Apple Unveils New iPad Mini With A17 Pro Chip and Apple Intelligence

[turbineseaplane]

The screen dimension difference is about 18%. Not sure how 76% more real estate is calculated here - please explain. Also, 76% more usable real estate (at lower pixel density and with similar scaling treatment by Apple)? I get it, it's easier to see things on a larger screen, even if it's just 18% bigger but it is bigger with a lower pixel density, lower contrast, lower nits, lower refresh rate and similar scaling treatement. I carry a Plus/Max size iPhone. Getting a mini makes no sense to me. Getting a regular iPad 10.9" or a 11" Pro, which are both compact enough for me and way better value instead of these lacklustre iPhone spare parts upgrades. Personal preference. I respect your and others' adoration for the Mini. Just not sure Apple is keeping it around for many more generations with this sad 'update'. Hence my tongue in cheek comment about the 16 Pro Max being the best Mini.

I think it’s a 44% area difference on those two

what is the 16 Pro Max aspect ratio?

Can plug in data and compare here

Visual TV Size Comparison : Display Wars

Visually compare televisions of different sizes and aspect ratios. Easily see the size difference between Plasma and LCD displays of various sizes.

www.displaywars.com

Even if the particulars are a little off here in the comparison, it’s still a massive display area difference despite what seems like a small difference in diagonal dimension

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

* What colour to get? (Leaning towards blue...though purple also looks nice in photos)
* How much space? (Had planned 256, but 512 looks nice for holding my whole iPhoto library)
* With or without cellular? (How much battery drain on the iPhone if I use personal hotspot; battery life is usually at a premium while travelling, which is when I'd use the cellular option...)

Well, to answer my own questions:

* Blue (or blue green if you prefer)
* 128 GB base model (I'm just using ±60GB of 256 on my iPhone pro)
* Wifi only (I'll rather have a data e-sim in my iPhone while traveling outside Europe, and having one in both phone and iPad seems excessive)

Should be delivered next Wednesday, the 23rd.

 

[EugW]

The screen dimension difference is about 18%. Not sure how 76% more real estate is calculated here - please explain.

This is basic elementary school math.

iPhone 16 Pro Max = 2868 x 1320 at 460 ppi = 6.235" x 2.87" = 17.89 square inches

iPad mini = 2266 x 1488 at 326 ppi = 6.95" x 4.564" = 31.72 square inches

31.72 / 17.89 = 1.77, meaning the iPad mini is 77% bigger.

There are caveats though:
1) The iPad mini has a 1.5:1 aspect ratio, which isn't the best for widescreen movies, as there may be big top & bottom black bars.
2) The iPhone has a very wide aspect ratio, and has the dreaded notch/island.

Anyhow, I will say that after I got the iPhone 7 Plus, I lost all interest in the iPad mini.

 

[ZiBart]

I think it’s a 44% area difference on those two

what is the 16 Pro Max aspect ratio?

Can plug in data and compare here

Visual TV Size Comparison : Display Wars

Visually compare televisions of different sizes and aspect ratios. Easily see the size difference between Plasma and LCD displays of various sizes.

www.displaywars.com

Even if the particulars are a little off here in the comparison, it’s still a massive display area difference despite what seems like a small difference in diagonal dimension

How is this usable screen real estate is my ask. When the UI and scaling is the same/similar. We are not talking about a desktop MacOS screen here where you can manipulate the scaling and resolution to your desire.

 

[Moukee]

The screen dimension difference is about 18%. Not sure how 76% more real estate is calculated here - please explain. Also, 76% more usable real estate (at lower pixel density and with similar scaling treatment by Apple)? I get it, it's easier to see things on a larger screen, even if it's just 18% bigger but it is bigger with a lower pixel density, lower contrast, lower nits, lower refresh rate and similar scaling treatement. I carry a Plus/Max size iPhone. Getting a mini makes no sense to me. Getting a regular iPad 10.9" or a 11" Pro, which are both compact enough for me and way better value instead of these lacklustre iPhone spare parts upgrades. Personal preference. I respect your and others' adoration for the Mini. Just not sure Apple is keeping it around for many more generations with this sad 'update'. Hence my tongue in cheek comment about the 16 Pro Max being the best Mini.

The difference in screen diagonal is around the 18% you stated. A screen is two-dimensional though. Let me give you a simple example with a 3-inch screen with a 1:1 aspect ratio. Inside such a screen, you can fit 9 1x1 inch squares without overlap. Add a single inch to a 1:1 aspect ratio screen to make it a 4-inch screen. Inside this screen, you can fit 16 1x1 inch squares. So just 1 inch (33%) of added screen diagonal gives us almost 78% more (9 vs. 16 1-inch squares) "real estate" (screen area).

I got the 76% from GSMArena using their calculated display area (115.6 cm2 vs. 203.9 cm2).

If I just enter the dimensions and aspect ratio (8.3 inches 3:2 for the iPad mini, 6.9 inches 19.5:9 for the iPhone 16 Pro Max) into displaywars.com, you get the same result and a visual representation that might help you understand:

The pixel density doesn't really matter here. Yes, the iPhone has higher pixel density which results in a sharper image, but the same UI elements use more pixels which results in them using a similar amount of space than they do on the iPad. The iPad uses a UI scaling ratio closer to the original "Retina display" iPhone (iPhone 4), which scaled 2x per axis compared to non-"Retina" displays. The OLED iPhones are closer to 3x per axis UI scaling.

 

[turbineseaplane]

How is this usable screen real estate is my ask. When the UI and scaling is the same/similar. We are not talking about a desktop MacOS screen here where you can manipulate the scaling and resolution to your desire.

This is pretty easy to understand in person at a store

No matter how large the Pro Max seems, it's pretty wild how much more room to breathe there is on the iPad Mini screen.

Just feels and acts like a very different caliber and class of device

The 44%~ish more real estate a not a small difference

I've tried this in hand at stores and I recommend you do it next time you get the chance

 

[ZiBart]

The difference in screen diagonal is around the 18% you stated. A screen is two-dimensional though. Let me give you a simple example with a 3-inch screen with a 1:1 aspect ratio. Inside such a screen, you can fit 9 1x1 inch squares without overlap. Add a single inch to a 1:1 aspect ratio screen to make it a 4-inch screen. Inside this screen, you can fit 16 1x1 inch squares. So just 1 inch (33%) of added screen diagonal gives us almost 78% more (9 vs. 16 1-inch squares) "real estate" (screen area).

I got the 76% from GSMArena using their calculated display area (115.6 cm2 vs. 203.9 cm2).

If I just enter the dimensions and aspect ratio (8.3 inches 3:2 for the iPad mini, 6.9 inches 19.5:9 for the iPhone 16 Pro Max) into displaywars.com, you get the same result and a visual representation that might help you understand:

The pixel density doesn't really matter here. Yes, the iPhone has higher pixel density which results in a sharper image, but the same UI elements use more pixels which results in them using a similar amount of space than they do on the iPad. The iPad uses a UI scaling ratio closer to the original "Retina display" iPhone (iPhone 4), which scaled 2x per axis compared to non-"Retina" displays. The OLED iPhones are closer to 3x per axis UI scaling.

I do appreciate the time taken to explain but my ask is how is this usable when iOS/iPadOS UI elements are scaled in a similar fashion no matter the pixel density or screen size. I don't see 76% more UI elements or screen data as far as I can tell, unless I'm missing something. I acknowledge you may see a bit more of a PDF document perhaps or a web page in desktop mode might be slightly more visible, but that's slight increase doesn't translate to that high of a difference in usable real estate to my eyes. And when viewing widescreen video content, you lose a bunch of that added real estate as well to the black bars.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I do appreciate the time taken to explain but my ask is how is this usable when iOS/iPadOS UI elements are scaled in a similar fashion no matter the pixel density or screen size. I don't see 76% more UI elements or screen data as far as I can tell, unless I'm missing something

Things are bigger with more space, including just having room for your hands/fingers to hold easily and not obscure thigns .. content can be physically larger, on and on

Again - I implore you to try this at a store and it'll be immediately apparent how much a difference the 44% more screen real estate makes here

It's really not worth discussing -- experiencing it first hand clarifies it instantly

I've gone down the "maybe I should just have one device instead of a small iPhone and small iPad" path ... and ruled it out nearly instantly when doing the comparisons in person

 

[EugW]

This is pretty easy to understand in person at a store

No matter how large the Pro Max seems, it's pretty wild how much more room to breathe there is on the iPad Mini screen.

Just feels and acts like a very different caliber and class of device

The 44%~ish more real estate a not a small difference

I've tried this in hand at stores and I recommend you do it next time you get the chance

As mentioned, the iPad mini screen is over 75% bigger than the iPhone 16 Pro Max screen.

That said, I personally think it's too small. If I'm going to have 2 devices, the sizes I prefer are iPhone Pro Max and 11" iPad.

 

[ZiBart]

This is pretty easy to understand in person at a store

No matter how large the Pro Max seems, it's pretty wild how much more room to breathe there is on the iPad Mini screen.

Just feels and acts like a very different caliber and class of device

The 44%~ish more real estate a not a small difference

I've tried this in hand at stores and I recommend you do it next time you get the chance

I did try several times, and I acknowledged there is a bigger screen with larger UI elements, no doubt. But other than elements being projected in bigger form, there isn't much more 'usable' real estate to me. I guess I define screen real estate based on viewable data per pixel and not the projected size of that data in lower sharpness.

 

[ZiBart]

As mentioned, the iPad mini screen is over 75% bigger than the iPhone 16 Pro Max screen.

That said, I personally think it's too small. If I'm going to have 2 devices, the sizes I prefer are iPhone Pro Max and 11" iPad.

Yes. This is where I saw the breathing room as well. 10.9 / 11 ", which both feel compact enough to me especially when without a bulky case. Nevermind the value of the spec jump.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I did try several times, and I acknowledged there is a bigger screen with larger UI elements, no doubt. But other than elements being projected in bigger form, there isn't much more 'usable' real estate to me. I guess I define screen real estate based on viewable data per pixel and not the projected size of that data in lower sharpness.

You do you for sure…

We all have to make our choices on our own here. I just personally find the smallest iPad to be a wildly more pleasurable experience than even the largest iPhone.

But that’s me and we are all different obviously

 

[Biro]

No M1 is a big mistake, a new iPad without at least that is almost already obsolete at launch because there are already certain features and apps that at a minimum require it. Very odd decision unless it’s now considered an iPad SE rather than Mini which used to mean high spec, small size.

Interesting to see if there is an October event now, or maybe they are putting all non Mac announcements in press releases to have more time to focus on just them. Hope a new Apple TV 4K comes in another press release.

I don’t think you realize that the A17 Pro is equal to or better than the M1.

Apple A17 Pro vs Apple M1 (7-GPU)

Technical CPU comparison of Apple A17 Pro and Apple M1 (7-GPU) including benchmarks.

www.cpu-monkey.com

 

[Royksöpp]

That’s going to be one hot little iPad. Literally!

 

[bondr006]

Absolutely no excitement here.😑 I would like an iPad Mini….but I guess it’s not important enough to put an M chip in it? Even an M2 Pro would have been an outstanding upgrade. WTH Apple? You get AI🙄, but no external screen support or Stage Manager? Also no Face ID? Again, WTH Apple? I’ll be passing on this…

 

[Moukee]

I don't see 76% more UI elements or screen data as far as I can tell, unless I'm missing something. I acknowledge you may see a bit more of a PDF document perhaps or a web page in desktop mode might be slightly more visible, but that's slight increase doesn't translate to that high of a difference in usable real estate to my eyes.

The thing is that standard UI elements - like a button, a title bar or whatever - aren't physically 76% larger on the iPad mini. Just like other iPads aren't just stretched out iPhones. So yeah, you can see more of a website, more rows and columns in a table (assuming each cell is at the same physical zoom level), more entries of a list etc. So yeah, pretty much 76% more data (highly dependent on the content and app). An office app might show more of the toolbar for example. And you get features like split-screen where you can have two apps side-by-side. It's the same reason you chose the Pro Max over the regular Pro, just very amplified as the relative difference is a lot larger between the iPad mini and the Pro Max vs. Pro Max and Pro. It's the same reason many people use external, large 27" (or more) displays instead of solely relying on their 16" MacBook Pro displays.

You obviously don't have to like it or have a use for it - that's completely fine.

And when viewing widescreen video content, you lose a bunch of that added real estate as well to the black bars.

This depends on how wide the content is. If it's very wide (at least 19.5:9), sure, you only get around 20% more viewing area (assuming you don't care at all that the Dynamic Island cutout is in the image). If it's 16:9 - which is still fairly common for video content, especially TV shows - you get 80% more viewing area (as 16:9 content doesn't use the iPhone's display width (in landscape) to the fullest).

 

[sublunar]

I read through the whole thread after coming to this late tonight - like most people here I was blindsided by the press release announcement. Here's my take:

Definitely looks a parts bin special with the A17 Pro being a surprise (expected it to be a binned A18).

We need to see if Jelly Scrolling has been 'fixed' in terms of reorienting the display controller for a product that is mainly used portrait rather than landscape.

A17Pro as a previous commenter said is a published 'minimum spec' for Apple Intelligence. Marketing wise they could have called it an A17 due to the binning.

I don't think Apple will have a massive dusty parts bin with binned chips that they have been filling for a over a year and will no longer get any more chips donated now the iPhone 15 Pro isn't being made, they must have come to a deal with TSMC to keep producing the A17 Pro chip on the N3B process (same one that Intel is using for their chips now incidentally) but with lower volume and spec standards allowing for cheaper manufacture on a smaller number of lines - fewer bad chips thrown away if you will accept a 10% down clock and 1 fewer functional GPU across the board.

They probably don't need to hog the process like they did for the iPhone 15 Pro given that the iPad mini will be lower volume. I also wonder if this process could also be going into other lower volume Apple products to save the A18 CPUs for iPhone 16 Pro/16.

1. iPhone SE4.
2. Apple TV 4k 4th Generation (hardware AV1 decoder could be useful for certain streaming apps)
3. Regular old iPad
4. Mystery smart home device that looks like an old G4 iMac

The other thing I take from this is that the 64Gb storage tier might just be a thing of the past - consider that all of the additional products I just listed could come with 128Gb storage as a base storage SKU at no additional cost. All of these lower premium products could get an update in spring 2025 and the A17 Pro obviously allows Apple to claim every new device can do Apple Intelligence.

The only remaining blots on the landscape would be the iPhone 15 (no AI possible), and iPhone 14 (no AI, still using Lightning port). You do wonder if Apple could pull something out of the hat like an SE4 Plus - based on 14 Plus body shell - to allow them to completely dispense with the iPhone 14/Plus in Spring 2025.

And the iPhone 15/Plus would then only need to limp on till September 2025 when the iPhone 16/Plus drops down a tier to replace it.

 

[Biro]

I have a 6th-generation iPad Mini. I want to see exactly what the new base iPad will offer before replacing my Mini with a new one.

 

[boak]

Thoughts on iPhone SE4 getting A17?

 

[kiranmk2]

2 surprises here for me:

1) Announcing this not at the end of October event is mildly surprising.

2) using last year’s “first gen 3nm” is also mildly surpassing. Was thinking Apple doesn’t want to use that stop-gap chip anymore.

Yeah. What surprises me the most though is that Apple is keeping the A17 around. I would have thought that they would migrate away from the more costly N3B node as soon as possible.

I would have lost a hefty bet that Apple would keep A17 around in this fashion.

Figured they would have left that node in the past with how quickly they moved to A18/M4

The A17 Pro? Strange choice, I thought Apple was unwilling to use any chips made from TSMC's N3B Process for longer than they needed to.

Only ready the first three pages, so apologies if someone has already had this thought: I wonder if this indicates how many iPad Minis Apple expectes to sell (i.e. it can use the surplus A17 Pro chips from the iPhone 15 Pro line because it will only sell a few million iPad Minis)?

 

[dms_91]

Wow, this is a disappointing announcement of an iPad mini refresh...however, not surprised. They should have used their A18 Chipsets in this and FaceID instead of TouchID. These two things would make this a fantastic mini tablet...using a binned A17 Pro chipset that overheats makes no sense (besides cost effective for Apple).

 

[sublunar]

Wow, this is a disappointing announcement of an iPad mini refresh...however, not surprised. They should have used their A18 Chipsets in this and FaceID instead of TouchID. These two things would make this a fantastic mini tablet...using a binned A17 Pro chipset that overheats makes no sense (besides cost effective for Apple).

Downclocking - though unconfirmed at this time - might mitigate any concerning heat/power consumption issues - Apple will still want to hit the same (10 hour?) battery life. The mini shell is obviously larger and may be more capable of dissipating any additional heat produced over an A15. It is still a pricey tablet even with the boosted base storage.

 

[ctjack]

This is a solid buy, just need to wait for some incentives.

2 weka ago target had 467 dollar 11 inch pro m2, so kinda hesitate to pay full price here.

 

[EugW]

The other thing I take from this is that the 64Gb storage tier might just be a thing of the past - consider that all of the additional products I just listed could come with 128Gb storage as a base storage SKU at no additional cost. All of these lower premium products could get an update in spring 2025 and the A17 Pro obviously allows Apple to claim every new device can do Apple Intelligence.

Here's hoping for a base iPad 11th generation with 128 GB storage, 8 GB RAM, and A17 Pro for US$349. I'm not optimistic though.

Mind you, I'd be perfectly happy if it's 128 GB storage, 6 GB RAM, and A16 Bionic, at least if it launched soon, since Apple Intelligence isn't high upon my wanted features list (yet) for such a product.

BTW, the 256 GB tier of the iPad mini has dropped in price. For 6th gen it was $649. Now for the A17 Pro model, it's $599.

Also, at BestBuy.com you can get the 64 GB 6th gen for $399 now. That might be a decent option for some of you here.

 

[ctjack]

I do appreciate the time taken to explain but my ask is how is this usable when iOS/iPadOS UI elements are scaled in a similar fashion no matter the pixel density or screen size. I don't see 76% more UI elements or screen data as far as I can tell, unless I'm missing something. I acknowledge you may see a bit more of a PDF document perhaps or a web page in desktop mode might be slightly more visible, but that's slight increase doesn't translate to that high of a difference in usable real estate to my eyes. And when viewing widescreen video content, you lose a bunch of that added real estate as well to the black bars.

Scaling is not the same. Mini 6 in apple store feels cramped like 4k screen on 27 inch. It fits a lot more if nearsightedness is not an issue with small fonts and icons.