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...
You mention e-reading, well isnt that what retina displays are really great for - rendering sharp, crisp text? How are Asus and Amazon able to make 7" devices with great screens and not a huge hit to weight or battery? AnandTech claims the new Nexus 7 gets 12 hours battery life and weight is similar to mini. Why is it so difficult for Apple? The excuses for not having a retina mini are getting weaker and weaker. And if Apple doesn't announce one next week, especially if they just update the current mini with A6 or whatever and keep the price the same, I think it will be a big FAIL on their part. I'm sure Google and Amazon have ads ready to go letting everyone know their cheaper devices have much better displays.
That's ok a non retina ipad mini 2 is still better than the nexus 7 2nd generation with retina display.
But if another tablet has more pixels it means it's better, regardless of other attributes to the quality of the display, the actual performance of the system, how fast the OS feels on system, how many quality apps are available, or the battery life. It's best if we focus on a single metric of a single component to determine which is better and and which is worse overall.
$229 for the 1st gen Mini would mean Apple will get back that 80% share of the market.
That would be great but I am thinking a $100 drop for that product is too extremes since it's already that inexpensive. I could see $249 at a minimum, but even that seems too extreme for that product.
Also keep in mind that Apple killed both the original iPhone, the original iPad, and original Pod Touch when the next generation arrived. Based on that precedence I wouldn't be shocked if Apple did the same thing with the iPad mini; meaning there would be no lower priced 1st gen iPad Mini hanging around.
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.
OS X Arm would need Rosetta - that's the PC era Apple-is-behind way of doing things, and Apple says they're post that. Not going to happen anytime soon.
I'm not using MS failure*S* as a blanket comparison, I'm using the Surface RT failure because it has all the qualities you're suggesting. Same OS basis, but a different architecture (not 32 to 64, but a different architecture), landing it in a barren software ecosystem.
That's ok a non retina ipad mini 2 is still better than the nexus 7 2nd generation with retina display.
Better enough for the more expensive price? I guess I'm just biased because display is a big deal to me. Apple makes a retina mini it's game over for everyone else. Apple keeps the mini non retina for another year and they've just handed the competition a big gift.
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.
The "niche" part of the equation would probably keep Apple away. Fragmenting for the sake of variety is not their approach. The Mac Pro is the only one, for a number of reasons, and was itself on the chopping block.
$229 for the 1st gen Mini would mean Apple will get back that 80% share of the market.
I would say $249 is the lowest they would go. But I'm thinking $279-$299 is more likely. If they don't upgrade the internals of the 1st gen mini then yeah I could see it cheaper. But if they upgrade it to A6 then I don't see how they hit such a low price point.
But if another tablet has more pixels it means it's better, regardless of other attributes to the quality of the display, the actual performance of the system, how fast the OS feels on system, how many quality apps are available, or the battery life. It's best if we focus on a single metric of a single component to determine which is better and and which is worse overall.
That would be great but I am thinking a $100 drop for that product is too extremes since it's already that inexpensive. I could see $249 at a minimum, but even that seems too extreme for that product.
Also keep in mind that Apple killed both the original iPhone, the original iPad, and original Pod Touch when the next generation arrived. Based on that precedence I wouldn't be shocked if Apple did the same thing with the iPad mini; meaning there would be no lower priced 1st gen iPad Mini hanging around.
But Apple has kept the iPad 2 around as a low cost option. It's possible they would keep a non retina mini around as sort of the gateway to iPads and for education or businesses that don't require a retina display.
OS X Arm would need Rosetta - that's the PC era Apple-is-behind way of doing things, and Apple says they're post that. Not going to happen anytime soon.
I'm not using MS failure*S* as a blanket comparison, I'm using the Surface RT failure because it has all the qualities you're suggesting. Same OS basis, but a different architecture (not 32 to 64, but a different architecture), landing it in a barren software ecosystem.
Careful saying it would need Rosetta as that will get many people to point out the success of Rosetta for PPC apps on Intel chips before they were transitioned. It needs to be noted that Apple went from slower PPC chips (which were even slower in notebooks due to heat thresholds that imposed even more limitations) to faster Intel chips which made nearly every PPC run better under emulation on an Intel Mac then it did under a PPC Mac of the same category.
This would be the exact opposite of having ARM emulate Intel apps which tells me Apple has no intention of doing it. The only saving grace here is the Mac App Store would could allow for a very easy transition for apps to be recompiled to run natively on ARM. This still doesn't alleviate either the primary issue with ARM chips or the popular app suites, like Adobe and MS Office, that would have to emulated for years to come.
Finally, if Intel wasn't working so diligently on reducing power usage in their chips I might think if it was a possibility. Perhaps if we start to see Apple create a more powerful chip that really starts to creep into desktop OS territory (perhaps for a Home Server Product) then I might change my mind, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
But Apple has kept the iPad 2 around as a low cost option. It's possible they would keep a non retina mini around as sort of the gateway to iPads and for education or businesses that don't require a retina display.
Sure, but that the iPad 2, not the iPad 1, which has nothing to do with my point about Apple's history with iOS devices.
It needs to be noted that Apple went from slower PPC chips (which were even slower in notebooks due to heat thresholds that imposed even more limitations) to faster Intel chips which made nearly every PPC run better under emulation on an Intel Mac then it did under a PPC Mac of the same category.
This would be the exact opposite of having ARM emulate Intel apps which tells me Apple has no intention of doing it. The only saving grace here is the Mac App Store would could allow for a very easy transition for apps to be recompiled to run natively on ARM. This still doesn't alleviate either the primary issue with ARM chips or the popular app suites, like Adobe and MS Office, that would have to emulated for years to come
You beat me to it. Aside from the lower computing performance of ARM vs x86, there is also the large number of users using Parallels/Fusion/VirtualBox to run Windows (or in my case Solaris & Linux) on their Macs. This currently isn't actually using emulation, but rather running native processor code, which is why they perform quite well. They'd have to be re-written for ARM in order to operate and would have to do on-the-fly code translation (a-la Rosetta). Bochs & VirtualPC were available to run Windows for PPC-Macs in this way, but they were only moderately usable (I'm being quite generous) on the hardware at the time.
Another consideration is that Apple doesn't own the underlying code for Rosetta; they licensed it from Transitive. Transitive has since been purchased by IBM and their only remaining product is the PowerVM Lx86 software. That tells me that the code is still designed specifically for POWER (as in PPC) to x86 translations. Whilst there was a SPARC to x86 translator, it wasn't well received and died pretty quickly on the vine.
All in all, I do think that Apple will eventually switch to ARM for their Mac line, but I believe that's several years out at the earliest. They'll probably wait for the "new computing" model that tablets and smart phones are introducing to evolve and mature (quite) a bit and for legacy software requires to diminish and cycle out more naturally.
I'm talking about running OS X on an ARM chip, not running iOS on a laptop.
Sometimes people have problems grasping this. Considering what we know about the current A7, Apple could easily hit the performance levels of a 2011 Mini or Mac Book AIR. However I could see Apple crafting an OS/X that allows iOS apps to run in a window.
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.
It most certainly would fill many niches. A box to do low power server duty would be one example. Vastly extended battery life's in a laptop would be another.
Sometimes people have problems grasping this. Considering what we know about the current A7, Apple could easily hit the performance levels of a 2011 Mini or Mac Book AIR. However I could see Apple crafting an OS/X that allows iOS apps to run in a window.
It most certainly would fill many niches. A box to do low power server duty would be one example. Vastly extended battery life's in a laptop would be another.
The A7 and Arm cpus are closing fast at 100% improvements per year. vs Current Intel cpu improvement rates.
What this means now or next year or two years time...?
I think this would confuse the form factors, and give most people a lot of pause. It's TOO MANY options.
Not really a problem considering how limited Apples lineup is right now. In fact one could make an argument that Apple could fill gaps in its line up that have been around for years.
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.
That is baloney. Apple could modify developer terms demanding a fat binary or alternative build for users of its App Store. Open source would build no problem. As always commercial apps not in the App Store would be on their own.
And if you hadn't realized, OS X on Arm was already market tested. It was called the Surface RT. Fail.
Surface RT has absolutely nothing to do with OS/X on ARM. Also Surface RT has nothing to do with Linux on ARM nor BSD on ARM all of which are coming along nicely. I might also suggest that the Surface device was a tablet, we are talking about alternative laptops and desktops here.
OS X Arm would need Rosetta - that's the PC era Apple-is-behind way of doing things, and Apple says they're post that. Not going to happen anytime soon.
This is baloney. The concept of fat binaries must escape you and along with that Apples control over the App Store. It literally takes a fraction of a day for developers to target a new architecture. It is often referred to as a cross compile.
Here is another fact for you, every iOS app gets compiled t run on i86 if the developer runs that App on the simulator.
I'm not using MS failure*S* as a blanket comparison, I'm using the Surface RT failure because it has all the qualities you're suggesting.
Only in your warped imagination. Nobody is even thinking about a surface like device.
Same OS basis, but a different architecture (not 32 to 64, but a different architecture), landing it in a barren software ecosystem.
Again not even a consideration here. How much of an ecosystem did iPad have when it debuted? Or for that matter iPhone. You are focusing on issues that simply aren't a problem.
Comments
I’d say expect A6X in the retina mini unless the A7’s GPU performs better.
$229 for the 1st gen Mini would mean Apple will get back that 80% share of the market.
But if another tablet has more pixels it means it's better, regardless of other attributes to the quality of the display, the actual performance of the system, how fast the OS feels on system, how many quality apps are available, or the battery life. It's best if we focus on a single metric of a single component to determine which is better and and which is worse overall.
That would be great but I am thinking a $100 drop for that product is too extremes since it's already that inexpensive. I could see $249 at a minimum, but even that seems too extreme for that product.
Also keep in mind that Apple killed both the original iPhone, the original iPad, and original Pod Touch when the next generation arrived. Based on that precedence I wouldn't be shocked if Apple did the same thing with the iPad mini; meaning there would be no lower priced 1st gen iPad Mini hanging around.
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.
OS X Arm would need Rosetta - that's the PC era Apple-is-behind way of doing things, and Apple says they're post that. Not going to happen anytime soon.I'm not using MS failure*S* as a blanket comparison, I'm using the Surface RT failure because it has all the qualities you're suggesting. Same OS basis, but a different architecture (not 32 to 64, but a different architecture), landing it in a barren software ecosystem.
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.
The "niche" part of the equation would probably keep Apple away. Fragmenting for the sake of variety is not their approach. The Mac Pro is the only one, for a number of reasons, and was itself on the chopping block.Careful saying it would need Rosetta as that will get many people to point out the success of Rosetta for PPC apps on Intel chips before they were transitioned. It needs to be noted that Apple went from slower PPC chips (which were even slower in notebooks due to heat thresholds that imposed even more limitations) to faster Intel chips which made nearly every PPC run better under emulation on an Intel Mac then it did under a PPC Mac of the same category.
This would be the exact opposite of having ARM emulate Intel apps which tells me Apple has no intention of doing it. The only saving grace here is the Mac App Store would could allow for a very easy transition for apps to be recompiled to run natively on ARM. This still doesn't alleviate either the primary issue with ARM chips or the popular app suites, like Adobe and MS Office, that would have to emulated for years to come.
Finally, if Intel wasn't working so diligently on reducing power usage in their chips I might think if it was a possibility. Perhaps if we start to see Apple create a more powerful chip that really starts to creep into desktop OS territory (perhaps for a Home Server Product) then I might change my mind, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
Sure, but that the iPad 2, not the iPad 1, which has nothing to do with my point about Apple's history with iOS devices.
Darn I was hoping for a mac mini in 2013. I guess it could still happen.
This would be the exact opposite of having ARM emulate Intel apps which tells me Apple has no intention of doing it. The only saving grace here is the Mac App Store would could allow for a very easy transition for apps to be recompiled to run natively on ARM. This still doesn't alleviate either the primary issue with ARM chips or the popular app suites, like Adobe and MS Office, that would have to emulated for years to come
You beat me to it. Aside from the lower computing performance of ARM vs x86, there is also the large number of users using Parallels/Fusion/VirtualBox to run Windows (or in my case Solaris & Linux) on their Macs. This currently isn't actually using emulation, but rather running native processor code, which is why they perform quite well. They'd have to be re-written for ARM in order to operate and would have to do on-the-fly code translation (a-la Rosetta). Bochs & VirtualPC were available to run Windows for PPC-Macs in this way, but they were only moderately usable (I'm being quite generous) on the hardware at the time.
Another consideration is that Apple doesn't own the underlying code for Rosetta; they licensed it from Transitive. Transitive has since been purchased by IBM and their only remaining product is the PowerVM Lx86 software. That tells me that the code is still designed specifically for POWER (as in PPC) to x86 translations. Whilst there was a SPARC to x86 translator, it wasn't well received and died pretty quickly on the vine.
All in all, I do think that Apple will eventually switch to ARM for their Mac line, but I believe that's several years out at the earliest. They'll probably wait for the "new computing" model that tablets and smart phones are introducing to evolve and mature (quite) a bit and for legacy software requires to diminish and cycle out more naturally.
Sometimes people have problems grasping this. Considering what we know about the current A7, Apple could easily hit the performance levels of a 2011 Mini or Mac Book AIR. However I could see Apple crafting an OS/X that allows iOS apps to run in a window.
It most certainly would fill many niches. A box to do low power server duty would be one example. Vastly extended battery life's in a laptop would be another.
The A7 and Arm cpus are closing fast at 100% improvements per year. vs Current Intel cpu improvement rates.
What this means now or next year or two years time...?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Here is another fact for you, every iOS app gets compiled t run on i86 if the developer runs that App on the simulator. Only in your warped imagination. Nobody is even thinking about a surface like device. Again not even a consideration here. How much of an ecosystem did iPad have when it debuted? Or for that matter iPhone. You are focusing on issues that simply aren't a problem.