Slashdot Mirror
Credible Reports of a 7.85 Inch iPad Mini Emerge
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Network World: "For months now, rumors of an iPad with a 7.85-inch screen have been circulating through the blogosphere. And though Steve Jobs once said that 7-inch tablets are 'dead on arrival,' the relative success of the Amazon Kindle Fire and other smaller tablets suggests that consumers are more than willing to accept a smaller screen size in exchange for a cheaper buy-in point. Indeed, you might remember that Apple CEO Tim Cook recently said that Apple saw a tremendous uptick in overall iPad sales once it lowered the price of the iPad 2 down to $399. That said, a chorus of credible reports over the past few days have all claimed that Apple is currently working on a slimmed down iPad and that it may be set for release as early as this Fall."
Or do they have different shaped corners than the Samsung models?
Cause really, what they need is more lawyers involved. its legal stimulus in a crappy economy.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Nano's not as good as an Ipod touch, but Apple sometimes sees the utility in going for the lower end market.
If Apple brings a 7-inch pad to market that outperforms Fire and Nexus 7 I'd be interested.
And I always thought the rumor was for a 7.625-inch screen.
And though Steve Jobs once said that 7-inch tablets are 'dead on arrival,'
steve jobs knows all about 'dead on arrival', eh?
I wish I could have multiple devices with the same SIM card address and just tell the network which one I am using at the time. Then I'd use this 7" device at home and leave the iPhone on the charger, and vice versa when I'm traveling.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
I have a 10" tablet, and I find it too big for any kind of natural handheld use. And a laptop is a much more natural form factor for non-handheld (tabletop, lying down & watching a movie, etc) uses. I haven't used a 7" tablet, but I have used e-readers a lot, which are about the same size, and they are very comfortable to hold. I don't get why Jobs would have thought it was 10" or bust.
Well of course credible reports have emerged. The market needs some uncertainty injected into it since the Nexus 7 is soon to be released, and Apple certainly doesn't want anyone to buy that when they could have an iPad in a few short months.
Just a marketing ploy. It's a shame how complicit the media is when Apple wants to do it versus, well, any other technology company ever.
More Twoson than Cupertino
It was called the iPad Nano. Mine can make phone calls.
Why not a full 8?
After buying a nook tablet, I have found that 7" isn't big enough to read a tech manual comfortably, but a 8" isn't bad and is still a bit more portable than a 9.7"/10"
6" e-ink is still good for novels.. but id rather ditch them both and get a 9.7"/10" color e-ink at a reasonable price.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'd guess an 8" tablet would have to be $300. Argument for it over the Nexus and Fire is "larger screen" and "access to the best apps through itunes, blah blah blah".
iPod Touch starts at $200.
iPad Mini starting at $300.
iPad 2 starting at $400.
Plugs the hole, fields a device to stop any potential competitor's beachhead in tablets, and they still get the premium over the alternatives.
What measure of performance are you interested in? Whetstone? Dhrystone? Linpack?
Does anything other than the software library really matter? Assuming it hits the same $200 price point that Google and Amazon have hit, then the iPad wins hands-down.
I ordered a Nexus 7 because, at $200, I'm not risking much. If the iPad Mini comes in at $200, it will easily own the 7" market.
", then the iPad wins hands-down."
Why would the less diverse library win?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If Apple brings a 7-inch pad to market that outperforms Fire and Nexus 7 I'd be interested.
It's possible that Apple could bring a better performing 7-inch tablet, but it will not beat the price/performance ratio. You're forgetting Apple's market - they never compete on price. My guess: they charge $250-$300 for something very similar to whatever's going for $200 in Android land at the time, but they add some trivial feature and play that up in the marketing as being worth the price difference. Siri 2, for example.
Nano's not as good as an Ipod touch,
My iPod Nano is controlled by buttons, not a touchscreen (yes, it's not the latest generation). To me, this makes it infinitely superior to the iPod Touch.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
> Not to feed the trolls, but where does this idea that monetary wealth = strength come from?
Probably because monetary wealth == power == strength.
> I'd put Billy Gates' fortune against mine that in a one-on-one deathmatch, I'd eat that scrawny fuck for lunch.
That is silly. Billy's wealth counts as much as your gym time or you weapons collection when comparing survival fitness. So pit your pitiful physical strength and possible sidearm against his legion of doom in a deathmatch and see how well you fare. You probably wouldn't even get past the zero level minions at the front gate.
Now a little less silly and more snarky. His monetary wealth represents the labor and assets of a billion or so people willingly traded for his. That is real, and it has value. The better question is who is more of an asset to the species and our civilization. You or Gates in a reality show faceoff to justify your existence to the studio audence and the loser gets deleted from the genepool. Who would the audience keep? Hell, who would be considered the more attractive mate? Should I continue to attack your very existence or have I made the point yet? Being able to physically beat somebody up hasn't mattered all that much since Sam Colt... or more bluntly, since junior high.
Democrat delenda est
I'm very sceptical, that wouldn't be like Apple at all. I'm half expecting a much cheaper iPad in addition to the existing ones, but not with a different form factor.
Reasons are plenty, one of them is that apps are all designed for this size, from button size to the occasional ruler app. There have been similar rumors for the iPhone several times, and they've all turned out to be wrong.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There will not be a 7 inch iPad and there never will be. The form factor will not accommodate a finger properly, and the app library will not work on a 7.85 inch screen.
Erm. The 3.5" iPhone accommodates a finger properly. And if it has a 1024x768 screen (same was as iPad 1 & iPad 2), it will accomodate the apps fine.
I'm speaking about normal people who account for most tablet computer sales. Slashdot readers may find the RIM Playbook / Windows Surface / Kindle Fire / other Android tablet to be have a more compelling software library and that will make those tablets a better buy.
I have both iOS and Android devices in my house and the holes in the Android library (for normal users) are slowly being filled, but app quality still lags. For now, I still can't recommend anything other than an iPad to people who ask me what they should get.
"7-inch tablets are dead on arrival" - Steve Jobs
"Steve Jobs is dead on arrival" - 7-inch tablets
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So he could have taken pliers to people's fingers the whole time, I bet he feels like an idiot now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
All of the apps are tied to the 10" size and 4:3 aspect ratio. That's why the ipad3 exactly quadrupled the resolution. So, will this just be shrunken, maintaining 1024x768 resolution on a smaller screen? Or will developers have to go back and add support for a new form factor, a la android? This is also why I think the rumors about the Galaxy Note2 are false. No way it has 1680x1050 - that's a 16x10 aspect, and all of their prior phones are 16x9.
power (i.e., of the sociopolitical variety) != strength, at least, not in the Darwinian sense that I am specifically referring to.
Having all the money in the world won't save you from genetic weakness; just ask Steve Jobs. Oh wait, you can't, because even his vast wealth couldn't make up for the fact that he was, in the evolutionary sense, weaker than, say, you and I.
Which is my point; being able to hire a million people to do your dirty work for you does not make you stronger; in fact, considering that doing so tends to generate a dependence on said army, I would posit that such activity actually weakens the individual.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese