Editorial: The iPad Air and the iPad mini have always been Apple's best tablets

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple has again launched a new iPad Air and a new iPad mini at the same time. Throughout all the previous versions of both, they have represented the best balance of price, specifications, and portability.




You only ever seriously compare different iPads when you're looking to buy one. Yet throughout their history and many different iterations, the iPad Air and the iPad mini have been a pair. They were so similar in performance and sufficiently different in size that you'd be forgiven for wanting both.

Apple may have started off this sense of them being a pair just by how often it released models of the two at the same time. But it's also down to how, for the greater part of their existence, these two represented the very best of what the iPad can be.

Today you have the 11-inch and 12.9-inch iPad Pro models which are more feature-rich in every single way other than what can be an eye-watering price. And when the original iPad mini was released in 2012, there was no such thing as an iPad Air.

Still, in November 2013 we got the iPad mini with Retina display (later just referred to as the iPad mini 2) and the first iPad Air. In 2014 the updated iPad mini 3 and iPad Air 2 were launched simultaneously, just as they now have been again with their 2019 refreshes.

And throughout most of their shelf life, the two models have maintained the same price difference. For $399 you could get the latest iPad mini and for $499 you could get the latest iPad Air.

Your buying choices

There was also the difference in the physical dimensions of the two, most strikingly in the two screens. The iPad mini has always has a 7.9-inch screen and until 2019, the iPad Air always had a 9.7-inch one.






That made an obvious difference to how the two devices looked but it wasn't as clear as one being bigger than the other. For they had the same resolution, which meant even with the actual screens being physically different sizes, they showed exactly the same content.

If you like, the iPad mini showed the same content squeezed down uncomfortably. Or, the iPad mini showed the same content with a far sharper display. Both could be true and it was your choice which you preferred.

Then there has always been a weight difference which sounds small but feels huge when you use these devices. The original iPad mini weighed 0.68lbs. At the time, the current regular-sized model was the iPad (4th Generation) and that weighed 1.44lbs or just over twice as much.

2013

In the next year, 2013, when the iPad mini 2 was coming out with a slightly greater 0.73lbs weight, Apple released the iPad Air, which was 1lb exactly. Now the weight difference between the two was merely 0.27lbs yet still the iPad mini felt substantially lighter because of its size and shape. When you handled the two, you'd think both are light but you'd be certain that the difference is more than it is.

Both this original iPad Air and the iPad mini 2 came with 16GB capacity as a minimum and each could be configured when ordering to up to 128GB. They both had the same A7 processor plus the same 5mp rear camera and 1.2mp front one.





Then, too, they both had dual microphones and stereo speakers. They both required a passcode to unlock, as opposed to having Touch ID or Face ID.

And they both had the same 2048x1536 Retina resolution. The definition of 'Retina' is just that you shouldn't be able to see the individual pixels when looking at a screen from a reasonable distance or angle. It's never been a precise term, but here Apple did push the limits a bit, calling both models Retina when the iPad mini 2 had 326 pixels per inch and the iPad Air had just 264ppi.

Beefing up the iPad Air

In 2014, Apple announced an updated iPad mini 3 and iPad Air 2 at the same October event. This time, there was one significant difference in their specifications.

The new iPad Air 2 now ran on the A8X processor while the iPad mini 3 stayed on the A7.

However, this was the generation that added Touch ID to both models. It saw the rear camera on each move up to 8mp, though the front one remained on 1.2mp.

Much of the rest of the specifications stayed the same, too. The screen sizes, resolutions and pixels per inch were identical to the previous models. So were the audio features.






The only other difference is that the iPad Air 2 was a fraction lighter at 0.96lbs, a saving of 0.04lbs. The iPad mini 3 remained at 0.73lbs.

Inevitable pairing

The 2014 release was the last time, until 2019, that Apple produced an iPad Air. When the iPad mini 4 came out in September 2015, though, that iPad Air 2 was still current.

And all that the iPad mini really added to its specifications was an improved processor. It still didn't have the iPad Air 2's A8X processor, but it did have an A8.

It also shed some weight, though, and came in at 0.65lbs. That's 0.08lbs less than the previous iPad mini and 0.31lbs less than the then-current iPad Air 2.

Superseded

The iPad Air 2 remained on sale until 2017 when it was replaced by what Apple chose to just call iPad. The iPad mini 4 was only officially discontinued in March 2019 when Apple announced its iPad mini 5.

