Yeah or maybe some way to stretch pixels closer or further apart being that you move your face further away from larger screens. Seems a little silly to have so many devices that do the exact same thing but just have different sized screens.
It looks good. The 7.9" screen size may hit the sweet spot for smaller form factor tablets, my rooted Nook Tablet feels just a wee bit small at 7". I'm not an Apple fan but I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't sell these things by the truck load.
I'm really disappointed by the screen's resolution though. I don't even think I'm the only one. Cuz the (current) iPad has a 264 dpi screen, whereas the Mini has a 162 dpi screen.
It is odd with the iPad maxi and the iPhone both having retina displays that Apple didn't go with that out of the box for the mini. But maybe hamstringing the resolution is one of the ways Apple hopes they can nudge buyers over to the full size.
I'll bet on battery life + more powerful GPU required to power a retina display would make the price of a mini way too high to do that out of the gate.
Few years ago Apple decided that it will be easier to create pixel perfect apps with simple, fixed layouts. With all screen elements positions hard coded. Yes, GPU accelerated animations are still the best. However fixed layout apps mean that they can only double resolution, divide by 2, etc.
The result is iPhone 5 with additional row of icons. And iPad Mini with disappointing ppi. This is classic technical debt.
Have you heard anything about what they plan to do with the 8gb when this happens? I've heard they'll stop making them, but it'd be nice to buy one of the leftover stock at a reduced price. I have an 8GB and it's fine for my needs (still 4.7gb free) since I mostly use it for online content.
It's a shame that the Nexus doesn't have a micro-SD slot; they've given up a huge selling point for the platform. They could've bragged about a 64+ GB Nexus 7 that is still cheaper than a 16 GB iPad mini.
Nexus 7 is again way more expensive than $99 China made android tablets. Depends on build quality and brand. A too low price-point would cannibalize iPads.
Two reasons: price and ease of development. The non-retina display means that apps won't need to be updated to run on the new device, which is a big win for developers.
It certainly isn't great, but it's positively, definitely the best alternative. I'm one of the biggest retina fans - I just love Retina displays. But having two choises (retina screen, no piggybacked app - non-retina screen, run every single app without modification) I'd definitely choose non-retina.
Smartphone versus tablet is not really a fair comparison.
The pixel density for the new iPad mini sits between the iPad 2 and iPad 3 with Retina display. As far as I'm aware, no one was complaining about the iPad 2 display.
In any case, I suspect the choice of resolution was driven more by compatibility concerns (i.e. it can run iPad 2 apps unscaled), and this paves the way for a 'Retina display' iPad mini at some point in the future.
The GPUs required to run it would currently take up way more space and (figuratively) melt straight through the mini's smaller battery; not to mention price.
Apple just went through a die shrink to 32nm (starting with the 3rd-gen aTV and refreshed iPad 2), not doubting we'll see Apple go another stop smaller but not for a totally new product like this.
Apple generally releases a non-retina device first, for a couple reasons.
Mainly, they are usually on the cutting edge of manufacturing technology for their parts. This year it is lamination, and there are only so many factories capable of doing this kind of lamination. I think doing the lamination for a retina display at this size would have restricted the manufacturing options and that capacity they'd rather put into the new iMac, Macbook Pros and retina iPad.
Secondly, cost. Retina is 4 times the pixels, and presumably significantly more expensive. A smaller display like this at the same resolution as the original iPad is going to be closer to retina than the original iPad.
Thirdly, it gives a nice upgrade for the future, to incentivize people to replace their device in a year or two. When the cost of the retina technology has dropped enough they can upgrade the mini to the same resolution as the iPad retina.
For new products, Apple tends to choose a mix of cutting edge and safe. The A5 is currently in volume production so it is a safe choice, where it was cutting edge last year, for instance.
Apple also has a food-chain. The newest processor goes to the newest product, and the secondary products (like the iPod touch and now iPad mini) which are in more price sensitive market positions (for instance the iPhone is subsidized by carriers but the iPod touch is not) tend to get the established one-generation-behind processors that are already cheaper to make. This way the A5 design lasts longer and the manufacturing capacity that is making it can keep making it.... while the A6 works on the lower feature size (requiring a more cutting edge fab).
For instance the A6 is, I believe 20 or 22 nonometeres, while the A5 was made on a 32 nanometer feature size.
A6 is 32nm, A5 was originally 45nm and then was reduced for the new iPad2 to 32nm.
Intel might be fabbing at 22nm, and probably some DRAM and NAND is on 22nm, but nobody is doing anything complex on 22nm right now. The rest of the ARM industry is on 28nm, and one of the things Apple gets by moving to TSMC is 28nm (TSMC are generally ahead of Samsung's fabs, but not by that much).
This is mostly just silly. They generally, historically, have released almost no products with retina at all. They've barely been using it for a year and have integrated it into just 4 products now across their entire catalog, zero of which went retina on their second generation.
I also don't think they're withholding retina or cpus from anything so they can introduce that feature in coming years, this technology is moving crazy fast, it's already expected in higher end phones and tablets and after that it becomes normal.
Cost is the only reason they'd withhold anything, they target a market and what that market can pay and then they cram as much as they can into that price without sacrificing their enormous margins.
My guess is they didn't do retina because it would introduce yet another resolution they would need to support and also it would add expense to an already not cheap build.
I suspect:
1) compatibility (no need to redesign retina apps to fix the now absurdly small touch targets), and,
2) cost (lower resolution screens are probably easier to produce)
Why does it cost more than the Kindle Fire HD but has way worse specs? Apple have shot themselves in the foot with this launch. I'm so disappointed in the iPad Mini.
I, personally, would buy the Kindle Fire. Most people, however, will buy the iPad Mini. Bigger price and all.
Curiously enough, I think the iPad 2 has just become the most compelling tablet in the market in terms of price/specs/performance. I'm wondering if iPad 2 will eat into sells of the new iPads? And would Apple care?
Are you serious? A well designed ecosystem is much more important than trying to increase the number of gigahertz/megaflops every release. Just because a corvette is more powerful and way cheaper than a Ferrari/Porsche it does not mean that you will have a better experience than buying one of the latter.
The iPad 1 has serious usability issues due to the limited amount of RAM. After experiencing this, I would be nervous about the lifespan of an iOS device with only 512MB. On some level, specs really do matter.
That makes no sense. The first iPhone had an excellent overall UX for its time with a pathetic 128MB of RAM. The subjective experience of performance matters more than numbers on a spreadsheet, and for that we'll have to wait for hands-on reports.
Also, bear in mind that the mini doesn't have to push around 4X pixels like the Retina iPads, so it can get by with less RAM and processor.
> "The poor specs lead to a poor UX, so I fail to see the difference."
The inverse is not true. See the early reviews of the Kindle Fire HD, where the device is described as sluggish and laggy despite having better specs than the Nexus 7.
