11 ms·

Let’s Try to Think This iPad Mini Thing All the Way Through

58 points by jordw 14y ago

droithomme 14y ago
So now, with full screen interfaces only, we need to create artwork and a UI scaled and designed separately for: 1. iPhone/iPod 640×960 at 326ppi 2. iPad dimensions 1024x768 at 132PPI 3. Retina iPad 2048×1536 at 264PPI 4. iPad mini at 1024x768, but smaller pixels and yet expected same physical size controls, so interface has to be redone again specific for this one. 5. Whatever is after that. That's a lot of design variations and things to support for one program that for most developers is going to sell for between 99 cents and $2.99.
- pkaler 14y ago
  Nope. iOS 6 adds auto layout to Interface Builder and Core Layout to the runtime. You'll either start at the largest resolution and setup constraints as the screen size shrinks or at the smallest resolution and do the opposite.
  - r00fus 14y ago
    Isn't this how it's done in the Android world (and chastised by iOS developers)? Really, I'd like to know.
    - kamechan 14y ago
      in android, one provides four different density-specific resources. ldpi: low-density screens (~120dpi) mdpi: medium-density (~160dpi) [baseline] hdpi: high-density (~240dpi) xhdpi: extra high-density (~320dpi) there is a nodpi qualifier which is intended for density-independent resources. there are also screen size qualifiers, small, normal, large, extra large.
      - telcodud 14y ago
        These screen size qualifiers have been deprecated beginning with Android 3.2 (HoneyComb). See best practices on Android developers site: http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html#DeclaringTabletLayouts http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support...
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        kamechan 14y ago
        i never used the screen-size qualifiers myself, but good to know they've deprecated them in favor of what seems to be simpler. AFAIK, the density qualifiers are still being used, and are mentioned in the "new" design guidelines document as well, giving me the impression they may stick around for a while. http://developer.android.com/design/style/devices-displays.html http://developer.android.com/design/style/devices-displays.h...
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- Zenst 14y ago
  Not when your outlining a iPad mini using the same resolution as the original iPad. In that case there is no more work than is already involved. Nothing stopping you doing your graphics at a higher resolution and working in that then scalling down. Also the harder it gets then the less competition, which for you a developer has to be good if people are put of by having to design/do work.
  - b0sk 14y ago
    I don't get the last point. It's a level playing field. If it's more work for other developers, it's more work for you too.
    - Zenst 14y ago
      Last point being that if the person who write application has to do more work and effort then it will put more people off and as such mean more work for those who can be assed to do that extra little bit of work.
- mikek 14y ago
  Unless you are making a ruler app, I don't see much reason to make iPad mini apps any different than iPad apps. I can't think of anything I would change in my apps.
- LnxPrgr3 14y ago
  Gruber is arguing that there won't need to be a redesign for a smaller iPad because, if developers followed Apple's recommendations, touch target sizes on the smaller iPad will match the iPhone. Unless your app depends on the physical size of a point, no redesign is needed. So, you still have two layouts: iPhone/iPod and iPad. You have four graphics resolutions: two for each. Of course, as he said, we'll have to see how this plays out in reality. Maybe a smaller iPad will turn out to suck, and developers who want their apps to be usable on the thing will have to redesign them. It's hard to say without actually testing apps at that size.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  That's really just two sizes, 1024x768 and 320x480, which you create at 2x resolution. And these are separate apps most of the time. There is no expectation that controls will be the same physical size on the rumored iPad mini; what happens is that scaled down they already have the same hit area as an iPhone, so you don't need separate graphics for it. It all fits beautifully, and one has to wonder if this was all planned from the start or just luck + sensible decisions.
- illicium 14y ago
  What about earlier-gen 320x240 iPhones (3GS; still in production!) and iPod touches? Does anyone develop with these screen sizes in mind? Reminds me of the "Android is fragmented" cliche.
  - Tloewald 14y ago
    Um what? 3GS is 480x320. There's retina (2x) or non retina, iPhone or iPad Android fragmentation is a cliche because it's true.
  - LnxPrgr3 14y ago
    The only thing you have to provide is low-resolution versions of your graphics, assuming you don't need the newer hardware for some reason. The layout's still exactly the same. iOS has two screen sizes, with a third rumored. Apps on that second size are usually designed differently anyway, to take advantage of the larger screen on the iPad. Such fragmentation! And this is over how many years?
  - taligent 14y ago