Between the end of these two models and their 2019 revival, Apple released no new 7.9-inch iPads at all. Perhaps that was because in 2014 it had finally produced the larger iPhone 6 Plus. While that had only a 5.5-inch screen, it was still bigger than previous iPhones and may have been expected to fill the gap between the phone and the full-sized iPad.

There may also have been an issue of price. That 2017 iPad was released for $329, bringing it significantly under the cost of the iPad mini.

It had a poorer screen in some ways -- the iPad Air 2 had come with a laminated display that also had a greater anti-reflective coating -- but that display was also brighter. It had a faster processor, too, with Apple's A9, but its weight went back up to 1.034lbs or approximately the same as the original iPad Air.

This price was particularly appealing, though, as Apple had by now introduced the much more expensive iPad Pro models. Starting with a 12.9-inch model in late 2015, the company added a 9.7-inch one in early 2016.

These Pro models have been continuously updated since with the latest versions including a new 11-inch iPad Pro in much the same form factor as all the previous 9.7-inch iPads.

And now

Apple also updated the non-Pro model with a 2018 iPad which kept the $329 price. So for the majority of 2018, the iPad mini 4 remained in the range as an increasingly odd option. You had to pay more for it than for a better 9.7-inch iPad so really you were at last paying the premium just for the smaller size.

The 2019 iPad mini
The 2019 iPad mini


Then in March 2019, Apple revived both the iPad Air and the iPad mini. Fittingly, they did the two simultaneously.

Now, once again, you have a choice of a small device at $399 and a larger one at $499. You do also have the iPad Pros starting at $799 and the 2018 iPad remains available from $329. That one isn't looking such a bargain now that its A10 processor is beaten by the A12 Bionic one in both the iPad Air 3 and iPad mini 5.

Also, there's still a 1.2mp front camera on the 2017 iPad and both of the newer models come with a 7mp one.

If you like the smaller screen then you can now get the very best non-Pro iPad specifications in that gorgeous iPad mini form factor.

And if you like a bigger screen, you are now getting an even bigger one. The iPad Air 2019 drops the old 9.7-inch display of every previous non-Pro and non-mini iPad to instead bring you a 10.5-inch one.

Back where they should be

You can make an argument that the best iPad is the cheapest one, the $329 iPad 2018, and if you only make that case based on the price, you're absolutely right. Regardless of price to performance issues, if you haven't got $399 or $499 to spend on an iPad, that 2018 model is still a good buy. It's just a compromise buy.

Similarly, you can easily make a case for the iPad Pro models being the best iPads for every single reason except price.

However, yet again, the new iPad mini and the new iPad Air are really the best options. They are the sweet spot in the entire range and it's great to have them back.

Check out the best prices for all current iPads in the constantly-updated AppleInsider price guide.

Keep up with AppleInsider by downloading the AppleInsider app for iOS, and follow us on YouTube, Twitter @appleinsider and Facebook for live, late-breaking coverage. You can also check out our official Instagram account for exclusive photos.
macplusplus
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 52
    benji888benji888 Posts: 105member
    And all that the iPad mini really added to its specifications was an improved processor. It still didn't have the iPad Air 2's A8X processor, but it did have an A8.”

    OMG, the biggest change to the IPad Mini with the iPad Mini 4 was the laminated, anti-reflective coated screen with the best color of any and all iPad released before it. Why do you, AI, always overlook this?

    im so glad they improved the screen on the Mini 5 and didn’t dumb it down to iPad entry leve cheap non-laminated screen like so many rumors!
    mef475gregoriusmcaladanianwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 52
    bocaboybocaboy Posts: 26member
    I'm very disappointed in the Mini 5's memory options. 64 GB is not enough memory for the base configuration. I have the same gripe with the iPhone X and Xs. I realize it's an up-sell gimmick by Apple, but it doesn't make it any more palatable. Frankly, it looks like a money-grab to wring out the last few dollars of profitability. For the record, I'm an Apple shareholder and want the company to be profitable. I also want them to give the best value possible to the tens of millions of users of these devices, and being chintzy with memory in the new Mini and existing X/Xs isn't the way to to do it.

    The base configuration should be 128 GB, on all devices, including the Mini and X/Xs. Considering the price being charged for them, the difference in added expense to Apple would be minimal, and it would go a long way to justifying the more expensive prices.

    So today I'm speaking with my wallet. I would have upgraded my wife's iPad Mini 4 yesterday if it wasn't for this issue. I'll wait it out for Amazon, B&H or Adorama to put it on sale, or get a refurbished one when they show up on the Apple website.
    edited March 20
  • Reply 3 of 52
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,604member
    bocaboy said:
    I'm very disappointed in the Mini 5's memory options. 64 GB is not enough memory for the base configuration. I have the same gripe with the iPhone X and Xs. I realize it's an up-sell gimmick by Apple, but it doesn't make it any more palatable. Frankly, it looks like a money-grab to wring out the last few dollars of profitability. For the record, I'm an Apple shareholder and want the company to be profitable. I also want them to give the best value possible to the tens of millions of users of these devices, and being chintzy with memory in the new Mini and existing X/Xs isn't the way to to do it.

    The base configuration should be 128 GB, on all devices, including the Mini and X/Xs. Considering the price being charged for them, the difference in added expense to Apple would be minimal, and it would go a long way to justifying the more expensive prices.

    So today I'm speaking with my wallet. I would have upgraded my wife's iPad Mini 4 yesterday if it wasn't for this issue. I'll wait it out for Amazon, B&H or Adorama to put it on sale, or get a refurbished one when they show up on the Apple website.
    Many people who don't store a lot of games and every incoming WhatsApp cat video on their iPhones don't need 128 GB; forcing them to pay for unneeded storage would not be fair. Besides, the ecosystem of almost the majority of iPhone users consists of more than one Apple Device: consider the Watch, the AirPods, the iPad, the Mac computers, the Apple TV... Since their digital life is not limited to only one smartphone, a more granular control over their purchase power is an added bonus Apple provides to them when setting price points.

    If you disregard these facts, then you're investing on wrong stock...
    edited March 20 chiachasmfastasleepStrangeDaysbaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 52
    Eric_WVGGEric_WVGG Posts: 546member
    bocaboy said:
    I'm very disappointed in the Mini 5's memory options. 64 GB is not enough memory for the base configuration…
    dawg, I use my iPad for RSS newsfeeds and reading books. I've never even hit the wall on a 32gb iPad. 

    but apparently my iPad Mini heard about the new release and in a fit of grief threw itself off the bed onto the concrete floor this morning, so it looks like I'm gonna have a lot of juicy useless storage pretty soon…
    chasmchiaStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 52
    hippohippo Posts: 12member
    bocaboy said:
    I'm very disappointed in the Mini 5's memory options. 64 GB is not enough memory for the base configuration. I have the same gripe with the iPhone X and Xs. I realize it's an up-sell gimmick by Apple, but it doesn't make it any more palatable. Frankly, it looks like a money-grab to wring out the last few dollars of profitability. For the record, I'm an Apple shareholder and want the company to be profitable. I also want them to give the best value possible to the tens of millions of users of these devices, and being chintzy with memory in the new Mini and existing X/Xs isn't the way to to do it.

    The base configuration should be 128 GB, on all devices, including the Mini and X/Xs. Considering the price being charged for them, the difference in added expense to Apple would be minimal, and it would go a long way to justifying the more expensive prices.

    So today I'm speaking with my wallet. I would have upgraded my wife's iPad Mini 4 yesterday if it wasn't for this issue. I'll wait it out for Amazon, B&H or Adorama to put it on sale, or get a refurbished one when they show up on the Apple website.
    Many people who don't store a lot of games and every incoming WhatsApp cat video on their iPhones don't need 128 GB; forcing them to pay for unneeded storage would not be fair. Besides, the ecosystem of almost the majority of iPhone users consists of more than one Apple Device: consider the Watch, the AirPods, the iPad, the Mac computers, the Apple TV... Since their digital life is not limited to only one smartphone, a more granular control over their purchase power is an added bonus Apple provides to them when setting price points.

    If you disregard these facts, then you're investing on wrong stock...
    The iPad Mini 4 base storage was 16 GB when launched. So Apple has increased the iPad Mini 5 base storage by 4 times, to 64 GB. It's been 3 1/2 years since the iPad Mini 4 so we expect some increase over time and they did. My iPad Mini 4 is currently using 41 GB, so 64 GB would be enough today, but when I upgrade to the 5 I'll get the 256 GB option for $150 more. It's worth it if you need it. And then you have the best 8-inch tablet made with max capacity for $549 which is still reasonable compared to past maxed out iPads costing $1,000.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 52
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 279member
    Once the iPad Pro came out I stopped buying the regular models for personal use.

    I would like to see a higher spec mini that matched the iPad Pro in the smaller form factor.
  • Reply 7 of 52
    hentaiboyhentaiboy Posts: 910member
    So the new Air or discounted Pro 10.5” for $499?
  • Reply 8 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    Best is a word that’s person dependent. For the general public, then sure, I can agree with the article, but for me, no.
    StrangeDaysmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 9 of 52
    I ordered the new Mini but still want a pro mini. 🙃
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 52
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,277member
    bocaboy said:
    I'm very disappointed in the Mini 5's memory options. 64 GB is not enough memory for the base configuration.
    Okay, first thing: STOP using "memory" when you mean "storage." They are not the same thing. The iPad mini probably has 2GB of memory. It has 64GB of storage (in the base configuration). This has been a public service announcement from Annoyed Nerds Who Want to Ban the Word "Tape" When You Obviously Mean "Disk." Thank you.

    Now, as to the amount of storage in the base configuration: you're wrong. While certainly 128GB would be nicer, 64 is far more than sufficient for "normal people" usage. I presently have 32GB of storage on my 2017 iPad ... it has 119 apps, nearly 4,000 photos locally stored, 25 videos (two of them movie-length), Apple Music for my music, and 12GB free space. Which means I could add another couple of HD movies on there without running out of space. On half the space you're complaining about.

    People who purchase iPads in the base configuration expect to use iCloud or related cloud services for storing their personal photos and videos, ebooks, and music libraries -- only loading up HD movies or other content locally on the device for using on airplanes or when online access would otherwise be unavailable. Those of us in the West, at least, live in a connected world where at least the minimal internet access needed to sync high scores and peruse social media/news sites is available pretty much ubiquitously. If you're the sort of person who needs to stream YouTube videos for hours on end, you may run into trouble -- but that's nowt to do with the amount of local storage you have.

    Some of the more clever of us have set up Stream to Me/Serve to Me or similar software in order to access our home-based media libraries remotely when Wi-Fi/internet access is available. This cuts down on the need to locally store loads of large-sized entertainment that will only occasionally be accessed but uses up capacity unnecessarily, and instead we only store locally a far smaller library of stuff we're likely to need access to when internet isn't available.

    In short, storage capacity is less of an issue in this case -- what's really the problem you're describing is a lack of imagination.
    StrangeDaysbaconstangmuthuk_vanalingamshark5150caladanianwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 52
    MisterKitMisterKit Posts: 219member
    It is like 2013 all over again. Feature matched and size the only difference. I remember going to the Apple store back then ready to purchase one or the other. After going back and forth hands on I left with a 32GB WiFi mine for $499 which although long in the tooth now still serves me well. An update is in my plans. This time I know it will be a mini because my iPad 5 still rocks.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 52
    MisterKitMisterKit Posts: 219member
    chasm said:
    bocaboy said:
    I'm very disappointed in the Mini 5's memory options. 64 GB is not enough memory for the base configuration.
    Okay, first thing: STOP using "memory" when you mean "storage." They are not the same thing. The iPad mini probably has 2GB of memory. It has 64GB of storage (in the base configuration). This has been a public service announcement from Annoyed Nerds Who Want to Ban the Word "Tape" When You Obviously Mean "Disk." Thank you.

    Now, as to the amount of storage in the base configuration: you're wrong. While certainly 128GB would be nicer, 64 is far more than sufficient for "normal people" usage. I presently have 32GB of storage on my 2017 iPad ... it has 119 apps, nearly 4,000 photos locally stored, 25 videos (two of them movie-length), Apple Music for my music, and 12GB free space. Which means I could add another couple of HD movies on there without running out of space. On half the space you're complaining about.

    People who purchase iPads in the base configuration expect to use iCloud or related cloud services for storing their personal photos and videos, ebooks, and music libraries -- only loading up HD movies or other content locally on the device for using on airplanes or when online access would otherwise be unavailable. Those of us in the West, at least, live in a connected world where at least the minimal internet access needed to sync high scores and peruse social media/news sites is available pretty much ubiquitously. If you're the sort of person who needs to stream YouTube videos for hours on end, you may run into trouble -- but that's nowt to do with the amount of local storage you have.

    Some of the more clever of us have set up Stream to Me/Serve to Me or similar software in order to access our home-based media libraries remotely when Wi-Fi/internet access is available. This cuts down on the need to locally store loads of large-sized entertainment that will only occasionally be accessed but uses up capacity unnecessarily, and instead we only store locally a far smaller library of stuff we're likely to need access to when internet isn't available.

    In short, storage capacity is less of an issue in this case -- what's really the problem you're describing is a lack of imagination.
    I have two 32GB storage iPads dedicated strictly to music production apps. No photos, nothing more than it takes to boot. They are just hanging on with storage. The apps run fine but the iPads are full. Some apps can easily have a 4-5 gig sample library as part of the app. This adds up quickly. I was looking forward to the new mini having 128GB base matching the current mini 4. A bump up to 256GB storage brings the price up $150 which is putting the price into the stratosphere. I would be better off with a rock bottom priced new/used 128GB mini 4 which should now become plentiful.
    caladanian
  • Reply 13 of 52
    78Bandit78Bandit Posts: 229member
    If Apple does a spec bump on the basic iPad and goes to an A11 processor then I think it will be a legitimate choice between it and the new Air.  Assuming Apple keeps the same $329 base price, the Air would cost $170 more for an extra 32GB storage, slightly larger laminated screen, and A12 processor.  That's a 50% price premium.  The current iPad supports the Pencil, so I would certainly assume a spec bumped versions would do so as well.

    Many people interested in internet browsing, social networking, checking email, shopping, and other basic functions will be perfectly fine with something that isn't as powerful as the new Air.  They simply aren't going to be that concerned with a little added weight when real-world performance of the two devices on commonly used apps would pretty much be identical.  We'll see.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Apple carry over the 2018 iPad another year for no other reason than to make the new Air look better in comparison.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 52
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,033member
    I kind of wish I had waited, now, but I'm very happy with my 2018 iPad and figure I will be for quite some time (though not quite as long as one with an A12).

    As an aside... I'm kind of liking Apple just quickly getting all this hardware out, even if it might be so they don't have to endure the negativity of having little or no hardware at the upcoming event. :)
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 52
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,110member
    bocaboy said:
    I'm very disappointed in the Mini 5's memory options. 64 GB is not enough memory for the base configuration. I have the same gripe with the iPhone X and Xs. I realize it's an up-sell gimmick by Apple, but it doesn't make it any more palatable. Frankly, it looks like a money-grab to wring out the last few dollars of profitability. For the record, I'm an Apple shareholder and want the company to be profitable. I also want them to give the best value possible to the tens of millions of users of these devices, and being chintzy with memory in the new Mini and existing X/Xs isn't the way to to do it.

    The base configuration should be 128 GB, on all devices, including the Mini and X/Xs. Considering the price being charged for them, the difference in added expense to Apple would be minimal, and it would go a long way to justifying the more expensive prices.
    No it isn't, and no it shouldn't. I consider myself an advanced user (I'm an enterprise software dev), and I discovered I didn't use much of my 128gb iPhone, so got the 64gb this time -- and I'm only using ~40gb of that. I use iCloud for all my photos, videos, music, and many of my documents. Therefore, why should I be forced to pay for more storage that I simply don't need?

    Madness.


    baconstangcgWerkswatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 52
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,161member
    This release changed something else not mentioned here:   Whether it was propagated by the media or by Apple, the Mini has always had the reputation as being "The budget iPad".  And, much like the iPhone SE, it was both the smallest and the cheapest (at least until they increased the minimum storage to 128Gb and released the 9.7' iPad Gen6).

    This seems to change that:  It seems to be priced commensurately with the new iPad Air in the 'moderate' range -- neither super cheap nor super expensive.   I think that shows the value of its smaller form factor -- it's just a lot easier to hold and manage.

    But, that also opens the door to the next step:   An update using the same external form factor but with a larger bezeless screen -- which will make the Mini screen almost the same size as that in the current 9.7" iPads.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 17 of 52
    LatkoLatko Posts: 303member

    Kudo’s to Joni !!

    With the 2019 iMac he has done it, again.

    Modern design and sheer technology prowess melt together in a single combination, a single concept of magnificence.

    Intrinsic beauty and pure functionality melt together - in a frame of lines both innovative and vivid but also reminiscent of 2013, without compromising  brand identity.

    The surprisingly uncompromising technology upgrade inside seems to hint at an even brighter future:

    Face ID, better camera, Space Grey, even smaller bezels, USB4, ...

    And maybe, if ever, FGS a new casing

    edited March 21
  • Reply 18 of 52
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,833member
    This release changed something else not mentioned here:   Whether it was propagated by the media or by Apple, the Mini has always had the reputation as being "The budget iPad".  And, much like the iPhone SE, it was both the smallest and the cheapest (at least until they increased the minimum storage to 128Gb and released the 9.7' iPad Gen6).

    This seems to change that:  It seems to be priced commensurately with the new iPad Air in the 'moderate' range -- neither super cheap nor super expensive.   I think that shows the value of its smaller form factor -- it's just a lot easier to hold and manage.

    But, that also opens the door to the next step:   An update using the same external form factor but with a larger bezeless screen -- which will make the Mini screen almost the same size as that in the current 9.7" iPads.
    "But, that also opens the door to the next step:   An update using the same external form factor but with a larger bezeless screen -- which will make the Mini screen almost the same size as that in the current 9.7" iPads."

    Yes!
  • Reply 19 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    This release changed something else not mentioned here:   Whether it was propagated by the media or by Apple, the Mini has always had the reputation as being "The budget iPad".  And, much like the iPhone SE, it was both the smallest and the cheapest (at least until they increased the minimum storage to 128Gb and released the 9.7' iPad Gen6).

    This seems to change that:  It seems to be priced commensurately with the new iPad Air in the 'moderate' range -- neither super cheap nor super expensive.   I think that shows the value of its smaller form factor -- it's just a lot easier to hold and manage.

    But, that also opens the door to the next step:   An update using the same external form factor but with a larger bezeless screen -- which will make the Mini screen almost the same size as that in the current 9.7" iPads.
    Yes, and I’m not happy about that. With Apple straining to increase iPad sales again, and releasing the $329 iPad for that purpose, it seems to be going backwards with the new Mini. What people need is a $229 Mini. Yeah, yeah, that’s not going to satisfy everyone either, but Apple could do both.

    most tablets around the world these days sell for $100, or less. Apple is priced well out of that market. I’m not saying they should have a $100 tablet. But we’ve seen that the brand is worth something. If the product costs little enough, even if it’s a lot more expensive than a competitor’s, then it will sell. I’d bet that most people wanting a 7”, or Apple’s larger 7.9” product, don’t need a lot of performance. A retina screen with a lessor SoC would do just fine.

    apple has been eliminating the lower priced products from their lineups. That’s not good. I know people who have had an iPhone, for instance, but who won’t buy another because of the pricing. The SE had a good market, and they need to replace it. Not everyone lives in a prosperous country.
    edited March 21
  • Reply 20 of 52
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,161member
    melgross said:
    This release changed something else not mentioned here:   Whether it was propagated by the media or by Apple, the Mini has always had the reputation as being "The budget iPad".  And, much like the iPhone SE, it was both the smallest and the cheapest (at least until they increased the minimum storage to 128Gb and released the 9.7' iPad Gen6).

    This seems to change that:  It seems to be priced commensurately with the new iPad Air in the 'moderate' range -- neither super cheap nor super expensive.   I think that shows the value of its smaller form factor -- it's just a lot easier to hold and manage.

    But, that also opens the door to the next step:   An update using the same external form factor but with a larger bezeless screen -- which will make the Mini screen almost the same size as that in the current 9.7" iPads.
    Yes, and I’m not happy about that. With Apple straining to increase iPad sales again, and releasing the $329 iPad for that purpose, it seems to be going backwards with the new Mini. What people need is a $229 Mini. Yeah, yeah, that’s not going to satisfy everyone either, but Apple could do both.

    most tablets around the world these days sell for $100, or less. Apple is priced well out of that market. I’m not saying they should have a $100 tablet. But we’ve seen that the brand is worth something. If the product costs little enough, even if it’s a lot more expensive than a competitor’s, then it will sell. I’d bet that most people wanting a 7”, or Apple’s larger 7.9” product, don’t need a lot of performance. A retina screen with a lessor SoC would do just fine.

    apple has been eliminating the lower priced products from their lineups. That’s not good. I know people who have had an iPhone, for instance, but who won’t buy another because of the pricing. The SE had a good market, and they need to replace it. Not everyone lives in a prosperous country.
    We here tend to think that technology and innovation are complicated.  But, marketing is equally as complicated and has just as big an impact.  You can build a better mouse trap -- but you still have to market it effectively.

Sign In or Register to comment.