Don't forget the difference aspect ratio makes in usable area...
7" @ 16:9 = 20.9 sq. in. usable area
9.7" @ 4:3 = 45.2 sq. in. usable area
7.85" @ 4:3 = 29.6 sq. in. usable area
Assuming Steve Jobs was referring to 7" @ 16:9 tablets, this would actually be a substantial increase in screen area over the tablets he was targeting with his comment.
Also it's quite possible that now that touch-devices have become common place, people are getting better with their tap-accuracy. Reading Apple's human interface guidelines on the iOS dev site, it's clear that they're continually testing this kind of thing. Maybe the average customer needed 40+ sq. in. 18 months ago, but 30 sq. in. will be perfectly usable by the spring...
Those who underestimate Steve Jobs took those comments literally, believing that Apple will somehow consider the iPad 2 the end of innovative form factors.
But those of us who've been using Apple products for more than a few years understand that Steve is often simply distracting the competition from his own next move. We recall earlier comments from Steve about Apple not getting into the music business, that it won't get into the phone business, or even tablets.
The iPad 2 isn't the end of the line. The line will grow, and eventually be completely replaced by something entirely new.
Apple is not sitting still.
Not to mentioned when Jobs slammed watching TV as a mindless activity not worth Apple's attention (why Apple didn't make a media center Mac) or about how nobody reads any more (why the Kindle was irrelevent). Yet we now have AppleTV and iBooks. There are many examples of Job's comments being more FUD than a statement of Apple's future products.
According to at least one poster, there was no truth to that message whatsoever. Apple was telling deliberate lies about the ideal form factor, and especially, told deliberate lies about their estmation of the success of a 7 inch form faactor.
Not only did Apple tell these blatent, barefaced lies, but the message was delivered by the CEO and Chairman of the Board, which is as official an oral statement as possible for a corporation to give.
But they lied, according to at least one poster. Shamelessly. In order to make profits.
EVIL is what that poster thinks of Apple.
But I think that Steve was sincere, and was not a scum sucking, pants on fire, lying sonofabitch. Just IMO.
Calm down, CJ - there are other plausible explanations, like:
1) A 7.85 inch display is really an 8 inch display, not a 7 inch display. So maybe Jobs meant what he said and they later started investigating how small they could go and still be usable.
Don't forget the difference aspect ratio makes in usable area...
7" @ 16:9 = 20.9 sq. in. usable area
9.7" @ 4:3 = 45.2 sq. in. usable area
7.85" @ 4:3 = 29.6 sq. in. usable area
Assuming Steve Jobs was referring to 7" @ 16:9 tablets, this would actually be a substantial increase in screen area over the tablets he was targeting with his comment.
Also it's quite possible that now that touch-devices have become common place, people are getting better with their tap-accuracy. Reading Apple's human interface guidelines on the iOS dev site, it's clear that they're continually testing this kind of thing. Maybe the average customer needed 40+ sq. in. 18 months ago, but 30 sq. in. will be perfectly usable by the spring...
Good work, but did someone say we were talking about 4:3 with these rumored screens? I mean I hope so, and that your reasoning here would be legit.
But I have to say, there are already a lot of cases where I get the wrong result on the iPad because of active touch areas being too close together. The Safari toolbar is a minefield of wrong input, for example.
Edit: On second thought, the report does say it would be the same resolution of the iPad, so I guess that means 4:3.
I don't get it. If you need to sand down your finger tips for a smaller iPad what about the iPhone?
iPad and iPhone have many different GUI elements. Shrinking down the iPad GUI doesn't really result in an iPhone-like GUI.
On the other hand, now there's Siri. Could it be that Apple is moving toward a heavily Siri-oriented experience in a smaller iPad? Steve's comments about 7"-range screens being too small were directed at the tapping and multi-touch experience, not the viewing experience.
Think of it this way: iOS 1 through 4 have streamlined many computing tasks by eliminating overlapping windows, the Finder, and the file system in general. iOS 5 has added Siri as an extra layer of interaction. But Siri is still in "beta." It's still kind of an add-on. Maybe iOS 6 will have Siri baked in, with an API for developers to use in their apps. The user experience can be streamlined even further, with pure voice commands for many common tasks. We'll know by next year's WWDC.
By refining Siri even further, and maybe by releasing a heavily Siri-oriented "iPad mini," Apple could test and refine Siri enough to be used in other areas of consumer electronics. Voice recognition in cars is a glaring example of under-developed technology at the moment. And Apple already has a foot in the door in the auto industry, with iPod / iPhone / iPad integration. Think about it. It's an enormous market.
It's for a visual 'magic pad' that will replace the numerical section on a keyboard - it will be programable for developers to design apps for; like game control functions or hot keys for Adobe products.
But the OP claims something different: He claims that the statement was known to be untrue at the time it was spoken. That the statement was a deliberate, calculated lie. And that the reason why the company decided to embark upon a policy of deliberate deceit and manipulation was to make outsized profits.
But I don't buy that sort of crass cynicism about Steve Jobs.
Neither do I. That he tailored an answer to make a point, or to avoid revealing something he deemed important not reveal, I wouldn't put past him. That is Politician 101 and he was a good politician. 'Whatever the question give the answer you want to give'.
To blatantly lie is a stupid move at the best of times as it is sure to come back and bite you in the arse.
iPad mini? I think it can even have retina screen, by compressing pixels from current iPad screen. This way developers don't have to change any graphics for the new iPad mini. I would love something like it, though. Would be perfect to compete with Kindle and cheaper tablets.
That would be awesome. If apple introduced a 7 inch color e-inc display ahead of all the other ebook makers, that would kill any and all competition iPad ever had. However, I am not holding my breath obviously.
I'm not sure either about the Fire as a worry, but what if they worked on something this size for a bit and decided that it was desirable in and of itself? That a mini iPad was cute as hell, adorable, in a 4:3 aspect ratio, for example? Nicer than even that 5" iPod touch they were working on?
Your other point is that a new size would task developers even if the iPad resolution remained the same? This is what speculators like me know nothing about. Any actual details about resolution dependence would be welcome. Thanks in advance if you or anyone chooses to engage this question . . . again, for the umpteenth time, I know.
One basic point - lets say you simply increase the pixel density to fit the same resolution image into a smaller screen - now everything is smaller and the time as a developer you spent on the perfect gui is no longer perfect. The navigation and objects may be too small. This is the reason why iPhone apps are different than iPad apps, not just shrunken versions.
Why would Apple spend time developing an additional all new device with a form factor that they're on record of saying isn't ideal for the customer when all they would need to do to introduce a cheaper iPad is wait until they release the iPad 3 at the current prices, but with whatever new features it has, and then drop the price of the iPad 2 to $300-$400 (or less if they can get the build cost down), only sell a 8 GB or 16 GB version, just like they've done with the iPhone the last few iterations, and viola...cheaper entry-level iPad for them with little-to-no additional research and development.
Because price isn't the only variable a customer considers. Using your argument, why does Apple have different size screens for it's MBP line? Why don't they just create one size and simply change the amount of RAM, the size of the HD/SSD and the CPU speed? Why did they bother creating a 2nd size MacBook Air?
It's a bit trickier to have multiple screen sizes when you have a quasi-modal UI like iOS, but if there is a market (or a market to protect) it can be done. But I could see Apple increasing the screen size of the iPod touch before they make a smaller iPad. A scaled up UI would still be usable, where a scaled down one might make the buttons too small to accurately tap, for example. Plus if it's a scaled up touch, Apple can more easily explain (from a marketing point of view) any absense of featues they implement to differentiate the iPad. If they make a mini-iPad and it is missing any iPad features it could raise questions. Whereas a large touch with no/few new features wouldn't be as controversial.
Comments
7" @ 16:9 = 20.9 sq. in. usable area
9.7" @ 4:3 = 45.2 sq. in. usable area
7.85" @ 4:3 = 29.6 sq. in. usable area
Assuming Steve Jobs was referring to 7" @ 16:9 tablets, this would actually be a substantial increase in screen area over the tablets he was targeting with his comment.