So the fact that something has faster hardware does not mean the one has a UX advantage over the other.
Apple loves to compete on specs when it's suitable. Size, weight, resolution, ppi, processor and gpu speed -- everything.
Of course, it's not like the two concepts UX and specs were independent; all of these things have an impact on the user experience, along with many others.
Ignoring everyone else? Weird then that they compared it to a Nexus 7 on stage. And that they came out with a 7" tablet after they said they wouldn't when they saw the user appeal of the Kindle and others.
I guess that is why I am not a fan of their products. I just don't see a premium UX experience. The hardware is great, but the software is mediocre especially when compared to Windows 8. I know many would disagree, but I just don't see it.
After clicking on "Shop iPad" it's interesting that they place an ad next to the iPad mini for the regular iPad saying "Just as stunning. Twice as fast." The regular iPad is only $170 more.
I've been looking forward to this product since the rumors started. I've owned iPads and iPhones and iPod touches.
The iPhone (original and 4S) were both great devices but too small. I could carry them everywhere, but the reading and browsing experience was cramped, by necessity of the small screen.
The iPad (original and Retina) are big, and lovely for reading and browsing, but too big to hold with one hand. This really is an issue for me, the way I sit when I'm reading... it ends up limiting my use of what otherwise would be a fantastic device.
So, the mini seems perfect. Light enough to hold, big enough to get a fantastic reading and browsing experience. I know it will be a little cramped compared to the iPad (well, expect it will be, but the same resolution original iPad was not cramped at all) but that's a fine tradeoff for being able to use it, literally, everywhere.
I like that they decided to start at $329 with 16GB, about perfect pricing for me. We spent over $650 on our retina iPad with LTE, and ended up not using the LTE much at all.
For our startup, which is heavily involved in iOS, and all of us have iOS devices, we will probably buy 2-3 of these minis.
In fact, I think I'm personally, done with the iPad and iPhone... I don't need the phone part (which is why I've mostly bought iPod touches) .... only went with it because the original iPad was not as portable as I'd like.
So, I'm totally stoked that this device is as it was rumored... I see no downsides to it at all.
I totally agree. I really like my iPad for a lot of things, but it has been disappointing for pleasure reading of books because it is just too heavy.
Given that my primary use case will be reading, I now have to decide between a Kindle Paperwhite or the iPad Mini, with the one additional input that my kids would love to have another iPad in the house.
I was convinced the iPad Mini was for me, until I just looked up the Paperwhite. However, I read a lot of articles and rely on Reader or Pocket. Does the Paperwhite support any such functionality?
You can configure InstaPaper to email your cuttings file to your Kindle account's email address whenever you add a new article to it. This works with any Kindle device (including the Kindle app on iOS or Android).
Get the Paperwhite. It's wonderful to read on, in any light. I've had a Kindle Keyboard, Kindle DX, iPad, Nexus 7, and Kindle Fire (original and HD), and the Paperwhite is far and away the best device. It also fixes a ton of the refresh-related issues with the recent Touch generation.
The only downside is PDF viewing, which you should still leave to device with more serious CPU and some auto-crop and fancy scrolling support (e.g., by quarter-pages).
So I've only ever had the keyboard version and was wondering about the page turn buttons. Are they gone in paper-white? Do I have to reach across with a second hand and swipe to turn the page? Because if that's the case I won't be getting one.
Part of the good thing about the kindle is that I can just hold it still and keep reading, especially useful in bed.
They render fine, but the page speed update is just a bit too slow, particularly if you read PDFs that have frequent references to figures that are 2-3 pages distant from the referencing text.
I use a Kindle for reading simply because of the lack of distractions. On the iPad I see notifications every time someone posts on Facebook, every time I get a new e-mail... it's hard to lose myself in the book.
I was running into the same problem, and ended up sending notifications for non-essentials to the lock screen but not elsewhere. It's made extended reading much more manageable.
I love my iPad (2) more than any gadget I own (including my beloved 15" MacBook Pro that has really changed my life), but think of your poor eyes and get the kindle thing. Fixing your eyes (if, after hours of developing on LCDs, you spend a few other hours reading on one) is in order of tens of thousands of dollars.
I have the nexus 7 and will be getting the new iPad 4thgen to replace my 1st gen. I love the Nexus but the mini looks great. The only worry I would have is that the bezels on the vertical sides look almost look to thin. Even when reading with the nexus I sometimes inadvertently change pages and I think this could be a greater problem on the mini. So for reading I would need to try it first.
According to Apple, iOS is capable, on the iPad mini, of recognizing whether your thumb is resting on the narrower border, or tapping on the interface.
"Rethinking the screen meant we also had to rethink the software behind it. iPad mini intelligently recognizes whether your thumb is simply resting on the display or whether you’re intentionally interacting with it. It’s the kind of detail you’ll notice — by not noticing it."
I have an iPad 3. I found it too damn heavy for comfortable reading. So I bought a Google Nexus 7. Which is exactly the right size, and a delight ... except that most (not all) Android apps look like they were beaten with the ugly stick. The aesthetics are terrible. I read on the thing for 4-20 hours a week and it's just increasingly grating.
I'll be buying an iPad Mini. I won't be ditching the Nexus 7 -- if nothing else, there are some apps that, frustratingly, can't appear in the iOS Store -- but I expect to be doing 90% of my tablet use on the iPad Mini (and may well end up off-loading the iPad 3, aka not-so-new-any-more iPad).
((Stuff the Nexus is good for: (a) Firefox, (b) TextMaker, (c) being able to fire up a command line and run vim and busybox. No, seriously. I get antsy if I don't have a shell prompt to hand ...))
I have to admit a similar sentiment, I'm pretty Apple based for most uses, but had to get a Nexus 7 for some dev work and its quickly become my main reader for its size and weight.
Still like the Nexus 7 price point too. At $200 I'm cool travelling with it and if it got away from me it wouldn't be the end of the world.
(just finished The Fuller Memorandum on it btw...)
Chrome OS is not designed for touch, and it seems like Google isn't interested in making it so- they relatively recently introduced a windowing system.
I'd argue that Android is already far more capable than Chrome OS is- I'm not entirely sure where Google are going with it.
People buy a brand , not a product.It's like buying a Vuitton bag , it's not better than the other ones , it's just cool to have one , because now people feels they are defined by what they own. Then people try to justify this behavior by repeating apple talking points , so they dont sound like sheeps.
One of the best parts about my Nexus 7 is that it fits perfectly in my back pocket (and even front-jeans pockets but that's much less comfortable). Having a tablet on my person (i.e. not having to reach inside a backpack to get it out) has been a great convenience.
The increase in width from the 7.9" screen is surely going to mean that this won't which is a pity.
I've been meaning to get a Nexus 7 precisely because it fits comfortably in the inside breast pocket of my jackets. It doesn't sound like the iPad mini would do the same.
At 7.9 inches, it’s perfectly sized to deliver an experience every bit as big as iPad
What does that even mean? Either it's perfectly sized, and the iPad is the wrong size. Or it's not. There can surely only be one perfect size to deliver an iPad experience??? Either it's 10" or it's 7.9".
I think Apple's marketing has always been the same - it's just that for a while they were ahead of the curve and so their hyperbole was justified. The iPhone was amazing. The Macbook Air is still amazing. But there is absolutely FUCK ALL amazing about a smaller fucking iPad.
I say this with absolutely no judgement regarding the value of the iPad Mini, but I'm struck by the similarity between this criticism and the criticism leveled against the original iPad ("it's just a giant iPod Touch!").
This is what apple haters say about every Apple product. They said the iPhone would be a total flop and never sell the 10 million units Steve Jobs said they hoped to sell-- because it didn't have a hardware keyboard.
They said it about the iPod too- claiming that having less capacity than the creative nomad and no built in radio made it "lame" (CmdrTaco famously said this.)
They said it about the iMac as well, calling it a toy computer that looked like candy. Funny how in 2 years all the other manufacturers were making their computers colorful, and the bondi-blue design aesthetic was adopted by a wide variety of products around the world.
Now I'm sure somewhere there are people who were not even 10 years old when the iMac was being put down are saying the iPad mini is lame. For the same reasons.
Then when the product strikes a nerve with the public, and sells 100 million units, they decide that the people buying it must be stupid and persuaded by slick marketing, because obviously its "lame" or "doesn't have the specs" of the competition (though they never detail how it lacks specs and usually they're completely wrong and ignoring the terrible usability of the competition.)
It's the standard issue mythology of the apple hater:
Apple products are inferior (even when they aren't.)
Apple products are more expensive (even though they aren't.)
Apple buyers are stupid and easily persuaded by slick marketing (even though it should be obvious that people buy Apple products because they work better for them.)
Consequently, EVERY Apple product introduction is "underwhelming".
Any discussion involving the terms "apple hater" or "apple fanboy" immediately disappears into a hole of stupidity.
That said, Apple are inviting some of these comparisons. "More expensive", for example. The iPad Mini is more expensive than a Nexus 7, by a significant margin. Apple invited the comparison by comparing the two devices themselves on stage.
Google should be delighted. I've yet to find a "normal" who is aware that anyone else sells "iPads". And Amazon doesn't count, they sell "Kindles".
No amount of competitive marketing seems to have brought the two product families into competition beyond "well I heard the iPad has books too but my friend loves her Kindle".
Because Apple's mentioning their product in the same breath as iPad. It strongly argues that Apple is financially/strategically concerned enough with that form factor to risk mentioning the existence of competition.
I'm not sure why, given the sales of the "mini" form factor. I kind of suspect they're more concerned with positioning themselves against jumbo phones, which -are- selling in volume and have already invited a major design change in the iPhone line.
>>Because Apple's mentioning their product in the same breath as iPad. It strongly argues that Apple is financially/strategically concerned enough with that form factor to risk mentioning the existence of competition.
I don't know if this is necessarily the right conclusion.
I constantly talk to "normals" that don't understand whether the iPad can run programs like their computer at home. I've seen a lot of iPhones with 5 or less downloaded apps: Facebook and a couple top casual games.
Apple vs Google is the tablets akin to Microsoft vs Apple.
For me what it comes down to in the end is the same, which is easier to hand off to a relative and not worry about.
Answer : the iPad.
I provided many family members with PCs over the years all the while using Apple products. Why? Because I knew they could just pop into a local store and buy software for it. Because I knew Windows was common and they most likely had it at work. Because I knew if their machine had an issue either I could solve it quickly or Dell's support would. Heck Dell even sent someone to my parents house to fix the unit!
Well something similar is happening here. I know if I give them an iPad they won't be lacking for software. It is a packaged experience with a dearth of support.
So, yeah they cost a bit more upfront, but for me the lack of having to "fix" something is worth the premium. It also means they know what it is and understand the intrinsic value. If I hand them a Google Nexus the first questions will be to compare it to an iPad... and well, why bother.
Even phrasing it as "Apple vs Google" is counterproductive. In this example, we have two products. One is more expensive, but better built and with a larger software library. The other is cheaper, a little more plastic-y but with a better screen.
Neither is "better" than the other, it entirely depends on your circumstances- what you want your tablet to do, how much money you have, etc. etc.
Not only is it more expensive, it has a lower resolution and a larger screen - for lower pixel density. They then compare it to a Nexus 7, saying the iPad mini has more resolution and viewing area... 1064x768 is in no way more than 1280x800. Granted the different apps for tablet/phone was more apparent in iOS, but for browsing (which they touted as a major use) the iPad mini looks worse. Their Guggenheim example had more visible space on the Nexus 7.
Try shopping a MacBook Pro against an equivalently configured T-series ThinkPad from Lenovo. The price difference is usually huge (more than 30% cheaper for the entry-level 15-inch configuration I tried) and gets even worse if you spend a few minutes to Google up an applicable Lenovo coupon.
LOL as someone using a Lenovo, right now, let me just say this:
If you buy it over an Apple, you get what you deserve. The quality from Lenovo has been declining since they bought the brand from IBM. Thinkpad's are a SHADOW of their former glory, sadly.
Here's something people don't factor in when buying laptops: Your expensive MacBook Pro is having issues? Well, visit an Apple store and get it fixed!
Your expensive Lenovo is having issues? Well... mail it back...
But you still didn't make the comparison, you told other people to do it. Until you make the comparison, I'm still betting that the Lenovo cuts corners in a variety of ways to make the product cheaper, and as a consumer you have to accept those cost-cutting trade offs.
It's a disagreement about the definition of "expensive." Apple products are more expensive than other products in the same general category. They are not more expensive than their direct competitors.
For example, while there are laptops much cheaper than the Air, the ultra books with similar specs, weight, battery life, and build quality aren't really cheaper. Another way to look at is that while Apple doesn't sell a $500 laptop, you don't get less in a $1,200 MBA than comparable $1,200 PC laptops.
Read the front of an Everglade spray can. I think it says "The Essence of Nature". Then read the back. The back is full of skulls...
While I agree some of the texts on the iPad mini page could have been better written, it's as usual just marketing speak designed to push interested customers that extra cm they need to do a purchase.
In fairness, that specific marketing line is more than a little silly: it can't be both smaller than an iPad and as big at the same time; both devices can't be the "perfect" size when they are different.
Like all tech companies, Apple needs to be able to do subtle iterations and improvements, and their marketing teams are left to try to add an "r" to every evolution.
It's certainly a marketing line with plenty of exageration, but I don't think it's particularly unusual.
"At 7.9 inches, it’s perfectly sized to deliver an experience every bit as big as iPad"
It's "perfectly sized" for the role it's filling (one hand, more mobile, like a pulp novel, whatever), and iPad is "perfectly sized" for it's own role (around the house, larger games, magazine reading, whatever). They can both be "perfectly sized" in a marketing world, and I'm sure the design team fussed over the exact dimensions for a LONG time.
It's "an experience" "as big as the iPad" to emphasize that it will run all the existing apps, vs their comparisons to a "scaled up phone experience". The marketing here emphasizes that the compact experience is 'just as good'. I do wonder how well UI elements will scale down, but in a marketing world it makes a certain kind of sense to me.
Yes, these claims are a bit silly, especially in a literal sense, but recall that the original iPad was "magical". It's pretty typical marketing phrasing, especially for Apple.
That said, I frequently find the phrasing funny too.
I guess it opens the market to more people (by being less expensive,) but absolutely underwhelming. A desktop computer that's thinner (who cares how thin the desktop is?) and a smaller iPad. It's getting confusing know just what to buy anymore, each variant of iOS device has a myriad options, it's getting more like the old Dell customize your PC selection, memory, network type, display size. I guess Apple are trying to recreate the whole PC ecosystem, just around tablets instead. Good for their bottom line, which is, after all, Apple's goal here.
In the promo video, they say "it's small enough to fit in one hand" at time 0:49, but later at 2:29 Ives says, "you can still pick it up and easily use it with one hand."
Clearly he meant that you can pick it up with one hand, and use it with the other. Nobody thinks you can physically operate the ipad mini with a single hand.
It's the same size an a Kindle Fire / Nexus 7, but lighter, with better battery life, a bigger display, better battery life, and a faster processor. Oh, and it's an iOS device so you can actually use it for something other than bragging about how cheap it was and propping up wobbly tables.
Oh, come on. As someone who's developed for both platforms, and worked with plenty of other devs (who ought to neither be ignorant nor prejudicial about the situation at hand as their job depends upon it) make quips of this sort all the time. Android is near-exclusively the target of their mirth.
This leaves irrelevance, perhaps, but given the context of this thread I'd argue it's not that either.
The beauty of Hacker News is that it isn't filled up with irrelevant quips that tend to polarise discussions. We can actually learn from each other despite our differences.
You should have some citations there: (I'm assuming Kindle Fire HD)
* Lighter - that is correct, it is ~75g lighter than KF & N7
* Better battery life - citing the tech specs, it gets 10h browsing, surfing etc. the same as N7 and 1h less than KF's (these are all advertised)
* Bigger display - Yes it is bigger in inches, but it is lower resolution than both KF and N7 - meaning pictures are going to look worst. And the mini won't be able to do true 720p.
* Faster processor - Comparing apples and oranges here, provide a citation.
I've never gotten anything close to 10h battery life out of my Nexus 7.
And I left out the cameras. The iPad Mini has (it appears) an actually good camera, whereas the Kindle Fire has none and the Nexus 7 (I think) only has a (poor) front camera -- never figured out how to use it if it's there.
I have a Nexus 7 and an iPad. I find myself using the Nexus almost exclusively. This is probably because it's easier to carry around and if I'm going to carry something as big as the iPad I may as well just carry laptop.
Same here. The fact that I can slide the Nexus into an inside jacket pocket makes it so much more practical than the iPad, which you have to explicitly carry.
I feel the same, and was excited when the Nexus 7 was released.
But no LTE on a portable device is just ridiculous. I'm going to jump on the iPad mini as soon as it releases.
I'm not sure how representative of any market I am, but Google could have had me as a customer from day 1 if they had had LTE on the Nexus; instead, I'll be giving more money to Apple.
Don't you also have a phone? I can 1-click tether my Nexus 7 to my iPhone (which is always on me). In fact that is how I'm composing this reply. It doesn't seem necessary for every device to have its own cellular connection when they're so easy to network.
I bought a Nexus 7 for dev purposes, and I also use it more now than my iPad (3rd gen), mostly due to the size. It's a lot easier to hold for long periods of time.
But truthfully, all the Nexus 7 really did was make me want an iPad mini, because the device itself is very frustrating. Reading a PDF? Half the screen is a garbly mess since only one page gets rendered nicely. Drives me nuts.
Even Chrome (which runs plenty fast) has a terrible time recognizing taps on links. I find myself tapping, and tapping, and tapping, and finally, it does something.
I'm ordering an iPad mini for personal usage, and expect it to sell crazy numbers of units, if my experience is at all typical. The size difference is so important that for a month now I've put up with crappy UX even as my larger iPad was in arm's reach.
Also, every iPad I've bought has had cellular; I'm surprised Google doesn't offer that for extra $$$ on the Nexus 7. The only place I do use my iPad now is in the car, and the iPad mini (with LTE) will replace both devices.
My reaction was "I want a giant phone." I love reading with it and it's the perfect size to hold but it's an ironically poor size for typing. Too small to use with more than two fingers (like an ipad) and too big to type like a phone. Maybe the ipad mini's extra inch makes it a little more typing friendly (for people with smaller fingers).
Me too. The trend towards bloat-phones is very frustrating, because they seem to be replacing smaller phones rather than being offered as an alternative...
I tend to grip my Nexus 7 with my left hand and use all the fingers on my right to type. It's faster than typing on a phone and I find it easier than trying to grip with 2 hands and thumb-type.
What's annoying is when it doesn't pick up taps on links that stand alone, which is the case, on, e.g. HN. The tap "targeting" for Chrome seems particularly poor.
Google is supposedly releasing a new Nexus tablet with cellular in next week's event. I would wait to see what they come out with before buying an iPad mini.
I love my Nexus 7. I have multiple Windows Phone, iOS and Android devices (and develop for all three), but for me, the shared, non-sandboxed file system on Android is the huge productivity win (despite the security risks). It's very easy to copy files in and out using SMB, ftp, Dropbox, etc. and then use them in apps. Intents for different data types are also mostly a win for Android compared to iOS URL schemes, though Windows 8 / Store 'contracts' are pretty well-designed.
Underwhelming is the operative word. Apple's product iterations get more boring with each upgrade. Classic innovator's dilemma. The iDevice line-up sells too well to change the formula, but there's no wow factor anymore. I always figured at some point they would slap a proper navigation UI on the ipad (the icon grid offers a really poor ux), but i suspect they'll stick with evolutionary steps for years to come.
I'm probably still buying the mini. It may be boring, but its still the best of its competitors. Only microsoft's stuff might make me reconsider. I've been really impressed by the lumia phones, which have a better UX than the iphone in my opinion. I can imagine a tablet with windows rt being a joy to use as well.
It's a far more interesting ecosystem. There are Android phones which are waterproof, there are high-spec devices in Japan, there are phones which accept pressure-sensitive stylus input, and there's even an e-ink based phone in development.
Agreed that the copy is cloying, but surely you realize that the point is that some people prefer a smaller device? When I showed my wife this link, she immediately requested one for Christmas. This was surprising, as she had never before shown the slightest interest in an Apple offering. Then she said that this was going to sell like hotcakes, because at this size, it's not too big to fit in a lady's purse.
It's almost as if people buy devices because of the emotional response they elicit when they use them, not because of hardware specifications. Apple's marketing simply aligned more with what consumers look for in a device.
With their announcement speech so full of contradictions, it seems like they're struggling to differentiate the Mini from the cheaper Nexus 7. The major appeal is its small size, but in comparison to the Nexus 7 they emphasize how much larger it is (albeit lower total resolution). Seems to be a clear case of presenting weaknesses as strengths, which will, unfortunately, probably succeed with many existing Apple customers. The two compelling advantages over the Nexus 7, the presence of a second camera and the availability of cellular capability, were barely mentioned.
I thought this was weird, too. The reason I bought a Nexus 7 was because of the 7in screen. Saying "It's a smaller iPad, but bigger!" just wasn't doing it for me. Maybe it was an attempt to sell people on the higher price tag.
I might be too Danish to get it but I for one can't stand the full-of-ourselves copy and acting in those videos. I buy many of their products so you might argue that they work anyway but it feels to me like I buy them in spite of the marketing.
Exactly. I cringed so much during that live event because of all the 'amazing', 'great', 'innovative', 'beautiful' word dropping, I paused it a couple of times just to yell at the screen (but maybe that's just me)
Tim Cook's opening remarks were really over the top. You could practically see an "Applause" light blinking every time he dropped a superlative. Phil Schiller, on the other hand, seemed more genuine.
I so want Phil Schiller to take over all Keynotes. He is very clearly the best presenter Apple currently has. I don’t think an Apple CEO has to be a good presenter. Just because Steve Jobs could fill that role doesn’t mean Tim Cook has to force himself to do it, too.
I honestly was relieved whenever Phil Schiller came onto stage today.
I've actually never seen a Apple product introduction video "live", and rarely see their ads (so maybe I haven't built up the allergic reaction to their language yet).
Superlatives are annoying, yes, but at least in the passage I quoted, I appreciate the word play and efficiency of the phrasing.
I'm getting more and more embarrassed by it each time they release a new product. The new ipod touch is using the slogan "engineered for maximum funness".
The app situation they highlighted vs Nexus 7 was pretty damning for Google although I have a feeling Apple cherry picked apps that make the N7 look especially bad.
On the plus side for the N7, they screwed up on price though - for the ecosystem and build quality advantage may be a $50 premium would have been attractive esp for lesser screen resolution and older CPU/GPU. The N7 also feels like it should be more single hand friendly than the iPad mini.
They did very much cherry-pick apps that run poorly on the N7. The equivalent would be demoing the N7 against an iPad running iOS apps that only have an upscaled iPhone variant.
Obviously there are cases in which the opposite is true and the interface on Android is better, but not many.
In my experience, Android apps on tablets are horrible. Apple has the upper hand here in controlling the hardware, and releasing the iPad mini with the same resolution as the iPad 2 was a really smart move. Instant compatibility with all existing apps.
Instant technical compatibility, definitely, but a 20% reduction in physical size on everything has some potentially nasty usability implications. A 44px-high button that is 0.333" high on an iPad is 0.27" high on an iPad Mini, for example.
iOS apps are laid out in pixels, while Android apps are laid out with physical units (in, mm) or density-independent pixels, which means that a screen size change doesn't necessarily mean a usability change on Android. Two totally different layout mechanisms, and while this means that Android apps are less precise in their layouts, I'll argue that it improves usability across a range of devices.
Hardware control has basically nothing to do with it. Far fewer people have been motivated to create two (phone/tablet) versions of Android apps than iOS apps. Its almost certainly a volume issue.
Why aren't developers motivated to do that? Hardware control.
Look at the top-selling Android tablets. Every single one has a different screen resolution/pixel density; Nexus 7 has 1280x800 (216 ppi), Kindle Fire HD has 1024x600 (169 ppi), Nook HD has 1440x900 (243 ppi), Galaxy Tab 7.7 has 1280x800 (197 ppi), etc.
It's an absolute nightmare for developers, and this is just tablets. The Android smartphone market is even more fragmented, and there is just as much variation in display specifications.
You're aware that development for varying hardware specs is inherently supported by Android, right? It isn't like iOS where you assume 1024x768 at either 1.0 or 2.0 pixel densities. Android, at its core, assumes varying device metrics, and layouts and development practices reflect that.
I don't really think hardware control is the issue here.
Android lets you measure in device independent pixels, though (i.e., ppi doesn't matter) and automatically resizing layouts (something that arrived in iOS 6, I believe). So it's not as bad as all that.
If that was the case, the smartphone apps wouldn't have come about either. But they did, as evidenced by the made-for-smartphone apps that look silly on tablets, which is what this whole conversation is about.
The fragmentation in smartphones is incomparably worse than the tablet market. But Android has nice ways of dealing with it in display-independent ways, and they work.
The comparison where they showed that webpages are bigger on the iPad mini was awfully disingenuous considering how big a deal Apple has been making of "retina" displays, which the Nexus 7 is in the ppi range of.
I think at the moment they'd have to try really hard to release a device that didn't sell like hotcakes. What could happen, when they release kind of a dud (I'm not saying they did), is that they lose momentum.
Apple stock is down on the news. Although I'm personally underwhelmed by this announcement, I'll bet analysts are more worried about the lower priced iPad cutting into margins than they are Apple's ability to ship them.
I doubt it. This is typical for Apple's stock. There is always a run up before an announcement, and a drop immediately after.
It's the old adage: buy on the rumor, sell on the news. I wouldn't read too much into it. The only time I really pay attention to what the street thinks about Apple is when earnings are announced.
They could've offered this at $250 and still make a profit. I doubt the profit is much smaller than the regular iPad. All its internals are 1.5 years old.
The tap targets on a 10" iPad are quite big, there was some room to shrink the screen without it hurting usability. Besides, the 7.9" screen size wasn't randomly picked:
The tap targets on an iPad mini are exactly the same size as they are on an iPhone or iPod touch (which also confirms that Apple is using the same equipment to produce the iPad mini screen panels as they used for the iPhone 3GS — they're just cutting the panels in a different size).
“I think there’s a method to Apple’s madness in recommending 44-point-or-larger tap targets for all iOS apps, both on the iPhone and iPad, despite the fact that on the iPad-as-we-know-it, each point is physically larger than a point on the iPhone or iPod Touch. (1 point maps directly to 1 pixel on iPad 1/2 and older iPhones; 1 point maps to a 4-pixel square on the iPad 3 and iPhone 4/4S.) A 44-point tap target on the rumored iPad Mini would be exactly the same physical size as a 44-point tap target on the iPhone.”
We'll see how many apps actually work well though, and which ones have to be tweaked. Not every developer follows the standards.
It's not like Apple even does either. The recent iOS 6 apps store on iPhone is a good example of something where they made the tap targets too small to expand app updates and it was very frustrating. They finally fixed that just recently so that the target was much larger.
At least for existing apps, they've scaled down the effective, physical size of all elements. I'm very interested in how screen text and existing iPad apps look. I'm sure they've done some testing but the readability aspect concerns me a bit.
I'm also wondering if they've made any iPad mini specific changes to OS elements to enhance the usability - namely if there's been any changes to touch targets
It's like a compatibility mode. I expect apps will be able to detect the difference, and many will resize for the new pixel density- except wait, that wouldn't work! Elements would be inconsistent in size!
So what do you all say to the claim that r&d has proven that people will need to shrink their fingers to happily use a smaller touch device? I've used an iPad and an iTouch, and clearly the iPad is super comfortable. Is the mini, the smallest we can go and still have an easy to use touch interface?
7" Android tablets Steve was talking about are 16x9, which means even a 7" iPad with it's 4x3 ratio would have a bigger screen area. But the Mini is 7.85". It turns out it's about 40% bigger than the Nexus 7 screen. That's not a small difference.
I wish manufacturer would just stop using diagonals as a measure of screen size and just write the display area. Diagonals are a terrible way to describe screen size.
357 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadespecially if the underside was also an eInk display
The result is iPhone 5 with additional row of icons. And iPad Mini with disappointing ppi. This is classic technical debt.
the 16GB Nexus 7 will drop to $200, with the 32GB release.
appears to already be sold out now
And yes, it is this resolution solely to support legacy applications, possibly to reduce costs. But i can only speculate on the latter.
The original android g1 had greater PPI (180) than this thing.
The pixel density for the new iPad mini sits between the iPad 2 and iPad 3 with Retina display. As far as I'm aware, no one was complaining about the iPad 2 display.
In any case, I suspect the choice of resolution was driven more by compatibility concerns (i.e. it can run iPad 2 apps unscaled), and this paves the way for a 'Retina display' iPad mini at some point in the future.
Mainly, they are usually on the cutting edge of manufacturing technology for their parts. This year it is lamination, and there are only so many factories capable of doing this kind of lamination. I think doing the lamination for a retina display at this size would have restricted the manufacturing options and that capacity they'd rather put into the new iMac, Macbook Pros and retina iPad.
Secondly, cost. Retina is 4 times the pixels, and presumably significantly more expensive. A smaller display like this at the same resolution as the original iPad is going to be closer to retina than the original iPad.
Thirdly, it gives a nice upgrade for the future, to incentivize people to replace their device in a year or two. When the cost of the retina technology has dropped enough they can upgrade the mini to the same resolution as the iPad retina.
For new products, Apple tends to choose a mix of cutting edge and safe. The A5 is currently in volume production so it is a safe choice, where it was cutting edge last year, for instance.
Apple also has a food-chain. The newest processor goes to the newest product, and the secondary products (like the iPod touch and now iPad mini) which are in more price sensitive market positions (for instance the iPhone is subsidized by carriers but the iPod touch is not) tend to get the established one-generation-behind processors that are already cheaper to make. This way the A5 design lasts longer and the manufacturing capacity that is making it can keep making it.... while the A6 works on the lower feature size (requiring a more cutting edge fab).
For instance the A6 is, I believe 20 or 22 nonometeres, while the A5 was made on a 32 nanometer feature size.
Intel might be fabbing at 22nm, and probably some DRAM and NAND is on 22nm, but nobody is doing anything complex on 22nm right now. The rest of the ARM industry is on 28nm, and one of the things Apple gets by moving to TSMC is 28nm (TSMC are generally ahead of Samsung's fabs, but not by that much).
I also don't think they're withholding retina or cpus from anything so they can introduce that feature in coming years, this technology is moving crazy fast, it's already expected in higher end phones and tablets and after that it becomes normal.
Cost is the only reason they'd withhold anything, they target a market and what that market can pay and then they cram as much as they can into that price without sacrificing their enormous margins.
I, personally, would buy the Kindle Fire. Most people, however, will buy the iPad Mini. Bigger price and all.
Curiously enough, I think the iPad 2 has just become the most compelling tablet in the market in terms of price/specs/performance. I'm wondering if iPad 2 will eat into sells of the new iPads? And would Apple care?
Anyway, interesting times.
Also, bear in mind that the mini doesn't have to push around 4X pixels like the Retina iPads, so it can get by with less RAM and processor.
The inverse is not true. See the early reviews of the Kindle Fire HD, where the device is described as sluggish and laggy despite having better specs than the Nexus 7.
So the fact that something has faster hardware does not mean the one has a UX advantage over the other.
Of course, it's not like the two concepts UX and specs were independent; all of these things have an impact on the user experience, along with many others.
Everybody is going to buy this.[1]
[1]iPod mini
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19907546
Can you enumerate these "worse specs?"
The iPhone (original and 4S) were both great devices but too small. I could carry them everywhere, but the reading and browsing experience was cramped, by necessity of the small screen.
The iPad (original and Retina) are big, and lovely for reading and browsing, but too big to hold with one hand. This really is an issue for me, the way I sit when I'm reading... it ends up limiting my use of what otherwise would be a fantastic device.
So, the mini seems perfect. Light enough to hold, big enough to get a fantastic reading and browsing experience. I know it will be a little cramped compared to the iPad (well, expect it will be, but the same resolution original iPad was not cramped at all) but that's a fine tradeoff for being able to use it, literally, everywhere.
I like that they decided to start at $329 with 16GB, about perfect pricing for me. We spent over $650 on our retina iPad with LTE, and ended up not using the LTE much at all.
For our startup, which is heavily involved in iOS, and all of us have iOS devices, we will probably buy 2-3 of these minis.
In fact, I think I'm personally, done with the iPad and iPhone... I don't need the phone part (which is why I've mostly bought iPod touches) .... only went with it because the original iPad was not as portable as I'd like.
So, I'm totally stoked that this device is as it was rumored... I see no downsides to it at all.
Given that my primary use case will be reading, I now have to decide between a Kindle Paperwhite or the iPad Mini, with the one additional input that my kids would love to have another iPad in the house.
The only downside is PDF viewing, which you should still leave to device with more serious CPU and some auto-crop and fancy scrolling support (e.g., by quarter-pages).
Part of the good thing about the kindle is that I can just hold it still and keep reading, especially useful in bed.
I wonder how well PDFs render on it.
"Rethinking the screen meant we also had to rethink the software behind it. iPad mini intelligently recognizes whether your thumb is simply resting on the display or whether you’re intentionally interacting with it. It’s the kind of detail you’ll notice — by not noticing it."
Source: http://www.macstories.net/stories/ipad-mini-our-complete-ove...
I have an iPad 3. I found it too damn heavy for comfortable reading. So I bought a Google Nexus 7. Which is exactly the right size, and a delight ... except that most (not all) Android apps look like they were beaten with the ugly stick. The aesthetics are terrible. I read on the thing for 4-20 hours a week and it's just increasingly grating.
I'll be buying an iPad Mini. I won't be ditching the Nexus 7 -- if nothing else, there are some apps that, frustratingly, can't appear in the iOS Store -- but I expect to be doing 90% of my tablet use on the iPad Mini (and may well end up off-loading the iPad 3, aka not-so-new-any-more iPad).
((Stuff the Nexus is good for: (a) Firefox, (b) TextMaker, (c) being able to fire up a command line and run vim and busybox. No, seriously. I get antsy if I don't have a shell prompt to hand ...))
Still like the Nexus 7 price point too. At $200 I'm cool travelling with it and if it got away from me it wouldn't be the end of the world.
(just finished The Fuller Memorandum on it btw...)
It seems like the Chrome OS is geared towards media consumption and productivity, while Android is kind of the "low cost open source" solution.
I'd argue that Android is already far more capable than Chrome OS is- I'm not entirely sure where Google are going with it.
The increase in width from the 7.9" screen is surely going to mean that this won't which is a pity.
(Totally agreed on the fits-in-pocket thing as a key value point, though!)
At 7.9 inches, it’s perfectly sized to deliver an experience every bit as big as iPad
What does that even mean? Either it's perfectly sized, and the iPad is the wrong size. Or it's not. There can surely only be one perfect size to deliver an iPad experience??? Either it's 10" or it's 7.9".
I think Apple's marketing has always been the same - it's just that for a while they were ahead of the curve and so their hyperbole was justified. The iPhone was amazing. The Macbook Air is still amazing. But there is absolutely FUCK ALL amazing about a smaller fucking iPad.
They said it about the iPod too- claiming that having less capacity than the creative nomad and no built in radio made it "lame" (CmdrTaco famously said this.)
They said it about the iMac as well, calling it a toy computer that looked like candy. Funny how in 2 years all the other manufacturers were making their computers colorful, and the bondi-blue design aesthetic was adopted by a wide variety of products around the world.
Now I'm sure somewhere there are people who were not even 10 years old when the iMac was being put down are saying the iPad mini is lame. For the same reasons.
Then when the product strikes a nerve with the public, and sells 100 million units, they decide that the people buying it must be stupid and persuaded by slick marketing, because obviously its "lame" or "doesn't have the specs" of the competition (though they never detail how it lacks specs and usually they're completely wrong and ignoring the terrible usability of the competition.)
It's the standard issue mythology of the apple hater:
Apple products are inferior (even when they aren't.) Apple products are more expensive (even though they aren't.) Apple buyers are stupid and easily persuaded by slick marketing (even though it should be obvious that people buy Apple products because they work better for them.)
Consequently, EVERY Apple product introduction is "underwhelming".
That said, Apple are inviting some of these comparisons. "More expensive", for example. The iPad Mini is more expensive than a Nexus 7, by a significant margin. Apple invited the comparison by comparing the two devices themselves on stage.
No amount of competitive marketing seems to have brought the two product families into competition beyond "well I heard the iPad has books too but my friend loves her Kindle".
The only reason the Galaxy Note gets a pass is because it's still mentally categorized as a big telephone.
I'm not sure why, given the sales of the "mini" form factor. I kind of suspect they're more concerned with positioning themselves against jumbo phones, which -are- selling in volume and have already invited a major design change in the iPhone line.
I don't know if this is necessarily the right conclusion.
For me what it comes down to in the end is the same, which is easier to hand off to a relative and not worry about.
Answer : the iPad.
I provided many family members with PCs over the years all the while using Apple products. Why? Because I knew they could just pop into a local store and buy software for it. Because I knew Windows was common and they most likely had it at work. Because I knew if their machine had an issue either I could solve it quickly or Dell's support would. Heck Dell even sent someone to my parents house to fix the unit!
Well something similar is happening here. I know if I give them an iPad they won't be lacking for software. It is a packaged experience with a dearth of support.
So, yeah they cost a bit more upfront, but for me the lack of having to "fix" something is worth the premium. It also means they know what it is and understand the intrinsic value. If I hand them a Google Nexus the first questions will be to compare it to an iPad... and well, why bother.
Neither is "better" than the other, it entirely depends on your circumstances- what you want your tablet to do, how much money you have, etc. etc.
Same for iMacs. Don't compare an iMac with a clone in a tower. Compare it to a similar form factor: all in one, quiet, low power consumption.
If you buy it over an Apple, you get what you deserve. The quality from Lenovo has been declining since they bought the brand from IBM. Thinkpad's are a SHADOW of their former glory, sadly.
Here's something people don't factor in when buying laptops: Your expensive MacBook Pro is having issues? Well, visit an Apple store and get it fixed!
Your expensive Lenovo is having issues? Well... mail it back...
But you still didn't make the comparison, you told other people to do it. Until you make the comparison, I'm still betting that the Lenovo cuts corners in a variety of ways to make the product cheaper, and as a consumer you have to accept those cost-cutting trade offs.
For example, while there are laptops much cheaper than the Air, the ultra books with similar specs, weight, battery life, and build quality aren't really cheaper. Another way to look at is that while Apple doesn't sell a $500 laptop, you don't get less in a $1,200 MBA than comparable $1,200 PC laptops.
Turns out it became the best selling iPod of all time.
While I agree some of the texts on the iPad mini page could have been better written, it's as usual just marketing speak designed to push interested customers that extra cm they need to do a purchase.
Like all tech companies, Apple needs to be able to do subtle iterations and improvements, and their marketing teams are left to try to add an "r" to every evolution.
Unless they are designed for different usage scenarios.
"At 7.9 inches, it’s perfectly sized to deliver an experience every bit as big as iPad"
It's "perfectly sized" for the role it's filling (one hand, more mobile, like a pulp novel, whatever), and iPad is "perfectly sized" for it's own role (around the house, larger games, magazine reading, whatever). They can both be "perfectly sized" in a marketing world, and I'm sure the design team fussed over the exact dimensions for a LONG time.
It's "an experience" "as big as the iPad" to emphasize that it will run all the existing apps, vs their comparisons to a "scaled up phone experience". The marketing here emphasizes that the compact experience is 'just as good'. I do wonder how well UI elements will scale down, but in a marketing world it makes a certain kind of sense to me.
Yes, these claims are a bit silly, especially in a literal sense, but recall that the original iPad was "magical". It's pretty typical marketing phrasing, especially for Apple.
That said, I frequently find the phrasing funny too.
"Nothing new, no one will buy it"
and
"It's too radical, no one will buy it"
Easy: not Apple.
With the iPad mini and the iPhone 5, have they completely forgotten how small thumbs are? It's marketing BS.
https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/overview/#video-ipad-mini-fe...
This leaves irrelevance, perhaps, but given the context of this thread I'd argue it's not that either.
[citation needed]
* Lighter - that is correct, it is ~75g lighter than KF & N7
* Better battery life - citing the tech specs, it gets 10h browsing, surfing etc. the same as N7 and 1h less than KF's (these are all advertised)
* Bigger display - Yes it is bigger in inches, but it is lower resolution than both KF and N7 - meaning pictures are going to look worst. And the mini won't be able to do true 720p.
* Faster processor - Comparing apples and oranges here, provide a citation.
And I left out the cameras. The iPad Mini has (it appears) an actually good camera, whereas the Kindle Fire has none and the Nexus 7 (I think) only has a (poor) front camera -- never figured out how to use it if it's there.
But no LTE on a portable device is just ridiculous. I'm going to jump on the iPad mini as soon as it releases.
I'm not sure how representative of any market I am, but Google could have had me as a customer from day 1 if they had had LTE on the Nexus; instead, I'll be giving more money to Apple.
It's a couple of taps to tether to my phone. I'm already paying for a mobile connection and I can't use two accounts at once.
But truthfully, all the Nexus 7 really did was make me want an iPad mini, because the device itself is very frustrating. Reading a PDF? Half the screen is a garbly mess since only one page gets rendered nicely. Drives me nuts.
Even Chrome (which runs plenty fast) has a terrible time recognizing taps on links. I find myself tapping, and tapping, and tapping, and finally, it does something.
I'm ordering an iPad mini for personal usage, and expect it to sell crazy numbers of units, if my experience is at all typical. The size difference is so important that for a month now I've put up with crappy UX even as my larger iPad was in arm's reach.
Also, every iPad I've bought has had cellular; I'm surprised Google doesn't offer that for extra $$$ on the Nexus 7. The only place I do use my iPad now is in the car, and the iPad mini (with LTE) will replace both devices.
It's much nicer than accidently hitting a link, then have to hit back after a second or two.
What's annoying is when it doesn't pick up taps on links that stand alone, which is the case, on, e.g. HN. The tap "targeting" for Chrome seems particularly poor.
I'm probably still buying the mini. It may be boring, but its still the best of its competitors. Only microsoft's stuff might make me reconsider. I've been really impressed by the lumia phones, which have a better UX than the iphone in my opinion. I can imagine a tablet with windows rt being a joy to use as well.
Bigger phone, smaller tablet...yawn.
Do you have any suggestions for something better than the canonical icon grid?
(I'm only asking this because you wrote "... never before shown the slightest interest in an Apple offering.")
it is saying you are too cheap to buy an bigger iPad, so you should buy this instead.
I must say, I've consistently been impressed with Apple's copy writing.
I honestly was relieved whenever Phil Schiller came onto stage today.
Superlatives are annoying, yes, but at least in the passage I quoted, I appreciate the word play and efficiency of the phrasing.
Yeah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
On the plus side for the N7, they screwed up on price though - for the ecosystem and build quality advantage may be a $50 premium would have been attractive esp for lesser screen resolution and older CPU/GPU. The N7 also feels like it should be more single hand friendly than the iPad mini.
In my experience, Android apps on tablets are horrible. Apple has the upper hand here in controlling the hardware, and releasing the iPad mini with the same resolution as the iPad 2 was a really smart move. Instant compatibility with all existing apps.
iOS apps are laid out in pixels, while Android apps are laid out with physical units (in, mm) or density-independent pixels, which means that a screen size change doesn't necessarily mean a usability change on Android. Two totally different layout mechanisms, and while this means that Android apps are less precise in their layouts, I'll argue that it improves usability across a range of devices.
Look at the top-selling Android tablets. Every single one has a different screen resolution/pixel density; Nexus 7 has 1280x800 (216 ppi), Kindle Fire HD has 1024x600 (169 ppi), Nook HD has 1440x900 (243 ppi), Galaxy Tab 7.7 has 1280x800 (197 ppi), etc.
It's an absolute nightmare for developers, and this is just tablets. The Android smartphone market is even more fragmented, and there is just as much variation in display specifications.
Hardware control has everything to do with it.
I don't really think hardware control is the issue here.
The fragmentation in smartphones is incomparably worse than the tablet market. But Android has nice ways of dealing with it in display-independent ways, and they work.
It's the old adage: buy on the rumor, sell on the news. I wouldn't read too much into it. The only time I really pay attention to what the street thinks about Apple is when earnings are announced.
However, you can be pretty sure what the price will do a couple of days before and the day of an announcement.
Absolutely. Apple could sell all their products for 20-50% off and still make a profit.
This is not the business Apple are in. They do not want to.
Seeings they are the biggest company in the world, I suspect their decision to not reduce margins is working.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFAjfUT8wZI
Like Bezos said recently, successful people change their mind, especially when confronted with great evidence like the Nexus 7.
Judging by the photos of the prototype iPad, I wonder if they ever made a prototype this size before deciding on the original iPad specs.
Anyway, I'm glad they didn't make it retina.
Why? Seems like a step backwards. iPhone, MacBook Pro, iPad... Apple pushes the need for Retina and then produces a new product that doesn't have it?
Since these devices are hand held, I prefer weight over screen res.
oops
so if you designed a button to be as small as a finger for the ipad, it's now too small.
The tap targets on an iPad mini are exactly the same size as they are on an iPhone or iPod touch (which also confirms that Apple is using the same equipment to produce the iPad mini screen panels as they used for the iPhone 3GS — they're just cutting the panels in a different size).
“I think there’s a method to Apple’s madness in recommending 44-point-or-larger tap targets for all iOS apps, both on the iPhone and iPad, despite the fact that on the iPad-as-we-know-it, each point is physically larger than a point on the iPhone or iPod Touch. (1 point maps directly to 1 pixel on iPad 1/2 and older iPhones; 1 point maps to a 4-pixel square on the iPad 3 and iPhone 4/4S.) A 44-point tap target on the rumored iPad Mini would be exactly the same physical size as a 44-point tap target on the iPhone.”
http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/this_ipad_mini_thing
It's not like Apple even does either. The recent iOS 6 apps store on iPhone is a good example of something where they made the tap targets too small to expand app updates and it was very frustrating. They finally fixed that just recently so that the target was much larger.
I'm also wondering if they've made any iPad mini specific changes to OS elements to enhance the usability - namely if there's been any changes to touch targets
This could end up a huge mess.
Smaller ipad -> smaller icons -> harder to tap