Release of 'iPad mini' from Apple viewed as 'question of when, not if'

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 89
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maknyuzz View Post


    I think iPad Mini is huge possibility, as well as bigger iPhone. Why? Let's talk ppi wise:



    iPhone 4/4s:

    - 3.5", 326 ppi



    New iPad (3rd gen):

    - 9.7", 264 ppi



    Now if you do the math on ppi for 7.85" iPad Mini with the same 2048x1536 resolution as regular 9.7" iPad, you get 326 ppi for 7.85" iPad Mini. Coincidence?



    Similarly, if you were to achieve 264 ppi for iPhone, the screen will need to be 4.3" for the larger screen iPhone.



    In the end it will be like this:



    iPhone 3.5" -> 326 ppi

    iPhone 4.3" -> 264 ppi



    iPad 7.85" -> 326 ppi

    iPad 9.7" -> 264 ppi



    Everything connects, coincidence? maybe... but I would like to think it's a possibility..



    For lack of a better term, yes, it's a coincidence.



    Note that this 7.85" size that has been floating around since the before the iPad was introduced. It's had by taking a set PPI paired with a set resolution to find the diagonal size. It's not mystical, it's not magical, it's basic math.
  • Reply 82 of 89
    Can apple just get rid of the black border? Smaller and lighter without the sacrifice.
  • Reply 83 of 89
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kung Fu Guy View Post


    Can apple just get rid of the black border? Smaller and lighter without the sacrifice.



    Please be a joke, please be a joke, please be a joke?
  • Reply 84 of 89
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You're both missing the point. A 7" iPad would be targeted at the budget buyer (mostly). As such, it wouldn't need the retina display of the iPad 3. I could picture a 7" iPad mini with the same screen resolution as the retina iPhone. Even if you were holding it as close to your face as the iPhone, the resolution would be comparable to the original iPhone - which wasn't bad. And since you'd be holding it further away than a 3.5" phone, it would look better than the original iPhone.



    So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.



    Problem solved.



    Where would the cost savings come from? The cost savings of the iPhone over the iPod come mostly from the lack of the same HW and much cheaper HW components. For example the iPod Touch display is greatly inferior to the iPhone's display. Yet despite all this the 8GB iPod Touch is $199, what many seem to think a 7" iPad should cost because the 7" Kindle Fire costs that much.
  • Reply 85 of 89
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    OK, you are correct. The 3 apps out of 500,000 which rely on actual physical dimensions wouldn't work.



    But unless you are using your device as a measuring tool, everything else I said is correct.



    That app is an example but I know you are bright enough to realize that Apple doesn't leave a single pixel to chance.



    Again, they didn't have to wait 4 years to update the resolution on the iPhone but they did when they could go to a 4:1 pixel ratio so that everything scaled perfectly. They could have increased it each year with a slightly higher resolution to stay "competitive" and have the OS just account for the new resolution. There is a very real and distance reason they choose not for the iPhone and iPad, just as there is very real reason they will not expand a 3.5" 3:2 UI into a 7" 4:3 UI or a 9.7" 4:3 UI into a 7" 4:3 UI or whatever other silly aspect ratios people want to tie to it simply because Amazon or Samsung are doing it.



    So we have to issues at hand. )) We have a very real UI that needs to be idealized for the new display along with a new SDK so developers can idealize their apps, as well as the dev and user fragmentation that will go along with it, and 2) we have an issue with the cost needing to be between the iPad and iPod Touch despite no one creating a decent scenario as to how that might occur expect to say that Apple can do it because they are Apple.
  • Reply 86 of 89
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    That app is an example but I know you are bright enough to realize that Apple doesn't leave a single pixel to chance.



    Again, they didn't have to wait 4 years to update the resolution on the iPhone but they did when they could go to a 4:1 pixel ratio so that everything scaled perfectly. They could have increased it each year with a slightly higher resolution to stay "competitive" and have the OS just account for the new resolution. There is a very real and distance reason they choose not for the iPhone and iPad, just as there is very real reason they will not expand a 3.5" 3:2 UI into a 7" 4:3 UI or a 9.7" 4:3 UI into a 7" 4:3 UI or whatever other silly aspect ratios people want to tie to it simply because Amazon or Samsung are doing it.



    So we have to issues at hand. )) We have a very real UI that needs to be idealized for the new display along with a new SDK so developers can idealize their apps, as well as the dev and user fragmentation that will go along with it, and 2) we have an issue with the cost needing to be between the iPad and iPod Touch despite no one creating a decent scenario as to how that might occur expect to say that Apple can do it because they are Apple.



    The fact that they were willing to switch to a 4:1 pixel ratio so that developers didn't have to immediately change their app supports my position.



    The number of apps that wouldn't work is insignificant. If they kept the same resolution and the same ratio, 99.9% of apps would work just fine - which is roughly the same result as they had going from iPhone to iPhone 4S.
  • Reply 87 of 89
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    The fact that they were willing to switch to a 4:1 pixel ratio so that developers didn't have to immediately change their app supports my position.



    No, it supports my position. Clearly they care about the display elements even when they don't change size so they will care even more when they do. We have only to look at the iPad over the iPhone to see that they didn't simply slap the iPhone UI on the iPad then call it a day. Those icons on the iPad aren't just larger because the pixels are larger, the are larger because Apple specifically choose to make them use more pixels to idealize them for the device.



    Quote:

    The number of apps that wouldn't work is insignificant. If they kept the same resolution and the same ratio, 99.9% of apps would work just fine - which is roughly the same result as they had going from iPhone to iPhone 4S.



    They work fine in the same way an iPhone app "works fine" on the iPad but for you to argue this is how Apple thinks about its UIs and App Store blows me away.



    I'll make a bet with you. When Apple releases a touch-based device that is between the current iPhne and iPad display sizes, if it's using the stock iPad UI I'll buy you one. If the UI Is tailored for the device in any way you buy me one.
  • Reply 88 of 89
    pembrokepembroke Posts: 228member
    Yes, a more-affordable 7.85" would target the broad Education market. This would gel with the textbook and iAuthor initiative.
Sign In or Register to comment.