Apple 'likely' to unveil 'iPad mini' at event on Oct. 23 - report - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

 

It is called iOS.

 

1024x768 = complete compatibility with iPad apps.

 

Next year they can do retina.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


Well then sorry to say I think this will be a big fail for Apple. If they can do retina next year why can't they do it now?

I read a Gruber take on this the other day, at http://daringfireball.net/2012/08/ipad_mini_even_througher.

He says, and I tend to agree:

Cost can’t be the only factor in play, though. There must be something great about the device’s design. If it’s not display quality, what else? I’m thinking thickness and weight. The iPad 3 gained a retina display — but at the expense of getting thicker and heavier than the iPad 2, so as to fit a more powerful battery to run those additional 2,359,296 pixels. So I’m thinking the iPad Mini doesn’t get a retina display but in exchange gets to go remarkably thin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSheldon 


The iMac which brought Apple back from the brink of distinction gets no respect.

Extinction maybe?  I think we will see a small bump to Ivy Bridge in the very near future for the desktop line (not Mac Pro, that's 2013), but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't unveil any of that on the 23rd.  They aren't changing form factors or anything (I don't expect), they will just change the guts and drop it on us

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple 
Any chance iMacs will be intro'ed as well?

0% if it's an iDevice event.

Originally Posted by THEMAC1NT0SH 
Apple'likely' to unveil............ this site has gone downhill lately. More than ever I've noticed reportedly and likely and probably or a analyst assumes.

You really need to go back to the beginning and learn why this site exists.

Originally Posted by Andysol 
I wonder how many more weeks it can get pushed back before this rumor goes bye bye forever

I wonder, too.

Originally Posted by Rogifan 
If they can do retina next year why can't they do it now?

If they can do Haswell next year, why can't they do Haswell now? If they can do quantum processors faster than the combined total processing power of the entire human race in the future, why can't they do it now? If they can do ten exabyte NAND chips in the future, why can't they do them now? The [insert device here] is a failure if it does not include these things.

Originally Posted by Rogifan 
Ok but you didn't explain why Apple can't release a smaller iPad with retina now. What are the technical reasons it won't work? Or is it not technical but price?

If the technology doesn't exist to do a 7.85" panel in arms-length retina format right now, then it just can't be done until it does. 

1600x1200 is 4:3, and on a 7.85" display, it fits the "retina" definition. I'm gonna guess that's just not physically possible right now. Ignoring that it destroys the resolution parity between models, of course.

And if you're seriously talking 2048x1536, that's nearly one and a half times "retina" on the regular iPad, and there's no way it could be possible on a 7" screen yet.

Originally Posted by matrix07 
I quite like retina and will buy the next iPad next year but this is for my wife and she wants something very light.

Why not stay tuned for that next iPad? I can't imagine it getting any heavier now that we have the retina display in play. And won't it get an in-cell touch panel? So that much thinner and lighter. 

Or, if there's no iPad mini, the iPad 2 should drop to $299, and it's the lightest of the iPads so far.

Here's what's lost in the "If it costs $50-$100 more than a Nexus 7 or Fire HD, it'll fail" argument: 

The reported 7.85" screen of an iPad Mini will have 40% more display area than a comparable 7" tablet. Let's then make some reasonable and informed assumptions: the increased screen real estate is perceived as added value (all other things being equal); Apple's target market was more than happy with the iPad 2 display's pixel density (many cannot perceive the difference with Retina and parents likely would not feel their kid needs a Retina display); Apple's target market finds value in iOS stability, iCloud synching, Apple's software/hardware speed/performance optimizations, build quality, aesthetic appeal, etc; and that those perceived value increases in ecosystem, industrial design, and UX render raw specs found in competing 7" tablets irrelevant.

Consider that if even at $279 ($199 X 1.40, representing a 40% display area increase=$279), Apple's target consumers will find value in a tablet priced at $299. That 40% increase in screen area sweet spot, I guarantee, will be visually highlighted in their marketing campaign for the Mini. As you've never seen Apple market the iPhone 5 'as a 4" iPhone,' you'll never hear Apple refer to the Mini as a 7" or 8" tablet. It really is straightforward marketing and simple math.

I am not troubled by the iPod Touch 5th Gen $299/iPad Mini $299 pricing similarities. As mentioned many times before, miniaturized devices, especially those with a retina-quality display like the iPod Touch, represent value additions and different use cases. Furthermore, Retina panel prices will drop such that next year's Mini will have Retina-at the same price. I'm going with $279 or $299 base, 16 GB, Wifi only.

Apple already has a massive installed base of happy users with multiple Apple products. Personally, the wife has a New iPad and 4s, I have a 4s and 13" MacBook Air, we have an Apple TV. I will, without a doubt, get an iPad Mini to fill use cases between that of the Air and the iPhone. I'll use it to couch surf, integrate with Apple TV, take to work and on vacations when I cannot justify taking my Air and especially when the wife is using her iPad, but I want to watch Netflix, read tech blogs, or play a game on a device larger than my phone.

I continue to think that Apple has a great game plan here. Tim and Co. are sitting in the catbird seat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple 

Any chance iMacs will be intro'ed as well?

New Mac desktops in early 2013; Apple's had their hands full in 2012 getting out some hardware and software updates and shipping brand new products, especially those that are more holiday gift-friendly. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


I guess I could see that. All depends on what's more important to people - thin and light or awesome display.

Awesome Retina display=get New iPad and a maybe a thin and light Rd iPad Mini somewhere down the road. It stands to reason that people who want a Mini rather than a New iPad are looking to maximize weight/portability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac_128 


I've been saying this for months. But Gruber doesn't go far enough. Based on everything Jobs said about tablets, Apple will simply not get into the mini-tablet business only to take on Google with a miniaturized version of iPad. If this actually materializes, and I'm sort of dubious by this point, Apple's mini-tablet will redefine the 7" tablet space. Not just compete for market share against Android-powered devices, with merely a stylish design and higher quality parts. People who already have iPads and iPhones will consider buying them. And I fully expect this to replace the increasingly redundant iPod Touch by next year.

The iPod Touch is not even increasingly redundant. It is a core product in Apple's lineup. It IS the New iPod, so to speak. The iPod Touch also is the new Wifi-only/off-contract/affordable-at-$299 iPhone (most reviewers accurately point this out and I think that is what Apple intended with this product). Many would rather have a fully featured Touch than last year's iPhone 4S at 8GB.

Kids and teens don't carry briefcases or large handbags and tend increasingly to shun cell contracts. iPod Touches and an iPad Mini would represent very different use cases. Teenagers and casual gamers will not carry around a 7" tablet. I haven't seen many people waling around the city bare-handing any other 7" tablets. Refer to Tim's objections concerning Apple's unwillingness to try too hard to converge devices. 

An iPad Mini would close the price umbrella in the mobile space-I mean completely shut it down. With its introduction, Apple will have filled virtually every usable mobile and desktop display size/feature set. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


Ok but you didn't explain why Apple can't release a smaller iPad with retina now. What are the technical reasons it won't work? Or is it not technical but price?

Weight and thickness; one of the biggest complaints about the New iPad is that it's too heavy for extended use. Retina displays require bigger (heavier) batteries to get the battery life Apple feels is minimally required; i.e., to get the user easily throughout the day without charging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav 

 

The reality is that Apple makes far more revenue and profit from iOS devices than Macs.

 

Although I am in agreement in that I'd like to see new Mac desktops too.

This is true.  But this might changed... So they should not burned their bridges...!

Just a taught!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


Well then sorry to say I think this will be a big fail for Apple. If they can do retina next year why can't they do it now?

price....    #1 reason to do a mini is a low price.

Originally Posted by herbapou 
price....    #1 reason to do a mini is a low price.

$399.

And that number one reason? Next year the iPad 2 could be $299 and the iPad 3 $399. So just like the iPhone, a smaller, less useful model can be ignored in favor of keeping around the old ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland 

 

I think starting at $299 is most likely, but wouldn't be shocked if it was as low as $249.

 

If I was the one at Apple who gets to decide what the Christmas 2012 iPad lineup was, I'd say:

 

iPad mini 16GB = $299

iPad mini 32GB = $399

No 64GB iPad mini.

 

Updated iPad 16GB (lightning, FaceTime HD + A6 or A6x + new speaker system) = $499

Updated iPad 32GB (lightning, FaceTime HD + A6 or A6x + new speaker system) = $599

Updated iPad 64GB (lightning, FaceTime HD + A6 or A6x + new speaker system) = $699

 

All with 3G options.

 

Kill iPad 2.

I agree that this is most likely (except I don't see any reason not to do a 64GB one).  

That whole "price umbrella" thing that Gruber has been pushing however, is a very weak argument though, so it's still possible that the iPad mini is positioned as an alternative to an iPod touch and thus in the same price range ($200-$300-$400). That would pretty much eliminate all competition if they can get the introductory version down to $200.  They could also just throw a monkey wrench in there and do $250-$350-$450.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carthusia 

Kids and teens don't carry briefcases or large handbags and tend increasingly to shun cell contracts.

Are you kidding?  Show me a US school aged child that does not carry around a backback 5 days a week.

THEY don't shun cell contracts.  PARENTS shun cell contracts because of cost.  My kid wants netflix in the car.  That means either me hotspotting my phone or him using his own via a family plan.

The family data plans kinda sorta suck but kinda sorta don't.  A little cheaper and they would have been a boon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac_128 


I've been saying this for months. But Gruber doesn't go far enough. Based on everything Jobs said about tablets, Apple will simply not get into the mini-tablet business only to take on Google with a miniaturized version of iPad. If this actually materializes, and I'm sort of dubious by this point, Apple's mini-tablet will redefine the 7" tablet space. Not just compete for market share against Android-powered devices, with merely a stylish design and higher quality parts. People who already have iPads and iPhones will consider buying them. And I fully expect this to replace the increasingly redundant iPod Touch by next year.

What could the iPad mini that the Fire and Nexus don't?  LTE.

Does that redefine the landscape?  Not as much as a LTE enabled iPod Touch would have but it is a compelling thing for any tablet to have on the road.

Air: prepare to be sucked out of room. Again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

1024x768 will be FAIL IMO. I think a device priced more than $199 will sell but it needs to have better specs and features than Fire HD and Nexus 7.

I tend to agree.  1024x768 was floated when everyone was talking about a "cheap" iPad mini.  If this thing is going to start at $300 (and it looks likely that it is), then it has to do better than some crappy non-retina display otherwise it's just another placeholder device like the iPad 3 or the fatty nano, waiting for the "real" device to be released the following year.  

Also, the 1024x768 resolution was just an idle "what if" floated by Gruber that everyone latched onto.  There has been no outside confirmation and no leaks that I've heard of that offer corroboration on that idea.  

I'm going to buy one either way, but since I'm currently using the less-than-wonderful, slightly half-assed iPad 3, I'd prefer it if my next iPad (the mini), was either a "proper" design and worth the price, or dead cheap instead.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carthusia 

Furthermore, Retina panel prices will drop such that next year's Mini will have Retina-at the same price. I'm going with $279 or $299 base, 16 GB, Wifi only.

 

Apple already has a massive installed base of happy users with multiple Apple products. Personally, the wife has a New iPad and 4s, I have a 4s and 13" MacBook Air, we have an Apple TV. I will, without a doubt, get an iPad Mini to fill use cases between that of the Air and the iPhone. I'll use it to couch surf, integrate with Apple TV, take to work and on vacations when I cannot justify taking my Air and especially when the wife is using her iPad, but I want to watch Netflix, read tech blogs, or play a game on a device larger than my phone.

I agree w/most of your post in general, but especially this bit.  $299 (MAYBE $249, but I doubt it), 1024x768, 16GB, Wi-Fi only.  If you need LTE, go bigger.  You also describe my family pretty well.  My wife has an original iPad and a Macbook Air 13".  I have a Mid-2011 Mini and the New iPad (both iPads are Wi-Fi only).  We both have the 4S and we own an Apple TV.  I don't see us getting an iPad Mini now.  Maybe in a couple of years if one of our other iPads craps out we will consider a smaller one, but we're both happy w/them.  Actually, our 2 girls use the original iPad more than my wife does.  With her phone and MBA, she doesn't feel the need for the iPad.  Altho I could also see her changing her mind and deciding she wants one to shove in her purse :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by matrix07 


There's a lot to like about iPad 2, quick charge time for one. However my wife is only 5'. Even iPad 2 is still too heavy for her. This is why iPad mini could be a big hit in China and Asia. We're small people. LOL

So, does this mean the iPod Touch is for children and members of the lollipop guild?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

 

Are you kidding?  Show me a US school aged child that does not carry around a backback 5 days a week. ...

Only when they go to school.  I think you are assuming that kids will only be carrying an iPad when they are going to class.  

I rarely see kids with backpacks loitering at the mall, or doing drugs under the railway bridge, or inhaling vast quantities of McDonalds, or drinking beer at the beach, etc. etc. 

These are the occasions when a lighter, smaller iPad will come in handy.  :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland 

 

I think starting at $299 is most likely, but wouldn't be shocked if it was as low as $249.

 

If I was the one at Apple who gets to decide what the Christmas 2012 iPad lineup was, I'd say:

 

iPad mini 16GB = $299

iPad mini 32GB = $399

No 64GB iPad mini.

 

Updated iPad 16GB (lightning, FaceTime HD + A6 or A6x + new speaker system) = $499

Updated iPad 32GB (lightning, FaceTime HD + A6 or A6x + new speaker system) = $599

Updated iPad 64GB (lightning, FaceTime HD + A6 or A6x + new speaker system) = $699

 

All with 3G options.

 

Kill iPad 2.

Apple is not going to shift their entire iPad launch pattern to the fall.  The iPad Mini will come in a 1 size fits all wi-fi model w/1 storage amount.  They won't revamp the current iPad or kill the 2 off.  They MIGHT change the current iPad to the Lightning connector and point out they're doing that for consistency and to go ahead and get off the old one and I could see that.  If there has been a process shrink for the chip they use in teh iPad 3, maybe a shrunk version would make it in, but I don't think that has happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

$399.

 

And that number one reason? Next year the iPad 2 could be $299 and the iPad 3 $399. So just like the iPhone, a smaller, less useful model can be ignored in favor of keeping around the old ones.

Are you suggesting the iPad Mini would be $399?  Also, I don't see them holding over more than 1 extra generation of the iPad.  Move to iPad 4, keep teh 3 at $100 less.  $100 or $150 below that is the Mini.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

 

I tend to agree.  1024x768 was floated when everyone was talking about a "cheap" iPad mini.  If this thing is going to start at $300 (and it looks likely that it is), then it has to do better than some crappy non-retina display otherwise it's just another placeholder device like the iPad 3 or the fatty nano, waiting for the "real" device to be released the following year.  

 

I'm going to buy one either way, but since I'm currently using the less-than-wonderful, slightly half-assed iPad 3, I'd prefer it if my next iPad (the mini), was either a "proper" design and worth the price, or dead cheap instead.  

I really don't understand this logic regarding the iPad 3.  How is it half assed?  They had to ever so slightly thicken it to put enough battery in to kep the hour count the same for the Retina display.  And?  I prefer the thickness of the iPad 3 to the iPad 2.  It always felt too thin compared to my wife's original iPad in Apple case.  The iPad is smaller than a legal pa and is still less heavy than most hardback novels.  I really don't see the issue.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 
I rarely see kids with backpacks loitering at the mall, or doing drugs under the railway bridge, or inhaling vast quantities of McDonalds, or drinking beer at the beach, etc. etc. 

These are the occasions when a lighter, smaller iPad will come in handy.  :-)

Why? Can't put it in a pocket, so it's only teasingly more portable than the real iPad. They're still carrying something in their hand as they walk around; they may as well carry an iPad.

Originally Posted by SSquirrel 
Are you suggesting the iPad Mini would be $399?

Yep. I'd say brace yourself for that and for not seeing the number 2 anywhere in the price.

Really? Why? They kept three generations of iPhone (because it's generations, right? Generations of iPhone. That's what a different release of hardware means: generation. Right?) at once, allowing it to hit free on contract. Why not keep three generations of iPad around, allowing the iPad to hit that magical $299 price, since that's what people buying smaller (and other) tablets really care about. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Really? Why? They kept three generations of iPhone (because it's generations, right? Generations of iPhone. That's what a different release of hardware means: generation. Right?) at once, allowing it to hit free on contract. Why not keep three generations of iPad around, allowing the iPad to hit that magical $299 price, since that's what people buying smaller (and other) tablets really care about. 

B/c they won't have to keep a 3rd version of the full size ipad around w/the Mini already in that price point. :)  The iPad won't follow the exact model the iPhone follows b/c we don't have contracts w/the iPad and no subsidies.  iPad 3 $499.  iPd 2 $399. iPad Mini/iPod Touch $299.  I actually see a lot less need for the 2 in that scenario given that you get less storage and the only boost will be the bigger screen.  I don't think that trade is worth $100, but they will likely keep it as is b/c (unlike Ireland) I don't think they are going to kill the iPad 2 mid-cycle like this..  Now when the iPad 4 comes out, if they keep the iPad 3 at $399 then that $100 gets you a jump up to Retina, which would be a lot more compelling.

Originally Posted by SSquirrel 
B/c they won't have to keep a 3rd version of the full size ipad around w/the Mini already in that price point. 

The "iPhone nano" doesn't exist for many reasons, one of which being the regular iPhone can fill its market by sticking around at a lower price. 

Why couldn't the same be true of the iPad?