How Apple made the iPad mini 23% thinner and 53% lighter
Apple's new iPad mini delivers the same resolution as iPad 2 in a smaller 7.9 inch form factor that's two thirds the price of the latest iPad. Here's a look at how the company accomplished this feat.
This effectively gives Apple two very different new devices with nearly the same pixel count and very similar prices: the 4 inch iPod touch ($299/32GB and $399/64GB) and 7.9 inch iPad mini (16GB/$329; 32GB/$429; 64GB/$529; each with a 4G LTE cellular option for $130 more).
These two new devices, along with the refreshed "iPad with Retina Display" (iPad 4), are also being sold alongside last year's iPod touch and iPad 2, which provide a lower screen resolution on a slightly smaller screen, and the same resolution on a bigger screen, respectively.
The front bezel of the iPad mini is also narrower on either side like the iPod touch (and unlike other iPad models), something that Apple notes is "designed to give you the maximum amount of screen in the minimum amount of space."
This isn't just a hardware change; Apple adapted also iOS so the new iPad mini "intelligently recognizes whether your thumb is simply resting on the display or whether you?re intentionally interacting with it."
At the same time, the company says the new iPad mini "isn?t just a scaled-down iPad. We designed it to be a concentration, rather than a reduction, of the original." Apple notes it uses a refined unibody enclosure that "consolidates more parts into one" and uses smaller components, including a thinner battery and camera.
While the company doesn't note it, the iPad mini's size reductions (while retaining the same battery life) are also due in part to its more efficient LTE chips shared with the new iPhone 5 (and refreshed new iPad 4), which also allows it to work on a wider range of 4G LTE networks than "the new iPad" (iPad 3) released this spring.
The iPad mini's lack of a Retina Display also allows it to be a couple millimeters thinner than the (9.4 mm) iPad 3 and iPad 4, and require less battery. That's because the 2048x1536 Retina Display panel is not only more expensive in dollars, but also carries costs in weight, thickness, current draw and GPU power to animate it.
Instead, Apple is trending upscale in its new product introductions, allowing its previous model year devices to compete on price with its rival's latest offerings.
Apple did make uncharacteristic mention (without naming the product) of an existing 7 inch tablet in its presentation, and even cites (albeit generically) "7 inch tablets" on its website, noting that "iPad mini is small enough to hold in one hand, yet it has a 35 percent larger screen area than a 7-inch tablet."
The company details that the new iPad mini's screen provides 29.6 square inches, rather than 21.9 square inches of a 7-inch tablet. What it doesn't note is any comparison with the full size iPad (45 square inches). Apple also avoids any other comparison with other tablets in terms of performance, camera specs, or other favorable factors, and obviously doesn't mention their lower prices.
The company did, however, make unflattering comparisons of the state of Android "tablet" apps compared to iPad-optimized titles, pointing out that the apps available for devices like the Kindle Fire, Galaxy and Nexus tablets are mostly stretched smartphone apps.
Gates' reasoning was based on his opinion that users wanted a "real" keyboard, the very same complaint many observers made about the original iPhone three years earlier in 2007.
By the end of the year however, Apple's iPad sales had grown so strong that observers jumped to the opposite conclusion: that there were infinite opportunities for selling tablet-like devices in all shapes and sizes, particularly between the 3.5 inch smartphone and the 9.7 inch iPad.
In October of 2010, Steve Jobs dismissed most of these, saying that in the "avalanche" of tablets entering the market, there were "only a handful of credible entrants. They use 7 inch screens rather than iPad's near 10 inch display."
Jobs pointed out that because the screen measurements were diagonal, a a 7 inch screen offered just 45% of the screen of the iPad. "This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps," Jobs stated. "No tablet can compete with mobility of a smartphone. Pocket size tablets are tweeners."
Jobs also addressed a variety of other problems with these devices, including their use of the old Android 2.x (which many tablets--and about 75 percent of all Android devices currently using Google Play--continue to use today, two years later), a paucity of tablet-optimized apps, and cost cutting measures intended to match Apple.
However, the main takeaway for most observers was that Jobs had labeled pocketable tablets as too small, rather than calling 7 inch tablets "credible," but flawed to the point of being "DOA" for a variety of reasons.
