9.56*7.47. This is significantly smaller and, as we can see, predictable if they follow similar bezel margins.





    Key terms
    : "Overall size" and "proportional scaling" are implied in my prior post.



    Even before the iPad came out, Apple to my knowledge has emphasized that the Apps must not be too confined by the size of the early IPhones. As revealed by Steve Jobs himself, it was because the iPhone is a serendipiituous invention while the iPad was being perfected.



    There was therefore already an Apple mindset of smaller and larger family of related mobile devices. There must be a game plan for proportional scaling of these similar devices, but only those who are so full of themselves would be so sure that the smaller device would be exactly be a "6.7-inch iPad". I am sure that they considered different potential functions for a smaller or even larger IPads, and played with the dimensions.



    However, Apple based from their earlier actions did not anticipate how significant third party Apps have defined the success of the iPhone.



    What even Apple/Steve Jobs may not have fully appreciated is the impact of the larger real estate in the iPad, as it impacted the Apps. Thus, even if the Apps that worked and engrossing on the iPhone/iPod Touch, might appeal boring or out of place in the iPad.



    To drive this point, you do not make your furniture larger to suit a larger living room. You get more furniture or rearrange the way the contents interact. The point here is that proportional scaling would be nice but need not become the determining factor given a different size.



    If developers can sell a different modified version of their previous iPhone Apps, and consumers will buy them, who would care about exact compatibilities in proportion? Same concept game, different product evolution, more sales.



    To repeat myself, everyone was predicting the iPad to be 10", but Apple came up with the magic 9.7". I am not sure if they slightly changed the screen size of the iPhone 4 or it was just the overall size that can be changed because of the more sharp rectuagalar shape over the "cuevy" earlier versions.



    Such change to adjust to the size the real estate may suit the IPad but may not scale properly in the smaller iPhone/iPod Touch.



    The other reality is that the "7-inch iPad" is still a figment of our imagination, just like the 10" iPad materilized as "9.7"-inch iPad. As such, who can really be so certain that the smaller iPad would exactly be "7-inch iPad"?



    The other point is that the dimensions can even vary slightly. At these sizes, the difference from proportional scale may not be as noticeable. The choice of colors can have an impact on that. The impaxt of our perception depending on how it is presented.



    ***********

    Coming from research, and dealing images for publishing, or presentation by audio-visual or poster. We aim for proportiately scaled figures, but unless the difference is very glaring, no one would be so anal to take actual measurements.

    ***********



    I am sure Apple would try to make the products as close to the correct proportial scale for the screen, and change the dimensions accordingly.





    But, who is to compel that prior precedent will dictate future design? I do not think the Classic Mac dimensional ratios resemble any of the existing Macs. Even the earlier versions of the MacBook is different from the more recent versions. It adjusted to the needs of the time based on converging and new technologies.







    CGC
  • Reply 89 of 137
    icyfogicyfog Posts: 338member
    To me the 10-inch iPad is perfect. Seven is too small for reading books, especially interactive ones. No, to me there doesn't need to be a 7-inch iPad.

    Also from watching my sister tote hers around in her purse, and watching my 3- and 5-year old nephews carry it around the house, the current iPad is not too heavy for them.
  • Reply 90 of 137
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post


    [B]There must be a game plan for proportional scaling of these similar devices, but only those who are so full of themselves would be so sure that the smaller device would be exactly be a "6.7-inch iPad".



    As such, who can really be so certain that the smaller iPad would exactly be "7-inch iPad"?



    Not full of myself, just really bored at work and I figure that if the magic 7" is what the next iPad used, how would it scale down? It was an exercise of my curiosity and I put the results out there. I just disagree that we can't know roughly how large the overall dimensions would be. Somewhere between 6.4x5 up to 7x5.5. Roughly, of course. This range even allows for variations like a 6.7 or a 7.2" screen.



    Could Apple go an entirely different route? Of course, but they already have a specific design in place for the iPad. I can't imagine that they would do a complete body revamp for the first revision of the product. Never say never, but it feels like a safe assumption. Like I said this was more just some fun math on my part and a way to say that we can have a rough idea how big it would be. Seeing these dimensions makes the 7" feel a bit more pocketable than just thinking "7"? I dunno about that"
  • Reply 91 of 137
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Here's my theory, based on the question, "Why did Apple create the iPod touch?"



