Larger iPod Touch In Apple's Future?

Ender_Stonebender writes "TechCrunch is reporting that three independent sources have mentioned to them a large form factor version of the iPod Touch, with either a 7- or 9-inch screen, to be released fall of 2009. The device is expected to have access to the iTunes App Store. Beyond that, everything about it appears to be pure speculation."

Comments

at first blush, no, but then...

[Tumbleweed]

When I think about how Jobs operates, I think maybe yeah. Here's the reasoning:

Jobs hears people cry out for the 'xMac', and we get the Mac mini, way too small to be what people wanted (ridiculous expansion, so small in requires more expensive laptop-class components, etc.)

Jobs hears people cry out for the return of the 12-inch Macbook Pro form factor, and we get the MacBook Air, so slim and badly-realized that it lacks essential ports on the back (even though it's big enough to fit them).

Jobs hears people cry out for a netbook-class machine, and we get a MID.

So I'm thinkin' yeah, because it's exactly what people aren't asking for. That's my 2009 prediction! :)

As another poster said, this formfactor would be great to take up the iBook name. Either that or the return of the Newton. Well, the iNewton. Or i(of)Newt. Something along those lines, I'm sure.

Re:at first blush, no, but then...

[DiLLeMaN]

Jobs hears people cry out for the 'xMac', and we get the Mac mini, way too small to be what people wanted (ridiculous expansion, so small in requires more expensive laptop-class components, etc.)

I rather like my mini, though. Sure, it has less oomph than a "full size" machine, but it's not too expensive, it has a small desk footprint, and it runs silent. I don't care about not being able to cram in 346 PCI cards, USB works for an increasing range of products nowadays.

Part of the charm of Apple is that they don't follow the market. The fact that every computer maker is making underpowered netbooks nowadays doesn't mean Apple will do the same, unless they can find a way to get it right. They're not gonna run off and build anything that some people are asking for, and why would they.

I'm with you on the 12" Macbook though, the Air is no replacement for that and it'd be great if they re-introduced a small laptop. Dunno if that's possible without severely underpowering the thing, though.

Re:7 or 9 inch iPhones

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Trouble is, where you say "crippled" Apple's people see "Permitted, by transcendent grace of Jobs".

Now, personally, I'd be a bit surprised by Apple building a much larger device that takes iPhone apps, because introducing two completely different screen sizes to that niche would play aesthetic hell with existing apps and possibly result in an unpleasant bifurcation of that market. Apple, though, seems quite fond of the "all your apps are approved by us" concept, so I strongly doubt that anything smaller than one of their existing computers is not going to be getting open platform treatment.

Re:Apple is going to have a hell of a lot more

[WiiVault]

These Job's health things have been rebutted many, many times. I know they have recently resurfaced but they are still BS. Apple has wanted out of Macworld for years, at least since the Boston rebellion.

Mmm, pixelly resolution goodness...

[nick_davison]

"The difference now is the iTunes app store, which has thousands of games and other applications that are perfect for a touch screen device with an accelerometer."

No. The app has thousands of games and other applications that display 480x320 which looks great on a 3.5 inch screen.

At 163ppi, they look great.

Run those same resolutions on a screen with 2x (7 inch) or 2.5x (9 inch) resolution and you're looking at 60-80ppi of massively pixelated crap.

A 9 inch touchscreen with iPhone/iPod touch style OS-X and the same 163ppi resolution makes for a really interesting alternative to the netbook market. Stop hobbling the bluetooth so you can use their bluetooth keyboard when you want to type a lot and it's a fascinating package.

But the app store's catalog remains completely useless unless they come up with a way for resolution to upscale. Granted, I've not written anything for it, but I'm guessing most apps are written with a 480x320 assumption and no scaling, no multi-resolution icons, graphics, etc. bundled in to the downloads, etc. Apple would need to get the means for updating apps to support that out to developers way in advance of a larger Touch release if they wanted the app store to carry any value beyond to show off how bad apps could look... something that would harm the reputation of the device far more than help it.

Re:Mmm, pixelly resolution goodness...

[Serious Callers Only]

But the app store's catalog remains completely useless unless they come up with a way for resolution to upscale. Granted, I've not written anything for it, but I'm guessing most apps are written with a 480x320 assumption and no scaling, no multi-resolution icons, graphics, etc. bundled in to the downloads, etc. Apple would need to get the means for updating apps to support that out to developers way in advance of a larger Touch release if they wanted the app store to carry any value beyond to show off how bad apps could look... something that would harm the reputation of the device far more than help it.

By default apps are laid out with buttons etc tied to one edge in interface builder and sometimes with flexible spaces in between, so interfaces would just expand. They'd probably need a bit of tweaking but not as much as you imply.

Games would be the main area which might have problems if they assume a certain screen width or need to upsize their textures. If they do this right and pre-announce then give developers a few months lead time, they could easily get most content from the app store working at a higher resolution.

Take the example of the google maps app - toolbars at top and bottom will just be wider, with bigger gaps between buttons. Perhaps they could move some stuff from that god-awful miscellany page accessed with the little page curl onto the main toolbar, but otherwise, it would function perfectly well, just drawing more map at a time. They're unlikely to have hardcoded in screen-sizes, because you can ask for the screen size, and often the view is given a rect to draw into, rather than specifically requesting a rect. Buttons on the auxiliary functions screen might be too wide, depending on how they have them set - probably not though.

Or take the mail app - the mail rows would just be a bit wider, probably the same height and just showing more in the screen. Toolbars and nabar will just expand and have more blank space.

That's with no extra work on the developers' part - these apps would work pretty well, with only a few minor tweaks required depending on how they're set up.

This isn't such a big issue if the transition is handled right.

Some have claimed resolution issues mean iPhoneOS and UIxxx won't be used for a tablet , and they'd have to use OS X and AppKit, but I think UIKit shows signs of being flexible enough to cope with many screen sizes - most of it could be used fine on a desktop OS and reads like a clean-up of the desktop APIs (it may be that later cocoa is relegated to a compatability layer, along with all those other APIs before it).

The really important feature for a tablet would be reading - reading websites, reading email, reading newspapers (though those are really a subset of websites nowadays), and reading books. I'd buy it just for that, but it worries me that Apple would try to be the single gatekeeper for data as Amazon have done with the Kindle.

If they keep to an iTunes music model of allowing users to copy their own books on there via iTunes, and tie in with someone like gutenberg for classics, they could have this sewn up in no time. But I'd rather they just opened it up and let developers copy data into their sandbox - then we won't be stuck with one app for a vital function (mail.app, I'm looking at you).

The big thing that the iPhone OS is missing at the moment is a way to get arbitrary user data onto the device for sandboxed apps - if they address that (and the bluetooth issue you mentioned), it'd be a great reading device, and perhaps even one for writing on.

Speculation

[tsa]

Speculation is not news and should not be on /.. The are enough Apple-centered websites with discussions like this.

Why it'll be GREAT, new input technologies

[wisebabo]

The reason why it'll be really cool/great is because of the new input technologies which it'll have.

Remember, what makes Apple products unique are not their increasingly commodity hardware but the USER INTERFACE. I believe the user interface is THE major reason for the iPhone/iPod Touch's success (look at the Xmas sales figures). It is because of Apple's ability to take advantage of the touch screen and accelerometer. Not the hardware but things like the "pinch zoom" and "swipe" and landscape/portrait mode detection.

To really see how people have taken advantage of these features, play some of the many many games available for this PLATFORM.

Now Apple has (hopefully) the opportunity to take these ideas even further. A 7-9" iPod Touch would make a passable netbook; that is a decent device for doing most CASUAL computing tasks. (many complaints about the tiny "keyboard" on the iPhone would go away). Where it would excel in would be in the new applications (10,000+ strong in the AppStore, close to 500 MILLION downloads) that take REAL advantage of the new input technologies. A lot of these applications, particularly the creative ones (sound and paint programs for example) would benefit substantially from more screen real-estate. And think of the games!

So that could be Apple's answer to the netbooks. Using its (I know, I know) proprietary technologies it could bring these new technologies together in a way that is cohesive, fun and easy to use. That's the advantage of totally controlling the hardware and software. Unfortunately without this control, open source projects and (to a lesser extent) Microsoft have to aim at the lowest common denominator and can only copy what Apple pioneers.