Apple: Jobs was receptive to 7-inch tablets

Apple: Jobs was receptive to 7-inch tabletsIt's always difficult to tell what's going on in One Infinite Loop and what goes into the decision-making process.

And for so long, we've been told that Apple hates the idea of 7-inch tablets: late boss Steve Jobs said they were pointless, describing them as "dead on arrival" which is why we've never seen them from Apple.

Until now. With reports that we're going to be seeing Apple launch an iPad Mini, now we're being told that the company had been discussing the plan for a while and Steve Jobs was actually "very receptive" to the idea. Which kinda feels like Winston Smith rewriting history for the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 - but there is evidence to back it up.

As with other revelations, it's all come about because of this tit-for-tat court spat between Apple and Samsung. Remember, Samsung has launched several tablets that size commercially.

So, according to evidence submitted by Scott Forstall, Apple VP, Eddy Cue, sent an email in January of last year pointing to an article comparing the original Samsung Galaxy Tab to the iPad and  said "I believe there will a 7-inch market and we should do one."

Cue said that he'd "expressed this to Steve several times since Thanksgiving and he seemed very receptive the last time."

Unfortunately, it doesn't mean Apple invented the seven-inch tablet (though it may claim it did). But it is the latest tit-bit in this soap opera to whet our interest. It'll be interesting to see if any emails from Jobs come out too - and indeed what he did have to say on the matter privately.

Via The Verge

Read more about: iOSApple iPad 3

Add a comment
21 comments

matt101101 / MOD  Aug. 6, 2012 at 09:20

Unless there's proof Jobs said that, he didn't (in the eyes of the law). It's called hearsay evidence; saying something that you heard someone else say, in this case that Cue said Jobs said he was receptive to the idea of a 7" tablet. It's fine to state that that's what you heard, it's not okay to state that what you heard is the truth.

Well, that's how it'd be under UK law, anyway.

Stelph  Aug. 6, 2012 at 10:20

Unless there's proof Jobs said that, he didn't (in the eyes of the law). It's called hearsay evidence; saying something that you heard someone else say, in this case that Cue said Jobs said he was receptive to the idea of a 7" tablet. It's fine to state that that's what you heard, it's not okay to state that what you heard is the truth.


I agree, AFAIK there isnt actually any evidence that Jobs had said he was behind the idea of a 7" iPad, only that other people have said he was. If i put my cynical hat on I would say that its another attempt by Apple to get the iCrowd foaming at the mouth for an upcoming iPad mini (or at the very least, prepare to fend off all the inevitable posts by people pointing out that Jobs slated 7" tablets when they were first announced)

Pondlife  Aug. 6, 2012 at 11:00

So they have the email from the vp but no reply to it from Jobs, hmmm yeah I so believe he was in favour.
Latest rumour I've seen says they've dropped the camera on this so far fictional device.

MrTenPercent  Aug. 6, 2012 at 11:48

Matt: What is this so-called "UK law" relating to evidence of which you speak? I seem to recall that there were separate legal systems relating to such matters as the law of evidence.

JanSt / MOD  Aug. 6, 2012 at 13:24

Jobs also tweeted I should be paid better, and that Matt deserves a free SGS3 for his services. But then the J3st3R deleted his tweets....

Pondlife  Aug. 6, 2012 at 13:34

Oh well can't slander the dead I believe so you can put such ludicrous views forward..

matt101101 / MOD  Aug. 6, 2012 at 14:02

Matt: What is this so-called "UK law" relating to evidence of which you speak? I seem to recall that there were separate legal systems relating to such matters as the law of evidence.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 "talks about" hearsay evidence in UK criminal cases.

Though in the UK, hearsay evidence is usually (obviously, as with most rules there are exceptions), admissible in civil cases. I don't know if the same it true for US cases, I have a feeling it isn't, but I'm far from sure. I'm sure I could look it up for you if you're really that interested?

matt101101 / MOD  Aug. 6, 2012 at 14:03

Jobs also tweeted I should be paid better, and that Matt deserves a free SGS3 for his services. But then the J3st3R deleted his tweets....
Well Jobs emailed me and told me I was to be the next CEO of Apple, seems to be admissible evidence.

MrElevenPercent  Aug. 6, 2012 at 19:42

Matt: Perhaps you should read section 337 of the Act. Seems that the 2003 Act doesn't talk about hearsay evidence in UK criminal cases, because, of course, there are no such things. There are criminal cases under the laws of England and Wales, criminal cases under the laws of Northern Ireland, and criminal cases under the laws of Scotland.

matt101101 / MOD  Aug. 7, 2012 at 12:03

Look, I don't work in criminal law and I rarely ever deal with hearsay evidence. When I learnt all this stuff, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 didn't even exist (because it hadn't been 2003 yet).

Trying to explain something like hearsay evidence to people who probably haven't even heard of it before is difficult enough, without someone kindly pointing out that we (being England and Wales) have different laws to Scotland, who again have different laws to NI. That's not to mention the fact that I looked into it and I'm pretty sure hearsay evidence is in fact admissible in US criminal and civil cases (before you get needlessly picky again, I'm not sure if that's a nationwide thing, or differs from state to state). I'd be interested to find out, though. Any idea?

MrTwelvePercent  Aug. 7, 2012 at 19:44

Matt: Since the current case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, I'd imagine that the US Federal Rules of Evidence are your port of call.

matt101101 / MOD  Aug. 7, 2012 at 21:23

Matt: Since the current case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, I'd imagine that the US Federal Rules of Evidence are your port of call.
I looked into it earlier. I think hearsay evidence is usually admissible in both civil and criminal cases in the US (seems weird, but then again, it is America :p). Despite that, I don't know what the exceptions are which make hearsay evidence only usually admissible, and I don't know whether said exceptions differ between civil and criminal cases.

The US confuses me... :p.

Pondlife  Aug. 7, 2012 at 21:44

All I know is that it isn't admissible on Judge Judy. :D

JanSt / MOD  Aug. 7, 2012 at 21:48

hearsay is certainly enough when it comes to invading another country. why not in other cases, eh? ;)

JanSt / MOD  Aug. 7, 2012 at 21:49

...that aside, I read earlier, g*d-knows-where, that there is an actual email from Jobs about the mini iPad. Surely, that is more than hearsay?

Pondlife  Aug. 7, 2012 at 21:55

Well if it can be proved that he wrote it then it's more than hearsay...

"I was only kidding about the finger filing for 7" tabs they are marvellous, I've got every Samsung one" - S. Jobs

matt101101 / MOD  Aug. 7, 2012 at 21:57

...that aside, I read earlier, g*d-knows-where, that there is an actual email from Jobs about the mini iPad. Surely, that is more than hearsay?

That's "proper" evidence, if it can be proven that Jobs sent it...

Pondlife  Aug. 7, 2012 at 21:58

Or was it "ipad mini, over my dead body"
Could be perceived as receptive...


Too soon?

JanSt / MOD  Aug. 7, 2012 at 22:00

Murtazin will probably "prove" in an upcoming exclusive tweet series that Apple seeded the iPad Mini rumour to keep people from buying the Nexus 7 :p

JanSt / MOD  Aug. 7, 2012 at 22:00

Or was it "ipad mini, over my dead body"
Could be perceived as receptive...


Too soon?
hahahaha :p

matt101101 / MOD  Aug. 7, 2012 at 22:05

Or was it "ipad mini, over my dead body"
Could be perceived as receptive...


Too soon?

Not for me, apparently Jobs wasn't a very nice bloke a lot of the time, anyway. The dead only deserve respecting if they earned that respect during life. Being rich (like Jobs) doesn't earn you my respect. Nor does being a great CEO, and a crappy guy.

Email:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

Comment: