Release of 'iPad mini' from Apple viewed as 'question of when, not if' - Page 2

Do you mean add a second, larger Touch or replace the current Touch?

Apple needs the iPod Touch in its current form factor, IMO. I always see teens with iPod Touches-they can't afford iPhones or their parents won't let them have one due to data and voice plans. Teens really want a portable iOS device (music, photos, videos, wifi, iMessage) and for many of them the iPod Touch is TRULY "pocketable". Commenters here like to say that 7-8" is pocketable; but let's be honest, it really isn't.

Next to the iPhone and iPad, the iPod Touch is Apple's most important mobile product even if the sales figures do not reflect it. It is a solid iOS entry device, especially since current users will later use the same apps on an iPhone as soon as they can get their hands on one.

I can see adding a larger iPod Touch or smaller iPad, but not doing away with the iPod Touch entirely. That would be a huge mistake as it could open up the truly portable mobile device market, moving Apple consumers away from the current iPod Touch/iTunes/iOS ecosystem to a more mobile device from a different vendor.

As I've said here before, look out for a $299-$349 larger iPod Touch or smaller iPad (8GB flash, Wifi only, Facetime camera only, no Retina display). If it takes off sales-wise, Apple will add a Retina display in the next iteration.

iPad touch-targets are already bigger than iPhone touch-targets.

Even a slightly smaller iPad would still have decent-sized touch-targets.

It can't "co-exist" the way various display sizes "co-exist" with a windowed OS. A different UI has to be designed around the display for iOS. Now they can choose a display size, aspect ratio and PPI that make their effort and 3rd-party dev efforts easier like they have done with Retina Displays, which is only a change in the PPI but it's still an untaking and should not be compared to Macs or iPod which were dependent upon the display size, aspect ratio or PPI with each new revision.

In fact, you can use the iPhone 3GS being woefully behind te PPI curve and the iPad (3) being far ahead to the point of requiring a 70% larger battery just to get within range of the previous iPad's longevity as proof that Apple doesn't take this decisions lightly.

The iPad "3" is just too awkward for my likes. No good way to hold it. If I use a stand I might as well use a laptop. I had one for a week and sold it, broke even. However I do really-really miss the beautiful screen resolution and quality.

I would GLADLY buy a "mini" under certain conditions:

Must have 2024 X 1536 "retina" type display.
Must be able to hold the entire width between thumb and fingers in one hand and be able to type with other while standing up with no support.

I would gladly pay $400.00 for a mini wi-fi with those specs. If not, as it stands now I will probably buy a mini Android when one comes out with a retina type display, get a retina MacBook Pro when they come out, or another full size iPad 3.

At one point he was so off the mark that to make a totally outlandish and guaranteed to be completely off the mark claim was referred to as 'pulling a Shaw Wu'

And I say he's done it again.

Apple has the tablet market. So much so that some legal 'experts' are worried that 'iPad' will go the way of aspirin etc and become a generic term if Apple isn't proactive about dealing with that concern. The new iPad sold as many units in the opening weekend as the total announced Kindle models for the holiday season (most of which were probably not the Fire). So why would Apple feel the need to release a model designed to compete with something they are already kicking to the curb. They wouldn't. But that's the reason Wu and friends are giving for why Apple must do this.

I think that yes Apple looked at the question of a 5-8" iPad model and rejected it. But yes it is possible that they also looked at the 5-6" issue as a solution of what to do with the iPod touch, which is a dying item now that there are so many iPhone choices out there. Parents that want to get their kids an iPod touch are just handing them Daddy's old iPhone when he gets his shiny new 4s etc. A revamp as a 5-6" model that still works for the kiddies, could be used as a remote with a revamped app for your Apple TV STB (or as a game controller for those airplay enhanced games) etc could breath new life into the Touch.



A 5-6" iPod Touch makes a lot of sense-more so than a 7-8" iPad "mini".

A couple things...first, how portable will it be? The consumers to whom that device appears to appeal most, teens, want something that will fit in a front pants pocket. Second, what resolution will that 5-6" screen size require for developers to avoid UI fragmentation?

I have yet to see any realistic discussions about apps on an iPad mini.

It's hard enough to get developers to make two app sizes: iPhone and iPad.

An iPad mini would have a screen too small for most iPad apps to run on since many already have very small UI elements as they try to cram as much as possible onto a 10 inch screen. Scaling down to 7 inches would create a poor user experience.

iPhone apps, on the other hand, would work quite well as they'd be very large on an iPad mini, though obviously less large than they are on an iPad.

Would people buy an iPad mini that could only run iPhone apps? Perhaps, though I doubt it.

Unless Apple markets it as an eReader (iReader?) that can also run iPhone apps, I don't see this one happening. I definitely don't see Apple calling it an iPad - not even an iPad mini - if it can't run iPad apps... and scaling iPad apps down to 7 inches will create a pretty bad user experience.

If I may, I would suggest that you didn't give it a chance to get used to it. Either that or you are perhaps a person of delicate build. Why did you not support it from underneath with your palm? Or prop it up on a cushion when you are sitting down?

I'm taking this up because I've found the iPad so incredibly liberating and useful since I got the much heavier original version that I can't believe someone didn't "get" the experience for what seems minor physical reasons. But then, we all have different tolerances. I agree that a smaller iPad will be great for smaller people, and I hope they make it.

They might test the form with a 163 ppI display, and go to a retina later if it seems there is a market. It would be a fantastic size for traveling and all kinds of photography, including side-by-side 3D.

Agree. I would want a big iPod ahead of smaller iPad. I would go for a 5" device ahead of a 7" device any day for the improved portability, and real pocketability.

Also, there really is no need to change the resolution. A 5" Touch at the current resolution is still 230 dpi. Sure that that isn't retina, but it is really still quite decent and there would be no no fragmentation, and no need to code new apps as there is no real problem with larger targets aimed at those who don't want to use reading glasses to use an iPod.

The problem is that iOS is not flexible enough for various screen sizes/screen ratios.

We've got iPod, iPhone, AppleTV and iPad - 4 iOS versions plus in addition there are Retina subversions. This is real fragmentation. Android has 2 current versions: 3.0 Honeycomb for tablets and 4.0 ICS for phones.

At some point iOS would need radical redesign going aways from so called "pixel perfect" approach to a resolution independent approach taking advantage of vector UI components and fluid layouts. Then Apple and app developers would have more flexibility developing new products.

iPad mini? Seriously?

https://twitter.com/#!/ankleskater/s...11109263433730

[QUOTE=Flaneur;2097399]

I'm taking this up because I've found the iPad so incredibly liberating ...


I'm glad you found it liberating, I didn't. I need to use it while standing. My eyes are excellent and I don't need the large display. My iPhone is just too small for the way I want to use it. It's like Goldielocks and the 3 Bears, The mini iPad would be the perfect size for me.

You linked to one sentence rather than typing it? Seriously?

And in that case they'd better have the music application to go with it rather than the lame version my iPad sports making music and podcasts far more manageable and updatable on my phone or touch.

Exactly! Apple already has a lower cost iPad. It's the iPad 2, and it's selling quite well.

You're both missing the point. A 7" iPad would be targeted at the budget buyer (mostly). As such, it wouldn't need the retina display of the iPad 3. I could picture a 7" iPad mini with the same screen resolution as the retina iPhone. Even if you were holding it as close to your face as the iPhone, the resolution would be comparable to the original iPhone - which wasn't bad. And since you'd be holding it further away than a 3.5" phone, it would look better than the original iPhone.

So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.

Problem solved.

What's the source of this nugget of info?

I get your point from one perspective. On the other hand, I don't think this is the most important perspective that Apple is considering. They are more likely thinking ... what apps are those that make sense on a 7" or (6.8334343") iPad? Are these iPad-centric apps? Or are these iPhone-centric apps? Or will this primarily be an e-reader and browser? IMHO, apps will drive Apple's decision on this (not just the decision on resolution but also the decision on whether to release it at all).

Where did I say anything about needing a retina display? I said iPad apps would have too many UI elements that would be too small to use on a smaller screen. And I'm saying that developers aren't likely to adopt a third version of their apps. So many don't even make a second version for the iPad let alone a 3rd version for an iPad mini.

Would an iPad mini really just be a 7 inch iPod Touch with a different name?

A 3:2 resolution on a 7" screen, requiring every application to be redesigned and making the device too much taller than it is wide to be easily handled.

Problem(s) created.

How do you know the iPad 2 is selling well? You don't have any evidences at all. Apple does not even release numbers of how many they sell.

Fixed. I seem to remember Apple releasing numbers.

I, too, think that a mini iPad is beginning to make sense.

Ideally, it would be retail priced at $249 -- but $299 seems more likely.

Apple doesn't need to match the KFC or B&N -- they just need to offer a quality product and ecosystem that will impel the customer to opt for Apple at a little higher price.


I did some searching and as of 3/22/12, parts costs for the 16 GB WiFi iPad are:

$316 - New iPad
$245 - iPad 2

Will Apple Choke on These Expensive iPad Parts?


So, it looks like it will be difficult to get the parts costs down without leaving out some hardware -- cameras, etc.


However, another way may be possible, as demonstrated by the new ATV...

Apple could use POP/SOC parts built for more powerful devices (iPad 2, New iPad, iPhone) that do not meet QA tests for the target device -- but can be under-clocked, have a CPU or GPU disabled...

This doesn't improve the yield of the "powerful chips", but it makes the iPad Mini and ATV chips almost free (and improves the overall yield of the POP/SOC manufacturing process).


Ideally, Apple could manufacture a single, top-end, POP/SOC and satisfy the needs of all its current ARM devices (plus a couple of new ones) by factoring yield rates into the manufacturing process.

For example

100 A5X starts @ 50% yield == 50 new iPads & 50 A5X rejects

50 A5X rejects tested for iPad Mini specs @ 50% yield == 25 iPad Minis & 25 A5X (mini) rejects

25 A5X (mini) rejects tested for ATV specs @ 50% yield == 13 ATVs & 12 A5X (ATV) rejects


12 A5X (ATV) rejects could be used in Airport Extremes, or other products


Now, if you apportion the manufacturing and QA testing costs across the entire family of ARM devices, you are increasing the yield and reducing the costs of the parts for all ARM devices.

This is especially effective when going to a smaller process -- say 45nm to 32nm or 22nm -- which is happening now (and will continue as technology evolves).

No it won't, you really have no idea what your talking about. The only problem would be for people with bad eye site who haven't bought glasses yet If there was such a big problem with such a small screen people with iPhone's would have complained a long time ago. No one is asking you to buy one but please don't make up these silly negative points that don't exist, do you currently own a 7 inch tablet? I do and it's great, I use it much more then my iPad just because it's much lighter and easier to carry in my purse. The Samsung 7.7" has a resolution of 1280 x 800, 220 dpi and I can see everything just fine and I have exactly the same apps that I have on my iPad.

A iPad 7.85" is going to be awesome and I for one would love to own one and no app will suffer, that's just silly to say.

But things have changed...

It is now possible to make a display with higher pixel density (and the hardware components needed to support it).


The Blackberry PlayBook has a screen resolution of 1024 x 600 -- in landscape mode, the kb took up 1/2 the display -- you couldn't see the document you were typing.


Supposedly, the iPad mini will retain 1024 x 768 in a smaller form factor. Things like today's faster CPUs/GPUs allow more flexibility as the iOS and hardware could compensate for the smaller display -- automatically enlarge controls, new controls (like the splittable, transparent kb), new gestures.

I'm sorry but where are you guys getting this from. Nothing will need to be redesigned. Unless iOS is really that bad and I don't think it is. Haven't you guys ever connected your iPad to a monitor, I have, I've even displayed 800 x600 perfectly on a projector and every app worked just fine. Besides iOS version 6 should have resolution independence so all of this is will be a none issue.

I see what you're trying to say, but you're missing the point here. You can't just copy-paste to new sizes and new resolutions and new ratios without massive, sweeping change being done to the software being shown.

Of course you can do it with no effort. Just make the iPad mini the same resolution and ratio as the iPhone 4S. PPI will be lower, but the iPhone apps will work just fine on a larger screen as long as resolution and ratio remains the same.


I don't see any way $249 makes sense. Start with the iPad 3 at 10" and $499. Manufacturing (assembly) costs would be unchanged. RAM would be unchanged. The processor cost would not be changed much, if at all. Overhead is unchanged. Cost of the case and screen and battery would be lower, but not 50% lower. $299 is likely to be possible if they use the same screen resolution as the iPhone.


Let's see if you can understand this if I take it slowly.

1. People use the iPhone by the millions. It's a very popular device.
2. The UI works well on the iPhone. All of those millions of customers have no problem using it.
3. If you scale up the iPhone from 3.5" to 7" (but keep the resolution and ratio the same), there is no need for the developer to do anything. Just use the iPhone 4S version of the app.
4. If it worked at 3.5", why wouldn't it work at 7" - especially since the resolution would still be greater than the original iPad and all the UI elements would be larger than the iPhone.

Wow, really, that is a horrible design flaw.Wait, why would there be massive changes if the display rez is 1024 x 768? Just because it's in a smaller package nothing needs to be done.

Most people aren't thinking through the software side of the equation. They're just picturing smaller hardware and thinking "Neat!" They're not addressing apps and scaling.

We're just seeing the latest version of "Apple needs to make a netbook!" Remember how many people swore again and again that Apple was doomed if they couldn't compete with $200 Eee type netbooks. In the end, consumers didn't stick with netbooks because netbooks couldn't really do very much, and the hardware was mostly garbage.

I think Apple is pretty much set on their plan. The current iPhone is the premium model. The previous generation (or two) will be cheaper, The current iPad is the premium model. The previous version will be cheaper.

In the short term, Apple will definitely lose some sales to cheap tablets, just as Apple (and some Android phone makers, for that matter) lose some sales to cheap Android smartphones. There will always be people who choose price over performance, perhaps because they can't afford better, or perhaps because they don't see the value in spending more until they first have enough experience with garbage to realize that saving money can sometimes actually cost more in the end. I know I've made that mistake before. I'm sure we all have.

Apple isn't a low end company. The bottom of the market is brutal because no matter how razor thin a company will slice its profit margins to in order to win on price, someone else will go cheaper. NOBODY is going to beat Amazon on price for tablets because Amazon is willing to make less than zero in profit on theirs.

Apple doesn't need to make a 7 inch iPad any more than they needed to make a 10 inch netbook. I do think a 7 inch iPad would be neat, but I don't see Apple making one.

Keep in mind, many of the same sources swearing that an iPad mini is inevetable are the same sources who swore an iPhone nano was on the way, and they were the same sources who swore Apple couldn't survive without making a 10 inch Apple netbook.

Some things never change.

Again, you're both wrong about that, but keep thinking it's possible without any changes if you will.

Wow. You really need a device that is bigger than your phone but smaller than your iPad? And to think there are people wondering wondering where their next meal is going to come from. I think it's just a poor reflection on society that someone has to fill our every want/need. Honestly, what would you do on this device that you could not do on your phone or iPad?

They're not addressing it because it's a non-issue. If Apple uses the same resolution and screen size ratio, they don't need to change anything in the software.


Please enlighten us.

iPhone 4S
Resolution is 960x480
Screen is 3.5" diagonal
Aspect ratio is 3:2
Length is 3"
Width is 2"
Screen is 326 ppi

Now, make a 7" diagonal iPad Mini with the following:
Screen is 7.0" diagonal
Aspect ratio is 3:2
Length is 6"
Width is 4"
Screen is 163 ppi (for comparison, the original iPad was 132)

Now, please tell us exactly what you need to change in the software to make something that is designed for the iPhone 4S to make it work on the 7" iPad Mini.

The answer, of course, is that nothing needs to change. The software has absolutely no way of knowing what the screen size is and an app (or the OS) couldn't tell if it was running on an iPad Mini or an iPhone 4S.

The icons would be roughly the same size as in the iPad 10", just fewer of them on the screen, so icon size would be OK.

That situation is clearly the minority. The majority of users would either buy it as a second device (for the wife (or husband) or kids) or buy it instead of a different device. A very small number (IMHO) would buy it instead of the iPad 10".

I fucking hate when people don't even consider thinking before posting.

• http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ruler...405792773?mt=8

Solipsism can do it far more eloquently than I, though he's probably getting tired of repeating himself to people that just don't get it. I defer to his explanatory skills in this regard.

I'll say it again: scaling iPhone apps up to a larger size shouldn't be too much of an issue. That's an assumption that seems pretty safe to make. And scaling iPad apps down to a smaller size shouldn't be too much of an issue. That's an assumption that seems pretty safe to make.

In terms of usability: iPhone apps would be fine on a 7 inch screen, just as they are on the current inch screen (though the example given above shows one which wouldn't work as expected if scaled). Optimal? No. Functional? Absolutely. On the other hand, iPad apps scaled down to a mini size would be a nightmare. Technically, it could be done. Then again, technically, iPad apps could be scaled down to display on the iPhone. But, in terms of usability, many iPad apps wouldn't be user friendly on a smaller screen since they weren't designed for it. There will be people who won't be able to understand that fact, of course.

When IS Apple going to start shipping that must-have 10 inch netbook, by the way? Without that in the lineup, Apple is doooooooomed. Or so we were told.

No I can't. If people think Apple will stick the iOS UI designed for a certain aspect ratio, resolution and size onto a different aspect ratio, resolution or size device despite plenty of clear evidence of Apple's dedication to idealizing the UI for each touch-based display then there is nothing I can say that the blatant facts shouldn't have already told them.

PS: I'm just going to sit back and wait for the iPhone 5.

Doesn't make sense. A smaller iPad doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be inexpensive. The kindle fire is subsidized in a way, simply because Amazon is counting on one purchasing content from them. At the rate iPads are selling there's no need for Apple to make a smaller version.

I think iPad Mini is huge possibility, as well as bigger iPhone. Why? Let's talk ppi wise:

iPhone 4/4s:
- 3.5", 326 ppi

New iPad (3rd gen):
- 9.7", 264 ppi

Now if you do the math on ppi for 7.85" iPad Mini with the same 2048x1536 resolution as regular 9.7" iPad, you get 326 ppi for 7.85" iPad Mini. Coincidence?

Similarly, if you were to achieve 264 ppi for iPhone, the screen will need to be 4.3" for the larger screen iPhone.

In the end it will be like this:

iPhone 3.5" -> 326 ppi
iPhone 4.3" -> 264 ppi

iPad 7.85" -> 326 ppi
iPad 9.7" -> 264 ppi

Everything connects, coincidence? maybe... but I would like to think it's a possibility..

This is at odds with what Steve said about why they chose the size of the original iPad screen. Even with the same number of pixels, the change in screen size changes everything. Tallest Skil and Solip are correct.

I think it (a smaller iPad) will eventually come, as Apple would rather their own product be taking sales away from the 9.7" iPad than Amazon's, Google's and so forth.