Do YOU think Apple should release a 7.85" iPad Mini? POLL

[Mad Mac Maniac]

For those thinking the "iPad Mini" would be lighter or $100 cheaper…

What of they kept the iPad2 at $100 cheaper than now.
And the iPad3 was lighter?

My 2 yr old son has no problems with the size of the current iPad.
A larger screen could mean a better battery/processor and the like to replace an iMac, but smaller just seems awkward.

Lighter and cheaper are always good, but I think there is definitely added benefit in smaller as well. Also, there is only so much lighter the iPad can be in it's current frame; smaller would inherently mean lighter no matter how light the iPad 3 became.

Does your 2 year old take the iPad to school? Does he carry it up and down stairs? Does he hold it when he uses it? or does me usually just move his fingers across the screen as it lays on the floor/table? I'm sure your 2 year old would be able to do that just fine with a 20" iPad, but do you think that makes it equally usable/mobile for him in the long term?

 

[rienrah]

Here's what I think is a more interesting question. Assuming identical features and performance in every way (you want an iPad Mini, not an iPad Puny), just smaller, would you pay more for the smaller iPad? And if not, please re-think whether you actually want an iPad Mini, or just and iPad-that-costs-less.

No, I probably wouldn't pay more for a smaller iPad, but I would pay the same amount. I'd like to see two sizes of iPad. I would opt for the smaller, you could choose the 9.7". Everybody happy?

I'm a small person with small hands. Plenty of us out there.

 

[BJMRamage]

no my 2-yr old doesn't use the stairs while holding the iPad...nor the iPhone or any thing that could possibly break. he can still fall down the stairs.

he does pick it up and walk with it, and use it while on the floor/table or on his lap. he doesn't hold it one-handed and use with the other, but doesn't really do that with the iPhone either. I am more-over saying to the "the current iPad is too heavy/cumbersome use" people that it isn't that much of an issue.

I am not really saying the people who want a mini iPad are "wrong".
I still do not see a need for one of that size, even with the thoughts of those who'd like one on here. i understand the issues that are presented but still do not agree.it may seem close minded but i am not simply dissing them but don't agree.

no worries though. we don't agree. if Apple comes out with a smaller iPad, I won't boycott them, but probably won't be purchasing one.

 

[poloponies]

Personally I don't think a "$100 cheaper" is what needs to chassed...I think the mark to hit is the below $300 price tag...I think at that price you open a whole new and currently under taped market....I think the only way you hit that price mark is with a smaller form....

Nobody's making money there. It's netbooks all over again. Selling them in record numbers until you go out of business is not a viable business model.

 

[Zwhaler]

I voted yes, simply because knowing Apple they would sell millions of them.

 

[palpatine]

i have a murse (man purse). i'd like a bigger ipad. but, i know there is very little demand for it, and they are unlikely to do it. i'll settle for the 9.7". no chance i would consider anything smaller. and, i hope apple doesn't waste resources developing a product that i don't think would have much demand.

i am not violently opposed to the thing, but i don't see any compelling arguments for it. then again, i thought the "big ipod" was a stupid idea, and here i am a couple of years later lining up to buy one

 

[mwulf67]

Nobody's making money there. It's netbooks all over again. Selling them in record numbers until you go out of business is not a viable business model.

I don't think its netbooks all over again...I think it's more like the iPod Touch all over again...there are probably very few Touch owners who wouldn't love to own a iPhone instead (I know my 11 year daughter would)...many probably have or will migrate to an iPhone when they get old enough and/or have the economic means to do so...The Touch is simply a cheaper, slightly less featured version of the iPhone, for those too young or those without the means or need for the more expensive iPhone...

I think the similar situation and opportunity exists for tablets...I think there are lots and lots of people out there who would love to have an iPad, but because of their age and/or the relative high cost involved, simply aren't going to be able to get one...they are looking for a viable, cheaper alternative...if Apple doesn't provide it; someone else will...I see no logical business reason to ignore this potential lucrative market (they didn't do it before with the Touch, why now?)...it only makes sense if they are unable to technically to pull it off....which they can't or won't outright say, hence, all the delusion, self-serving crap that nobody really wants a cheaper 7-in tablet....

 

[poloponies]

I think the similar situation and opportunity exists for tablets...I think there are lots and lots of people out there who would love to have an iPad, but because of their age and/or the relative high cost involved, simply aren't going to be able to get one...they are looking for a viable, cheaper alternative...if Apple doesn't provide it; someone else will...I see no logical business reason to ignore this potential lucrative market (they didn't do it before with the Touch, why now?)...it only makes sense if they are unable to technically to pull it off....which they can't or won't outright say, hence, all the delusion, self-serving crap that nobody really wants a cheaper 7-in tablet....

Nobody's doubting that an Apple tablet priced at $299 would move a lot of units, the problem is that Apple can't do it now. The component costs of the iPad 2 are at about $300. You would literally have to halve that amount just to start the conversation and that's simply not possible. Even if it were, it would compete directly with the iPad line and eat into Apple's bottom line.

It will likely happen one day - and maybe soon - but the obstacles are currently financial. As I said, nobody is making money on 7" tablets, and the Kindle Fire business model is not a viable one for Apple.

 

[Wrathwitch]

I don't really know to be honest.

As a Tablet and for what it was designed for, the current iPad is ideal. Big enough to clearly see and manipulate info. It IS light enough to be more portable than the MBA.

I already have an iPhone and I fail to see my need for an item in between my phone and iPad.

That being said, it's not all about me... I think as a pilot project, it would be interesting to see Apple release a smaller iPad alongside the upcoming iPad3 and see what the demand is like.

I for one, am not interested as I have 3 go to devices. iMac for heavy lifting, iPhone for portability and iPad for in between lazing about. I also have a MBA which I almost never use.

----------

No, I probably wouldn't pay more for a smaller iPad, but I would pay the same amount. I'd like to see two sizes of iPad. I would opt for the smaller, you could choose the 9.7". Everybody happy?

I'm a small person with small hands. Plenty of us out there.

I am a small person with small hands also, but I don't have small eyes. I use the iPad 1 with no difficulty. It is very easy to prop and use and there are stands that work on all sorts of texture/surfaces.

 

[aluren]

Well let's not compare high end to low end here. Let's do apples to apples. So low end iPod Touch is $200 and low end iPad is $500. High end iPod Touch is $400 and high end iPad is $830. I can easily see an iPad nano fitting in nicely with the low end $300-$400 and the high end $600-$700.

That's not how pricing works. People aren't thinking "Should I spend $200 for an iPod Touch or $500 for the iPad?" They are thinking "I want a 64gb touch for $400, but man if I add another $100 I can get the iPad instead." or "I want the 64gb 3G iPad for $829, but if I add another $100 or so, I can get the 11" air" and so on. People who can afford the high end stuff won't even think twice. It probably takes them longer to decide the drink they want at Starbucks. Pricing structure works to try to squeeze an extra couple dollar off of people who are on the fence.

An iPad mini at the $300-400 price range will disrupt the iPod touch market, since they will be similarly priced. Apple's strategy with the touch is to get people to buy iPhones in the future, since the iPhone is Apple's bread and butter. So I don't see Apple doing this.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

Nobody's doubting that an Apple tablet priced at $299 would move a lot of units, the problem is that Apple can't do it now. The component costs of the iPad 2 are at about $300. You would literally have to halve that amount just to start the conversation and that's simply not possible.

I'm not so sure. iPod Touch starts at $200, but the iPhone 4S (out of contract) starts around $600-$700. I'm not really sure exactly. If Apple is able to make (and sell) an iPod touch of the same size, yet significantly thinner for 1/3 the cost of an iPhone, then I think they can make (and sell) a smaller iPad for 3/5 the cost of the current iPad. Yes I understand there will be minor compromises (like the iPod touch) to reach the $300 price point.

I don't really know to be honest.

I need to get my eyes checked. I initially read that as "I don't really know how to be honest."

----------

That's not how pricing works. People aren't thinking "Should I spend $200 for an iPod Touch or $500 for the iPad?" They are thinking "I want a 64gb touch for $400, but man if I add another $100 I can get the iPad instead."

Uhhhhh.... sorry I don't see how somebody who wants to buy a 64gb iPod touch is suddenly going to realize they want a 16gb iPad.... That's like saying "should I buy a pen? Nah, I'll get a highlighter because it just costs a little bit more and it provides a thicker tip!" They have completely different purposes.

An iPad mini at the $300-400 price range will disrupt the iPod touch market, since they will be similarly priced. Apple's strategy with the touch is to get people to buy iPhones in the future, since the iPhone is Apple's bread and butter. So I don't see Apple doing this.

well then the iPad mini, would be the gateway drug to iPad's just as the iPod is to the iPhone.

 

[mwulf67]

Nobody's doubting that an Apple tablet priced at $299 would move a lot of units, the problem is that Apple can't do it now. The component costs of the iPad 2 are at about $300. You would literally have to halve that amount just to start the conversation and that's simply not possible. Even if it were, it would compete directly with the iPad line and eat into Apple's bottom line.

It will likely happen one day - and maybe soon - but the obstacles are currently financial. As I said, nobody is making money on 7" tablets, and the Kindle Fire business model is not a viable one for Apple.

How does offing a $299 miniPad eat into the iPad sale figures when most of those potential miniPad buyers were never going to buy your $500 iPad in the first place? The Touch/iPhone combo seems to have been very successfully for Apple...I don't see why a similar miniPad/iPad combo wouldn't be just as successful...

 

[aluren]

Uhhhhh.... sorry I don't see how somebody who wants to buy a 64gb iPod touch is suddenly going to realize they want a 16gb iPad.... That's like saying "should I buy a pen? Nah, I'll get a highlighter because it just costs a little bit more and it provides a thicker tip!" They have completely different purposes.


well then the iPad mini, would be the gateway drug to iPad's just as the iPod is to the iPhone.

I guess I was speaking from my experience when I was getting the 64gb 3G iPad. Had to think for a couple days if I want to spend a little more for a full featured MacBook Air.

But going to your example, it's not comparing pens to highlighters, the iPod touch and iPad have similar functions. What can you do on the iPad that you can't on the iPod touch? You can't write with a highlighter... It generally just comes down to screen size and price, but serves the same media consumption purposes.

But in the end, as a consumer, do I want the iPad mini as another option? Heck yeah!

 

[nate13]

I agree that an option for a smaller iPad would be a great strategy. Some simply do not like how large the iPad is. If they were to scale it down to the 7.85" it now has the ease of being carried in a woman's purse or even a glove box, just to give a few examples. As stated in the original post, the children topic is extremely valid. Tablets are the future and gaming is huge for modern children. Putting a portable gaming device with much better capabilities within the price range for parents is a great idea. Plus, now you have a new generation already accustomed to and secured into Apple products.

Yes, make a smaller iPad.

 

[JMies419]

I would buy one, immediately.

 

[bembol]

I really like the size of the Playbook, Fire, Tab 7.0 Plus because it is a lot portable than an iPad.

+1 One of the reasons why I sold my 64GB iPad One 3G and picked up the 64GB PlayBook. Portability.

 

[M87]

No, I don't want a smaller iPad. I wouldn't mind a slightly bigger iPhone though.

 

[poloponies]

How does offing a $299 miniPad eat into the iPad sale figures when most of those potential miniPad buyers were never going to buy your $500 iPad in the first place? The Touch/iPhone combo seems to have been very successfully for Apple...I don't see why a similar miniPad/iPad combo wouldn't be just as successful...

You can't just blindly jump to that conclusion. The iPhone and iPod Touch are discrete devices tapping into different markets. A "mini" iPad that is functionally identical doesn't differentiate itself from the existing iPad. A parent buying an iPad or any consumer deciding between the $499 device and one that's $100 less ($299 is fantasyland) and nearly identical in functionality would more than likely save the $100. It's one thing to say a $399 Android is tapping into a different market but a $399 smaller iPad vs a $499 iPad is just too similar.

 

[Night Spring]

You can't just blindly jump to that conclusion. The iPhone and iPod Touch are discrete devices tapping into different markets. A "mini" iPad that is functionally identical doesn't differentiate itself from the existing iPad. A parent buying an iPad or any consumer deciding between the $499 device and one that's $100 less ($299 is fantasyland) and nearly identical in functionality would more than likely save the $100. It's one thing to say a $399 Android is tapping into a different market but a $399 smaller iPad vs a $499 iPad is just too similar.

Exactly. You also have to take into account the phenomena of consumer mind freeze -- if you are presented with too many choices and can't make up your mind on which one is better for you, you end up not buying anything. So if Apple makes a 7 inch iPad, yes, there are a certain number of people who definitely wants the smaller size and will buy that. But the question becomes is that number big enough to offset the number who can't make up their minds and as a result buys nothing?

 

[mwulf67]

You can't just blindly jump to that conclusion. The iPhone and iPod Touch are discrete devices tapping into different markets. A "mini" iPad that is functionally identical doesn't differentiate itself from the existing iPad. A parent buying an iPad or any consumer deciding between the $499 device and one that's $100 less ($299 is fantasyland) and nearly identical in functionality would more than likely save the $100. It's one thing to say a $399 Android is tapping into a different market but a $399 smaller iPad vs a $499 iPad is just too similar.

A $399 miniPad vs a $499 iPad? Totally agree; bad business, stupid idea...

The problem is that's not what we're talking about nor is that what you said in post #58....in that post, you said "even if it were" possible to have a $299 miniPad selling alongside the standard $499 iPad, it would still be a bad idea...the whole point (for me away) in making a smaller sized miniPad is to reach that magically under $300 price mark...hit that mark, and millions upon millions of parents start buying these things for their kids, just like they did with the Touch; just like they do with game systems...price it a $399 and you don't have to worry about parents deciding between a $399 miniPad and $499 iPad, because at those prices its still dead on arrival for most parents...at those prices, that parental conversation never even happens...

On the flip side, I don't think the sales of the standard iPad will be damaged by a smaller, cheaper miniPad...I believe most iPad consumers will still be willing to pay a premium price for a bigger, better screen, faster chip, better performance, etc...

But you say a $299 miniPad is fantasyland...ok, fair enough...I will take your random guy on the internet word for it...

 

[poloponies]

But you say a $299 miniPad is fantasyland...ok, fair enough...I will take your random guy on the internet word for it...

Random guy or not, these components ain't cheap. There's simply no way to get component pricing below $200, which is where it would need to be to get anywhere near $299. The mid-range iPad2 3G weighs in at $320+, assuming the low-end is somewhere around $275, reducing the display size doesn't automatically drop the component costs by half. Ballpark it at about $220 (which is just a tad higher than Amazon is component-cost-wise with the Kindle Fire) - and that's probably a lowball estimate. Apple is not going to price a product that costs more than $200 in parts alone at $299. That's not their business model.

They didn't go after the $399 netbook market and they aren't going after a $299 tablet market.

 

[Shadyriley]

They should make a one inch iPad

 

[JMies419]

They should make a one inch iPad

 

[redscull]

they are looking for a viable, cheaper alternative...if Apple doesn't provide it; someone else will...I see no logical business reason to ignore this potential lucrative market (they didn't do it before with the Touch, why now?)...

Apple doesn't try to compete in all markets. And that, precisely, is their logical business reasoning. Not all markets are worth being in. The cheap tablet market is not lucrative. The cheap netbook market wasn't lucrative. And, as much as I struggle to believe this, being a gamer, the desktop computer market isn't lucrative either (thus why every Apple computer, except the ancient and overpriced Pro, uses only laptop components).

I wish Apple would just re-name the iPod Touch to iPad Mini. It is significantly more like an iPad/iPhone than it is an iPod. And it's not even the only iPod with a touch interface. It's truly a terrible name. Call it an iPad Mini and consumers looking for a cheaper iPad will get a product that fits their needs perfectly.

If Apple does decide to play in the mid-sized (7") tablet market, all they really have to do is take the guts from the iPod Touch and stick them in a frame with a bigger screen. I would find it seriously hard to believe that you couldn't use the internals from the current generation iPod Touch to power a 7" 1024x768 screen with very similar overall performance to the iPod Touch. You don't have to shrink an iPad; enlarging a Touch would suffice and hit that elusive price point more easily.

 

[BergerFan]

If there's to be an iPad with a smaller screen, that would require every app and the core OS to have resized user interface elements, toolbars, etc, as the shrunken screen would mean the existing UI elements will also be too small.
Basically, they'd have to be sized up to remain 'finger friendly' in terms of their size in millimeters.

That reeks of fragmentation.
iOS only deals in direct doubling of the pixels, to ensure clarity. scaling-up, will result in fuzzy elements, which just ain't gonna fly.