Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'iPad Mini' Rumors Revived with Claims of 7.85-Inch Screen

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple already sells a $200 tablet. It's called an iPod Touch. Compare it's specs against the Kindle Fire. The only measure that the Fire is better on is the screen size. Since the media doesn't think screen size matters when comparing the Fire to the iPad, then it shouldn't matter when comparing the Touch. Maybe Apple should just rebrand the Touch to IPad Mini to get the media to take notice?
 
iPad 3 debuts next year with Retina and A6...
iPad 2 drops in Price by $100 or so...
iPad 1 drops even further...
 
lol It's probably just going to be them selling iPad 2 alongside the iPad 3, just like they do with the iPhone 4/4S.

So the cheaper iPad is just the previous generation. I'd say just a WiFi model, 16GB, and since it's last years model they can price it cheaper.
 
LastLine said:
A month ago I'd have agreed.


Now that we're keeping the iPhone 3GS in the line up this year I can't see any reason they won't keep the iPad 2 when the iPad 3 comes out, it wouldn't hurt anything at all to do so.

Not saying it will, just saying - it could.
Click to expand...

Think about this... iPhone 3GS is perfect for people who mainly want an phone, but also want to experiment with some of the features iOS brings, basically pushed email and calendar and To-Do Lists.
These are people who don't really care about playing games or watching videos or surfing the net heavily. These could be compared to former BlackBerry users.
And these users either stay happy with their iPhone 3GS or start discovering all the things the iPhone could do, become power hungry and later on upgrade to the latest iPhone.

And the iPhone 3GS is not a new product created for this purpose. It's an existing product that has proven successful and has a good reputation, and it's being given a new purpose: to serve as an entry point to current iOS Products.

There's a chance Apple will keep the iPad 2, but maybe just until they run out of stock; not for long.
I don't see the iPad 1 still being manufactured. All you see is refurbished units.
 
Amazing Iceman said:
Adding a product in between would negatively affect the products above and below it (in this case the iPod Touch and iPad), making it more confusing for the consumer to decide what to buy.
Click to expand...
Yep. There's no room for a 7" tablet in Apple's product line. It's annoying for developers, and a little confusing for all but the few customers who really want a smaller tablet.

iPod, iPhone -> go in your pocket
iPad -> goes in a bag, whether it's 10" or 7"

For the vast majority of people, there's really very little distinction between a larger tablet and a slightly smaller tablet. There's little difference in use cases. Unless it's an entirely different device, like the super-lightweight e-ink Kindle, it's never going to happen.
 
brdeveloper said:
Whatever happen, I will not buy a tablet until it becomes OS independent - "bootcampable" - and I can keep a useful OS for five years. This is what happens in desktop/laptop market. I have friends who bought a Vista laptop in 2006-2007 and still have a useful computer. The same with OSX Leopard. This is not the case in the smartphone/tablet market. Aggressive programmed obsolescence is not for me.
Click to expand...

1) OS 5 goes back to 3GS... 2.5 years. Hardly 'planned obsolences'
2) its one thing to have only modest changes in a mature platform such as desktop OS's. Its quite another in an area that is in its first few years of existence (for all practical purposes.) In 10 years, yes, a mobile or tablet OS will have matured to a point where a 5-year old machine is still usable. Actually, what's not usable about a 3G now? It still makes calls. Just don't upgrade.
3) replacement every 2 years is not as big an issue for a $500 device as it is for a $1500-$2000 machine.
4) your concerns are very geek/developer-centric. Not really a big issue for the vast majority of users.
5) Apple will never become 'OS independent'. Get used to it.
 
Xendren said:
The only measure that the Fire is better on is the screen size. Since the media doesn't think screen size matters when comparing the Fire to the iPad, then it shouldn't matter when comparing the Touch. Maybe Apple should just rebrand the Touch to IPad Mini to get the media to take notice?
Click to expand...

Com'on. Apple also makes the (even smaller screen nano). Why not call it the iPad Micro?

The Fire's appeal is that it is still an ambiguous challenger to the iPad (just like the HP tablet a few months ago), that it also comes with a reasonably well-established software & media side and that it offers a big (relative) discount on price. Price matters to a lot of people- even people here. HP sold out of their "iPad killer" very quickly even after announcing no future support, no new apps, etc.

For some iPad & Fire niceties, the Touch & Phone screen is just too small. Others have proven there are buyers of an around 7" screen device. Apple should take that business rather than just give it away to those others. Just because some of us don't like the concept, it doesn't mean EVERYONE won't like it. Even within this thread, you got people (HERE!) showing enthusiasm for a smaller form iPad.
 
Amazing Iceman said:
Adding a product in between would negatively affect the products above and below it (in this case the iPod Touch and iPad), making it more confusing for the consumer to decide what to buy.
Click to expand...

The MacBook Air have 11" and 13" versions. People still buy the MacBook Pro.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the ipad 'mini' will be like the mac mini: just the guts in a tiny box and you have to attach your own screen!
 
epocx said:
PLEASE, stop posting BS!

Btw, Steve himself said that 7" is too small for a iPad.
Click to expand...

Steve was the master of the head fake.
Some seem to get their feelings all hurt when Apple comes out with something they claimed they weren't going to do.
Apple has no responsibility to disclose or even tell the truth about their future directions.
 
hleewell said:
What could you do with 8GB? My music library is already 4GB. Have 4 to 5 graphics-heavy games at 800MB each, that is 4 GB. You are left with 0GB thirsting for more storage. Don't think so.
Click to expand...
Don't play games, don't use iPad for music, currently using 2.4GB. I could see an 8GB full size iPad with no camera happening. Some companies like devices to not have cameras.

Xendren said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple already sells a $200 tablet. It's called an iPod Touch. Compare it's specs against the Kindle Fire. The only measure that the Fire is better on is the screen size. Since the media doesn't think screen size matters when comparing the Fire to the iPad, then it shouldn't matter when comparing the Touch. Maybe Apple should just rebrand the Touch to IPad Mini to get the media to take notice?
Click to expand...
If they put the iPhone 4s's camera in there, I'd get one, even if they jacked up the price a little.
 
till said:
Yep. There's no room for a 7" tablet in Apple's product line. It's annoying for developers, and a little confusing for all but the few customers who really want a smaller tablet.

iPod, iPhone -> go in your pocket
iPad -> goes in a bag, whether it's 10" or 7"

For the vast majority of people, there's really very little distinction between a larger tablet and a slightly smaller tablet. There's little difference in use cases. Unless it's an entirely different device, like the super-lightweight e-ink Kindle, it's never going to happen.
Click to expand...

Did you know that Apple makes laptops with screen sizes in 2" intervals: 11", 13", 15" and 17"? Have you not seen the crowd (even HERE!) griping for a 24" iMac because a 27" is "too big" and a 21" is "too small"? If 2" intervals in laptops is "confusing" or there are only a "few" customers who desire a smaller screen, why are Airs selling so well or why is Apple bothering with 2" screen intervals in laptops?

Unless you've surveyed the "vast majority of people", you should NOT speak for them. It may turn out that a cheaper, smaller iPad with a higher density screen (packing the same, current resolution into a smaller body) will sell a lot better than the current form factor and price point... just like smaller & cheaper Air's.
 
I think it is possible. I also think it would sell.

Apple will have done their market research, they will have also been eyeing other manufactures offerings, if there is the market, Apple will do it better than anyone else.

I'm no gamer but I think a screen just under 8" would be easier to play games on as opposed to the normal sized iPad.
 
SwiftLives said:
I don't doubt that a 7in prototype exists. I do doubt they'll release it anytime soon.

The only way I can see it as a viable product would be as an entry-level "iCloud" product with minimal physical storage. But I think that cellular data bandwidth needs to increase before that - like widespread LTE.

And a price at $199.

I also suspect Apple is taking a wait and see approach to the Kindle Fire.
Click to expand...

I just ran into this PC Magazine article that was released an hour ago.
I don't doubt there could be a market for the Kindle Fire, but it's a completely different market than the iPad market.
I don't perceive an iPad user switching to the Kindle Fire. It's like going from the Mac back to the PC.

I have a friend who recently replaced his iPhone 3GS and was telling me for a long time how much he liked what he read about Android OS, how much better than iOS it was, etc. Well, his new phone is not an Android but an iPhone 4S.

I don't believe Apple cares for a low end device like the Kindle Fire. Apple believes in convincing people their products are better, by showing the consumer how useful their products are and how these can improve their life. This belief is reflected by every commercial Ad that Apple makes.

Contrary to the MAC vs PC campaign, we no longer see Ads that compare Apple products with their competitors'.

Many of the people who are buying the Kindle Fire now will eventually buy an iPad. These will regret trying to be cheap at first.
 
if its $300-350 then I'd think about getting one. I have an imac, macbook pro, ipod classic, ipod nano, ipod shuffle, iphone 4s, appletv. I don't think I need one but if the price is good then why not. I have a $100 kindle that lets me reads books on the go but be willing to get an ipad if the price was right. Would be sweet to read magazines but not $500 sweet. I am going to wait to hear reviews on kindle fire, and if apple does come out with a under $350 ipad then I'd most likely get one.
 
lucas123 said:
8gb iPad 2 for $299 would destroy the Android tablet market.

Amazon tablet included.
Click to expand...

and would never happen.

The Android market for tablets never really existed as they are were copying Apple's size and trying to out feature them when the key was to out price them.

I have the K.Fire on order, considering what I use my iPad for screen size isn't an issue, size and weight of it is. You don't realize how large and heavy an iPad gets after awhile. You keep thinking, this thing is HEAVY, or its too big, or its to fragile.
 
fxtech said:
Not if it costs $500.
----------


They could give them away. They are raking in far more on their App Store 30%.
Click to expand...

They may be "raking in" money from the App Store, but they're making very little if any profit with only a 30% cut. Most distributors get far far more than that.
 
crzdcolombian said:
if its $300-350 then I'd think about getting one. I have an imac, macbook pro, ipod classic, ipod nano, ipod shuffle, iphone 4s, appletv. I don't think I need one but if the price is good then why not. I have a $100 kindle that lets me reads books on the go but be willing to get an ipad if the price was right. Would be sweet to read magazines but not $500 sweet. I am going to wait to hear reviews on kindle fire, and if apple does come out with a under $350 ipad then I'd most likely get one.
Click to expand...

If size is not an issue for you, why don't you buy an iPad 1? You should be able to get it for under $300. For reading magazines, it's more than what you really need, at a price you can afford.
 
I think it may be true just to get an iPad model with a lower price tag. Not everyone has $500-$800 to spend on a tablet.

If Apple were smart they'd release a lower priced tablet, even if it means cutting the size. I really think the Fire is going to take off.
 
Yr Blues said:
The MacBook Air have 11" and 13" versions. People still buy the MacBook Pro.
Click to expand...

Well, I know a lot of people who have purchased the MacBook Air in either size. I certainly wouldn't, as I consider it not powerful enough for my usage, but that doesn't make it the rule.
Each has it's own targeted market: One for people who want portability, the other for people who want performance.
Also, the MacBook Air attracts newcomers to OS X.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back