Ipad mini hardware

robertosh

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 2, 2011
677
286
France
What do you expect in terms of hardware/pricing?

I think:

* A5 chip, 512 RAM
* No retina screen, 1024x768 resolution
* Same cameras than the ipod touch 5G. (Maybe they use the crappy ipad2 cameras, i hope not)
* 16,32,64 capacity.
* 8h battery life.

Prices: 249, 349, 449 for wifi models, 349,449,549 for wifi+3g models.
 

ri0ku

macrumors 6502a
Mar 11, 2009
952
0
What do you expect in terms of hardware/pricing?

I think:

* A5 chip, 512 RAM
* No retina screen, 1024x768 resolution
* Same cameras than the ipod touch 5G. (Maybe they use the crappy ipad2 cameras, i hope not)
* 16,32,64 capacity.
* 8h battery life.

Prices: 249, 349, 449 for wifi models, 349,449,549 for wifi+3g models.
Nope because the pricing is the same or close to the ipod touch.

This is what I think will happen, they drop the iPad 2, the mini has the exact same specs as the iPad 2 except for lighting port. They sell it at the price of the iPad 2. It will come in 2 versions, at the same storage of 16gb but with a 3G option.
 

Domino8282

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2010
921
135
Southeast USA
It will come in 2 versions, at the same storage of 16gb but with a 3G option.
Hope you meant LTE... It would be silly to include 3G and not LTE. Also the new leaked parts seem to indicate a nano-sim tray consistent with LTE support.

Here's my question - how many of you that are planning to buy an iPad Mini are interested in getting an LTE version and adding it to a Mobile Share plan, and how many are planning to get the Wi-Fi only version and tether to a phone for data on the go? I could go either way...
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
I think your specs are pretty much right. I would expect about $299 for the 16GB WiFi version.

Yes that's close to the iPod touch pricing, but the two products have different tradeoffs:

Some components will be more expensive than the iPod touch (battery, case).

Some components will be the same as the iPod touch (processor, memory, ports, buttons)

Some components will probably be cheaper than the iPod touch (Display/touch/glass assembly, cameras).

One fits in your pocket and is pushing the limits of miniaturization. One does not fit in your pocket and uses mostly recycled iPad 2 components and construction methods.

Remember that the iPad 2 already sells for $399. That price was also set 6 months ago. Apple could probably sell the 16GB iPad 2 for $349 now with decent margins. The iPad Mini will have a smaller screen, smaller battery, and smaller aluminum case.
 

xraydoc

macrumors demi-god
Oct 9, 2005
7,671
1,844
192.168.1.1
I expect essentially the same processor & screen specs at the iPad 2 (32nm A5 chip, 1024x768 screen) at 8GB and 16GB capacities (given similar capacities on the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7) or possibly even 16GB only. I'm going to predict Apple will direct people who want 32GB and 64GB capacities to the full-size iPad.

I'm predicting a "Lightning" connector instead of a 30-pin connector for sure VGA front camera and 3-5MP rear camera (if it even has a rear camera).

If there's only one 16GB capacity, I'm betting on a $299 price tag for a wifi model and $379 with a cellular modem. $50 less for an 8GB model.

I also think there's a very good chance they'll kill off the iPad 2 altogether and put the 7.8" iPad in its place at $349 wifi and $429 cellular.
 

marcello696

macrumors regular
Mar 25, 2010
172
0
I also think there's a very good chance they'll kill off the iPad 2 altogether and put the 7.8" iPad in its place at $349 wifi and $429 cellular.
I think this is most likely scenario as well but I think the wifi version will start at $299
 

robertosh

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 2, 2011
677
286
France
at 8GB and 16GB capacities (given similar capacities on the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7) or possibly even 16GB only. I'm going to predict Apple will direct people who want 32GB and 64GB capacities to the full-size iPad.
good point!
 

Elec

macrumors newbie
Oct 3, 2012
14
0
Does anyone think that the 1024x768 resolution is a bit low compared to the 7" Google Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD? Those are it's direct competitors, so I would assume they would try to keep up in something like resolution. The iPad 3 excelled at resolution, I understand that the iPad mini is meant to be less expensive, but it seems like they wouldn't want to bring out a new product with such a low spec from the gate.
 

Mliii

macrumors 65816
Jan 28, 2006
1,126
4
Southern California
What do you expect in terms of hardware/pricing?

I think:

* A5 chip, 512 RAM
* No retina screen, 1024x768 resolution
* Same cameras than the ipod touch 5G. (Maybe they use the crappy ipad2 cameras, i hope not)
* 16,32,64 capacity.
* 8h battery life.

Prices: 249, 349, 449 for wifi models, 349,449,549 for wifi+3g models.
I sure hope it has a little more RAM than that... But I like the 16/32/64 capacity part of your specs! I hope you are right!
 

WLS

macrumors 65816
Jul 10, 2008
1,236
69
Does anyone think that the 1024x768 resolution is a bit low compared to the 7" Google Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD? Those are it's direct competitors, so I would assume they would try to keep up in something like resolution. The iPad 3 excelled at resolution, I understand that the iPad mini is meant to be less expensive, but it seems like they wouldn't want to bring out a new product with such a low spec from the gate.
No I don't. It's not the specs but the experience. I think Apple will introduce an incell or IGZO display which will impress everyone.
 

Elec

macrumors newbie
Oct 3, 2012
14
0
No I don't. It's not the specs but the experience. I think Apple will introduce an incell or IGZO display which will impress everyone.
Specs sell, especially from the company that has the whole "Retina" thing going as one of their biggest selling points to date.
 

mtnbikerva1

macrumors member
Sep 13, 2007
59
2
I do not want a Apple copy of the Fire Hd or N7! I want a iPad full featured that fit

I want a full featured iPad that will fit in my cargo pockets on my North Face and REI convertable pants that I wear about 6 days a week and always under my scrubs at work.
I just bought the KF HD 7" and I am NOT full of joy!
Do not forget to get all the functionality you have to spend a lot of $ buying apps that may or may not equal what you get and can get on the way too puny 4s phone. I have the 4s and want, I think a bigger version of it that fits into my cargo pockets. The screen is too damned small!!!!
 

appswipe

macrumors 6502
Aug 18, 2012
282
0
IF the iPad Mini and iPad 4 were coming out at the same time Id expect some compromised specs to differentiate them. But because this is coming out roughly half a year before the iPad 4 then it would make sense to have the Mini EXCEED the iPad 3 specs. Even if you give the Mini Retina (IGZO), A6, better cameras and bundle in EarPods then it would still only be the more powerful device for 6months. Then the high end iPad 4 shows off its stuff in April and the world makes sense again.
 
Last edited:

publicfarley

macrumors newbie
Sep 20, 2012
9
0
Exactly this.

IF the iPad Mini and iPad 4 were coming out at the same time Id expect some compromised specs to differentiate them. But because this is coming out roughly half a year before the iPad 4 then it would make sense to have the Mini EXCEED the iPad 3 specs. Even if you give the Mini Retina (IGZO), A6, better cameras and bundle in EarPods then it would still only be the more powerful device for 6months. Then the high end iPad 4 shows off its stuff in April and the world makes sense again.
 

robertosh

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 2, 2011
677
286
France
Does anyone think that the 1024x768 resolution is a bit low compared to the 7" Google Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD? Those are it's direct competitors, so I would assume they would try to keep up in something like resolution. The iPad 3 excelled at resolution, I understand that the iPad mini is meant to be less expensive, but it seems like they wouldn't want to bring out a new product with such a low spec from the gate.
but what resolution? the screen is so small for retina, and the device is small to handle the battery needed for that screen. And of course it's expensive. Creating a new resolution will be a headache for developers, cause they have to manage 6 different resolutions in their apps.. I expect 1024x768. In that resolution all iPad apps will look great, no modification needed. Also, a smaller screen with same resolution implies smaller points, so the overall aspect of the screen will be sharper than the current iPad 2.
 

ReValveiT

macrumors regular
Sep 20, 2012
116
0
No Retina. They'll save that for the iPad Mini 2.

Almost certainly a 16/9 screen though, and 1GB Ram I'd expect.
 

Bokes

macrumors 6502
Mar 4, 2008
460
9
IMO- other than size- prepare to be underwhelmed by the hardware at a premium cost.
 

Che Castro

macrumors 603
May 21, 2009
5,686
523
No Retina. They'll save that for the iPad Mini 2.

Almost certainly a 16/9 screen though, and 1GB Ram I'd expect.
Retina is not a big event like it use to be

Every already expects everything apple to have retina nowadays

So apple can't use that as a big selling point or new feature
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
Retina is not a big event like it use to be

Every already expects everything apple to have retina nowadays

So apple can't use that as a big selling point or new feature
They don't need a big selling point, they just need steady improvement while keeping prices steady.

This year skipping the retina display will help margins, which is crucial for the first generation as there are other costs that will be high.

Next year the margins won't be so tight and a retina display will make more sense for them.
 

Elec

macrumors newbie
Oct 3, 2012
14
0
but what resolution? the screen is so small for retina,
"Retina" is not a resolution, it is a PPI spec. There is no such thing as a screen being too small for Retina, or else the iPhone 4S and 5 wouldn't exist :D

and the device is small to handle the battery needed for that screen.
In what way? The iPad 3's battery works fine as does the iPhone 4S and 5. The size of the screen is more of a factor than the PPI.

And of course it's expensive. Creating a new resolution will be a headache for developers, cause they have to manage 6 different resolutions in their apps.. I expect 1024x768. In that resolution all iPad apps will look great, no modification needed. Also, a smaller screen with same resolution implies smaller points, so the overall aspect of the screen will be sharper than the current iPad 2.
Sure, it may be sharper than the iPad 2, but the iPad 3 is already out and halfway thru it's life. Why go backwards? In addition to that, why put out a product that is inferior to it's competitors? Apple has been riding the "Retina" train for a while now, so why go in the reverse direction and use a lower resolution than it's two $200 competitors?

It just doesn't make sense, not for Apple.
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
but what resolution? the screen is so small for retina, and the device is small to handle the battery needed for that screen. And of course it's expensive. Creating a new resolution will be a headache for developers, cause they have to manage 6 different resolutions in their apps.. I expect 1024x768. In that resolution all iPad apps will look great, no modification needed. Also, a smaller screen with same resolution implies smaller points, so the overall aspect of the screen will be sharper than the current iPad 2.

If it is retina, it will be 2048x1536, same as the full sized iPad. That would put the PPI at 326, the same as the retina iPhone and iPod touch.

Developers need to handle 5 resolutions in their apps already if they want to cover all iOS devices:

1) 320x480 (original iPhone/iPod touch)
2) 640x960 (iPhone / iPod touch retina)
3) 640x1136 (iPhone 5 / iPod touch 5th gen)
4) 1024x768 (iPad 1/2)
5) 2048x1536 (iPad 3rd gen)

The Mini will most likely just re-use either #4 or #5, it won't add new resolutions to support.
 
Last edited:

robertosh

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 2, 2011
677
286
France
"Retina" is not a resolution, it is a PPI spec. There is no such thing as a screen being too small for Retina, or else the iPhone 4S and 5 wouldn't exist :D
I know what is retina but sorry, I didn't explain me properly. I mean that It's small cause if they put the retina resolution on a 7.85" screen implies that they had to put inside a A5X at least, this will cause more overheating than the ipad 3 due to its lower case. Also, It will be expensive to make a screen with that resolution and size maintaining the low price.


In what way? The iPad 3's battery works fine as does the iPhone 4S and 5. The size of the screen is more of a factor than the PPI.
Sure, it may be sharper than the iPad 2, but the iPad 3 is already out and halfway thru it's life. Why go backwards? In addition to that, why put out a product that is inferior to it's competitors? Apple has been riding the "Retina" train for a while now, so why go in the reverse direction and use a lower resolution than it's two $200 competitors?
The competitors doesn't have the App Store :). It makes sense for me that if you want retina you will have to buy the full sized iPad. 1024x768 it's a good resolution for this size and aspect ratio.

It just doesn't make sense, not for Apple.
Anyway, I hope that i'm wrong and Apple releases a retina display ipad mini for 300€ :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.