    And Android is fragmented not because of hardware but because of developer APIs/operating system versions.
- nirvana 14y ago
  No, there are only two interfaces you make-- the iPhone and the iPad versions. These are your two code paths and the two Interface Builder projects. You want to make normal and 2X graphics of course, but for all of them this just means making 2X graphics and downsizing for a normal version as well. The iPad mini will use a screen with the dimensions of the original iPad and the touch targets will be of sufficient size (people did the math on this months ago, it works out fine.... the touch targets are closer to the iPhone size but plenty big.)
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  You missed the non-retina 3GS which is still being sold. Also, the rumor (according to Gruber again) is that the next iPhone will get longer, so newer iPhones will have more pixels in one dimension, so you'll need to make your portrait layout grow taller and your landscape layout grow wider.
wiredfool 14y ago
I think that in time, there will be an array of iOS devices at all price points from the ca. $100 to the laptop like $1k. (with some adjustments for carrier subsidies). They did it before with the iPod, from $99, add $50 for more storage, add $50 for a different form factor, and so on, for every price point between $100 and $400. Right now, the iPod touch is at $200, the iPad at 400, and 500-800. Phones are 400-700 w/o subsidies. Pushing the iPad down into the $200 range fills out that array of devices so that there's something for everyone who has a little bit of money to spend.
- mtgx 14y ago
  The software on the iPod wasn't much of a problem, though. For iOS devices they need to keep supporting the older hardware, and I don't think they can do that for hardware that is older than 3 generations/years. We're already seeing how some major features are not landing on even newer than 3 generations devices, like Maps and Navigation on iPad 1 and iPhone 4.
- mturmon 14y ago
  Sounds reasonable. This idea is in Gruber's article, when he quotes Tim Cook saying (about iPhone) that Apple did not want to leave a "price umbrella" -- an open price range leaving a niche in which competitors could flourish.
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    $300 for a 7.85" with a Retina display would be outstanding. I say that as someone who loves the idea of the iPad, but has not gotten one because they're too cumbersome for extended reading.
    - wiredfool 14y ago
      I certainly didn't get my iPad for reading, but I've wound up reading a bunch of books on them, both through the kindle app and the iBooks one. While the experience isn't as good as a hardback, it's nowhere near bad enough to keep me from a good book. And it's far lighter than Stephenson's latest. Though, when opening one of the hardbacks I got this past christmas, I was very impressed with the resolution of the font and the crispness and uncluttered look of the pages. No fingerprints, no icons. Just well formatted text.
stevenj 14y ago
Honestly, I don't know why Apple would create an iPad mini. I have an iPad 2 and absolutely love it. There isn't another tablet I'd trade it in for (other than an iPad 3). I surely wouldn't trade it in for an iPad mini. Paul Buchheit once said: "If your product is great, it doesn't need to be good." To me, the iPad is a great product. Focus on making it better. As Steve Jobs has said: "It's what you don't do that matters most." (Paraphrased.)
- nirvana 14y ago
  I have a Retina iPad and I would trade it for an iPad mini. The iPhone is small enough to use every day, but it compromises in its smallness. The iPad is great- probably the best web browsing experience anywhere, and with apps like Flipboard and iBooks, etc, I just love it. But the iPad is too big. I use it a lot less because it is too cumbersome. An iPad mini might give me the greatness of the iPad in a smaller package. I don't know if it will be small enough to go with me all the time or not. I can say one thing for certain: If it is under $400, I will buy one, no question.
  - stevenj 14y ago
    Interesting. Why and how is it cumbersome for you? I agree that reading a book on it isn't the best experience. But I personally just don't read many books anymore. I'm very selective as to the books I read now, as oppose to even 3 - 5 years earlier. And the ones I choose to read, I still prefer them in a physical copy. And I think, generally, people will continue reading (and buying) less books going forward, so trying to create an ebook reader would be a mistake. >I don't know if it will be small enough to go with me all the time or not. For me, the thing that'll always go with me (in addition to an iPhone) is a MacBook Air. >I can say one thing for certain: If it is under $400, I will buy one, no question. But will you buy a second and third one at some point? Or will you mostly be buying it for novelty reasons? I just don't see an iPad mini being a hit product that generates repeat customers.
    - philh 14y ago
      > Why and how is it cumbersome for you? I don't personally have a full-sized tablet or a smartphone. But I have a Playbook (7"), and one of the main ways I use it is lying in bed, on my side, with one hand on top to keep it upright and scroll with. I get the feeling an iPad would be too big for that.
guelo 14y ago
I like how BS marketing and lying to your customers is somehow seen as a good thing when viewed from inside the Apple bubble. Steve Jobs wasn't lying and playing you for chumps, it was apparently a wonderful gift that he could change his mind from one day to the next. And all the Apple faithful will vehemently spit the old gospel at you until the new pronouncement comes down from on-high and then they will all immediately change their tune. Just last week we were getting rabid comments on HN about how awful the idea of a 7-inch tablet is. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  >>I have been accused of a habit of changing my opinions. I am not myself in any degree ashamed of having changed my opinions. What physicist who was already active in 1900 would dream of boasting that his opinions had not changed during the last half century? In science men change their opinions when new knowledge becomes available.<< Bertrand Russell
  - guelo 14y ago
    It's marketing and lies. A video iPod or a tablet or whatever is that worst idea ever only because they're not selling it, once they start selling it it's new and revolutionary and you can't live without it. Most companies lie in their marketing but no other company that I know of has their customers praising them for it.
    - endemic 14y ago
      "It's marketing" Correct.
michaelpinto 14y ago
You know i wish someone would design a product that's really a different size: Imagine a device that's half the size of an iPhone or double the size of an iPad so it's like a big newspaper. Yeah I get the 7" form factor but I've already seen so many of those on the Android side that I'd like Apple to "Think Different".
- simonh 14y ago
  Apple's real motto isn't think different, it's "think it through". The android handset manufacturers have tried every combination of sizes, technologies, features (3D, mini projectors, built in laser pointers), etc and left it to the buyer to find out if they were a good idea or not. Apple, for better or worse, does the work up front to decide what are the optimum combinations of sizes, shapes, technologies and features and aims its products at the sweet spots. I have a friend who says he won't buy a tablet until they come out in full A4 size. I think he'll be waiting for years to come, and if one does come out it'll be from a company that made a tablet that size because it's a good size for paper, not because it's a good size for a tablet computer. I don't think that company will be Apple.
  - sigkill 14y ago
    I have a 15.4" 16:10 screen, and I just placed an A4 sheet over it. The width of the sheet is identical to the height of my screen, while the length is around 1.5 inches lesser. This brings us to an aspect ratio of sqrt(2) with a 14.4" screen. Not going to happen anytime soon, sadly.
- lmm 14y ago
  Half the size of the ipad and you're looking at a big phone - something like the old dell streak or the (actually very popular, though ignored in HN circles) galaxy note. Double the size sounds incredibly impractical to me (you'd need a suitcase to carry it around in), but look for bigger tablets to happen if Toshiba's 13" effort is a success. It's no surprise that most manufacturers are sticking to safe ground, but there is innovation going on if you look for it.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Good thing it's safe to use pixel-precise layouts and only Android is where you have to worry about variably sized displays. I really don't get all of the comments applauding (or rather, excusing) the idea that we just keep developing iOS apps to support iPhone vs iPad resolution, when there are a myriad of devices that operate at different resolutions. It feels lazy and it feels like an easy excuse of out not having a different UI mindset from the get-go.
lukifer 14y ago
I'm surprised there was no discussion of weight. Fewer pixels and weaker GPU means the battery can get smaller, and it can get more comfortable in one hand, which is a crucial usability factor. I'm curious as to whether the weight will be competitive with the Fire or the Nexus; my guess is that the size and the glass will make it a bit heavier, but they could surprise us.
BvS 14y ago
So according the the rumors it will probably have a screen of lesser quality than the Nexus 7, it will probably be more expensive and it will probably be heavier (because it is much bigger). What's the point again? Ok, it's bigger but if there is any advantage of a 7 inch tablet it is the form factor (being small and light). So if Apple won't/can't adress the problems mentioned above the only reason I see anyone buying the iPad mini would the the eco-system. A huge plus, no question, but enough?
- gnaffle 14y ago
  I doubt it will be more expensive. After all, they still sell the iPad 2 for $100 more than the Nexus 7. The only other advantage would be price. Apple's been willing to cut some corners to achieve price before, for instance the iPod displays are (or used to be) worse than the iPhone ones even though they had the same resolution.
  - BvS 14y ago
    Don't they sell the iPad 2 for 400 US$? This would be at least 150US$ more than the most expensive Nexus 7 and 200US$ more than the standard version or the kindle fire (assuming the next version won't be more expensive). I'm sure Apple could meet the price point or even undercut it (bear in mind that Google ads 25US$ credit for the Play store) but that would mean their margin goes down a lot. I'm not sure Apple is willing to go down that route. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that Apple is going to release a product that is inferior in some main aspects (eg screen resolution) and trying to compete on price.
    - fab13n 14y ago
      > I don't believe that Apple is going [...] to compete on price. Probably not on price, but on market share. iPads currently are the only decent game in town, except for the e-reader niche; they're safe as long as Android doesn't reach a critical mass, which would allow a healthy apps market to develop, and competitive HW prices to be reached through economy of scale. That's worth giving up some gross margin, and even cannibalize part of the iPad 3's market share. I don't know how they'll address the Nexus 7 threat to their monopoly; through a 8'' tablet, by further dropping the iPad 2's price, by litigation or other means... but they will fight back with all their might.
Kliment 14y ago
I don't get the sandpaper thing. Can someone explain it to me?
- benhalllondon 14y ago
  A finger is an essentially fat stylus, the raw space that your finger hits on the screen is always (say) .5cm x .5cm or so. It doesn't matter what the resolution screen your finger touches that size is always the same. So Apple defined that no touch interaction should be less than 44x44 points. And then points map to pixels in different ratios depending on dpi etc. Jobs was saying that on a smaller screen you either have a smaller number of touchable areas or you get small fingers and reduce the 44x44 points number.
  - Kliment 14y ago
    So he's suggesting you sand your fingertips down? That's a really unpleasant image. The palm of my hand once had minor interaction with a belt sander, it was not fun.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    Though just to be clear, his comment makes absolutely no sense, since he was already at that point selling a 3.5" tablet, a quarter of the size of a 7" tablet, with no sandpaper required.
    - snowwrestler 14y ago
      Don't know why you are getting voted down, you're exactly correct. The iPod Touch and iPhone are basically 3.5" tablets.
      - czr80 14y ago
        Yes, but they run iPhone apps. Jobs' point was that you wouldn't want to run iPad apps on a 7" screen - if you tried to fit in the extra information you can show on an iPad into a smaller space that would make the touch targets too small. So now the proposition is that actually you can make an iPad layout fit in a ~8" screen because the iPad touch targets are a bit bigger than an iPhone anyway, and so you can shrink them a bit (to exactly iPhone size, it turns out) and they will work okay. We'll see.
JunkDNA 14y ago
One thing missing in all these write-ups is what the "killer feature" will be. If you look at new products in an existing product line from Apple, they almost always have something unique that differentiates them, even if it's something minor. For example, they didn't just make the iPod mini smaller, they offered it in different colors. The iPhone 4S wasn't just a faster iPhone 4, it had Siri. I would be very surprised if a 7" iPad came out and didn't have some flourish, some differentiator that made it stand out in some way from the regular iPad and things like the kindle fire. Perhaps they make it absurdly thin? Or perhaps the display is a new display that works great in direct sunlight (you are going to read books on the thing)? If this thing is real, there is going to be some unique take on it. Price and size aren't enough of a sell on their own.
- lunarscape 14y ago
  Since we're throwing around ideas, how about a haptic touch screen? Maybe something like what Senseg offers [1][2]. [1] http://senseg.com/technology/senseg-technology http://senseg.com/technology/senseg-technology [2] http://tech-reviews.co.uk/news/apple-ipad-3-could-feature-haptic-screen/ http://tech-reviews.co.uk/news/apple-ipad-3-could-feature-ha...
  - JunkDNA 14y ago
    I have been waiting for the haptic stuff. I think it's almost certain they will go there (in fact, it's likely the perfect antidote to the MS Surface keyboard). Unfortunately, I think you need to think about this from a manufacturing standpoint. They are unlikely to put a new tech like that in a product that needs to be price competitive at the lower end of their product line. They need things that have been clearly demonstrated to be easily mass produced in sufficient quantity. Therefore, I think it's more likely to be something "safe" like a new physical design, software they completely control, colors, or perhaps a new display that someone else is already using in larger quantities. They have actually been fairly predictable with this stuff in the past: iPhone serves as the testbed for new tech. The small form factor means you need less of the really expensive materials and the US carrier subsidy prevents the initial price from being eye-popping. Once they get the manufacturing kinks worked out and the volume up, the tech can trickle down (over? up?) to the iPad and Mac lines.

58 points by jordw 14y ago

So now, with full screen interfaces only, we need to create artwork and a UI scaled and designed separately for: 1. iPhone/iPod 640×960 at 326ppi 2. iPad dimensions 1024x768 at 132PPI 3. Retina iPad 2048×1536 at 264PPI 4. iPad mini at 1024x768, but smaller pixels and yet expected same physical size controls, so interface has to be redone again specific for this one. 5. Whatever is after that. That's a lot of design variations and things to support for one program that for most developers is going to sell for between 99 cents and $2.99.

pkaler 14y ago
Nope. iOS 6 adds auto layout to Interface Builder and Core Layout to the runtime. You'll either start at the largest resolution and setup constraints as the screen size shrinks or at the smallest resolution and do the opposite.
- r00fus 14y ago
  Isn't this how it's done in the Android world (and chastised by iOS developers)? Really, I'd like to know.
  - kamechan 14y ago
    in android, one provides four different density-specific resources. ldpi: low-density screens (~120dpi) mdpi: medium-density (~160dpi) [baseline] hdpi: high-density (~240dpi) xhdpi: extra high-density (~320dpi) there is a nodpi qualifier which is intended for density-independent resources. there are also screen size qualifiers, small, normal, large, extra large.
    - telcodud 14y ago
      These screen size qualifiers have been deprecated beginning with Android 3.2 (HoneyComb). See best practices on Android developers site: http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html#DeclaringTabletLayouts http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support...
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - kamechan 14y ago
        i never used the screen-size qualifiers myself, but good to know they've deprecated them in favor of what seems to be simpler. AFAIK, the density qualifiers are still being used, and are mentioned in the "new" design guidelines document as well, giving me the impression they may stick around for a while. http://developer.android.com/design/style/devices-displays.html http://developer.android.com/design/style/devices-displays.h...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
Zenst 14y ago
Not when your outlining a iPad mini using the same resolution as the original iPad. In that case there is no more work than is already involved. Nothing stopping you doing your graphics at a higher resolution and working in that then scalling down. Also the harder it gets then the less competition, which for you a developer has to be good if people are put of by having to design/do work.
- b0sk 14y ago
  I don't get the last point. It's a level playing field. If it's more work for other developers, it's more work for you too.
  - Zenst 14y ago
    Last point being that if the person who write application has to do more work and effort then it will put more people off and as such mean more work for those who can be assed to do that extra little bit of work.
mikek 14y ago
Unless you are making a ruler app, I don't see much reason to make iPad mini apps any different than iPad apps. I can't think of anything I would change in my apps.
LnxPrgr3 14y ago
Gruber is arguing that there won't need to be a redesign for a smaller iPad because, if developers followed Apple's recommendations, touch target sizes on the smaller iPad will match the iPhone. Unless your app depends on the physical size of a point, no redesign is needed. So, you still have two layouts: iPhone/iPod and iPad. You have four graphics resolutions: two for each. Of course, as he said, we'll have to see how this plays out in reality. Maybe a smaller iPad will turn out to suck, and developers who want their apps to be usable on the thing will have to redesign them. It's hard to say without actually testing apps at that size.
ricardobeat 14y ago
That's really just two sizes, 1024x768 and 320x480, which you create at 2x resolution. And these are separate apps most of the time. There is no expectation that controls will be the same physical size on the rumored iPad mini; what happens is that scaled down they already have the same hit area as an iPhone, so you don't need separate graphics for it. It all fits beautifully, and one has to wonder if this was all planned from the start or just luck + sensible decisions.
illicium 14y ago
What about earlier-gen 320x240 iPhones (3GS; still in production!) and iPod touches? Does anyone develop with these screen sizes in mind? Reminds me of the "Android is fragmented" cliche.
- Tloewald 14y ago
  Um what? 3GS is 480x320. There's retina (2x) or non retina, iPhone or iPad Android fragmentation is a cliche because it's true.
- LnxPrgr3 14y ago
  The only thing you have to provide is low-resolution versions of your graphics, assuming you don't need the newer hardware for some reason. The layout's still exactly the same. iOS has two screen sizes, with a third rumored. Apps on that second size are usually designed differently anyway, to take advantage of the larger screen on the iPad. Such fragmentation! And this is over how many years?
- taligent 14y ago
  And Android is fragmented not because of hardware but because of developer APIs/operating system versions.
nirvana 14y ago
No, there are only two interfaces you make-- the iPhone and the iPad versions. These are your two code paths and the two Interface Builder projects. You want to make normal and 2X graphics of course, but for all of them this just means making 2X graphics and downsizing for a normal version as well. The iPad mini will use a screen with the dimensions of the original iPad and the touch targets will be of sufficient size (people did the math on this months ago, it works out fine.... the touch targets are closer to the iPhone size but plenty big.)
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
You missed the non-retina 3GS which is still being sold. Also, the rumor (according to Gruber again) is that the next iPhone will get longer, so newer iPhones will have more pixels in one dimension, so you'll need to make your portrait layout grow taller and your landscape layout grow wider.

wiredfool 14y ago

I think that in time, there will be an array of iOS devices at all price points from the ca. $100 to the laptop like $1k. (with some adjustments for carrier subsidies). They did it before with the iPod, from $99, add $50 for more storage, add $50 for a different form factor, and so on, for every price point between $100 and $400. Right now, the iPod touch is at $200, the iPad at 400, and 500-800. Phones are 400-700 w/o subsidies. Pushing the iPad down into the $200 range fills out that array of devices so that there's something for everyone who has a little bit of money to spend.

mtgx 14y ago
The software on the iPod wasn't much of a problem, though. For iOS devices they need to keep supporting the older hardware, and I don't think they can do that for hardware that is older than 3 generations/years. We're already seeing how some major features are not landing on even newer than 3 generations devices, like Maps and Navigation on iPad 1 and iPhone 4.
mturmon 14y ago
Sounds reasonable. This idea is in Gruber's article, when he quotes Tim Cook saying (about iPhone) that Apple did not want to leave a "price umbrella" -- an open price range leaving a niche in which competitors could flourish.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  $300 for a 7.85" with a Retina display would be outstanding. I say that as someone who loves the idea of the iPad, but has not gotten one because they're too cumbersome for extended reading.
  - wiredfool 14y ago
    I certainly didn't get my iPad for reading, but I've wound up reading a bunch of books on them, both through the kindle app and the iBooks one. While the experience isn't as good as a hardback, it's nowhere near bad enough to keep me from a good book. And it's far lighter than Stephenson's latest. Though, when opening one of the hardbacks I got this past christmas, I was very impressed with the resolution of the font and the crispness and uncluttered look of the pages. No fingerprints, no icons. Just well formatted text.

stevenj 14y ago

Honestly, I don't know why Apple would create an iPad mini. I have an iPad 2 and absolutely love it. There isn't another tablet I'd trade it in for (other than an iPad 3). I surely wouldn't trade it in for an iPad mini. Paul Buchheit once said: "If your product is great, it doesn't need to be good." To me, the iPad is a great product. Focus on making it better. As Steve Jobs has said: "It's what you don't do that matters most." (Paraphrased.)

nirvana 14y ago
I have a Retina iPad and I would trade it for an iPad mini. The iPhone is small enough to use every day, but it compromises in its smallness. The iPad is great- probably the best web browsing experience anywhere, and with apps like Flipboard and iBooks, etc, I just love it. But the iPad is too big. I use it a lot less because it is too cumbersome. An iPad mini might give me the greatness of the iPad in a smaller package. I don't know if it will be small enough to go with me all the time or not. I can say one thing for certain: If it is under $400, I will buy one, no question.
- stevenj 14y ago
  Interesting. Why and how is it cumbersome for you? I agree that reading a book on it isn't the best experience. But I personally just don't read many books anymore. I'm very selective as to the books I read now, as oppose to even 3 - 5 years earlier. And the ones I choose to read, I still prefer them in a physical copy. And I think, generally, people will continue reading (and buying) less books going forward, so trying to create an ebook reader would be a mistake. >I don't know if it will be small enough to go with me all the time or not. For me, the thing that'll always go with me (in addition to an iPhone) is a MacBook Air. >I can say one thing for certain: If it is under $400, I will buy one, no question. But will you buy a second and third one at some point? Or will you mostly be buying it for novelty reasons? I just don't see an iPad mini being a hit product that generates repeat customers.
  - philh 14y ago
    > Why and how is it cumbersome for you? I don't personally have a full-sized tablet or a smartphone. But I have a Playbook (7"), and one of the main ways I use it is lying in bed, on my side, with one hand on top to keep it upright and scroll with. I get the feeling an iPad would be too big for that.

guelo 14y ago

I like how BS marketing and lying to your customers is somehow seen as a good thing when viewed from inside the Apple bubble. Steve Jobs wasn't lying and playing you for chumps, it was apparently a wonderful gift that he could change his mind from one day to the next. And all the Apple faithful will vehemently spit the old gospel at you until the new pronouncement comes down from on-high and then they will all immediately change their tune. Just last week we were getting rabid comments on HN about how awful the idea of a 7-inch tablet is. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

lostlogin 14y ago
>>I have been accused of a habit of changing my opinions. I am not myself in any degree ashamed of having changed my opinions. What physicist who was already active in 1900 would dream of boasting that his opinions had not changed during the last half century? In science men change their opinions when new knowledge becomes available.<< Bertrand Russell
- guelo 14y ago
  It's marketing and lies. A video iPod or a tablet or whatever is that worst idea ever only because they're not selling it, once they start selling it it's new and revolutionary and you can't live without it. Most companies lie in their marketing but no other company that I know of has their customers praising them for it.
  - endemic 14y ago
    "It's marketing" Correct.

michaelpinto 14y ago

You know i wish someone would design a product that's really a different size: Imagine a device that's half the size of an iPhone or double the size of an iPad so it's like a big newspaper. Yeah I get the 7" form factor but I've already seen so many of those on the Android side that I'd like Apple to "Think Different".

simonh 14y ago
Apple's real motto isn't think different, it's "think it through". The android handset manufacturers have tried every combination of sizes, technologies, features (3D, mini projectors, built in laser pointers), etc and left it to the buyer to find out if they were a good idea or not. Apple, for better or worse, does the work up front to decide what are the optimum combinations of sizes, shapes, technologies and features and aims its products at the sweet spots. I have a friend who says he won't buy a tablet until they come out in full A4 size. I think he'll be waiting for years to come, and if one does come out it'll be from a company that made a tablet that size because it's a good size for paper, not because it's a good size for a tablet computer. I don't think that company will be Apple.
- sigkill 14y ago
  I have a 15.4" 16:10 screen, and I just placed an A4 sheet over it. The width of the sheet is identical to the height of my screen, while the length is around 1.5 inches lesser. This brings us to an aspect ratio of sqrt(2) with a 14.4" screen. Not going to happen anytime soon, sadly.
lmm 14y ago
Half the size of the ipad and you're looking at a big phone - something like the old dell streak or the (actually very popular, though ignored in HN circles) galaxy note. Double the size sounds incredibly impractical to me (you'd need a suitcase to carry it around in), but look for bigger tablets to happen if Toshiba's 13" effort is a success. It's no surprise that most manufacturers are sticking to safe ground, but there is innovation going on if you look for it.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Good thing it's safe to use pixel-precise layouts and only Android is where you have to worry about variably sized displays. I really don't get all of the comments applauding (or rather, excusing) the idea that we just keep developing iOS apps to support iPhone vs iPad resolution, when there are a myriad of devices that operate at different resolutions. It feels lazy and it feels like an easy excuse of out not having a different UI mindset from the get-go.

lukifer 14y ago

I'm surprised there was no discussion of weight. Fewer pixels and weaker GPU means the battery can get smaller, and it can get more comfortable in one hand, which is a crucial usability factor. I'm curious as to whether the weight will be competitive with the Fire or the Nexus; my guess is that the size and the glass will make it a bit heavier, but they could surprise us.

BvS 14y ago

So according the the rumors it will probably have a screen of lesser quality than the Nexus 7, it will probably be more expensive and it will probably be heavier (because it is much bigger). What's the point again? Ok, it's bigger but if there is any advantage of a 7 inch tablet it is the form factor (being small and light). So if Apple won't/can't adress the problems mentioned above the only reason I see anyone buying the iPad mini would the the eco-system. A huge plus, no question, but enough?

gnaffle 14y ago
I doubt it will be more expensive. After all, they still sell the iPad 2 for $100 more than the Nexus 7. The only other advantage would be price. Apple's been willing to cut some corners to achieve price before, for instance the iPod displays are (or used to be) worse than the iPhone ones even though they had the same resolution.
- BvS 14y ago
  Don't they sell the iPad 2 for 400 US$? This would be at least 150US$ more than the most expensive Nexus 7 and 200US$ more than the standard version or the kindle fire (assuming the next version won't be more expensive). I'm sure Apple could meet the price point or even undercut it (bear in mind that Google ads 25US$ credit for the Play store) but that would mean their margin goes down a lot. I'm not sure Apple is willing to go down that route. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that Apple is going to release a product that is inferior in some main aspects (eg screen resolution) and trying to compete on price.
  - fab13n 14y ago
    > I don't believe that Apple is going [...] to compete on price. Probably not on price, but on market share. iPads currently are the only decent game in town, except for the e-reader niche; they're safe as long as Android doesn't reach a critical mass, which would allow a healthy apps market to develop, and competitive HW prices to be reached through economy of scale. That's worth giving up some gross margin, and even cannibalize part of the iPad 3's market share. I don't know how they'll address the Nexus 7 threat to their monopoly; through a 8'' tablet, by further dropping the iPad 2's price, by litigation or other means... but they will fight back with all their might.

Kliment 14y ago

I don't get the sandpaper thing. Can someone explain it to me?

benhalllondon 14y ago
A finger is an essentially fat stylus, the raw space that your finger hits on the screen is always (say) .5cm x .5cm or so. It doesn't matter what the resolution screen your finger touches that size is always the same. So Apple defined that no touch interaction should be less than 44x44 points. And then points map to pixels in different ratios depending on dpi etc. Jobs was saying that on a smaller screen you either have a smaller number of touchable areas or you get small fingers and reduce the 44x44 points number.
- Kliment 14y ago
  So he's suggesting you sand your fingertips down? That's a really unpleasant image. The palm of my hand once had minor interaction with a belt sander, it was not fun.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  Though just to be clear, his comment makes absolutely no sense, since he was already at that point selling a 3.5" tablet, a quarter of the size of a 7" tablet, with no sandpaper required.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    Don't know why you are getting voted down, you're exactly correct. The iPod Touch and iPhone are basically 3.5" tablets.
    - czr80 14y ago
      Yes, but they run iPhone apps. Jobs' point was that you wouldn't want to run iPad apps on a 7" screen - if you tried to fit in the extra information you can show on an iPad into a smaller space that would make the touch targets too small. So now the proposition is that actually you can make an iPad layout fit in a ~8" screen because the iPad touch targets are a bit bigger than an iPhone anyway, and so you can shrink them a bit (to exactly iPhone size, it turns out) and they will work okay. We'll see.

JunkDNA 14y ago

One thing missing in all these write-ups is what the "killer feature" will be. If you look at new products in an existing product line from Apple, they almost always have something unique that differentiates them, even if it's something minor. For example, they didn't just make the iPod mini smaller, they offered it in different colors. The iPhone 4S wasn't just a faster iPhone 4, it had Siri. I would be very surprised if a 7" iPad came out and didn't have some flourish, some differentiator that made it stand out in some way from the regular iPad and things like the kindle fire. Perhaps they make it absurdly thin? Or perhaps the display is a new display that works great in direct sunlight (you are going to read books on the thing)? If this thing is real, there is going to be some unique take on it. Price and size aren't enough of a sell on their own.

lunarscape 14y ago
Since we're throwing around ideas, how about a haptic touch screen? Maybe something like what Senseg offers [1][2]. [1] http://senseg.com/technology/senseg-technology http://senseg.com/technology/senseg-technology [2] http://tech-reviews.co.uk/news/apple-ipad-3-could-feature-haptic-screen/ http://tech-reviews.co.uk/news/apple-ipad-3-could-feature-ha...
- JunkDNA 14y ago
  I have been waiting for the haptic stuff. I think it's almost certain they will go there (in fact, it's likely the perfect antidote to the MS Surface keyboard). Unfortunately, I think you need to think about this from a manufacturing standpoint. They are unlikely to put a new tech like that in a product that needs to be price competitive at the lower end of their product line. They need things that have been clearly demonstrated to be easily mass produced in sufficient quantity. Therefore, I think it's more likely to be something "safe" like a new physical design, software they completely control, colors, or perhaps a new display that someone else is already using in larger quantities. They have actually been fairly predictable with this stuff in the past: iPhone serves as the testbed for new tech. The small form factor means you need less of the really expensive materials and the US carrier subsidy prevents the initial price from being eye-popping. Once they get the manufacturing kinks worked out and the volume up, the tech can trickle down (over? up?) to the iPad and Mac lines.