This isn't even rumour, just speculation. Pretty much the same stuff from September. As much as I'm a fan of the iPad Mini 4, there doesn't seem to be anything solid pointing to a new 7.9" iPad right now.
The link the OP provided is a rumor. And isn't a rumor considered speculation, or vice versa? It Appears to me it's one in the same. As MacRumors goes, there hasn't been much of anything that I've seen for an iPad mini refresh. I would say at this junction, I don't believe we will see one.
I bought the Mini 4 as soon as it was released. My money is ready for the next iteration. Apple knows that.
There was no substantial Sept of 2015 either. It just popped up but yeah, possibly in Sept rather than the spring.The lack of substantial rumours makes me think that there won't be a new Mini this winter/spring, but rather, in October or November in the gap between the next iPhone launch and the holidays.
There was no substantial Sept of 2015 either. It just popped up but yeah, possibly in Sept rather than the spring.
If the rumored 10.5" bezel-less ipad is the same physical size as the 9.7" perhaps a future bezel-less 9.7" ipad will become the new mini. I dunno. But I do hope the mini gets a pro version. In Apples quarterly report they admitted the iPad mini was selling better than the pros. So for those saying Apple will drop the mini cause it's not selling is false. Guess we'll find out soon enough.
People are arguing for many years with exactly these arguments for a headless Mac between mini and Pro, but until now Apple did not subscribe to this point of view.i cant see a single reason why they'd abandon the mini category. they'd be leaving a gap in their inventory and loosing out revenue to other firms when the consumer wants a mini sized tablet.
People are arguing for many years with exactly these arguments for a headless Mac between mini and Pro, but until now Apple did not subscribe to this point of view.
Ummm - you misunderstood my post.Except there is no gap for the Mac:
Apple spends lots of money on market research - if they saw a true market (not just five guys arguing on a forum) they'd make the machine. [...]
It's the same with the iPad mini - if they drop it, it means they simply didn't see a sustainable market for a device of that category. Having said that, the Mini sells pretty well, but it's more about future market than current market.
Ummm - you misunderstood my post.
Even though I don't share the view of the iMac being a sufficient machine for the mid-range part of the portfolio (plus: pulling out of the monitor business could affect the iMac as well), I just wanted to give the other poster an example of Apple not necessarily sharing the same view of users bringing arguments. Because they have a different, most probably more complete market view (not to mention internal strategies, cost calculations, resource assignments etc.) than any single person.
And thus could pretty well cease to offer an iPad mini, despite individual users not seeing the point in doing so.
One could argue that quite some Apple products are way overpriced, yet they still sell quite well. Before Apple decided to neglect the monitor business, their displays were not inexpensive, either, but - according to many people - offered a good price/performance/quality ratio.Apple's stand-alone monitors didn't sell well because they were way over-priced.
For me, the question is whether Apple will be able to prevent loss of knowledge after pulling out of the monitor business. After all, an iMac is not much more than a monitor on steroids.It won't affect the iMac.
I beg to differ.The flaw in your example was trying to compare it to an imaginary product that Apple never produced vs. a real product currently being sold.
I beg to differ.
Apple has sold quite some headless, powerful, expandable, mid-of-the-line machines in the past. The last and most famous of them was the Cube, which most probably still is one of the reasons why Apple is shying away from another attempt.
One could argue that quite some Apple products are way overpriced, yet they still sell quite well. Before Apple decided to neglect the monitor business, their displays were not inexpensive, either, but - according to many people - offered a good price/performance/quality ratio.
And they even had their USP's at various points in time: MacBook charging functionality, docking functionality, 30" size, metal housing. Even today you'd probably be hard-pressed to find a 3rd party monitor with the build quality and clean design of the Apple monitors of old.
Granted, they had their shortcomings as well, especially the lousy ergonomics. But I would not say they "didn't sell well", even without knowing detailed numbers.
For me, the question is whether Apple will be able to prevent loss of knowledge after pulling out of the monitor business. After all, an iMac is not much more than a monitor on steroids.
Also, in the past Apple had a big focus on design - and so had their customers. As multi-monitor setups are not unusual in a desktop scenario, without dedicated Apple monitors there is nothing that matches the material mix and design of an iMac.
Only the most extreme die-hard fans would purchase two or more iMacs just for a multi-monitor setting - and then this functionality isn't available anymore since the advent of Retina iMacs, anyway.
After all, an iMac is not much more than a monitor on steroids.