... My guess is an eventual A7 or A8 powered MacBook Air...
I really don't understand why people think there will be an A processor in an Apple laptop. There is NO software ecosystem for it. If you disagree, then you are conflating the iOS and OS X runtimes and intents. If you're all about having a keyboard, then the "Macbook Air with an A processor" already exists as the "iPad with a keyboard". If *ever* they do converge on the A CPU, it won't be until like the A20, and not until Apple completely dominates all computing, with everyone having drank the filesystems-are-bad Kool Aid, and with Microsoft as a subsidiary.
It's a good point about iOS 7, I didn't think of that, because in one of his interviews Jony Ive said iOS 7 was the first iOS designed with Retina in mind from the beginning. But I still think the iPad Mini is more like the Macbook Air than the 13" Macbook Pro, so I stick with my prediction that it won't have Retina. Anyway we will know in only 3 days, and if I'm wrong you can reply to this post with "Haha."
I think the iPad line will have an identity crisis if the Mini doesn't get retina. To keep it non-retina puts all the awesome sauce in the larger form factor, and the larger form factor is simply not appealing to lots of people.
It's a good point about iOS 7, I didn't think of that, because in one of his interviews Jony Ive said iOS 7 was the first iOS designed with Retina in mind from the beginning. But I still think the iPad Mini is more like the Macbook Air than the 13" Macbook Pro, so I stick with my prediction that it won't have Retina. Anyway we will know in only 3 days, and if I'm wrong you can reply to this post with "Haha."
Just curious why you think the mini is like MBA? What can the full size iPad do that the mini can't?
I personally like IOS7. Love the new features. Can't wait until Tuesday, hope there is at least SOME surprise...hard to keep secrets these days I guess.
iOA 7 is not only crappy on non-retina screens it will be equally crappy on retina. It will still have the same UI deficiencies and until someone gets rid of Mr Ive it is not likely we will get relief from this.
To say nothing of the fact that iCal and Reminders are not reliable in their function.
I guess you'll just have to go elsewhere as there's no indication Apple is relieving Mr Ive of his duties.
I think the iPad line will have an identity crisis if the Mini doesn't get retina. To keep it non-retina puts all the awesome sauce in the larger form factor, and the larger form factor is simply not appealing to lots of people.
What if it hits the margins too hard though? It helps to have a Mini at $329 to be price competitive with cheaper eBook readers. That price point doesn't give much room to move in terms of quality. Say they get 30% margins from those, that means to build it costs just $230 for a processor, RAM, storage, display, metal casing, dual cameras, battery. A high-res display might have $50 extra costs because of lower yields or higher cost materials and that would either drop margins below 15% or increase the price to $399, neither of which are good.
If staying non-Retina is the only way to stay price-competitive and maintain margins, they should stick to it, same as with the Macbook Air. They could perhaps have the larger capacity models Retina so for example:
I don't know what exact prices they'd need to make it worthwhile but it would serve to push people up the price scale rather than give too much quality on the entry model, which would lower the average selling price. This is where the latest iPhone works as it is clearly pushing people up to the 5S, which has a higher price rather than down to the 5C. This is great for Apple.
I really don't understand why people think there will be an A processor in an Apple laptop. There is NO software ecosystem for it. If you disagree, then you are conflating the iOS and OS X runtimes and intents. If you're all about having a keyboard, then the "Macbook Air with an A processor" already exists as the "iPad with a keyboard". If *ever* they do converge on the A CPU, it won't be until like the A20, and not until Apple completely dominates all computing, with everyone having drank the filesystems-are-bad Kool Aid, and with Microsoft as a subsidiary.
I'm talking about running OS X on an ARM chip, not running iOS on a laptop. Apple could update Xcode and require a recompile with some tweaking to allow programs to run on it. Not saying they would do this, but a power sipping entry-level, lower poweed device would fit a niche.
I guess you'll just have to go elsewhere as there's no indication Apple is relieving Mr Ive of his duties.
Nowhere else to go. Everything else is much, much worse. And you are right, it's hard to get rid of someone like that, that has been patiently waiting for years to get his own agenda fulfilled.
I have been all Apple for an awful lot of years (like since the first 512k Mac). And it's just a disappointment to see Apple starting a downhill slide again. You may not have even been alive during the "bad years" but, trust me, they were bad. But I'm not so stupid as to defect to the world of MSFT.
Just curious why you think the mini is like MBA? What can the full size iPad do that the mini can't?
It's more something that the Mini can do that the full-size can't: be a comfortable e-reader. I think that is something they will want to maintain, and that means not increasing the weight or lessening the battery hours (that extreme importance of lightness is why I think it's like the Air).
Retina screens use quite a bit more power, and that means either a bigger, heavier battery or less hours. Unless there is some new screen tech they have found that uses less power of course...
What if it hits the margins too hard though? It helps to have a Mini at $329 to be price competitive with cheaper eBook readers. That price point doesn't give much room to move in terms of quality. Say they get 30% margins from those, that means to build it costs just $230 for a processor, RAM, storage, display, metal casing, dual cameras, battery. A high-res display might have $50 extra costs because of lower yields or higher cost materials and that would either drop margins below 15% or increase the price to $399, neither of which are good.
If staying non-Retina is the only way to stay price-competitive and maintain margins, they should stick to it, same as with the Macbook Air. They could perhaps have the larger capacity models Retina so for example:
16GB non-Retina: $329
32GB Retina: $429
64GB Retina $529
I don't know what exact prices they'd need to make it worthwhile but it would serve to push people up the price scale rather than give too much quality on the entry model, which would lower the average selling price. This is where the latest iPhone works as it is clearly pushing people up to the 5S, which has a higher price rather than down to the 5C. This is great for Apple.
The difference between the 5c and 5s is minute compared to an XGA Mini and a Retina Maxi. If they don't make a Retina Mini, they won't be getting my $, nor a lot of other peoples'. I am a serial Apple device buyer, but the only interesting possibility in the iPad lineup this time around is a Retina mini.
I'm talking about running OS X on an ARM chip, not running iOS on a laptop. Apple could update Xcode and require a recompile with some tweaking to allow programs to run on it. Not saying they would do this, but a power sipping entry-level, lower poweed device would fit a niche.
I think this would confuse the form factors, and give most people a lot of pause. It's TOO MANY options. Also, the difference between OS X and iOS is the software ecosystem. iOS == Arm ecosystem, OS X == x86 ecosystem. OS X on Arm == no software.
And if you hadn't realized, OS X on Arm was already market tested. It was called the Surface RT. Fail.
The iPad Mini is analogous to the Macbook Air - ultraportable, battery weight being a primary concern, and Retina would eat more battery.
I think Apple still regards Retina as a pro feature for this year at least. The Macbook Pro has it, The Mac Pro will in a few days (Phil spoke about 4K monitors at WWDC), but the iMac and Macbook Air were both recently updated without it.
Every Iphone is Retina... Has been for a year. I don't think Apple considers it a 'pro' feature, but a 'performance envelope' issue. Apple won't sacrifice weight or battery life, or in the iMac example, heat/price points.
iOA 7 is not only crappy on non-retina screens it will be equally crappy on retina. It will still have the same UI deficiencies and until someone gets rid of Mr Ive it is not likely we will get relief from this.
To say nothing of the fact that iCal and Reminders are not reliable in their function.
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>jkichline</strong> <a href="/t/160255/apple-inventory-snapshot-suggests-new-macbook-pros-imminent-non-retina-ipad-mini-may-live-on#post_2420318"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><br />
I'm talking about running OS X on an ARM chip, not running iOS on a laptop. Apple could update Xcode and require a recompile with some tweaking to allow programs to run on it. Not saying they would do this, but a power sipping entry-level, lower poweed device would fit a niche.</div></div><p> </p>
I think this would confuse the form factors, and give most people a lot of pause. It's TOO MANY options. Also, the difference between OS X and iOS is the software ecosystem. iOS == Arm ecosystem, OS X == x86 ecosystem. OS X on Arm == no software.
And if you hadn't realized, OS X on Arm was already market tested. It was called the Surface RT. Fail.
Apple has done this successfully in the past. They transitioned almost seamlessly from PowerPC chips to Intel and even more often from 32 to 64 bit. Recently they unveiled a brand new, 64 bit processor and I compiled my app to it in about 2 hours and submitted. What I'm saying is that Apple has the ability to jump chips, if they determined it was in their best interests. All the same software would still work with a little heads up for the developers.
The Surface RT failed because it's a terrible form factor. It's a tablet that required (basically) a keyboard to function but the keyboard requires you use it on a table. Defeats the purpose of a tablet. It also was released NOT supporting programs that would normally run on Windows and they had almost no developer support.
What I'm suggesting is NOT a tablet/laptop hybrid since that is the worst of both worlds. What I am suggesting is a device where Apple owns the processor architecture and has all the same programs and function of OS X because it *is* OS X.
I wouldn't use MS failures as a basis for if Apple should do something. Microsoft originally failed at the smartphone as well as the original tablet computer. Need I mention Zune or WebTV? Apple can do things MS can't and I'd like to see them show the tech world again how it's done.
I still believe Apple will keep the non-Retina mini and reduce the price slightly to $299+, add the Retina mini model for $399+, and the full size for $499+. iPad 2 is no longer filling the $399 slot so it follows Apple's model of shrinking size but increasing resolution. Mini's will feature A6 and A6X accordingly. 9.7" iPad can expect an A7X processor.
I sure hope not. I think Apple needs to be aggressive about deploying 64-bit A7 processors in all iOS devices going forward. Only a supply issue could be why no A7 in the next iPad mini. Perhaps you're right for that reason.
[quote]I am a serial Apple device buyer, but the only interesting possibility in the iPad lineup this time around is a Retina mini.[/quote]Me too. But I'm not buying anything without an A7 M7 inside. So while retina mini is one factor, for me, A7 M7 is required for me to pull the trigger on a mini. Also note the 9.7" iPad 5 will likely only weigh one pound vs the 1.5 pound 4th gen. So it's going to be a LOT LIGHTER and much closer to the weight of the iPad mini this time round.
Please let the new MBPs have TB2 (and therefore 4K external monitor support). Are there any other laptops on the market at the moment that support 4K external monitor? It could be another Apple first.
Edit: and all those people who say "Why would you want Thunderbolt, USB3 is just as good!" would be like "Oh, maybe it's not as good."
Please let the new MBPs have TB2 (and therefore 4K external monitor support). Are there any other laptops on the market at the moment that support 4K external monitor? It could be another Apple first.
Edit: and all those people who say "Why would you want Thunderbolt, USB3 is just as good!" would be like "Oh, maybe it's not as good."
I'm pretty sure the hold up with the Haswell MBPs is because of the TB2 chips. Since Apple was heavily pimping B2 and 4K display support with the new Mac Pros back at WWDC I can't imagine they would wait an additional year to offer TB2 to their Pro notebook lineup.
Comments
... My guess is an eventual A7 or A8 powered MacBook Air...
I really don't understand why people think there will be an A processor in an Apple laptop. There is NO software ecosystem for it. If you disagree, then you are conflating the iOS and OS X runtimes and intents. If you're all about having a keyboard, then the "Macbook Air with an A processor" already exists as the "iPad with a keyboard". If *ever* they do converge on the A CPU, it won't be until like the A20, and not until Apple completely dominates all computing, with everyone having drank the filesystems-are-bad Kool Aid, and with Microsoft as a subsidiary.
It's a good point about iOS 7, I didn't think of that, because in one of his interviews Jony Ive said iOS 7 was the first iOS designed with Retina in mind from the beginning. But I still think the iPad Mini is more like the Macbook Air than the 13" Macbook Pro, so I stick with my prediction that it won't have Retina. Anyway we will know in only 3 days, and if I'm wrong you can reply to this post with "Haha."
I think the iPad line will have an identity crisis if the Mini doesn't get retina. To keep it non-retina puts all the awesome sauce in the larger form factor, and the larger form factor is simply not appealing to lots of people.What if it hits the margins too hard though? It helps to have a Mini at $329 to be price competitive with cheaper eBook readers. That price point doesn't give much room to move in terms of quality. Say they get 30% margins from those, that means to build it costs just $230 for a processor, RAM, storage, display, metal casing, dual cameras, battery. A high-res display might have $50 extra costs because of lower yields or higher cost materials and that would either drop margins below 15% or increase the price to $399, neither of which are good.
If staying non-Retina is the only way to stay price-competitive and maintain margins, they should stick to it, same as with the Macbook Air. They could perhaps have the larger capacity models Retina so for example:
16GB non-Retina: $329
32GB Retina: $429
64GB Retina $529
I don't know what exact prices they'd need to make it worthwhile but it would serve to push people up the price scale rather than give too much quality on the entry model, which would lower the average selling price. This is where the latest iPhone works as it is clearly pushing people up to the 5S, which has a higher price rather than down to the 5C. This is great for Apple.
I'm talking about running OS X on an ARM chip, not running iOS on a laptop. Apple could update Xcode and require a recompile with some tweaking to allow programs to run on it. Not saying they would do this, but a power sipping entry-level, lower poweed device would fit a niche.
I guess you'll just have to go elsewhere as there's no indication Apple is relieving Mr Ive of his duties.
Nowhere else to go. Everything else is much, much worse. And you are right, it's hard to get rid of someone like that, that has been patiently waiting for years to get his own agenda fulfilled.
I have been all Apple for an awful lot of years (like since the first 512k Mac). And it's just a disappointment to see Apple starting a downhill slide again. You may not have even been alive during the "bad years" but, trust me, they were bad. But I'm not so stupid as to defect to the world of MSFT.
Just curious why you think the mini is like MBA? What can the full size iPad do that the mini can't?
