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

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 165


    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.

  • Reply 62 of 165
    ssquirrel wrote: »
    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

    Lol sorry -my typos are getting worse.
  • Reply 63 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post



    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. 

  • Reply 64 of 165
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    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.

    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
  • Reply 65 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    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.

  • Reply 66 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    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. 

  • Reply 67 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    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.

  • Reply 68 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


     


    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!

  • Reply 69 of 165
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    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.

  • Reply 70 of 165


    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

    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.

  • Reply 71 of 165
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    carthusia wrote: »
    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.
    To me that's the only compelling reason. But I hope whatever display this thing has bests the quality of the Fire and Nexus displays. A thinner and lighter device with a better display + iOS ecosystem = a huge hit. Even if its $50-$100 more expensive.
  • Reply 72 of 165
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


     


    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.  

  • Reply 73 of 165
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post


    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.

  • Reply 74 of 165
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    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.

  • Reply 75 of 165


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

  • Reply 76 of 165
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    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.  

  • Reply 77 of 165
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post


    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 :)

  • Reply 78 of 165

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post





    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?

  • Reply 79 of 165
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post


     


    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.  :-)

  • Reply 80 of 165
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


     


    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 View Post


     


    $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 View Post


     


    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.