How will Apple cripple the mini iPad to get to the lower price point?

[Abazigal]

Does IOS already take up like 5-7gb of space? That doesn't really leave any space left for the user on 8gb of flash.

The ipad2 is already $399, so they will likely take out the back camera (the quality was crap anyways), and I assume that some of the parts (like the screen, battery, raw materials) will cost less by virtue of being smaller-sized. They were willing to take a small hit on margins with the new ipad to keep to the original price point, so I can see them willing to earn a little less to lower the price to $299?

At this point, even though it may still be more expensive than other tablets, the difference might be so little that most people will not mind shelling out a little extra for that "apple tax".

 

[darngooddesign]

Does IOS already take up like 5-7gb of space? That doesn't really leave any space left for the user on 8gb of flash.

That doesn't make any sense if you think about it. iOS 5 is reported to be ebtween 500MB and 700MB.

 

[Abazigal]

That doesn't make any sense if you think about it. iOS 5 is reported to be ebtween 500MB and 700MB.

Does that include the space of all the stock apps? I know that when my new ipad arrived, it had like 57 out of 64gb of flash left?

 

[Zach Vega]

I really don't wanna see Apple come out with a Mini iPad. But the lower resolution is most likely.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Instead of a multi-touch glass screen, they could go for a crayon drawing with rainbows!

 

[Skika]

It's gonna be an iPad 2 with a smaller screen, 16GB only, at $299. That's it. Same resolution and aspect ratio, even, just shrunk down. Maybe a non-IPS display. The iPad 2 will stick around at the current price.

Next year, when the "iPad 4" is released, the "iPad 3" drops to $399. Retina iPad mini in Fall 2013.

Never.

 

[Booji]

It's gonna be an iPad 2 with a smaller screen, 16GB only, at $299. That's it. Same resolution and aspect ratio, even, just shrunk down. Maybe a non-IPS display. The iPad 2 will stick around at the current price.

Next year, when the "iPad 4" is released, the "iPad 3" drops to $399. Retina iPad mini in Fall 2013.

I think that's the most likely scenario. I would not call such a product "crippled" simply because its not the high-end option.

 

[animatedude]

-Non Retina Display
-No Cameras leave that to the 9 inch sugar daddy.
-8 GB

 

[kyle2194]

Am i the only one that thinks it will be a retina display? They could use the same production lines as the iPhone 4/s to get a 2048x1536 at 7.85 inches. Surely they can make them cheap enough now. I really don't think Apple will be crippling a product...

 

[gorskiegangsta]

8GB of RAM?!?! That would be insane iPad 3 only has 1GB.

 

[MythicFrost]

They won't cripple it. It's just going to be a smaller iPad 2 -- same resolution, IPS display, A5 at 32nm. Simple.

 

[perpenso]

1024x768 on 7" will be retina-like

It will have the resolution of the original iPad - ie, 1024x768. Not Retina. Which won't look too bad on the smaller sized screen.

1024x768 on 7" will be retina-like. "Retina" is not the resolution, it is the pixels per inch (PPI). It may not match the PPI of the iPad 3rd gen but it will be heading in that direction. maybe something in the neighborhood of 180 PPI. The iPad 2 is 132 PPI and the iPad 3rd gen is 264 PPI.

 

[screensaver400]

1024x768 on 7" will be retina-like. "Retina" is not the resolution, it is the pixels per inch (PPI). It may not match the PPI of the iPad 3rd gen but it will be heading in that direction. maybe something in the neighborhood of 180 PPI. The iPad 2 is 132 PPI and the iPad 3rd gen is 264 PPI.

It will be 163ppi at 7.85", giving it the exact same pixel density as the non-retina iPhones.

 

[iMacFarlane]

This one's actually got me stumped. Looking between an 8GB iPod Touch ($199) and and 16GB iPad 2 ($399), Apple's got $200 of wiggle room for twice the memory and significant hardware improvement / size increases. So, will reducing the size to the middle ground between these devices be enough to keep profit margins where they want them? I don't know, but it seems pretty imperative that they shoot for $249 - $299 pricing point to keep the deal real.

 

[i0Nic]

1024x768 on 7" will be retina-like. "Retina" is not the resolution, it is the pixels per inch (PPI). It may not match the PPI of the iPad 3rd gen but it will be heading in that direction. maybe something in the neighborhood of 180 PPI. The iPad 2 is 132 PPI and the iPad 3rd gen is 264 PPI.

That's exactly what I meant by saying 'it won't look too bad on the smaller screen'. The rest of what you said is implied.

Though you're still wrong about it being Retina-like at 1024x768, especially if the device is 7.85 inches not 7 inches. Probably around the 160-170 PPI mark.

----------

It will be 163ppi at 7.85", giving it the exact same pixel density as the non-retina iPhones.

True, but also since you hold the tablet a bit further away it should look a bit more 'retina-like' than the non-retina iPhones. That's what I'm hoping for, anyway.

----------

This one's actually got me stumped. Looking between an 8GB iPod Touch ($199) and and 16GB iPad 2 ($399), Apple's got $200 of wiggle room for twice the memory and significant hardware improvement / size increases. So, will reducing the size to the middle ground between these devices be enough to keep profit margins where they want them? I don't know, but it seems pretty imperative that they shoot for $249 - $299 pricing point to keep the deal real.

That's easy.

iPod touch from $199
iPad mini $199, $299, $399 (8gb, 16gb, 32gb)
iPad 2 from $399
iPad 3 from $499 (16gb, 32gb, 64gb)

$100 storage bumps on devices. Apple won't make much on the $199 iPad mini, but they'll more than make up for it with the up-sell to higher storage mini's.

iPad mini 8gb is same price as $199 iPod touch - some people will pay a premium for the smaller form factor plus the rear facing camera which the iPad mini won't have.

Tablet at every price point and size.

I think it's interesting what they do with the iPod touch. I expect they keep it around with minor bumps, but eventually it will be a dead product with cheaper iPhones taking up the low-end instead (iPhone 4).

 

[perpenso]

It will be 163ppi at 7.85", giving it the exact same pixel density as the non-retina iPhones.

I think the size reduction from the current design needs to be a little greater than that. That is why I expect the use of retina tech/process to a minor degree, 183ppi, and the reason a "mini" was ruled out pre-retina.

 

[screensaver400]

I think the size reduction from the current design needs to be a little greater than that. That is why I expect the use of retina tech/process to a minor degree, 183ppi, and the reason a "mini" was ruled out pre-retina.

There is no such thing as "retina tech/process." Retina is an Apple marketing term that denotes a display with a pixel density sufficient to prevent the perception of individual pixels by average users at a typical viewing distance. There's no pixie dust, and no magic number that makes a display "retina."

If you do any size smaller than 7.85" at 1024x768 (or very close), you start to get problems. That combination yields a display and interface that both runs existing iPad apps, and keeps tap targets identically sized to those of the iPhone, assuming developers followed Apple's user interface guidelines.

This is possible because the iPad interface guidelines effectively made tap targets larger than strictly necessary with a 1024x768 display at 9.7", using the size standard established with the iPhone.

The iPad mini will probably be branded as the 8" iPad, and the larger model as the 10" iPad. Apple currently sells 11" and 13" MacBook Airs, which are proportionally closer in size than 8" and 10" iPads would be.

 

[perpenso]

There is no such thing as "retina tech/process." Retina is an Apple marketing term that denotes a display with a pixel density sufficient to prevent the perception of individual pixels by average users at a typical viewing distance. There's no pixie dust, and no magic number that makes a display "retina."

Sorry. I assumed readers would understand that "process" refers to the manufacturing process by which electronic circuits are made. That as processes are improved we are able to manufacture a given electronic circuit on a smaller scale. Process improvements are an important part of making CPUs faster, GPUs more capable and displays achieve greater pixel density. For those interested the manufacturing process for a retina display is called “a-Si TFT”.

If you do any size smaller than 7.85" at 1024x768 (or very close), you start to get problems. That combination yields a display and interface that both runs existing iPad apps, and keeps tap targets identically sized to those of the iPhone, assuming developers followed Apple's user interface guidelines.

183 PPI would only reduce these tap targets by 12%. Plus we don't know anything about the underlying touch sensors. If these sensors are improved and offer even modestly improved precision then the minor reduction in tap target size would be largely offset.

The iPad mini will probably be branded as the 8" iPad, and the larger model as the 10" iPad. Apple currently sells 11" and 13" MacBook Airs, which are proportionally closer in size than 8" and 10" iPads would be.

I'm not sure that is a good analogy. The MacBook Airs have different screen resolutions and many other material differences not applicable to tablets.

 

[Redbeard25]

So, pretty good call all.

However, the 8GB, one camera, no LTE and A4 predictions were off.

 

[haruhiko]

Smaller display 7"

1024 x 768 resolution

Same cameras, GPU, CPU and Ram from iPad2 since they are already in the pipeline and cheaper from scale.

You got most of them right! Bravo!