Apple phasing out iPad mini in light of low sales, Plus-sized iPhones - report

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 102
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,904member
    Marvin said:
    pb said:
    Perhaps Apple is repositioning the iPad as a whole towards bigger screens, something like lightweight laptop. This is one facet of corporate logic that could explain the unexplainable.

    The idea of a bezel-less iPad in the same physical dimensions, more or less, as today's mini, with a display of 9.7" is also interesting. But I would not hold my breath on it.
    The bigger screen makes sense for the iPad Pro, which starts at $599. I suspect the mini was selling better than other iPads but Apple wasn't happy with the low $269 price point. The most recent change looks like an experiment to see if the mini was selling more based on size or price because they made a 9.7" iPad starting at $329 and the mini now starts at $399. If people are buying primarily based on price then Apple can streamline the production by just having the cheaper 9.7" iPad model. This wouldn't satisfy the portion buying for the size though.

    They keep refining the larger iPad to be smaller, thinner, lighter but the mini form factor hasn't changed nearly as much:



    http://www.imore.com/ipad-mini-4-evolution

    The larger model is converging towards the mini form factor. All it would need is for there to be a new iPad to replace both the iPad and iPad mini, perhaps a ~8.5" size:

    https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

    This would remain a non-Pro model and be positioned for media consumption where the Pro is intended more for production. Alternatively, they might be planning to only have iPad Pros somehow by lowering the price points in order to better tackle the education market. They could never really make a mini with a compatible keyboard cover. They'd need to have a 9.7" Pro with lower quality parts (screen, cameras) to be able to bridge the $270 gap between it and the cheapest iPad. I think it makes more sense to find a compromise between the non-Pro iPad and mini and sell a single product for consumption so $329 8.5" iPad and have that cover everything up to the $599 iPad Pro.
    Apple wouldn't introduce a new Mini iPad just for 0.6 inch size increase, so a 8.5 inch model is very unlikely.

    iPad Mini may continue a few years as is, with incremental updates as long as its small battery permits. The rest is just rumor mill. The new iPad's price is not an experiment (Apple is not two years ago's startup), but rather a compensation for not being able to upgrade iPad Mini other than storage.
    "not being able to upgrade iPad Mini "
    What?
    Why would Apple not be able to upgrade the mini?  If they can upgrade a phone nearly half its size, they can upgrade the mini...

    Part of the trouble with the mini is that they haven't upgraded it:  the mini 2 is quite old and the mini 4 barely any better when you look at the specs -- there was simply no reason for mini users to upgrade.  Apple has all the technology to make the mini as high end as they want it to be.   But, part of its justification was low cost -- so it falls into the same category as the IPhone SE -- smaller and cheaper.   But the specs on the SE are far better than those of the mini
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
  • Reply 82 of 102
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,137member
    Marvin said:
    pb said:
    Perhaps Apple is repositioning the iPad as a whole towards bigger screens, something like lightweight laptop. This is one facet of corporate logic that could explain the unexplainable.

    The idea of a bezel-less iPad in the same physical dimensions, more or less, as today's mini, with a display of 9.7" is also interesting. But I would not hold my breath on it.
    The bigger screen makes sense for the iPad Pro, which starts at $599. I suspect the mini was selling better than other iPads but Apple wasn't happy with the low $269 price point. The most recent change looks like an experiment to see if the mini was selling more based on size or price because they made a 9.7" iPad starting at $329 and the mini now starts at $399. If people are buying primarily based on price then Apple can streamline the production by just having the cheaper 9.7" iPad model. This wouldn't satisfy the portion buying for the size though.

    They keep refining the larger iPad to be smaller, thinner, lighter but the mini form factor hasn't changed nearly as much:



    http://www.imore.com/ipad-mini-4-evolution

    The larger model is converging towards the mini form factor. All it would need is for there to be a new iPad to replace both the iPad and iPad mini, perhaps a ~8.5" size:

    https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

    This would remain a non-Pro model and be positioned for media consumption where the Pro is intended more for production. Alternatively, they might be planning to only have iPad Pros somehow by lowering the price points in order to better tackle the education market. They could never really make a mini with a compatible keyboard cover. They'd need to have a 9.7" Pro with lower quality parts (screen, cameras) to be able to bridge the $270 gap between it and the cheapest iPad. I think it makes more sense to find a compromise between the non-Pro iPad and mini and sell a single product for consumption so $329 8.5" iPad and have that cover everything up to the $599 iPad Pro.
    Apple wouldn't introduce a new Mini iPad just for 0.6 inch size increase, so a 8.5 inch model is very unlikely.

    iPad Mini may continue a few years as is, with incremental updates as long as its small battery permits. The rest is just rumor mill. The new iPad's price is not an experiment (Apple is not two years ago's startup), but rather a compensation for not being able to upgrade iPad Mini other than storage.
    "not being able to upgrade iPad Mini "
    What?
    Why would Apple not be able to upgrade the mini?  If they can upgrade a phone nearly half its size, they can upgrade the mini...

    Part of the trouble with the mini is that they haven't upgraded it:  the mini 2 is quite old and the mini 4 barely any better when you look at the specs -- there was simply no reason for mini users to upgrade.  Apple has all the technology to make the mini as high end as they want it to be.   But, part of its justification was low cost -- so it falls into the same category as the IPhone SE -- smaller and cheaper.   But the specs on the SE are far better than those of the mini
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
    Irrelevant:   Apple got out of the pixel count race long ago.   The IPad Mini has had Retina Display since the Mini 2 -- both the screen and the battery are without fault.
    frankeed
  • Reply 83 of 102
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,904member
    Marvin said:
    pb said:
    Perhaps Apple is repositioning the iPad as a whole towards bigger screens, something like lightweight laptop. This is one facet of corporate logic that could explain the unexplainable.

    The idea of a bezel-less iPad in the same physical dimensions, more or less, as today's mini, with a display of 9.7" is also interesting. But I would not hold my breath on it.
    The bigger screen makes sense for the iPad Pro, which starts at $599. I suspect the mini was selling better than other iPads but Apple wasn't happy with the low $269 price point. The most recent change looks like an experiment to see if the mini was selling more based on size or price because they made a 9.7" iPad starting at $329 and the mini now starts at $399. If people are buying primarily based on price then Apple can streamline the production by just having the cheaper 9.7" iPad model. This wouldn't satisfy the portion buying for the size though.

    They keep refining the larger iPad to be smaller, thinner, lighter but the mini form factor hasn't changed nearly as much:



    http://www.imore.com/ipad-mini-4-evolution

    The larger model is converging towards the mini form factor. All it would need is for there to be a new iPad to replace both the iPad and iPad mini, perhaps a ~8.5" size:

    https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

    This would remain a non-Pro model and be positioned for media consumption where the Pro is intended more for production. Alternatively, they might be planning to only have iPad Pros somehow by lowering the price points in order to better tackle the education market. They could never really make a mini with a compatible keyboard cover. They'd need to have a 9.7" Pro with lower quality parts (screen, cameras) to be able to bridge the $270 gap between it and the cheapest iPad. I think it makes more sense to find a compromise between the non-Pro iPad and mini and sell a single product for consumption so $329 8.5" iPad and have that cover everything up to the $599 iPad Pro.
    Apple wouldn't introduce a new Mini iPad just for 0.6 inch size increase, so a 8.5 inch model is very unlikely.

    iPad Mini may continue a few years as is, with incremental updates as long as its small battery permits. The rest is just rumor mill. The new iPad's price is not an experiment (Apple is not two years ago's startup), but rather a compensation for not being able to upgrade iPad Mini other than storage.
    "not being able to upgrade iPad Mini "
    What?
    Why would Apple not be able to upgrade the mini?  If they can upgrade a phone nearly half its size, they can upgrade the mini...

    Part of the trouble with the mini is that they haven't upgraded it:  the mini 2 is quite old and the mini 4 barely any better when you look at the specs -- there was simply no reason for mini users to upgrade.  Apple has all the technology to make the mini as high end as they want it to be.   But, part of its justification was low cost -- so it falls into the same category as the IPhone SE -- smaller and cheaper.   But the specs on the SE are far better than those of the mini
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
    Irrelevant:   Apple got out of the pixel count race long ago.   The IPad Mini has had Retina Display since the Mini 2 -- both the screen and the battery are without fault.
    The point is not whether iPad Mini has the Retina screen or not or when, I gave the pixel count above so your reply is irrelevant. The point is, Apple has made the new budget iPad thicker to accommodate a larger battery. So this is what Retina + A9 requires in an iPad. Apparently the Mini, with its small battery cannot support A9 right now. This is what I understand from the last upgrade of it being limited to only storage.
  • Reply 84 of 102
    Marvin said:
    pb said:
    Perhaps Apple is repositioning the iPad as a whole towards bigger screens, something like lightweight laptop. This is one facet of corporate logic that could explain the unexplainable.

    The idea of a bezel-less iPad in the same physical dimensions, more or less, as today's mini, with a display of 9.7" is also interesting. But I would not hold my breath on it.
    The bigger screen makes sense for the iPad Pro, which starts at $599. I suspect the mini was selling better than other iPads but Apple wasn't happy with the low $269 price point. The most recent change looks like an experiment to see if the mini was selling more based on size or price because they made a 9.7" iPad starting at $329 and the mini now starts at $399. If people are buying primarily based on price then Apple can streamline the production by just having the cheaper 9.7" iPad model. This wouldn't satisfy the portion buying for the size though.

    They keep refining the larger iPad to be smaller, thinner, lighter but the mini form factor hasn't changed nearly as much:



    http://www.imore.com/ipad-mini-4-evolution

    The larger model is converging towards the mini form factor. All it would need is for there to be a new iPad to replace both the iPad and iPad mini, perhaps a ~8.5" size:

    https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

    This would remain a non-Pro model and be positioned for media consumption where the Pro is intended more for production. Alternatively, they might be planning to only have iPad Pros somehow by lowering the price points in order to better tackle the education market. They could never really make a mini with a compatible keyboard cover. They'd need to have a 9.7" Pro with lower quality parts (screen, cameras) to be able to bridge the $270 gap between it and the cheapest iPad. I think it makes more sense to find a compromise between the non-Pro iPad and mini and sell a single product for consumption so $329 8.5" iPad and have that cover everything up to the $599 iPad Pro.
    Apple wouldn't introduce a new Mini iPad just for 0.6 inch size increase, so a 8.5 inch model is very unlikely.

    iPad Mini may continue a few years as is, with incremental updates as long as its small battery permits. The rest is just rumor mill. The new iPad's price is not an experiment (Apple is not two years ago's startup), but rather a compensation for not being able to upgrade iPad Mini other than storage.
    "not being able to upgrade iPad Mini "
    What?
    Why would Apple not be able to upgrade the mini?  If they can upgrade a phone nearly half its size, they can upgrade the mini...

    Part of the trouble with the mini is that they haven't upgraded it:  the mini 2 is quite old and the mini 4 barely any better when you look at the specs -- there was simply no reason for mini users to upgrade.  Apple has all the technology to make the mini as high end as they want it to be.   But, part of its justification was low cost -- so it falls into the same category as the IPhone SE -- smaller and cheaper.   But the specs on the SE are far better than those of the mini
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
    Irrelevant:   Apple got out of the pixel count race long ago.   The IPad Mini has had Retina Display since the Mini 2 -- both the screen and the battery are without fault.
    The point is not whether iPad Mini has the Retina screen or not or when, I gave the pixel count above so your reply is irrelevant. The point is, Apple has made the new budget iPad thicker to accommodate a larger battery. So this is what Retina + A9 requires in an iPad. Apparently the Mini, with its small battery cannot support A9 right now. This is what I understand from the last upgrade of it being limited to only storage.


    I don't think there are technological limitations which are stopping Apple from using A9 in iPad mini, to achieve good battery life with same sized battery. A8 was manufactured in 20nm process node, so it is inherently inefficient compared to A9 which is manufactured in 16nm or 14nm (depending on the fab - TSMC and Samsung respectively). The additional power A9 needs is compensated just by efficiency achieved through manufacturing process.

    Apple did NOT upgrade iPad mini to A9 only with the objective of upselling to higher cost full sized iPads since the mini's pricetag was very low. Not an excuse anymore, with $329 for full sized iPad 2017.

    GeorgeBMacfrankeed
  • Reply 85 of 102
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
    Irrelevant:   Apple got out of the pixel count race long ago.   The IPad Mini has had Retina Display since the Mini 2 -- both the screen and the battery are without fault.
    The point is not whether iPad Mini has the Retina screen or not or when, I gave the pixel count above so your reply is irrelevant. The point is, Apple has made the new budget iPad thicker to accommodate a larger battery. So this is what Retina + A9 requires in an iPad. Apparently the Mini, with its small battery cannot support A9 right now. This is what I understand from the last upgrade of it being limited to only storage.
    Complete nonsense.  Adding battery over the Air 2 has resulted in longer battery life from 460 mins to 616 mins.  Under the same workload the 16nm A9 is more power efficient than the 20nm A8 rather than less.  1.2 times the battery capacity (8,827 mAh vs 7,340 mAh) for 1.33 times the duration (geek bench 3 power 616 min vs 460 min) shows that the new A9 based 2017 iPad is more power efficient than the A8X iPad Air 2 rather than less while being more performant.

    http://www.macworld.co.uk/review/ipad/new-ipad-2017-review-3656385/

    With the unlaminated screen the 2017 iPad was going to be thicker than the iPad Air 2.  My guess is they decided to add battery life to offset the lower quality parts in the new iPad.
    GeorgeBMacfrankeed
  • Reply 86 of 102
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,904member
    nht said:
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
    Irrelevant:   Apple got out of the pixel count race long ago.   The IPad Mini has had Retina Display since the Mini 2 -- both the screen and the battery are without fault.
    The point is not whether iPad Mini has the Retina screen or not or when, I gave the pixel count above so your reply is irrelevant. The point is, Apple has made the new budget iPad thicker to accommodate a larger battery. So this is what Retina + A9 requires in an iPad. Apparently the Mini, with its small battery cannot support A9 right now. This is what I understand from the last upgrade of it being limited to only storage.
    Complete nonsense.  Adding battery over the Air 2 has resulted in longer battery life from 460 mins to 616 mins.  Under the same workload the 16nm A9 is more power efficient than the 20nm A8 rather than less.  1.2 times the battery capacity (8,827 mAh vs 7,340 mAh) for 1.33 times the duration (geek bench 3 power 616 min vs 460 min) shows that the new A9 based 2017 iPad is more power efficient than the A8X iPad Air 2 rather than less while being more performant.

    http://www.macworld.co.uk/review/ipad/new-ipad-2017-review-3656385/

    With the unlaminated screen the 2017 iPad was going to be thicker than the iPad Air 2.  My guess is they decided to add battery life to offset the lower quality parts in the new iPad.
    "Battery testing

    Apple claims the new iPad has a 10-hour battery life when using Wi-Fi and 9 hours when browsing over a cellular connection.

    These are standard figures that the company gives for all of its current tablets, but we were hopeful that it might prove a conservative estimate; after all, the device's battery has an impressive (for Apple) capacity of 8,827 mAh. That compares to 7,340 mAh on the Air 2 and 7,306 mAh on the 9.7-inch Pro, and may explain the device being (comparatively!) thick and heavy." [from the same macworld.co.uk page you posted above, emphasis is mine...]

    Wanna more help to disprove yourself?

    edited May 2017
  • Reply 87 of 102
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,904member

    Marvin said:
    pb said:
    Perhaps Apple is repositioning the iPad as a whole towards bigger screens, something like lightweight laptop. This is one facet of corporate logic that could explain the unexplainable.

    The idea of a bezel-less iPad in the same physical dimensions, more or less, as today's mini, with a display of 9.7" is also interesting. But I would not hold my breath on it.
    The bigger screen makes sense for the iPad Pro, which starts at $599. I suspect the mini was selling better than other iPads but Apple wasn't happy with the low $269 price point. The most recent change looks like an experiment to see if the mini was selling more based on size or price because they made a 9.7" iPad starting at $329 and the mini now starts at $399. If people are buying primarily based on price then Apple can streamline the production by just having the cheaper 9.7" iPad model. This wouldn't satisfy the portion buying for the size though.

    They keep refining the larger iPad to be smaller, thinner, lighter but the mini form factor hasn't changed nearly as much:



    http://www.imore.com/ipad-mini-4-evolution

    The larger model is converging towards the mini form factor. All it would need is for there to be a new iPad to replace both the iPad and iPad mini, perhaps a ~8.5" size:

    https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

    This would remain a non-Pro model and be positioned for media consumption where the Pro is intended more for production. Alternatively, they might be planning to only have iPad Pros somehow by lowering the price points in order to better tackle the education market. They could never really make a mini with a compatible keyboard cover. They'd need to have a 9.7" Pro with lower quality parts (screen, cameras) to be able to bridge the $270 gap between it and the cheapest iPad. I think it makes more sense to find a compromise between the non-Pro iPad and mini and sell a single product for consumption so $329 8.5" iPad and have that cover everything up to the $599 iPad Pro.
    Apple wouldn't introduce a new Mini iPad just for 0.6 inch size increase, so a 8.5 inch model is very unlikely.

    iPad Mini may continue a few years as is, with incremental updates as long as its small battery permits. The rest is just rumor mill. The new iPad's price is not an experiment (Apple is not two years ago's startup), but rather a compensation for not being able to upgrade iPad Mini other than storage.
    "not being able to upgrade iPad Mini "
    What?
    Why would Apple not be able to upgrade the mini?  If they can upgrade a phone nearly half its size, they can upgrade the mini...

    Part of the trouble with the mini is that they haven't upgraded it:  the mini 2 is quite old and the mini 4 barely any better when you look at the specs -- there was simply no reason for mini users to upgrade.  Apple has all the technology to make the mini as high end as they want it to be.   But, part of its justification was low cost -- so it falls into the same category as the IPhone SE -- smaller and cheaper.   But the specs on the SE are far better than those of the mini
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
    Irrelevant:   Apple got out of the pixel count race long ago.   The IPad Mini has had Retina Display since the Mini 2 -- both the screen and the battery are without fault.
    The point is not whether iPad Mini has the Retina screen or not or when, I gave the pixel count above so your reply is irrelevant. The point is, Apple has made the new budget iPad thicker to accommodate a larger battery. So this is what Retina + A9 requires in an iPad. Apparently the Mini, with its small battery cannot support A9 right now. This is what I understand from the last upgrade of it being limited to only storage.


    I don't think there are technological limitations which are stopping Apple from using A9 in iPad mini, to achieve good battery life with same sized battery. A8 was manufactured in 20nm process node, so it is inherently inefficient compared to A9 which is manufactured in 16nm or 14nm (depending on the fab - TSMC and Samsung respectively). The additional power A9 needs is compensated just by efficiency achieved through manufacturing process.

    Apple did NOT upgrade iPad mini to A9 only with the objective of upselling to higher cost full sized iPads since the mini's pricetag was very low. Not an excuse anymore, with $329 for full sized iPad 2017.

    Of course your remark regarding the manufacturing process of A9 is valuable. Given 32.4 watt-hour battery of the new iPad (A9) versus 27.3 watt-hour battery of the iPad Air 2 (A8X), I am rather inclined to concur that the power requirements of A9 are not completely offset by its manufacturing process, an increase in battery power is also needed.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 88 of 102
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    nht said:
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
    Irrelevant:   Apple got out of the pixel count race long ago.   The IPad Mini has had Retina Display since the Mini 2 -- both the screen and the battery are without fault.
    The point is not whether iPad Mini has the Retina screen or not or when, I gave the pixel count above so your reply is irrelevant. The point is, Apple has made the new budget iPad thicker to accommodate a larger battery. So this is what Retina + A9 requires in an iPad. Apparently the Mini, with its small battery cannot support A9 right now. This is what I understand from the last upgrade of it being limited to only storage.
    Complete nonsense.  Adding battery over the Air 2 has resulted in longer battery life from 460 mins to 616 mins.  Under the same workload the 16nm A9 is more power efficient than the 20nm A8 rather than less.  1.2 times the battery capacity (8,827 mAh vs 7,340 mAh) for 1.33 times the duration (geek bench 3 power 616 min vs 460 min) shows that the new A9 based 2017 iPad is more power efficient than the A8X iPad Air 2 rather than less while being more performant.

    http://www.macworld.co.uk/review/ipad/new-ipad-2017-review-3656385/

    With the unlaminated screen the 2017 iPad was going to be thicker than the iPad Air 2.  My guess is they decided to add battery life to offset the lower quality parts in the new iPad.
    "Battery testing

    Apple claims the new iPad has a 10-hour battery life when using Wi-Fi and 9 hours when browsing over a cellular connection.

    These are standard figures that the company gives for all of its current tablets, but we were hopeful that it might prove a conservative estimate; after all, the device's battery has an impressive (for Apple) capacity of 8,827 mAh. That compares to 7,340 mAh on the Air 2 and 7,306 mAh on the 9.7-inch Pro, and may explain the device being (comparatively!) thick and heavy." [from the same macworld.co.uk page you posted above, emphasis is mine...]

    Wanna more help to disprove yourself?

    The additional battery capacity corresponds directly to the increased run time as shown in the testing.  The A9 is more power efficient than the A8 and the increased runtime disproves your dumb assertion that they couldn't put the A9 into the mini because of power requirements.
    frankeed
  • Reply 89 of 102
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member


    I don't think there are technological limitations which are stopping Apple from using A9 in iPad mini, to achieve good battery life with same sized battery. A8 was manufactured in 20nm process node, so it is inherently inefficient compared to A9 which is manufactured in 16nm or 14nm (depending on the fab - TSMC and Samsung respectively). The additional power A9 needs is compensated just by efficiency achieved through manufacturing process.

