Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

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

#61

Post by Kliment »

benhalllondon wrote: post #57
Kliment wrote: post #50

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

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…

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.

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

#62

Post by ZeroGravitas »

droithomme wrote: post #2

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 v…

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.

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

#63

Post by ZeroGravitas »

benhalllondon wrote: post #57
Kliment wrote: post #50

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

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…

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.

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

#64

Post by JunkDNA »

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.

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

#65

Post by aik »

berntb wrote: post #56
aik wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with some others here -- the iPad is great, but "great" needs to be prefaced with a descriptor of what it is great at. eBook reading is definitely one thing it is not especially good at in many cases. For the past 2 years I've been reading ebooks, and for the past 6 months I've been using an iPad for reading ebooks, and I've found it just too cumbersome in many cases -- you essentially need 2 hands to hold it…

>>just too cumbersome If you're reading literature, yes. But for full size pdf docs, you generally want more than 7". (I've heard people claim they regularly read A4 documents on 7", but never seen it...) Also, my iPad 1 IPS screen blew me away. My new iPad screen is much better. (I'd prefer an eInk A4 screen, when they get better page turns.)

I agree, for pdf docs and magazines and things like that it's great for. I almost only read non-fiction though, where the layout is flexible (again except for images).

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

#66

Post by pooriaazimi »

BvS wrote: post #43

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 buyi…

> What's the point again?

A plethora of already existing quality apps (iff the stupid rumors that it has a 1024x768 screen is true).

(I personally don't believe in this rumors one bit. Apple releasing an iPad mini is the most stupid move I can imagine. Just sell iPad 4 for 100-150 dollars less and you're still the king and will sell 100 million of them in 2013)

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

#67

Post by pooriaazimi »

aik wrote: post #42
stevenj wrote: post #14

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 mat…

I agree with some others here -- the iPad is great, but "great" needs to be prefaced with a descriptor of what it is great at. eBook reading is definitely one thing it is not especially good at in many cases. For the past 2 years I've been reading ebooks, and for the past 6 months I've been using an iPad for reading ebooks, and I've found it just too cumbersome in many cases -- you essentially need 2 hands to hold it…

I have this issue as well. But, I think the answer is a better case (that you can hold the damn thing in one hand sitting in portrait on your lap and doesn't fall off), rather than a smaller iPad.

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

#68

Post by snowwrestler »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #63
benhalllondon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Don't know why you are getting voted down, you're exactly correct. The iPod Touch and iPhone are basically 3.5" tablets.

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

#69

Post by bradleyland »

stevenj wrote: post #22
nirvana wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pack…

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 try…

> Why and how is it cumbersome for you?

I don't mean to pick on you, but this is a totally unfair question. Some guys wear boxers while others prefer briefs. They find aspects of one or the other uncomfortable.

Some people find the weight/size of the iPad cumbersome. It's a matter of personal experience, not some objective metric. What you really want to know (if you're Apple) is how many people aren't buying iPads because they find them cumbersome.

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

#70

Post by czr80 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #68
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't know why you are getting voted down, you're exactly correct. The iPod Touch and iPhone are basically 3.5" tablets.

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.

Post reply on HN