“There’s been increasing chatter in the rumor mill about the possibility of a smaller 7.85″ iPad that could be introduced sometime in 2012,” Arnold Kim reports for MacRumors.
“The supply chain has actually been very specific about the screen size of this rumored iPad. According to Chinese manufacturers, Apple is buying up 7.85″ screens for this upcoming mini iPad. So, we asked our friends at CiccareseDesign to put together these mockups of what a 7.85″ iPad would look like in comparison to the existing 9.7″ iPad,” Kim reports. “They also created [an] ‘actual size’ PDF that can be printed out so you can play with one yourself in real life… If you don’t have a printer handy, you can view it in actual size in an iPad web browser. If you save it as a web icon on your home screen, it will then launch without a menu bar so you can fully appreciate the size.”
Kim reports, “We should point out that Steve Jobs had been adamant that a 10-inch screen is the minimum necessary for a tablet, and in a conference call said that he didn’t believe a 7-inch tablet was a good user experience: ‘We’re not not making a 7-inch tablet because we don’t want to hit a lower price point. We just believe it’s too small to hit the user experience people want. When we make decisions, it’s not about cost, it’s about value when you factor in the software. We’re all about the best products at aggressive prices.’ So, based on that stance, it might seem unlikely that Apple would produce such a device, but they’ve been known to change their mind before.”
Read more and get the PDF and links in the full article here.
Related article:
Analyst: Don’t expect an ‘iPad mini’ with tiny 7-inch screen in 2012 – December 23, 2011
A 7″ iPad would be DOA.
I remember a rumor from one guy that guaranteed a 7 inch iPad before it was inteoduced.
Well, 7.85″ isn’t 7″. Steve didn’t say anything about a 7.85″ tablet. 😉
That’s what I’ve been thinking, too!
There you go using logic again. How dare you! Fanboys won’t like that.
The screen ratio is what set’s that apple concept apart. It’s actually a great size. I could see business people and kids teenagers it over the larger size. As a remote of sorts on the coffee table and as a game controllers it also works better than the other sizes.
If the price is right I could see this as another huge hit.
Maybe the 7.85 ipad mini would be sold with an Apple TV. Still functioning as an ipad, but also a dedicated apple tv “remote”. One that never left the living room, or always sat on the coffee table. Makes sense.
I find that I need the “maxi”
Pad.
This!
I was thinking the same thing!
I don’t get, we’re supposed to read books on the iPad and play games on the iPad and conduct everyday business it, right? Then according to MDN’s usual stance on this much less Steve’s we shouldn’t be able to do these things on the iPhone. Wrong.
I am waiting for the iPad 3 before I jump on board the band wagon. If I have to choose between the 7.85 and the 10 I will probably go for the smaller of the two. It’s easier to handle and the buttons will be plenty big enough. If the aren’t then I’ll pinch just like I do now on the iPhone.
The ratio makes a big difference. 7.85 inches might be the key.
That looks awesome and I’d love to have one.
I could see such a device, but frankly they would be smarter to market it as a large iPod touch, than an iPad mini. That way they don’t have to eat Steve’s words, and that puts it (and ALL other 7-8 inch form factors) in the ‘toy’ category, further distancing the competition from the iPad level. The big challenge would be things like the Kindle Fire, because of its loss-leader pricing, and the fact that this device would be expected to cost more than a touch.
like an iPod XL and keep the iPad the way it is I like the iPad the way it is
a 7.85″ iPod would be “small tablet sized” – but would only run blown-up phone apps. and what’s the point of THAT?? Not gonna happen. If an 8″ model comes out it’ll be an iPad. If a a 5-6″ model comes out THAT will be an iPod.
I don’t care mini ipad what not. The price point is major issue for me. But I don’t think that apple will break major point like what amazon did. It is just impossible for apple. Apple products still keep expensive. Quality is matter though. But apple can’t continue to hit the market with this strategy.
A 7.85 inch iPod would go over big with the kids for sure. An iPad, not so sure unless it was considerly lighter. Current iPad 2 still too heavy for reading for a long time.