Also it's quite possible that now that touch-devices have become common place, people are getting better with their tap-accuracy. Reading Apple's human interface guidelines on the iOS dev site, it's clear that they're continually testing this kind of thing. Maybe the average customer needed 40+ sq. in. 18 months ago, but 30 sq. in. will be perfectly usable by the spring...
Those who underestimate Steve Jobs took those comments literally, believing that Apple will somehow consider the iPad 2 the end of innovative form factors.
But those of us who've been using Apple products for more than a few years understand that Steve is often simply distracting the competition from his own next move. We recall earlier comments from Steve about Apple not getting into the music business, that it won't get into the phone business, or even tablets.
The iPad 2 isn't the end of the line. The line will grow, and eventually be completely replaced by something entirely new.
Apple is not sitting still.
Not to mentioned when Jobs slammed watching TV as a mindless activity not worth Apple's attention (why Apple didn't make a media center Mac) or about how nobody reads any more (why the Kindle was irrelevent). Yet we now have AppleTV and iBooks. There are many examples of Job's comments being more FUD than a statement of Apple's future products.
I don't get it. If you need to sand down your finger tips for a smaller iPad what about the iPhone?
Different use paradigm.
According to at least one poster, there was no truth to that message whatsoever. Apple was telling deliberate lies about the ideal form factor, and especially, told deliberate lies about their estmation of the success of a 7 inch form faactor.
Not only did Apple tell these blatent, barefaced lies, but the message was delivered by the CEO and Chairman of the Board, which is as official an oral statement as possible for a corporation to give.
But they lied, according to at least one poster. Shamelessly. In order to make profits.
EVIL is what that poster thinks of Apple.
But I think that Steve was sincere, and was not a scum sucking, pants on fire, lying sonofabitch. Just IMO.
Calm down, CJ - there are other plausible explanations, like:
1) A 7.85 inch display is really an 8 inch display, not a 7 inch display. So maybe Jobs meant what he said and they later started investigating how small they could go and still be usable.
2) People change their minds, even Steve Jobs.
Different use paradigm.
Oh yeah, makes sense to me.
Don't forget the difference aspect ratio makes in usable area...
7" @ 16:9 = 20.9 sq. in. usable area
9.7" @ 4:3 = 45.2 sq. in. usable area
7.85" @ 4:3 = 29.6 sq. in. usable area
Assuming Steve Jobs was referring to 7" @ 16:9 tablets, this would actually be a substantial increase in screen area over the tablets he was targeting with his comment.
Also it's quite possible that now that touch-devices have become common place, people are getting better with their tap-accuracy. Reading Apple's human interface guidelines on the iOS dev site, it's clear that they're continually testing this kind of thing. Maybe the average customer needed 40+ sq. in. 18 months ago, but 30 sq. in. will be perfectly usable by the spring...
Good work, but did someone say we were talking about 4:3 with these rumored screens? I mean I hope so, and that your reasoning here would be legit.
But I have to say, there are already a lot of cases where I get the wrong result on the iPad because of active touch areas being too close together. The Safari toolbar is a minefield of wrong input, for example.
Edit: On second thought, the report does say it would be the same resolution of the iPad, so I guess that means 4:3.
I don't get it. If you need to sand down your finger tips for a smaller iPad what about the iPhone?
iPad and iPhone have many different GUI elements. Shrinking down the iPad GUI doesn't really result in an iPhone-like GUI.
On the other hand, now there's Siri. Could it be that Apple is moving toward a heavily Siri-oriented experience in a smaller iPad? Steve's comments about 7"-range screens being too small were directed at the tapping and multi-touch experience, not the viewing experience.
Think of it this way: iOS 1 through 4 have streamlined many computing tasks by eliminating overlapping windows, the Finder, and the file system in general. iOS 5 has added Siri as an extra layer of interaction. But Siri is still in "beta." It's still kind of an add-on. Maybe iOS 6 will have Siri baked in, with an API for developers to use in their apps. The user experience can be streamlined even further, with pure voice commands for many common tasks. We'll know by next year's WWDC.
