[Mugge]

Originally Posted by hmurchison i'm not so much in disbelief about a smaller iPad.

There's still the issue about how many screen sizes that Apple want's to support. Right now there are just two; iPhone/iPod and iPad. Add a smaller iPad and you have three sizes that developers will have to deal with when writing apps. Personally, I don't think it's worth it right now. Especially not considering the feeble state of the competition, which gives Apple plenty of opportunity to decide on behalf of it's customers what is best for them.

[ezkcdude]

Does the iPod Touch at $199 still make sense, if an iPad 7" comes out at $249? I have a feeling the Touch is the next product to get dropped.

[screensaver400]

I don't see the Touch getting dropped. There is still a substantial market for an iPhone Without A Phone.

[ezkcdude]

Originally Posted by screensaver400 I don't see the Touch getting dropped. There is still a substantial market for an iPhone Without A Phone.

But if they introduced a 7" iPad for $249, don't you think they'd have to drop the price of the Touch by quite a bit?

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Xaqtly What got my attention are the rumors that said the iPad 3 would be thicker than the iPad 2. Assuming that's not because of the screen, then it would be to house a battery with more capacity, which to me suggests LTE. ALso FWIW, just noticed starting last week, AT&T is now advertising 4G LTE in Las Vegas. So while I didn't care about LTE in the iPhone 4S, I am going to start caring about it with the iPhone 5.

I don't even know why people are arguing that LTE is difficult in any way. Yes LTE was a two chip solution in 2011 but that's not the case this year.

Apple had to source two different 3G chips for the iPad 3G. GSM was the infineon chip and the CDMA was the Qualcomm. Few companies desire a situation where they are
sourcing two vendors to do the same thing. Tim Cook is an Ops guy ..he's about efficiency.

In 2012 we have new more efficient Qualcomm chips that do everything needed in one part and they are smaller and more power efficient. The new chips allow the same cellular iPad to leave Foxconn boxed up yet cover AT&T, Verizon and perhaps Sprint. Why wouldn't Apple do this? There is absolutely no downside to do this. It's pure common sense.

My next iPad will be a cellular one that I hope to add to my AT&T post paid account on a shared data plan. Sure I could tether with my iPhone but I don't want to I want to know I can pick up my iPad anywhere and it's connected.

Yes....I'm lazy like that.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Mugge There's still the issue about how many screen sizes that Apple want's to support. Right now there are just two; iPhone/iPod and iPad. Add a smaller iPad and you have three sizes that developers will have to deal with when writing apps. Personally, I don't think it's worth it right now. Especially not considering the feeble state of the competition, which gives Apple plenty of opportunity to decide on behalf of it's customers what is best for them.

The 7.85 screen is purported to be 1024x768 for from a developers perspective they'd only need to target these resolutions by years end.

960x480 Retina for iPhone 4 and above and iPod Touch
1024x768 for iPad 1/2 and iPad 7"
2048x1536 for Retina iPad

Developers like Tapbots have stated they did 2x artwork a long time ago in preparation for the potential of a hirez iPad. They aren't the only ones.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude Does the iPod Touch at $199 still make sense, if an iPad 7" comes out at $249? I have a feeling the Touch is the next product to get dropped.

I'm thinking $299 is more realistic. The Kindle Fire is missing some features that should be standard like Bluetooth.

The Touch should be revamped. $199 for a 16GB model. $249 for a 32GB. Kill the 64GB model

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by hmurchison The 7.85 screen is purported to be 1024x768 for from a developers perspective they'd only need to target these resolutions by years end. 960x480 Retina for iPhone 4 and above and iPod Touch 1024x768 for iPad 1/2 and iPad 7" 2048x1536 for Retina iPad Developers like Tapbots have stated they did 2x artwork a long time ago in preparation for the potential of a hirez iPad. They aren't the only ones.

I know, the 1024*768 format won't go away for some time due to it's use on the current iPads, but sooner or later Apple is going to stop supporting the current iPads and then they can ditch that screen format along with them. Thus not having to support it indefinitely. Also, if you simply shrink current iPad apps to a 7" screen then you also shrink all the buttons and other things that users are going to touch which may very well be a problem considering that user finger wont shrink. So 7" @ 1024*768 is in reality going to be yet another format besides the current screen formats.

[hmurchison]

Developers define how large the "touch" area is on their UI so they may tweak it a bit.

Also features like Reader in Safari are HUGE for me now and I'm assuming that as people discover these type of
tools (Instapaper, Readability etc) they'll instinctively look for the proper button so that only the text is focused on
in a page. I use in across all Safari enabled devices.

The common denominator here is iCloud. It's the glue the ties all these products together and makes adding yet another
device feasible because it shares content, apps and media.

At this point Apple can likely sell whatever they put in front of consumers as long as it preserves their investment in media and apps
and is relatively easy to set up.

iTunes in the cloud, iTunes Match and iCloud are up to the task.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by hmurchison Developers define how large the "touch" area is on their UI so they may tweak it a bit.

Yes, but theres a damn lot of apps in the App Store to tweak. And some might require a little more than just changing a few parameters and a recompile.

At this point Apple can likely sell whatever they put in front of consumers as long as it preserves their investment in media and apps and is relatively easy to set up.

Indeed. So why bother with a third iDevice format?

If it comes down to weight and ease of handling, then I'm more disposed to think that Apple will choose to make a light-weight 9.7" iPad. Perhaps using that A5X chip and not giving it LTE in order to go with a smaller battery.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Mugge Yes, but theres a damn lot of apps in the App Store to tweak. And some might require a little more than just changing a few parameters and a recompile. Indeed. So why bother with a third iDevice format? If it comes down to weight and ease of handling, then I'm more disposed to think that Apple will choose to make a light-weight 9.7" iPad. Perhaps using that A5X chip and not giving it LTE in order to go with a smaller battery.

Chances are most apps run unmodified. I think people are making a mountain of or a molehill. The prime reason for a 7.85 4:3 screen is the ability for developers to run unmodified apps on the device. The tedium of redoing artwork is not there.

The reason is really that iCloud makes bothering with another device trivial. Buy iPad 7" ....restore from iPad 9.7 iCloud backup. Wait for apps to download and Contacts and Calendar to update.

That simple.

[Mugge]

Surely they can run unmodified on the same resolution, but what about that whole human finger not scaling down with the screen issue?

[psmith2.0]

That was the question/issue I raised earlier. So robe needs to mock this up, in real-life scale. If the 1024x768 remains, great.

But if it goes down a full two inches in physical size, how does it look and respond in terms of icon size/spacing, tap and swipe targets and usage.

Right now it's easy...iPhone or iPad. One doesn't feel too off from the other (but, then again, I don't have daily iPad interaction so I'm probably not a good barometer.

I guess 10-15 minutes in Photoshop would tell...

BTW, those rumors (I know...) all mention 7.85", which is less than 2" from the iPad's current 9.7" display. Not a huge drop. But In those distance, I imagine a bit of weight could be dropped. And if you left off things like a rear camera and 3G radio (the Kindle Fire doesn't have 3G), there's more weight and space that could be saved?

Why the hell am I even talking about this? They'll never do it.

EDIT: Okay, here it is....

The current 9.7" iPad, the mythical 7.85" iPad and the iPhone 4s...all to scale (iPad is 9.5 tall, iPhone is 4.5" tall). Going from the 9.7" display down to 7.85" is a decrease of 19.072%, so I did all that and scaled a copy down.

If I've done everything right (you gotta allow me a millimeter or half-a-percent here or there because...well, I'm an idiot), then you can see a few things:

1. The icons on the "iPad mini" are sized and spaced nicely between that of the large iPad and the smaller, tighter-spaced iPhone.
2. Since the iPhone's tight spacing and smaller icons seem to represent no real usage issues/problems (I hear these things sell pretty well and are loved worldwide ), I have to assume the iPad mini depicted would be just fine (scaled down, keeping the 1024x768 and iPad spacing/layout, etc.).

