Nah, Apple is all in on the 64bit bandwagon so no A6 chip. Personally I think they will go A7+Retina but no TouchID. There are talks that the sensor in TouchID is the reason for the limited availability of the 5S, if that's the case I don't see them putting it in the mini.
agreed. the a7 on the iPad Mini RD, and the A7X with touchID on the 10" iPad.
Then the question comes... M7 chip? it makes a heckuva lot more sense to put the m7 into the mini (as it would be something that people would carry while 'moving' and therefore may want to use it as a 'motion measure' device.). If it saves power (yet, there is plenty of battery so to speak in the iPads), and not a space consideration (again, space), then why not?
Agreed. If I remember correctly, the iPad mini displays, on average, 40% more content than the typical 7" tablet, which is a big deal. A 4:3 aspect ratio is optimal for the vast majority of tablets uses, with the only exception being video.
With the iPad Mini more of a consumption device (books, movies, youtube, etc) than it's larger brothers wouldn't video be an oft-used function for it? I realize there's no way Apple would do it but for a media consumption device 16:9 sounds more appropriate to me. That extra inch of screen isn't useful for movies and most other video play. I think even video games are traditionally 16:9 aren't they?
They are saying this because the iPad 2 became ever so thicker and heavier to be the 3. But that was two processors ago. If the Mini gets the A7/M7 combo it might not need a thicker battery because dado processor might be more efficient
driving light to the screen is the major power suck. you have 4X more LCDs, therefore 4X more signalling to fire the same pixels.
But that said, the real power savings comes from more efficient LED backlighting, which one would assume has improved over the past year.
With the iPad Mini more of a consumption device (books, movies, youtube, etc) than it's larger brothers wouldn't video be an oft-used function for it? I realize there's no way Apple would do it but for a media consumption device 16:9 sounds more appropriate to me. That extra inch of screen isn't useful for movies and most other video play. I think even video games are traditionally 16:9 aren't they?
Excluding black bars, 16:9 movies on a 4:3 iPad mini display an image that is bigger than the full screen 16:9 7" tablets. That "extra inch" on 7" tablets is plastic/glass bezel while on the iPad mini it's useable screen space.
iPad Mini 2? What if they call it the iPad Mini S? (maybe with a forward slash in it)
Based on what they did last time, it will simply be called the iPad Mini and iPad. They killed off iPad version numbers/letters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger
Not really worried about a little more thickness, it is the extra weight that might be a concern... The Mini is nearly ideal for me the way it is....
Exactly. The size difference they are talking about is irrelevant to most users. However the weight is very important. It really needs to be the same weight or preferably lighter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quest01
The ipad mini 2 with retina display will destroy the Nexus 7 2nd generation out of the water.
Maybe in the eyes of Appleholes but the Nexus 7 is pretty nice hardware. Besides, I think most people pick their OS first, iOS or Android, then start worrying about the hardware.
A Retina iPad mini "2" would be nice, if Apple can keep battery life as it is now without making the thing too thick and heavy. Fine. Not a deal-breaker either way for consumers as long as the price stays the same.
But I think the big question is whether or not the iPad mini "2" will have a Touch ID sensor. That would require the A7 or A7X SoC for instant authentication as on the iPhone 5S. And the A7 or A7X would bring the iPad mini "2" up to the same performance level as the iPad 5th gen, because presumably the 5th gen iPad will also get an A7X SoC.
But does Apple really want to boost iPad mini "2" performance so much that it's a small version of the high performance iPad 5th gen? Wouldn't Apple rather keep the iPad mini "2" (and subsequent iPad minis) at the low end of the feature and performance scales by using less-expensive components? And by doing so, could Apple break the $300 barrier for the base iPad mini "2"?
The original iPad mini has the trailing-edge A5 SoC, a part that was originally released in 2011. Apple could put the 2012 non-X A6 into the iPad mini "2" if they don't add a Retina screen and Touch ID sensor. Again, I don't think the mini's lack of a Retina screen is a deal breaker for the average middle-of-the-technology-bell-curve consumer that Apple is targeting. And putting Touch ID only in the flagship iPad 5th gen would be consistent with the iPhone lineup: flagship 5S with Touch ID, low end 5C without.
So I'm guessing that the Retina iPad mini "2" will get the same A6X that the iPad 4th gen now has. And that means 32-bit processing and no Touch ID sensor. Just a wild guess, as always. Next year, Apple's iOS devices will all be 64-bit no matter what happens now. This year, I think the iPad mini "2" will remain 32-bit just as the iPhone 5C did. (But what about the iPod touch and Apple TV?)
You bring up some interesting questions. So Apple's tagline of the Mini being "every inch an iPad" doesn't help unless they state which iPad. I'm hoping the Mini will be pound for pound as good as the new iPad 5th generation.
Excluding black bars, 16:9 movies on a 4:3 iPad mini display an image that is bigger than the full screen 16:9 7" tablets. That "extra inch" on 7" tablets is plastic/glass bezel while on the iPad mini it's useable screen space.
At least on the Nexus7 when they say it's a 7" screen that's what it means. The entire 7" 16:9 display is available for playing movies/video. There's no inch lost for the bezel. It's all usable screen space.
It doesn't matter of course. Highly unlikely Apple will ever take the iPad to 16:9. My only point earlier was that IMO 16:9 would be useful for the Mini even if the larger iPads are better creation/work devices at 4:3. Has nothing at all to do with the screen real estate on any non-Apple tablet..
I don’t think that’s a valid metric. For example, it took the iPhone four generations to get a retina display, and yet the iPad took three. They came out, initially, at different times, and so it would be silly to assume tech that had become standard would take as long as it had to get in a new product.
Another example. It “took” three generations for 802.11n to get into the MacBook Pro, but it was in the first-gen MacBook Air. The latter came out much later than the former, and so, since the tech was already available, it went in immediately.
Thing about retina 8.9” displays is… they don’t exist. And so regardless of the iPhone having had retina since before the iPad mini even existed, it has naturally taken some time to create them. Same with the iPad (which, admittedly, came out before the first retina iPhone).
I figure if we hear a few more reports of the appropriate panels being made, a retina mini is close to a lock.
16:9 is only good for watching movies and video. No good for internet surfing nor e-book reader. With 4:3; you can do all the above! Black letter box at top and bottom do not bother me at all!
Am I the only person who would prefer lightness to retina? Who thinks lightness should be the aim. The marketing "gimmick"
I use my iPhone for iBooks, possibly at the cost of my eyes, because the iPad is too heavy.
No- but if it is a negligible amount heavier- then Retina would be the preference. With what their "predicting" (take that with a grain of salt)- it wouldn't even be noticeable.
Comments
Nah, Apple is all in on the 64bit bandwagon so no A6 chip. Personally I think they will go A7+Retina but no TouchID. There are talks that the sensor in TouchID is the reason for the limited availability of the 5S, if that's the case I don't see them putting it in the mini.
agreed. the a7 on the iPad Mini RD, and the A7X with touchID on the 10" iPad.
Then the question comes... M7 chip? it makes a heckuva lot more sense to put the m7 into the mini (as it would be something that people would carry while 'moving' and therefore may want to use it as a 'motion measure' device.). If it saves power (yet, there is plenty of battery so to speak in the iPads), and not a space consideration (again, space), then why not?
Don't make any early bets on this being accurate.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
They are saying this because the iPad 2 became ever so thicker and heavier to be the 3. But that was two processors ago. If the Mini gets the A7/M7 combo it might not need a thicker battery because dado processor might be more efficient
driving light to the screen is the major power suck. you have 4X more LCDs, therefore 4X more signalling to fire the same pixels.
But that said, the real power savings comes from more efficient LED backlighting, which one would assume has improved over the past year.
It's not a 7" tablet, it's 8". Big difference especially given the 4:3 aspect ratio
You are correct. I tried the Nexus 7 and the extra screen width was a big plus....
It is the same reason I would like (not demanding) a wider iPhone...
With the iPad Mini more of a consumption device (books, movies, youtube, etc) than it's larger brothers wouldn't video be an oft-used function for it? I realize there's no way Apple would do it but for a media consumption device 16:9 sounds more appropriate to me. That extra inch of screen isn't useful for movies and most other video play. I think even video games are traditionally 16:9 aren't they?
Excluding black bars, 16:9 movies on a 4:3 iPad mini display an image that is bigger than the full screen 16:9 7" tablets. That "extra inch" on 7" tablets is plastic/glass bezel while on the iPad mini it's useable screen space.
Well, this looks to be the case, at least.
It’s not any indication. Think before assuming.
I thought retina mini wasn't going to ship till Q1 2014 or something. If so, I should sell my current one ahead of time!!
I sold my iPad mini and iPad 4 in anticipation already.
So how solid is the retina rumor? It can't be as good as the "ipad will use mini form factor bezel".
Im curious what CPU they will go with and if TouchID will make an appearance.
A6X+Retina Display
or
A6+Standard Display
or
A7+Standard Display+TouchID
or
A7X+Retina Display+TouchID (prob not likely)
I tend to think they will keep costs down for the mini, so if retina holds, perhaps it will inherit the A6X.
I'm hoping for that one with a price increase to $379-$399. I'd gladly pay more for non-crippled specs.
iPad Mini 2? What if they call it the iPad Mini S? (maybe with a forward slash in it)
Based on what they did last time, it will simply be called the iPad Mini and iPad. They killed off iPad version numbers/letters.
Not really worried about a little more thickness, it is the extra weight that might be a concern... The Mini is nearly ideal for me the way it is....
Exactly. The size difference they are talking about is irrelevant to most users. However the weight is very important. It really needs to be the same weight or preferably lighter.
The ipad mini 2 with retina display will destroy the Nexus 7 2nd generation out of the water.
A Retina iPad mini "2" would be nice, if Apple can keep battery life as it is now without making the thing too thick and heavy. Fine. Not a deal-breaker either way for consumers as long as the price stays the same.
But I think the big question is whether or not the iPad mini "2" will have a Touch ID sensor. That would require the A7 or A7X SoC for instant authentication as on the iPhone 5S. And the A7 or A7X would bring the iPad mini "2" up to the same performance level as the iPad 5th gen, because presumably the 5th gen iPad will also get an A7X SoC.
But does Apple really want to boost iPad mini "2" performance so much that it's a small version of the high performance iPad 5th gen? Wouldn't Apple rather keep the iPad mini "2" (and subsequent iPad minis) at the low end of the feature and performance scales by using less-expensive components? And by doing so, could Apple break the $300 barrier for the base iPad mini "2"?
The original iPad mini has the trailing-edge A5 SoC, a part that was originally released in 2011. Apple could put the 2012 non-X A6 into the iPad mini "2" if they don't add a Retina screen and Touch ID sensor. Again, I don't think the mini's lack of a Retina screen is a deal breaker for the average middle-of-the-technology-bell-curve consumer that Apple is targeting. And putting Touch ID only in the flagship iPad 5th gen would be consistent with the iPhone lineup: flagship 5S with Touch ID, low end 5C without.
So I'm guessing that the Retina iPad mini "2" will get the same A6X that the iPad 4th gen now has. And that means 32-bit processing and no Touch ID sensor. Just a wild guess, as always. Next year, Apple's iOS devices will all be 64-bit no matter what happens now. This year, I think the iPad mini "2" will remain 32-bit just as the iPhone 5C did. (But what about the iPod touch and Apple TV?)
You bring up some interesting questions. So Apple's tagline of the Mini being "every inch an iPad" doesn't help unless they state which iPad. I'm hoping the Mini will be pound for pound as good as the new iPad 5th generation.
iPad Mini Retina should have the A7X, 4GB RAM, M7, 802.11 ac, IGZO display, dual flash camera and option for 128GB storage.
Price is not a big deal for me either! $1,200 is okay!
They did just change the delivery date for the 5s online to 2-3 weeks so maybe the limitation has been resolved on the bio ID.
At least on the Nexus7 when they say it's a 7" screen that's what it means. The entire 7" 16:9 display is available for playing movies/video. There's no inch lost for the bezel. It's all usable screen space.
It doesn't matter of course. Highly unlikely Apple will ever take the iPad to 16:9. My only point earlier was that IMO 16:9 would be useful for the Mini even if the larger iPads are better creation/work devices at 4:3. Has nothing at all to do with the screen real estate on any non-Apple tablet..
it took the full sized 3 gen.
I don’t think that’s a valid metric. For example, it took the iPhone four generations to get a retina display, and yet the iPad took three. They came out, initially, at different times, and so it would be silly to assume tech that had become standard would take as long as it had to get in a new product.
Another example. It “took” three generations for 802.11n to get into the MacBook Pro, but it was in the first-gen MacBook Air. The latter came out much later than the former, and so, since the tech was already available, it went in immediately.
Thing about retina 8.9” displays is… they don’t exist. And so regardless of the iPhone having had retina since before the iPad mini even existed, it has naturally taken some time to create them. Same with the iPad (which, admittedly, came out before the first retina iPhone).
I figure if we hear a few more reports of the appropriate panels being made, a retina mini is close to a lock.
I use my iPhone for iBooks, possibly at the cost of my eyes, because the iPad is too heavy.
Am I the only person who would prefer lightness to retina? Who thinks lightness should be the aim. The marketing "gimmick"
I use my iPhone for iBooks, possibly at the cost of my eyes, because the iPad is too heavy.
No- but if it is a negligible amount heavier- then Retina would be the preference. With what their "predicting" (take that with a grain of salt)- it wouldn't even be noticeable.