$329 for ipad mini

[Bookripper]

Never in a million years will I spend 1 penny on an Apple product. It's Sheepware!!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by haydnfan

I love Apple products-- I have an Ipod Touch, Iphone 4s, Apple TV and a Macbook Air. But I'm passing on this Ipad Mini, the resolution and hardware are not competitive. This is what happens when a company has a monopoly-- they don't feel the pressure to innovative and everyone loses. Since Apple knows that they can outsell all sub-10 inch tablets however they designed it, they decided on the minimum effort. The Ipad Mini should be called the Ipad Minimal. We were at least owed a retina display for that price point, and really we should have awesome cpu, ram and gps included at that price point.

Most apple products charge a premium price, but use premium hardware. The Ipad Mini bucks the trend.

Even though I don't care for Apple's business practices, to be honest, I don't think there was any intent to cripple or put minimal effort in, I think it was truly a result of the absence of Steve Jobs. Unfortunately he was the heart of Apple and now it is gone.

[Teknikal]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Even though I don't care for Apple's business practices, to be honest, I don't think there was any intent to cripple or put minimal effort in, I think it was truly a result of the absence of Steve Jobs. Unfortunately he was the heart of Apple and now it is gone.

There was definitely an attempt to cripple it in my opinion, ask yourself why it's 163 ppi is exactly half of the iPhone 5's 326 ppi screen. There is no way that is accidental they just want to claim the iPad mini 2 has double the pixels next time and how revolutionary that is.

Truthfully they could have easily done it this time but their purposely holding off to have something to sell later.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by Teknikal

There was definitely an attempt to cripple it in my opinion, ask yourself why it's 163 ppi is exactly half of the iPhone 5's 326 ppi screen. There is no way that is accidental they just want to claim the iPad mini 2 has double the pixels next time and how revolutionary that is.

Eh. Nah. 1024x768 is the normal upper end for 4:3 screens (though it is uncommon - most 8" tabs are 800x600) and would cause their app authors the least amount of problems (my preference, though, would be 1280x960 for a modern 8", 4:3 tablet), not to mention cheaper to make.

No need for conspiracy theories when the simplest explanation of keeping hassles and costs low (hence the other major deficiencies of the Mini) to maximize their profit will do.

[Teknikal]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Eh. Nah. 1024x768 is the normal upper end for 4:3 screens (though it is uncommon - most 8" tabs are 800x600) and would cause their app authors the least amount of problems (my preference, though, would be 1280x960 for a modern 8", 4:3 tablet), not to mention cheaper to make.

No need for conspiracy theories when the simplest explanation of keeping hassles and costs low (hence the other major deficiencies of the Mini) to maximize their profit will do.

What's the resolution got to do with the ppi as far as I know exactly nothing at all. The resolution thing is more because IOS isn't capable

I'm just saying with the 163 PPI (pixels per inch) there is no way that happens by chance they must have had the screens made deliberately with exactly half the pixels. When you take into account almost every other tablet and phone is over the 200 or even 300 ppi limit, simply these days screens that low don't exist unless their made to order.

My opinion is they were made artificially low simply so Apple can say the word "double and twice as many" next time

[leebase]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But that doesn't mean that the iPad mini is an innovative new tablet that is way ahead of the competition.

Who said it was "way ahead of the competition"? The iPad mini is a small iPad. It runs the 270,000 "made for iPad" apps without modification. It's the app ecosystem of the iPad that is way beyond Android at the moment. In that way, the iPad mini will find it's market.

It took innovation to bring the iPad down to size while remaining enough of an iPad to satisfy the customers. Takes innovation to keep the battery life while shrinking the size and weight of the battery. The iPad 2 is still selling, so I can't see how an even better resolution of the iPad mini is deficient....same number of pixels in a smaller area equals better resolution.

To say the iPad mini represents innovation in no way equals "nobody but Apple is innovating". Google Nexus 7 represents innovation, as do the Amazon and B&N tablets. They will each find their markets.

Google and Amazon have both admitted that they sell their tablets at cost. Something is VERY right with Apple in that it can make it's tablets and sell them for a profit. The competitor who has to work very hard, and then sell for no profit, is not the competitor who has the stronger product.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by leebase

It took innovation to bring the iPad down to size while remaining enough of an iPad to satisfy the customers. Takes innovation to keep the battery life while shrinking the size and weight of the battery.

It's pretty much the same thickness and size as the aluminium-bodied Galaxy Tab 7.7, released early this year, with the same battery life. The Tab is 32g heavier but has a higher resolution screen and faster processor so uses a bigger battery. It was first announced (and shown in Berlin) in September 2011.

Surely both are examples of product evolution, not innovation?

EDIT: though I note Samsung claim on their site that the metal body is innovative, lol:

The Galaxy Tab 7.7 features an innovative metal design resulting in one of the most easily portable devices available. Its slim body measures only 7.89mm, which is thinner than a pencil, and weighs only 340g. The Galaxy Tab 7.7 is designed to fit in a coat pocket or purse and it is comfortable to hold whether you’re sitting, walking or lying down.

Graham

[seajewel]

Originally Posted by Teknikal

There was definitely an attempt to cripple it in my opinion, ask yourself why it's 163 ppi is exactly half of the iPhone 5's 326 ppi screen. There is no way that is accidental they just want to claim the iPad mini 2 has double the pixels next time and how revolutionary that is.

Truthfully they could have easily done it this time but their purposely holding off to have something to sell later.

The resolution was chosen because it's the same as iPad 2 and apps will run without letter boxing etc. I really hoped that despite the rumors apple would put a higher res screen in. I've no doubt apple will eventually put a higher res screen in but that was why the size and resolution was chosen now (and to milk more money later I agree.) And to double the res in order to avoid letter boxing also, they would have had to sacrifice battery life and size and weight, all three of which are great on te iPad mini if reported specs bear out.

I'm getting really uncomfortable in this thread however. I'm not a fan of the poster who is claiming that the iPad mini is innovative. It's not. But I did order one because I think I need to hold it and see it and use it to know whether it's right for me. Likely the ppi will bother me too much. But I like the apps available in iOs even if I find the UI incredibly boring now. and the screen real estate available over the 7 in devices may be significant and very useful for my needs, and the weight is very low.

But I felt okay reporting that I was interested in trying it because I've always felt this forum is full of mostly respectful posters. The last few posts are full of angry opinions about "sheep" that I did not enjoy reading. I disagree that you have to be clueless and stupid in order to want an iPad mini. I do agree the performance specs and price are not great in comparison with Nexus 7. But someone can be tied to iOS, like that apple keeps up with updates, like I messaging, or even just like the aesthetic. For me, iOS and the screen estate and weight were ultimately enough for me to give it a try.

[Teknikal]

Originally Posted by seajewel

The resolution was chosen because it's the same as iPad 2 and apps will run without letter boxing etc. I really hoped that despite the rumors apple would put a higher res screen in. I've no doubt apple will eventually put a higher res screen in but that was why the size and resolution was chosen now (and to milk more money later I agree.) And to double the res in order to avoid letter boxing also, they would have had to sacrifice battery life and size and weight, all three of which are great on te iPad mini if reported specs bear out.

I'm getting really uncomfortable in this thread however. I'm not a fan of the poster who is claiming that the iPad mini is innovative. It's not. But I did order one because I think I need to hold it and see it and use it to know whether it's right for me. Likely the ppi will bother me too much. But I like the apps available in iOs even if I find the UI incredibly boring now. and the screen real estate available over the 7 in devices may be significant and very useful for my needs, and the weight is very low.

But I felt okay reporting that I was interested in trying it because I've always felt this forum is full of mostly respectful posters. The last few posts are full of angry opinions about "sheep" that I did not enjoy reading. I disagree that you have to be clueless and stupid in order to want an iPad mini. I do agree the performance specs and price are not great in comparison with Nexus 7. But someone can be tied to iOS, like that apple keeps up with updates, like I messaging, or even just like the aesthetic. For me, iOS and the screen estate and weight were ultimately enough for me to give it a try.

I said it a few posts above and I'll say it again but resolution has absolutely nothing to do with pixels per inch in fact the mini's ppi is actually a small step up from the iPad 2 but it's still low compared to the competition or any other new device I can think off.

Basically my point is it's either the biggest coincidence in the world or else Apple did it on purpose just so they can say double the pixels next time.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by seajewel

I'm getting really uncomfortable in this thread however.

The thread really ran out of gas quite a while back.
While there is some minor amusement value in watching the bullets fly, the acrimony is starting to overwhelm even that. And so far neither camp seems to be addressing the elephant in the room.

It all boils down to two hard to swallow truths:
1- iPad mini is going to sell by the million, despite its specs, despite its price
2- Apple no longer controls the media consumption tablet market

For the next year or so the media consumption tablet market is going to be in total flux as it goes from being an Apple-dominated niche to a wide-open competitive market with multiple categories and niches and one where iOS is a *minority* player. Apple will still be biggest single player for a while longer but from here on out the arguments are really going to be about mission suitability and the price of lock-in rather than "innovation" or "revolution" hype.

The game is no longer about specs per-se--that game died with the iPad3--but rather "what's it for?". And once you get serious about *that* you''ll start seeing a *lot* of sales going to tablets that are neither iPads nor generic Android.

Apple no longer defines what a consumer tablet is (it never got even close to defining what a business or institutional tablet is) but that doesn't mean Google gets to define it either.

The new boss is the consumer; not Apple, not Google. The game is no longer a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, but rather the good old consumer electronics game of trade-offs. Of knowing what you personally value and and how much and then cross-shopping until you get a match.

The dirty secret of the media consumption devices is that the OS is really irrelevant. Look at smart TVs and audio receivers; most have Netflix and Hulu and Vudu and Amazon Video and Pandora and LastFM. So do most high-end Blu-ray players and most media streaming boxes. Gaming consoles, too. When mainstream consumers buy any off those they neither know nor care what the OS is. All they care is about the added value of the "right" apps be there. And *that* is where consumer tablets are headed.

For all the sniping about Apple Vs Google (because that was the tablet Apple chose to highlight) the real disruptor in this game is Amazon. They're the ones driving prices down by selling tablets at cost, they're the ones threatening to derail Google's Android plans by forking it and thus forcing Google to do the Nexus in the first place, and they're the ones that took 22% market share in a few months by showing that people *did* want a 7in media tablet if the price was right.

Both Apple and Google are *reacting* to Amazon (and to a lesser extent, B&N) while trying to hide the fact that neither is calling the shots.

I'm thinking that the longer the argument of iOS vs Android lingers on specs and marketting and lock-in, on sheep vs drone name-calling, the more often the real-world answer is going to be "who cares?" (meaning the forked Android tablets) or, worse; "Windows".

New game, new rules.
And both Apple and Google are behind the curve now.
What I'm interested in is saying who recovers first.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Teknikal

What's the resolution got to do with the ppi as far as I know exactly nothing at all. The resolution thing is more because IOS isn't capable

Exactly. iOS is rigid when it comes to resolutions, unlike a modern OS which would offer flexibility to accommodate a host of possible resolutions. Just see what happened to the new iphone, most apps letter box, when you would expect apps to simply show more content out of the box. Having the developers have to rework their apps simply because the resolution changed (and not that much, it was only stretched) is madness.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by leebase

Who said it was "way ahead of the competition"?

You did. When you say the mini is innovative, by definition, it means it has something that was not there before:

in·no·va·tive   [in-uh-vey-tiv]
adjective
tending to innovate or characterized by innovation.

in·no·va·tion   [in-uh-vey-shuhn]
noun
1. something new or different introduced: numerous innovations in the high-school curriculum.
2. the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.

[fjtorres]

BTW:
http://allthingsd.com/20121026/amazo...-mini-assault/

Grain of salt time: Amazon is reporting the launch of the iPad Mini unleashed a 3X sales increase...of the FireHD. Hmm...

Apparently a lot of fence-sitters got off the fence.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by afv011

You did. When you say the mini is innovative, by definition, it means it has something that was not there before:

C'mon! I've been half-jokingly accusing people of not knowing the definitions of common words in this thread, but surely since you posted the definition yourself, you can see that 'innovative' in NO way implies it's better or ahead of the competition. Just new. You can have a clever, innovative product that sucks and fails miserably.

IOW, innovative doesn't have to be ahead of the competition, it can be off to the side of them. It can sometimes be so far off to the side that it runs off the road and crashes in a ditch. That's part of the risk of innovating.

ApK

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by Teknikal

What's the resolution got to do with the ppi as far as I know exactly nothing at all. The resolution thing is more because IOS isn't capable

Um, resolution, when combined with physical screen size, is what determines the PPI (Pixels Per Inch). 7.9" at 1024x768 is 162.03 PPI (guess the .9" part is just rounded up and it's really 7.853" if the PPI is actually 163).