Why an iPad Mini makes sense (and why not to gripe about one)

[KPOM]

You'll notice the screen of your MBA 11.6" has not the same resolution as the 13.3" MBA.
If this smaller MBA works right, it's because the resolution is still big enough to do some work (that is, enough pixels) AND the pixel density is about the same as on the larger MBA. But then, the screen is not only smaller, it displays less datas too.

So what? It is 1366x768, which is common even on 13" and some 14" Windows notebooks. A smaller resolution on a smaller notebook is OK.

I don't see the comparison accurate with the case of a 1024x768 7.85" smaller iPad, where you'd expect to do exactly the same tasks with same apps as on the original iPad. And I'm doubtful that'd work right.

At 1024 x 768 it would have the same resolution as the original iPad or iPad 2. It just wouldn't have a "retina" display. It would be fine for reading e-mail and web browsing.

 

[chleuasme]

So what? It is 1366x768, which is common even on 13" and some 14" Windows notebooks. A smaller resolution on a smaller notebook is OK.

You don't get it.
They didn't make a 1440x900 11" MBA, but made a smaller MBA than the 13" with the same pixel density and a large enough resolution. These constraints leaded to a 11.6" screen.
If they made the 11" at the same resolution as the 13", it sure wouldn't have been as usable in too many cases. The OS X UI (as every OS UI) is designed to be used at a given pixel density relative to an average distance of use. That means, elements on screen are supposed to appear at a right (range of) size to be usable. Do not expect to see a 1920x1080 13" Apple laptop to be used at this resolution, as you see in the windows world (though with Win8, such screens at such small sizes are apparently supposed to display UI scaled at 1.4x and not anymore used at the native resolution where all appears too small - for now Apple only chose pixel perfect 2x scaling with iOS, and could offer some variations on scaling with the rMBP on OS X). A 11.6" MBA at a higher resolution would probably be a pain to use with no scaling of the UI.

 

[junglesnake]

I am almost positive we will see one by the end of November! I will be getting one and I already own 3 iPads! But I just want a smaller more portable one I can take with me places and that will fit in a pocket somewhere. The biggest issue and deciding factor is going to be the $$$$$!! They have to make it affordable or its pointless in my opinion.

 

[KPOM]

You don't get it.
They didn't make a 1440x900 11" MBA, but made a smaller MBA than the 13" with the same pixel density and a large enough resolution. These constraints leaded to a 11.6" screen.
If they made the 11" at the same resolution as the 13", it sure wouldn't have been as usable in too many cases. The OS X UI (as every OS UI) is designed to be used at a given pixel density relative to an average distance of use. That means, elements on screen are supposed to appear at a right (range of) size to be usable. Do not expect to see a 1920x1080 13" Apple laptop to be used at this resolution, as you see in the windows world (though with Win8, such screens at such small sizes are apparently supposed to display UI scaled at 140% - for now Apple only chose 200% scaling with iOS, and could offer some variations around 200% on OS X with the rMBP). A 11.6" MBA at a higher resolution would probably be a pain to use with no scaling of the UI.

No, I think you don't get it. On a tablet or smartphone, it's easy to resize. The iPhone has an 1136x640 resolution on a 4" screen. Yet people can still go to websites and read e-mail with it. They can zoom in and out if they want to make the text bigger. I think a 7.85" 4x3 screen at 1024x768 would be OK.

If you mean things like icons, they are already smaller on the iPhone vs. the iPad, so I don't think being smaller on a 7.85" iPad would be that big a deal.

 

[chleuasme]

people can still go to websites and read e-mail with it. They can zoom in and out if they want to make the text bigger. I think a 7.85" 4x3 screen at 1024x768 would be OK.

If you make the text bigger, you display less text. It's not always possible to zoom in every text elements in an app as it is in apps like iBooks or Safari or a text editor. You can't zoom in on a list (and it contains text usually). You can't zoom on UI elements.

With Safari on iOS, the website is rendered once (if i recall, the website is prerendered for a virtual larger resolution than the screen, then it's "shrinked" on the native resolution of the screen ... not exactly, but that's the basic idea. Text/vector based elements are of course not shrinked). If you zoom in on a column of text, text is not rearranged. If the column is full screen, once you zoom more in, you can't see complete lines. not so OK to me.

