Rumor: Pictures show alleged 16.7 watt-hour 'iPad mini' battery
Images of a purported "iPad mini" battery hit the web early Sunday, showing Apple's much-rumored 7.85-inch tablet may employ a 16.7 watt-hour battery, which would offer more energy than the cells found in Google's Nexus 7 and Amazon's Kindle Fire HD.
Alleged iPad mini battery. | Source: MacRumors
AppleInsider cannot confirm the image's pedigree and offers the following information for purposes of discussion only.
The photos acquired by MacRumors claim to be a final or near-final version of the battery set to be used in the so-called "iPad mini," with the purported unit bearing a product number of A1445 and APN, or Apple product number, of 616-0641. In comparison, the third-generation iPad's battery is identified as part number A1389, and carries an APN of 616-0593.
Further investigation of the supposed iPad mini battery reveals the unit is a 3.72-volt, 16.7 watt-hour cell that holds a charge of 4,490 mAh. This is compared to the third-generation iPad's huge 43 watt-hour, 11,560 mAh battery, the iPad 2's 24.8 watt-hour cell, and the iPhone 5's 5.45 watt-hour unit.
The alleged battery's markings are incomplete and have placeholders for certain regulatory text, numbers and government regulation insignias, suggesting the part is not a production model. However, the general shape of the unit is consistent with previously "leaked" components, including the rear shell, front display assembly and LCD.
If legitimate, the 16.7 watt-hour cell could mean the smaller iPad's battery life will be comparable to the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD, which employ a 16 watt-hour and 16.43 watt-hour unit, respectively. Weighing heavily into the runtime calculation of any device is the processor, which in some cases can diminish performance by hours.
It remains to be seen what processor Apple will choose to run the alleged iPad mini, though the company's most recent A-series system on chips are either on par or more efficient than competing silicon. A report in early October claimed that an unknown iPad, thought to be the iPad mini, appeared in an app developer's access logs, with the device operating an A6-series chip much like the component found in the iPhone 5.
Apple is widely expected to unveil its small form factor tablet at an event on Oct. 23.
Alleged iPad mini battery. | Source: MacRumors
AppleInsider cannot confirm the image's pedigree and offers the following information for purposes of discussion only.
The photos acquired by MacRumors claim to be a final or near-final version of the battery set to be used in the so-called "iPad mini," with the purported unit bearing a product number of A1445 and APN, or Apple product number, of 616-0641. In comparison, the third-generation iPad's battery is identified as part number A1389, and carries an APN of 616-0593.
Further investigation of the supposed iPad mini battery reveals the unit is a 3.72-volt, 16.7 watt-hour cell that holds a charge of 4,490 mAh. This is compared to the third-generation iPad's huge 43 watt-hour, 11,560 mAh battery, the iPad 2's 24.8 watt-hour cell, and the iPhone 5's 5.45 watt-hour unit.
The alleged battery's markings are incomplete and have placeholders for certain regulatory text, numbers and government regulation insignias, suggesting the part is not a production model. However, the general shape of the unit is consistent with previously "leaked" components, including the rear shell, front display assembly and LCD.
If legitimate, the 16.7 watt-hour cell could mean the smaller iPad's battery life will be comparable to the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD, which employ a 16 watt-hour and 16.43 watt-hour unit, respectively. Weighing heavily into the runtime calculation of any device is the processor, which in some cases can diminish performance by hours.
It remains to be seen what processor Apple will choose to run the alleged iPad mini, though the company's most recent A-series system on chips are either on par or more efficient than competing silicon. A report in early October claimed that an unknown iPad, thought to be the iPad mini, appeared in an app developer's access logs, with the device operating an A6-series chip much like the component found in the iPhone 5.
Apple is widely expected to unveil its small form factor tablet at an event on Oct. 23.
Comments
I'd say that this puts an end to all of the ignorant and unrealistic wishes from certain people. No, the iPad mini, or whatever it's going to be called, will not be Retina. That was fairly obvious from the get go. If you want a retina iPad, go buy the 9.7" "new iPad". If you want a smaller iPad, go buy the "iPad mini". If you want a piece of crap, go buy an Android tablet.
