I believe iPad and iPad mini will be introduced this Tuesday along with Mac updates. Unless apple is doing another event in October like last year, then I see this event as the last one for the remainder of the year.
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.
A7X-Based iPad and iPad Mini Expected to Launch in 4Q 2013, Lower-Cost A6 iPad Mini to Follow in 2014
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i don't think business wise, it makes since to put a A7X in the ipad mini and also create a cheap ipad mini. The ipad currently costs $499, ipad mini $329. They're either planning a price cut to the cheaper ipad mini or the ipad mini retina starts at $399. Which is fine but I doubt component costs like the screen will actually save $100 for apple to offer it along with a A7X Chip.
Most likely, I'd imagine apple coming out with A6X and offering it at $399, ipad mini at $299, and ipad big at $499.
Most likely, I'd imagine apple coming out with A6X and offering it at $399, ipad mini at $299, and ipad big at $499.
This is why I do NOT believe this rumor. I think that the processor difference was a purposeful choice. I think they'll opt to keep the full size more powerful. That, to me, IS a valid differentiator.
Apple needs to get all their models to A6 class. I suppose the A5 would work in a cheaper Mini, but i would be short-lived. A6 class would put Apple's entire lineup in 2014 above 2012 top-of-the-line. The mini doesn't need the "X" processor unless it goes retina. It's obvious that. Mini will be A6 and iPad 5 wool be A7x.
That just leaves an iPad 2 replacement... Large size, non-Retnia, lower CPU spec that fills a teaching niche with lots of ongoing purchasing of accessories. It's too valuable to ignore as schools need "drop-in" replacements available for ongoing 2-3 year contracts. Maybe an A5 or A6 based "iPad 2" (keep the Dock adapter too?) or they start pushing schools to use a model of mini which I just cannot see from the supply of accessories and handling equipment schools are laying out for.
Is it just me or does this rumor make apples lineup way to big and confusing. I miss the days of jobs keeping things simple.
You had an iPod touch, an iPhone, or an iPad.
Now it's mini this, retina that, mini with retina, mini retina Verizon, mini retina pro verizon LTE
Feel like I'm buying an HP or Dell
You had an iPod touch, an iPhone, or an iPad.
Now it's mini this, retina that, mini with retina, mini retina Verizon, mini retina pro verizon LTE
Feel like I'm buying an HP or Dell
Sounds like you are the one making things complicated. Currently there is a just a Mini, none of those other models exist. Apple's product lineup is still quite simplified.
This is exactly what everyone said when Kuo predicted the Retina MacBook Pro. A lot of people on this thread seem to be getting hung up on the word 'analyst'.
Learn how to read, folks.
The A7x makes perfect sense if it needs to run a retina screen, and still be an increase from last years full-size model. Although the A6x seems much more apple-like, since they're stingy. If they put the A7x in there I think I would be pleasantly surprised by something apple's done (spec-wise) for the first time ever
Good things come for those who wait for the Retina Mini
It's very likely, that the Apple A7 will feature an increase in CPU clock and a new generation of the PowerVR GPU, the Gen6 "Rogue" GPU.
There's a good chance that it is cheaper for Apple to use one of the simpler Rogue-gen GPUs for the iPad Mini Retina to reach the (necessary) performance to drive the retina display, instead of using the more complex last gen GPU from the Apple A6X.
The iPad Mini Retina A7X doesn't necessarily need to be the same A7X that is used in the iPad 5, just like the A4 and A5 were also not exactly the same in the iPad and iPhone, with the iPhone version having a lower clockspeed.
Maybe an A7 for the iPhone, an A7X for the iPad Mini Retina (with the GPU-performance roughly at the same level as the A6X - but smaller and therefore cheaper to manufacture and with less power drain) and an A7X (X) with even more shaders and higher clockspeed for the iPad 5.
You mean iPod touch, iPod Classic, iPod nano, iPod shuffle.... What was simple about that?
There are two iPad Mini's. One with Wifi only, and one with Wifi and LTE.
There are also two iPad 4's, one Wifi, one Wifi and Data, and two iPad 2's, one Wifi and one Wifi and Data.
If you yourself believe that the Wifi and Data iPad's don't sanctify enough change to say they're different, then that is your own opinion. But obviously the originator of the comment did not.
The screen is by far the most expensive component. Unless Apple has excess inventory of the A6X, it makes sense for them to switch all of the Retina iPads over to the A7X, to benefit from economies of scale on the new manufacturing process. The A7X may even be cheaper for Apple to produce than the A6X due to the new manufacturing process.
I expect both to feature the A7X. However, i agree on price:
iPad Retina - $499
IPad Mini Retina - $399
IPad Mini (original, to be replaced 1Q 2014) - $299
Like Silence suggested, we may see lower yielding (I.e., lower clock speed) A7X parts in the Retina Mini. Not every chip off the production line will yield the desired speed at a given amount of power.
Last edited:
This is all I want from Apple:
iPhone/iPad:
iPad mini Retina
Option of getting an iPhone with a larger screen
Mac:
Macbook Air Retina
Other:
Display with 4k
Apple TV with h.265 4k support
iPhone/iPad:
iPad mini Retina
Option of getting an iPhone with a larger screen
Mac:
Macbook Air Retina
Other:
Display with 4k
Apple TV with h.265 4k support
Sure those are different configurations/options, but it's all the same product. What's wrong with that?
It's not that they don't want to. It's that putting a retina display in an iPad Mini has consequences. You need much more GPU power, which uses more battery and generates more heat. The Mini's reason for existence is being small and light, so compromising by making it bigger and heavier is not a good option.
They are also boxed in by the design choice they made with screen resolution, going all the way back to the original iPad. That necessitated the 2048x1536 pixel-doubled resolution of the current iPad, and will probably mean the same for a retina Mini. Some kind of in-between resolution could be very effective for the Mini (for example 1600x1200), but that's a world of hurt for developers, and would further increase binary sizes (because 2048x1536 art assets still need to be included) which are already very large.
Other tradeoffs could be for decreased battery life, decreased performance (laggy scrolling, slow-launching apps, etc.), but those are also obviously unattractive. Finally there are the profit margins that Apple needs to maintain to keep Wall Street at bay. Going into a race to commodity parity mindset and competing on ever-shrinking margins with Android manufacturers is probably a losing proposition for them.
So it's just a lot more complicated problem than just "stick a higher resolution screen in there". The technology is there, but are the tradeoffs worth it?
I predict a lower price greyscale mini with optional clock, calendar, and maps. It will run on 4-AAA batteries (not included) and be available in Alabama and Mississippi, only.
I'm sure eventually all of Apple's mobile products will get the fingerprint sensor but not just yet. If the rumors were true about low yields of the scanner component, then I don't think there would be enough units for iPads at this time. That's my opinion if you believe the rumor and since its a relatively new component I think it's true the yields may be insufficient to support more than one product this year. I believe Apple will be selling an awful lot of iPhone 5S units over the holidays to eat up all the inventory. There's also profit margins that need to be considered. Exactly how costly is the fingerprint sensor component? It may be something that only the iPad will have and not the iPad Mini. As an outsider I'm totally clueless regarding Apple's decisions but its fun taking guesses.
It's a huge deal (shows twice as much text) to that, often wealthier and growing portion of the population who needs bigger fonts and reading glasses.
Yes
Yes! But 4.5", wider not taller
Yeswife needs a new lappy so I'm waiting on that one because she keeps stealing my rMBP because "It's so much nicer"
Yes! My DoubleSight H-IPS is going out and I want an updated Thunderbolt with 4K. Not sure if my current rMBP could run it.
Yes, but I'd like AC wifi for faster Airplay and more ram/A6 with an App Store. 4K for movies is meh to me at this point. I want 4K for doing design, photography and web work. Wouldn't you need a really crazy A7X or higher to run 4K from an iOS-based arm device? I don't think the A6X can run 4Kespecially if my rMBP potentially can't, which I think I read a few weeks ago. Though maybe h.265 4K is smoother because it's already an encoded, static stream and not the live OS with all the graphical effects to process? How does that work?
He's Taiwanese---land of Honghai (aka Foxconn) corporate headquarters. Not sure who/what he really does, though. I kind of get the feeling he's a glorified blogger...
the economies of scale argument would only come to fruition iuf the A7X chip has been around and yields have been great. I could agree that the ipad mini could be getting A7X chips clocked lower, but I think even then Apple can't produce enough A7X chips to keep up with demand.
Keep in mind that the _X chips are just teh normal chips with a different graphics chip. They still have to product A7 silicone to put on that same chip. I would argue that they need to keep the A6 production running for ipad mini cheap, the ipod touch, appletv, etc. So I would say on the other end, they're not losing much by using A6X.
screen might be truly expensive, but you'd imagine having a brand new form factor screen made specifically with the ipad mini isn't that much cheaper than a much better established 9.8" retina that apple has been running for two generations now. For $100 cheaper and a 35% profit margin, that means that it'd have to be $65 cheaper which I just don't see happening.