Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad mini Would Happily Pay $529 for Mini w/ Retina
- Thread starter dsa420
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry just noticed MacRumorUser said pretty much the same thing. That's what I get for not reading the whole thread.
Surely not an A5x. Huge SoC, way to big to be practical in a 7" tablet. I'd be willing to bet the A5x was half the reason Apple killed off the 3rd gen. The next mini will most likely be some variant of the A6 though not necessarily an A6x. Would a 7" retina need a four core GPU? My hope is that by the time the mini gen 2 launches Apple will be producing A6 rev 2's on TSMC's 20nm process.
then everyone's still going to have to remake their apps. all of the diagonal will look like zigzags.
Technically 2048 x 1536 is 2048 x 1536 regardless of it being 7.9" or 9.7" so if a 9.7 requires that oomph, the 7.9" would equally need the same also.
I tend to agree that the decision to go non retina was for technical reasons and not to meet a price point. However I think it's also possible that the decision was based on a design consideration. A product is usually designed around several goals the designer and engineers want to hit. It's impossible to hit all these goals so the design team needs to set one or two core goals that are more or less laid in stone. Compromises are made with the other goals to ensure the core goals are met. It's quite possible that the core goals for the mini were thinness and lightest possible weight. So even if the retina was possible at this time it may have been rejected if incorporating the higher resolution screen would have resulted in a thicker or heavier mini.
I would too but I understand the costs for them may hurt their profit margins. They already have a lower profit margin on this thing compared to other devices they sell.
I also get they want to keep apps working so they couldn't mess with the resolution. What really makes me upset is they didn't even try to laminate the screen like the iphone 5 and make it a bit better. The screen lacks no doubt but they could have done all they can to make it look as nice as possible.
I also get they want to keep apps working so they couldn't mess with the resolution. What really makes me upset is they didn't even try to laminate the screen like the iphone 5 and make it a bit better. The screen lacks no doubt but they could have done all they can to make it look as nice as possible.
Yep, and actually cheaper to produce. The iPad mini would need all the same hardware as the iPad 4, but it's got to fit in a smaller space with a much more expensive display. Smaller doesn't mean cheaper.
For comparison (cost estimates from iSuppli)
iPhone 5 326 ppi display assembly: $44 [6.7 sq in] =$6.56 per sq in
iPad 4 264ppi display assembly: $127 [45.2] = $2.81
Nexus 7 216ppi display assembly: $52 [22] = $2.36
iPad mini 163ppi display assembly: $57 [29.6] = $1.93
Retina MBP 220ppi display (LCD+backlight only): $160 [106.6] = $1.50
Non-retina MBP 110ppi display (LCD+backlight only): $68 [106.6] = $0.64
The iPad mini's 326ppi retina display would cost somewhere between $140-190 assuming they could hit the same yields (which they can't yet). They'd be selling it for at least the same price as the iPad 4, only it would also need a much bigger battery than the current mini, so it'd be a lot thicker, too.
The iPod touch is 1/5 the size of the iPad mini's screen. Backlighting that much area takes a ton more power and a different design. The current iPad mini would need a battery 65%+ larger with a retina display. That's a considerable bump in thickness.
The iPod touch with retina display has a battery of just 1030mAh. The non-retina mini needs 4490mAh. A retina mini would suck down around 7500. For comparison, the full-size iPad has an 11,560mAh battery.
Last edited:
I too, was wondering why Apple didn't just discontinue the IPad 2 and release a $399 retina Mini. Seems like Apple is content selling old tech as long as people continue to buy it...
Yeah I see what you are saying but I think Apple was trying to hit a certain price point. It's likely that they couldn't get to a $329 price tag with retina display. The touch is already $300 for retina display and it's half the size of a mini iPad. So we are talking $500 bucks minimum. i would've gotten rid of the lower end iPad 4 and instead done a retina display mini iPad at $500 bucks. At least give people the option to pay more if they are willing to. That's all I am saying.the ipod touch has retina at the same thickness
THEY FREAKING HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY
and you magically changed OP's 529 number to 399 and included retina
so you're saying they don't know how to include retina (ipod touch) but you would include it at 399
I don't think it's a matter of money that they didn't put the Retina in the iPad Mini... it probably had more to do with the combination of not wanting to cannibalize iPad 4 sales with a smaller Retina Display device and not wanting to stick a fatter back to power the iPad Mini.
I also firmly believe that the iPad Mini is the entry level device into the iPad line with the iPad 4 more of the "pro" of the series.
They'd have no problem cannibalizing the iPad 4 sales with a retina mini.
If they could have done it, even at $499, they'd have nothing to lose by doing so. It's a simple matter of it being flat-out undoable right now. They could keep the existing iPad mini at $329 and iPad 2 at $399 (bargain A5 family) and offer a separate retina iPad line in both sizes at higher prices (premium A6 family). They'd make their margin either way, so at the end of the day they wouldn't care which product you bought.
The problem is that right now, a retina iPad mini would cost more than its big brother, which is a non-starter. We won't see a retina mini until they can price it at or below $499. Could be 8 months, could be 2 years.
Can you explain this a bit more for me? Why does it look like zigzags for 1.5, but not for 2.0?
According to a source "close to Apple" the reason retina was not included in current Mini is 2 fold:
"- cost to produce 7.9" retina currently too high for the lower price point of this product
- AAPL's ODM partner could not have retina ready for this launch time frame
Mini 2 will remain at $329 and include retina, with Mini 1 dropping to $279 or $269. "
None of this seems surprising and has been speculated by many others on this board. Just thought I would pass along the information that was shared with me.
"- cost to produce 7.9" retina currently too high for the lower price point of this product
- AAPL's ODM partner could not have retina ready for this launch time frame
Mini 2 will remain at $329 and include retina, with Mini 1 dropping to $279 or $269. "
None of this seems surprising and has been speculated by many others on this board. Just thought I would pass along the information that was shared with me.