iPad Mini: Here's how I think Jobs would have approached the iPad mini

[google]

IF they wanted retina on the mini it would have already be on it.

They don't so they can release the next one with it so you will want to upgrade.

Why are you folks so nieve and still think Apple is thinking about you and want you first.

They got you where they want you. You will buy it no matter what.

[Mrbobb]

I say this:

Apple used to not care about what everybody else did. Apple make their own stuff and that was that.

The fact that the Mini is born out of competition with the Kindle/Nexus starts a new chapter in Apple history.

Will see what happens.

[cnev3]

Originally Posted by Mrbobb

I say this:

Apple used to not care about what everybody else did. Apple make their own stuff and that was that.

The fact that the Mini is born out of competition with the Kindle/Nexus starts a new chapter in Apple history.

Will see what happens.

That was Jobs point of view. He made decisions based on his own personal ideas and convictions, and not what shareholders, consumers, or market researchers are asking for.

People bashed the original iPad when it was first announced, and look where it is now. Many financial analysts and tech bloggers thought the Apple Store was going to be a multi million dollar flop and suffer the same fate as Gateway stores, but Jobs pushed forward despite people saying it was going to fail. Now it grosses more money per square foot than any brick and mortar retail store.

Tim Cook isn't operating on his own personal ideas and convictions. He's a crowd pleaser, and is more a follower than a leader.

[sagnier]

Originally Posted by ZBoater

Steve dissed the 7" tablet concept.

The iPad mini is not a 7" tablet. It's 7.85. It's wider and bigger, although thinner and lighter.

Oh, the mini has Steve's fingerprints in it. You can be sure of that.

WHAT?! i thought they fixed this with the 3GS. ok now im definitely not buying one.

[Mak47]

The price is not the reason it doesn't have a Retina display.

Here is where the tech is as of now:

iPad 3/4 require additional graphics capability to power the display. This uses a lot of power.

The displays are also power hogs.

In order to put a Retina display in a tablet, and have a battery that lasts more than 3 hours you need to include an enormous battery. Enormous batteries require more space and add a ton of weight. You could add thickness to accommodate the physical size of the battery, but it would end up weighing just about the same as the full size iPad.

People are loving the iPad mini because of it's light weight and super thin form factor. If you're going to make it thick and heavy, what's the point of making it at all?

Over the next 1-3 years we'll see IGZO displays become usable in mass quantities. When that happens, power consumption will be reduced dramatically. We'll also see Apple's standard ARM chips become more capable at pushing lots of pixels. When those things happen, we'll see a Retina display in the mini. Until then, we won't.

Even when we do see a Retina mini, the display will likely be in the ballpark of 1600x1200 (+/- a few dozen pixels each way). A more powerful standard ARM chip (like iPhone) will be able to power that resolution much faster than 2048x1536. It will also require less power to do so.

Right now there are effectively 3 resolutions for iOS developers to work on (iPhone 3Gs being dead). Adding a 4th wouldn't be a popular idea. Within 2 years at the most iPhone 4/4S, old iPod touch will be dead, along with their resolutions. iPad mini will have gained a significant user base and developers will want to build for it as a result, so the new resolution won't be a huge problem.

Factoring all those things in, it's clear that there are legitimate reasons for there not being a Retina display in the mini. It's easy to say it's all about money and greed, but it just isn't.

[ejb190]

Originally Posted by cnev3

I think if Jobs was alive, he would have made the iPad mini with the retina display

And you have inside knowledge to know that Steve Jobs had access to the right size Retina display, with no quality control issues, at a competitive price and an adequate supply within in the desired timeframe for production, but no one else at Apple could have done this?

Originally Posted by cnev3

When Apples at it's best, they focus on making a good product, not products to win back marketshare...

When Apple is at its best they are making products that the public hasn't figured out they need yet.

Originally Posted by rdowns

Oh lookie here, another person who thinks he knows what Jobs would have done better than those who have worked with him for years.

Exactly!

[jarofclay73]

So you do think Apple really wanted a non-retina display to get at the current price point or maybe there were supply issues that couldn't guarantee a certain number of iPad Minis?

[Spungoflex]

Originally Posted by cnev3

I think if Jobs was alive, he would have made the iPad mini with the retina display, and priced it at $399/$499/$599. He would have seen a 7" iPad existing because of it's form factor, not because of the lower price point.

There's no way they could make the iPad in the same ballpark price wise as the Kindle Fire. If someone wants a $200 tablet, let them buy a $200 tablet.

When Apples at it's best, they focus on making a good product, not products to win back marketshare by updating it with a new model that's inferior to it's predecessor, and effectively degrading the allure of the brand.

I see it as a compromise, and a poor decision for Apple in the long run. Stubborn, idealistic Jobs would have never allowed it. I think Tim Cook operates at the whim of the shareholders, and that could be the cause of Apples demise. History tends to repeat itself.

[NMF]

This is a dumb thread. Apple has directly competed for marketshare via price with the iPod Nano, Mac mini, etc. This is not unprecedented. It also makes good business sense. It's exactly what "Steve would have done."

[ttexxan]

Geeze guys not rocket science. Guaranteed jobs new about the mini. This is the way apple operates. I fully expect in 6 mo a retina display. They are not going to give away the farm all at once. Apple knows all the fans will buy now and then yet once again to have a retina display when it comes out. How hard is that to understand it business

[reputationZed]

The only one who knows what Jobs would or would not have done died last October. "This is how Steve would have saved ..." Is becoming the Deus ex machina of 2012

[Joey51]

Steve just talked to me on my ouji board-
He said use the mini now -when battery technology gets better which is what he is working on right now ,it will get retina and be the same size with
10-12 hrs of battery life
He said the fanboys should quit whining and using his name in vain

THATS WHAT HE SAID MY CHILDREN

[iHeartsteve]

Originally Posted by Koziakauzu

Yup, the new connector was ready anyway, but it would have hold off a lot of people from upgrading their iPads...and they had to launch a new model at that time.
The iPhone was the only way for them to force people to accept the lightning connector.

yes I agree with this. they thoughtfully planned out which device would first get the new connector.

----------

Originally Posted by jarofclay73

So you do think Apple really wanted a non-retina display to get at the current price point or maybe there were supply issues that couldn't guarantee a certain number of iPad Minis?

yes, at least I think so no one knows for sure, unless some apple employee from corporate quotes steve jobs last dying words hahah.

if there was short supply of getting us retina display, they should have just waited longer. we waited forever for this 7 inch size that it wouldn't have mattered if they waited 6 more months. people were actually beginning to believe there would never be a 7inch tablet. tim cook just wanted this thing out before the holiday season to make money. AND what do you know, ipad 4 with the new connector also comes out!

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by ZipZap

Considering that Steve did not want the ipad mini configuration I would say he had ZERO to do with this product.

April 29, 2004 - Steve Jobs says it again: no video iPod

October 12, 2005 - Fifth Generation iPod Now Plays Music, Photos & Video

Originally Posted by Spungoflex

three awesome pictures

The Mac mini and iPod mini were the first things that sprung into mind when the OP mentioned that Apple's at its worst when it releases newer models that are inferior to preceding models, just to win back marketshare.

----------

Originally Posted by iHeartsteve

if there was short supply of getting us retina display, they should have just waited longer.

How much longer would the new battery technology have taken?

Didn't the iPad 3's retina display require the battery to be 40% larger than the iPad 2's, to get about the same run-time?

[GeekLawyer]

Originally Posted by Spungoflex

Image

Image

Image

You win. Nice job!

[christophermdia]

Originally Posted by Frankied22

It's been stated that Steve had a hand in the next few years of products at Apple before he passed away. To think he had nothing to do with the mini is just silly. Apple plans these products so far in advance.

yes....of course he knew....R&D is not a 1 year process.....what you see coming out today is probably 5 year old technology, just takes that long to figure out the how....

[Noisemaker]

Originally Posted by F123D

So they clearly knew they were screwing over customers who just bought an iPad 3 when they released the iPad 4.

How were they screwed over? They got the product that was advertised, and surprisingly, they still work. Just like they did the day before the iPad 4 was announced.

Whiners.

[ZipZap]

Originally Posted by Mak47

The price is not the reason it doesn't have a Retina display.

Here is where the tech is as of now:

iPad 3/4 require additional graphics capability to power the display. This uses a lot of power.

The displays are also power hogs.

In order to put a Retina display in a tablet, and have a battery that lasts more than 3 hours you need to include an enormous battery. Enormous batteries require more space and add a ton of weight. You could add thickness to accommodate the physical size of the battery, but it would end up weighing just about the same as the full size iPad.

People are loving the iPad mini because of it's light weight and super thin form factor. If you're going to make it thick and heavy, what's the point of making it at all?

Over the next 1-3 years we'll see IGZO displays become usable in mass quantities. When that happens, power consumption will be reduced dramatically. We'll also see Apple's standard ARM chips become more capable at pushing lots of pixels. When those things happen, we'll see a Retina display in the mini. Until then, we won't.

Even when we do see a Retina mini, the display will likely be in the ballpark of 1600x1200 (+/- a few dozen pixels each way). A more powerful standard ARM chip (like iPhone) will be able to power that resolution much faster than 2048x1536. It will also require less power to do so.

Right now there are effectively 3 resolutions for iOS developers to work on (iPhone 3Gs being dead). Adding a 4th wouldn't be a popular idea. Within 2 years at the most iPhone 4/4S, old iPod touch will be dead, along with their resolutions. iPad mini will have gained a significant user base and developers will want to build for it as a result, so the new resolution won't be a huge problem.

Factoring all those things in, it's clear that there are legitimate reasons for there not being a Retina display in the mini. It's easy to say it's all about money and greed, but it just isn't.

Well stated and absolutely accurate. Notwithstanding retina, we could still see display improvements but no retina for a while.

[rockyroad55]

I wish people would stop complaining about lack of retina. This device is really nice to carry around now. The iPad 3 wasn't bad to carry around but this is just better. I believe the mini's main selling points are size and portability. I mean, heck, when Phil introduced it, the first thing he said was that it can now fit in one hand. The mini is an alternative to the regular iPad, not a replacement.

[(Marty)]

Originally Posted by CapnJackGig

There's a lot of bad decisions involved with the Mini. Steve probably had his hands in some of them. He wasn't the brightest guy all the time. The decision to make the Mini a premium priced product but filled with inferior hardware was a lame one. That's a huge reason for the large jump in Kindle Fire HD sales that occurred immediately after the Mini announcement. Apple had a chance to wipe out the competitors in the 7 inch tablet market, but instead they just made the other options more attractive. Mini will cannibalize iPod Touch and regular iPad sales. Comparing it to the 7 inch tablets was also really lame on Apple's part. They missed the point of why those smaller tablets are selling so well - video. The screen dimensions on the Nexus are much better for widescreen movies than the Mini, which is why in their presentation Apple never showed that aspect.

So when you say better for video are you forgetting that even with the bars the iPad mini can show a larger video than any 7" 16:10 or 16:9 tablet? And the same holds true for any of the widescreen ratios. All of this while being more or less the same size as the kindle and just a little wider than the nexus.

Also why would I spend $200 or more on a tablet to watch video on? My iPad is used for web browsing, document creation, text book, games, audio, and video if I'm traveling. If I'm going to watch a movie I would rather utilize my tv.

[iEvolution]

It is a good thing that macrumor posters aren't the general population otherwise Apple would have a real hard time pleasing their customers.

I'm talking about me too.