Any chance this iPad mini could also have a version that is a phone? Not saying it wouldn't be ridiculous.....but what better way to put a big middle finger to the complaints about phone screen size than to release a 7" monster phone 😀 (I would never buy one)
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.
Apple's iPad Mini: Thinner, Lighter and Narrower
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right - and you got to assume that Apple is set on eventually having "retina" displays on all of their products. Giving retina MacBook Pros an entirely new name revolving around the display would look redundant in a few year's time.
I think Apple just wants to keep their product names simple in the long run (the "New iPad" instead of "iPad 3" is one indication of this - just wait for the "New iPhone"), and get through this transitional period by describing their products as "with X".
SmoMo
macrumors regular
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 🙁
=^..^=
mdelvecchio
macrumors 68040
...id wager that sites w/ the name RUMORS in them arent waiting around for facts.
it's MacRUMORS, dude, not MacFacts.
JGowan
macrumors 68000
Most people who have the iPad, bought it with disposable cash. They weren't on their last dollar. These are the same people that will now go out and buy the iPad Air/Mini. I think Apple is thinking that, rather than cannibalizing the iPad That actually will be making a second sale to the people who already bought the iPad. I own the new iPad 3. But, I expect to buy this new Apple device as well. I can see instances where it would be very useful.
Last edited:
bawbac
macrumors 65816
It's been leaked that battery life is around 5 hours ON and 15 days in standby mode.
When you make current battery technology smaller, you get less output.
Your logic is pretty flawed. Steve Jobs said a lot of things, and often went back on his words. We wouldn't even have an iPad if he had stuck to his word on tablet computing. The Samsung trials have shown evidence that Apple has had internal discussions on the 7" device category and you can bet they have prototyped it. Whether they will actually make one is of course up for debate. Just because Apple has no competition, doesn't mean they won't continue to push product boundaries.
If you want to get into details about what Steve said, you have to understand that Apple design guidelines specify a minimum 44px x 44px element size. Factor in the original iPhone display size & pixel density and you have an element size of 0.27" or 0.69cm squared. This is not big and the iPhone screen can accommodate roughly 70 interactive elements (rounded down). A bigger screen can accommodate more, simple as that.
The original iPad had a low screen resolution (1024x768) AND low pixel density (132ppi). This roughly equates to a 21x28 grid of elements, or 588 elements (rounded down).
Now we have a basis for argument:
So the iPhone has room for 70 simultaneous interactive elements and the iPad has room for 588 interactive elements. You're saying that there's no reasonable middle ground? The rumored 7.85" iPad would have room for a 17x23 grid of elements, or 391 simultaneous elements (rounded down). That about 1/3rd less than the iPad but still 5.5 times more than an iPhone. I think there is potential there.
A better argument for you would have been the one John Gruber made with respect to the fact that a 7.85" iPad with a resolution of 1024x768 makes no sense because the display density is too low for a 'Retina-class' device. This argument has less to do with the number of interactive elements, and more to do with the appropriate format and distance for content display. At a display size of 7.85" and at a distance of maybe 15", the resolution of an iPad 'Mini' should be something close to 1440px x 1080px.
Which brings us back into the realm of speculation (constructively, I hope).
mdelvecchio
macrumors 68040
how do you explain the $50 ipod? hmm.
ah of course -- its all branding. not having the best quality product on the market at all. riiight...
----------
yep, it is ok. look at the iphone -- while the homescreen icons dont rotate, most of the built-in apps support landscape. i imagine the mini will as well, including icons.
----------
marketshare; to prevent the umbrella effect.
while marketshare is good now, due to the umbrella effect which allows competing sellers to release smaller & cheaper tablets, apple will lose marketshare ground. despite great profits, if they want to "seal the deal" on the tablet space they need to go for marketshare at just the right time. they never did this w/ the Mac and look what happened. they know this now. see this chart:
http://www.iamconcise.com/main/the-reason-for-the-ipad-mini.html
...thats it.
----------
uh, no. punctuation does not affect word count. sorry. go for your GED...
DiamonDecoden
macrumors 6502
when will they release this? Is this even true?
If this is true, I want to wait to get this one instead of another iPad 2. Does it comes with 3G?
If this is true, I want to wait to get this one instead of another iPad 2. Does it comes with 3G?
If you read Steve Job's bioagraphy, he says that you should "never be afraid to cannibalize your own product, because if you don't, someone else will".
I know SJ is no longer with us but I bet that train of thought is probably baked right into the company.
Its how they do business.
PracticalMac
macrumors 68030
D.T.
macrumors G4
I think it's also important to Apple, to provide a competitive entry point for their ecosystem. Somebody buys a cheap Android tablet now, that might mean they buy an Android phone, a more expensive android tablet later - and, they become a customer of Google's ecosystem.
Somebody buys a competitively priced Apple tablet now, they're potentially being queued up for a larger iPad, an iPhone, a Macbook Pro, plus all those apps, music, movies, etc.
The Economist
Suspended
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
PatriotInvasion
macrumors 68000
While Apple sells A LOT of $500+ iPads, they will sell A TON of $249 iPads Mini's. Of all the people that opt for the cheaper iPad, think of the percentage of those people who were never in the market for a $500+ iPad to begin with.
Let the consumer decide if they want to pay the extra money for the bigger Retina display. Meanwhile, Apple sells millions of more iPads than they are now. It worked for the Nano.
jamesjingyi
macrumors 6502a
They might just lower the price of the Touch. I thought it was really overpriced. Maybe to $160 since its underpowered and has a bad camera??
dontwalkhand
macrumors 604
I have a strong feeling this would replace the iPod touch, and they would just say something like, If you want portability, use your phone.
skellener
macrumors 68000
Just curious....there have been a lot of leaks of photos of parts for the next iPhone and cases to go with it. All I've seen for a smaller iPad are artists renderings. No actual leaks of anything regarding a real product. Do you guys really think there is a smaller iPad coming out? The only thing that may be announced with regard to the iPad is a new dock connector. What's gonna happen if the next event debuts only a new iPhone and no smaller iPad?
Resolution =! size. Therefore, these are different products. Every thread about this rumor has been filled with moronic statements about how the iPad already exists and this is stupid. It's a (slightly) different product for (slightly) different uses, not a replacement for the standard iPad. That's my point.
I'll say it differently: I'm pointing out that those people usually get junk because they don't shop well, or intelligently. It's different with the iDevices. Lucky them.
RAZR: came out after the first iPod, not exactly before Apple's run. Also, only one model had the high-quality status. My RAZR2, for instance, was decent quality hardware, but software sucked and made it nearly useless. I would've thought someone would come back with the Model T to prove me wrong, actually.
Beta: if it had become mass-market, it would also have had far more cheap crap models, like VHS did. What people ignore about that whole 'war' is that there were very fine VHS models, if you shopped and paid for them. The "cheapness" of VHS compared to the "high-end" of Beta was not a function of the technology, but of the markets and consumer.
I think a new iPod Touch will still be a very strong seller. Many want an iPod Touch for its portability and even just as an MP3 player. Younger audience as well as those who use Android , Blackberry, etc also often buy iPod Touch just to get to the iPhone ecosystem in a small package. The iPad Mini size is nice but still isn't pocketable.
So, they're not looking to maximize their sales after all?
What's better for Apple? A $300 sale for a smaller iPad, or no sale at all because a potential customer who has a specific need for that form factor goes and picks up a Kindle Fire or a Nexus 7?
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
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).
no kidding Einstein, resolution != size
You still do not answer, though.
Same apps are supposed to be used/usable on both the iPad and the iPad mini,
The iPad mini as shown here (or worse, with larger bezel) is not much more portable than the original iPad,
Tell me what is so different with a mini iPad, out of its obvious smaller size/weight. Simply a variation on the Tablet form factor, like seen with MacBooks?
My initial question was: would iPad apps really flawlessly support the shrink?
You are answering me on something else, of course that wouldn't be a replacemement. WTH
Last edited: