16 gb iPad mini price: $329
16 gb iPhone (full retail) price: $649
Any other questions as to why they don't have the same internals?
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.
iPad mini I just returned my Mini and here is why
- Thread starter Quixotic3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
16 gb iPad mini price: $329
16 gb iPhone (full retail) price: $649
Any other questions as to why they don't have the same internals?
Not that it really matters at this point, but it's just mind boggling that people continue to believe this nonsense. Whole new processor, twice the ram, new camera with autofocus and video, first oleophobic screen, 7.2 Mbps 3G vs 3.6, Bluetooth 2.1 vs 2.0, compass, and a better battery.
iPhone 3G choked on iOS 4, while 3GS can run 6 pretty well. The difference was quite significant.
Shouldn't? Based on what?
Look at the iPod mini or iPod nano or iPod shuffle.
Or the Mac mini.
Or the iPad 2.
Or the iPhone 3GS.
Apple continually sells lower priced, less capable hardware to hit lower price points. This isn't a new concept.
The small size of website text is purely down to a lack of testing on the web designers side. Modern web design uses a technique called responsive design. Simply put, the designer adds break points for certain browser window sizes and adjusts content around these sizes.
Of course, a lot of large websites aren't built responsively at all, meaning you will end up zooming. If a site is built responsively there is no need for a "mobile site" it's all one site, just displayed more sympathetically. This is likely a problem on all 7 inch tablets, though not quite as pronounced on higher res screens, the actual text size will still physically be too small.
So, blame either the web designer because they're using old practices or the owners of the site because they're too tight to pay to have their site built properly.
Exactly, the blind brand/device supporters cry over any honest criticism.
----------
Let's look at the bigger picture.
32gb iPod Touch 5th Generation (retina) price: $299
16gb iPad with retina display price: $499
Neither of those devices use the 326ppi screen needed for a Retina Display iPad Mini. Product that isn't readily on hand will cost more to build. The panels on the new iPod and on the iPad have been around for some time now.
It's less blind brand loyalty and more understanding high school level economics.
Perfect example! Same processor, same cameras, and slightly lower resolution than the iPad mini for $30 less.
Makes perfect sense!A iPad mini at the same resolution as the iPad 3 or 4 would be the same pixel density as a retina iPhone or iPod touch (326 ppi).
Perfect example! Same processor, same cameras, and slightly lower resolution than the iPad mini for $30 less.
Err... The iPod touch has twice the memory and a retina 326ppi display for $30 less than the mini.
The iPod touch 5 has an A5 and 512 ram, just like the mini. Also the same camera. The iPad 4, meanwhile, is at an entirely different proce point (50% more expensive). So thanks for making my point.
----------
They have the same amount of memory, 512 mb. And the post I was quoting above specifically said "retina display aside."
Yep. Not sure how that changes my point.
----------
He was referring to flash storage.
Oh, ok. Well, it doesn't really matter. The point is a simple one: apple's high end iOS devices (iPad 4, iPhone 5) use higher end internals, and the lower end (iPod touch, iPad mini) use lower end/older. This makes perfect sense, and I'm not sure why anyone would think a device that's 1/2 or 2/3 the cost is going to make no compromises as compared to a high end device.
From Cult of Mac:
"Why An iPad Mini With Retina Display Would Have Cost $379"
http://www.cultofmac.com/201118/why-an-ipad-mini-with-retina-display-would-have-cost-379-feature/
"Why An iPad Mini With Retina Display Would Have Cost $379"
http://www.cultofmac.com/201118/why-an-ipad-mini-with-retina-display-would-have-cost-379-feature/
No it couldn't have. The whole article is made up with numbers based on theory. A 7.9" retina display simply doesn't exist. If the iPhone 4 technology could easily be scaled up, we wouldn't have an iPad 3/4 with battery sucking retina display. It would have used this lower power display.
Just finished the article... besides stating that the entire pricing scheme are assumptions and that the parts might not even be readily available yet.
He states that the iPad Mini would be both heavier AND thicker:
.2 of an inch is nearly DOUBLE the thickness of the iPad Mini (it's .28 of an inch)!
And 20grams is just 5g short of being the weight difference between the iPhone 4S and the iPhone 5 (it's 25g for you math impaired) which was a surprisingly staggering difference in hand.
I for one prefer the lightness, thinness and price point of the way it is. Come back when it can stay .28 only gain 5 grams max and stay the same price with Retina next year.
I wonder why the author of the article is writing for Cult of Mac and not running the Apple engineering department. Seems they could use the help since they obviously have no clue...
I returned my iPad Mini. It was ok, but I really still prefer my iPad 2 with Verizon 3G. It is nice to take places and not have to worry about wi-fi. I figured since I'd hardly touched the iPad Mini all week, I didn't need to to keep it and could put the money towards something else.
The iPad Mini has 4 times the volume of the iPhone 4S to stuff battery into (actually a little more, since stuff like the PCB and the antenna won't get bigger) and 4 times the screen size.... hmm.
Simple engineering would tell you that it would be easy to make a 7.9-inch Retina display work in the iPad Mini.
I'm an electrical engineer so I can tell you it's not that simple. Manufacturing of silicon based devices doesn't always scale. If you think the iPhone display could be easily scaled to 7.9", why not 9.7"? The iPad 3/4 uses a completely different based display which requires much more battery (due to 2x the number of backlights). If such a display were possible, it would likely be used on the mini. The simple fact is such a display doesn't exist yet. Next year, maybe. Today, no.
You put your credentials here like it matters. While we're comparing epeen sizes i have a BS and an MS from a top 10 EE school. The light flux that you need to go through a display to hit a target brightness is largely determined by the distance between the electrodes that drive the display. The PPI is a measurement of the distance between those electrodes. A larger screen at the same PPI doesn't magically require a higher flux density.
Since the screen size has quadrupled, you can estimated that the backlight will use 4 times the power. The battery in reality will be somewhat larger than 4 times its original capacity.
The only reason why this display doesn't exist is because Apple doesn't manufacturer it. It is not a technological barrier.
I used mine 3 days and promptly returned it and bought a 4. I am very happy with my decision. Once the mini come out with retina I will be getting another though. I love the size and weight of it.