I prefer the Mini over the full-size iPad in every single regard other than display resolution
So now even Gruber admits that the 7" form factor is better for most use cases. With the latest crop of Android 7" tablets providing a lot more bang for the buck than the Mini I think pretty soon we're going to stop calling it the "iPad" market.
The strike against the sub-10" tablets has been that their aspect ratios have consistently been closer to 16:9, rather than the 4:3 of the iPad. In my usage of the Nexus 7, I found that meant I could only comfortably use the device in portrait – landscape was physically awkward and made all the software look goofy. Which meant I eventually went back to the iPad. 90% of my tablet usage seems to be landscape.
The thing the iPad mini gets right is maintaining the broader aspect ratio while trimming down the size and weight of the iPad.
The narrower bezels, the ones on top and bottom when it is held in landscape, make the mini hard to hold (or prop on your stomach when reclining) in landscape.
I ask because I find that unlikely with a smart cover. I use one with my iPad 3 and, with the smart cover rolled up, propping it up requires little more than my finger tips supporting the back edge.
In landscape I hold my Nexus 7 by the sides though, so I found it not to be such a hindrance as I first thought. I suppose this will hold true for the iPad Mini.
I would guess a lot of the initial customers for the iPad Mini won't be too sensitive to the price difference between the iPad Mini and a comparable Android device. They may base their purchase decision on other factors such as aesthetics, or specific features, or app availability.
Also, it looks like "tablet market" outstripped "ipad market" in late 2010[1]!
It's odd that you imply that Gruber is one of the last hold-outs, and his change of heart finally shows that 7" is better. I still prefer the 10" form factor, and while I never knew Gruber was my last celebrity proponent, I can't say I care.
I prefer the 10" Retina because it beautifully renders scientific papers in their native PDF format, and with Papers 2, the IT of research verges on genuinely pleasant.
The reason the iPad2 continued to sell even after the introduction of the iPad3 is because
1) most people can't tell the difference between retina and non-retina displays
2) the battery life and recharge time were worse on the 3, leaving many people (including myself) recommending that people by the 2.
1. If you use a Retina display for even a week, the non-Retina display will look considerably worse when you switch back; you can't tell the difference until you actually use the device for an extended period.
2. I've heard from a few people that this is the case, but also that the iPad 4 charges faster, actually delivers on the 10-hour battery life claims and runs noticeably cooler.
Unrelated: I hate Gruber's pedantic style when it comes to Apple product names. Seriously, just write it the way Apple markets it.
> 1. If you use a Retina display for even a week, the non-Retina display will look considerably worse when you switch back; you can't tell the difference until you actually use the device for an extended period.
I agree to this. I have an iPhone 4S and an iPad2. Every time I use my iPad2 the pixels seem distorted.
When the iPad 2 came out, I was really happy upgrading from my iPad. It felt slimmer and sleeker. I was not a fan of the iPad 3:
1. It was heavier. This is one of the few times this has happened with Apple products I think, and to me it was significantly heavier. The iPad 2 was already stretching it as a one-handed device, the extra weight on the 3 was the deal breaker and it wasn't that fun to have it for reading in bed anymore for example. The iPad 4 has not fixed this as it is even heavier than the 3. I used a hover bar ( http://twelvesouth.com/products/hoverbar/ ) and it could no longer support the weight too :/ (yes this is less of an issue but was still annoying and really highlighted the "trade-off" feeling of the iPad 3).
2. The performance sucked. The chip was just not ready to spit out retina-number of pixels. I prefer not losing frames to sharper text or whatever, and as much I'd like to, I really can't tell the difference that much when it comes to retina. I hear a lot of "if you use it for X amount of time you won't be able to go back". This doesn't seem like a great value proposition to me: "after X time this will seem normal (not exciting), and everything else will seem like shit!".
3. I could fit less stuff than before (unfortunately this is true no matter what given the silly way Apple handles "universal" retina/non-retina apps). I had a 64 GB iPad 2, and when moving to a 64GB iPad 3 and upgrading the apps they all increased in size by so much that I couldn't fit them all anymore (plus music, etc). This is particularly frustrating because it is 100% fixable by just having a system that distributes different binaries with different resources (with NO extra work to the developer).
I am incredibly excited about the iPad mini. I bought it at midnight when it went on sale and sold my iPad 3 without a second thought (which basically paid for the mini). As the article mentions, I always felt kind of silly taking a Macbook Air and iPad 3 with me, and after the Nexus 7 came out I would always really wonder which of the two to take (NOT a fan of the OS/feel, but couldn't beat the form factor). I now think this one tiny aspect of traveling will feel really good.
I agree that all three of your points are significant disadvantages, but I do think the retina display makes up for them. I upgraded from the iPad 2 and have no regrets (especially after selling the old model for $350). Even before there were rumors of a retina display iPad, I always thought the one flaw of the iPad 2 was the relatively ugly display.
On a related note, the added thickness and weight of the 3rd generation iPad does show Apple's prioritizing of battery life over portability. I actually have the opposite preference: I would love a retina iPad with the same size and weight of the iPad 2, even if it had half the battery life.
My eyesight isn't that great. My contacts don't completely fix my astigmatism. I can't tell the difference between the displays, just that the colors seem a bit brighter on one than the other. A retina display seems like a waste for me. I suspect a lot of people with poor eyesight feel the same way too.
> A retina display seems like a waste for me. I suspect a lot of people with poor eyesight feel the same way too.
I understand the emphasis is that it's a waste for you personally, but the statement above is analogous to a person with poor hearing saying they can't tell the difference between a cheap pair of earphones and a set of monitor headphones. To those with decent hearing, it's night and day, so it certainly has value in the market place.
The same applies with high DPI screens and eyesight - individuals with good vision will reap the rewards just as those with a keen sense of sound will appreciate high-fidelity audio equipment.
The real explanation is that some people think that iPad 2 is the next version of 'the new iPad'. I'm kidding of course.
iPad 4 is now called 'iPad with Retina display' which makes me believe that Apple might even continue upgrading iPad 2 with iPad name, similar to the other product lines with/without Retina.
Sorry I don't buy either of these reasons, I would chalk it up to the lower acquisition cost. It is still quite the 'luxury' good and there is a lot of market share in the margins as evidenced by relatively high resale value.
Huh, I’m getting the same 10h/8h (WiFi/3G) with my iPad 3 as I did with my iPad 2. And when I say that I mean it: I regularly use my iPad on long train rides (5–6h), so this isn’t some sort of extrapolation.
I took my 13" MacBook Air into the Apple store, and loaded some prime shots I had taken with a good lens into the Retina version of Aperture onto the MacBook Pro off a USB Key (I love how the Apple Staff who saw me doing this went and got a cloth to clean off all the smudges from both the screens so we could get the best possible comparison)
Long story short - the difference blew me away, and I fell in love with the Retina Display. The friend I was with swore he could not tell the difference between my 1440x900 2010 13" Macbook Air and the 2880x1800 15" Macbook Pro Retina - even with an App that had been optimized for Retina Display.
He just could see anything different on the screens. Some people just don't see the pixels.
I think most people can tell the difference, but I also think people don't care about the difference. Increased resolution on the iPad (which can only run one process at a time) really isn't that pressing of a concern.
It's the same reason many people find DVDs adequate for movies. It's good enough. Yes, blu-ray is higher quality, but you can only really "notice" when they're side by side and get used to the quality you're looking at.
I don't think "most", but I'd buy "many". But more so, a lot of people have never seen a high-DPI retina display and don't know what they're missing.
I have an iPad 3; girlfriend still has an iPad 1. Whenever she shows me something, it's painful, particularly text. Luckily she now gets the iPad 3 once my iPad 4 arrives...
You can pry the retina screen from my cold dead hands. I've been using an iPad 2 for the last week as I'm preparing to give it away on my trip. My god, the pixels cause my eyes to bleed! I never noticed before I had the iPad 3, but somehow it just causes your resolution expectations to increase drastically.
This is not the experience I've had with a retina MBP at all. While the increase in usable workspace is nice, I recently had to bring in it for service and go back to using my 2011-vintage "normal" MBP for a week - the only difference I noted was the lack of SSD. This is running the newer machine at 1920x1200 (or 3840x2400, I suppose) and the old at 1680x1050. My day-to-day work is all done in iTerm and VIM. Had I paid for the machine, I would've been sorely disappointed I think.
I think part of it might be working distance, and that the desktop OS still isn't really optimized for retina. The other problem I have with the rMBP is that it's glossy; I'm sticking with my 2010 17" Matte for now, and the slightly-less-glossy-than-Pro Air.
Fortunately 17" PVA and 24" IPS 1920x1200 and 13" PVA MBA 1400x990 are still basically ok. It will be exciting in 2013-2014 when High DPI desktop displays, iPad Mini Retina displays, etc. become commonplace. I wonder if it'll be 4K on the desktop, or some other standard.
Practically everyone I knew over 30 in the late 90s when DVD was becoming a thing told me they didn't see the difference compared to VHS, even on a 37" TV (big for back then).
Then I heard the same sort of things about HD a few years later.
Eventually I had to stop assuming that they were all lying to me... I don't know if people just figure their vision stabilized in the 20s and don't realize it's still getting worse cause they don't go to the eye doctor every year, or maybe they just don't pay as close attention as me, but I've heard that sort of thing too much to disbelieve.
At distance (> 5') there is no perceptible difference for HD vs SD video to me. If my life depended on it, I could not identify a show in SD vs a show in HD. Totally wasted on me.
And yes, you are write - a good pair of glasses would probably help.
30+ here, and SD vs HD for me is day and night. Though except for computer generated animation movies, I have a hard time spotting the difference between 720p and 1080p, especially since some movies have blur/grain filters...
So the 1G iPad (which is a staple in our household) which didn't have any real competitors for 2 years - missed a key feature?
I think not. It was an MVP, finely crafted and still works well to this day for us.
Note when they did release a better iPad with a "missing" feature - camera - it had software that created a full solution (FaceTime). If Apple had waited until July (when the iPhone4 and iOS4 with FaceTime arrived), they would have lost out on several valuable months of hype and market dominance.
Yeah, screw any company that has ever improved an existing product. The automobile industry, for example, has been leeching money from the unthinking population for over a century.
Oh, also, the iPad mini has cellular data options.
While the Mini is unquestionably the device people want for doing what they already do on the iPad, which seem to be reading and gaming, there's part of me that regrets that we never saw the breakthrough multitouch apps that in my mind can only be realized on the larger iPad: imagine a mathematics app that accepts pen and ink input as well as a kind of sign language for massaging algebraic expressions (something that I've been toying with) or a video editing app that allows for fine scrubbing and instrument-like slicing and dicing. Of course tasks like the latter are waiting for processors to catch up. My point really is that I hope the market doesn't strangle the large-screen tablet approach before they can reach their full potential, if such potential indeed exists.
Good point, but I think that Apple might actually produce an iPad-whopper some day, largely because of the laptop replacing types of applications that you mentioned.
At least while at home, the sweet spot would be to have a mini and a whopper (perhaps 14" screen, hopefully weight much less than 2 pounds). Having both, perfectly synced, would be great, being able to grab the pad best for whatever use.
Other manufacturers like Samsung might do this first. Samsung did such an awesome job producing the Galaxy III S.
That math app sounds amazing. I think this is something that would be great to have in a Surface-type device with a touchscreen and a keyboard — I would love to have that sort of input integrated with Mathematica or sympy or what have you. I would never need to fiddle with LibreOffice Math ever again!
There are UI questions with a 13 inch tablet - for example, on-screen keyboard.
Tweaking a 10" optimized OS for a 13" screen sounds like a non-trivial process if you have a UX focus.
Weight is just one of the problems of a larger tablet - there's also display yields, cost, processor to drive the graphics, which leads to heat dissipation concerns, etc.
It just now clicked for me why the Big iPad got a refresh for Christmas: because -Christmas-. With this quick and dirty product bump, customers don't have to feel like they're choosing between the Farty Old Big One or the Sexy New Small One. They get to compare fresh Apples to fresh Apples and no tech enthusiast is going to tell them to "wait for the new one".
This November refresh covers all of the Western holiday buying, all of the Chinese New Year holiday buying, and minimizes the inevitable disappointment and sales sag that comes with the typical iPad refresh in April.
I'm surprised at the swooning over the form factor, not just from Gruber but the rest of the press, including big-fingered die-hards like Darymple.
We've been deploying tablets in the field since the Panasonic days. iPad replaced them, but not before we tried every alternative as they've arrived. When IPad hit we went 100% web-based.
(bit of background: after getting on the tablet train, we buy anything requested, support it 100%, and let users decide what works. ≈93% iPad, 7% trying out Nexus 7 today, 5 requests for Nexus 10 FWIW)
Playbook, Xoom, TouchPad, Nexus 7 and more were duds. Big complaint was "too small", browser performance (and bugs) came next. Build quality was so bad pretty much all were far more expensive than IPads anyway. I've got 3 dead Nexus 7s on my desk and it seems like they just came out.
If they've built a "perfect size" tablet with a good browser and pro-sumer build quality, well, 20% lower acquisition cost would make me happy. But happy folks in the field is better, and that's where we stand to see a shift.
Edit: Surprised everyone is so ready to ditch the 10" for 8"
I mentioned this somewhere else. You know who's going to buy an iPad Mini? Somebody who already has an iPad. Apple is trying to keep existing customers in their ecosystem.
This product doesn't make sense for anyone else. Average Joe Consumer who's never seen apps on the iPad doesn't care about apps, or having his gadgets sharp enough to chop onions. But he does care about price. The Nexus 7 or Fire HD is a no-brainer for him.
I hate to shill my blog here (truth be told I don't even know if it can handle more than 2 users at a time) but I wrote a little more about it here http://blog.fullfrontalmarketing.com/en/2012/10/25/ipad-mini...
Didn't mean for anyone to take me too literally. What's I'm trying to say is I think you are in the minority. Perhaps 80% of the Mini's buyers will be previous iPad or iPhone owners. (whereas with the iPad or iPhone maybe 50-60% are brand new customers)
Or maybe I am just completely out of touch with the US consumer and their purchasing priorities (I am from Canada)
The reason why I've bought an iPad2 instead of an iPad 3 is that I could get for less than 500$ a useful device (especially for educational purposes) with a cover + care pack.
Actually, you should make the same experiment as a shrink did with the iPhone5. That is, take an iPad2 show it around you and say it's the new iPad. Most people would believe you…
Gruber, Dalyrymple, Pogue, Ed Baig, Walt Mossberg, Topolsky, Sielger.
It's a tradition after a new Apple product launch for these guys to have a review.
You know that Gruber/Siegler are going to love it, and will write their respective love sonnets to the new device. They are solid writers (Siegler, in particular, has gotten better in the last five years) - so Apple fans appreciate their articles. Topolsky will be pretty analytical and provide one of the more detailed of the reviews that aren't an Anandtech class "we will tell you everything" review. Pogue will have an Apple Bias, with a bit of balance - but carries some semblance of honest tech journalism. Mossberg will be grumpy if something pisses him off about the device, but, in my experience, is probably the more balanced of the review. He has enough Mojo that he isn't concerned in the slightest about losing access to Apple. Dalrymple can be counted on 100% of the time to say a new Apple Device is perfect - his reviews don't get a lot of traction with me for some reason.
So now even Gruber admits that the 7" form factor is better for most use cases. With the latest crop of Android 7" tablets providing a lot more bang for the buck than the Mini I think pretty soon we're going to stop calling it the "iPad" market.