    I don't think Apple created the touch as a continuation of the iPod line. In order to get the concessions they wanted from ATT, Apple was forced to agree to a multi-year exclusive contract with the carrier. But they knew this would limit the customer base for their new iPhone OS because there would also be some customers who could not, or would not, switch to ATT. So for those customers, they created an iPhone without a phone. They made it the same size as the iPhone to gain economies of scale, and the iPad concept wasn't mature enough to market yet.



    If you look at admob data from last summer, worldwide the iPhone-to-touch sales ratio was roughly 2-1. Yet in the US it was 1-1. This may suggest that people wanted an iDevice, but didn't want ATT. So more people in the US purchased touches than in other countries where carrier limitations were less of a factor.



    So the iPod touch was a stop-gap measure to increase market share of what are now iOS devices. But now we have the iPad, so why keep the touch around? Size is the main factor. People want something that is pocketable. Fair, enough. But why not just get an iPhone then? Well, because, some would argue, ATT sucks.



    But if other rumors are to be believed, the iPhone will soon be available on Verizon in the US (and perhaps Sprint and Tmobile). Once that happens, iPod touch sales will drop in the US because you'll be able to get a pocketable iOS device from the carrier of your choice.



    So I think once the iPhone is available on other networks in the US, the iPod touch will be discontinued. If you want that form factor, get an iPhone. Just like people outside the US do today. That will open up a spot in the lineup for a smaller iPad instead of it being awkwardly positioned between the current low-end iPad and high-end iPod touch. Apple will then up the capacity of the iPod nano to take place as the highest capacity iPod in the lineup.
  • Reply 92 of 137
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post


    The current iPad is absolutely too heavy to use while laying on your back on a bed/couch and trying to read a book. A smaller and/or lighter iPad would be much appreciated.



    And comparing the weight of an iPad to a laptop is a moot point, because you don't lay on your back and try to hold a laptop above you to read something.



    You're holding it wrong!
  • Reply 93 of 137
    cvaldes1831cvaldes1831 Posts: 1,832member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    Here's my theory, based on the question, "Why did Apple create the iPod touch?"



    I don't think Apple created the touch as a continuation of the iPod line. In order to get the concessions they wanted from ATT, Apple was forced to agree to a multi-year exclusive contract with the carrier. But they knew this would limit the customer base for their new iPhone OS because there would also be some customers who could not, or would not, switch to ATT. So for those customers, they created an iPhone without a phone. They made it the same size as the iPhone to gain economies of scale, and the iPad concept wasn't mature enough to market yet.



    If you look at admob data from last summer, worldwide the iPhone-to-touch sales ratio was roughly 2-1. Yet in the US it was 1-1. This may suggest that people wanted an iDevice, but didn't want ATT. So more people in the US purchased touches than in other countries where carrier limitations were less of a factor.



    So the iPod touch was a stop-gap measure to increase market share of what are now iOS devices. But now we have the iPad, so why keep the touch around? Size is the main factor. People want something that is pocketable. Fair, enough. But why not just get an iPhone then? Well, because, some would argue, ATT sucks.



    But if other rumors are to be believed, the iPhone will soon be available on Verizon in the US (and perhaps Sprint and Tmobile). Once that happens, iPod touch sales will drop in the US because you'll be able to get a pocketable iOS device from the carrier of your choice.



    So I think once the iPhone is available on other networks in the US, the iPod touch will be discontinued. If you want that form factor, get an iPhone. Just like people outside the US do today. That will open up a spot in the lineup for a smaller iPad instead of it being awkwardly positioned between the current low-end iPad and high-end iPod touch. Apple will then up the capacity of the iPod nano to take place as the highest capacity iPod in the lineup.



    Many of your assumptions appear to be wrong



    First of all, the iPod touch was already in preproduction prototyping when the original iPhone launched. Don't forget that the original devices had no apps beyond what was included by Apple. The original iPod touch was really an overpriced media player with a web browser, e-mail and a couple of basic widgets.



