Retina iPad Mini Unlikely to See Widespread Availability in 2013

syd430 said:
This is what Steve was good for. He would of told his team to buckle down and make it happen. Next year would not have been good enough.

Then again Steve wouldn't have released a non-retina iPad mini in the first place.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue do you? The Mini was absolutely being worked on when Steve died, he would have known all about it.
 
Just because some analyst says it doesn't make it so. Remember the "grotesquely low" supplies of the iPhone 5S right before they went on to sell more than ever the opening weekend?
 
mbh said:
Just because some analyst says it doesn't make it so. Remember the "grotesquely low" supplies of the iPhone 5S right before they went on to sell more than ever the opening weekend?
Click to expand...

Good point. I hope this rumor is wrong. I am hoping to pick up an iPad Mini soon.
 
Here's a guess for the next iPad mini.
Not the retina display we're all hoping for, but enough additions and an $50 price cut across the board to drive sales during the upcoming holiday season.

-upgraded processor (2x faster! or something along those lines)
-new space grey and gold models
-TouchID
-no retina
-16gb for $279
-32gb for $379
-64gb for $479
 
Step 1. Leak that supplies will be tight on new product before it's even announced.
Step 2. Announce new product to be released for Christmas rush.
Step 3. Reap the profits of a massive inflated rush on new product.
 
absurdamerica said:
You don't have a clue do you? The Mini was absolutely being worked on when Steve died, he would have known all about it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Steve would have released a non-retina iPad a year after introducing the iPad 3. I'm assuming you're basing your comment on a vague statement Tim made a year ago about Steve's view on a smaller screen size. Nothing was said about resolution. And no, the rumour that Steve set in to motion the product pipeline for the next few years doesn't really mean anything as realistically many of the products would have been revised since then, especially when running in to engineering challenges.
 
I believe we talked about this before now with another product.

If there was widespread belief in a "spec" of an Apple product, to the point Apple knew there would be MAJOR disappointment on launch day.

Apple are not stupid.

They would leak stories like crazy to kill general expectations of this "spec" that they won't have to show. they won't let hype build up, onto to get an overwhelming sign from all at their launch event.

Trust me, if there is no retina mini, then these stories will flow heavy before the Apple event to try and kill everyone expectations.
 
Man they are having trouble getting these up and running. It will never affect their sales much, they seem to be one step ahead even when we think they are one step behind....
 
Mistrblank said:
Step 1. Leak that supplies will be tight on new product before it's even announced.
Step 2. Announce new product to be released for Christmas rush.
Step 3. Reap the profits of a massive inflated rush on new product.
Click to expand...

There is no leaking that occurs, there's simply too much speculation in the public for them to *have* to leak anything - the speculation provides a huge amount of buzz, just look at all the contradictions and conflicting information out there (one week it's, "retina is coming," the next it's, "no retina till next year"), if these were leaks they'd all say the same things, what's the point of leaking something if someone out there is wrong, the whole point of a leak will be to ensure people have the *correct* information - which no one comes close to 100% accuracy ever.

Apple isn't involved in some conspiracy regarding leaks - these are busy people with jobs that are about promoting and selling *today's* products without having to worry about products that aren't released yet. The PR department will of course know a mini is being released at some point, but that's all they'll know - they will not have been given any details.
 
Last edited:
guzhogi said:
I get the feeling a part of the problem is if the Mini gets double the resolution, won't it be the same resolution as the full size iPad?
Click to expand...

Doesn't need double the res to be retina, it's like 85% there already. And for most folks looks damn good. Doubling the resolution would be a major power drain. The A7/M7 combo may not be efficient enough to handle the additional need.

And THAT, not some supply issue BS is why we won't get a retina mini if that is what happens.
 
IbisDoc said:
Once they realized that Google had made the current mini even more obsolete than it already was, they just didn't have enough time to produce a retina mini.
Click to expand...


The Nexus 7 is amazing, and it is a compelling value compared to the iPadMini. But I don't think it made the iPad obsolete - the two products are very different.

The Nexus uses a normal aspect ratio while the iPad uses the old black-and-white-TV aspect ratio. You cannot get that aspect ratio with the Nexus. So if somebody would want to use a 4:3 aspect ratio (maybe because they rarely watch video?) then the iPad is a good choice. Besides, nothing formatted in 4:3 is high def anyways, so having a retina screen makes little difference.

And all those iTunes "casual gaming" apps are formatted for 4:3, so the advantages of widescreen are not realized when using those apps.

The iPhone has started using a standard aspect ratio, but I don't see the iPad or the iMini doing so any time soon. So for playing casual games and watching old TV shows it is a good platform, and it is not obsolete yet. The profit that Apple rakes in proves that much.
 
Last edited:
Mistrblank said:
Step 1. Leak that supplies will be tight on new product before it's even announced.
Step 2. Announce new product to be released for Christmas rush.
Step 3. Reap the profits of a massive inflated rush on new product.
Click to expand...

How will a leak of tight supplies maximise profits? Please think it through. Do you really think that that would compensate for the amount of people that would opt to buy something else in stead?

It's ridiculous how people here see a "grand psychological strategy" behind everything that Apple does.

edit: what WilliamLondon says a few posts above.
 
iMcLovin said:
I think its pathetic. Currently and for some time now, apple hasn´t sold the mac pro in any european stores. In scandinavia you can only buy the 4s iphone currently, and nobody knows when they will make the iphone 5s or 5c available. and, now most probable they will stop selling old ipads once the new one is released, but without any release date for most countries.

So that means that for scandinavians, we will not be able to buy an ipad, or a iphone or a mac pro for months before xmas (so most of what apple makes money on is unavailable in their stores)....that´s serious delivery problems....most companies got this in order before they release anything, or at least they have a release date we can rely on. It´s sad really.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same thing is happening in Switzerland. Add to that that, new iOS7 has a wonderful (Mavericks will have it as well) NON WORKING function called iTunes Radio.
 
technopimp said:
You've pretty much hit all of those points right on the head. As (sometimes) disappointing and frustrating as it can be for the hard-core techies or enthusiasts to eagerly await a new product announcement only to find about 40% of what they thought "should" be included, it's in Apple's best interest to plod somewhat slowly forward.

They know a lot of people are going to buy whatever new iThing they put out every year no matter what, so there's not a ton of incentive to make the 2013 iWhatever the end-all-be-all in terms of technology. The Mini was (if I'm not mistaken) about their best selling iPad ever, and it was basically an iPad 2 but smaller. They knew they'd sell millions even without the added cost and difficulty of a Retina display. If the mini 2 DOESN'T have a Retina display, they'll still sell tons of them...AND will sell tons even to the same people when the 3 or whatever comes out with a new display.

It's a fine line between leveraging their brand juggernaut and milking money out of their loyal supporters. At the end of the day, no one is forcing any of us to buy the new iWhatever, but it might be nice once in a while for them to throw us a bone since they're effectively just printing money at this point.

I'd personally like to see a shift to US manufacturing for as much as possible without impacting their prices, as again there's a fine line between building shareholder wealth and voracious greed.
Click to expand...

I disagree. When the iPad 1 came out, the next logical step, following computer tradition, was to up the specs in terms of performance. That was the iPad 2. It was considered speedier and generally a much better experience. It was also slimmer, lighter and had longer battery life.
Then Apple decided that the next improvement for customer experience would be improved screen resolution. So along came iPad 3 with all the same internals as the 2, but with more graphical horsepower to drive the higher resolution, aka 4x the pixels. This turned out to be a compromise in weight and thickness, as well as battery life, so the call for the iPad 4 with a more efficient chipset and also better performance was rather expected.

The iPad mini however was never considered too slow, too short on battery life or too heavy or big. So the only thing that could potentially foster the interest of millions of happy owners/buyers again would be to go with the resolution bump, much like the iPad 3 from the 2.

Only this time they won't want to compromise on battery life, size or weight if at all possible.

I thus agree with the pundits that it is more likely the release will be delayed to eventually deliver the "real deal" than coming up with some stupid speed bump that nobody really feels is necessary from the current mini.

It's either going to be completely revamped retina mini, or it's not going to be a release at all. Anything else wouldn't make any sense, neither strategically nor economically.
 
Rogifan said:
Steve introduced 2 generations of non-retina iPad's after the retina iPhone was introduced.
Click to expand...

Not exactly correct.

The iPad 1 was unveiled and released BEFORE the iPhone 4, making the iPad 2 the only iPad released (by Steve Jobs) after the first retina iPhone.
 
goodcow said:
Steve released the 1st gen. iPad with the unacceptable 256MB of RAM. That thing ran like a dog by the first OS upgrade.
Click to expand...

Ol' Steve liked design and experience, not specs. Specs cost money and he did not think people needed more than what he offered. My early Apple TV and Time Capsule both died of heat exhaustion, clearly way too hot, but I knew that this was a Steve thing. He wanted it quiet, small and with no visible cooling slots or ducts that would detract from the looks.
 
Surly with the WSJ (the supposed unofficial Apple mouthpiece) stating that the next mini will have retina, most of these other "commentators" have some serious credibility issues?

This seems like an article for the sake of, to me.
 
guzhogi said:
I get the feeling a part of the problem is if the Mini gets double the resolution, won't it be the same resolution as the full size iPad?
Click to expand...

It would be the same resolution (number of pixels) but would have a higher ppi (pixels per inch)

iPad mini is currently 163 ppi at 1024x768 resolution on a 7.9 inch screen
iPad 2 is currently 132 ppi with the same 1024x768 resolution on a 9.7 inch screen
iPad 4 is currently 264 ppi at 2048x1536 resolution on a 9.7 inch screen

an iPad mini with retina display of 2048x1536 resolution on a 7.9 inch screen would have 324 ppi (about the same as iPhone) so actually a much "better" screen than a full size iPad (unless iPad 5 goes to 4096x3072, but that is just silly)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top