I think the NYT article is fair. I have no issue with older hardware becoming laggy. The issue for me is that many app developers certify their apps to work with the most recent or two major iOS versions (e.g. 10.x and 11.x). I have purchased new iPads and generally use my older ones to browse the web or for basic functions (control Sonos in the kitchen, control insteon lights in the basement, etc...). I wiped my older iPad and now I can't even download the last version of the apps that worked with 9.x. I understand that app developers are adding new functionality to each release, and that in some cases cloud components might not be compatible with older versions of apps, but Apple could at least let me download the latest compatible version of an app so I have the opportunity to use it if it still works for basic functionality.
The App Store does allow you to install the last version that works on the installed operating system. I mentioned this in the article.
Regarding the NYT article -- it is his opinion. Mine differs. We are using our platforms to say so.
I had hoped what you said is true. I got home today and it looks like Apple no longer allows that so you might want to update your article. They used to warn you and then allow you to download the most recent compatible version of app. This is no longer true. To be specific, I’m trying to download “MobiLinc HD” (which has been around for a long time and which I have formerly used on this iPad). It is an iPad 3 running 9.3.5.
I agree that if Apple continued to allow this the problem would be somewhat abated. However, now I have an old iPad that I can’t even use as a light switch or even as a volume control knob.
While certainly not intended, the message i nearly take away from this is “don’t buy first generation of anything from Apple because it will dramatically improve soon enough” (and Apple will of course treat the “old” version and its users disdainfully.) Fair or unfair, that is the feeling many folks already have, based on experiences like the one profiled here, and the subsequent editorial appearing here.
I had the first generation mini, and liked it well enough that i couldn’t wait for them to smooth off the rough edges. The mini 4 now is, for me, as perfect a device I will ever find. They don’t need to change anything except maybe processor and ram as time goes on — the iOS upgrades can do the heavy lifting of moderning it. (But I also felt the same about the last generation of iPod Classic — perfected, and subsequently forgotten.) The combination of versatility and portability in the Mini 4 is not found in the smaller or larger options.
Of course, now the expectation is that it will never be refreshed and may be due for phase out because Apple feels they can squeeze more out of us by forcing us to buy an iPhone next time to stay in the eco-system.
If this prediction pans out, I personally believe Apple is making a big mistake, but it it remains to be seen, of course. I for one, won’t migrate to iPhone. I enjoy the bigger screen as it allows me to use the full web versions, rather than apps. They work on iPhone, but not well.
And since there is like ZERO media attention paid to Mini anymore, I have to use the opportunity this article affords to say just how much I love the Mini form factor and functionality. Apple, please keep this device.
Has Apple officially discontinued the iPad mini ? I bought one and it is great on the train commute to work and holding up in bed watching movies doesn't tire the arms. If an iPad mini Pro (works with Apple pencil) came out then I would probably update.
Getting 5 years on an iPad for $329 which can completely fill the needs of most home users as their only computer is unheard of TCO - Total Cost of Ownership. Just think about the security! I've worked on Vista laptops that are ten years old and so full of malware they were unusable and the costs to keep it protected and to have a professional reload the OS to fix it, etc. That adds up to a heck of a lot more. An iPad with a wireless printer and Bluetooth keyboard is enough for most people.
Hey, buddy here's a nickel; buy a new iPad! Get a Pro model it will last longer. If you bought a Mac the total cost of ownership would be much more but it could last more than 5 years if you made the right purchasing decision.
re: "So, from the day of purchase, the author may have boxed himself into a corner with a cheaper model (which sold for $329 when he bought in early 2013)."
If you wanted a mini sized tablet, though, wasn't this his only choice? I don't think comparing it to an iPad v4 is really fair, as it is a different form-factor. My wife and son bought minis because that is the size they wanted.
My primary beef w/ Apple on the mini is that they were *still* selling it new after the current OS no longer ran well on 512k devices. So, you could have gone to the Apple store and walked out with an iPad mini that wouldn't run the, then, current OS well. Apple has done similar with other devices in recent years, selling older (nearing obsolescence) hardware on the low-price-range, instead of just creating lower priced models. While we tech-geeks understand this, I don't think the average shopper does.
That said, we recently sold my son's mini for $60 without too much trouble (several people wanting it), and he's quite happy with his mini v4, now. I tried to talk him into the 9.7" variety, as similar to then, you get more power for your money... but that's the form-factor he wanted. I'm not sure what Apple's issue is with trying to force people to bigger form factors all the time.
Still have my iPad 2, bought in May 2011. Almost 7 years of daily use, and its battery is in great shape!
The only trouble is some heavy websites crashing Safari. Being stuck in iOS 9 is a minor annoyance, but I was baffled that it was supported for so long! I can still remember the hype for iOS 5 update!
I finally sold mine, as it had been collecting dust more and more. Part of this is because I got an iPhone, and despite the small screen, it is just way more usable. The iPad 2 was never really the same after updating to iOS 7. The UI was just too laggy to be enjoyable or productive anymore.
But, yes, as Mike notes, there are still uses for them, and they still work. But they don't provide a nice experience like when they were new.
This article has kind of a butthurt tone to it. There are plenty of valid complaints about the support of old devices by Apple - not the least of which is one that the NYT author doesn't even touch on: security. Older versions of Windows get security support for 10+ years. macOS devices can expect to have a similar life span, though Apple is annoyingly silent about when or even whether it has dropped support for any given macOS version. But if you buy an iOS device, in a mere 5 years you won't be able to run the absolute latest iOS, and Apple almost never releases patches for anything but the latest iOS.
5 years might be more than you'd get in practice from a typical Android tablet/phone, but Windows-based tablets such as the Surface will probably enjoy the full 10+ year lifespan as their desktop counterparts, at least when it comes to patches.
Stop comparing IOS to Desktop Windows 10. Even then, no. In practice , Windows still slows down ,just like Android. macOS & iOS don’t slow down magically . I have 10 years of evidence to prove it. Now tell me why is Microsoft allowed to get away with shipping a crappy OS that slows down over time?
This comment is purely about security. MS is still releasing security updates for Windows 7 released 8 years ago. Did apple patch iOS 9 for the recent Wifi Krack attacks? or MacOs 10.6 for PowerPC users (I still use an iMac G4 for reading manuals in my shop). (Snow leopard was released about the same time as Windows 7). I don't complain that my 15 year old iMac renders things slowly compared to my 5k iMac, but it's still usable for many tasks. This usability is decreased when I have to add many additional security concerns to it's use.
I think the NYT article is fair. I have no issue with older hardware becoming laggy. The issue for me is that many app developers certify their apps to work with the most recent or two major iOS versions (e.g. 10.x and 11.x). I have purchased new iPads and generally use my older ones to browse the web or for basic functions (control Sonos in the kitchen, control insteon lights in the basement, etc...). I wiped my older iPad and now I can't even download the last version of the apps that worked with 9.x. I understand that app developers are adding new functionality to each release, and that in some cases cloud components might not be compatible with older versions of apps, but Apple could at least let me download the latest compatible version of an app so I have the opportunity to use it if it still works for basic functionality.
The App Store does allow you to install the last version that works on the installed operating system. I mentioned this in the article.
Regarding the NYT article -- it is his opinion. Mine differs. We are using our platforms to say so.
I had hoped what you said is true. I got home today and it looks like Apple no longer allows that so you might want to update your article. They used to warn you and then allow you to download the most recent compatible version of app. This is no longer true. To be specific, I’m trying to download “MobiLinc HD” (which has been around for a long time and which I have formerly used on this iPad). It is an iPad 3 running 9.3.5.
I agree that if Apple continued to allow this the problem would be somewhat abated. However, now I have an old iPad that I can’t even use as a light switch or even as a volume control knob.
While I double-checked before we published the piece, I just tried it on one of our older iPads as mentioned in the piece. Downloading old apps seems to work fine from the "Purchased" tab in the app store. I haven't tried buying a new app that I know has an old version, as its nearly impossible to suss out from the app store, though.
I wonder if individual developers can turn this off. I'll ask about.
Edit -- We'll be publishing a tip on how do to this a bit later in the day.
If you can't see your comment on this post, that I have now deleted twice, re-read the commenting guidelines, conveniently linked at the bottom of the page.