    The iPod touch's demographics skew much younger than the iPhone. There is clearly a different audience for the iPod touch. iPod touch users also download more apps than iPhone users. Note that Apple sells two iPod touches for every three iPhones they sell. It's not an insignificant chunk.



    The fact that AT&T is the sole iPhone carrier in the United States is irrelevant. Note that iPod touch sales have not fallen off a cliff in international markets where there is no carrier exclusivity. It is foolish to assume that Apple's mobile device strategy is solely based on their interaction with one carrier, AT&T. Also, you should not discount the possibility that the contract was rewritten and that exclusivity may be on a year-by-year basis. We do know that with the iPhone 3G, AT&T stopped sharing subscriber revenue with Apple and moved to a direct one-time subsidy payment.



    Going to a multi-carrier market isn't going to change the fact that the Total Cost of Ownership for an iPhone under a two-year service contract is way more expensive than an iPod touch, regardless of which carrier is getting your money. Assuming a $200 handset, $80 monthly service over twenty-four months, plus $40 activation fee, you are looking at $2,160. You can buy two iPod touches a year and still save money. There are still many people who are willing to make that sort of commitment.



    Don't use AdMob data for sales figures. These numbers only describe what people are doing when they're looking at an ad-supported app or webpage. Again, the demographics are quite different. Also, I wouldn't quote year-old ad data anyhow. This is a rapidly growing market that has nowhere plateaued.
  • Reply 94 of 137
    The iPad is not big enough. I always wanted a 22 inch macbook pro.
  • Reply 95 of 137
    nkhmnkhm Posts: 928member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post


    This could only lead to fragmentation:



    480 by 320 iPhones/iPod touches

    960 by 640 iPhone

    9.7" iPad

    7" iPad



    Too many devices with different resolutions is not good! Just look at the android market to see that for yourself.



    Nope cause both pads would have 1024 x 768 resolution. Simples.
  • Reply 96 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post


    I'm intrigued that you take your iPad everywhere with you. How do you carry it? Do you have a bag that you take with you or do you carry it in your hand? Neither seems practical when compared with a pocketable device.




    I take my iPad with me almost everywhere. It is the WiFi + 3G model.



    I bought the Apple case & in addition to protecting the iPad, it makes it much easier to schlep around:



    -- it has a non-slip surface of pseudo suede

    -- it can easily be gripped (and held firmly) with one hand (or under your arm) with the flap closed

    -- the flap acts like a tent in that you can insert your index finger (or more) in the opening between the flap and the case, with on remaining fingers on the back of the flap. The palm and thumb are used to cradle the front of the iPad. This is quite comfortable and gives the iPad lots of support-- easy to type while standing or walking.



    For example, I went to 2 soccer matches last Saturday. I took the following:



    -- Shoulder-strap camera bag containing videoCam, camera, batteries, HDSC cards. iPhone 4.

    -- Tripod for cameras

    -- Water bottle

    -- Folding sports chair

    -- Hat





    With my hat on my head, my camera bag over my shoulder, I insert my arm through the leg of the folded chair and grab the tripod-- now I carry the chair and tripod with one hand, comfortably at my side..



    With my other arm, I cradle the iPad between my side and arm and hold the water bottle in my hand.



    I can free up the hand by inserting the water bottle in a section of the adjustable strap... but either works fine.



    Also, I have a larger (heavier) camera bag that would hold everything-- including cameras, water bottle and iPad.





    So, it works for me.





    During time between games I can upload photos to the iPad via the Camera Connection Ki). The videoCam video is compressed and not (yet) recognized by the iPad.



    If I wish, I can email photos, or upload videos to YouTube or MobileMe.





    Also, it is good for looking up calendar dates, practices, snack schedules, and the league web site for stats, standings, etc.





    Finally, if there is a long time between games, I can watch videos, show others last week's highlights, or just watch a NetFlix movie.



    .
  • Reply 97 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    Here's my theory, based on the question, "Why did Apple create the iPod touch?"



    I don't think Apple created the touch as a continuation of the iPod line. In order to get the concessions they wanted from ATT, Apple was forced to agree to a multi-year exclusive contract with the carrier. But they knew this would limit the customer base for their new iPhone OS because there would also be some customers who could not, or would not, switch to ATT. So for those customers, they created an iPhone without a phone. They made it the same size as the iPhone to gain economies of scale, and the iPad concept wasn't mature enough to market yet.



    If you look at admob data from last summer, worldwide the iPhone-to-touch sales ratio was roughly 2-1. Yet in the US it was 1-1. This may suggest that people wanted an iDevice, but didn't want ATT. So more people in the US purchased touches than in other countries where carrier limitations were less of a factor.



    So the iPod touch was a stop-gap measure to increase market share of what are now iOS devices. But now we have the iPad, so why keep the touch around? Size is the main factor. People want something that is pocketable. Fair, enough. But why not just get an iPhone then? Well, because, some would argue, ATT sucks.



    But if other rumors are to be believed, the iPhone will soon be available on Verizon in the US (and perhaps Sprint and Tmobile). Once that happens, iPod touch sales will drop in the US because you'll be able to get a pocketable iOS device from the carrier of your choice.



    So I think once the iPhone is available on other networks in the US, the iPod touch will be discontinued. If you want that form factor, get an iPhone. Just like people outside the US do today. That will open up a spot in the lineup for a smaller iPad instead of it being awkwardly positioned between the current low-end iPad and high-end iPod touch. Apple will then up the capacity of the iPod nano to take place as the highest capacity iPod in the lineup.



    Or, how about you don't feel like paying ridiculous money to maintain an iPhone account but you do want to be able to do a lot of what the iPhone does.



    In my case, I have a boring cell phone that costs me less than half of what it would cost to maintain an iPhone and I have a Touch. I can still make calls and I can still do a lot of the cool things the iPhone is used for but I'm paying closer to $30 a month than $60 a month. At that rate, in a year I've more than covered the cost of the Touch so over the course of a three-year period I'll have spent something like $1,300 instead of $2,400.



    Basically I have 1,100 reasons to opt for the Touch over the iPhone.



    I know a lot of younger consumers have the Touch probably for the same reason, namely parents are not inclined to drop thousands extra for their kids to be equipped with iPhones.





    Why pay for a smartphone when what you want is a pocket computer?
  • Reply 98 of 137
    sendmesendme Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oodlum View Post


    Personally I think 7" would be the sweet spot. I find the current model cumbersome for reading in bed and can't stand the very visible pixels compared to the iPhone 4. And more RAM please. It's starting to drive me nuts the way a web page has to reload from scratch every time I hit the back button on chunky, ad-heavy sites. Love my iPad but look forward to version 2.





    I don't think you really understand the iPad. It is meant to be the best platform for just about anything.



    But not everything.
  • Reply 99 of 137
    sendmesendme Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post




    If you have read any of the smaller iPad rumors on any tech sites, you will have seen many others wishing for a slightly smaller iPad. You may count me amongst their numbers.






    I'm sorry, but the geeks who post at tech sites are nothing like my grandmother or my Auntie Bertie. And they are currently typical iPad users. Apple doesn't make geeky stuff, but instead, they make dead simple stuff that real people can use easily. Regular people are scared to death of computers, but they can just pick up a iPad and start using it. The geeks don't understand why Apple made the iPad its current size.
  • Reply 100 of 137
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post


    I agree the current iPad is too big and heavy. That's why I took mine back and bought an iPhone 4.



    The iPhone 4 makes the iPad look obsolete.



    I really don't get the iPad at all. It's just a big iPod Touch with no phone, no camera.



    It is hard to believe that a guy that carries around a 4x5 view camera and a Contax 645 with a Leaf Aptus 75S 33 megapixel digital back that itself weighs nearly a pound and a half is concerned that the iPad is too big and heavy.



    I would have thought that putting your bag on the iPad would be one hell of a way to show off your skills than pulling out your iPhone.



    As for not having a camera, you're upset not having a 3-5 megapixel camera on a $500 iPad after spending over $20,000 on a camera back.



    Something doesn't jive Douglas.
Sign In or Register to comment.