Secondly, Apple doubled the resolution of the iPad at the beginning of this year, allowing it to introduce an iPad mini with a new, smaller screen at the same resolution as the original iPad. Developers won't have to specifically target different screen sizes or screen ratios, so the new iPad mini will run existing iPad titles unchanged.
This could have been the case if Apple had introduced a new "tweener" resolution, larger than iPhone but smaller than iPad. Thanks to Retina Display, it didn't need to do this. Most tweener tablets have, offering more pixels than a smartphone, but not very many more. The wide variety of different resolution options on these devices further complicates the task of developers to make any special use of these extra pixels.
Thirdly, the 7.9 inch screen size and 3:4 ratio of the iPad mini gives it both more screen real estate and more useful screen area for tablet-optimized apps. Tablets with widescreen displays (like the new iPod touch, most smartphones, and most 7 inch tablets) may be better optimized for watching movies, but are less useful for document-oriented work, browsing the web, reading email, and other tasks people use iPads for: PC-like tasks suited to a page sized screen.
The result: while the industry operated under the assumption that broadly licensed mobile platforms would result in a wider range of device sizes and options from multiple hardware makers, Apple is now offering what appears to be the broadest range of popular, successful size and price options, and certainly has (at least to this point) done the best job of selling them.
Apple's iPad mini strategy looks to be patterned after the iPod mini from nearly a decade ago: after having conquered the high end, hard-drive based MP3 player market with the conventional iPod, Apple introduced a flash memory based iPod mini to take on competitors in the lower priced, but higher volume low end.
Whether the new iPad mini will work as well to keep the tablet market under Apple's control as the iPod mini (and its iPod nano replacement) did to expand Apple's iPod dominance remains to be seen.
Apple closes space between iPod touch and iPad
Last year, it appeared more likely that Apple would make the iPod touch larger than reducing the size of the iPad. But this year, the company did both, expanding the Retina Display iPod touch (along with iPhone 5) vertically to achieve a 1136x640, 16:9 widescreen display ratio, and one month later, scaling the iPad down, maintaining its 4:3 screen ratio and original 1024x768 resolution.This effectively gives Apple two very different new devices with nearly the same pixel count and very similar prices: the 4 inch iPod touch ($299/32GB and $399/64GB) and 7.9 inch iPad mini (16GB/$329; 32GB/$429; 64GB/$529; each with a 4G LTE cellular option for $130 more).
These two new devices, along with the refreshed "iPad with Retina Display" (iPad 4), are also being sold alongside last year's iPod touch and iPad 2, which provide a lower screen resolution on a slightly smaller screen, and the same resolution on a bigger screen, respectively.
Closely associated design cues with iPod touch
While Apple makes no effort to call its iPod touch a "tablet," or otherwise associate it with the expanding iPad line, the company's new iPad mini looks like a very close relation. Both new models adopt the same "mono-crystalline diamond-cut" chamfer that gives it a dazzling edge, unlike any other iPad model (including the refreshed iPad 4).The front bezel of the iPad mini is also narrower on either side like the iPod touch (and unlike other iPad models), something that Apple notes is "designed to give you the maximum amount of screen in the minimum amount of space."
This isn't just a hardware change; Apple adapted also iOS so the new iPad mini "intelligently recognizes whether your thumb is simply resting on the display or whether you?re intentionally interacting with it."
What makes the iPad mini
Apple is promoting the new iPad mini as simply being a smaller iPad, calling it "the full iPad experience." It's outfitted with the same camera specs, WiFi and LTE connectivity options, similar performance and it's capable of running the same apps, just in a package 23 percent thinner (7.2 mm) and 53 percent lighter (0.68 lbs, 308 g).At the same time, the company says the new iPad mini "isn?t just a scaled-down iPad. We designed it to be a concentration, rather than a reduction, of the original." Apple notes it uses a refined unibody enclosure that "consolidates more parts into one" and uses smaller components, including a thinner battery and camera.
While the company doesn't note it, the iPad mini's size reductions (while retaining the same battery life) are also due in part to its more efficient LTE chips shared with the new iPhone 5 (and refreshed new iPad 4), which also allows it to work on a wider range of 4G LTE networks than "the new iPad" (iPad 3) released this spring.
The iPad mini's lack of a Retina Display also allows it to be a couple millimeters thinner than the (9.4 mm) iPad 3 and iPad 4, and require less battery. That's because the 2048x1536 Retina Display panel is not only more expensive in dollars, but also carries costs in weight, thickness, current draw and GPU power to animate it.
iPad mini not aimed at 7 inch tablets
Apple's strategy with iPad mini ignores the broader market's trend toward $199-250, 7 inch 16:9 tablets the same way iPhone 5 ignored the trend among smartphone makers to introduce larger, wider screens on jumbo-phones and phablets.Instead, Apple is trending upscale in its new product introductions, allowing its previous model year devices to compete on price with its rival's latest offerings.
Apple did make uncharacteristic mention (without naming the product) of an existing 7 inch tablet in its presentation, and even cites (albeit generically) "7 inch tablets" on its website, noting that "iPad mini is small enough to hold in one hand, yet it has a 35 percent larger screen area than a 7-inch tablet."
The company details that the new iPad mini's screen provides 29.6 square inches, rather than 21.9 square inches of a 7-inch tablet. What it doesn't note is any comparison with the full size iPad (45 square inches). Apple also avoids any other comparison with other tablets in terms of performance, camera specs, or other favorable factors, and obviously doesn't mention their lower prices.
The company did, however, make unflattering comparisons of the state of Android "tablet" apps compared to iPad-optimized titles, pointing out that the apps available for devices like the Kindle Fire, Galaxy and Nexus tablets are mostly stretched smartphone apps.
Did Apple go tweener?
When Apple first introduced the iPad in 2010, many observers questioned whether there was any room for a new device between smartphones and low end notebooks. Many in the industry, including Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates, dismissed the iPad in favor of netbooks.Gates' reasoning was based on his opinion that users wanted a "real" keyboard, the very same complaint many observers made about the original iPhone three years earlier in 2007.
By the end of the year however, Apple's iPad sales had grown so strong that observers jumped to the opposite conclusion: that there were infinite opportunities for selling tablet-like devices in all shapes and sizes, particularly between the 3.5 inch smartphone and the 9.7 inch iPad.
In October of 2010, Steve Jobs dismissed most of these, saying that in the "avalanche" of tablets entering the market, there were "only a handful of credible entrants. They use 7 inch screens rather than iPad's near 10 inch display."
Jobs pointed out that because the screen measurements were diagonal, a a 7 inch screen offered just 45% of the screen of the iPad. "This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps," Jobs stated. "No tablet can compete with mobility of a smartphone. Pocket size tablets are tweeners."
Jobs also addressed a variety of other problems with these devices, including their use of the old Android 2.x (which many tablets--and about 75 percent of all Android devices currently using Google Play--continue to use today, two years later), a paucity of tablet-optimized apps, and cost cutting measures intended to match Apple.
However, the main takeaway for most observers was that Jobs had labeled pocketable tablets as too small, rather than calling 7 inch tablets "credible," but flawed to the point of being "DOA" for a variety of reasons.
What has changed since 2010
So what has changed to allow Apple to introduce an "iPad mini" into the pocket-sized tablet category? For starters, the market is now much larger. When Jobs made his comments, Apple had sold fewer than 7.5 million iPads. Today, it announced sales of over 100 million. There's also been some validation of smaller screen sizes, although none have achieved the blockbuster status of the iPad.Secondly, Apple doubled the resolution of the iPad at the beginning of this year, allowing it to introduce an iPad mini with a new, smaller screen at the same resolution as the original iPad. Developers won't have to specifically target different screen sizes or screen ratios, so the new iPad mini will run existing iPad titles unchanged.
This could have been the case if Apple had introduced a new "tweener" resolution, larger than iPhone but smaller than iPad. Thanks to Retina Display, it didn't need to do this. Most tweener tablets have, offering more pixels than a smartphone, but not very many more. The wide variety of different resolution options on these devices further complicates the task of developers to make any special use of these extra pixels.
Thirdly, the 7.9 inch screen size and 3:4 ratio of the iPad mini gives it both more screen real estate and more useful screen area for tablet-optimized apps. Tablets with widescreen displays (like the new iPod touch, most smartphones, and most 7 inch tablets) may be better optimized for watching movies, but are less useful for document-oriented work, browsing the web, reading email, and other tasks people use iPads for: PC-like tasks suited to a page sized screen.
The result: while the industry operated under the assumption that broadly licensed mobile platforms would result in a wider range of device sizes and options from multiple hardware makers, Apple is now offering what appears to be the broadest range of popular, successful size and price options, and certainly has (at least to this point) done the best job of selling them.
Apple's iPad mini strategy looks to be patterned after the iPod mini from nearly a decade ago: after having conquered the high end, hard-drive based MP3 player market with the conventional iPod, Apple introduced a flash memory based iPod mini to take on competitors in the lower priced, but higher volume low end.
Whether the new iPad mini will work as well to keep the tablet market under Apple's control as the iPod mini (and its iPod nano replacement) did to expand Apple's iPod dominance remains to be seen.
Comments
Thinner - check.
Lighter - check.
Cellular/LTE - check
Bluetooth - check
Carrier Internet-only cheap plans - check
Appstore VoIP apps - check
I will leave it for you to draw the conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyerjp
A little factual correction - iPod mini originally had a 4gb HD and then upgraded to offer 4GB and 6GB - not flash. Just a little FYI
and to add to this...
Quote:
Apple introduced a flash memory based iPod mini to take on competitors in the lower priced, but higher volume low end.
changed to, Apple introduced the flash memory based iPod nano (replacing the HD based iPod mini) to take on competitors in the lower priced, but higher volume low end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyerjp
A little factual correction - iPod mini originally had a 4gb HD and then upgraded to offer 4GB and 6GB - not flash. Just a little FYI
Seconded, the iPod Mini used a Microdrive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdrive for storage.
Can you hear me now? - check
Apple also avoids any other comparison with other tablets in terms of performance, camera specs, or other favorable factors, and obviously doesn't mention their lower prices.
I admit that part when Phil showed how little you can see browsing on an 16:9 (android) screen is the most significant issue for convincing non-apple tablet customers. Even to convince buyers of the new iPod Touch. I was planning to buy the new iPod Touch and now the iPad mini seems much more desirable (and still at cheaper price).
You know guys, there are people, like me, who are apple fanboys for two decades but haven't bought any iOS device yet, due to some reasons, I didn't need a smartphone, neither an expensive 10" tablet (I wouldn't replace my mac to it). The only thing I've been missing was the access to the iOS apps that can't have with my MBP.
For reading I could buy the cheapest Kindle, perhaps I will. But for other apps I'd never enter the android world, no matter how much cheaper or better speced those tablets are advertised.
The iPad mini is the one so far.
My guess is the mini will sell crazy, can easily become the best selling iDevice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Here is where the Android fan's in-the-bubble thinking will take over. Since the iPhone 4 in 2010 we've been hearing that resolution and PPI is pointless compared to screen size. Now we have that scenario with the iPad mini's display is significantly larger but with a little lower PPI and resolution than many newer 7" 16:9 Android tablets. Can't wait to see how they spin this one.
Before I had the iPad 3, I had the iPad 2, which is the same resolution as the Mini. And even though it wasn't "retina", I thought that the iPad 2 had a pretty nice display. The Mini display will be even sharper than the iPad 2, due to it's slightly smaller size.
I read a rumor about some Android tablet supposedly coming out with a resolution that's greater than the iPad 3/4, but I have to ask, what's the point? Hardware specs mean nothing, if the software is not there to support it. Is that super-high resolution Android tablet going to run phone apps that are blown up?
And, as I've always stated in the past, 16:9 on a 7" tablet is simply a bad user experience for most tasks, especially web browsing. The iPad Mini is far better than any Android 7" tablet, regardless of resolution.
The iPad Mini will sell more than all Android tablets ever made, IMO. Fandroids just have no clue about specs and how they relate to the actual products.
A 16.7 W battery instead of a 42.5 W battery is good start.
There is another factor to consider. How will those Android tablets run with a much higher resolution when they currently can't compete with the fluidity of iOS at lower resolutions. How much will Android's Butter really help the OS? How will Android-based vendors get a high performance, low power GPU that is comparable to what Apple gets from building their own chips when they have to buy off the shelf components?
I'd think that rumoured tablet with the display resolution higher than the iPad has to fall short in other areas to compete with that sole spec.
This has been a problem since day one but they keep using 16:9 on those tablets. Even MS Surface is design for use in landscape. So much so that they even use sub-pixel font rendering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This has been a problem since day one but they keep using 16:9 on those tablets. Even MS Surface is design for use in landscape. So much so that they even use sub-pixel font rendering.
