Maybe the iPad mini won't have the iPad 2 or iPad 3 resolution but something in between. I know there is a lot of argument that it has to be one or the other for app developers' sake, but my friend who is a programmer scoffed at that and said it is not at all difficult to do and I'm not sure apple would feel the need to cater to app developers necessarily and cripple its iPad mini with a low ppi or bad battery life. Mind you I don't know much about this and I'll get flamed to hell, but maybe there will be an iPad mini with a ~216 to 250 ish ppi screen like the competition.
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.
Photos of 'iPad Mini' Battery Reveal 16.7 Watt-Hour Capacity
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I really wouldn't be surprised if Apple introduced an in between resolution. They clearly don't care. They introduced a new weird iPhone resolution.
Engadget has rumor that price range will be $250-$650 with 8, 32 and 64 GB models with $100 more for 3G model.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/14/apple-ipad-mini-price-models/
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/14/apple-ipad-mini-price-models/
Because Apple only deals with resolution in integer steps. It's either 163 ppi or 326 dpi.
(Assuming all the rumours are true regarding it running iPad apps in a physically smaller form because then it needs to have the exact same resolution of either the iPad 2 or the iPad 3, and given the physical dimensions that results in the PPIs I just mentioned.)
I can't understand why they would release a device with a lower resolution than current devices... especially if this is marketed as an "e-reader" (ibooks). Granted, its a smaller screen so the argument of "why need higher res" might apply but doesn't seem logical to me - but what do I know.
They are not directly competing. iPod shuffle, nano and touch (and the iPhone) are all wearable devices. The iPad mini and the iPad are not wearable devices.
What about 1536by1152? On a 7.85 would be 244 ppi.
I want to believe!
Apple so far has been very resistance on picking a native "Retina" resolution that's not doubling the old one. I suspect it's either the old iPad resolution or the new 3rd gen Retina resolution with no other possibility.
Exactly. Also the iPod Touch is a 32GB device that follows the traditional 32GB iPod Touch pricing. The new iPad Mini/Air is a new category of device. A 32GB iPad Air/Mini still might cost more than the new iPod Touch.
Well... looks like you're wrong
yea...i think that thread came within an hour after my post
----------
non retina==it will be the same price as ipod touch
I think the education market is what provides Apple incentive to produce it.
Soon almost all school districts will go to tablets with textbook licensing fees paid every year. Whoever sells to districts will get 1) initial hardware sales, 2) residual percentage from academic software sold through the ecosystem as well as yearly licensing cut from textbooks, 3) "mind share" hooking kids on iOS at a young age.
The big stumbling block for this so far has been cost of iPad being so high. It's especially hard to justify iPad vs. Kindle Fire when one is double the price of the other. $299 is the price they need to hit, and I suspect they will (institutional/bulk discount).
----------
Good chance you're right and $349(retail) is the price, although I think 299 (retail) is far more competitive for a mini.
What I can't imagine is that the Touch and Mini will be priced the same. ...Which makes it weird that the touch isn't a 249 product.
I used to think this could be true; but the iPhone 5 pretty much kills the argument. Changing aspect ratio was a significantly bigger deal in terms of coding (or "fragmentation", as people here like to mock Android over) than having non-integer differences in resolution ever was.
I think a description like this totally misses the improving ecosystem that Amazon is building and the interest of Hollywood studios and other media companies in making sure there's competition (out of self-interest).
The Kindle already has HBO GO, Hulu, & Netflix
Games are the bigger differentiator but I think for the top games will inevitably migrate.
The smaller tablet form factor (7 inch) market is developing along price lines more than feature lines and Apple can't offer enough differentiation at this point to NOT compete to some extent on price.
I thought $299 seemed like a reasonable entry point until the Touch came in at $299, which makes me very uncertain about the Mini pricing but leaning toward seeing it come higher than rumored. But I confess that Apple's pricing matrix here is confusing (hard to fit in a Mini at particular prices that make sense, if it replaces the iPad 2 that suggests a higher than people expect $399)
Apple does not face that competition in the Touch or full-size iPad, where it was the and remains a market innovator. Also, Apple has worked to keep the iPad price down through strategic supply management. Tablets that match Apple on price are inferior. Tablets that match Apple on features (aside from ecosystem) are more expensive. Even Microsoft seems to be falling into that trap.
But with the Kindle and new Nook manufacturers have figured out how to build as "almost as good" device for a lot cheaper.
Yes, Apple will sell a lot of iPad Minis but it won't dominate the market like it did for full size. It might even lose out on sales to the Nook & Kindle.
The holiday buying season will be interesting to watch.
I think they decided to give Touch a good camera and Retina in order to justify it being close to the cost of the mini.
The mini will still look solid at original iPad resolution, and there simply isn't much need of a camera. If include one on the mini I'd be surprised if it's as nice as the touch. The loop wrist strap seems to suggest they the iPod can be a point and shoot replacement.
I actually think iPhone 5 confirms my belief. Instead of changing the pixel density by a factor that's not an integer, Apple just added more real estate to it. This keeps the UI target size consistent and development is still kept pretty straight forward, relatively speaking.
Basically there has been very little indication that Apple will pick a resolution that's not a 1024 x 768 or 2048 x 1536, especially since all the rumours are pointing to a very specific 7.85" which means no aspect ratio change.
No retina, no buy. Simple as that. I don't think it's about saving the consumer money. If Apple did this, they would be doing it solely to expand their upgrade upgrade possibilities. If that's the case, Apple won't get my money.
I think Apple needs to remember their roots, get back to quality, and focus on their current products. They seem to have spread themselves too thin. Each OS launch has been worse than the last- in terms of stability, product launches occur with greater margins for error, and software development is becoming stagnant- take a look at Mac Server.
Please Apple, please- don't trade your quality for sales, because down the road, when everyone questions your quality (long time Mac users already do), you may find yourselves back in the 90's...
I understand that as a consumer you want the best thig your money can buy. What resolution would satisfy the technophiles? And is "that" resolution technically feasible. Are display manufacturers able to make said "retina" screen at 7.85" and not break the iPad app ecosystem? All I hear are alot of "I want retina" comments but no proposed solutions to make retina work for this years release. Although I do believe that the display tech by 2013 will be able to make a "retina" based display that will work for the iPads app ecosystem
I guess my question is how will 163ppi look I can't even remember life pre-retina it may not be so bad on the 7.8 in form factor, though I would love them just to introduce a new resolution that provides retina without it being as high as the iPad 3 , it may take a couple weeks for the popular apps to add "mini" support but I'd be more than willing to wait. I mean the original iPad had to start somewhere in the beginning apps were sparse but soon skyrocketed the mini would be in a even better position than the original iPad because all devs would have to do is add support for the new resolution but I'm no dev so maybe it's not that easy
Last edited:
What would people think about some type of innovative LTE pricing something along the lines of a 1GB a month price for $10 or a 1 year plan for $99 for 1GB a month.
Well I know you are wrong, perhaps you would care to wager your milk money, car payment, house mortgage or even whole house on it, and one of us will be happier then the other come October 23rd.
I used to agree with you. I was still pretty sceptical until I read this rumour. It's a part leak. The last three products that have had part leaks, all have turned out true: iPod touch 5, iPhone 5 and MacBook Pro with Retina Display.