User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Speculation and Rumors »

The rumored 7" iPad: why not a 7" iPod Touch?


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
The rumored 7" iPad: why not a 7" iPod Touch?
Thread Tools
Doxxic
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Amsterdam
 
2010-08-17, 14:31

Mainly because of their persistence, I'm starting to buy these 7" iPad rumors. But wouldn't it be a lot easier to design interfaces and make customers happy with them if the new device's interface were based on that of the iPod Touch, but extended somehow? I can imagine, for instance, that it would run all Touch apps right away, but not all iPad apps...
  quote
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2010-08-17, 14:40

If it has the same 1024 x 768 resolution - which I believe it will, then it will certainly be more iPad-ish than iPod Touch-ish. Besides, it's closer in size to an iPad and what's more: all iPods to date can fit in your pocket. Anything that doesn't fit in your pocket should not be considered an iPod. IMO.

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2010-08-17, 14:43

Aren't they the same thing?

I don't have an iPad (at the moment...I'm waiting for something a bit smaller than the current one ) so I don't know exactly what extras the iPad has over the touch, but other than resolution I see the two as being the same device.

So it goes.
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2010-08-17, 14:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by 709 View Post
Aren't they the same thing?

I don't have an iPad (at the moment...I'm waiting for something a bit smaller than the current one ) so I don't know exactly what extras the iPad has over the touch, but other than resolution I see the two as being the same device.
That's what I was thinking. They're essentially the same device, just at different sizes.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2010-08-17, 14:53

Uh-oh...oh no you dinnit! You goons have stepped in it now! Expect to hear from Robo, Messiahtosh and half-a-dozen others any minute.

I recently made the "mistake" of saying that the iPad just seems to be a larger iPod touch (which it is, of course, in many, many ways...more ways alike than not, IMO). And, oh shit...you'd think I'd pulled Justin Bieber's hair or took his crayons!

I almost had to change my name and leave the country.
  quote
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2010-08-17, 14:55

As far as design/interface/operation I think the only significant difference right now would be the resolution. They're pretty close to being different sizes of the exact same thing.

But I still think that the pocket-ability is a good break point between iPod and iPad for naming conventions only.

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
  quote
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2010-08-17, 14:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
Uh-oh...oh no you dinnit! You goons have stepped in it now! Expect to hear from Robo, Messiahtosh and half-a-dozen others any minute.

I recently made the "mistake" of saying that the iPad just seems to be a larger iPod touch (which it is, of course, in many, many ways...more ways alike than not, IMO). And, oh shit...you'd think I'd pulled Justin Bieber's hair or took his crayons!

I almost had to change my name and leave the country.
I think the point is that they are essentially the same with regards to design/interface/etc.

But functionally - size really does matter on some things. Not everywhere, mind, but in some cases. It can make a 'useable' function 'enjoyable'. That's the difference.

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2010-08-17, 15:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
Uh-oh...oh no you dinnit! You goons have stepped in it now! Expect to hear from Robo, Messiahtosh and half-a-dozen others any minute.

I recently made the "mistake" of saying that the iPad just seems to be a larger iPod touch (which it is, of course, in many, many ways...more ways alike than not, IMO). And, oh shit...you'd think I'd pulled Justin Bieber's hair or took his crayons!

I almost had to change my name and leave the country.
From a technical standpoint, they are virtually exactly the same. Of all the advantages the iPad has over the iPod Touch, all but one of them is due to its larger size:

- Larger, higher resolution screen
- Better battery life
- Faster processor (more room for cooling)

The only other difference is the optional 3G in the iPad.

That's not to say the larger screen doesn't make a huge difference in how the device is used. From a technical standpoint, though, the iPad really is a big iPod Touch.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2010-08-17, 15:11

I know. That's what I said. I actually never even got into the "usability" issues, or how the larger screen promotes greater sexual stamina and more creative expression and all that. I was just pointing out the similarities in the tech/hardware/OS/app areas.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-08-17, 15:17

I don't think people will be happy until Apple has a device with a touchscreen at every two-inch increment from 3 to 21 inches. There must be a 5" iPod touch, a 7" iPad, an 11" MacBook Air with iOS, a touchscreen iMac, &c.

Of course, that's not exactly the way Apple operates.

Apple referred to the iPad as a "third device" between smartphones and laptops, one that they spent years and undoubtably many millions of dollars getting just right. Having done that, I don't think they'll quickly introduce a fourth device in between smartphones and the iPad, and a fifth device in between smartphones and the fourth device, &c. It was, as Jobs alluded, a question of finding purpose -- the device had to be better at some key tasks. Would a 7" iPad be better than the 9" iPad at anything?

I don't get why "persistence" is a good reason to buy into the rumors. People have always thought that Apple's product line should be more complicated than it is. A lot of people thought that the iPad would be 7" to begin with, which is where a lot of the rumors come from. I'm not saying there will never be a 7" iPad, but I'm not exactly sure why so many people think we'll see it so soon (i.e., about six months after the iPad launch).