My first-gen iPad mini still works great, and runs as fast as it did when new. The secret is to never update the OS. As long as it's running on the operating system it shipped with, it will continue to run as fast as it was when new.
Except it's getting none of the many security updates, bug fixes, and newer features.
Small price to pay to have a device that actually works as designed, instead of being crippled by "updates". I have newer iOS devices running the newest OS, there's nothing that my iPad is missing that is worth caring about.
So how is losing security a "small price to pay?" Apple keeps its reputation as building the most secure systems by being willing and able to keep them up to date with security updates.
While certainly not intended, the message i nearly take away from this is “don’t buy first generation of anything from Apple because it will dramatically improve soon enough” (and Apple will of course treat the “old” version and its users disdainfully.) Fair or unfair, that is the feeling many folks already have, based on experiences like the one profiled here, and the subsequent editorial appearing here.
I had the first generation mini, and liked it well enough that i couldn’t wait for them to smooth off the rough edges. The mini 4 now is, for me, as perfect a device I will ever find. They don’t need to change anything except maybe processor and ram as time goes on — the iOS upgrades can do the heavy lifting of moderning it. (But I also felt the same about the last generation of iPod Classic — perfected, and subsequently forgotten.) The combination of versatility and portability in the Mini 4 is not found in the smaller or larger options.
Of course, now the expectation is that it will never be refreshed and may be due for phase out because Apple feels they can squeeze more out of us by forcing us to buy an iPhone next time to stay in the eco-system.
If this prediction pans out, I personally believe Apple is making a big mistake, but it it remains to be seen, of course. I for one, won’t migrate to iPhone. I enjoy the bigger screen as it allows me to use the full web versions, rather than apps. They work on iPhone, but not well.
And since there is like ZERO media attention paid to Mini anymore, I have to use the opportunity this article affords to say just how much I love the Mini form factor and functionality. Apple, please keep this device.
"Of course, now the expectation is that it will never be refreshed and
may be due for phase out because Apple feels they can squeeze more out
of us by forcing us to buy an iPhone next time to stay in the
eco-system. "
Yawn.... another yahoo assuming that Apple is driven by the same values as Google, Samsung and HP -- namely: short term profit..
No, Apple derives their profit from building great products that change people's lives. It is an open question asked by many whether the large screen iPhones have replaced the iPad Mini in the eyes of consumers. If enough people want the iPad Mini, Apple will build it for them. But they aren't going to build products that people don't want.
Apple seem to always treat smaller size products now as inferior and give it 2 year old components for new updated. So the result is you buying technology that is really already behind in technology. Apple loves to be extremely frugal on putting in the minimum amount of memory in the inferior products too. So the end result is buying obsolete "junk"!
While it's true it's silly to expect a lot from a very slow by todays standards 5 year old SoC, there is also something to be said for how long Apple sold that particular chip. The Mini 1 was sold for a while, and so was the iPod Touch with it, so the chip may be 5 years old but the devices are not.
Having just read the NYT editorial in its entirety, the tone this reaction article just leaves me puzzled. It's fine to present a differing opinion, but there's some passive aggression from the outset. I read the NYT piece as a thoughtful observation about the iPad wearing differently than most devices, not breaking down, but slowly getting frustrating to use. It breaks differently than a laptop or desktop in that it doesn't really break, just wears YOU down eventually. Nowhere in the article did the author express any unreasonable views of the A5 feeling fast in a modern era, rather just waxed about the iPad revealing its thingness after some time, while hiding it initially as a portal into content.
Apple seem to always treat smaller size products now as inferior and give it 2 year old components for new updated. So the result is you buying technology that is really already behind in technology. Apple loves to be extremely frugal on putting in the minimum amount of memory in the inferior products too. So the end result is buying obsolete "junk"!
Apple released the iPhone SE with the current processor. They will probably do the same with the next gen SE.
The iPhone 6, 6s, 7 and 8 were the smallest new phones when they were released, all with the latest processor.
The iPad Pro 9.7 and iPad Pro 10.5 were the smallest of their model line when they were released, both with the then current processor.
Apple seem to always treat smaller size products now as inferior and give it 2 year old components for new updated. So the result is you buying technology that is really already behind in technology. Apple loves to be extremely frugal on putting in the minimum amount of memory in the inferior products too. So the end result is buying obsolete "junk"!
On the surface that appears to be true. But, it is only looking at one side of the coin. The other side tells us:
For the past several years Apple has increasingly tried to make its products available to those who are unable to pay the premium prices for its premium products. They can't pay for a large screen and all that it requires in terms of processing power but then still sell the device at an "affordable" price. To hit the price point, they need to use the smaller devices that can be manufactured more cheaply.
But, that said: I think a lot of people would welcome an SE sized iPhone X, even at a premium price.
GeorgeBMac said: No, Apple derives their profit from building great products that change people's lives. It is an open question asked by many whether the large screen iPhones have replaced the iPad Mini in the eyes of consumers. If enough people want the iPad Mini, Apple will build it for them. But they aren't going to build products that people don't want.
Somewhat agree. Part of the more recent criticism of Apple is over their tuning the product more to towards the masses and increasing sales numbers, instead of just making the best stuff, and the people who recognize it, buy. We can argue about whether that's accurate or not, but that is where the debate is, I think.
Also, you don't typically get the best products by building for maximum adoption. Would GM produce the Corvette with that kind of thinking? Or, would Apple make the best pro products with that kind of thinking? Numbers only matter to the extent that they represent what is being targeted. Maximizing units sold doesn't equal great product!
GeorgeBMac said: No, Apple derives their profit from building great products that change people's lives. It is an open question asked by many whether the large screen iPhones have replaced the iPad Mini in the eyes of consumers. If enough people want the iPad Mini, Apple will build it for them. But they aren't going to build products that people don't want.
Somewhat agree. Part of the more recent criticism of Apple is over their tuning the product more to towards the masses and increasing sales numbers, instead of just making the best stuff, and the people who recognize it, buy. We can argue about whether that's accurate or not, but that is where the debate is, I think.
Also, you don't typically get the best products by building for maximum adoption. Would GM produce the Corvette with that kind of thinking? Or, would Apple make the best pro products with that kind of thinking? Numbers only matter to the extent that they represent what is being targeted. Maximizing units sold doesn't equal great product!
Yes, Apple products have always been expensive. And, even when Apple markets a product for those who can't afford the highest end, they are still pricy. In India, the SE costs twice what its competitor phones cost.
But Apple's goal has never been to sell "the best". It has always been to sell "Great products that change people's lives" -- that leaves a lot of leeway...
(BTW, Corvette is a bad example. The original cost $3,500 -- which was only $500 more than my Dad's Buick (which I still have the receipt for!).)
GeorgeBMac said: But Apple's goal has never been to sell "the best". It has always been to sell "Great products that change people's lives" -- that leaves a lot of leeway...
(BTW, Corvette is a bad example. The original cost $3,500 -- which was only $500 more than my Dad's Buick (which I still have the receipt for!).)
Fair enough, but that, IMO, is problematic as well. The Mac changed people's lives, the iPhone/iPad have as well. But, Karpool karaoke, emojicons, even HomePods? Maybe we have a different definition of what changing people's lives entails, then.
My comment wasn't about the cost of a Corvette, but quantity. GM hasn't ditched the Corvette because the pie-slice on the chart is insanely small (much smaller than the Mac on Apple's pie-chart, I'd imagine). With Apple's thinking, wouldn't it make sense to just cancel the Corvette and put the resources into their trucks? Maybe even only update car models every 4 or 5 years, as they aren't the most important product either?
Comments
I agree that if Apple continued to allow this the problem would be somewhat abated. However, now I have an old iPad that I can’t even use as a light switch or even as a volume control knob.
I had the first generation mini, and liked it well enough that i couldn’t wait for them to smooth off the rough edges. The mini 4 now is, for me, as perfect a device I will ever find. They don’t need to change anything except maybe processor and ram as time goes on — the iOS upgrades can do the heavy lifting of moderning it. (But I also felt the same about the last generation of iPod Classic — perfected, and subsequently forgotten.) The combination of versatility and portability in the Mini 4 is not found in the smaller or larger options.
Of course, now the expectation is that it will never be refreshed and may be due for phase out because Apple feels they can squeeze more out of us by forcing us to buy an iPhone next time to stay in the eco-system.
If this prediction pans out, I personally believe Apple is making a big mistake, but it it remains to be seen, of course. I for one, won’t migrate to iPhone. I enjoy the bigger screen as it allows me to use the full web versions, rather than apps. They work on iPhone, but not well.
And since there is like ZERO media attention paid to Mini anymore, I have to use the opportunity this article affords to say just how much I love the Mini form factor and functionality. Apple, please keep this device.
Hey, buddy here's a nickel; buy a new iPad! Get a Pro model it will last longer. If you bought a Mac the total cost of ownership would be much more but it could last more than 5 years if you made the right purchasing decision.
If you wanted a mini sized tablet, though, wasn't this his only choice? I don't think comparing it to an iPad v4 is really fair, as it is a different form-factor. My wife and son bought minis because that is the size they wanted.
My primary beef w/ Apple on the mini is that they were *still* selling it new after the current OS no longer ran well on 512k devices. So, you could have gone to the Apple store and walked out with an iPad mini that wouldn't run the, then, current OS well. Apple has done similar with other devices in recent years, selling older (nearing obsolescence) hardware on the low-price-range, instead of just creating lower priced models. While we tech-geeks understand this, I don't think the average shopper does.
That said, we recently sold my son's mini for $60 without too much trouble (several people wanting it), and he's quite happy with his mini v4, now. I tried to talk him into the 9.7" variety, as similar to then, you get more power for your money... but that's the form-factor he wanted. I'm not sure what Apple's issue is with trying to force people to bigger form factors all the time.
I finally sold mine, as it had been collecting dust more and more. Part of this is because I got an iPhone, and despite the small screen, it is just way more usable. The iPad 2 was never really the same after updating to iOS 7. The UI was just too laggy to be enjoyable or productive anymore.
But, yes, as Mike notes, there are still uses for them, and they still work. But they don't provide a nice experience like when they were new.
Edit -- We'll be publishing a tip on how do to this a bit later in the day.
Apple keeps its reputation as building the most secure systems by being willing and able to keep them up to date with security updates.
Yawn.... another yahoo assuming that Apple is driven by the same values as Google, Samsung and HP -- namely: short term profit..
No, Apple derives their profit from building great products that change people's lives. It is an open question asked by many whether the large screen iPhones have replaced the iPad Mini in the eyes of consumers. If enough people want the iPad Mini, Apple will build it for them. But they aren't going to build products that people don't want.
The iPhone 6, 6s, 7 and 8 were the smallest new phones when they were released, all with the latest processor.
The iPad Pro 9.7 and iPad Pro 10.5 were the smallest of their model line when they were released, both with the then current processor.
Any other lies you would like to propagate?
For the past several years Apple has increasingly tried to make its products available to those who are unable to pay the premium prices for its premium products. They can't pay for a large screen and all that it requires in terms of processing power but then still sell the device at an "affordable" price.
To hit the price point, they need to use the smaller devices that can be manufactured more cheaply.
But, that said: I think a lot of people would welcome an SE sized iPhone X, even at a premium price.
Also, you don't typically get the best products by building for maximum adoption. Would GM produce the Corvette with that kind of thinking? Or, would Apple make the best pro products with that kind of thinking? Numbers only matter to the extent that they represent what is being targeted. Maximizing units sold doesn't equal great product!
But Apple's goal has never been to sell "the best". It has always been to sell "Great products that change people's lives" -- that leaves a lot of leeway...
(BTW, Corvette is a bad example. The original cost $3,500 -- which was only $500 more than my Dad's Buick (which I still have the receipt for!).)
My comment wasn't about the cost of a Corvette, but quantity. GM hasn't ditched the Corvette because the pie-slice on the chart is insanely small (much smaller than the Mac on Apple's pie-chart, I'd imagine). With Apple's thinking, wouldn't it make sense to just cancel the Corvette and put the resources into their trucks? Maybe even only update car models every 4 or 5 years, as they aren't the most important product either?