Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's iPad Mini: Thinner, Lighter and Narrower

The Economist said:
If it is priced at around $249, would Apple keep the iPod Touch around? Who would buy a $199 iPod when for a bit more money an iPad can be bought? Unless that person is looking for extreme portability…
Click to expand...

I think there could be a few scenarios that play out

A) $200 iPad Mini - No retina & no rear camera

or more likely...

B) $300 iPad Mini - Retina - Rear Camera

I think B is more likely...therefore leaving the $199 iPod Touch area open.

I just can't see Apple releasing this iOS device without Retina nor a rear camera.

$300 is still affordable and if you had a choice between a $200 plastic PoS Nexus or Kindle Fire with no Retina or Camera or iOS or iTunes...or the $300 iPad mini with all of that...it's worth the $100 extra.
 
jmbill said:
The Nexus 7 really is a beautifully engineered bit of kit, brilliant value for money and I love everything about it. I can't see how Apple can compete with it.
Click to expand...

Competing against Nexus 7 is very straightforward for Apple. A bigger app store in a sleeker package. As good as Nexus 7 is, it still lacks tablet apps - part of it is though that its screen is a bit too small for such -
and its hardware design is nice but pretty utilitarian. Also Nexus as a brand has not really had a ton of success in public despite all the hype in the internet communities.

The only question would be how aggressive Apple will be in pricing. But if Asus can sell it at $200 and make profits off it, $250 should be doable for Apple.
 
SmoMo said:
I followed your instructions and ended up with this.

http://lolosad.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/origami_cat.jpg

I'm not sure how this relates to your iPad Mini argument.

Perhaps I was holding the paper in the wrong way to begin with, when you say 'then turn it sideways' how do you even know which way I was holding it before the turn?

I am so confused :(

=^..^=
Click to expand...

touché. Also, I remotely turned on your face time camera and noticed that you were holding it wrong. ha ha ha
 
Ryth said:
Latest leaks on 9-5 mac/gizmodo show a rear shell with a camera opening...

http://gizmodo.com/5934851/rumor-th...zel-and-look-more-like-an-iphone-than-an-ipad
Click to expand...
each time I see that supposed-leak, i've problems with proportions: hard to tell the size of this thing.
If you look at the size of the camera lense and compare it to the width of that part, and compare it with the iPad (considering same lense size), it would be around 110 mm wide. A 7.85" 4:3 screen is 120 mm wide alone.
 
Daniel B said:
Hi,

Please stop these articles about the iPad "mini" like it's a fact. It's not going to happen.
...
If you still dream about an iPad "mini" - get ready for disappointment.
Click to expand...

...or buy a Nexus 7.

By the way: while it's true that this talk of an iPad mini is all speculation, so is your contention that "It's not going to happen."
 
I REALLY hope they keep the same back of the normal iPad and not use that silly metal/mirror that is used on the back of the iPod Touch. I don't see how this is going to be anything less than 349.99 considering the low end iPod Touch runs in at 199 and is significantly smaller than the 'iPad Nano'. But Surface rumored to start at 199? No way the iPad can compete if the Windows 8 OS hits the consumer positively.
 
chleuasme said:
Your logic is pretty flawed

Using your same metric of interactive elements (to be discussed), both the iPad and the iPad mini would have the same 391 elts. You have to count in pixels, as 44 px is still true for iPads apps.
That's the whole point of staying at the same resolution and use the pixel density of non-retina iPhones: iPad apps would run at 1:1 (pixel wise) and the 44 px minimal large touch area would be at the physical size it was decided to be initially, and kept with the original iPad (in pixel count).
Click to expand...

Actually your argument is flawed as well, because the original iPhone dictated the 44px rhythm and was 163ppi. The original iPad was only 132ppi. See this reference. That's why I used surface area, because that is the original metric by which the 44px rule is based. 44 pixels on the original iPhone is not the same physical size as 44px on the original iPad. This isn't rocket science.

This is about humanscale, not digital scale.

So merely scaling 1024x768 down for a 7.85" is not necessarily ideal according to Apple standards (which are obviously up for debate). It would be somewhat of a hodge-podge solution. Staying the same resolution while changing screen size goes against the forward thinking concept of resolution independence, a concept which you can see in effect on the new retina Macbook Pro. Its screen UI is optimized to behave like 1440x900, which they recommend, even though it is actually 2880x1800. Any perceived resolution greater or lesser is the choice of the user.

SO, my ultimate points are:

  1. A 7.85" iPad could be a very functional and interesting product
  2. Keeping a 1024x768 resolution is a compromise, not an innovation
 
Last edited:
LYFK said:
Actually you're argument is flawed as well, because the original iPhone dictated the 44px rhythm and was 163ppi. The original iPad was only 132ppi. See this reference. That's why I used surface area, because that is the original metric by which the 44px rule is based. 44 pixels on the original iPhone is not the same physical size as 44px on the original iPad. This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...
No you don't understand. 44 px is an iOS thing, it's true for the iPad too when you design an app (if you follow rules, and even Apple doesn't: some touchable areas on iPads are smaller than 44 px, and so, on a 163 ppi iPad screen it would be physically smaller than the minimal touch size). And so yes, 44x44 px areas are larger on an iPad because of its lower pixel density. And at the right minimal physical size on the mini iPad.
If you consider the physical size only, then a valid touch area on the original iPad wouldn't be large enough on the mini iPad.

People are not discussing about introducing a 3rd category of iOS product (fragmentation), but try to find the way Apple could make a smaller Tablet that could still run actual iPad apps.
 
Last edited:
chleuasme said:
No you don't understand. 44 px is an iOS thing, it's true for the iPad too when you design an app (if you follow rules, and even Apple doesn't). And so yes, 44x44 px areas are larger on an iPad because of its lower pixel density.

People are not discussing about introducing a 3rd category of iOS product (fragmentation), but try to find the way Apple could make a smaller Tablet that could still run actual iPad apps.
Click to expand...

That's fair, I understand and I'm in perfect agreement with you. It's an iOS rule, but it's origin is on the iPhone, not the iPad. So the guideline is flawed in that respect and confuses a lot of people as to what it's actually referring to.

Anyways, I'm just saying that I think resolution independence is a more progressive approach than scaling, because it addresses fragmentation without stifling innovation *edit* OR violating UI best practices.

I would personally love a 7.85" iPad, but I would not be interested in merely buying a smaller version of the iPad I already own. I'm interested in an entirely new product. I'd like to believe Apple is as well.
 
sorry i was editing as you answered

LYFK said:
I'm just saying that I think resolution independence is a more progressive approach than scaling, because it addresses fragmentation without stifling innovation *edit* OR violating UI best practices.
Click to expand...
What do you mean with this, what has resolution independance to do with the subject?
 
Syk said:
I agree.

You have the Kindle2, Nexus 7 and if the Surface is $199. People who want a tablet but not at $500 will pick these up. Microsoft is also a big name and people will feel comfortable going with them probably more so than an Android device.

I don't think Apple is going to want to lose market share to those other devices because eventually it can start sliding into iPhone sales. A person gets a MS Surface and then likes it and when it's time to upgrade their phone they decide to go with a Ms Mobile phone
Click to expand...

Is that why Android has a huge market presence and Microsoft and WP7 has virtually none? The masses don't feel comfortable going with WP7 over Android or iOS, what makes you confident that their attitudes will change with tablets?
 
koobcamuk said:
It was only a month ago people were saying that my Nexus 7 was a stupid size and 10" is the only good size for a tablet.

Now the very same people are saying they'll lay down money on an iPad mini.

Interesting world.
Click to expand...

Really, the VERY SAME people...? Sounds totally suspect. Please post links to these mysterious people's comments from a month ago ridiculing your Nexus' size & from today saying they've changed their minds. Or S_T_F_U if you are actually a troll that pulled that lie out of your ass.
 
chleuasme said:
sorry i was editing as you answered


What do you mean with this, what has resolution independance to do with the subject?
Click to expand...

Ok bear with me.

I believe that, 'Retina-class' displays allows Apple UI designers to optimize for the physical size of displays, NOT their resolution. Because UI is first and formost a human issue.

Therefore, if we are to believe that all Apple screens will be eventually 'Retina-class', we also have to take into account that any and all physical screen sizes are dictated as being optimal for human context, not whatever happens to be in supply. For instance, if the 9.7" screen size is ideal for two-handed tablet use (the iPad), then I take it to mean that it will remain that way no matter what the resolution.

SO, it makes more sense for Apple to design a 7" device because they intend for a new product category that encompasses an ideal set of human uses, not just because it conveniently can scale down an older product.

My point about resolution independence is that all iOS products essentially run the same OS. And wouldn't it be nice if iOS was resolution independent just like Mountain Lion. It would make developing for the platform a little bit easier, and users would benefit as well. Designing apps would still be difficult, but I believe the applications themselves would be more resilient wrt to UI. I also believe that it gives Apple more flexibility when they do happen to change their physical screen sizes/ratios. If Apple were to suddenly decide for some reason to make a 14" 16:9 tablet at some ungodly resolution, it would be great if iOS was resolution independent, would it not?
 
mdelvecchio said:
how do you explain the $50 ipod? hmm.
Click to expand...

So the iPad mini or iPad shuffle will allow you to load apps but it randomly selects an app for you to utilize as you close an app.
Sounds like fun & worth $199!

----------
Ryth said:
B) $300 iPad Mini - Retina - Rear Camera

I think B is more likely...therefore leaving the $199 iPod Touch area open.

I just can't see Apple releasing this iOS device without Retina nor a rear camera.

$300 is still affordable and if you had a choice between a $200 plastic PoS Nexus or Kindle Fire with no Retina or Camera or iOS or iTunes...or the $300 iPad mini with all of that...it's worth the $100 extra.
Click to expand...
The $299 price point seems to be the logical choice to keep the iTouch & iPad prices separated.

We have the:
$499 new iPad
$449 iPad 2
$299 iPad mini (16GB ?)
$199 iTouch

*I wouldn't be surprised if they went with a $349 starting price.
 
LYFK said:
I believe that, 'Retina-class' displays allows Apple UI designers to optimize for the physical size of displays, NOT their resolution. Because UI is first and formost a human issue.

Therefore, if we are to believe that all Apple screens will be eventually 'Retina-class', we also have to take into account that any and all physical screen sizes are dictated as being optimal for human context, not whatever happens to be in supply. For instance, if the 9.7" screen size is ideal for two-handed tablet use (the iPad), then I take it to mean that it will remain that way no matter what the resolution.

SO, it makes more sense for Apple to design a 7" device because they intend for a new product category that encompasses an ideal set of human uses, not just because it conveniently can scale down an older product.

My point about resolution independence is that all iOS products essentially run the same OS. And wouldn't it be nice if iOS was resolution independent just like Mountain Lion. It would make developing for the platform a little bit easier, and users would benefit as well. Designing apps would still be difficult, but I believe the applications themselves would be more resilient wrt to UI. I also believe that it gives Apple more flexibility when they do happen to change their physical screen sizes/ratios. If Apple were to suddenly decide for some reason to make a 14" 16:9 tablet at some ungodly resolution, it would be great if iOS was resolution independent, would it not?
Click to expand...
Yes that's the differenciation between ppi vs dpi, and being able to use a screen as a paper print.
And the higher pixel densities of our screens goes, the closer we can get to this.
Ok, on that we agree that's probably the future.

Now, I don't see exactly how is that related with iOS now, and in this debate about the iPad mini. iOS apps are fullscreen. If you change the physical size of the screen, you can't display an app at full size.
One example of resolution independance would be to run a 3.54" iPhone app (at 960 x 640 px) on a 9.7" iPad screen on 777 x 518 px (at 264 ppi). That's 1:1 in physical measures, and the high pixel density lower the scaling effect.

And I'm not sure where you go when saying a 7" device would be a "product category that encompasses an ideal set of human uses".
Actually, we are talking about an almost 8" 4:3 device and not 7" (and usually those are more rectangular with 8:5 aspect ratios). The difference in size with the 9.7" 4:3 is not so important.
If you want a 3rd category of device, what do you want it for? smaller size for portability? then why 4:3?
 
Last edited:
bbeagle said:
Maybe for your young eyes. My 40 year old eyes can't tell the difference.

I've got an original iPad 1 (non-retina) and an iPhone 4 (retina). They both look the same to me.
Click to expand...

LOL...... I'm older than you.

No, the difference in screen resolution between the iPad, or iPad 2 and the the new retina iPad is readily apparent. I have both versions in my home, and I would never mistake one for the other.

I suggest a trip to the ophthalmologist. ;)
 
Apple Needs to Add Phone/Call functionality to the iPad Mini

I just played around with a Samsung Galaxy III and it blew me away. The iPhone screen needs to get BIGGER not TALLER. I am honestly about done with the size of the iPhone screen and if the rumors are true - it is going to take more than a taller iPhone to keep me engaged at this point.

I wish the iPad Mini (if true) was also a phone. That would be epic - I know they won't do it - that is my dream.
 
This will be a huge win for Apple. They can begin to cut into the Kindle sales and 7" Android tablets.
 
chleuasme said:
Yes that's the differenciation between ppi vs dpi, and being able to use a screen as a paper print.
And the higher pixel densities of our screens goes, the closer we can get to this.
Ok, on that we agree that's probably the future.

Now, I don't see exactly how is that related with iOS now, and in this debate about the iPad mini. iOS apps are fullscreen. If you change the physical size of the screen, you can't display an app at full size.
One example of resolution independance would be to run a 3.54" iPhone app (at 960 x 640 px) on a 9.7" iPad screen on 777 x 518 px (at 264 ppi). That's 1:1 in physical measures, and the high pixel density lower the scaling effect.
Click to expand...

You know what, that is my fault for not relating resolution independence to Responsive Design. A web page that is responsive (or elastic), will change it's UI according to the size of the browser. If you sign up for the music service, Thisismyjam, and scale the browser window, you will see what I mean by Responsive Design. This is great when you think of not only the different screen sizes out there, but also that people drag their browser windows to different sizes. It gets even better when you are designing for mobile browsing, because the design of the web page can also accommodate for those sizes.

So, getting back to why I think this is important for the rumored, iPad Mini, I think that resolution independence AND responsive design make it possible for apps to be designed once (with obvious exceptions) and deployed across multiple screen sizes on the same platform (iOS). Because it means that many of the assets overlap, and the UI can optimize for any given screen execution. If it is possible (and possibly even a good idea), then I question the overall benefit of a 7" device that merely re-uses the UI of a 10" device. To me that doesn't seem right.

Yeah?
 
mtrctyjoe said:
I just played around with a Samsung Galaxy III and it blew me away. The iPhone screen needs to get BIGGER not TALLER. I am honestly about done with the size of the iPhone screen and if the rumors are true - it is going to take more than a taller iPhone to keep me engaged at this point.

I wish the iPad Mini (if true) was also a phone. That would be epic - I know they won't do it - that is my dream.
Click to expand...

Don't walk outside until your samsuck woody goes down.
 
LYFK said:
I think that resolution independence AND responsive design make it possible for apps to be designed once (with obvious exceptions) and deployed across multiple screen sizes on the same platform (iOS). Because it means that many of the assets overlap, and the UI can optimize for any given screen execution. If it is possible (and possibly even a good idea), then I question the overall benefit of a 7" device that merely re-uses the UI of a 10" device. To me that doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see. Similarly to how iPhone apps could adapt to the 16:9 rumored iPhone,
rather than a simple shrink of the whole iPad interface on 7.85", you are talking about some auto layout magic allowing apps to adapt to screens while maintaining physical sizes of elements identical?
That's close to resolution independance, and is an interesting idea. Solving the potential problem of actual iPad apps appearing too small on the mini iPad.
But then, maybe staying at the same pixel density could help (or not going lower at 163 ppi): 1600x1200@264 ppi is about 7.6"
 
Last edited:
bawbac said:
The $299 price point seems to be the logical choice to keep the iTouch & iPad prices separated.

We have the:
$499 new iPad
$449 iPad 2
$299 iPad mini (16GB ?)
$199 iTouch

*I wouldn't be surprised if they went with a $349 starting price.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the $299 also (well since I wrote the one you quoted :p )

I don't see $349...reasoning is $299 still seems cheap for what you are especially getting if it does have Retina and a rear camera. It would be $200 less then the iPad which is a big selling point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back