By refining Siri even further, and maybe by releasing a heavily Siri-oriented "iPad mini," Apple could test and refine Siri enough to be used in other areas of consumer electronics. Voice recognition in cars is a glaring example of under-developed technology at the moment. And Apple already has a foot in the door in the auto industry, with iPod / iPhone / iPad integration. Think about it. It's an enormous market.
Oh yeah, makes sense to me.
OS and applications designed for your pocket.
OS and applications designed for your hands.
I fail to see how you think you can sarcastically wave that off.
Nope.
Agreed. Not going to happen.
That's totally reasonable.
But the OP claims something different: He claims that the statement was known to be untrue at the time it was spoken. That the statement was a deliberate, calculated lie. And that the reason why the company decided to embark upon a policy of deliberate deceit and manipulation was to make outsized profits.
But I don't buy that sort of crass cynicism about Steve Jobs.
Neither do I. That he tailored an answer to make a point, or to avoid revealing something he deemed important not reveal, I wouldn't put past him. That is Politician 101 and he was a good politician. 'Whatever the question give the answer you want to give'.
To blatantly lie is a stupid move at the best of times as it is sure to come back and bite you in the arse.
iPad mini? I think it can even have retina screen, by compressing pixels from current iPad screen. This way developers don't have to change any graphics for the new iPad mini. I would love something like it, though. Would be perfect to compete with Kindle and cheaper tablets.
That would be awesome. If apple introduced a 7 inch color e-inc display ahead of all the other ebook makers, that would kill any and all competition iPad ever had. However, I am not holding my breath obviously.
I'm not sure either about the Fire as a worry, but what if they worked on something this size for a bit and decided that it was desirable in and of itself? That a mini iPad was cute as hell, adorable, in a 4:3 aspect ratio, for example? Nicer than even that 5" iPod touch they were working on?
Your other point is that a new size would task developers even if the iPad resolution remained the same? This is what speculators like me know nothing about. Any actual details about resolution dependence would be welcome. Thanks in advance if you or anyone chooses to engage this question . . . again, for the umpteenth time, I know.
One basic point - lets say you simply increase the pixel density to fit the same resolution image into a smaller screen - now everything is smaller and the time as a developer you spent on the perfect gui is no longer perfect. The navigation and objects may be too small. This is the reason why iPhone apps are different than iPad apps, not just shrunken versions.
Siri will be the remote for the Apple TV.
*EXPLOSION, EXPLOSION* "Siri! Turn it?" *EXPLOSION, EXPLOSION* "Turn it do-" *EXPLOSION, EXPLOSION*
*ENGINE REVVING* COME ON, WE GO- "Siri, stop the movi-" -HE CENTER OF THE COMPLEX!
Yeah. That'll work.
Apple fans will be eating their own words.
Make sure to bring some sand papers while your at it, according to the late Steve Jobs.
Why would Apple spend time developing an additional all new device with a form factor that they're on record of saying isn't ideal for the customer when all they would need to do to introduce a cheaper iPad is wait until they release the iPad 3 at the current prices, but with whatever new features it has, and then drop the price of the iPad 2 to $300-$400 (or less if they can get the build cost down), only sell a 8 GB or 16 GB version, just like they've done with the iPhone the last few iterations, and viola...cheaper entry-level iPad for them with little-to-no additional research and development.
Because price isn't the only variable a customer considers. Using your argument, why does Apple have different size screens for it's MBP line? Why don't they just create one size and simply change the amount of RAM, the size of the HD/SSD and the CPU speed? Why did they bother creating a 2nd size MacBook Air?
It's a bit trickier to have multiple screen sizes when you have a quasi-modal UI like iOS, but if there is a market (or a market to protect) it can be done. But I could see Apple increasing the screen size of the iPod touch before they make a smaller iPad. A scaled up UI would still be usable, where a scaled down one might make the buttons too small to accurately tap, for example. Plus if it's a scaled up touch, Apple can more easily explain (from a marketing point of view) any absense of featues they implement to differentiate the iPad. If they make a mini-iPad and it is missing any iPad features it could raise questions. Whereas a large touch with no/few new features wouldn't be as controversial.
Folks want an iPad not a wannabe iPad.
I recall a lot of people saying the same thing about iPhone vs Android. Last time I checked Android sales were doing OK.