More Mini

So, while I was posting this last night, people with better sources than me (which is to say, people with sources of any kind) were also thinking about the iPad mini.

The idea of Apple focusing on making the smaller iPad dramatically thinner and lighter certainly makes sense, and I agree with John Gruber on this point:

How thin? As an iPhone devotee (thickness: 9.3 mm) I marvel at the relative thinness of the iPod Touch (7.2 mm) whenever I see one. So, how thin for the iPad Mini? How about iPod Touch thin: 7.2 mm.

My only additional comment (not a prediction, and with no inside info) is this: You know what else is as thin as the iPod Touch? That’s right, the iPod Touch. Remind me again, does that have a retina display?

Retina iPad Mini

I don’t think there is any doubt that Apple is working on a smaller version of the iPad. They’d be crazy to not be looking at options, even if they never release anything the public can line up to buy.

The evidence that the front runner in the smaller iPad race has a 7.85-inch display also seems very strong. For example, this post from Joel Bernstein (who apparently went to school with my wife) on Cast Irony is a clear explanation of why this particular size makes so much sense.

However, what seals the deal for this screen size in my mind is not specifically that the touch targets would be the same size as they are on an iPhone, but that it opens the door to using existing iPhone screen technology cut into larger rectangles. I think I first heard this idea from John Gruber either on an episode of the Talk Show, or possibly here:

Here’s the logic behind such a display. Displays aren’t manufactured at their finished size; rather, they’re made on big sheets, and then cut to size. I believe the iPad Mini (or whatever it’s going to be called) uses the same display as the iPhone 3GS. So instead of cutting these sheets into 3.5-inch 480 × 320 displays for the iPhone 3GS, they’ll cut them into 7.85-inch 1024 × 768 displays for the smaller iPad. Same exact display technology, though — display technology that Apple has been producing at scale ever since the original iPhone five years ago. These are displays Apple knows they can produce efficiently and in enormous quantities. All they have to do is cut them into bigger pieces.

In general this has been an argument in favor of the iPad mini being introduced as a non-retina device. The thing surprising me right now is that there isn’t more speculation on the possibility that the iPad mini could be introduced with a retina display.

Isn’t it a shame that Apple never figured out how to make a retina display at that same 3.5-inch size? If only they had some device that was currently using a 3.5-inch 960 x 640 display so that they could cut the same display stock into 7.85-inch 2048 x 1536 displays for the smaller iPad…

Of course, if they did have such a device, it would be even better if they had sold more of them than of all previous models of the device combined.

Seriously though, I understand that the screen technology from the original iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPhone 3GS has to be cheaper to produce than the screen technology in the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S. However, Apple has been making lots of retina iPhone displays. At this point the numbers suggest that they’ve produced roughly three times as many retina iPhone displays as they have non-retina iPhone displays: 

  • Sales of all iPhones prior to the iPhone 4 = N
  • So sales of the iPhone 4 would be roughly N
  • And sales of the iPhone 4S would be roughly 2N
  • So total sales of retina iPhones = 3N

It could be that Apple is planning to shut down production of the iPhone 3GS and is looking for something to do with the ‘leftover’ production lines. It could also be that Apple will shut down production of the iPhone 3GS and be glad to reduce the number of types of displays they need to produce.

Maybe the iPad mini will never be released. Maybe it will be released, and it will start with a non-retina display. I’m just saying, Apple knows how to make a retina display for a 7.85 inch iPad.

Fat Thumb

What iPhone owner doesn’t recognize the hand position from 0:23 to 0:33 in this video? You know you’ve had to do that sometime. I like the ‘fat thumb’ concept as a possible alternative.

Via Engadget.

Olympic Infographics

These infographics and videos from The New York Times are great.

It is interesting to see how different events have played out over time. For example, the current men’s Olympic long jump record was set in 1968, but the Gold medal winner in the men’s 100-meter sprint from 1968 wouldn’t have even medaled in 1996, 2004, 2008, or 2012.

If we look at the same graphic in 2056 I wonder if Usain Bolt’s new Olympic record will stand the way the long jump record has, or fall the way previous 100-meter sprint records have?

Via The Verge.

Same Day

Consistent next day delivery, with a same day option, for everything from Amazon would be amazing. I can certainly relate to the stories of eerily fast shipping times. Sometimes it just blows me away how fast something ordered online can make it to my door (both from Amazon and elsewhere). Although I haven’t seen anything quite like this story from Farhad Manjoo at Slate:

One Friday afternoon last month, I ordered three smoke alarms, and I debated paying extra for shipping so that I could install them over the weekend. The $9 per item that Amazon charges for Saturday delivery seemed too steep, though, so I went with standard two-day service. The next morning, the delivery guy arrived with my smoke detectors. I’d gotten next-day Saturday service for free.
Of course, as I write this, it has been three days since my wife ordered two in stock items from Amazon. Not only do we not have the items in hand, they haven’t even shipped. Though, to be fair, that this even seems like a long wait says something about how things have changed in the last 30 years.

Speaking of waiting, I’m not sure what this says about my childhood, but some of my most vivid memories relate to waiting for things. Specifically, I’m thinking of the offers where you would collect some sort of proof of purchase, send those somewhere in the mail, and then wait for something to be shipped back to you. The details usually said to expect a wait of at least 4-6 weeks, and I distinctly remember the disappointment of reading an offer only to find out that it was even longer than that.

I also remember being very aware of Sears as a child (perhaps in part because their listing was next to ours in the phonebook, and there was a period of time where we got semi-frequent calls from people trying to place orders). This was in the days of the Sears catalog when our local store was little more than a shipping destination for ordered merchandise. I have fond memories of spending hours pouring over a new Christmas catalog from Sears looking at every possible toy I could add to my wish list.

I’m pretty sure that if you had told my 6 year old self that someday he would have instant access to a searchable catalog of products with images and reviews it would have seemed impressive, but not impossible. I think if you had added that from that catalog he would be able to instantly place an order, without a phone call, and have the item arrive at his door the next day it would have seemed absurd. He might actually have been more likely to believe that we’d have teleportation figured out so that the item could materialize right next to him instantaneously.

(In the spirit of the Slate article and general full disclosure: ClQ17 participates in Amazon Associates.)

The Big and the Small

Great photo set of the LHC from The Atlantic (via The Verge).

Since I’m thinking LHC, I should also mention the Higgs Boson news (don’t miss the PHC Comics video). It is certainly a big step for particle physics and the Standard Model. However, I think I would have been more excited for something that was inconsistent with the Standard Model. After all, we know that the Standard Model on its own doesn’t bring the unification with gravitational theory that is so appealing.

Of course the Standard Model doesn’t have to be ‘wrong’ to be incomplete. However, as exciting as the world of particle physics is today, I think it would have been that much more exciting with new evidence that took current theories, roughed them up, and stole their lunch money (metaphorically or literally).

Scratching the Surface

As I’ve already mentioned, I think Microsoft’s Surface is an interesting direction for them. However, it also seems clear that there is more we don’t know about this product than you might guess.

The Macalope has some witty banter with the Winotaur on this very topic. Worth a read. Somewhat less witty, but perhaps more informative, is this piece from Danny Sullivan at Marketing Land (via the aforementioned Macalope article).

It certainly seems like an odd play for Microsoft to preannounce with so few details, and with such hesitancy to allow anyone to actually use the product. I can’t say they made the wrong choice though. They’ve certainly created a lot of buzz. Heck, they’ve got me writing articles about Microsoft. Who would have predicted that?