    Apple did NOT upgrade iPad mini to A9 only with the objective of upselling to higher cost full sized iPads since the mini's pricetag was very low. Not an excuse anymore, with $329 for full sized iPad 2017.

    Of course your remark regarding the manufacturing process of A9 is valuable. Given 32.4 watt-hour battery of the new iPad (A9) versus 27.3 watt-hour battery of the iPad Air 2 (A8X), I am rather inclined to concur that the power requirements of A9 are not completely offset by its manufacturing process, an increase in battery power is also needed.
    At the same load the A9 is more power efficient than the A8X.  When tested at the same brightness (200 nits) the iPhone 6S (A9) had longer battery life than the iPhone 6 (A8) despite having a smaller battery.

    http://bgr.com/2015/09/29/iphone-6s-iphone-6-plus-battery-life/

    http://www.phonearena.com/reviews/Apple-iPhone-6s-vs-iPhone-6_id4099/page/4

    When run on benchmarks the A9 had worse battery life vs the A8 because it doesn't throttle as much and generates a higher computational score and ends up with a better battery score despite shorter run time.
  • Reply 90 of 102
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,904member
    nht said:
    nht said:
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
    Irrelevant:   Apple got out of the pixel count race long ago.   The IPad Mini has had Retina Display since the Mini 2 -- both the screen and the battery are without fault.
    The point is not whether iPad Mini has the Retina screen or not or when, I gave the pixel count above so your reply is irrelevant. The point is, Apple has made the new budget iPad thicker to accommodate a larger battery. So this is what Retina + A9 requires in an iPad. Apparently the Mini, with its small battery cannot support A9 right now. This is what I understand from the last upgrade of it being limited to only storage.
    Complete nonsense.  Adding battery over the Air 2 has resulted in longer battery life from 460 mins to 616 mins.  Under the same workload the 16nm A9 is more power efficient than the 20nm A8 rather than less.  1.2 times the battery capacity (8,827 mAh vs 7,340 mAh) for 1.33 times the duration (geek bench 3 power 616 min vs 460 min) shows that the new A9 based 2017 iPad is more power efficient than the A8X iPad Air 2 rather than less while being more performant.

    http://www.macworld.co.uk/review/ipad/new-ipad-2017-review-3656385/

    With the unlaminated screen the 2017 iPad was going to be thicker than the iPad Air 2.  My guess is they decided to add battery life to offset the lower quality parts in the new iPad.
    "Battery testing

    Apple claims the new iPad has a 10-hour battery life when using Wi-Fi and 9 hours when browsing over a cellular connection.

    These are standard figures that the company gives for all of its current tablets, but we were hopeful that it might prove a conservative estimate; after all, the device's battery has an impressive (for Apple) capacity of 8,827 mAh. That compares to 7,340 mAh on the Air 2 and 7,306 mAh on the 9.7-inch Pro, and may explain the device being (comparatively!) thick and heavy." [from the same macworld.co.uk page you posted above, emphasis is mine...]

    Wanna more help to disprove yourself?

    The additional battery capacity corresponds directly to the increased run time as shown in the testing. 
    In a test like Geekbench 3 battery test yes, additional battery capacity may correspond directly to the increased run time. But in real time usage the CPU and GPU can cause short spikes of enormous power consumption, so increased run time you observe during a test would be already offset in real time by such spikes. That would bring the "increased runtime" down to the average usage time Apple states (10 hours web on wifi), and in case of a smaller battery, to less than 10 hours, obviously. Apple may downgrade by removing some physical properties such as lamination, anti-reflective coating and alike, but it would never downgrade a product by lowering crucial specs, such as resolution or battery life. So one cannot imagine Apple saying "Here you wanted a A9 iPad Mini but it lasts only 7 hours on battery, sorry it doesn't last as long as A8 iPad Mini 4 but you still got the A9". This is not how Apple upgrades its products.
  • Reply 91 of 102
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    nht said:
    The additional battery capacity corresponds directly to the increased run time as shown in the testing. 
    In a test like Geekbench 3 battery test yes, additional battery capacity may correspond directly to the increased run time. But in real time usage the CPU and GPU can cause short spikes of enormous power consumption, so increased run time you observe during a test would be already offset in real time by such spikes. That would bring the "increased runtime" down to the average usage time Apple states (10 hours web on wifi), and in case of a smaller battery, to less than 10 hours, obviously. Apple may downgrade by removing some physical properties such as lamination, anti-reflective coating and alike, but it would never downgrade a product by lowering crucial specs, such as resolution or battery life. So one cannot imagine Apple saying "Here you wanted a A9 iPad Mini but it lasts only 7 hours on battery, sorry it doesn't last as long as A8 iPad Mini 4 but you still got the A9". This is not how Apple upgrades its products.
    Fact:  iPhone 6S (A9) with smaller battery lasted longer in battery testing (wifi web browsing) than the iPhone 6 (A8) with larger battery.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9686/the-apple-iphone-6s-and-iphone-6s-plus-review/8

