The case for a 7.8” iPad | Hacker News Reader

The case for a 7.8” iPad

castirony.com

29 pointsquarterto29 comments

For visual reference, we made a printable PDF for a 7.85" iPad that shows it in actual size: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/23/this-is-what-a-7-85-inch...

Or you can view this page on your current iPad: http://cdn.macrumors.com/downloads/ipadmini/

The UI seems fine. As mentioned in the article, elements are no smaller than an iPhone.

More good links for a visual reference:

Compared to the iPad 3: http://versusio.com/en/apple-ipad-mini-64gb-wifi-cellular-vs...

Compared to the Nexus 7: http://versusio.com/en/apple-ipad-mini-64gb-wifi-cellular-vs...

To see the 7.85" in real size click in the top right corner.

I think the iPad 3* has 2048-by-1536-pixel resolution. Your site claims it has a 1024-by-768-pixel resolution. Why?

* https://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

4(iPod touch and iPhone), 7.85, 9.7 = Apple trying to do to tablets what they did for MP3 players.

Dominate every possible price range with a slightly more expensive and greatly superior product. Dominate the supply chain and maximize profits. People are willing to pay the $100 premium is Apple makes a better product (No, I don't want a iOS vs. Android discussion here).

I'd say, the 7.85" is coming out soon. Also, the PPI argument has been out through DaringFireball for months now. This isn't a recent find.

Is it likely to be a $100 premium? The iPad 3 is $499 and the iPad 2 is $399, so I'd expect what amounts to a mini iPad 2 to be maybe $299... So based on that I assume you are comparing it to the new google tablet, except that this is being sold at cost -- I don't think we'll be seeing too many android tablets of comparable quality at that price.

If they do release a iPad mini, I would expect Apple to quit making the iPad 2. I also would expect the $299 price point, but would not be surprised if the went $249 or $199.

The gist of this discussion is that a little arbitrary shrinking of UI elements won't be a big deal, because the guidelines advocated for a few more pixels on the ipad than on the iphone.

It feels like lazy logic, and until now Apple has never forced user apps at a lower physical size that targeted by the developper, at least on the iOS front. Good quality iphone and ipad apps are expected to be pixel perfect and thoroughly designed for the target device, and Apple pushed with all it's weight in this direction. It would be strange for apple to just say from now on "screw the physical size, who cares about interface details, they'll just learn to click better"

The point is that UI elements on the iPad are now slightly bigger than on the iPhone because of the lower DPI (ignoring the retina screen). Pixel-wise, UI elements are the same size between the iPad and the iPhone.

Shrinking the iPad to 7.85" would give it the same density as the iPhone and UI elements would be the same size.

>UI elements would be the same size

I understand your point, UI elements would be the same size as if they were rendered on the iphone. And that's not the same size as they were intended in the first place, if the app targeted the ipad.

I don't see Apple being one to release the tablet just to compete. The 7" would eat into 10" sales and a new formfactor only adds another resolution that devs have to account for (unless the original iPad's resolution is effectively retina at a 7" size?).

When it comes to portability, would 7" be that much more portable? I know people can put these in their pockets, but it's hardly practical.

Ultimately, it doesn't quite make sense to me at this moment. In the event that Apple does release a 7" one day, I really think there'd have to be a drastic repositioning of the 10" or the 7" would serve some special niche purpose

Part of the point of the article is that it would not really add another resolution that devs would have to account for.

A 7.85" iPad could have the exact same resolution as a non-retina 9.7" iPad and still have the same pixel density as the iPhone. This would result in UI elements that would be no smaller than normal for the iPhone, making it relatively easy for existing iPad apps to run with no modification.

Can you walk us through the math you did to arrive at the following conclusion?

A 7.85" iPad could have the exact same resolution as a non-retina 9.7" iPad and still have the same pixel density as the iPhone.

So the trick is that Apple tells App devs that the minimal tappable UI element at 44x44 points.

- The original iPhone had a PPI of 163PPI

- The original iPad had a PPI of 132PPI

The 44x44 point recommendation was the same for the iPhone and iPad. So the minimal tappable element on the iPad happened to be physically bigger even though it was the same # of points.

A 7.85" iPad happens to have a PPI of 163PPI. (same as original iPhone)

So that means any UI element designed with a minimum of 44x44 points will still be as tappable on a 7.85" iPad as it was on the iPhone. If you see the PDF/actual-size file I linked in another comment, you'll see the UI elements on a 7.85" iPad are no smaller than elements on an iPhone.

actual math here: http://www.appadvice.com/appnn/2012/03/apple-has-163-reasons...

The article focused on resolution, but with all of Apple's flagship mobile offerings bearing retina displays, I consider it a requirement that any new device is retina.

I didn't make it clear, but I understand the author's talking about logical resolution. I'm wondering if the iPad (1024x768) resolution scaled to 7" would effectively be Retina based on Apple's definitions. He scaled it by a factor of the iPhone's logical PPI (not the Retina pixel density). If the resolution was scaled by the required PPI to create a retina display (at ~7"), would a 1024x768 display still work out to a physical size of approximately 7"?

It would fit the pattern of the iPod if Apple started moving into the lower dollar ranges with new products. Since the article demonstrates that most apps will be fine, it seems like a reasonable win. The retina display is nice in the iPad 3rd generation, so they have a clear differentiator between models besides size.

Ah. I never considered the parallels between the iPod device line.

That's probably the one argument that helps me understand and appreciate the reasoning for the 7" a bit more. However, I still consider the retina display a mandatory for all new* products that Apple releases

*where new is not a new revision of an existing device + form factor.

I get the feeling the normal displays are going to hang around for a while. Keeping a non-retina iPhone model (3GS successor) would allow Apple to continue its move into prepay with a cheaper device than the retina iPhones.

I have thought about this too, but how it would work for the iPhone product line. What would an iPhone nano or iPhone shuffle look like? Wold there be a market for it?

Obviously, an iPhone "shuffle" would not randomly call people, but could perhaps be displayless. Even voice-only controlled.

For a while, retina versus non-retina displays, lower spec camera, less storage, and different case (new vs classical).

No. Compare the iPod touch, to the iPod nano or shuffle. it's a completely diffrent form factor, not just a lower resolution screen.

The principle is to have a range of models, changes to form factor aren't really that easy on a device that developers have to target. That is why I believe the differences will not be form factor based.

Well, AFAIK, you can't develop third party apps for the ipod shuffle/nano. An iPhone shuffle/nano would not be a smartphone.

Given that the iphone is quite portable and a 4.5" model is all but assured, I'm not sure I see the point of having a 7" tablet. The issue with the 10" is that it's not quite as portable as some people would like -- but the 7" seems to fragment the product line a little too much given that you already have the ipod touch.

On the other hand, the one way I could see this working is if they reshuffle categories such that the lower resolution iPads and the iPod touch fade away to be replaced by the 7" wifi model. That would make some sense.

EDIT: Ooops, 4", not 4.5"

a 4.5" model is all but assured

Citation? All the evidence I've seen points to a 4" model. http://www.cultofmac.com/177233/yet-another-4-inch-iphone-5-...

Right. In addition, the '7" iPad' is rumored to actually have a 7.85" screen, so that Apple would now have a 4" phone, an ~8" tablet, and a ~10" tablet. I'd say those devices are easily distinguished from one another.

If they came out with an 8" I'd want the 10" to bump up to 12" I think it would still be manageable, you'd have 4 inch differentiation among each product.

ya, all the part leaks have been of a tall 4" model. Not a 4.5" model.

Sorry, you're right, it's 4" I was thinking of. At any rate, the point was that the phone display is going to increase in size.

I doubt a 4" iphone, mainly a lot of people here assured me that current iphone size was an ergonomic magic dimension for palm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com