So what would be the difference between a 7" iPod touch and a 7" iPad. Honest question.
the apps of course.
downscaling app resolution results in crap. so the the 1024x768 iPad app resolution would be retained and the dpi go up for a smaller screen. but then the UI buttons and graphics would all be squeezed, and sometimes become too small.
whereas 960x640 iPhone apps can be upscaled by pixel doubling, like the iPad did with the old 480x320 iPhone apps. the dpi would be higher tho on a smaller screen than the iPad's, which is good. there would be more space between buttons and graphics, but that isn't bad necessarily. the 3:2 aspect is better for some things (= 15:10 compared to Android's 16:10) and more pocket friendly.
so scaling up an iPod touch running iPhone apps is the only good possibility. but 7" is a clunky size - twice as big - and blown up too much for the apps' graphics/layout to look really great. that's why i think a 5.5" touch - a 50% increase in size - would be the best option.
that's the same size btw as the upcoming Sony Vita PSP. great for games. also, more room for an optional bigger SSD to finally replace the iPod Classic.
Wow, how uninformed are you? You talk about how the iPad 2 can't replace a laptop, as though your opinion is somehow gospel.
My iPad 2 has replaced my $2000 Windows 7 laptop most of the time. In fact, just about the only thing I use my laptop for is to wirelessly sync my iPad and iPhone.
all that means is that you didn't need the laptop to start with.
The iPad is FAR away from a laptop replacement. It cannot yet really do anything well enough to replace a laptop. Even simple web browsing is faster and more efficient on a laptop, AND You can watch flash videos (actually a big deal). There are a lot of sites I frequent that require flash, so the argument that it isn't a big problem anymore is completely false. The iPad is an expensive toy and all I see on these boards are people desperately trying to justify their expensive and unnecessary purchases. You spent a lot of money on a nearly useless toy, accept the fact and deal with it, stop making up pathetic justifications. iPads are really cool, pretty, trendy, well advertised, fun to interface with, have cute games, etc... But that is all they are and all they will be. They are great to have around for those odd occasions where you don't want to use your laptop or you are traveling, etc... but they are worth about $200 in the functions they return. Slowly the number of useful functions they can perform is increasing, and slowly their prices will drop, and in about 2 years those will balance out and we'll have tablets worth buying. For now you early adopters are beta testers funding development of the real deal.
I guess I must be hallucinating every time I take my iPad with me instead of a laptop then.
Personally, I was amazed at how balanced it was. Unbalanced in a couple of spots, for sure, but overall, not too bad, and with a good edit, it would be suitable for a major market piece.
The iPad is FAR away from a laptop replacement. It cannot yet really do anything well enough to replace a laptop. Even simple web browsing is faster and more efficient on a laptop, AND You can watch flash videos (actually a big deal). There are a lot of sites I frequent that require flash, so the argument that it isn't a big problem anymore is completely false. The iPad is an expensive toy and all I see on these boards are people desperately trying to justify their expensive and unnecessary purchases. You spent a lot of money on a nearly useless toy, accept the fact and deal with it, stop making up pathetic justifications. iPads are really cool, pretty, trendy, well advertised, fun to interface with, have cute games, etc... But that is all they are and all they will be. They are great to have around for those odd occasions where you don't want to use your laptop or you are traveling, etc... but they are worth about $200 in the functions they return. Slowly the number of useful functions they can perform is increasing, and slowly their prices will drop, and in about 2 years those will balance out and we'll have tablets worth buying. For now you early adopters are beta testers funding development of the real deal.
Interesting. I guess when I view Flash on my iPad, I am imagining it? Or does the fact that you have no clue what an iPad can and can't do, reinforce the assumption that you simply don't know what you are talking about? FYI, Photon Web Browser allows you to view Flash video's, games and websites, no prolem. It is similar to Click2Flash on a Mac.
And web browsing in your house must still be using dial-up on AOL or Juno. My web pages render just as fast on my iPad as my 27" iMac, HP desktop or my MBP. I suppose if they could be measured in the hundredths of nanoseconds, the computers might be faster, but visually I can't tell. May have something to do with high speed internet.
I guess I must be hallucinating every time I take my iPad with me instead of a laptop then.
Shouldn't worry, it's the usual thing where people can only see a product from their own point of view, and discount that other people have different tastes, uses, abilities, etc. It's a very narrow viewpoint they hold.
If I had an iPad, I wouldn't be taking my laptop to the sofa in the evening, however, MrsTinman's iPad always goes to the sofa after work and rarely her laptop. If we go away, she'll take the iPad rather than her laptop.
If anything, the iPad is making me reconsider whether I need a laptop and couldn't just use an iMac+iPad.
But as I said, everyone is different, and have different uses for things. And not everyone can appreciate that.
A biased Kindle review on an Apple site. Did you really think people were going to take this seriously? AI seems to be about trashing everything else than reporting about Apple.
all that means is that you didn't need the laptop to start with.
Your useage must be very limited.
Love it when people state opinion as fact.
Maybe it's that my iPad does just about everything my laptop does. The only noticeable difference is games, but I'm more than happy to fritter away the hours with some of the tens of thousands of games available on the App Store.
Please don't argue the point about Flash since Flash is crap in the mobile space (Adobe having recently admitted such), there are Flash-enabled browsers on the iPad, and most websites have already switched or are on the verge of switching to HTML5 so I'm not missing much more than a few useless ads.
Steve also said that people would never watch video on such a small screen (iPod video), that you can do everything needed for the iPhone based on web standards (App Store) and that people don't read books anymore (iBooks).
And I don't recall ever having to sharpen my fingers to use my iPhone...
Cram an iPad-optimized app on your iPhone screen and you'd need to hit much smaller targets. That's the point. You can't cram a full sized tablet UI into a screen half as large and expect it to work as well.
That's why 5-7" Android tablets are really just oversized smartphones. A big iPod touch would be the same sort of thing. And positioned at gaming, might be a hit. However, it appears that WAY more people are opting for an iPhone or an iPad than the iPod touch.
Apple is paving the way for non-mobile contract devices however with FaceTime and iMessage.
I suppose posting some cliche ASCII art to smear the author is easier than articulating any substantial complaint with anything in the review itself. It's just that DED has a really high accuracy rate in calling out success and failure in the face of fanboys who supported everything DED didn't.
I suppose posting some cliche ASCII art to smear the author is easier than articulating any substantial complaint with anything in the review itself. It's just that DED has a really high accuracy rate in calling out success and failure in the face of fanboys who supported everything DED didn't.
Still bitter about the failure of the Zune?
I'm never been able to figure out what that ASCII art is suppose to be.
To even say this highlights your complete lack of knowledge about Apple and their products.
Apple would never, and never has, come out with any product this unfinished, with this many glitches, with this much missing software, that lacks any kind of hardware software integration and a dozen other points as well.
The Kindle fire might be an "okay" device for some purposes and many people might even like it a lot, but in no way is it even remotely similar to a "v1" Apple product.
Not even close.
PS - No one can hold an iPad in one hand? WTF? I hold mine in one hand all the time for long periods of time.
Apple would never come out with a product with this many glitches? did you install OS7.0? or IOS 5? the glitches had glitches in both of them and not all the glitches have been resolved.
Why didn't they call the iPad an iPod Touch? You can't put everything into the same product category for shits and giggles and expect it to succeed. The 5-7" 3:2 device is much closer to the iPod category than the iPad. It would help prop up the iPod's dropping sales and be seen as a great alternative to whatever Sony and Nintendo plan to make in the handheld console market. It would fit in a purse, something an iPad can't do not should be able to do. Bottom line: you add a flagship device to a struggling product category instead of adding an entry level model to a thriving product category.
I think adding a second size to the iPad line might dilute the brand/product category. The iPod line already has several different models and, as you say, it would prop up the iPod brand which has been flagging as of late.
I'd love to see Apple introduce an iPad 3 and an iPod 5-7" at the same time but I think Apple would be afraid of decreasing the amount of sales for the iPad 3.
Well, he gets to write articles and reviews for AppleInsider and you don't. Why don't you get a job at a tech web site or start your own instead. I can't get my head around why so many Apple haters are regulars at an Apple centric web site like AI. I would be bored to tears trying to be a regular at a PC or Android site.
On the other hand AI doesn't hold a candle to MacRumors when it comes to Apple hating regulars.
Thanks for the image: That's why I haven't asked all these years. I knew the answer would be a let down
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
I think adding a second size to the iPad line might dilute the brand/product category. The iPod line already has several different models and, as you say, it would prop up the iPod brand which has been flagging as of late.
I'd love to see Apple introduce an iPad 3 and an iPod 5-7" at the same time but I think Apple would be afraid of decreasing the amount of sales for the iPad 3.
While I think that would be Apple's best move, I am still leaning toward Apple not diluting the iOS iDevice display sizes. Adding a new size with a new SDK just adds to the complexity of having a windowless OS system. We've seen how this works on Android and it's not good, but if anyone can do it right it's Apple. Maybe after the 320x480 iPhone 3GS (and cheaper iPod Touch?) are no longer sold they will be willing to push for a replacement in the SDK so it's 3 display sizes, instead of two display sizes, with one with two resolutions. Whatever they do it won't be haphazard just to fill a space they think their competitors are dominating with a loss-leader product.
On the other hand AI doesn't hold a candle to MacRumors when it comes to Apple hating regulars.
MR is like Digg, Engadget, or Gizmodo forums. They use vBulletin at MR just like AI but you can't have a decent conversation. I read those those sites, but stay away from their forums. AI simply has the best overall forum posters.
I do participate in AnandTech forums for articles, but usually to ask a question not directly answered in an article. Those people are relics of computer eras gone by. They really hate Apple, their philosophy and even get update with the site for covering Apple products in general when it used to be for "real" geeks, not the "toys" Apple puts out.
I don't recall ever having to sharpen my fingers to use my iPhone...
That's a great point, and I've often thought about it myself. But then you have to realize that Apple designed a different UI for the iPad and the iPhone. It would make more sense for Apple to release a 7" iPod touch than a 7" iPad.
Why didn't they call the iPad an iPod Touch? You can't put everything into the same product category for shits and giggles and expect it to succeed. The 5-7" 3:2 device is much closer to the iPod category than the iPad. It would help prop up the iPod's dropping sales and be seen as a great alternative to whatever Sony and Nintendo plan to make in the handheld console market. It would fit in a purse, something an iPad can't do not should be able to do. Bottom line: you add a flagship device to a struggling product category instead of adding an entry level model to a thriving product category.
yes it was iPod size. but otherwise it was pure marketing. tablets were still iffy, not good for an ID. Apple saw the end of the iPod era coming and knew it needed to segue those customers to iOS. very smart. wish they had capitalized the T tho.
Comments
So what would be the difference between a 7" iPod touch and a 7" iPad. Honest question.
the apps of course.
downscaling app resolution results in crap. so the the 1024x768 iPad app resolution would be retained and the dpi go up for a smaller screen. but then the UI buttons and graphics would all be squeezed, and sometimes become too small.
whereas 960x640 iPhone apps can be upscaled by pixel doubling, like the iPad did with the old 480x320 iPhone apps. the dpi would be higher tho on a smaller screen than the iPad's, which is good. there would be more space between buttons and graphics, but that isn't bad necessarily. the 3:2 aspect is better for some things (= 15:10 compared to Android's 16:10) and more pocket friendly.
so scaling up an iPod touch running iPhone apps is the only good possibility. but 7" is a clunky size - twice as big - and blown up too much for the apps' graphics/layout to look really great. that's why i think a 5.5" touch - a 50% increase in size - would be the best option.
that's the same size btw as the upcoming Sony Vita PSP. great for games. also, more room for an optional bigger SSD to finally replace the iPod Classic.
Wow, how uninformed are you? You talk about how the iPad 2 can't replace a laptop, as though your opinion is somehow gospel.
My iPad 2 has replaced my $2000 Windows 7 laptop most of the time. In fact, just about the only thing I use my laptop for is to wirelessly sync my iPad and iPhone.
all that means is that you didn't need the laptop to start with.
Your useage must be very limited.
The iPad is FAR away from a laptop replacement. It cannot yet really do anything well enough to replace a laptop. Even simple web browsing is faster and more efficient on a laptop, AND You can watch flash videos (actually a big deal). There are a lot of sites I frequent that require flash, so the argument that it isn't a big problem anymore is completely false. The iPad is an expensive toy and all I see on these boards are people desperately trying to justify their expensive and unnecessary purchases. You spent a lot of money on a nearly useless toy, accept the fact and deal with it, stop making up pathetic justifications. iPads are really cool, pretty, trendy, well advertised, fun to interface with, have cute games, etc... But that is all they are and all they will be. They are great to have around for those odd occasions where you don't want to use your laptop or you are traveling, etc... but they are worth about $200 in the functions they return. Slowly the number of useful functions they can perform is increasing, and slowly their prices will drop, and in about 2 years those will balance out and we'll have tablets worth buying. For now you early adopters are beta testers funding development of the real deal.
I guess I must be hallucinating every time I take my iPad with me instead of a laptop then.
lol ded
Personally, I was amazed at how balanced it was. Unbalanced in a couple of spots, for sure, but overall, not too bad, and with a good edit, it would be suitable for a major market piece.
The iPad is FAR away from a laptop replacement. It cannot yet really do anything well enough to replace a laptop. Even simple web browsing is faster and more efficient on a laptop, AND You can watch flash videos (actually a big deal). There are a lot of sites I frequent that require flash, so the argument that it isn't a big problem anymore is completely false. The iPad is an expensive toy and all I see on these boards are people desperately trying to justify their expensive and unnecessary purchases. You spent a lot of money on a nearly useless toy, accept the fact and deal with it, stop making up pathetic justifications. iPads are really cool, pretty, trendy, well advertised, fun to interface with, have cute games, etc... But that is all they are and all they will be. They are great to have around for those odd occasions where you don't want to use your laptop or you are traveling, etc... but they are worth about $200 in the functions they return. Slowly the number of useful functions they can perform is increasing, and slowly their prices will drop, and in about 2 years those will balance out and we'll have tablets worth buying. For now you early adopters are beta testers funding development of the real deal.
Interesting. I guess when I view Flash on my iPad, I am imagining it? Or does the fact that you have no clue what an iPad can and can't do, reinforce the assumption that you simply don't know what you are talking about? FYI, Photon Web Browser allows you to view Flash video's, games and websites, no prolem. It is similar to Click2Flash on a Mac.
And web browsing in your house must still be using dial-up on AOL or Juno. My web pages render just as fast on my iPad as my 27" iMac, HP desktop or my MBP. I suppose if they could be measured in the hundredths of nanoseconds, the computers might be faster, but visually I can't tell. May have something to do with high speed internet.
I guess I must be hallucinating every time I take my iPad with me instead of a laptop then.
Shouldn't worry, it's the usual thing where people can only see a product from their own point of view, and discount that other people have different tastes, uses, abilities, etc. It's a very narrow viewpoint they hold.
If I had an iPad, I wouldn't be taking my laptop to the sofa in the evening, however, MrsTinman's iPad always goes to the sofa after work and rarely her laptop. If we go away, she'll take the iPad rather than her laptop.
If anything, the iPad is making me reconsider whether I need a laptop and couldn't just use an iMac+iPad.
But as I said, everyone is different, and have different uses for things. And not everyone can appreciate that.
all that means is that you didn't need the laptop to start with.
Your useage must be very limited.
Love it when people state opinion as fact.
Maybe it's that my iPad does just about everything my laptop does. The only noticeable difference is games, but I'm more than happy to fritter away the hours with some of the tens of thousands of games available on the App Store.
Please don't argue the point about Flash since Flash is crap in the mobile space (Adobe having recently admitted such), there are Flash-enabled browsers on the iPad, and most websites have already switched or are on the verge of switching to HTML5 so I'm not missing much more than a few useless ads.
lol ded
yeah, ded again
............................................______ __
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?........................... ...........................,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:"........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....} ............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|............ ..`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,.............. .............`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_......... .._,-%.......`
...................................,
Steve also said that people would never watch video on such a small screen (iPod video), that you can do everything needed for the iPhone based on web standards (App Store) and that people don't read books anymore (iBooks).
And I don't recall ever having to sharpen my fingers to use my iPhone...
Cram an iPad-optimized app on your iPhone screen and you'd need to hit much smaller targets. That's the point. You can't cram a full sized tablet UI into a screen half as large and expect it to work as well.
That's why 5-7" Android tablets are really just oversized smartphones. A big iPod touch would be the same sort of thing. And positioned at gaming, might be a hit. However, it appears that WAY more people are opting for an iPhone or an iPad than the iPod touch.
Apple is paving the way for non-mobile contract devices however with FaceTime and iMessage.
yeah, ded again
I suppose posting some cliche ASCII art to smear the author is easier than articulating any substantial complaint with anything in the review itself. It's just that DED has a really high accuracy rate in calling out success and failure in the face of fanboys who supported everything DED didn't.
Still bitter about the failure of the Zune?
I suppose posting some cliche ASCII art to smear the author is easier than articulating any substantial complaint with anything in the review itself. It's just that DED has a really high accuracy rate in calling out success and failure in the face of fanboys who supported everything DED didn't.
Still bitter about the failure of the Zune?
I'm never been able to figure out what that ASCII art is suppose to be.
To even say this highlights your complete lack of knowledge about Apple and their products.
Apple would never, and never has, come out with any product this unfinished, with this many glitches, with this much missing software, that lacks any kind of hardware software integration and a dozen other points as well.
The Kindle fire might be an "okay" device for some purposes and many people might even like it a lot, but in no way is it even remotely similar to a "v1" Apple product.
Not even close.
PS - No one can hold an iPad in one hand? WTF? I hold mine in one hand all the time for long periods of time.
Apple would never come out with a product with this many glitches? did you install OS7.0? or IOS 5? the glitches had glitches in both of them and not all the glitches have been resolved.
I'm never been able to figure out what that ASCII art is suppose to be.
It's a hand holding a wheel of cheese.
Why didn't they call the iPad an iPod Touch? You can't put everything into the same product category for shits and giggles and expect it to succeed. The 5-7" 3:2 device is much closer to the iPod category than the iPad. It would help prop up the iPod's dropping sales and be seen as a great alternative to whatever Sony and Nintendo plan to make in the handheld console market. It would fit in a purse, something an iPad can't do not should be able to do. Bottom line: you add a flagship device to a struggling product category instead of adding an entry level model to a thriving product category.
I think adding a second size to the iPad line might dilute the brand/product category. The iPod line already has several different models and, as you say, it would prop up the iPod brand which has been flagging as of late.
I'd love to see Apple introduce an iPad 3 and an iPod 5-7" at the same time but I think Apple would be afraid of decreasing the amount of sales for the iPad 3.
Well, he gets to write articles and reviews for AppleInsider and you don't. Why don't you get a job at a tech web site or start your own instead. I can't get my head around why so many Apple haters are regulars at an Apple centric web site like AI. I would be bored to tears trying to be a regular at a PC or Android site.
On the other hand AI doesn't hold a candle to MacRumors when it comes to Apple hating regulars.
It's a hand holding a wheel of cheese.
image: ]http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/7/73/JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg/618px-JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg
Thanks for the image: That's why I haven't asked all these years. I knew the answer would be a let down
I think adding a second size to the iPad line might dilute the brand/product category. The iPod line already has several different models and, as you say, it would prop up the iPod brand which has been flagging as of late.
I'd love to see Apple introduce an iPad 3 and an iPod 5-7" at the same time but I think Apple would be afraid of decreasing the amount of sales for the iPad 3.
While I think that would be Apple's best move, I am still leaning toward Apple not diluting the iOS iDevice display sizes. Adding a new size with a new SDK just adds to the complexity of having a windowless OS system. We've seen how this works on Android and it's not good, but if anyone can do it right it's Apple. Maybe after the 320x480 iPhone 3GS (and cheaper iPod Touch?) are no longer sold they will be willing to push for a replacement in the SDK so it's 3 display sizes, instead of two display sizes, with one with two resolutions. Whatever they do it won't be haphazard just to fill a space they think their competitors are dominating with a loss-leader product.
On the other hand AI doesn't hold a candle to MacRumors when it comes to Apple hating regulars.
MR is like Digg, Engadget, or Gizmodo forums. They use vBulletin at MR just like AI but you can't have a decent conversation. I read those those sites, but stay away from their forums. AI simply has the best overall forum posters.
I do participate in AnandTech forums for articles, but usually to ask a question not directly answered in an article. Those people are relics of computer eras gone by. They really hate Apple, their philosophy and even get update with the site for covering Apple products in general when it used to be for "real" geeks, not the "toys" Apple puts out.
I don't recall ever having to sharpen my fingers to use my iPhone...
That's a great point, and I've often thought about it myself. But then you have to realize that Apple designed a different UI for the iPad and the iPhone. It would make more sense for Apple to release a 7" iPod touch than a 7" iPad.
Why didn't they call the iPad an iPod Touch? You can't put everything into the same product category for shits and giggles and expect it to succeed. The 5-7" 3:2 device is much closer to the iPod category than the iPad. It would help prop up the iPod's dropping sales and be seen as a great alternative to whatever Sony and Nintendo plan to make in the handheld console market. It would fit in a purse, something an iPad can't do not should be able to do. Bottom line: you add a flagship device to a struggling product category instead of adding an entry level model to a thriving product category.
yes it was iPod size. but otherwise it was pure marketing. tablets were still iffy, not good for an ID. Apple saw the end of the iPod era coming and knew it needed to segue those customers to iOS. very smart. wish they had capitalized the T tho.