    Fact:  The iPad Mini 4 (A8) has longer run time than the iPad Air 2 (A8X) for wifi web browsing.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9724/the-apple-ipad-mini-4-review/3

    Fact:  2017 iPad (A9) with larger battery lasted far longer with a larger battery than the iPad Air 2 (A8X) in proportion to the increase in battery size.  The increase in run time was greater than the increase in battery capacity.
    http://www.macworld.co.uk/review/ipad/new-ipad-2017-review-3656385/

    Fact: The 2017 iPad has the same dimensions as the 2013 iPad Air: 240 x 169.5 x 7.5 mm (9.45 x 6.67 x 0.30 in)
    Fact: The 2017 iPad has the same weight as the 2013 iPad Air: 469 g (Wi-Fi) / 478 g (3G/LTE)
    Fact: The 2017 iPad has a similar battery mAh as the 2013 iPad Air:  8827 mAh vs 8600 mAh (likely attributable to 4 years worth of battery improvements)
    Fact: The 2017 iPad reverted to the same non-laminated screen design as the 2013 iPad Air

    Fiction:  The Apple A9 is less power efficient than the A8X or A8.
    Fiction:  Apple increased battery size in the 2017 iPad because of the A9 required more power than the A8X or A8 to drive a retina display
    Fiction:  The Apple A9 power draw would have decreased runtime in the iPad Mini if all other components remained the same.

    frankeed
  • Reply 92 of 102
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,137member
    Marvin said:
    pb said:
    Perhaps Apple is repositioning the iPad as a whole towards bigger screens, something like lightweight laptop. This is one facet of corporate logic that could explain the unexplainable.

    The idea of a bezel-less iPad in the same physical dimensions, more or less, as today's mini, with a display of 9.7" is also interesting. But I would not hold my breath on it.
    The bigger screen makes sense for the iPad Pro, which starts at $599. I suspect the mini was selling better than other iPads but Apple wasn't happy with the low $269 price point. The most recent change looks like an experiment to see if the mini was selling more based on size or price because they made a 9.7" iPad starting at $329 and the mini now starts at $399. If people are buying primarily based on price then Apple can streamline the production by just having the cheaper 9.7" iPad model. This wouldn't satisfy the portion buying for the size though.

    They keep refining the larger iPad to be smaller, thinner, lighter but the mini form factor hasn't changed nearly as much:



    http://www.imore.com/ipad-mini-4-evolution

    The larger model is converging towards the mini form factor. All it would need is for there to be a new iPad to replace both the iPad and iPad mini, perhaps a ~8.5" size:

    https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

    This would remain a non-Pro model and be positioned for media consumption where the Pro is intended more for production. Alternatively, they might be planning to only have iPad Pros somehow by lowering the price points in order to better tackle the education market. They could never really make a mini with a compatible keyboard cover. They'd need to have a 9.7" Pro with lower quality parts (screen, cameras) to be able to bridge the $270 gap between it and the cheapest iPad. I think it makes more sense to find a compromise between the non-Pro iPad and mini and sell a single product for consumption so $329 8.5" iPad and have that cover everything up to the $599 iPad Pro.
    Apple wouldn't introduce a new Mini iPad just for 0.6 inch size increase, so a 8.5 inch model is very unlikely.

    iPad Mini may continue a few years as is, with incremental updates as long as its small battery permits. The rest is just rumor mill. The new iPad's price is not an experiment (Apple is not two years ago's startup), but rather a compensation for not being able to upgrade iPad Mini other than storage.
    "not being able to upgrade iPad Mini "
    What?
    Why would Apple not be able to upgrade the mini?  If they can upgrade a phone nearly half its size, they can upgrade the mini...

