Apple again rumored to launch 7" iPad in 2012

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 89
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    From a marketing standpoint I think a 5-7" iPod Touch would strengthen the iPod segment but a 5-7" iPad would weaken the iPad segment. That's pretty much my reasoning on that point.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gmcalpin View Post


    …I would love a 7" iPod Touch. (Because, let's face it, a 7-inch "iPad" IS a big iPod Touch, whereas the iPad's screen size makes it a much different beast.)



    I have a Kindle Fire, and I love it — warts and all. (Yes, I'm the one Mac geek who does, apparently.) An iPad is better, sure, but you can't stick it in your back pocket, either.



    I agree with both of you completely. I enjoy my iPad, but I actually prefer the size of the kindle to type on much better. Whereas on the iPad, it's easiest for me to type landscape and hunt and peck type, it's insanely easy for me to type on portrait on my iPhone. The 7" allows me to type just like that and hold it in my hands easier (I have big hands and can type on a fire about as easy as my iPhone and way easier than my iPad). That's not a knock on the iPad itself, just the size.



    I'd buy one tomorrow. A $299 price point for the low end (8 or 16gb) would make me do cartwheels.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by d-range View Post


    Man, how many friggin' times does this nonsense have to be repeated before the idiots that make it up realize it is not going to happen.



    I must have heard this 'rumor from the supply chain' BS about a smaller iPad at least once every three months since the first iPad was released, for a grand total of about 12 times. Just stop it already.



    You say that now, and yes- rumors are rumors. But this isn't unbelievable. 7" tablets are still a new thing, and it's very common for apple to let others do it a while and then make a better one.



    I hope it would be closer to 7" than 8".





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    So… where does the 7" iPad fall into these idiots' scheme of also having a 5" iPhone?



    Because if you have that, then they're "too close together" instead of being "too far apart".



    Why have a 15" MacBook pro? There is a 13" and 17" already. Seems too close together (sarcasm).



    A 5" iPhone is a pretty blatant exaggeration, but the same size iphone as we have now could take it to 3.8" or maybe 4". That'd be pretty significant, and I'd love it as long as the phone itself didn't get bigger.
  • Reply 42 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post


    So much for 7" being too small.



    Ummm... it is too small. Every (remotely popular) 7" tablet on the market uses a widescreen LCD and, in that aspect ratio, 7" is way too narrow in portrait orientation and comically awkward in landscape. (Opera Mobile's text wrapping makes my Nook Color immensely more useable in portrait)



    All the rumors suggest that any smaller iPad Apple produces will be closer to 8 inches than 7, and it'll certainly be a 4:3 aspect ratio. Remember how a 36" TV was freakin' huge before everyone had plasma and LCD televisions? Now, in widescreen, 36" is about the minimum size you'd want to buy for a small room. People are underestimating the influence that this effect combined with an extra .75 to 1.25" of diagonal real estate will have on users' perception of the size. A near-8" iPad will look appreciably larger than the Fire and other current 7" Android tablets.
  • Reply 43 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StigsHero View Post


    All the rumors suggest that any smaller iPad Apple produces will be closer to 8 inches than 7,



    I've never seen that at all. All the rumors say 7".



    Quote:

    A near-8" iPad will look appreciably larger than the Fire and other current 7" Android tablets.



    Or you could just look at a 9.5" iPad, which looks appreciably larger than the Fire and other current 7" Android tablets.



    8" makes even LESS sense than 7".
  • Reply 44 of 89
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post




    Fortunately, this forum has a garbage can - er, an ignore function. Life's too short. So long, clownboy.



    The old-fashioned name is the Bozo Bin. Bozos make the sound Plonk when they hit the bottom.
  • Reply 45 of 89
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post


    So much for 7" being too small.



    7" widescreen tablets are still too small. This would have the same ratio as the iPad has and it is just shy of 8". So they would most likely bill it as an 8" tablet and they don't dispute Steve's statement about 7" tablets



    I don't know that things would be so much worse to read on a nearly 8" screen vs the 9.7" they have now. I'm sure someone will do the math for us and tell us what % of screen space it has vs the current. I'm guessing somewhere in the 60-70% range



    Note, this doesn't mean I think they're doing it, just saying
  • Reply 46 of 89
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post


    I don't know precisely what the ideal size would be for a pocketable device like the Touch



    It is the perfect size right now. That is why Apple chose that size. Apple will never stray from perfection.



    No new screen sizes for any Apple product ever!
  • Reply 47 of 89
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I've never seen that at all. All the rumors say 7".



    ALL... Really?



    "Asian supply chain sources are now claiming Apple will release a 7.85-inch iPad by the fourth quarter of 2012 to face off against competition from smaller tablets such as Amazon's Kindle Fire."





    FACT: 7.85 inches is much closer to 8 inches than 7.
  • Reply 48 of 89
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post


    Now what would be a game-changer?... a 15" iPad. Many new use cases not presently covered. Ponder that one for a while me hearties.



    I would love a 15 inch tablet.



    Just last night, I was reading some comix on my laptop. The pages looked much better with one page onscreen, sideways. I was tempted to put the laptop on its side.



    A 15 inch tablet would be great! If i had a retina screen, I might even consider it, despite it running only iOS.
  • Reply 49 of 89
    I don't know if I buy Apple putting out a Kindle Killer... which is what a 7-incher would be. The iPad is the perfect size (to the commenter who cited Apple's laptop lineup -- that's completely different, the screen is just there to display information; with the iPad, you're interacting with the screen, so yes, three is an ideal size), and if anyone says a 7-inch tablet is the right size, they're either lying (fandroid), crazy (fandroid), or they've never actually used an iPad (fandroid).



    That said, I don't think a 7-inch tablet is "unusable" as Steve's comments suggested (sandpaper). It's plausible that Apple would want to mine the lower end of the market (a la $0 iPhone 3GS), and crush the Kindle Fire (make no mistake -- a $2-300 iPad would crush the Fire)... but it still doesn't seem likely.



    I see the two spaces as independent markets... and the 7-inch market is a loss-leader. Apple's not in that game.
  • Reply 50 of 89
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    7" is also perfect for dual screen tablet. If Apple can build such a device (remember Courier?) with retina display and a stylus (iPen? - yes, I know how SJ felt about it) it would be a killer product.
  • Reply 51 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


    7" is also perfect for dual screen tablet. If Apple can build such a device (remember Courier?) with retina display and a stylus (iPen? - yes, I know how SJ felt about it) it would be a killer product.



    Well, you'll have to get it from someone other than Apple.
  • Reply 52 of 89
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Well, you'll have to get it from someone other than Apple.



    I screen capped this reply for later.
  • Reply 53 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post


    There is no question of competing with the Kindle Fire. It would be a pointless race to the bottom -let Amazon fight that market with all the other wanabees - somebody has to. I could see a 7" happening but it's not a game changer and presumably it would need the new factories in Brazil to get up to full speed. Apple problem is not selling stuff - it's making it.



    Now what would be a game-changer?... a 15" iPad. Many new use cases not presently covered. Ponder that one for a while me hearties.





    I would LOVE a 15" iPad that used a stylus for photoshop or served as an interaction surface for my desktop. The 10" iPad just barely has room for ten fingers worth of multi-touch input.



    I think something about 30" would be awesome mated to two additional 30" upright or wall mounted displays. Then the top edge of the iPad could be used to pull down windows from the vertical displays which wouldn't need to be touch-enabled.
  • Reply 54 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


    7" is also perfect for dual screen tablet. If Apple can build such a device (remember Courier?) with retina display and a stylus (iPen? - yes, I know how SJ felt about it) it would be a killer product.



    Add 20" to that display and I would buy it. WYSIWYG from screen to 300 dpi print out.
  • Reply 55 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


    I screen capped this reply for later.



    I don't think you'll be here in ten to the googol years when this actually does happen, you know.
  • Reply 56 of 89
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I don't think you'll be here in ten to the googol years when this actually does happen, you know.



    Maybe not, but I think it will take far less than 10 years for battery to be good enough for 7" dual screen.
  • Reply 57 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I've never seen that at all. All the rumors say 7".



    Most have said 7.x" and everyone promptly ignores the x. A smaller number have said 8.x.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Or you could just look at a 9.5" iPad, which looks appreciably larger than the Fire and other current 7" Android tablets.



    8" makes even LESS sense than 7".