Of course it would be lighter, probably under a pound. That would be part of the attraction.
Man I think MacRumors nailed it. I wasn’t entirely convinced an “iPad mini” would make sense until I saw that picture. I kept envisioning a Kindle Fire/Galaxy Tab/Nook Color/PlayBook with a skinny iOS homepage plastered on front, but where they all fail is the screen ratio. 4:3 at 7.85″ would make a huge difference.
You put that on the market at $299, leave the iPad 2 on shelves at $399 and introduce the iPad 3 at $499 and Apple would be untouchable. They’d have all their bases covered.
User experience will fail comparably. UI controls will be too small to use it as iPad device. Huge iPod touch might be much better user experience possibility.
That argument fails the common sense test; humans are not clones. Human fingers are not identical. The variation in the width of a finger tip across a population, from person to person, varies MUCH more than the mere 20% reduction in screen size going from 10 inches to 8 inches. A 300-pound NFL linebacker and a 10-year-old child BOTH find the current iPad perfectly usable. Imagine that…
I think this is very possible. The current iPad is 9.7 inches. This rumored iPad is 7.85 inches, which is closer to 8 inches than 9.7 is to 10. Here are some points to consider…
All the current “7-inch” tablets fail because they all use long narrow screens (“wide” screens). That’s why there is a problem displaying things gracefully, because it’s too narrow when held vertically, and too short when held horizontally (except for showing widescreen video). This makes it even less functional at 7 inches. Imagine a crazy “12-inch” tablet that had a screen that was 11.5 inches by 2 inches. It could be advertised as a 12-inch tablet (because that’s the diagonal measurement), but it would be unusable. The current 7-inch tablets are halfway there. In contrast, an 8-inch iPad with a 4:3 aspect ratio (like the current iPad) would be very usable.
With the current iPad, GUI elements are spread out on the screen. If they were 20% closer together, it would not cause a usability problem. An 8-inch 4:3 screen at the current 1024×768 resolution would have a pixel density about equal to the original iPhone (through 3GS) screen, around 160 pixels per inch. So the argument that users would have to “file down” their fingertips to be 20% smaller is not really valid. I think the current iPad GUI is already designed (from the start of iPad) to be very usable 20% smaller.
If Apple keeps the same 1024×768 resolution, Apple could have a smaller, less expensive iPad model without causing ANY platform fragmentation. From the user’s perspective, it would just as useful, because the exact same content is being displayed on the screen, 20% smaller. With smaller pixels, things will appear sharper without Apple going to “retina” pixel density all in one (very expensive) shot.
A 10-inch display is 8 inches by 6 inches, or 48.0 square inches. As some will point out, a 20% linear drop to an 8-inch display makes it 6.4 inches by 4.8 inches, which is 30.7 square inches, which is only 64% of 48 square inches. But, if the resolution is still 1024×768 (and showing the exact same content), it’s NOT 64% as usable based on physical size.
The ADVANTAGE of the smaller screen extends to the third (thickness) dimension and weight. If Apple makes the screen 64% smaller while keeping the current iPad’s thickness, and we assume Apple will continue to use interior space as efficiently as possible, that means an 8-inch iPad would weigh at least 64% of the current iPad (or about one-third less). An 8-inch screen would use probably use significantly less power, requiring a smaller battery for 10-hour battery life. It may be possible for Apple to make it half the weight of the original iPad, and noticeable lighter than the current iPad, maybe even thinner and lighter. That would be a major benefit, well worth 20% on-screen size reduction that still shows the exact same content.
Again this is rumor only….no facts. Apple isn’t going make a small iPad. Mr. Jobs made it clear why they won’t do it. Apple doesn’t follow trends….they create them. The 7inch tab is not something Apple will produce. Many people seem to forget Apple is not about everyone having their products for the just having the largest market share. They go after what really counts…..profit & making the best products they can. Having a product sell out is so much better that it creates more demand for it in the long run. Apple undestands not everybody can afford their products and the people that can buy them….a lot of them! So having 81 billion dollars in the bank and selling high quilaty in demand products seems to working for them.
Apple is not “following a trend” if it produces an EIGHT-inch tablet that uses a 4:3 aspect ratio screen. It is again setting the trend. All the current “7-inch” tablets use wide/narrow (depending on how it’s held) screens, and they are less usable and more awkward for general use.
Steve Jobs said many things that were not ultimately true, because he was very good a misdirecting the competition and manipulating the media. That was part of his job description, as CEO, except he (with “reality distortion field”) was so much better than his contemporaries that people took everything he said as the absolute unassailable truth.
He said iPods would not get video, because the screen was too small, until iPod nano (with an even smaller screen) got video. He said third-party developers should create web-based apps for iPhone (instead of native apps), until Apple released the iPhone SDK and opened the App Store. He said Apple was not Interested in ebooks, because Americans no longer read books, until the iPad was released with iBooks as a key feature… misdirection and manipulation.
Steve Jobs was ridiculing the competition’s attempts a competing against iPad with 7-inch narrow-screen tablets. He did not rule out Apple creating an 8-inch tablet… one that is essentially a 10-inch iPad scaled down 20%, with the same 1024×768 resolution that shows the exact same content on the screen at the same comfortable 4:3 aspect ratio, and weigh half as much as the original 2010 iPad, and maybe cost $100 less at the starting price.
I would be all over a 7.8″ iPad like a rash. Perfect size for me, for web browsing, book reading, (just measured a Roger Zelazney paperback; guess what the diagonal measurement is), navigation; the smaller screen would be perfect in a car, and maps like Ordnance Survey would be fantastic on that screen, the overall size not far off a folded map, so ideal for carrying out in the wild.
I’d certainly fight my way to the front of the queue for one of these.
Pretty please, Apple…
iPod touch, 8″ iPad, 10″ iPad 2 at reduced price, 10″ iPad 3 at same price; MacBook Air, MacBook Pro; throw in an iPhone for good measure.
As far as I’m concerned, as ken1w and R2 and others have taken more time to point out, this would be a KILLER combination with those 2 sizes and 3 price points for the iPad , and a very, very nice lineup overall.
And I totally agree, it’s the ratio that makes it all make sense.
Also, if “conventional” wisdom was used, why would there be an 11″ Air AND a 13″ Air?
They could have left it at the 13″ Air, but they added the 11″ and it is the bigger seller.
No reason why adding an 8″ iPad to the 10″ would work out any different.
I still say, killer lineup for portable devices with the touch all the way to a 13″ (and possibly 15″) Air.
Why 7 inch iPad? Steve Job said its a bad idea for a 7 inch iPad. Suckers
Steve also said people don’t read anymore before he introduced the iBook Store.
Steve said nobody wants to watch video on a tiny screen before he introduced the iPod 5G with video.
Steve said the iPhone didn’t need native third party apps before he introduced the App Store.
Who knows what the process is like. Maybe that was Steve’s intuition talking while designers and engineers worked to convince him otherwise before he finally changes his mind. We know that it was Scott Forstall who got him to reverse his decision on native iPhone apps, for example. Regardless, it’s been established that Steve’s public word is never final.
Yeah, and it’s going to have a slide-out keyboard and a floppy-drive. This rumor is DOA. It’s not going to happen, get over it and let’s talk reality.
The iPad needs to compete against the Kindle Fire like BMW needs to compete against Chevrolet. NOT!!!
The Kindle Fire is a formidable competitor that will only grow in strength, especially once Amazon releases a 10″ model for probably $299. It would be unwise to dismiss it so immodestly.
You’re right in a sense, however, that this iPad mini wouldn’t necessarily be a response to the Kindle Fire. It would have been in development for quite some time at Apple, afterall, even as Steve publicly disparaged smaller tablets. An iPad mini would first and foremost strengthen Apple’s hand in the tablet arena. It would be created because it was a good product idea that Apple felt was necessary in order to fortify the overall iOS ecosystem. Everything else would come secondary.