    Part of the trouble with the mini is that they haven't upgraded it:  the mini 2 is quite old and the mini 4 barely any better when you look at the specs -- there was simply no reason for mini users to upgrade.  Apple has all the technology to make the mini as high end as they want it to be.   But, part of its justification was low cost -- so it falls into the same category as the IPhone SE -- smaller and cheaper.   But the specs on the SE are far better than those of the mini
    To drive 2048 x 1536 pixels display with A9 the regular new iPad uses a huge battery compared to a Mini with the same number of pixels that would be upgraded to A9. That shows iPad Mini may be affected by battery related constraints regarding that upgrade. A comparison with the iPhone 6s Plus with the same A9 chip wouldn't be encouraging here, because iPad and iPhone differ in their usage patterns, we keep the iPad screen on much longer than an iPhone. If the battery tech evolves and provides more power in a smaller footprint then the iPad Mini too may be upgraded to A9, why not? This is why I believe the iPad Mini may be left only to stagnation, not to phasing out and Apple may upgrade the iPad Mini as soon as it is feasible and meaningful.
    Irrelevant:   Apple got out of the pixel count race long ago.   The IPad Mini has had Retina Display since the Mini 2 -- both the screen and the battery are without fault.
    The point is not whether iPad Mini has the Retina screen or not or when, I gave the pixel count above so your reply is irrelevant. The point is, Apple has made the new budget iPad thicker to accommodate a larger battery. So this is what Retina + A9 requires in an iPad. Apparently the Mini, with its small battery cannot support A9 right now. This is what I understand from the last upgrade of it being limited to only storage.
    The IPad Mini runs just fine. 
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 93 of 102
    Mini 5 September 12th?
  • Reply 94 of 102
    Mini 5 September 12th?
    I'll bet it will be discontinued quietly. Despite my initial vehemence against the existence of the mini, I've grown to see its utility in a variety of commercial and industrial situations. For consumers, though? Still sucks. It's tiny! That's probably why sales are lagging.
  • Reply 95 of 102
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member

    For consumers, though? Still sucks. It's tiny!
    It still has its uses.

    I take mine in my daily commute. People are often traveling today. The mini is a valuable tool in this context, the perfect travel companion, exactly thanks to its small size. It easily fits inside a small bag, effectively eliminating the need to take a special bag for that alone. It is not only about consumption.

    After trying the mini, I would never get a bigger iPad while outside or traveling.
    edited September 2017 frankeed
  • Reply 96 of 102
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 4,189member
    pb said:

    For consumers, though? Still sucks. It's tiny!
    It still has its uses.

    I take mine in my daily commute. People are often traveling today. The mini is a valuable tool in this context, the perfect travel companion, exactly thanks to its small size. It easily fits inside a small bag, effectively eliminating the need to take a special bag for that alone. It is not only about consumption.

    After trying the mini, I would never get a bigger iPad while outside or traveling.
    I couldn't have put it better. That's my main use too. A full sized screen would be overkill on a commute and actually be a distraction for who is sitting next to you. That added to the bulk of a regular sized iPad.

    The only reason I haven't upgraded mine is because, on the one hand it still meets all my main needs very well and, on there other Apple hasn't made much of an effort on it.
    frankeed
  • Reply 97 of 102
    pb said:
    It still has its uses.
    The only thing I can think of consumer-wise is that obviously I prefer its weight while reading to any of the other iPads. But they’re getting down there! Pretty soon weight might not be an issue. Then again, there IS a minimum lower bound to the weight of an iPad, and that’s due to the incompressibility of the current battery tech that we use. While the physical battery size required to give “10 hours” will continue to slowly shrink due exclusively to the increased efficiency of Apple’s processors, it will still never go below a certain weight until we get off Li-ion and get one of these “revolutionary” battery technologies that people claim exist but which never get mass produced or even tested.
  • Reply 98 of 102
    Let's see. We'll slow the upgrade cycle so its chip is a couple of generations behind, price it higher than a new full-sized iPad, and then kill it because it doesn't sell well. My Gen 2 mini is the newest Apple product I have. They're all approaching the end of their lifecycle, but I don't find any of Apple's new replacement offerings compelling. Is this my fault, or Apple's?
  • Reply 99 of 102
    frankeed said:
    We'll slow the upgrade cycle so its chip is a couple of generations behind, price it higher than a new full-sized iPad, and then kill it because it doesn't sell well.
    Well, it worked for the Mac Pro.  :p
  • Reply 100 of 102
    Maybe Mini Pro in March?  Cross your fingers.  Hope they give it the same components or better then the one year old iPad Pro will be.  Apple always short changes the smaller models of any of their mobile devices - SE < 4.7" < 5.5"<5.8" iphones for example.
Sign In or Register to comment.