    8" in 4:3 brings the screen height in portrait orientation up to just a bit larger than the likes of the 7" Tab and the Fire. More importantly, it makes for a much-needed increase in portrait width and resolution. (The latter as compared to 1024x600 tablets)



    I got my Nook Color long after getting an iPad because I wanted the 7" form factor to work. It's comfortable to hold, easy to take with you, and all-around "cozy". Unfortunately, it falls short on usability because of the goofy fixation on wide screens that everyone but Apple seems to have. Maybe the newer models with high-DPI screens will remedy that a bit but, right now, with fixed-width web pages and lower DPI, the nearly 30% increase in horizontal resolution of 4:3 is looking very attractive.
  • Reply 58 of 89
    I would use my iPad a lot more if it were a bit smaller. A 7" iPad would be perfect. I ended up buying a cheap 7" Android tablet just for the improved portability and better format as an eReader. Some people find sub-compacts suit their needs best, others really need an SUV. For me, a 7" tablet is a significant improvement in usability over a 10" one.



    I'm not buying the excuses as to why Apple couldn't utilize a smaller screen. They design the hardware and write the software, they can do anything they want with it, including things you've never thought of.
  • Reply 59 of 89
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Keep in mind that which device consumers find most useful or desirable, is not the only criterion apple is evaluating.



    One of the most valuable things that iOS has going for it is a unified platform. Applications look and behave identically between devices because the screens are the same size and shape. Though the iPad broke with this convention, resulting in two different screen sizes and aspect ratios. Even the retina display was handled in such a manner that apps still look good on a new or old device. With an even multiple of pixels, scaling results in blocky but otherwise correctly rendered interfaces.



    So the real question is, is it worth splintering the platform more in order to provide another screen size? This is an honest question about a fairly obviously real tradeoff. Though I don't think the answer is as simple or clear as some would think.
  • Reply 60 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    I would use my iPad a lot more if it were a bit smaller. A 7" iPad would be perfect. I ended up buying a cheap 7" Android tablet just for the improved portability and better format as an eReader. Some people find sub-compacts suit their needs best, others really need an SUV. For me, a 7" tablet is a significant improvement in usability over a 10" one.



    I'm not buying the excuses as to why Apple couldn't utilize a smaller screen. They design the hardware and write the software, they can do anything they want with it, including things you've never thought of.





    An iPad w/a 7.85" screen in a 4:3 format would have these dimensions:

    7.85 Diagonal

    6.28 Wide

    4.71 High



    29.5788 sq inches area



    The kindle fire has a screen size with the following dimensions:



    7 D

    6.10 W

    3.43 H



    20.923 sq inches area



    The width won't increase much (0.18"), but you are gaining over an inch in height (yes this is all in my head in landscape mode) (1.28" to be precise) and 0.85" on the diagonal which lets things be much more spread out. Apple clearly experimented w/smaller screens and decided that the 7" format was a bit too cramped for what they wanted to be doing on an iPad. 7.85 adds nearly an inch to diagonal, giving us a total area increase of 41% over the 7" tablet. Just go using 4:3 instead of 16:9 and adding 0.85" to the diagonal. That is a significant increase. The difference in surface are for teh screen of the 7" Fire compared w/the 9.7" iPad is huge.





    EDIT: Just for fun, here is the iPad dimensions based on screen size



    9.7 D

    4.76 H

    8.45 W



    40.22 sq inches area





    Note the iPad screen is just shy of double the area of the Kindle Fire. It's just over 1/3 larger than the proposed 7.85" screen.



    For those interesting in the math to figure dimensions w/only a diagonal measurement and aspect ratio, here you go:

    (stolen from: http://forum.onlineconversion.com/showthread.php?t=7230)



    For a 4:3 tv, the height:width:diagonal are in the ratio 3:4:5. So the height is 3/5 x the diagonal, and width 4/5

    (or 60% and 80%).



    For a 16:9 tv, the ratio is 9:16:sqrt(337). Height is 9*diag/sqrt(337), width is 16*diag/sqrt(337), or about 49% and 87% of diagonal.



    sqrt of 337 = 18.357559750685819298491719518707





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    So the real question is, is it worth splintering the platform more in order to provide another screen size? This is an honest question about a fairly obviously real tradeoff. Though I don't think the answer is as simple or clear as some would think.



    I don't think they would have to. They would keep the 1024x768 resolution of the iPad and the same 4:3 aspect ratio it has and then iPad apps would be the same, just a bit smaller. iPhone apps would still get bigger like they do, just not AS big
Sign In or Register to comment.