I really hope that 7 inch iPad is real.

[bcaslis]

You realise these same companies who are producing 7" tablets have/are also producing 10" tablets. You think a 10" andoid/blackberry tablet is going to be any more of a commercial success than a 7" model?

Its likely any tablet of any size is going to pale in comparison (in regards to devices sold) to one developed by apple because of the brand name amongst so many other things. Also IIRC when publishing their financial results, Apple typically catogorises many devices under the same umbrella i.e. the ipod range. Looking at things from their perspective, Apple will sell more ipads with both a 7" and 9.7" models than with just one available model.

I agree with you about the other companies likely failing with a 10" product also. I don't agree with Apple being better having a 7" also. This isn't like laptop, having a come enough size is going to cause confusion.

Finally, as I've said in other threads, people are missing an important factor in devices like this. You can't just scale the UI because the interface is a finger not a mouse pointer. If you keep the same number of pixels but reduce the size, the UI doesn't work anymore because buttons are too small. If you change the number of pixels then it's another form factor for developers to support and existing iPad apps won't work on it. It's just not a viable size from any point of view.

 

[Syk]

Why are people so against a 7" as long as Apple continues their 10" iPad?

I can see them dropping the 16gb 10", just like the iphone4 came out with 16/32 for the same price that the 8/16 came out as

 

[colmaclean]

Why are people so against a 7" as long as Apple continues their 10" iPad?

I just can't see a 7" with the same resolution as the 10" and running the same OS being feasible.

For one thing, as I (and the poster before you) have already said, the UI would need to be redesigned especially for this 7" model as the pointing device (your finger) is not going to reduce in size any time soon.

 

[MindsEye]

I agree with you about the other companies likely failing with a 10" product also. I don't agree with Apple being better having a 7" also. This isn't like laptop, having a come enough size is going to cause confusion.

Finally, as I've said in other threads, people are missing an important factor in devices like this. You can't just scale the UI because the interface is a finger not a mouse pointer. If you keep the same number of pixels but reduce the size, the UI doesn't work anymore because buttons are too small. If you change the number of pixels then it's another form factor for developers to support and existing iPad apps won't work on it. It's just not a viable size from any point of view.

I disagree with you on confusion, for me its exactly the same as buying a laptop. One of the first things i consider is screen size for mostly the same reasons i would for a 7" ipad vs a 10" such as weight, footprint ect. Screen real estate is the biggest thing that seperates the ipad from the other iOS devices as it offers a better experience for things like the web, videos and reading. There is hardly anything that the ipad can do that the other iOS devices cant its all about screen real estate. With a 7" ipad it would be about screen real estate when measured up against the iphone/ipod touch and portability, weight, footprint when compared to the 10" ipad an easy concept to understand.

Your last point is the only the only argument against that i agree could be a stumbling block. Apple really need to push through and provide developers with the tools to create screen indepedent apps. Android allows this IIRC for phones ranging from 3-5 inches and various resolutions/pixel density's. They are looking looking to officially support tablet sized devices and resolutions if not by gingerbread then by the time honeycomb is released in 2011. It would be nice if to know if apple are actually addressing this issue.

Why are people so against a 7" as long as Apple continues their 10" iPad?

I can see them dropping the 16gb 10", just like the iphone4 came out with 16/32 for the same price that the 8/16 came out as

The way i see it there is a £100/$100 gap between the most expensive configuration of the ipod touch and cheapest configuration of the current ipad. If apple do release a 7" ipad its price would probably be somewhere inbetween those two devices.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I have my doubts on a 7" iPad. Now, a circa 10.5" iPad with a 1280x768 screen (which allows for true display of 720p HD video) is much more plausible.

 

[kdarling]

Just to add a little fun into the discussion:

Hitachi just showed off a 6.6" 302PPI screen. Yes, it's a lot of pixels, but Apple's never been afraid of putting a big black border around what's not used.

Hitachi IPS 1600x1200 screen

 

[WLS]

Hitachi seems pretty sure there is a market for a retina display 7 inch tablet screen,
it also has the same aspect ratio as the iPad. Coincidence or unicorn tracks? just sayin...

 

[Ciclismo]

Just to add a little fun into the discussion:

Hitachi just showed off a 6.6" 302PPI screen. Yes, it's a lot of pixels, but Apple's never been afraid of putting a big black border around what's not used.

Hitachi IPS 1600x1200 screen

That big black border serves a function on the iPad - if the touch screen went all the way to the edges, then holding the iPad without your thumbs making inputs would become very difficult.

 

[kdarling]

That big black border serves a function on the iPad - if the touch screen went all the way to the edges, then holding the iPad without your thumbs making inputs would become very difficult.

I meant on the screen. For instance, the current iPad screen goes mostly unused when running iPhone apps, whether doubled or not.

So if a hi-res 7" screen had too many pixels to push quickly for games, Apple could simply start with requiring them to use less of the display. Other, less time critical apps like browsers or magazine apps, could use the whole screen.

Just a thought.

Cheers!

 

[Ciclismo]

I meant on the screen. For instance, the current iPad screen goes mostly unused when running iPhone apps, whether doubled or not.

So if a hi-res 7" screen had too many pixels to push quickly for games, Apple could simply start with requiring them to use less of the display. Other, less time critical apps like browsers or magazine apps, could use the whole screen.

Just a thought.

Cheers!

Ahhh, thanks for the clarification. As a side note, I f'n hate that with iPod/iPhone apps on the iPad, and unfortunately many dev's either can't or won't make the leap

 

[BergerFan]

IMO, to have a device that's half the size of the iPad, would muddy the waters too much for the consumer, not to mention developers.
"What do I get? The iPod touch, 7" iPad, or 10" model?" Not gonna happen. It'll go the same way as the 'iPhone Nano'.
I think Apple had plenty of deliberation regarding the optimum screen size and aspect ratio, which I think they nailed. It's not too big, like a JooJoo(lol) and it's not too small like a Galaxy Tab(IMO).
The 4:3 aspect ratio is one that I'm surprised to see not copied by any rivals. It's the best compromise when taking all types of content and orientations into account.

 

[ConceptVBS]

There is no "7 inch market" there is a "tablet market"...

Just like there is no "13 inch market" or "15 inch market" for portables, there is a "laptop market"...

Besides, Samsung ain't gonna rule ****, there are many other vaporous 16:9 tablet devices slated (pun intended) to come out soon, as well.

Do all the 7" wishers around here realize that Apple's version would be 4:3 like the existing iPad and not the 16:9 ridiculousness that BB and Samsung and Acer will be putting out? All of the sudden, it doesn't seem so pocketable in your oversized cargo pants, does it?

And while the Kindle pokes fun at the iPad glare and size, the iPad is laughing all the way to the bank. Nothing to compete with, unless you think Apple should switch to a monochrome screen and gut 95% of the iPad's functionality just to keep up with Amazon.

A 7" 4:3 iPad isnt pocketable.

However, the 7" 16:9 Galaxy Tab is.

 

[DeathChill]

I wouldn't consider it "pocketable" in the sense that anyone anywhere ever would want to put it in their pocket and feel at all comfortable.

Also, isn't the only benefit of 16:9 for movies and the like?

 

[gatearray]

A 7" 4:3 iPad isnt pocketable.

However, the 7" 16:9 Galaxy Tab is.

Dear lord! That's what everyone is comparing to the iPad?!? Good luck with that, Samsung...

If ever there was a "it's just a giant iPhone/iPod Touch" argument, this pocketable "tablet" would certainly seem to fit the bill! Just make sure you don't mistakenly sit down with that thing in your ass pocket, or it's crack-a-lack time for sure, oops.

"Look ma, my iPhone 4 is a tablet computer, and here I thought it was just a touchscreen phone!"

 

[ConceptVBS]

Dear lord! That's what everyone is comparing to the iPad?!? Good luck with that, Samsung...

If ever there was a "it's just a giant iPhone/iPod Touch" argument, this pocketable "tablet" would certainly seem to fit the bill! Just make sure you don't mistakenly sit down with that thing in your ass pocket, or it's crack-a-lack time for sure, oops.

"Look ma, my iPhone 4 is a tablet computer, and here I thought it was just a touchscreen phone!"

That is why it has Gorilla glass built in:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/05/samsungs-galaxy-tab-will-come-with-gorilla-glass-screen/

 

[ConceptVBS]

I wouldn't consider it "pocketable" in the sense that anyone anywhere ever would want to put it in their pocket and feel at all comfortable.

Also, isn't the only benefit of 16:9 for movies and the like?

1) The point was the mere fact that it CAN be pocket-able. Stop trying to deflect the point and turn it into an ergonomics argument.


2) So your deducing that 16:9 display is not good for internet web browsing? Most of the movement in a webpage is vertical, hence a vertically favored orientation (16:9) aspect ratio is ideal. Not only that, it displays more web real estate per screen than a 4:3 aspect ratio would. Therefore, less scrolling.

There is a reason why TV manufacturers and movie studios have been transitioning to 16:9 rather than the old-school 4:3.

 

[DeathChill]

1) The point was the mere fact that it CAN be pocket-able. Stop trying to deflect the point and turn it into an ergonomics argument.


2) So your deducing that 16:9 display is not good for internet web browsing? Most of the movement in a webpage is vertical, hence a vertically favored orientation (16:9) aspect ratio is ideal. Not only that, it displays more web real estate per screen than a 4:3 aspect ratio would. Therefore, less scrolling.

There is a reason why TV manufacturers and movie studios have been transitioning to 16:9 rather than the old-school 4:3.

If you're going to use it as a point it certainly has to be reasonable. Being pocketable should mean it can comfortably be carried in the pocket. I could scratch my nose with a gun, it wouldn't be practical or safe but I could do it!

Also, I was simply asking if 16:9 was mostly for movies.