A big part of the reason why the iPad is more usable (and more successful) than I expected it would be prelaunch is specifically because it has such a large screen (keyboard support and a much lower than expected price also helped). It's a legitimate pad computer, not the odd unpocketable-but-unusable MID that some people were expecting (though at that MID's price). I can "read" the Internet on the iPad without zooming in. I'm normally a total whore about the thinnest/lightest gadgets and shaving off a few mm when possible, but even I wouldn't buy a 7" iPad. How many people would, exactly? (If I wanted something that handy, I'd buy a much lighter Kindle. It also wouldn't get hot in my hands, it'd have 3G anywhere, and at less than half the price I could slip it into my bag without worry.)

Speaking of price, I'd love to know how much this 7" iPad was supposed to cost. $399 is iPod touch territory, and that would involve unrealistically low margins for Apple. (People who think we'll see both a 5" and a 7" iPad/iPod really have to explain this to me.)

Apple, right now, has pretty much the most beautifully plotted, simple-but-complete product line of any manufacturer of anything, ever. Think about the "magic numbers" for pricing -- $199, $499, $999 -- and look where Apple's major product lines start. Do you think that's an accident? It's almost as if the devices were built to those price points: the iPod is the perfect $199 product, the iPad is the perfect $499 product, and the MacBook is the perfect $999 product. I see no reason to mess with this structure by introducing a lesser iPad as a "whatever" $399 product.

In fact, the only two-inch step I could see Apple going this year is in the opposite direction. Remember that 1.6" (3 cm square) touchscreen that leaked? I could see Apple completing their structure by building the perfect $99 product; it's the only real omission. Apple reintroduced their first $99 iPod in years (the special edition shuffle) last year; I don't think that was an accident, nor do I think that it was an accident that they chose a style-focused, polished stainless steel product to test the waters with. But that's getting off-topic.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Doxxic
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Amsterdam
 
2010-08-17, 15:20

Would the agenda be more like the one on the iPad, or more like the Touch?

And the photo app? Address book?

I think that's what this is about. And the differences are quite big.

I'd still say customers would be less dissatisfied if these interfaces were based on the Touch versions, so they felt like they were scaled up, and not down.

btw: I think Robo has a *very* strong argument. To me it's just that these rumors are so persistent that such a question might be worth pondering.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2010-08-17, 15:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo View Post
I don't think people will be happy until Apple has a device with a touchscreen at every two-inch increment from 3 to 21 inches.


You're probably right.

iWatch touch micro!

Personally (just like with all the horsecrap "iPhone nano" rumors a year or so ago), I don't buy the 7" iPad talk one single bit, for all the reasons you lay out.

Off-topic (click to toggle):
What I'd like to see, instead of Apple just making two of everything in every stupid size, is to maybe add some cool, useful features to the items already onboard, both from an iOS and app point of view? The camera and photo stuff alone, three years in, is so barebones it's laughable! Why do I have to rely on some ding-dong third-party app for alignment, rule-of-thirds grid or self-timer? Or, in the case of photos already taken, enhancing/balance, straightening, color tweaking, etc. These things never seem to play 100% nice with Apple's camera or photo albums, and there's always some idiotic trade-off, it seems.

Apple should get their butt to work on bringing over an iOS-friendly implementation of iPhoto's enhance/straighten/red-eye/crop features, and to give the actual camera app itself a bit more real-world usefulness (grid overlay, self-timer, etc.). It would be neat to e-mail some pics straight from your phone or pad, and have them looking their best (for all those times you're not back at your Mac). A huge timesaver and efficiency boost! I'd rather see that than any new 5", 7", 14" or 22" iAnything.

Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2010-08-17 at 15:40.
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2010-08-17, 15:55

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo View Post
Would a 7" iPad be better than the 9" iPad at anything?
I'd argue that it would be better than the current iPad in many ways. It's still got a big screen, still big enough for a large battery, but small enough to type on comfortably and a lot more lightweight and portable.

My biggest criticism of the iPad is that you can't type on it without setting it down or typing one-handed (which is really slow). A 7" one would fix that issue, making it possible to two-thumb type in portrait mode.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-08-17, 16:09

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post


You're probably right.

iWatch touch micro!
Well, since you mentioned it...

I wouldn't be surprised to see that 1.6" touchscreen in a $99 iPod watch. I can't imagine what else it'd be for, actually.

The way I see it is this. In Apple's eyes, the iPod touch (or iPhone) is the perfect pocket-size device. The size, the shape -- everything was geared toward making it perfect for pockets and holding in one's hand. The iPod nano and iPod classic are, therefore, imperfect pocket devices, stepping stones on the way to the iPod touch -- Apple's keeping them around, because they want to have options at those price points/capacities, but they really want people to buy the iPod touch, so they can buy apps. Just look at their "free iPod" promotion for students. They promote that as "a free iPod touch," and they sort of hide the fact that you can also get a free iPod nano, even though that iPod nano costs less for them to give away. They want you to buy apps.

But the iPod touch is also the perfect $199 product, in that it embodies pretty much exactly what people expect to get for $199, due to the long tradition of $199 devices. I don't think, for the purposes of this discussion, it'll ever drop below $199.

That leaves the question of what to sell in the sub-$199 space. iPod nanos work for now, but if people are going to be carrying an iPod and putting it in their pocket, Apple would rather them put an iPod touch there. The solution, therefore, is to make a product that people don't have to carry or put in their pocket. What Apple's missing is the perfect wearable device.

The mystery of why Apple avoided selling an iPod at $99 -- a seemingly obvious price point that most would try really hard to hit -- has actually been bugging me for a really long time. But it's simple, really: It's because the iPod shuffle isn't "worth" $99, in that it doesn't embody what people expect from a $99 device, but the iPod nano is both too expensive for Apple to sell at $99 and (more importantly) "worth more" than $99. It's still a "true" iPod, in the sense that you use a clickwheel and put it in your pocket, and to your average person that's still "worth," well, $149.

It's been clear to me for a long time, therefore, that any $99 iPod would probably have to be a substantially new product -- made to that price point, just as the iPod touch and iPad are. So I thought about what an iPod between the current iPod shuffle and current iPod nano would be like.

The answer, of course, is fairly obvious. There's actually a pretty big (and growing) gap between the devices; the iPod shuffle is audio-only and has no screen for song selection. The iPod nano was the audio-focused iPod with a screen, but with features like video cameras built in, it's no longer really true to that either -- it's in that uncomfortable space between a dedicated device and an all-purpose one, like an iPod touch. So what's missing from the "modern" (non-classic) iPod line, now, is a music-focused iPod with a screen, which is...actually a pretty big oversight, don't you think?

Any new $99 iPod should also be smaller than the iPod nano but larger than the iPod shuffle in both size and capacity; that helps create an elegant line-up and makes it obvious which model is "higher-end" (i.e., "worth more") than the other. But making a device that went in your pocket but was just a bit smaller than the iPod nano wouldn't be very desireable; there's enough "pocket" iPods, especially since (as we've established) the iPod touch is the one that Apple really wants there. But a screen would make a "clip"-style iPod unwieldy. So any "new" $99 iPod couldn't really be either. It shouldn't go in your pocket, and it should have a small screen in a place that is easily visible.

Surely, you know where I'm going with this, but I want to cover one more thing. The iPod shuffle is very small and light, but it's mental baggage -- you have to think about bringing it with you. The best iPod would be mentally weightless -- one that you always had with you, and didn't have to bring.

An iPod watch is something I've thought about for years. In a sense, it's the logical endgame of both the iPod shuffle and the iPod nano, in that it combines the two into one product (always preferable) while improving upon either, even if extraneous features like the video camera fall by the wayside. I'm not saying Apple would replace both the iPod shuffle and iPod nano with the iPod watch immediately; I'm saying that such a replacement would happen fairly naturally on its own. The iPod watch would be the perfect $99 product, a completion of Apple's pricing picture, with the iPod shuffle (a "wearable" device that you still had to bring) and iPod nano (a "pocketable" device that was lesser to the iPod touch) being "in-between" products at $49 and $149.

I raised my eyebrows, then, when Apple introduced a $99 stainless steel iPod shuffle last year. It was, fairly obviously, an experiment; Apple was selling something solely on style for the first time, and they wanted to see if they could, at the same price of the watch-to-be. (Any Apple watch would obviously trade in part on Apple's stylish image.)

When a small, square watch-sized Apple screen leaked this summer, I was, well, fairly convinced. (A lot of people seem to think it's going into a remote, which I don't get, but I don't get how people think the Apple TV is about ready to start running iPhone apps either.) So...there you go.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2010-08-17, 16:16

Actually, I just realized that Apple wouldn't need to release a smaller iPad just to make the keyboard usable. If they'd just allow third-party keyboard replacements, someone could release one that is the same as the Apple keyboard but shrunk down a little bit and moved to the edges of the screen so you can hit every key with your thumbs without having to be able to reach all the way to the center of the screen. Give it a little scroll bar to scale it up or down based on your hand size.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2010-08-17, 16:33

Robo, you should kick off a dedicated iPod watch" thread...this might be fun/cool to talk about. Perhaps a mod (Luca, you're lurking about here) could take his post above and make it into a thread?
  quote
thegeriatric
geri to my friends
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Heaven
 
2010-08-17, 16:36

Good idea. Seconded.
  quote
wtd
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2010-08-17, 17:01

Of course, the answer to "they wouldn't spend three years designing the iPad just to come up with a half-assed seven inch version six months later" could well be that they were developing such a thing at the same time as the 9.7" iPad, and the larger one was "testing the waters."
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPod touch with camera (duh) and 11.6" MacBook Air(!) expected this year psmith2.0 Speculation and Rumors 61 2010-10-25 10:50
Remote Mac control from iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch and Mobile me in 10.7? Doxxic Speculation and Rumors 0 2010-05-25 06:39
iPad: Computer for a new "casual user" market? Redefining "personal computing"? ezkcdude Apple Products 626 2010-04-03 13:51
The Adam - "iPad for the masses"? CFP Third-Party Products 15 2010-02-16 12:05
...and the "less new" iPod classic, shuffle, touch Robo Apple Products 71 2009-09-17 21:40


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova