I thought the mini might be EOL with the introduction of the iPhone 6+.
Always loved the form factor but never have been able to justify buying one.
Be great on my boat tho' - regular size iPad is a little too big.
Hmm, maybe I'll snap and grab one on the refresh.
I use a little tablet to share charts/mapping and side-imaging ("fish-finder") data with those on the bow via a Lowrance app and Go-free. It always get kudos.
Yea - they're really great to take along. I'm using an old iPad2 with Garmins Bluechart mobile. Have transferred all my fish marks over to iPad and use that as the main plotter now. My Garmin 750s combo unit is then free to display sounder only.
iPad mini would be a lot better fit for my boat than the iPad.
Is it going to get thinner? I believe the iPad Air 2 is thinner than the mini which is just strange.
So it is your thour that a "mini" should be thinner than "Air"? I personally think that they have gone as far as they really need too (maybe a tad too far) with iPhone 6 plus -- unless there is some compelling reason (that I can't come up with -- no shocker there) I believe the current thickness to diagonal dimensional of an enclosing rectangle ratio (the thinness ratio) should not be any smaller. I think that sacrificing the smooth lines for a camera system that protrudes out the back, and also sacrifices potential extra space for battery or other minor features like strength.
For the engineering types the ratio I was talking about is an attempt to express something a quick and dirty L/r (radius of gyration). The simple ratio that I speak of of course does not take into the cross-sectional shape and the fact that it changes along the long (diagonal) axis. The width at the widest point is not an indicator of the moment of inertia and this is not a column but it might be a starting point to talk about -- of course also not taking into account different strengths of the sandwich (screen cover, capacitive layer, LED display, battery substrate, etc.).
So it is your thour that a "mini" should be thinner than "Air"?
No. My thought is the mini shouldn't be thicker than the air.
Really? I thought the whole idea for the Air™ branding was for it to invoke the thought that anything with a name postfixed with 'Air™' is lighter, thinner, and all that other bourgeois marketing crapola. So how would mini fit in with that? Most folx would say that air is pretty damn thin (except for when the sh*t is deep here ???? ). Granted, mini does imply a smaller in stature and/or mass item than the standard item of its class, but I would still argue that Air™ connotes the thinner and lighter of the two.
Personally I think that whoever came up with the use of Air™ should be released to the industry so s/he can spread around some of that good stuff. Either that or move 'em to a research facility and track there heads in a cyclotron - might be the first repeatable proof that the Higgs-Boson particle exists!
Comments
Have transferred all my fish marks over to iPad and use that as the main plotter now.
My Garmin 750s combo unit is then free to display sounder only.
iPad mini would be a lot better fit for my boat than the iPad.
That looks like the same thickness as the Air 2, which is just amazing.
You owe it to your wife and future children to put the iPad away and attend to business...
On another topic, because of line breaks I read the headlines to say: iPad mini 4'
My first thought was that Apple was going to give all their competitors a complex by releasing a four foot iPad and calling it a "mini."
You know if there was a leak about that, Samsung would be release a 4 foot Tab "48 Tab" next month, yeah, they're that good ;-).
May it sign that Apple will be refreshing mini in the middle of cycle to minimize influence on big iPad sale?
Is it going to get thinner? I believe the iPad Air 2 is thinner than the mini which is just strange.
So it is your thour that a "mini" should be thinner than "Air"? I personally think that they have gone as far as they really need too (maybe a tad too far) with iPhone 6 plus -- unless there is some compelling reason (that I can't come up with -- no shocker there) I believe the current thickness to diagonal dimensional of an enclosing rectangle ratio (the thinness ratio) should not be any smaller. I think that sacrificing the smooth lines for a camera system that protrudes out the back, and also sacrifices potential extra space for battery or other minor features like strength.
For the engineering types the ratio I was talking about is an attempt to express something a quick and dirty L/r (radius of gyration). The simple ratio that I speak of of course does not take into the cross-sectional shape and the fact that it changes along the long (diagonal) axis. The width at the widest point is not an indicator of the moment of inertia and this is not a column but it might be a starting point to talk about -- of course also not taking into account different strengths of the sandwich (screen cover, capacitive layer, LED display, battery substrate, etc.).
No. My thought is the mini shouldn't be thicker than the air.
So it is your thour that a "mini" should be thinner than "Air"?
No. My thought is the mini shouldn't be thicker than the air.
Really? I thought the whole idea for the Air™ branding was for it to invoke the thought that anything with a name postfixed with 'Air™' is lighter, thinner, and all that other bourgeois marketing crapola. So how would mini fit in with that? Most folx would say that air is pretty damn thin (except for when the sh*t is deep here ????
Personally I think that whoever came up with the use of Air™ should be released to the industry so s/he can spread around some of that good stuff. Either that or move 'em to a research facility and track there heads in a cyclotron - might be the first repeatable proof that the Higgs-Boson particle exists!