Anyone see this being a problem?

I'm honestly on the fence with this, in terms of it ever happening.

Six months ago, I would've said "hell no...that's not Apple." Plus, Steve carried on and on about how the 7" wasn't a good size...too small to be big, too big to be small and whatever else he said.

But guess what? He's no longer around...and the Kindle Fire is. Schiller told John Gruber at that NYC Mountain Lion presentation that they were "doing some things differently now". If there's success to be had/money to be made and it doesn't "lame up" or dilute anything...why wouldn't they give it some thought?

If Apple could swoop into that Kindle-y space with a full-on, true iPad (and all the third-party apps and stores and functions working just like they do on the full iPad), and people can get their hands on one of these things for ~$300...why not?

The full size ones, if they're packing dual cameras, quad-core processors, Retina Displays, etc. won't get cannibalized...folks will still go for them in droves. That' the iPad to have. But schools, students, casual users, etc. could slide into the iPad world for a couple hundred bucks less and nobody (Apple or developers) has to kill themselves reworking things.

[Robo]

When I was using my iPad the other day it struck me that a 9.7" 4:3 display really is just the perfect size. It's just small enough to hold in your lap, and just big enough to type on. I think Apple nailed the size, really.

7-inch tablets get into that weird not-as-usable-but-also-not-pocketable area. Yeah, different strokes and all that, but I think right now people only like them because they're cheap. When 7" tablets came out that were the same price as the iPad — the BlackBerry PlayBook and the original Galaxy Tab — nobody was like, oh yeah, this is a better form factor.

I think 7" tablets will remain relatively popular within certain niches — "reading tablets," maybe a "gaming tablet" with buttons on the sides — but for general-purpose tablets, that 9-10" space really is where it's at. And Apple's not really interested in niche products.

I think it's more likely that Amazon will make a ~9.7—inch tablet, actually. Word from before the Kindle Fire's launch pegged it as a rush job for the holidays, with a much-improved version in two sizes coming in the first half of 2012.

[psmith2.0]

You're probably right (and I tend to see it that way, more than anything...because you know Apple agonized over this, and prototyped every possible size and ratio over the years before settling on the iPad design). I believe that, and it's easy to imagine. But that was three years ago (leading up to the 2010 release...things are different/changed a bit now, because of the iPad). Can't fully play by 2009-2010 rules if other things are learned or discovered, or appear to have merit or a reason to be. I don't think it's all that "niche-y", if it does everything an iPad 1 or 2 does (and looks as nice doing it) and folks can get into one for a bit more than a Kindle Fire (but a good bit less than a full-size iPad). I think a lot of people would be just fine.

Mainly I was just curious to see what it might look/feel like, usability and tapping-wise.

It "works", to be sure.

But I just don't know if Apple would ever do it.

Either way wouldn't surprise me...I can see them staying with the 9.7" iPad forever (along with the 3.5" iPhone)...and let everyone kill themselves trying "out-Apple Apple" with tons of sizes, specs, designs, uses, etc.

But I can also see them, just when everyone's gearing up for Christmas (and the iPad 3 has had six months in the limelight), saying "guess what? Happy holidays...and you're welcome!" and everyone completely losing their minds and suddenly having their shopping list get a little easier (and suddenly the Kindle Fire not being the darling alternative as much).

[jdcfsu]

Originally Posted by Robo When I was using my iPad the other day it struck me that a 9.7" 4:3 display really is just the perfect size. It's just small enough to hold in your lap, and just big enough to type on. I think Apple nailed the size, really.

Don't forget what Jobs said about the smaller tablets when the original iPad was announced:

Originally Posted by Steve Jobs Commenting on avalanche of tablets heading to market. Just a handful of credible entrants. Almost all use 7" screen, compared to iPad at nearly 10" screen. 7" screen is only 45% as large as iPad's screen. Hold an iPad in portrait view and draw a horizontal line halfway down. What's left is a 7" screen...too small. There are clear limits to how close elements can be on the screen before users can't touch accurately. We believe 10-inch screen is minimum necessary.

That was in 2010. Look at the tablet market now:



I would say Apple knows what they're doing when it comes to tablet size.

[hmurchison]

Android has 10" tablets as well and they still haven't had the sales of the iPad.

Apple's not finding success because of the size of their iPad they're finding success because
the iPad can be "understood" in about 5-10 minutes of use by a wide range of users. From
5 years old that love playing Cut the Rope or Angry Birds to the Octogenarian.

The competition has copied Apple to the nth degree save for iOS. It's the software people. The reason
why 7" tablets failed is numerous but size has little to do with. Apple presents a unique ecosystem with
iTunes and the Mac that other companies cannot replicate with generic OS like Android.

If Apple delivers a 7" iPad it will be successful because the supporting cast (iTunes, Mac, iCloud) will not let
it fail.

[psmith2.0]

Perfect.

Jobs obsessed over things, but the average person doesn't give a rip about what he considered the ideal size. People aren't that captive to marketing and the RDF.

It's mostly price. If someone could get an iPad for $50-100 more than a Kindle Fire, many would do this. And they wouldn't give two flying damns if the screen was 1.85" smaller than the size they currently are.

It's simply a choice/alternative. And many would jump...and the size would be about the 17th consideration, way down the list.

[ezkcdude]

I'm not sure a cheaper version of the iPad 2 is a good idea, unless it somehow has the same margin as the new $499 iPad 3. I'm afraid that a $299 iPad 2 wouldn't just compete with the Kindle, it would also invariably compete with the iPad 3. I think the right price point for the iPad 2 is $399, just take out 8 GB, and margins won't change much at all.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude I'm not sure a cheaper version of the iPad 2 is a good idea, unless it somehow has the same margin as the new $499 iPad 3. I'm afraid that a $299 iPad 2 wouldn't just compete with the Kindle, it would also invariably compete with the iPad 3. I think the right price point for the iPad 2 is $399, just take out 8 GB, and margins won't change much at all.

I'm thinking it can be done. Improvements in NAND storage density and cheaper A5 processors would cover a lot of ground for a $399 iPad 2


I think what's forgotten is the iPad 2 was delivered in March of 2011 which likely means supply chain deals were done 6 months in advance. iPad 2s, if you will, can leverage improved components that are now available at reduced pricing or that offer excellent integration.

The mythical iPad mini would have the same advantages. Just read today about a ST Microelectronics chip coming that does the Accelerometer and Gyroscope in one chip. .

Consolidation of parts is the key for reducing the BoM. Tim Cook is not going to get beat on the Operations/Supply Chain side. Apple can profit where other companies simply cannot. We saw that in the iPad and the Macbook Air.

[Yontsey]

I have more of a question geared towards iPhone and LTE and since we were discussing some LTE stuff here with the iPad I figured I'd just ask. With Verizon, can you now use voice and data at the same time on LTE unlike their 3G?

[psmith2.0]

Yes, according to this. It's 18 months old, but does reference how things will be in place in 2012-2013 (and Chattanooga has full Verizon LTE coverage as of last summer...but no AT&T yet).

A more recent article on the topic, looking more toward a 2013 implementation.

So it's coming. Eventually.

[Yontsey]

Now, are the new LTE chips dual CDMA and GSM? Is it possible their chips will be able to do both AT&T and Verizon? Would the Verizon be possible to go overseas? I'm just curious.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Yontsey Now, are the new LTE chips dual CDMA and GSM? Is it possible their chips will be able to do both AT&T and Verizon? Would the Verizon be possible to go overseas? I'm just curious.

Yes LTE, CDMA, GSM and voice all in one chip. Pack one device in a box and cover 2 or3 cellular providers. This is why it's absolutely foolish to think the next device won't have LTE.

[addison]

What do you guys think about the iPad HD name that's rumored? I'm okay with it though that term has been slapped on a lot of crap over the years. Can't number stuff forever too.

[jdcfsu]

I don't care what they name it as long as I can order/pre-order online and not have to wait in a line.

[psmith2.0]

I'm okay with iPad HD. I mentioned it upthread a few days ago, thinking "this wouldn't be a bad thing to call it...". If it's got that new display, and if the store goes to 1080 movies and rentals and a new tv is released to provide that as well...that could be the "hook" of Wednesday, so the name would make some sense.

It'll be called iPad 3 - casually - by many, no matter what. But I can see Apple driving home that HD angle across Wednesday's announcements (assuming it all comes together). I just don't see the point in doing a 1080 capable iPad and not updating the content and related peripherals to tie in with it.

It means they could just call the iPad 2 an iPad, assuming it sticks around as a lower-cost entry?

Having iPad 2 and iPad 3, to me, gives a vague impression of "lagging" or "one obviously newer/better than the other". Whereas iPad and iPad HD seems more "friendly" somehow...a good version that isn't tied to a particular model or release ("iPad" vs. "iPad 2") that more people can afford. And then the main $499+ models with the nicer display, faster guts, etc.

I know they do this with the iPhone (keep the previous two generations around), but they've got room to do it differently here on the iPads.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by Yontsey Now, are the new LTE chips dual CDMA and GSM? Is it possible their chips will be able to do both AT&T and Verizon? Would the Verizon be possible to go overseas? I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by hmurchison Yes LTE, CDMA, GSM and voice all in one chip. Pack one device in a box and cover 2 or3 cellular providers. This is why it's absolutely foolish to think the next device won't have LTE.

The underlying tech will support all the carriers, but can/will they still lock them to one or the others during production? In other words, If you bought one of these from Verizon, but later wanted to switch to AT&T, or sell it to someone for use on AT&T, will you be able to? I don't suppose we can know until they announce it. I'm sure they could lock us into one, but will they.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by zippy The underlying tech will support all the carriers, but can/will they still lock them to one or the others during production? In other words, If you bought one of these from Verizon, but later wanted to switch to AT&T, or sell it to someone for use on AT&T, will you be able to? I don't suppose we can know until they announce it. I'm sure they could lock us into one, but will they.

No lock in. There's no subsidy applied to the iPad Wifi + 3G. The unlocked iPhones work like this as well. If you get an unlocked CDMA phone it offers both Sprint and Verizon as choices.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I'm okay with iPad HD. I mentioned it upthread a few days ago, thinking "this wouldn't be a bad thing to call it...". If it's got that new display, and if the store goes to 1080 movies and rentals and a new tv is released to provide that as well...that could be the "hook" of Wednesday, so the name would make some sense. It'll be called iPad 3 - casually - by many, no matter what. But I can see Apple driving home that HD angle across Wednesday's announcements (assuming it all comes together). I just don't see the point in doing a 1080 capable iPad and not updating the content and related peripherals to tie in with it. It means they could just call the iPad 2 an iPad, assuming it sticks around as a lower-cost entry? Having iPad 2 and iPad 3, to me, gives a vague impression of "lagging" or "one obviously newer/better than the other". Whereas iPad and iPad HD seems more "friendly" somehow...a good version that isn't tied to a particular model or release ("iPad" vs. "iPad 2") that more people can afford. And then the main $499+ models with the nicer display, faster guts, etc. I know they do this with the iPhone (keep the previous two generations around), but they've got room to do it differently here on the iPads.

The only problem I see with that though, is what do they call the next one? Do you go back to numbers? If so, you start to confuse the product order for those who don't follow things closely. A year from now, you'd have someone asking "Which is better, the iPad HD, or the iPad 4?"

Or do you roll out the iPad HD+, followed by the iPad HD+ier ...

Even though the iPhone hasn't carried a simple iPhone, iPhone2, iPhone3, etc. naming convention, it's been close. With the exception of the original, they have always used a number.

So maybe, iPad 3HD?

I'd prefer iPad 3.