Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > iPhone, iPad & iPod > The new iPad

The new iPad (Page 6)
Thread Tools
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That would indeed appear to be the primary difference between your posts and mine.
Emphasis mine!!!
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
If you already own an iPad 2, I'd recommend just waiting for the next model, which should be a much better overall upgrade than the current iPad, even with its amazing new screen.

Me, I'm probably just going to buy a 7" Android 4.0 device this year.
Samsung just came out with a 7.7" slab. Looks promising to those into these smaller form factor tablets but a bit overpriced. Over 12 hour battery life...

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/21/s...-wireless-lte/
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 12:23 PM
 
Hmmm, is there a test for this Wifi issue? My bedroom has poor Wifi coverage because it's behind a brick chimney, but seems like the iPad has much worse coverage than any of our other devices when in that area.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 12:24 PM
 
Which of freudling's personae is now endorsing the 7" form factor?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 12:29 PM
 
Also, the "width" issue is absolutely hilarious. There is almost no way anyone can convince me the increased width is an issue. It's imperceptible. Even side-by-side pictures make you have to stop and carefully study which one is larger.

I also don't like the new ATV UI and I haven't yet updated my ATV2. At the end of the day I'm probably going to use a Mac mini with an XBMC/Plex interface for a media centre - seem like there's so many more benefits (such as being able to keep it as an always-on media centre that can interface with the iPad).
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Which of freudling's personae is now endorsing the 7" form factor?
Exactly. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who flip-flops on their position quite like freudling. I mean, he's literally been banned from MacNN for violently arguing that 7" tablets are too small, and the 10" iPad is the right size...and now he's using 7.7" tablets as a reference for a great form factor. Could you even make this shit up?

I just don't see any argument to say that the current iPad will ever be better for eReading than an actual eReader in the near future. It has to be bigger and heavier, because it does way more things.

If Apple truly wants that market, then it should just make an iRead that can compete with the size, weight and computing demands of that market. I'm sure if Apple wanted to do a better eReader, it easily could - the current ones are universally terrible at almost everything other than reading. A $200 iRead with an outdoor-suitable screen and very limited app access - email, ebooks, etc. - would blow the doors off the eReader market. But I'm not sure that fits into Apple's product suite....
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Exactly. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who flip-flops on their position quite like freudling. I mean, he's literally been banned from MacNN for violently arguing that 7" tablets are too small, and the 10" iPad is the right size...and now he's using 7.7" tablets as a reference for a great form factor. Could you even make this shit up?
Wow, you are incredibly perceptible. The poster said he wanted to buy a 7" Android tablet. Because I pointed out a new unit by Samsung, saying that it looks promising "to those into these smaller form factor tablets". Myself, as you know, I'm not into them, at all, which is obvious, and what I said here does not in any way imply that I like 7" tablets.

By the way, the emphasis here, is mine
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Also, the "width" issue is absolutely hilarious. There is almost no way anyone can convince me the increased width is an issue. It's imperceptible. Even side-by-side pictures make you have to stop and carefully study which one is larger.

I also don't like the new ATV UI and I haven't yet updated my ATV2. At the end of the day I'm probably going to use a Mac mini with an XBMC/Plex interface for a media centre - seem like there's so many more benefits (such as being able to keep it as an always-on media centre that can interface with the iPad).
No it is not hilarious. It's noticeable to every single person I know that owns an iPad 2. I notice it right away every time I grab my iPad 3 after using my iPad 2. I've got both.
     
aristotles
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That would indeed appear to be the primary difference between your posts and mine.
+1
freudling is going on my ignore list. The novelty has worn off.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
No it is not hilarious. It's noticeable to every single person I know that owns an iPad 2. I notice it right away every time I grab my iPad 3 after using my iPad 2. I've got both.
<0.8mm? There's no doubt that *some* people can discern differences less than 1 millimetre, but even fewer people would try to argue that <0.8mm moves an object from being "razor thin" to being "bulky".
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 02:01 PM
 
I for one was not "criticizing" the new iPad's weight. IMO it is a very good product properly done. The resolution display absolutely was worth the heat/weight engineering costs to get there.

My point is that the line is ready for variety now. The growing market for tablets is huge and the world's biggest company should have multiple devices going after that space.

IMO Apple should have at least two tablet (~10" and ~7-8" ) sizes. And maybe further differentiate within those sizes as needed (perhaps a ~7-8" full featured and a cheaper less-featured ~7-8" version for ereading and the like). Also a second, larger, iPhone size for sure.

Developers building enterprise-specific applications really, really need to have the appropriate sizes available for each enterprise-specific app. Apple has a good start on tablets in the enterprise and they should not lose it to a failure to provide choice.

If Apple does not make optimum size hardware available many developers will be inclined to go the Win8 or Android routes where a wider range of hardware sizes exists. Right now the only available Apple sizes are 3.5" and ~10". That is a serious under-serving of developers' needs. Today.

My 02. In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those folks working on an enterprise app that needs a device size larger than 3.5" and smaller than ~10". Ideal for me would be iPads simply available in sizes, 4" - 6" - 8" - 10".

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 25, 2012 at 02:41 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 02:27 PM
 
"Developers' Needs" are why Apple IS NOT offering different sizes.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
I for one was not "criticizing" the new iPad's weight. IMO it is a very good product properly done. The resolution display absolutely was worth the heat/weight engineering costs to get there.

My point is that the line is ready for variety now. The growing market for tablets is huge and the world's biggest company should have multiple devices going after that space.

IMO Apple should have at least two tablet (~10" and ~7-8" ) sizes. And maybe further differentiate within those sizes as needed (perhaps a ~7-8" full featured and a cheaper less-featured ~7-8" version for ereading and the like). Also a second, larger, iPhone size for sure.

Developers building enterprise-specific applications really, really need to have the appropriate sizes available for each enterprise-specific app. Apple has a good start on tablets in the enterprise and they should not lose it to a failure to provide choice.

If Apple does not make optimum size hardware available many developers will be inclined to go the Win8 or Android routes where a wider range of hardware sizes exists. Right now the only available Apple sizes are 3.5" and ~10". That is a serious under-serving of developers' needs. Today.

My 02. In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those folks working on an enterprise app that needs a device size larger than 3.5" and smaller than ~10". Ideal for me would be iPads simply available in sizes, 4" - 6" - 8" - 10".

-Allen
I can't make sense of your reasoning. Apple finds the "sweet spot", "perfection", and then runs with it. Developers' needs? It's about consumers' needs.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
I am one of those folks working on an enterprise app that needs a device size larger than 3.5" and smaller than ~10".
I'm really curious...why would the application require an iPad smaller than 10"?
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
I can't make sense of your reasoning. Apple finds the "sweet spot", "perfection", and then runs with it. Developers' needs? It's about consumers' needs.
Ultimately yes it is about consumers' needs but those needs must first be visualized by developers. Like Apple visualized the need for a ~10" iPad and built it.

Finding a "sweet spot", "perfection", and then running with it is what one does with a new product like the iPad 1 or the iPhone 1. Like Henry Ford did with the very first Ford autos.

After a product succeeds and establishes a huge growing market space the idea of one "sweet spot" among literally billions of consumers becomes patently ridiculous. If Ford had followed that logic and continued to offer a single black model there would be no Ford Motor Company today.

Originally Posted by chabig View Post
I'm really curious...why would the application require an iPad smaller than 10"?
Ereading usage is one example that has been discussed here at length.

Imagine a bicycle-handlebar-mounted usage as another.

Imagine walking around for an 8-hour shift constantly entering data into such a device. The device is held in one hand and data is entered with the other.

Imagine a usage where a worker intermittently enters data but carries the device constantly in a pocket or pouch.

For all of those usages ~10" is too large and 3.5" is too small.

Note that size and weight go together, so at equivalent tech levels each smaller size is both smaller and lighter than larger sizes.

Note too that I in no way suggest that the ~10" size is not excellent. I am simply adamant that among billions of consumers in a growing market space there is viable demand for the full range of sizes and that demand will be filled by someone. Why not Apple?

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 25, 2012 at 04:04 PM. )
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 04:01 PM
 
Thanks for explaining some of your ideas, Allen.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
"Developers' Needs" are why Apple IS NOT offering different sizes.
I assume you are discussing pixel counts. One or the other of the two iPad pixel dimension sizes (1024 and 2048) that Apple supports now could easily be used on smaller devices.

-Allen
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Ultimately yes it is about consumers' needs but those needs must first be visualized by developers. Like Apple visualized the need for a ~10" iPad and built it. etc.
-Allen
Wow is this ever wrong. Apple does not visualize its products from a developer standpoint. They visualize things strictly by design. Design leads, engineering follows.

The iPad itself is a result of Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive sitting in the design room together trying out 20+ styrofoam tablet prototypes and settling on the one that they thought looked, felt, and functioned the best.

If you've been attentive to Apple, Steve, etc., you'd know how it's all about design.

In Walt's bio of Steve, there's an interesting part about Apple's creative process. Jobs walks into Ive's design room every week or so and looks at the table full of styrofoam prototypes of products. He asks the question, "What's next for the iPod?" "What's next for the iPad?" Etc.

He meticulously feels each prototype, discarding most and settling on one or two he likes. Those designs are refined, and then he visits again, etc. and the process continues.

Design leads, engineering follows. That's Apple.

And at the end of the day, Apple hasn't released a smaller tablet because it's a "tweener" category. Jobs was very public about his explanation as to why. Now that he's gone, you might get your wish. But I completely agree with Jobs. These smaller tablets are just a complete waste, but what do I know. Not much.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 06:07 PM
 
@freudling: Without going into all the non-logic above, the point is that Apple is the developer when developing a new product. And when developing a product the designers are constantly thinking about how design suits consumer needs. And app developers are part of or a reflection of consumer needs when developing tablet hardware.

BTW it has nothing to do with SJ; no one can "completely agree" with a dead man. What Jobs thought about the iPad years ago would not be the same things he would think today because tech and the market have hugely evolved since then, and Steve Jobs was not a stagnant thinker.

The idea that only one size should be offered forever is ludicrous. If we followed that illogical thought all Macs would still look like the Classic.
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 25, 2012 at 06:19 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
I assume you are discussing pixel counts. One or the other of the two iPad pixel dimension sizes (1024 and 2048) that Apple supports now could easily be used on smaller devices.
Only if you implement new fingertip sizes across the user base.

No. Your purpose is a very specialized niche, and is perfectly addressable by a custom solution built around one of a number of 7" android tablets.

It's a niche Apple would probably neither want to nor be able to properly support, except incidentally.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
And at the end of the day, Apple hasn't released a smaller tablet because it's a "tweener" category. Jobs was very public about his explanation as to why. Now that he's gone, you might get your wish. But I completely agree with Jobs. These smaller tablets are just a complete waste, but what do I know. Not much.
I think you suffer from a little too much Jobs-Worship. Yes, he was a visionary, but even he changed is mind/vision from time-to-time. 0.8mm is not the end of Apple.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
@freudling: Without going into all the non-logic above, the point is that Apple is the developer when developing a new product. And when developing a product the designers are constantly thinking about how design suits consumer needs. And app developers are part of or a reflection of consumer needs when developing tablet hardware.

BTW it has nothing to do with SJ; no one can "completely agree" with a dead man. What Jobs thought about the iPad years ago would not be the same things he would think today because tech and the market have hugely evolved since then, and Steve Jobs was not a stagnant thinker.

The idea that only one size should be offered forever is ludicrous. If we followed that illogical thought all Macs would still look like the Classic.
You make it sound like Jobs has been dead for so long.

We get that you're in the 7" club. It's probably why you can't get a date.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Only if you implement new fingertip sizes across the user base.
?? How can you say that? The 3.5" iPhone that so many consider the "perfect" size is used by the same fingers. I would personally prefer a 4" display for visual reasons but my very large hands have no difficulty with the 3.5" display size from a "fingertip sizes" viewpoint.

Certainly larger is better for touch typing at a desk but touch typing is no way what primary iPad usage is about.

Your purpose is a very specialized niche...
IMO ereading and the other usages I listed (and more) hardly define ~7" as a very specialized niche. But even if it did, in a market size of at least a billion potential users the alleged "niche" is huge and the market leader would be crazy to just give it away.

It's a niche Apple would probably neither want to nor be able to properly support, except incidentally.
That last comment I do not understand. Apple would not need to provide any different support to a (for instance) 7" size than exactly what it already provides now to the other two iPads it sells.

There is of course the complexity of inventory. More products add complexity and complexity means overhead. It makes no sense to add complexity unless there is substantial market size to serve. At v1 iPad I did not post here saying Apple needs more sizes, but now I am doing so because IMO it is obvious that the market has become real and is very, very large.

The tablet market is growing. Apple should invest in going after a good range of choices in that market, because

• Sales are available.

• In a young market no one knows what "killer apps" may present and define the future. If Apple gives up the 7" size to Android or to Win because Apple is too lazy or complacent to address it, the potential exists to lose a big chunk of future sales. That would be really dumb. It is far better to keep attacking the market than to become a Microsoft fantasizing old successes and always trying to catch up.

Apple has competitive edge of having enough money to afford to fail. What it cannot afford to do is stop innovating.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 25, 2012 at 11:24 PM. )
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
?? How can you say that? The 3.5" iPhone that so many consider the "perfect" size is used by the same fingers. I would personally prefer a 4" display for visual reasons but my very large hands have no difficulty with the 3.5" display size from a "fingertip sizes" viewpoint.

Certainly larger is better for touch typing at a desk but touch typing is no way what primary iPad usage is about.



IMO ereading and the other usages I listed (and more) hardly define ~7" as a very specialized niche. But even if it did, in a market size of at least a billion potential users the alleged "niche" is huge and the market leader would be crazy to just give it away.



That last comment I do not understand. Apple would not need to provide any different support to a (for instance) 7" size than exactly what it already provides now to the other two iPads it sells.

There is of course the complexity of inventory. More products add complexity and complexity means overhead. It makes no sense to add complexity unless there is substantial market size to serve. At v1 or v2 iPad I did not post here saying Apple needs more sizes, but now I am doing so because IMO it is obvious that the market has become real and is very, very large.

The tablet market is growing. Apple should invest in going after a good range of choices in that market, because

• Sales are available.

• In a young market no one knows what "killer apps" may present and define the future. If Apple gives up the 7" size to Android or to Win because Apple is too lazy or complacent to address it, the potential exists to lose a big chunk of future sales. That would be really dumb. It is far better to keep attacking the market then to become a Microsoft fantasizing old successes and always trying to catch up.

-Allen
If you look, you'll find clear, direct answers:

The seven-inch tablets are tweeners: too big to compete with a smartphone, and too small to compete with an iPad. Steve Jobs.

tweener |ˈtwēnər|
noun informal
a person or thing considered to be between two other recognized categories or types


The point is that the value of a device squished in between a smartphone and a full blown tablet is reduced. You're not going to reach for a 7" tablet as much when you have a high res multi-touch smartphone already. But you will opt to use a tablet over your smartphone if the jump in screen size is big enough.

There's a ton of research that shows how people use tablet computers. There is 2 polarized uses: enterprise and at home. People use their tablets mostly at home on the couch or in bed, particularly when watching television (multi-tasking). It's a laid back device that offers an excellent reading and web surfing experience as long as the screen is big enough. 7" are too small and they're tweeners. I agree with Jobs. But hey, some people seem to buy 7" tablets although I've never actually seen anybody using one in the real world except one time at a bar.

Steve Jobs Was Right: 7-Inch Kindle Fire Sucks To Use | Cult of Mac
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
You make it sound like Jobs has been dead for so long.
No, just tired of people picking up old Jobs statements and applying them to the current market space in a totally ignorant fashion.

We get that you're in the 7" club.
What part of my statement "I in no way suggest that the ~10" size is not excellent" did you not understand? I agree that if there was to be only one iPad size ~10" is ideal.
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 25, 2012 at 11:34 PM. )
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
No, just tired of people picking up old Jobs statements and applying them to the current market space in a totally ignorant fashion.
Ignorant? My business is tablets. I live and breathe them. "Old Jobs"? The man has been spot on in many respects. It's because of his clarity of thinking that Apple is where it is. There's nothing wrong with quoting Jobs, nothing at all. But suddenly because he's dead the quotes are, as you sort of imply, old and therefore irrelevant and therefore useless. You're not making sense.

But I have an idea. Why don't you go raise money from VCs and start your own company and sell smaller tablets. See how long you last.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
IMO ereading and the other usages I listed (and more) hardly define ~7" as a very specialized niche. But even if it did, in a market size of at least a billion potential users the alleged "niche" is huge and the market leader would be crazy to just give it away.
You mentioned a VERY SPECIFIC purpose that you would like to develop a tool for. Inventory management (which is what your proposed purpose sounds like) is a tiny niche, and it is a purely business niche.

Apple DOES NOT support purely business markets. They do not mind if businesses make use of the tools Apple builds, but Apple's secretive roadmap and development schedules are geared towards consumer products, exclusively.

Apart from those very specialized niches, the 7" e-reader market may well be huge, as you say.

Unfortunately for that market, Apple doesn't make e-readers, so developing a 7" e-reader is probably quite far from their agenda.

Also, creating a 7" "whatever-it-is" would require a completely new target for developers to design towards, as they could neither scale down iPad apps without making them inoperable (hence my point about deploying new fingertips across the entire user base), nor scale up iPhone apps without looking like shit or Fisher Price. That is why I said that developer needs are precisely why this is NOT happening.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 03:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You mentioned a VERY SPECIFIC purpose that you would like to develop a tool for. Inventory management (which is what your proposed purpose sounds like) is a tiny niche, and it is a purely business niche.

Apple DOES NOT support purely business markets. They do not mind if businesses make use of the tools Apple builds, but Apple's secretive roadmap and development schedules are geared towards consumer products, exclusively.

Apart from those very specialized niches, the 7" e-reader market may well be huge, as you say.

Unfortunately for that market, Apple doesn't make e-readers, so developing a 7" e-reader is probably quite far from their agenda.

Also, creating a 7" "whatever-it-is" would require a completely new target for developers to design towards, as they could neither scale down iPad apps without making them inoperable (hence my point about deploying new fingertips across the entire user base), nor scale up iPhone apps without looking like shit or Fisher Price. That is why I said that developer needs are precisely why this is NOT happening.
I can't believe I actually agree with you. You're one of the biggest trolls on here but this is actually all correct.

By the way, besides Kindle eInk, how well have 7" color tablets done? Shitty. Aside from all of this, it's a failed market. Ya ya, Kindle Fire my ass. Get me actual sell through numbers not including returns. Just a bunch of hype. Everybody wants the iPad at 9.7".
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 07:11 AM
 
The Nook Color is apparently doing reasonably well, so the 7" market is not zero, but it is more specialized.

What is happening with the 4.5" phones and the 7" tablets is something called "bracketing". Because it is so hard to compete with Apple at the exact same specs, competitors try to make products in "adjacent" areas to get a foothold. If Apple had not been so dominant, 7" tablets would not be the focus they are today.

That said: I'm not sure that 9.8" is the best possible size. I think that a size about 10% smaller to each side, to just under 9", would be better - and I still wish that the bezel around the display were smaller.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 07:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
...and I still wish that the bezel around the display were smaller.
How are you going to hold it? The bezel is the width it is for a reason--so you can hold the device without obscuring the screen. It's not arbitrary.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Ignorant? My business is tablets. I live and breathe them.
You keep saying this, but without context, it doesn't mean as much as you apparently think it does. By your logic, since *Apple* "lives and breathes" tablets, there cannot be anything wrong with the iPad3.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
How are you going to hold it? The bezel is the width it is for a reason--so you can hold the device without obscuring the screen. It's not arbitrary.
I know why it's wide, I just think that they've exaggerated a bit. It doesn't have to be THAT wide to be able to fit a thumb.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
WAnd at the end of the day, Apple hasn't released a smaller tablet because it's a "tweener" category. Jobs was very public about his explanation as to why.
Said the same thing about video on an iPod sized device... until they released it.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You mentioned a VERY SPECIFIC purpose that you would like to develop a tool for. Inventory management (which is what your proposed purpose sounds like) is a tiny niche, and it is a purely business niche.
No, I did not mention "a VERY SPECIFIC purpose." I have been pointing out a general need and a range of usages for a smaller size tablet. And no, all those usages are not purely business, but WTF if they were? Business is not demanding special support.

Regarding inventory management (not particularly a product interest of mine), anyone who thinks that the sum total of all the retail/commercial outlets and warehouses in the world is an irrelevant niche sees things differently than I do.

I have been using an iPad since v1, and I often think about possible usages. Some usages that work better with a smaller size include:

GPS. Auto, truck, bike, hike. Huge market: consumer and business. I actually tried this in my Yukon and even in a large SUV the ~10" display is just too big for dash mount.

Ereading usage is one example that has been discussed here at length. Huge market: edu, consumer, business.

Bicycle-handlebar-mounted usages.

Imagine walking around for an 8-hour shift constantly entering data into such a device. The device is held in one hand and data is entered with the other. There are many usages in business and in edu that fit into this description, not just inventory management.

Imagine a usage where a worker intermittently enters data but carries the device constantly in a pocket or pouch.

Even if all of such usages are only 10% (I think much much more) of the tablet market, 10% of a billion-person market (again, IMO more) is 100,000,000 potential users. A few people here apparently consider that chump change but I disagree.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 26, 2012 at 02:11 PM. )
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Also, creating a 7" "whatever-it-is" would require a completely new target for developers to design towards, as they could neither scale down iPad apps without making them inoperable (hence my point about deploying new fingertips across the entire user base), nor scale up iPhone apps without looking like shit or Fisher Price. That is why I said that developer needs are precisely why this is NOT happening.
Maybe I am missing something, it would not be the first time. Why will an app designed for 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 ppi (iPad 2) not easily work on a ~7" 1024-by-768-pixel resolution iPad, just at higher pixel density (but less than the 326 ppi of the iPhone4 or the 264 ppi of the new iPad)?

Apple already created the two-pixel-dimensions-sets issue for developers. It seems to me the two drastically different existing iPad pixel dimension sets that both work fine prove the concept that Apple can simply choose either 1024 or 2048 for any given size 4" to 10".

-Allen
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Maybe I am missing something, it would not be the first time. Why will an app designed for 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 ppi (iPad 2) not easily work on a ~7" 1024-by-768-pixel resolution iPad, just at higher pixel density (but less than the 326 ppi of the iPhone4 or the 264 ppi of the new iPad)?
Because. Your. Finger. Doesn't. Magically. Shrink.

EVERYTHING on the iPad is designed specifically with a minimum target size of Your Index Finger (33x44 pixels IIRC). Shrinking that down just makes everything completely fiddly, and possibly entirely inoperable by anyone above the age of 7.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Also, creating a 7" "whatever-it-is" would require a completely new target for developers to design towards, as they could neither scale down iPad apps without making them inoperable (hence my point about deploying new fingertips across the entire user base), nor scale up iPhone apps without looking like shit or Fisher Price. That is why I said that developer needs are precisely why this is NOT happening.
Ok, so here is a completely crazy idea:

What if Apple indeed adds a 3rd device (7"), with unique resolution and requiring unique application development ? They could allow iPhone apps to run at a high resolution, but not iPad apps.

I know, snowball's chance in hell, but that's how it could work.

-t
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Apple DOES NOT support purely business markets. ...Apple's secretive roadmap and development schedules are geared towards consumer products, exclusively.
Are you just guessing or are you violating NDA? The past is the past and past failures do not necessarily extrapolate to today.

One thing about the mobile devices ecosystem Apple is building is that Apple provides (IMO excellent) developer tools, great hardware, a fantastic app store and good end-user OS/hardware support. Developers are fully responsible for application support. That makes statements like "Apple DOES NOT support purely business markets" meaningless.

iPads are not solely "consumer" products. Enterprise and edu are already adopting iPads. Under Apple's mobile ecosystem I would expect roadmap and development schedules not to just be ignoring the many millions of product sales that will end up in business usage.

-Allen
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Because. Your. Finger. Doesn't. Magically. Shrink.

EVERYTHING on the iPad is designed specifically with a minimum target size of Your Index Finger (33x44 pixels IIRC). Shrinking that down just makes everything completely fiddly, and possibly entirely inoperable by anyone above the age of 7.
Pixel density varies so 33x44 pixels or whatever only means something relative to the ppi density of a given device. We have both 132 ppi iPads and 264 ppi iPads that work fine. A 1024x768 7" iPad would be between 132 and 264 ppi.

I do see your point that at the pixel level the design would indeed be different as regards things designed for the larger display.

In any event IMO a wider size range is worth the effort.

-Allen
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Pixel density varies
No, it does NOT*!

That is EXACTLY the point.



*) resolution doubling (rather, quadrupling) is done to maintain the exact same density for all existing designs.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
No, it does NOT*!
That is EXACTLY the point.
*) resolution doubling (rather, quadrupling) is done to maintain the exact same density for all existing designs.
Sorry but that is incorrect. Pixel density is commonly (but IMO inaccurately, because not all pixels are square) measured in pixels per linear inch (ppi). The new iPad (264 ppi) has double the pixel density of the iPad2 (132 ppi). Please look up the iPad specs if you continue to not believe me.

Resolution doubling (rather, quadrupling) increases resolution via 4x the pixels (double the pixel density). Only the l/w ratio does not change.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 26, 2012 at 06:56 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Sorry but that is incorrect. Pixel density is commonly measured in pixels per linear inch (ppi). The new iPad (264 ppi) has double the ppi of the iPad2 (132 ppi).

Resolution doubling (rather, quadrupling) increases resolution via 4x the pixels (double the pixel density). Only the l/w ratio does not change.
Footnotes, they are important for clarifying arguments to the quadruply dense.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
*) resolution doubling (rather, quadrupling) is done to maintain the exact same density for all existing designs.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Footnotes, they are important for clarifying arguments to the quadruply dense.

*) resolution doubling (rather, quadrupling) is done to maintain the exact same density for all existing designs.
Make flawed insults and repeat all you like it does not make your statement less wrong. The two existing iPad designs have different pixel densities. Please follow my earlier suggestion and just look it up, this is what you will find:

New iPad: 2048-by-1536-pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)

iPad1 & iPad2: 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 26, 2012 at 07:18 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Make flawed insults and repeat all you like it does not make your statement less wrong. The two existing iPad designs have different pixel densities. Please follow my earlier suggestion and just look it up, this is what you will find:

New iPad: 2048-by-1536-pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)

iPad1 & iPad2: 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)

-Allen
OF COURSE the new display has a higher density than the old one. The point is that it's not ARBITRARILY higher, and that it's vital that the new density is EXACTLY twice what it was before, BECAUSE:

ALL PREVIOUSLY EXISTING APPS WILL RUN AT EXACTLY THE SAME PIXEL DENSITY AS BEFORE.


Are you seriously not understanding the point of doubling the resolution, and why it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from just shrinking the display to a different density?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Because. Your. Finger. Doesn't. Magically. Shrink.
The original iPhone had a pixel density of about 160, and the original iPad had a pixel density of about 130. Shrinking the 1024x768 screen from 10" to 7" would make the pixel density about the same as the original iPhone, which works just fine for fingers, obviously.

TL;DR: an iPad of 1024x768 at 7" would be perfectly usable with fingers.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 09:23 PM
 
I have no difficulty with pixels, resolution and the concepts here. What I have difficulty with is someone ranting that display densities are identical when they are not.

-Allen
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Also, creating a 7" "whatever-it-is" would require a completely new target for developers to design towards, as they could neither scale down iPad apps without making them inoperable (hence my point about deploying new fingertips across the entire user base)
Who is designing their apps so pixel exact that the reduction is a problem? Certainly not the iPad apps I've seen.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2012, 01:09 AM
 
I just bought a 7" Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich machine just to check it out in real usage (as opposed to just playing around with it in the store). It uses the Rockchip RK2918 SoC, which is roughly equivalent to the Apple A4. I love the form factor. It feels significantly lighter than the iPad 2, and the 7" screen size is great for portable movie watching and quick surfing.

However, I bought the thing partially to do something the iPad 2 can't: Use external media to play 1080p MKV. Well, it works... 1080p H.264 MKV plays like a dream.

1.5 GB TV 720p show: Works perfectly.
3.3 GB full length 1080p movie: Works perfectly.
120 MB clip 1080p just over 1 minute long: Works perfectly. (It's high profile 4.1 and 14 Mbps which would mean a full length movie would be 10 GB.)

Both AC3 and DTS audio tracks worked too.

Unfortunately, I ran into the 4 GB file size limitation which is still ingrained into Android, even in ICS. WTF? What this means is that most of my 1080p files can't even be loaded onto media compatible with the device. I guess you could say it's even worse with the iPad because there is no external media support at all, but I was hoping this Android device would fill the void, with a nicer form factor to boot, but nope. So, this thing is going back. It just seems braindead to me to advertise external expandability as an advantage of these hardware accelerated 1080p capable devices, and then limit the file size to 4 GB. What were they thinking?!?! I tried both NTFS and exFAT and neither worked. As a last resort I even tried formatting the flash drive to ext4 and then ext3, but neither format worked. I figured in the very least they should have ext3 support considering it's a Linux device, but I was wrong - only FAT32. Also, even if I could, I'm not going to root the thing for NTFS support, but it's moot since there is no root software available for it anyway.

Oh and yes Android 4.0.3 still seems rough around the edges. However, even given the rough edges and the less intuitive UI, I would have been OK with that had the external media support been able to handle 4+ GB file sizes... but it doesn't.

Plus, it doesn't work for WiFi or USB tethering with my iPhone. My Windows 7 laptop, my MacBook Pro, and my iPad 2 all work tethered to the iPhone. It works fine with my Airport Extreme though. Can someone explain how the iPhone WiFI tether is functionally different?

---

P.S. Someone was able to test http://senorgif.memebase.com on the iPhone 4, iPad 2, and iPad 3. The iPhone 4 is very slow (and I can confirm that), the iPad 2 is faster but still laggy (and I can confirm that too), but they say the iPad 3 flies through that page. Very, very laggy on the Android tablet I bought, but ironically Flash actually works relatively OK, and like I said, local 1080p H.264 playback (even at relatively high bitrates) is smooth as silk.
( Last edited by Eug; Mar 27, 2012 at 01:23 AM. )
     
Stogieman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2012, 03:06 AM
 
With 3 tabs open, my iPad 3 loaded that seniorgif page in just under 20 seconds. The animated .gifs pause when scrolling down the page but resume immediately when the scrolling stops. I was able to view 3 animated .gifs at a time and didn't notice any slow down. I guess we can thank the 1GB of ram for that.

Slick shoes?! Are you crazy?!
     
Stogieman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2012, 03:15 AM
 
Oh btw, the yellow tint on my iPad 3 never went away. I went to my nearby Apple store and they swapped it with newer one. The display on my new iPad is perfect.

Slick shoes?! Are you crazy?!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,