To adress it on a 1024x768 7.85" iPad, Safari could prerender websites on a 20% smaller virtual resolution, implying text and blank spaces to arrange differently accordingly, compared to on the 9.7" iPad. But that's only for Safari. What about every other apps and their content and UIs?

 

[marc55]

Agree, an iPad mini makes perfect business sense; simply look at all the business they are missing out on.

For those who say it lacks innovation or Apple will have to compete and can't make much money on it, the innovative part is getting more folks into the Apple fold. Once they get one, they will enjoy Apple so much, they will buy other Apple products.

Hopefully, they'll have it out before the holiday season.

 

[Breaking Good]

Hello,

Mac newbie here. Excellent article. I too have been wondering about all the negativity around a possible iPad Mini.

I one disagreement I have with the article is regarding price. Apple has very shrewdly avoided competing on price. I think they remember what happened to the PC market and realize that when you compete on price, there is no winning. There are only various degrees of losing.

We are already seeing no-name Adroid O/S based tablets in the sub-$100 range. There is no way Apple will be able to compete with that and maintain their brand.

I suspect that if Apple does release an iPad Mini (and I think they will), will be priced within $50 of the full-size iPad.

While I am sure Apple initially wanted to release an iPad Mini before Christmas, at this point I think they are probably going to hold off and release it with a refresh of the full-size iPad. The new iPod Touch and Nano aren't even available yet. That and the response to the iPhone 5 lead me to believe that they will hold off until after Christmas.

Keep in mind that the iPad 3 currently uses the old 30-pin connector. I think Apple will most likely want to update that to the new 9-pin connector. Having different connectors will lead to people delaying purchasing an full-size iPad. Some of those people will choose other options while they are waiting on an update to the connector and that will reduce in lost sales to Apple.

I do think that it is inevitable that Apple releases 7" iPad if for no other reasons a defensive one. Apple has a hole in its product line-up between the iPhone/iPod Touch and the iPad. Competitors are starting to exploit this hole and will continue to do. Apple needs a 7" to maintain customers. I think that the majority of 7" iPad sales will cannablize sales of Apple own iPhone/iPod Touches and iPads. However, I think that a significant amount will be current iPhone users who wanted a smaller tablet to complement their iPhone and decided to stay with Apple because they is what they are comfortable with and are willing to pay a premium for it.

I must admit I am baised in that I would very much like an iPad Mini. While I think the iPhone 5 is great, for me the screen is just too small to do the "smart stuff" that Smartphones are supposed to do. I'm fine with an iPhone 4 or 4S for the phone stuff. I'd love an iPad Mini for the smart stuff.

 

[frogger2020]

Interesting, but the required price point would cannibalize the larger ipad and that would be the last thing that apple wants to do.

 

[Breaking Good]

Interesting, but the required price point would cannibalize the larger ipad and that would be the last thing that apple wants to do.

frogger2020,

I agree with you that an iPad Mini will cannibalize sales from the larger iPad. In fact, I would say that at least half the people who purchase an iPad Mini would have probably bought the larger iPad if the mini were not available.

However, I disagree that the last thing Apple wants to do is cannibalize sales from the larger iPad or the iPod Touch. The last thing Apple wants to do is lose customers to a tablet running an Android O/S.

Once people go down market, it's hard to get them to go up market again.

I predict we will see a tablet war just like we had a P.C. war. Apple is better off staying out of that and letting the Android tablet makers and Windows Phone 8 tablet makers fight it out.

 

[ejb190]

Interesting, but the required price point would cannibalize the larger ipad and that would be the last thing that apple wants to do.

Maybe, but look at the other lines. The Shuffle took away from the Mini. The MacBook Air competed with the MacBook and MacBook Pro. Anytime you put another product out there, you are going to siphon away a certain part of your customer base.

But there are a couple of facts that temper your thesis.

First, I'm not sure I would consider iPads "durable goods". They don't have that long of useable life and if someone likes the product, they are going to buy an upgrade/replacement. And maybe one that better fits how they use it (smaller, more memory, 3G, etc.) Once you get a customer, you'd better have future products that keep them a customer.

Second, a product at a lower price point will cause some customers to pull the trigger. Personally, I can't see getting an iPad for $500. $300? Now you have me thinking. $200? I'm there. Think of it like a Gatway Drug. But once you get that iPad Mini customer, you have a better chance of boosting them to a more powerful, more expensive iPad in the future - if they enjoyed the iPad experience to start with.

Third, how the product is used is going to have a huge influence on the future purchases of a user. If the iPod Touch is too small and the iPad is too big, the customer will not go back to Apple products, despite the fact they can see the potential. There is a need for a complete line of products, especially since the competitors are already in that gap.

Finally, we don't know everything about the iPad Mini. Think about this - the Click Wheel was introduced on the iPod Mini and came to the Classic six months later. The new iPad may have some innovation or development that will later come to the whole line. It might be a "proving ground" for future developments. That in its self might be enough to get folks to try it.

And Breaking Good, interesting assessment of the pricing strategy, however, I disagree with the $50 difference between an iPad and iPad Mini. Apple has to price the product somewhere between what it is worth to the company and what it is worth to the customer. $450 just doesn't seem to leave a lot of value to the customer.

ejb

 

[RenoG]

The ipad mini only exsist in the minds of Apple fans, its as allusive as the tear drop iphone.

 

[guineapig]

Interesting, but the required price point would cannibalize the larger ipad and that would be the last thing that apple wants to do.

Please allow me to quote myself.

I think that what many people don't understand is that Apple was never afraid of competing with their own products.
If today I want the best (subjectively) 7 inch tablet, I'm never gonna buy an iPad, and I'm more oriented towards a Nexus 7 (for example). If I want a 10inch tablet I can buy an iPad or another tablet. If I'm not sure, my choice can be between Apple (iPad) or non-Apple (Nexus 7). If the mini comes out, Apple gains an option in the 7inch market, among those who would never buy an iPad anyway, and also, in the undecided who then can choose between Apple (iPad) and ...Apple (iPad mini)!
So, again...why is this bad for Apple?

 

[rpenzinger]

Wow!!! An extremely well thought out post!!!

Agreed, well done and a pleasure to read.

It wonder to me a lot of the 'anti-mini' sentiment comes is rooted in the comments Steve Jobs made about there not being a need for a smaller tablet. It seems like people feel that a mini is an admission that maybe Jobs was wrong.

I was actually waiting for the OP to mention this. IMHO the comment was made some time ago. Markets are dynamic, not static. What may or may not have been true in the past does not dictate whether it may or may not be true for the future. Steve made a comment that has probably been quoted more than anything else he ever said, but like everything in life; things change.

 

[iBought]

Why do people assume the mini will have the same power and specs as the regular?

To me, the mini would be better suited for our parents who browse the web and email mainly..or kids who play educational games.

The regular size is overkill for many people because they just do not need all of the power. I use my ipad2 for music making, movie watching, art and editing.

Just saying I am not sure that the mini will have the same power and therefore will attract newer users to ipads instead of eating it's own.

 

[guineapig]

Agreed, well done and a pleasure to read.



I was actually waiting for the OP to mention this. IMHO the comment was made some time ago. Markets are dynamic, not static. What may or may not have been true in the past does may or may not be true for the future. Steve made a comment that has probable been quoted more than anything else he ever said, but things change.

SJ also said that Apple was never going to make a netbook.
Then Apple did release the MBA that revolutioned the market of extremely portable and wireless oriented ultracompact notebooks.
SJ said that video calling was never going to be that big thing. Then Apple rolled out FaceTime.

What if Apple does to the 7inch tablets what it did wherever it set foot in?

 

[jaysen]

A very well thought out and informative post

 

[kazmac]

Nice post

The deal breaker for me would be reading comics and websites on a smaller iPad. I tried on a Kindle Fire HD and couldn't resize (my not knowing how).

While the Retina display is not a dealer breaker (my iPad is the only retina product I use (don't read anything on my iPhone 4s), being able to read full pages of a comic on a smaller iPad without having to double tap to engage the individual panel reads is huge for me.

I'd like a smaller iPad for my commute IF the readiability works, the mini has same battery life as the larger size and the price is considerably lower. If we're talking $300, I'll stick with the regular size.

The OP makes a wonderful argument for the iPad mini. I see no problem with it. Hopefully I won't have any problems "seeing" what I want to with it

 

[rpenzinger]

SJ also said that Apple was never going to make a netbook.
Then Apple did release the MBA that revolutioned the market of extremely portable and wireless oriented ultracompact notebooks.

Not sure if you are agreeing with me or coming up with more evidence that Apple doesn't always do what Steve says. Either way I have to argue that a MBA is not a netbook. No way No how! The only similarity is size and then not really.

Why do people assume the mini will have the same power and specs as the regular?

Just saying I am not sure that the mini will have the same power and therefore will attract newer users to ipads instead of eating it's own.

I agree. I know people that prefer the Kindle size for reading and iPad for functionality. If they could buy a mini-iPad they would in a heartbeat. I think it is safe to say if a mini came out it would not have a retina display, also probably only 16GB to show a difference between mini and touch priced at $299
for 32GB

 

[Defender2010]

frogger2020,

I agree with you that an iPad Mini will cannibalize sales from the larger iPad. In fact, I would say that at least half the people who purchase an iPad Mini would have probably bought the larger iPad if the mini were not available.

However, I disagree that the last thing Apple wants to do is cannibalize sales from the larger iPad or the iPod Touch. The last thing Apple wants to do is lose customers to a tablet running an Android O/S.

Once people go down market, it's hard to get them to go up market again.

I predict we will see a tablet war just like we had a P.C. war. Apple is better off staying out of that and letting the Android tablet makers and Windows Phone 8 tablet makers fight it out.

Why all the cannibalising talk? Do 11 inch MacBook Airs do this to the 13inch? Or 21 inch iMac with the 28 inch? No.....it just gives choice....more choice within the Apple ecosystem stops buyers moving to android...

 

[Breaking Good]

And Breaking Good, interesting assessment of the pricing strategy, however, I disagree with the $50 difference between an iPad and iPad Mini. Apple has to price the product somewhere between what it is worth to the company and what it is worth to the customer. $450 just doesn't seem to leave a lot of value to the customer.

You raise a good point, ejb190. I've been thinking about this some more and perhaps Appie will increase the max storage on the larger iPad to 128GB, put a faster processor in it and keep the same price. They could then possibly price the iPad mini $150 below the larger iPad.

 

[rpenzinger]

Canablization or saturating the market?

You can argue that an free 8Gb iPhone 4 canablizes the $379 64Gb iphone 5 (on contract). But is that canablization or saturating the market across price points.

Does GM sell one kind of truck, one kind of compact, one kind of sedan. Nope.

You can't expect one size iPad to bring in all the sales, and it doesn't. To bring in more sales you need to consider another size. Will it eat into iPad and iPod sales? Yes it will. Will it bring in more sales than it eats out of its other markets? Time will tell, but my guess is yes.

 

[Breaking Good]

Why all the cannibalising talk? Do 11 inch MacBook Airs do this to the 13inch? Or 21 inch iMac with the 28 inch? No.....it just gives choice....more choice within the Apple ecosystem stops buyers moving to android...

Yes, Defender2010. I agree with you. That is my exact point. A 7" iPad keeps Apple from losing market share to Android.

This will be important to Apple because it will be hard to regain market share once the tablet wars between the Android and Windows Phone 8 manufactures begin.

 

[guineapig]

Not sure if you are agreeing with me or coming up with more evidence that Apple doesn't always do what Steve says. Either way I have to argue that a MBA is not a netbook. No way No how! The only similarity is size and then not really.

I am agreeing with you in fact, Apple doesn't always do what SJ said.
I didn't say that the MBA is a netbook but that it was introduced as being ultraportable and fully wireless, mostly like any netbook. Of course it had different price and power, and so different targets, but in a way it contributed to raising the bar of these kind of notebooks.

 

[duggram]

As soon as you've seen a movie on a 10" iPad you won't go back to the smaller screen of a 4" iPhone/iPod but you WILL go to the smaller screen of a smaller iPad?

I don't want it for movies. I have a Kindle Fire now. Perfect form factor. Wrong OS. I want it for reading.

When I want to watch a movie on a mobile device I use my 15" rMBP. It my opinion it is a lot easier to watch a movie on a plane or the couch with a laptop than a device you have to hold up.

 

[0087215]

Well, if the rumors appear to be true and the new Sharp IGZO-technology and their 7 inch screens are going to be used in the new iPad Mini, count me in!

http://www.techhive.com/article/2010966/is-sharp-showing-highres-ipad-mini-screens.html

It will be an amazing product then that you can easily take with you and do anything you need (in my case, I must be able to read my articles, so a high ppi-density is a necessity).

Let's hope Apple will surprise us time and again!