There Is No iPhone 14 Mini: Here's Why [Updated]

[Bento.Box]

Well that's you. That doesn't mean others wouldn't. What they offered clearly didn't work.

But then they could already just buy the SE.

It makes little sense from a business perspective to offer a cheaper phone (less revenue/profit) that limits its audience further by reducing the number of use cases.

I also disagree, 10 million sold devices are hardly a failure.

 

[usagora]

That would be in a completely deregulated capitalist world. Fortunately we do not live in such a world. Boeing tried it, until planes started dropping out of the sky and got their knuckles severely rapped. We all need obligations and regulations.

Huh? Seriously, what the heck? I'm not talking about safety issues, I'm talking about catering to people's every need/desire. For example, if a lot of people, though still a minority, say, "We want an iPhone Mini for $500" does Apple have a "moral obligation" do produce that phone for them? Of course not. smh

 

[jaster2]

My friend replaced her 7s with a 13 mini because it seemed like the same size that she was used to. After a week she went back and got a 13 because for just a little more money the display was easier on the eyes and had some nice features she didn’t know she would like a lot.

 

[blairh]

No one's forcing you to read or reply to me, so it sort of falls flat to say I'm wasting your time when your'e the one choosing to "waste" it 🙄 The point of my sarcasm was to point out that it makes no sense to say there's currently a good market for a "cheaper" Mini iPhone, because if there were, Apple would be all over that. They've known for a while that the sales of the Minis weren't going as they wanted, so they've had time to develop a cheaper one if they wanted to. But I guess you only consider it "advancing the conversation" if people agree with you.

I'm not saying it will never happen, but the various factors needed to make it happen are apparently not there at this time.

Yeah dude I'm done with you. Your tone is really combative for no reason at all. You can make your points without being rude about it. I'll just reply here and never engage with you ever again on this forum.

There is indeed a market for a cheaper iPhone Mini. Apple will argue that keeping the 13 Mini in the lineup is a step in the right direction. And they may just keep it in the lineup for additional 1-2 years beyond this year so it essentially becomes just that.

They also have to contend with their true 'cheap' iPhone which is of course the SE. Some people have said that the iPhone Mini will eventually replace the SE as the cheapest entry into the iPhone lineup. (Which I think makes total sense.) But then you have Ross Young saying a new SE is coming in 2024 with a 5.7"-6.1" LCD screen. So who knows.

Perhaps Apple will offer a cheaper modern SE in the near future alongside a close in price iPhone Mini. I don't know. We will see.

And with that. Goodbye for good mate.

 

[ian87w]

Apple already pulled the price lever by selling iPhone 12 mini for $599. The demand simply isn’t there.

Look at the marketing for the XR or 11. There was virtually none yet both those ended up being the best selling smartphones globally in 2019 and 2020.

At this point, Apple has tried everything: price, performance, 5G. They even did a mid-cycle refresh by adding purple colors. Time to bid farewell and face reality. Most people want big phones for battery life and longer screen time.

Yup, the market either want a big screen or a cheap phone.

Having said that, the mini is definitely a really sleek and solid piece of hardware. Good thing Apple is still selling the 13 mini.

 

[LV426]

Huh? Seriously, what the heck? I'm not talking about safety issues, I'm talking about catering to people's every need/desire. For example, if a lot of people, though still a minority, say, "We want an iPhone Mini for $500" does Apple have a "moral obligation" do produce that phone for them? Of course not. smh

No, they don't. But here's what you said: "I absolutely disagree that a company has a moral obligation to cater to anyone's needs".

Believe it or not, there are certain. politicians who completely agree with that unqualified statement.

 

[MrAperture]

Try holding the mini in your left hand and pull down the control center shade. Yah can’t easily without shifting the hand around.

That’s what reachability is for.

 

[Bento.Box]

Yup, the market either want a big screen or a cheap phone.

Or both. Those are indeed the most common type of phones. Big screen and cheap.

 

[ian87w]

I have no desire for Apple’s new lineup of enormous phones. The 8 plus was too big, the SE is too big. So I will be looking for Android if my 13 mini dies and there isn’t a similarly sized iPhone. Might even just forego the smart phone and use my Apple Watch as a stand-alone alone device.

LOL, good luck in the Android world. The average screen size is now at about 6.5". The "small/compact " phone right now is the S22, which is the same size as the regular iphone 13.

 

[blairh]

But then they could already just buy the SE.

It makes little sense from a business perspective to offer a cheaper phone (less revenue/profit) that limits its audience further by reducing the number of use cases.

I also disagree, 10 million sold devices are hardly a failure.

The iPhone Mini is a failure. Those numbers are nothing compared to the other iPhones in the lineup. I promise you Apple would have made an iPhone 14 Mini had they been happy with the numbers of the 12 and 13 Mini.

The SE sucks mate. The screen is tiny and it still uses Touch ID. The iPhone Mini I proposed would be a huge upgrade.

Respectfully, your logic isn't sound. A cheaper iPhone also means it costs less for Apple to make. That doesn't necessarily mean less revenue/profit. Furthermore, Apple will sell more iPhone Minis by lowering the price. People didn't want a flagship iPhone Mini. They will however want something that costs less at retail and offers enough. Again, the main appeal of the iPhone Mini is the size. I truly believe consumers will be happy to sacrifice certain things (5G, Face ID, OLED, etc) in order to purchase a cheaper iPhone Mini.

 

[ian87w]

Or both. Those are indeed the most common type of phones. Big screen and cheap.

True. Xiaomi just released their cheapest phone here, and it's 6.7" in size.

Not a lot of room for a small phone anymore, regardless of price.

 

[usagora]

Yeah dude I'm done with you. Your tone is really combative for no reason at all. You can make your points without being rude about it. I'll just reply here and never engage with you ever again on this forum.

And with that. Goodbye for good mate.

LOL! I'm honestly not sure if you're joking or not this is so over-dramatic. So just because I said "I guess they should've hired you, since you apparently see something that they don't" you're completely cutting me off. Just wow. YOU were the one implying that you knew better than Apple here!

 

[Bento.Box]

The iPhone Mini is a failure. Those numbers are nothing compared to the other iPhones in the lineup. I promise you Apple would have made an iPhone 14 Mini had they been happy with the numbers of the 12 and 13 Mini.

The SE sucks mate. The screen is tiny and it still uses Touch ID. The iPhone Mini I proposed would be a huge upgrade.

Respectfully, your logic isn't sound. A cheaper iPhone also means it costs less for Apple to make. That doesn't necessarily mean less revenue/profit. Furthermore, Apple will sell more iPhone Minis by lowering the price. People didn't want a flagship iPhone Mini. They will however want something that costs less at retail and offers enough. Again, the main appeal of the iPhone Mini is the size. I truly believe consumers will be happy to sacrifice certain things (5G, Face ID, OLED, etc) in order to purchase a cheaper iPhone Mini.

I would say that Apple is a failure if they couldn't pull off a profit out of that kind of sales. Including associated sales, such as Apple Watches etc.

Your proposed iphone mini is worse than the iphone mini I have now for almost 2 years. I wouldn't buy it. Same for many others. And even if I would buy it, apple would make less revenue and probably less profit. You're telling me that this somehow would be better business than offering a better phone for more money that appeals to more people. Again, the price is not an issue, since there was/is little to no competition. If you look for an alternative phone (even with android) with the same specs and form factor, you don't find many competitive offers.

Maybe it's an apple thing to think that way. I just noticed that the smallest MacBook Pros are also the cheapest (which makes them incredibly attractive). While everywhere else, the smallest laptops are expensive and the biggest laptops are the cheapest (easier to integrate and can use less high end parts that are bigger - but of course harder to handle).

 

[mailhojo]

The iPhone 14 lineup is the first iPhone series to not include a display size below six inches, despite sticking with the 6.1-inch and 6.7-inch form factors of previous generations that included a 5.4-inch model. So why did Apple eliminate the "mini" device that some iPhone customers had come to love?

Apple debuted the iPhone 12 mini in 2020 following years of calls from iPhone fans for the company to offer a small-screen device with the latest features. When Apple did so, it was assumed that the small form factor would persist for several years – but it appears that the device has come to a premature end upon the release of the iPhone 14 lineup.

Concerns first arose when the iPhone 12 mini appeared to not be selling as well as Apple had hoped, making up just six percent of iPhone 12 sales in the U.S. in October and November 2020, according to data gathered by Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP). Counterpoint Research reported that the iPhone 12 mini accounted for only five percent of all iPhone 12 sales in the U.S. in the first half of January 2021.

Morgan Stanley believed that Apple chose to cut production of the iPhone 12 mini by two million units to create more manufacturing capacity for the more popular iPhone 12 Pro. This was mirrored by a Taiwanese report, citing supply chain sources, which said that strong demand for ‌iPhone 12 Pro‌ models in China led Apple to increase its supply of the more expensive devices.

Most strikingly, JP Morgan Chase claimed that Apple outright halted iPhone 12 mini production in the second quarter of 2021. While the sales reports for the iPhone 12 mini did not bode well for the iPhone 13 mini, Apple plans its iPhone production and supply chain operations well in advance of launch, meaning that the iPhone 13 mini was already well on the way to production by the time the issues with the iPhone 12 mini's sales were clear.

In April 2022, CIRP released more data suggesting that the iPhone 13 mini accounted for just 3 percent of iPhone 13 sales – half that of the iPhone 12 mini. These continued poor sales were likely the main reason behind the demise of the "mini" form factor iPhone.

With the iPhone 14 lineup, Apple has opted to replace the "mini" device with an all-new "Plus" device. In some respects, the iPhone 14 Plus mirrors the iPhone 12 mini, offering the latest iPhone's features in a different display size. Instead of offering a lightweight small-screen option, customers can now choose an even bigger battery and 6.7-inch display – the same size that iPhone "Max" customers have been used to for four years now at a price of $1,099 – but at a lower, $899 price point.

Article Link: There Is No iPhone 14 Mini: Here's Why

Apple's logic was that the mini was a gateway to bigger and more expensive devices so they handicapping the mini. I believe (and know I would have bought one) had they took the approach of making it a pro version, but keeping battery adequate, so many more people would have bought one. I want an iPhone that I can put in my pocket and has a great camera. I only bought the 13 pro due to what it could do, not the form factor. Had Apple found a way to make the mini comparable, hands down I would buy the mini every time (and pay more than what they are charging now. I think there are quite a few that still want a phone you can use one handed, but the power needs to match. Sounds impossible? Steve would have found a way and make you want to buy it

 

[usagora]

No, they don't. But here's what you said: "I absolutely disagree that a company has a moral obligation to cater to anyone's needs".

Believe it or not, there are certain. politicians who completely agree with that unqualified statement.

I know what I said. I still have no idea what your issue is with what I said. Your previous reply went off on aircraft safety issues, which has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[bigheaddoug]

I ordered a 13 Mini today and will likely sell my 13 Pro Max. Most of the time when I use my phone, I am in the car with CarPlay. I have an iPad on which to read, and I don't take many photos. The Pro Max is probably more than I need. I just thought I needed a big screen. Hopefully the 13 Mini will last until the folding iPhone is released.

 

[snipr125]

Everyone we still got the 13 mini in the line up, which is what we wanted and its had a slight price drop as well. If they had completely axed the Mini from the line up that would have been a travesty.

 

[XXPP]

classic when you listen to people in forums. They are loud, but don't vote with money.

 

[xxFoxtail]

Believe it or not, the X is the same width as the 14Pro, just a little shorter.

Apple iPhone 14 Pro vs Apple iPhone X - Visual phone size compare

Compare Apple iPhone 14 Pro vs Apple iPhone X sizes against each other in real-time with our phone size comparison tool.

www.phonearena.com

I didn’t even take the X’s curved edges and larger bezel into mind - trim those down and you get a bigger screen in a smaller/same size device. I’ll try my partner’s out and maybe I’ll like it. The X was just a little bit bigger than I wanted my phone to be, but I used it for three years, so I didn’t completely hate it.

 

[blairh]

Your proposed iphone mini is worse than the iphone mini I have now for almost 2 years. I wouldn't buy it. Same for many others. And even if I would buy it, apple would make less revenue and probably less profit. You're telling me that this somehow would be better business than offering a better phone for more money that appeals to more people. Again, the price is not an issue, since there was/is little to no competition. If you look for an alternative phone (even with android) with the same specs and form factor, you don't find many competitive offers.

Maybe it's an apple thing to think that way. I just noticed that the smallest MacBook Pros are also the cheapest (which makes them incredibly attractive). While everywhere else, the smallest laptops are expensive and the biggest laptops are the cheapest (easier to integrate and can use less high end parts that are bigger - but of course harder to handle).

I mean, the price was absolutely the issue. I could not disagree more with that statement. The fact that there wasn't any competition is irrelevant. People rejected the iPhone Mini. It's that simple. So Apple can either phase it out entirely in due time or give it another shot with another strategy.

Great, you wouldn't buy it. That doesn't mean countless others wouldn't buy it either. What if I told you that the iPhone Mini was not appealing to many because it was too expensive? That they simply wanted a compact iPhone but didn't need the extras that if offered? I am of the believe that that is exactly what happened. The market for a mini sized iPhone is already niche. I think we both agree on that front. But I will go one step further and state that the majority of the same people that want that small iPhone also don't want to pay a lot for it. I have the iPhone Mini 12 and 13 as exhibit 1A and 1B that we have literal proof of this.

Making a cheaper iPhone Mini (which costs Apple less to create) could equate to the same (or larger) profit margins. In the end you actually make more money because you (potentially) sell more units versus previous generations.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

The slogan for iPhone 12 was “Big News. Mini News.” Marketing wasn’t at fault here. Demand was. Not to mention iPhone 12 was a super cycle.

Apple was at fault. They absolutely destroyed the mini before it even launched.

First, Apple released the first small phone in years, the iPhone SE2.

6 months later, they released the 12 mini, and after all of the other 12 series phones launched. It has horrible battery life.

12 months later, they release the 13 mini, and from most accounts Apple finally gets it right.

But in the meantime there's already a smaller size phone, the SE2 and then SE3. They're practically identical to the 13 mini, except for a slightly different enclosure, and a few hundred dollars.

 

[sorgo †]

My friend replaced her 7s with a 13 mini because it seemed like the same size that she was used to. After a week she went back and got a 13 because for just a little more money the display was easier on the eyes and had some nice features she didn’t know she would like a lot.

Had some nice features…a larger display and more battery? Because literally nothing else is different.

 

[iRockMan1]

Not sure what you're on about with the first sentence. As to the second, wow, no I absolutely disagree that a company has a moral obligation to cater to anyone's needs.

Of course they have the resources to, but if the phone is not making them enough money to justify continued production, they will either reduce or stop production. I never said any features of macOS should not be developed. Not sure how you got that out of what I said.

The first sentence addresses your "let's pass a law because a lot of people (>1%) support it" analogy. The second sentence did not state that there's a moral obligation to cater to everyone's needs: it stated that you have a moral obligation to consider those needs, instead of dismissing them simply based on percentages.

You made the argument that maintaining software features was low-cost compared to developing and manufacturing a smaller iPhone, as criticism of my analogy. But, you must recognize that adding some of those features is not necessarily low-cost. Are you in favor of developing software features that only a small percentage of users take advantage of, or not? Then I'd ask, are you in favor of developing whole software products that only a small percentage of users use, like Logic Pro? Then I'd also obviously ask, are you in favor of developing hardware products that only a small percentage of users buy, like the iPhone mini? Why or why not?

 

[usagora]

Percentages matter little in a high volume market in my view. It offers enough profit to make it viable. If you have the opportunity to sell 10 million devices that you wouldn't sell otherwise, why not take it? Especially because that can help you with the sale of other apple products (e.g. someone who opted into buying a fairphone instead won't buy an apple watch) and the commonality with the rest of the phone lineup saves on R&D costs.

As an example, Nintendo still sells the Switch lite even though it's a niche product and almost everyone I know goes for the proper Switch.

So, like I asked the other guy (the one who's not speaking to me anymore, lol!), do you think the people at Apple are a bunch of morons? They see an opportunity for profit, and are just like, "nah" Of course not! It's really simple: if they thought the market was viable at this time, there would be an iPhone 14 Mini. None of us know the full details, but I guarantee you they've thoroughly thought this through and saw that it was MORE profitable for them to focus on the models they are releasing. Obviously the situation with Nintendo is different or else they wouldn't be producing the Switch Lite still. It's pretty simple. Companies aren't going to waste resources on a product they don't think is helping them make more money.

 

[usagora]

The first sentence addresses your "let's pass a law because a lot of people (>1%) support it" analogy. The second sentence did not state that there's a moral obligation to cater to everyone's needs: it stated that you have a moral obligation to consider those needs, instead of dismissing them simply based on percentages.

I don't agree with "cater" nor "consider". It's simply not a MORAL issue, period. Business exist to make money. If a product is not giving them the return on investment they desire, then they will reduce or cease production of that product. Pretty simple. Now, a charity, on the other hand, would be a different story.

You made the argument that maintaining software features was low-cost compared to developing and manufacturing a smaller iPhone, as criticism of my analogy. But, you must recognize that adding some of those features is not necessarily low-cost. Are you in favor of developing software features that only a small percentage of users take advantage of, or not? Then I'd ask, are you in favor of developing whole software products that only a small percentage of users use, like Logic Pro? Then I'd also obviously ask, are you in favor of developing hardware products that only a small percentage of users buy, like the iPhone mini? Why or why not?

Again, this is really simple. If Apple thought an iPhone 14 Mini would be satisfactorily profitable for them, they would've made it (assuming the issue wasn't parts shortage or some other factor). Since they ARE continuing to develop macOS and their other software, we can conclude that they think it's profitable enough or in their best interest to do so. Not sure what else to tell you. Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world, and I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing here and have thoroughly explored the options.