If the battery is similar to that in the nexus 7, it will be interesting seeing what the difference in performance is.
To that end the discussion about what type of screen is in the device is open ended. It could be IPS, it could be Sharps new technology or something different again. It could be retina, traditional resolution or something in between. We don't know because we don't know how Apple will market the device. However I'm leaning towards Apple pulling out all the stops!
People fail to see that this sized device serves an entirely different market than the current iPad. As such there will be little in the way of overlap in sales.
One thing I need to do is review IPhone tear downs. I'm not even sure Apple is using Sharps screens in the iPhone. If not it makes you wonder where all of Sharps production is going.
I don't know about baloney; it might be just cheese
And yes, it would be interesting if these are the new sharp IGZO screens. I recall reading somewhere that the iphone 5 was using LG screens.
I've done some number crunching, taken the incremental screen size increases in the Note series and come up with a 6.8" screen size for the note 3 when it eventually debuts next year. With my 100% accurate methods, I've come to a conclusion that Apple should make this a mega iPhone instead of a mini iPad to compete with the Note 3 and call it a iPhone Legal Pad. It can include cool innovative features like the one I like to call "throw against a wall to decline the call from your mistress while your girlfriend is in the next room". You just turn the feature on and set the contact as mistress which automatically sets it as your uncle Fred so the gf will be none the wiser. Another feature which Android will be catching up on is fist bump your screen to automatically call your "bro". That's just a few of the innovative features.
The biggest selling point will be instead of including one stylus, it can open up a new market with all types of different styluses that will sell separate (Apple does like to rip us off because Android fans tell us so). They will come in crayola styluses that write in color of course, chalk styluses that leave a white residue on your fingers, and finally, the one I'm still trying to wrinkle out the obvious drawback on, the permanent marker stylus.
Take that Samsung! If you think you can shrink the GS3 and compete in iPhone territory, Apple can do the same. Apple if your reading just ask and I'll email you my resume. Samsung if your reading I've already patented this on behalf of Apple.
Oh, and to comment on the topic of the article about the battery. A picture of a battery from a upcoming device just doesn't make me tingle in the lower region. The leaks are getting stupid. I prefer back when nothing was leaked and it was speculation prior too and surprise after the press conference. I guess I'm just weird or something.
Quote:
Oh, and to comment on the topic of the article about the battery. A picture of a battery from a upcoming device just doesn't make me tingle in the lower region. The leaks are getting stupid. I prefer back when nothing was leaked and it was speculation prior too and surprise after the press conference. I guess I'm just weird or something.
"prior to" Had to correct myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Except the Nexus 7 isn't a piece of crap.
Totally agree. Although I'm a big fan of Apple, I must admit Google did produce a solid tablet in its price range.
If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that the "iPad Mini" would have the same resolution as the original iPad. That would make sense so that all the apps written for it specifically for [the original iPad] would display properly without modification. Of course this would reduce the size of everything to about two thirds (7.85 squared divided by 9.7 squared approximate calculation... assuming the aspect ratio doesn't change much if any). Regardless, resolution (ppi) should increase by about 25% (9.7 divided by 7.85 minus one) which is still very good. Also, I doubt that Apple will have another [retina display] resolution for the "iPad Mini" in the future as that would require developers to rewrite their apps.
With regard to the battery, I'm sure Apple will design the "iPad Mini" to have class leading battery life. That is one of their 'core' features.
Finally FWIW, with it's rumored price ($249 to $299), the "iPad Mini" will compete more with the iPod Touch [and the iPad 2 which will probably be 'EOL'ed soon anyway] than with the 'new' iPad.
I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Here's what they say:
"Further investigation of the supposed iPad mini battery reveals the unit is a 3.72-volt, 16.7 watt-hour cell that holds a charge of 4,490 mAh. This is compared to the third-generation iPad's huge 43 watt-hour, 11,560 mAh battery, the iPad 2's 24.8 watt-hour cell, and the iPhone 5's 5.45 watt-hour unit."
Now, a 7.85" iPad would be about 60% the size of a 9.7" iPad. The rumored battery size is 67% the size of the iPad 2 and 40% the size of the iPad 3.
Let's compare it to the iPad 2. The battery usage from the screen (the largest energy user) would scale roughly linearly. In addition, the Mini would be using a newer generation (i.e, more energy efficient) CPU. It is also rumored to eliminate the 3G system which saves energy. So one would expect that the battery should be LESS than 60% the size of the iPad 2, not more.
Now, compare it to the iPad 3. First, with the smaller screen, it is likely that a single backlight would be sufficient even if the screen IS retina. Second, a less energy intensive CPU. Finally, no 3G system. All of those things reduce the energy usage significantly. Enough for the battery to be only 40% the size of the iPad 3 instead of 60%? Maybe. That second backlight was reported to be a major factor in the power consumption of the iPad 3.
Now, the evidence isn't conclusive that the iPad Mini would be retina, but it absolutely does not support your claim that it can't be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys
Apart from a new product launch and needing to sort out how it runs against the 'competition' (toe in the water and all that) another reason it won't have a retina display is they need to have an upsell next year.
If the battery is similar to that in the nexus 7, it will be interesting seeing what the difference in performance is.
That might be a somewhat cynical view; Apple needn't upsell anything. I simply do not believe that is the way Apple does business. I truly believe they try to deliver the best product they can as soon as they can, so long as they do not sacrifice long-term goals for that product (or other products they sell) or sacrifice the long term goals of Apple itself to do so. If you happen not to believe that, how would you explain the breakneck pace of innovation over the life of this company (during Jobs' and Cooks' tenure) and how new PC and CE categories and features in those product categories consistently are introduced by Apple, not its competitors?
The smaller iPad may not get Retina for a variety of reasons: Apple may be working on new, more efficient battery tech to drive the pixels in a device we're hearing likely will be crazy thin; production of Retina displays likely still need to be ramped up in order to satisfy orders for existing products; products for which Retina adds more value will get them first (13" and 15" Retina MBAs, for example); and, according to Gruber, historically, new iOS products never have gotten Retina in their first generation of production. Retina displays should be more abundant and cheaper next year because of increased manufacturing efficiencies and because design and production will have been further amortized, allowing Apple not to eat into profits sooner than necessary-or ever.
When Tim Cook exclaimed that they are a patient company, I believed him whole-heartedly. They also ask their customers to be patient. Getting out the best products takes time, not just go-to-market time, but also in terms of generational iterations. The major fails we've seen by Apple competitors' products do not simply reflect a lack of design competence, more often it appears to be poor execution leading to products that clearly were half-baked. The flailing amongst those competitors, to me, also seem to be the result of weak go-to-market strategies.Technology design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution on the scale is executes is unprecedented. It takes boatloads of cash if the company wants to hire the best talent, give them the best tools, make the best products, take them to market in a timely fashion, stay in business, and grow. So, in terms of profit-taking, the last statement can be stated with more nuance:
a) Apple wants it's ~30-40 percent (so it can have the cash it needs to continue to make category-defining products) and/or
b) Apple can put the extra cash they make from "withholding" Retina in an 8" iPad this year into designing, developing, and purchasing better components for that iPad next year while also adding Retina.
Having said all that, I reman convinced that the resolution on the display will be non-Retina, but more dazzling due to the use of the IGZO technology that only recently has been producing better yield rates. In my view, the smaller iPad is the perfect test case for IGZO.
That makes no sense. Apple will likely make the battery as large as possible while keeping it below a certain weight threshold. We can calculate for using the same general components and wanting the same general usage but you are fooling yourself if you think the battery should be less than a percentage of a different product. Look at the iPod Touch or the G2 iPad 2 and you get an window that fits quite well with all the rumours that have been floating around.
That sounds reasonable to me.
Or they will simply use the same upsell as the iPad 4th gen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I don't think iOS in and of itself does that. Against the Fire HD OS sure. But against Jellybean? Not so sure.
Of course not. What else are you expected to say?
/s
The other thing that tends to make me believe the screen will be high resolution is the rumor that Apple will target the E-Reader market. The difference between iPad 1 and iPad 3 is stunning in this use case. This is why I say how the device is marketed will have more to do with the screen selected than any idea of a need for an upgrade path.