I skimmed through a couple of reviews for the Surface, and yeah, it is clearly intended to be used in landscape, with those two keyboards connecting to it in landscape, and with the kickstand only working when in landscape.
I also read that MS had licensed some tech from Apple for the Surface. Could it be those magnetic keyboards?
I'm not sure what about the megnetic latches Apple could license there. I was thinking more for the for tech for the touchscreen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm not sure what about the megnetic latches Apple could license there. I was thinking more for the for tech for the touchscreen.
Yeah, I suppose that you're right. Magnets aren't exactly a new invention.
I read that their touch screen is only 5 point multitouch though. The iPad is of course 11, or at least it was when I last looked into it about one year ago.
And, I love my Kindle, but, whether Apple is trying to kill other smaller formats or not, I believe
if I could move my 450 purchased books from Kindle format into iBooks,
I'd switch for the vastly greater functionality of the mini, higher price be damned...well worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
The iPad mini is actually thinner than my Kindle, by about a millimeter+...I guess Apple uses thinner pencils.
And, I love my Kindle, but, whether Apple is trying to kill other smaller formats or not, I believe
if I could move my 450 purchased books from Kindle format into iBooks,
I'd switch for the vastly greater functionality of the mini, higher price be damned...well worth it.
You can get the kindle App for the iPad and read your kindle books.
http://goo.gl/qDtTW
I'm just speculating here. No right or wrong, just hypothesis and assumptions. Now, when I make an assertion as fact you'll know because I'll be very adamant about it.
iPad mini
7.9"
0.68 pound (308 g)
0.28 inch (7.2 mm)
Kindle 1
6"
10.2 oz (290 g)
0.8 in (20 mm)
Kindle 2
6"
10.2 oz (290 g)
0.36 in (9 mm)
Kindle 3
6"
8.7 oz (247 g)
0.34 in (9 mm)
Kindle 3 Wi-Fi only
6"
8.5 oz (241 g)
Kindle Touch 3G
6"
7.8 oz (220 g)
Kindle Touch
6"
7.5 oz (213 g)
0.40 in (10 mm)
Kindle DX
9.7"
18.9 oz (540 g)
0.38 in (10 mm)
Kindle 4, 5
6"
5.98 oz (170 g)
0.34 in (9 mm)
Kindle Paperwhite 3G
6"
7.8 oz (222 g)
0.36 in (9 mm)
Kindle Paperwhite
6"
7.5 oz (213 g)
0.36 in (9 mm)
That's all very impressive, especially considering the iPad mini is a full fledged tablet, not an eReader and has nearly double the display area, save for the Kindle DX which has a 9.7" display.
Looking at Kindle tablets we get this:
Kindle Fire
7"
0.45 in (11.4 mm)
14.6 oz (413g)
Kindle Fire HD
7"
10.3mm
395g
Kindle Fire HD
8.9"
8.8mm
567g
So at the same general size as the iPad mini the Kindle Fire HD 8.9" is nearly twice as heavy. But hey, it's only $299¡
I said this before and I guess no one agrees with me, but I think the mini, despite it's inauspicious start, is actually the "iPad Pro" in hiding. IMO, it has the potential to be a far better iPad than the original iPad.
Before anyone was sure they were going to make a tablet at all and people were writing about what they expected, or what Apple seemed to be aiming for based on their patent applications, everyone seemed to think that the following was quite essential:
- thumb typing or some kind of ability to type while walking or standing up
- long periods of one handed operation or holding it in one hand
- easy portability without accessories like cases, straps, keyboards etc.
The iPad mini is actually the first tablet to cover all these "essentials." You can't do any of those things on the iPad, at least not easily. The average iPad with it's giant thick leather case, or keyboard case or whatever most people use, is practically a hybrid laptop by comparison. You have to put it down on a table top just to type an email. It's hardly a mobile device at all. With the iPad mini, I could see people (kids most likely) typing entire books on it while skateboarding down the street. I think it could easily replace a MacBook Air for a lot of people right now.
It seems to me that anyone using a tablet for serious purposes would gravitate towards the mini, whereas those just using it for casual uses would use the larger one. The big one is for seniors and the "slower," more "challenged" computer users, the mini is for the pros.