It's more something that the Mini can do that the full-size can't: be a comfortable e-reader. I think that is something they will want to maintain, and that means not increasing the weight or lessening the battery hours (that extreme importance of lightness is why I think it's like the Air).
Retina screens use quite a bit more power, and that means either a bigger, heavier battery or less hours. Unless there is some new screen tech they have found that uses less power of course...
What if it hits the margins too hard though? It helps to have a Mini at $329 to be price competitive with cheaper eBook readers. That price point doesn't give much room to move in terms of quality. Say they get 30% margins from those, that means to build it costs just $230 for a processor, RAM, storage, display, metal casing, dual cameras, battery. A high-res display might have $50 extra costs because of lower yields or higher cost materials and that would either drop margins below 15% or increase the price to $399, neither of which are good.
If staying non-Retina is the only way to stay price-competitive and maintain margins, they should stick to it, same as with the Macbook Air. They could perhaps have the larger capacity models Retina so for example:
16GB non-Retina: $329
32GB Retina: $429
64GB Retina $529
I don't know what exact prices they'd need to make it worthwhile but it would serve to push people up the price scale rather than give too much quality on the entry model, which would lower the average selling price. This is where the latest iPhone works as it is clearly pushing people up to the 5S, which has a higher price rather than down to the 5C. This is great for Apple.
The difference between the 5c and 5s is minute compared to an XGA Mini and a Retina Maxi. If they don't make a Retina Mini, they won't be getting my $, nor a lot of other peoples'. I am a serial Apple device buyer, but the only interesting possibility in the iPad lineup this time around is a Retina mini.I'm talking about running OS X on an ARM chip, not running iOS on a laptop. Apple could update Xcode and require a recompile with some tweaking to allow programs to run on it. Not saying they would do this, but a power sipping entry-level, lower poweed device would fit a niche.
I think this would confuse the form factors, and give most people a lot of pause. It's TOO MANY options. Also, the difference between OS X and iOS is the software ecosystem. iOS == Arm ecosystem, OS X == x86 ecosystem. OS X on Arm == no software.And if you hadn't realized, OS X on Arm was already market tested. It was called the Surface RT. Fail.
The iPad Mini is analogous to the Macbook Air - ultraportable, battery weight being a primary concern, and Retina would eat more battery.
I think Apple still regards Retina as a pro feature for this year at least. The Macbook Pro has it, The Mac Pro will in a few days (Phil spoke about 4K monitors at WWDC), but the iMac and Macbook Air were both recently updated without it.
Every Iphone is Retina... Has been for a year. I don't think Apple considers it a 'pro' feature, but a 'performance envelope' issue. Apple won't sacrifice weight or battery life, or in the iMac example, heat/price points.
.
iOA 7 is not only crappy on non-retina screens it will be equally crappy on retina. It will still have the same UI deficiencies and until someone gets rid of Mr Ive it is not likely we will get relief from this.
To say nothing of the fact that iCal and Reminders are not reliable in their function.
SIR Jonathan Ive to you...;) KBE and all that.
Apple has done this successfully in the past. They transitioned almost seamlessly from PowerPC chips to Intel and even more often from 32 to 64 bit. Recently they unveiled a brand new, 64 bit processor and I compiled my app to it in about 2 hours and submitted. What I'm saying is that Apple has the ability to jump chips, if they determined it was in their best interests. All the same software would still work with a little heads up for the developers.
The Surface RT failed because it's a terrible form factor. It's a tablet that required (basically) a keyboard to function but the keyboard requires you use it on a table. Defeats the purpose of a tablet. It also was released NOT supporting programs that would normally run on Windows and they had almost no developer support.
What I'm suggesting is NOT a tablet/laptop hybrid since that is the worst of both worlds. What I am suggesting is a device where Apple owns the processor architecture and has all the same programs and function of OS X because it *is* OS X.
I wouldn't use MS failures as a basis for if Apple should do something. Microsoft originally failed at the smartphone as well as the original tablet computer. Need I mention Zune or WebTV? Apple can do things MS can't and I'd like to see them show the tech world again how it's done.
Please let the new MBPs have TB2 (and therefore 4K external monitor support). Are there any other laptops on the market at the moment that support 4K external monitor? It could be another Apple first.
Edit: and all those people who say "Why would you want Thunderbolt, USB3 is just as good!" would be like "Oh, maybe it's not as good."
If Apple reduces the price of iPad mini 1st gen to $229, even for a short period, I'm buying two (for small kids).
I'm pretty sure the hold up with the Haswell MBPs is because of the TB2 chips. Since Apple was heavily pimping B2 and 4K display support with the new Mac Pros back at WWDC I can't imagine they would wait an additional year to offer TB2 to their Pro notebook lineup.