If they INSIST that it MUST be 60 Hz, I'd accept the consolation/compromise of 60 Hz but 0ms-ish latency. (Maybe they already do it that way.)
As in waiiiiit until the 16.67ms between frames is almost up while sampling inputs, then bam!, render quicky, bam!, transfer it over a link that could carry more than 60 frames per second, bam!, fast OLED display. Each frame fresh and close to input.
To the why?-sayers: Because the difference is noticeable. We can get all philosophical and discuss whether it's a competitive advantage for someone to not notice the difference, or vice versa. Why the why?, why not just… take us difference-noticers on our word? Like… we're not taking your 60Hz 16.67ms crunchiness away from you?
Has any non pro consumer ever noticed a display greater than 60 hz. I can barely get the regular people in my life to nice anything above 30 hz or turning off motion smoothing. I really don't see how any of this stuff matters for most people
Someone was complaining to me that Apple took a long time to add 120 Hz displays to phones. I didn't even know what my iPhone had, turns out it's 60 Hz cause it's a 12 mini. I've used 120 Hz displays before. Cannot tell the difference.
What you definitely notice between 60Hz vs 120Hz on a phone is the battery drain.
Depends a lot on the usage I guess. In a tablet where you may draw etc you can notice the difference definitely. Or if you play games on the phone. But otherwise I don't think the difference is that important as it is sometimes claimed.
Not for me. I tried out the high refresh rate thing, switched back to 60.. can't tell any difference at all. Same for high DPI vs "regular" DPI screens.
Screen flicker on CRTs with low refresh rates was terrible for me, but with modern flat panels.. nope, can't really tell the difference.
I think this varies a lot from person to person. I find the effect to be incredibly subtle - one of my monitors reset it self to 60hz a while back, and I didn't catch the problem for days.
Can you not literally see the frames skip as you move the mouse cursor across the screen? To me it’s OBVIOUS and excruciating and I’m only a light/casual gamer and use all my computers for work.
Sure, and maybe I'm odd, but I don't read text while scrolling. I stop scrolling and then read. So yes, if I just scroll up and down quickly I can see the refresh is different, but otherwise I don't notice it in my regular usage.
Plus we all grew up reading the 24fps text scroll in the Star Wars intro just fine. Until we convince a new generation of cinematographers to shoot in 120fps, it all seems a bit moot - even most digitally-authored content doesn't exceed 60fps (and tech people are the first to complain about things like the soap opera effect...)
The way frame rate work on conventional film vs. an LCD are completely different. It’s like trying to ask the bitrate of a Vinyl record.
Conventional film projectors don’t show each frame continuously, they transition the shutter blade smoothly between frames, and projectors often flash each one a couple of times (48 or 72hz). A cinema projector is going to demolish a LCD in smoothness and motion quality even if it technically has a higher refresh rate on paper.
There is a big difference between watxhing a movie and operating a device where your input makes things move on the screen, you notice the depay way more.
If something is not noticeable when it gets "better", but it leads people to notice other stuff is "worse" over time, then I'd argue it's not actually a good thing to get.
Imagine if someone said "this food won't really taste better to you when you first eat it, but after 6 months you'll find other food tastes worse". To me, this would not be a selling point.
I didn't know how bad TV looked in the 90s. We watched a low res 19 inch TV from across the room. Did moving to HD make any real difference in our lives? Do we really enjoy TV that much more? Once the excitement wears off about 20 minutes into watching it, its still the same thing. If the story is good, you get into it either way and forget what you're watching it on.
I watched TV and used computers in the 90s and the whole time I was desperate for display technology to improve. Mainly CRT refresh rates, which often gave me a headache, but yeah I noticed the crappy pixel density all the time too. The nice Apple display I have now is one of my fave things I’ve ever bought and could only be improved by being >60Hz (which I do notice, but it’s not a big deal).
That’s what I’m talking about. 80Hz was just enough to keep the headaches away for me and that was either impossible or came with other compromises for some monitors / video cards.
Depends on the content. When people are talking in a nondescript (thing the "12 Angry Men" movie), SD is quite fine. Now compare it to Blade Runner or Scarface. Those movies absolutely benefit from more detail and colors.
Yes, I definitely remember noticing how much better TV was when we moved from 20" sets from last century to HD LCDs (and then much larger/higher-res LCDs) over the last 25 years.
And I would disagree that only the story matters. If that were the case, people wouldn't go to the theater (a trend that has started happening in the last 15 years as people have been able to rig their living rooms to give an experience that is nearly theater quality, especially when considering cost and convenience. When we had 20" TVs, they were no substitute for going to the movies.
People had giant TV’s in the past as well. They are cheaper now.
Either way, a larger screen is not the same improvement as higher resolution. And more importantly, the reason people may not go to the movies when they have a home theater system is partly due to justifying the cost of the theater system.
It's the same dynamic as with how we optimize for web pages speed. People don't immediately think that website responding 200ms faster is better. But they enjoy the experience more anyway (even if at some subconscious level) and they end up liking it more and spending more time with it.
With food also you could be incrementally getting better and better food and when you then try v1 it would taste bad.
It seems that we might also be noticing slight degradation more than slight improvement in general? No idea if that's true.
I've often had new phones that are 'faster' but I barely notice the fastness until I go back to my old phone and realise that my finger-memory needs adapting because things take just a bit longer to load.
That's not been my experience with the refresh rates, and it's not what GP and GGP said either. I have a 13 mini and have bought both 16 and Air. I kept them for 2 weeks and then returned.
When I got the phones, I did not notice any benefit related to screen refresh. I also did not notice any detriment when I went back to my 13 mini after two weeks on a 120 Hz screen.
But if it was as GP said, and it's only something you notice when you go back to a "lesser" screen, then that would not be a selling point in my book.
I always wondered why Windows users didn't notice the jagged text in 2001 and see a Mac as obviously better. You don't know what you aren't missing until it's gone.
I used to switch between a MacBook Pro with a 120Hz display and a MacBook Air with a 60Hz display and never noticed any difference. I think I could probably have noticed if I'd put them side by side and compared the feel of the scrolling, but why would I do that?
There's a minority of people who really do notice stuff like this, which is fine. The problem is that for some reason, they sometimes have difficulty accepting that they're a minority.
Some people are born with nervous systems which aren’t capable of noticing the difference, just like there are people who can’t see better than 20/20 no matter how good their optical acuity is.
Thanks for the link, checked it and well even side by side on my mbp, the difference is not that super obvious. 30 to 60 fps is very obvious and night and day. 60 fps and 120 fps, I only notice the difference side by side if I pay attention...
But maybe it's because I'm 40+ with relatively bad eye vision and 20 years earlier I'd be noticing the difference much more.. But I'd say going from 1080p to 4k was a lot more obvious than that...
I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns for display refresh rates, but I can tell you from experience that it is definitely higher than 60hz. 90hz feels meaningfully smoother (on a Steam deck), and 120/144hz (on a desktop monitor in my case) feels smoother than that. Even mouse input latency is perceptibly lower. I've never used a display faster than 144hz but I honestly would not be surprised to discover that one can still tell the difference well past 144hz.
60fps is basically fine as long as you are unaware that it can be any better, but once you find out you are forever spoiled by the knowledge.
I'm sure mouse latency is a big issue for iPad Mini users.
I know there's a sizable contingent of people who just think a bigger number is better, but realistically this is a device for passively consuming text and video content that is typically around 30 fps anyway. Why waste the battery power on faster refresh?
> Does the page look and feel glued to your finger as you scroll?
Yes, for me issues with apps have mainly been in poorly optimized code causing lag, slow loading and the like. The 60hz/120hz thing has never really been a practical issue.
Not sure about iPads, but going from a pixel 3 to a pixel 5 made me feel like my pixel 3 was broken. Xr to 16 pro was similar, but that is because Xr was legit broken.
The ProMotion screens have variable refresh rate depending on the content displayed. 10Hz to 120Hz for iPhones and 24Hz to 120Hz for iPads. So in theory the power consumption should be even better than a regular screen for static content like reading text.
Yup. For me up until 90/100ish it's a pretty significant improvement all the way up and after that I don't know if I could notice outside of a fast game or wiggling the cursor over a contrasting color
I'm sure a lot of people now would feel odd if you gave them a 60Hz phone after high refresh has become so common, even if they don't pay conscious attention to that kind of stuff
For doomscrolling or watching videos it makes little difference. For an iPad that advertises drawing with the pencil, the latency of the brushstroke is a massive difference between the two. The more immediate feedback unlocks more confidence and reduces a lot of friction.
I think Apple has held off 120 Hz for so long precisely because the average person gets a bit of a jolt of "this device is fast, it runs so smooth compared to..." they can't quite immediately place until someone explains it's the refresh rate.
Without this, it'd be very hard for an average user to "feel" a performance difference between an A18 Pro in the Neo and say as far as the M5 Max in a MacBook Pro unless they had a "special" use case which really needed the extra CPU/GPU cores.
Of course, they can't stay forever on that. E.g. with the iPhone 17 they finally flipped the non-Pro over. Probably because it was starting to make the iPhone seem sluggish/stuttery compared to other phones more than it was making the iPhone 18 seem fast. Tablets have never seemed to be as fierce a market in terms of your average Joe comparing them, but I'd expect the same switch to being a liability instead of a tool will happen there as well (if they aren't already late to the game).
I think they made iOS run slower for 60Hz devices. Like 2-3 version ago they changed all the animations and it makes it unbearable to use my iPHone 17 on 60Hz when I used to prefer running my old Samsungs on 60Hz several years ago.
From what I can tell, it's the thing they notice more than almost anything else. I was recently shopping for a new phone and my brother, who has no interest in tech, kept telling me I need to get the one with it (I forgot the exact term he used, it wasn't 120hz admittedly).
That argument goes the other way though? The only reason TV manufacturers would leave frame interpolation on by default is that a decent chunk of people notice, those people care, and most of the people who notice are "normal people" who aren't repulsed by it.
If only "pro consumers" noticed or cared... well, those "pro consumers" are the ones who think it looks like shit and would rather have a TV without it.
> I can barely get the regular people in my life to nice anything above 30 hz or turning off motion smoothing. I really don't see how any of this stuff matters for most people
"I don't have an issue with it, so most people also don't have an issue with it"
It happens when someone overestimates how much other people agree with them, assuming that their own personal beliefs, values, or experiences are the default for everyone else.
Reading comprehension is important. There was no inverse take here. Just pointing out anecdotal evidence isn't enough to draw a conclusion over a larger sample size.
You don't have to know what Hz is to see that scrolling on some devices is smooth and on other (coug..Apple) devices is choppy. 60Hz feels like a decade old phone.
My pixel lets me pick between 60 or 120Hz refresh rate, the bump in perceived smoothness is substantial, to the point that 60Hz does appear choppy in comparison.
I just tried it on my iPhone right now, and yeah, something seems wrong. Switching from 120Hz to 60Hz on my Mac, I can barely tell. On the iPhone, 60Hz feels more like 30Hz.
I got a Pixel 7 Pro for work, and it's so laggy. Idk what a 120hz display is for when stock apps like Google Maps are running at like 30fps. I thought maybe some corp security stuff was slowing it down, but I showed it to people at work who have only ever used Android, and they thought it was normal.
Outdated comparison now that Liquid Glass is lagging my phone.
Phones today have plenty of power to generate 120 screens per seconds. Capping them with a screen is a terrible idea. Smooth form a decade ago isn't the same as smooth of today.
20 years ago I was gaming at 30fps and called it smooth. Now 120Hz feels like bare minimum.
Nobody ever wanted a >60Hz display, but once you've used one it's hard to go back. It's like having a higher-performance car. You're now stuck with paying more just for baseline happiness.
It's probably not actually as hard to go back as we think it is, but holding on to stuff is in our genes.
I keep hearing this all the time, and I think this is an absolutely massive overstatement that you cannot go back to 60 hz after experiencing high refresh rates.
My personal experience is that I do notice the difference - for like a minute - and then I adjust and never care anymore.
Strangely enough, I can't use a sub-120hz phone anymore, but I have no problems using my 60hz laptop or 75hz desktop monitor. Maybe the different form factors let people compartmentalize their experiences.
If you give me a choice between buttery smooth >60Hz refresh rate animations, and better battery life, I'll choose the battery life 100% of the time. But that's just me. But then again, with the insides of a typical tablet being 90% battery these days (along with a little motherboard along one edge) maybe that's all a nonissue. Phones, on the other hand... my unambitious, cheap (from when you could still get half decent cheap phones) one goes two days on a charge easily, whereas a friend with an "advanced" phone struggles to get through one day with it, often running out during all-day outdoor adventures. Tradeoffs!
Look at Apple’s own smartphone lineup. The Pro models with 120Hz screens get better battery life than the low end iPhone models.
You could make up for the difference in battery life with an almost undetectable amount of extra battery capacity from both a cost and size standpoint.
the irony is that 120hz screens are actually 1-120hz vs constant 60hz which makes it more battery efficient most of the time except for when you're scrolling
What's magical about 60 there? I'd naively think you'd just want VRR and some power saving render rate behavior rather than a fixed target framerate equal to the max framerate for all types of content all the time. The latter gives you neither good power saving nor good experience in most combinations.
I think you missed the point of their comment. The point is they are reducing features (marginal cost difference for them) to provide a worse experience for a cheaper model. I'm pretty sure it's less complicated to have a shared manufacturing process with fewer SKUs than to have two separate displays (if they're even different and not just software locked).
Do you think they couldn't add a refresh rate control to the device if you wanted to have lower battery? They already have variable refresh rate implemented, a much harder problem.
I remember the age of when Intel used to lock down hardware multipliers for overclocking behind the K versions, and GPUs did too. This is a well known practice, and Apple is not above it.
While I agree 100%, I'm more interested in the variable refresh down to 1hz that comes with 'Promotion' to save on battery when viewing lots of static text.
The base iPhone 17 has a 120 Hz display, I suspect they are going to drip feed it through their products as a cheap spec bump (vs adding extra RAM or storage).
If you needed a mini tablet you would cause there's practically zero competition
I bought the new 8 inch Alexa tablet the other day, and the price was decent but it's a piece of shit. I only wanted it for putting on a video in bed while I fall asleep but it can't even do that because when you drop the brightness to minimum, the display randomly turns off (not actually locking the screen, it's still running the app and active, you can touch stuff you can't see, but the pixels are turned off)
I've seen some TVs do that, turn off the screen when it gets dark (not talking OLED). Often takes too long and is a nuisance. There's a similar awful gimmick with speakers turning off when quiet, but it results in sound cutting out because it's too slow. I've seen some monitors that even try to do this when using headphones through them.
LG were the first to ship products with Tandem OLED, in the automotive market. Apple were not even the first in the mobile or PC markets, being beaten by Huawei and Dell, respectively.
Most 5K monitors on the PC side are not going to be driven over Thunderbolt, but rather DisplayPort or HDMI.
And the most popular resolution on PC is not 4k, but rather 1080p and 1440p.
To the average consumer, deep blacks will look great in the next Avengers movie.
To the average consumer, obsessing over scroll feeling not completely perfect is a distraction from watching the next Avengers movie, if not downright neurotic behavior.
To a prosumer, the value may be obvious but the price may not be worth it. Which can lead to a distaste for the company, for not being a more accommodating company.
To a professional, if you need it, you need it, and you begrudgingly pay for it. Because you need it.
I don’t even know what my phone screen has. Wasn’t why I bought the pro at the time. Wanted the additional ram. So I wouldn’t feel as pressed to upgrade now. (Prosumer, aka neurotic.)
Usually it's low FPS (if FPS at all) that causes motion sickness. This comes up in VR discussion a lot. IIRC like 90Hz is considered a minimum.
I get horribly motion sick playing some games like Half-Life 2, Metroid Prime, or the original DOOM. I run my phone at 120Hz and like it. For games, cranking up the FoV tends to help, also disabling effects like viewbobbing, blur, shaking, etc.
I understand this is not fun to experiment with, though. Once I'm motion sick, I tend to be the entire day, only sleeping fixes it, so I'm not usually excited to keep trying to tweak the thing that makes me sick. I tend to dive into settings before playing any game now. I hate when it auto starts the game to appear cinematic.
I could not care less about any refresh rate over 30.
You can care about it, but that just means it sounds like a differentiator to me, not something everyone should pay for just because you care about it.
You will have to somehow prove it if you would say that the panel and driver chip are all already ready to do 100+ hz for free by default, and are actually artificially limited, and that that artificial limitation doesn't come with some other advantage like battery life (allowing a smaller battery or less cost in some other way).
Or, jokes aside, I honestly think that you might just have beefier time-integrating sensory-processing circuits in your brain than I do. Really. I do profoundly notice the difference, and it's a gritty and distracting thing. A slight but persistently intrusive and distracting perceptual thing. I honestly wish I didn't notice, but I do. I basically ask this: believe us when we ask for higher framerates and lower end-to-end latency.
And I'm fairly certain that the hardware and software to do higher frame rates across the board is a baseline commodity in the Apple source hardware ecosystem the build and integrate from. And it's certainly a better fit to consider it a line drawn between "pro" and "not pro" for marketing and pricing purposes than any fundamental and meaningful price-of-equipment threshold.
For movies, 30fps is good enough, but for a screen which you interact with, the change to 120hz is dramatic. And there is no reason why they should not be adding it.
High refresh rate displays are an interesting feature because most users do not notice the difference.
I can spot a 60Hz display from jiggling the mouse pointer for a second.
I’ve also done side-by-side comparisons of full screen scrolling on 60Hz and 120Hz screens for less technical people who could barely perceive a difference when I was pointing it out, but it took some time to get them to see it.
MKBHD (YouTube tech video and reviewer) talks about this a lot: It’s highly valuable to people like you and me who are attuned to the performance of our devices, but most people don’t notice. Or care!
I would appreciate high Hz displays everywhere, but I admit that Apple has probably made the right consumer choice tradeoff to compromise on refresh rate for these lower end devices where minimum cost and maximum battery life are the two most important features for those who buy them.
I'm one of those who can't spot a difference. I've tried to with the mouse trick or scrolling and I just can't see it. I can see the difference between 30fps and 60fps but anything north of 60fps is imperceptible to me. Maybe it's from a lifetime of gaming on toaster specs where I'd scarcely break 25fps.
I think another thing to keep in mind is that there’s probably an element of sensory adaptation at play here. Like when you wear a watch: you notice it at first, and then you don’t notice it on your wrist anymore.
So if you’re actively moving between a high-refresh-rate device (like a lot of people here with their 144hz monitors) and then one with a lower refresh rate, you’re probably more sensitive (and potentially annoyed) by the discrepancy.
You will notice this as soon as you use a low dpi device again for any length of time. First 10 minutes you see the pixels. After that you stop seeing the pixels.
Viewing distance plays a factor too. I realized 4k tvs are useless to me because I can't perceive 1080p pixels unless I'm comparison shopping in a TV show room from 2 feet away (probably why they don't let you experience appropriate TV viewing distances in these spaces in the first place).
I wanted to upgrade my air(gen4) but with these prices it's just not happening. Oh and no support for the perfectly fine apple pencil I already got with it is just....
It's hard to even know what price to use to calculate the delta, since there are different processors with different memory capacities, different CPUs based on memory, and higher price for the nano-texture display.
But yeah, a top-of-the-line iPad mini costs well more than an MBA, which seems kind of nuts. Add on a keyboard case and Apple Pencil Pro and you're looking at $1,500.
I would not assume it is software-locked. Display controller on 120Hz ProMotion displays is more expensive. Also, the panel itself is likely cheaper LTPS vs. LTPO.
Value/$ in iPad basically has not changed since 2022. Inflation (general and AI/antitrust-driven component shortages) has cancelled out technical gains.
The question you I think should ask is who finds this value reasonable?. To which, I can only answer my myself who can’t see any reason to upgrade from my iPhone 15.
I'm on iPhone 13 and only reason I'd like to upgrade is my battery is poor now and because I have a small crack on the back glass, Apple requires me changing both the back glass and battery which is $500 CAD.
I have a 2022 mini that I use constantly. I was looking forward to this update. I like the oled and the lower weight, but it's just too expensive for what you get. The processor upgrades etc. mean nothing to me, my 2022 mini isn't slow. I don't want the camera on the side either.
It's too bad because Apple only updates these things every couple years and the price never goes down, so this is the best moment to update. Oh well. Maybe I'll buy a new cover for my old mini.
Supports extended display - with Apple ignoring the capabilities of Pro iPhones (give us the Dex already!), this is now the smallest device you can take on trips to have it become a (nerfed by software) workstation when plugged to USB-C monitor.
It makes no sense to make the devices so thin and then having a fat camera. This requires a cover to equalize the size with the camera for haptic reasons. Better use this space for other stuff like larger batteries and make the device the same thickness everywhere.
I would assume, however, that they didn't "fake" it - that they instead chose a filming position and lens such that camera was obscured behind the edge of the device (the edge facing the viewer is the far side from the camera). Bit of trickery for sure though.
> I would assume, however, that they didn't "fake" it - that they instead chose a filming position and lens such that camera was obscured behind the edge of the device
I’d suspect the same. From that angle, the camera bump is on the opposite edge; when I hold my iPad Air in the same position, the camera bump is also just about hidden.
That being said, I’d also suspect that Apple chose that angle deliberately.
Historically, Apple used real photos and video for marketing material, only lit and polished to perfection to create a sort of hyper-real effect. Nowadays, who knows.
this is directly side-on. they've def removed the camera bump. In the initial animation at the top where the hand grabs it too. the bump is very clear in shots later!
wait... could they have hidden it under the hand? and why does that person's thumb seem extra long?! the more I look at this the less I understand it.
Perspective is still at play. At arms length, on my phone, if I make it so the flat surface is completely aligned with my center of vision, the bottom side covers at least 1mm of whatever is on the underside. The closer one gets to the phone, the more pronounced the effect.
The video keeps triggering my sense of seeing CGI, but the hiding effect on display can absolutely be accomplished in camera.
I presume it is a flattering angle instead of a falsified image. The camera bump is near the one large button, which was furthest from the camera when they rotate it, so the iPad could have been angled slightly to hide the bump. Maybe someone can try to reproduce it after it comes out to see if it is a false image.
> In reality the back was curved, and they took pictures from an angle that only showed off the edge of the screen and not how far back it curved
You only see the thickness at the back from an angle where you can't actually use the computer (and for many people, that whole angle is going to be against the wall). This is the good kind of design - making something appear beautiful without compromising the core function.
I'm distinctly less convinced about ever-thinner mobile devices that I immediately have to slap a case on...
The older iMacs that were the same thickness all the way across, they still looked good. Except they were some of the best machines to service. Literally two screws in the bottom, the whole thing split in half, and your hard drive, memory and other components were right there. I worked on tons of them and they were fantastic. It saved people money in the long run when they needed an upgrade because it took less time. Even replacing the screen or logic board in them was a piece of cake.
The argument is most people use a case regardless, so if it were the same thickness across the device, the iPad would be considerably thicker once in a case. That and weight. I don’t use cases so it bothers me too, but it does make some sense.
It's still very strange how much work goes into the materials for the case and the ergonomics and weight of holding the devices without a case just to assume everyone will put it in a case. I'm with you on iPads, they get too heavy/thick for their primary uses once in a case. The phones I sort of get but I still think it ruins a lot of the aesthetic choices they make about the case design.
I've always thought this too. An iPad with an integrated case would be able to fill the entire flat back area with a battery, and just have rubber on the edges where impact protection is needed. The existing design is really optimized around having an impressive experience in the store when holding an uncased product, before you inevitably cover it.
Why would you want an integrated case? The soft impact absorbing materials degrade much faster than the aluminum. Look at the average ipad users case and it's falling to pieces, you don't want that permanently fixed to the device.
There's also many users who don't need a case. A lot of ipads are POS systems that are fixed to the bench so they don't need a case either.
> Why would you want an integrated case? The soft impact absorbing materials degrade much faster than the aluminum.
Given that the impact-absorbing parts could be [0]
...rubber on the edges where impact protection is needed.
and could obviously be designed to be replaceable, either by a handy user or an Apple Technician, why wouldn't you want Apple to design the feel and balance of a device with a case that has built-in impact protection?
Apple's decision to make most of its handhelds out of various grades of "fragililum" has boggled my mind since they sold the first iPhone with an easily-shattered glass back. That choice makes sense for a conspicuous status symbol that people are going to take very good care of... but most folks either end up with one with damage that makes plain how theirs is not the kind of life that makes that possible, or they have installed some aftermarket shell that ruins the effect by covering up the conspicuously fragile part of the hardware.
I find it annoying too, I assume it's because thin and light devices sell more (both in promo photos and when used in Apple stores).
My mum's Samsung S23 Ultra has a ridiculous camera bump and rocks back and forth when you use it, even with some thinner cases. You need a super thick case for it to stay stable.
I have a hard time believing the camera bump isn't the result of intensive consumer psychology experiments. Setting a bare apple device down on a flat surface feels like chair with a leg sawed off. They need you to buy the accessories. This is part of making the ecosystem viable.
Half the time their mid-year fresh is just a new color, with a huge marketing push. If everyone has a case, colors become a moot point.
I also don’t think I’ve ever seen an Apple exec use a case, as it would imply the phones are durable and a case is needed, which they don’t want to convey. (Bumpers for antenna-gate aside)
The correct answer. The camera bump is intentional and so is building phones that aren't resilient to drops out of the box. What do you mean I can't have a phone with rubber bumpers on the corners?
I would be content if they'd stop making phones slippier than a wet bar of soap. My Pixel 8a is ridiculous, I don't know how they do it. If you have dry hands, it's nearly impossible to hold on to.
Yeah, I added a boring case on day 1 and would have trouble describing the feel of the bare device right now.
Found one on Amazon so I dodge Google's exorbitant plastic markup, and it is a relatively minimalist wrap that smooths out the camera bump and makes it more grippy in hand, in pockets, and on flat surfaces.
The behavior of those slippery phones in pockets is almost the bigger gripe to me. Like they are a new class of motion amplifier, trying to rotate and squirt their way out at the slightest twitch.
The curvature on the back of those is such that it's harder to rotate into a position so the thumb can hit the right button than a flat surface would be.
It also means that resting it on the arm of a recliner produces about the same result as just dropping it into the void to begin with: It's going to wind up there either way.
If they levelled it out you could surely fit a far larger battery in it too. I'd far rather have a device 1.5mm thicker with a battery lifespan twice as long and no silly bump on it.
Since basically everybody uses a case anyways, the important factors are weight and width with the case on. This design makes both of those significantly smaller than your suggestion.
Some people don't have iPhones though. Rare, I know. I have an iPad and my wife has an iPhone but I have never owned one at all and instead have always used Android right from the HTC G1.
To be fair, the iPad mini is a way better form-factor for camera use than any of the big iPads. I think the only time I've ever used the rear camera on the 12" iPad was to scan a document...
WAT. Just because you do not does not mean you get to dictate how others can use it. I know lots of people that use the rear camera on iPads. I'm one of them.
then everything would be just tiptoeing and nothing would be interesting.... it's not like someone saying that will actually cause Apple to get rid of it
Yes they are just whining into the void about something they can’t change. Great use of everyone’s time all around.
More likely though they’re trying to signal their membership to the in-group that’s always circle jerking on every iPhone/iPad post about SD cards, removable battery, thick small phone, flush camera, etc.
Tangentially related: this is the funniest rant about this "devices with a fat camera bump that don't lay flat" rant that exists: "Why?" - Lazy Posy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP7lYuyGTmg
Not sure about the iPad Mini, but I've really only seen the bigger iPads with a case. There's just so much screen to damage, and you do really want some kind of way to prop up the bigger iPads. I very rarely remove my iPad Pro from its keyboard case.
Yeah it's infuriating. I love how even Apple are embarrassed by it, since in the first two animations of people holding and rotating the device they've left off the camera bump, making it look smooth flat.
More material, bigger battery = heavier device. For something this size I figure people want something they can comfortably hold in one hand for a session.
Perhaps if they put a very small lip around the camera lens and a physical bump on the other side so the device doesn't rock, at least it would be symmetrical and the glass would be slightly less prone to surface contact.
Density is insanely highly correlated with the perception of premium quality. No one’s increasing the volume of premium devices beyond what’s needed to hold components.
But don't you just need a big camera on your giant tablet? How will you ever manage if you don't have a nice camera on both sides of all your handheld devices? /s
If they put the tiny "front-facing" camera pointed out the back it would be enough for the vast majority of people I imagine.
That's the thing - I genuinely don't understand the user or usage Venn diagram : when and who will 1. Have an expensive ipad with them and require a good big camera, but 2. Not have an equivalently competent phone with them?
Don't get me wrong, I understand it happens - back when I did wedding photography, one of my massive pet peeves were the uncles and grandparents who stepped into the aisle with their massive tablets just as bride is starting her walk... But I do not understand it at all :-/.
I'd absolutely happily completely kill the rear facing tablet camera. I've had at least a dozen android and ipad tablets and I genuinely don't think I took a single photo with them - it'd feel weird and awkward and so ostentious.
(As always as a consumer, clearly I'm in minority here :-})
When I use the rear camera, it's part of a feature of some other app that clearly makes sense to use as a tablet. You're bogged down as it being used as a primary camera as a photographer. There are other needs for cameras other than portraits. Using the rear camera in an AR mode is quite handy in apps.
"We just changed a couple things, no biggie, don't buy it" is the reality, but that doesn't sell. Marketers optimize for sales saying what they can get away with.
You're not wrong.
The video video on Youtube gives a very good (and quick) overview of the marketing behind phone screen glass marketing claims; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YrdI7h2XoY
The same will apply to everything any company is marketing, at the very least it will always be their 'best' 'new' product.
That's just the nature of (slow) exponential gains. If the processor gains 1% in flops each generation, the absolute flop increase is always the largest ever. Now consider that a device has tens of marketable metrics and that is always a defensible claim.
It's especially bad if you're non-American with multiple TVs.
e.g. I've got three screens in my house (office TV, living room TV, basement projector) in Canada — upgrading to the latest Apple TV on each of them would cost me $1,287.
I have two televisions - living room TV with an AppleTV and bedroom TV with some Roku device. I'm going to buy the new AppleTV and put it in the living room, then move that AppleTV to the bedroom, then recycle the Roku (finally, I hate that thing).
It should be less expensive but I rely on it (cancelled cable TV and just have streaming now) and so I'm just happy they are still working on it.
Depending on what you subscribe to, streaming services are now as expensive (if not more) than cable was if you got premium channels. I hear also Disney will add ads to all tiers as well.
I would happily give up on the entire AI industry in exchange for more affordable hardware. No hesitation. The worldwide inflation resulting from the AI rollout is shameful to say it politely
I've thought a lot about that actually. I have a number of hardware purchases I'd like to make but I'm delaying due to the insane prices. That said, would I give up LLMs for the prior prices? No. Prices will come down eventually once more factories come online (it's just slow to bring up a new factory/fab, especially for RAM) and LLMs are such an awesome tool that I'll take the short-term pain of higher hardware.
But it is impacting everything. Even the new Sony RX camera has a slower sensor readout from the years old model simply because they can't get hold of the DRAM.
That’s if you’re considering your personal situation. The increase in hardware is impacting every single institution that needs computers. Smaller hardware companies with low margins cannot operate in the current situation. That means less consumer choices, new projects delayed or cancelled. The impact on less developed countries is of course exacerbated. Hospitals, schools, government agencies are getting less for the same level of spending. And of course that results in worst services, worst infrastructure, more expensive services and goods
Luckily absolute performance still exists, it's just that we've normalized shipping less efficient software slopped out because there'll probably be new silicon in a few years so it doesn't matter.
Commodity hardware is plenty powerful and can be taken advantage of should prices signal efficiency is important again.
Maybe institutions and companies are gonna have to get smarter at making use of stuff that they have instead of just churning thru hardware. It's hard to see it being sustainable anyway to be constantly turning over hardware every few years if not yearly. In a way, this chilling of consumerism is kinda neat.
The iPhone Air is larger than an iPhone 17 in height and width. Every non-plus/max iPhone since the 13 Mini came out is smaller than the Air in height and width. Wouldn't they be a more logical upgrade than the Air?
The main body of the iPhone Air is thinner, of course, but including the camera bulge, I think it's thicker than all non-pro iPhones up to the 16.
Is there something about making the main body thinner that makes the iPhone Air more comfortable to hold than other smaller phones? Is it the weight? The 17e is only 4 g heavier than the Air, and the 16e is only 2 g heavier.
I have never been interested in the Air because of the size, so I can't even remember if I have picked one up in an Apple Store.
Forget the dimensions and size on paper. I tried the iPhone 17 for two weeks, came running back to the Mini. Later on, I upgraded to the Air and I'm very pleased. Yes, it's slightly larger in hand but it's still delightful to use like the Mini. Even though its 25g heavier than the Mini, it feels lighter because it's less dense.
What isn't smooth is the separation between the iPad and iPhone teams. I'm pretty sure new things being visited on the Duo such as the split keyboard interface have already been tried on the iPad side.
Hopefully as Apple's own N-series Wifi chips mature and get rolled into more products, they will include GPS/GNSS capabilities into the chips, as right now if you want that functionality you have to purchase the "Wi-Fi + Cellular" variant:
Edit: to perhaps make it more clear, I meant still sell a +Cellular variant with the C-series chips (or whatever), but move the GNSS functionality into the N-series chips. So you'd have a non-cellular and a cellular, but both would have GNSS.
It's part of it. Another part of the reason is patent related royalties that they have to pay to the likes of Qualcomm, Nokia, etc. for any device that has a working 5G stack inside of it. Apple actually has had their own 5G modem implementation for a few years now; they clearly have the technology to deliver this with a clean full in house chip design.
But any device that has that embedded would have some royalty overhead added to the BOM. Which is why they've always had ipads with and without 5G and have so far never really bothered with adding this on laptops (which actually would make a lot of sense from a technical point of view). Operators would probably love that because it's a nice up-sell opportunity on monthly subscriptions. And with soft sims there would not be a need for a hardware sim card.
For the same reason, you don't see this feature on many other laptops either. There are a few obviously but it's a less common feature than you'd expect given how important good connectivity is to most laptop users.
So the reason they have not released a +cellular MBP is down to them not wanting to make royalty payments? What do they care? They just roll that payment into the +cellular price bump. It's not like they are dipping into their own billion dollar cash on hand balance.
Do you have a better reason? I think the price difference is probably too high to justify the feature. I don't see any technical reason why they wouldn't do this. But patent royalties and additional overhead related to device certification would definitely add some complexity and cost.
No, but there's a lot of examples of "I don't have a better reason" regarding Apple decisions. I know that there's a lot of bad blood between Apple and Nvidia hence AMD GPUs every where before the M-series chips. Clearly, they are tired of of their cellular vendors, otherwise they would not have developed their own chips. But they already have the cellular relation for the iPhone/iPads, so what would extending that to allow MBP inclusion mean that makes it a non-starter for Apple?
I can only speculate. But my guess is that they don't anticipate additional mac sales if they were to ship this feature. So, the only reason to do this for them would be if it would bring in more revenue. And given the cost overhead related to patents that I outlined, it might just not be that interesting. My guess is that a lot of the agreements they have for this might cover iphones and ipads but not laptops.
It's not just Apple. 5G stacks in laptop are just very uncommon. Most vendors seem to independently come to the conclusion that they are better off not bundling that. Of course the difference is that Apple now has their own modems and chips for this. Which might change things but so far hasn't.
The reasons Apple want to vertically integrate everything and own it are easier to grasp: chips, firmware and software made by them are easier to control and upgrade by them. With qualcomm, they are basically getting them, their development teams, their supply chains for chips on the critical path to shipping products. And they are outsourcing what is a pretty major part of the whole phone experience to a third party.
Apple has been working on their own 5G modem for many years before they shipped it. I don't know for sure but I would not be surprised if efforts for that started when Steve Jobs was still alive even. This was always the logical move for them to make as soon as they got the idea of doing their own chipsets for their phones.
I would say this is the main reason, given tethering has caps, but maybe also how cell tower capacity probably would not do great with a whole new product market segment that's also high-bandwidth during the LTE days. With 5G's promise of increased capacity and 6G on the way, maybe it'll be possible soon enough.
> The buyer is also signing up for a monthly payment. So clearly they have the cash to make an “extra monthly payment” or two up front.
I know of pilots who buy the +Cellular simply for GNSS and do not get a separate plan.
Charging more for the C-series hardware is understandable, but if there's enough of a 'transistor budget' it would be nice for the GNSS functionality to be more universal (since the N-series seems to be going into everything).
The cheapest configuration of the original model was $329 in 2012 [0]. Even when corrected for inflation, that would still be less than $500 in today's money -- so quite a bit less than $700!
Is the comparison unfair because today's model is much more powerful than the one from 14 years ago? Perhaps. But perhaps it shouldn't be compared to the past, but to its relative competitors?
On the plus side, devices are designed to last longer, be more repairable and be updated for longer than they were in 2012.
The upfront cost of a device is less important than the total cost of ownership, which highly depends on the lifespan of the device. An ipad that lasts 2.5 years needs to be half the price of one that lasts 5 years.
Not really unfair, as the basic use case is still the same for either model.
A toilet from a hundred years ago in the same product tier serves the same function as one today. Old models were also more expensive when adjusted for inflation, but today's toilets can tackle more turds with less water.
The alternative approach leads to those "costs have dropped by 7 orders of magnitude in the last 50 years" style of deceptive graphs popular among people with an agenda to insist AI memory price inflation isn't a real problem.
Right. The prices are up for Nvidia’s benefit (and Micron, Sandisk by extension).
I know it’s now a trope to say “an incoming Democratic Congress should…” but there are really serious questions to ask about the means by which Nvidia is securing such a radically high value buy-and-hold strategy, and whether it amounts to deceptive channel stuffing.
The whole tech industry is using apparent demand for Blackwell GPUs as a proxy for AI demand, when this is a wholly broken metric because Nvidia seems to be gaming it, and everyone (consumer and business alike) is paying more as a result.
The whole supply demand spherical cow model of capitalism really breaks down when suppliers decide they'd collectively use their cartel to not engage in demand and instead gouge prices.
It doesn't, capitalism is the free association without coercsion. When the government can mandate that you cannot sell certain GPUs to customers in specific areas or that your model is too scary and you must shut it down and can give or take government contracts that are work hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, and the federal reserve will bail out the banks If they make mistakes, you have a crony capitalist environment that has very little to do with the free market.
Sure, but that tells you that the upgraded specs and pricing is a conscious decision made by Apple, not something forced by AI. Making an entry-level small screen equivalent of the 11-inch iPad is always an option. They’re choosing not to take it.
Memory and storage is expensive as hell, so they're gonna ration it for their more expensive devices.
Same reason this year, for the first time ever, Apple announced their new Pro phones (and the ultra-expensive Duo) but no base-model iPhone 18. They're paying more for memory so they're gonna use it on the devices where they make more on a sale.
More like they were not able to find a pretext to sell it for more.
I can open my local store and will see shitty 8/128 Android tablets for less than 150 euro. If memorypocalypse was the main reason for pricing new ipad mini as it is, the budget tablet segment would be completely dead because manufacturers just wouldn't be able to afford memory at all.
Given the criticism the Duo has had for not being a very good iPhone[1], I was hoping for a foldable iPad mini, which would seem to dodge those problems. Maybe in a year or two (does anyone remember the iPod Touch, which was an iPhone without the phone bit? I loved that thing.)
The point of foldables is that they fit a big screen in your pocket. What's the point of a foldable display? Fit a 10 inch in your tiny purse? Very hard sale for double the price.
We will eventually see "foldable MacBook" because I genuinely want a 20" screen in my backpack or even just a smaller 16" MacBook. I guess not coming before 2035
It makes me think of a Bento-box laptop with a foldable keyboard and a tri-fold display, where both the display and the keyboard unfold when you open the computer. Extremely thick, but a very small footprint when closed.
I'm not sure whether that's amazing or something that'll bankrupt any company that tries to sell it with longer than a 3-day warranty.
Just curious, is that based on your own experience or negative reviews you’ve read online? I’m using the Duo now and quite like it. It’s a first-gen device, so it has its quirks, which is expected. Calling it the worst phone is a bit of an exaggeration though. It’s a foldable, not a conventional phone, so you can’t really expect to use it the same way.
I expected the Duo to closer to the size of a normal iPad. I didn't realize it was a foldable iPad Mini that's also a phone. imo It's too small for the bulkiness that it adds. Also sacrificing the camera was not worth the fold.
Apple: Just fix the software. I have an iPad Mini (6?) and it's clearly just such an orphaned product. They're not even TRYING to make it usable. The on-screen keyboard takes up the majority of the screen when in landscape mode. In portrait mode, the "drawer" on the left side of the screen takes up so much space in apps like Maps/Flighty that it covers the location you're currently at.
They've clearly given almost no thought into how the (already marginal) iPadOS renders on a smaller screen.
Last iPad Mini I bought in 2015 was 32gb for $379CAD, one today 11 years later is $949CAD for 128gb, 2.5x over 10 years, I know there is different tech, inflation and times are different but I always though the mini as the budget option, now with this recent releases Apple is just going for: it's expensive because that's the only way we can keep growing....
The mini is not the budget option, at least not anymore. The base 11" iPad starts at $450 in the US (and can often be found on sale for less). It is the cost-down with lower-spec components, and is probably a more compelling product for the consumer looking for the cheapest iPad option than a cost-down mini would be.
I wish this was somehow listed as a separate line item with the price, assuming prices will normalize at some point. I don’t want these prices to be considered the new normal, even after memory prices come down. I think transparency in the pricing would help with that.
Luxury inflation is more than normal inflation, but this isn't a luxury even though it's not necessary, and the price isn't going up due to the steady cause of inflation (money creation).
Their budget iPad I think got 70% increased in price a couple of months ago. I was planning to upgrade my iPad mini to the normal 11inch iPad and when I checked the price it was nowhere near the price I remembered I last saw it.
Because you gave the context clues of M4 chip and OLED screen and $1200 repair cost, this means you somehow snagged an iPad Pro 13” with the cellular modem for $500, which is way below market value.
The current version of this model of iPad purchased brand new is $1700.
In other words, this is the highest end iPad available. Any other lower spec model reduces the repair cost lower than what you were quoted.
your ex’s cat chewed on the corner of an iPad? Does the cat have some more interesting stories of destruction since it apparently likes chewing on metal/glass, a higher level of destruction setting than the standard cat.
Only Apple can properly replace these screens and pair the parts (FaceId etc),
so setting the standard repair cost high enough helps push people toward Apple Care eligible new devices, handicapping the second hand market.
That has been the case basically since Apple Care existed IMHO.
You're right, the self-service repair program exists. It doesn't clear neither the pairing issue nor parent's hurdles though, as Apple parts are still required , you can't get any similar enough screen you'd want, and they'll be priced the same as in Apple Stores.
As far as I remember, the self-repair kits only make sense in very niche cases (I think repair shop get a different contract ?) and won't work around any limitations Apple puts on parts or repairs.
I did not call Apple, this was a local "fix my iPad" shop.
It was funny, the guy was narrating as he is searching saying "Whoa, this is the most I've ever seen... Wow, oh man... Hold on..."
I knew it was not going to be good.
I asked if there were any DIY options for me.
He said I could possibly find a used iPad online and swap that screen. But, given the insane prices of the replacement screen, I assume the secondary market for a salvageable iPad that works is really tough.
At this point it makes sense to just buy another used iPad.
Yup. Had an MacBook Air. Slight water damage near charging port. Laptop functioned correctly on AC power. Extensive battery diagnostics: Healthy. Just the charging circuit saying "go ahead, charge device"...
At the Genius Bar expected something reasonable, realistic... $300? Parts and labor.
"So we have a quote for you, $950. Perhaps we go out and look at the new Macs together?"
90% of the cost of the laptop to replace the charging port.
You mean that the corner was damaged, not that a cat also chewed on the corner of your MBP, right? I'm still in shock that a cat would chew on glass and metal enough to damage it - two cats doing it is too much in one day!
There is an entire field of study dedicated to this sort of thing called Psychophysics. It’s hardly trivial. Perception isn’t an absolute measure of sensory input as it’s influenced by context, comparison, as well as prior experience. Improvements in one experience can change the standards by which we judge subsequent ones. These principles have had profound implications across entire industries. A good primer is the book Priceless: the hidden psychology of value by Poundstone.
And what is it being used for though? To better scroll instagram and various message app inboxes? We needed 120hz for this? I mean a lot of people including here on HN are just buying this to scroll x. It is an iphone after all, walled garden means that's about all the sort of things you can do with this thing.
It's not a trivial feature. The Class A surface on an iPad is the screen.
If you plan to look at moving things, like scrolling, which is a central part of using the device, 120fps makes the scrolling less blurry and therefore more pleasant to look at.
This is like asking why people have a hardon for cars with nicer materials for seats and interiors if a normal cheap plastic interior could pass all the same crash tests.
Im usually big on refresh rates but this one doesn’t bother me. I move between 60hz iPads and iPhone to 120hz iPad Pros and my mind doesn’t register a difference between them.
I can see the 120hz nice scroll when I’m paying attention but I’m normal use on these devices I forget about it. Basically it wouldn’t be a dealbreaker for me but I agree it should probably be the standard
The only genuine performance increase I could see is if you're using it for drawing/notes because the Apple Pencil samples at 240/s so you would see a difference in drawing smoothness between 60/120/240hz screens. This would mirror the use case in fast-paced and high action games - more info for your eyes sooner allowing better reaction times.
Also, isn't ProMotion just branded VRR? Allowing for lower battery use in static/low change applications?
That's a problem already solved by having a lower refresh rate, though. You can't get extra battery drain from 120hz when your device can only achieve 60hz.
It is a real thing. If you experienced the shift from CRT to the first generation of LCD screens and the CRT bros are not moving to the new technology because it gives them headaches and the majority of people are OK with the refresh rates. The 60fps to 120fps perception is hard to explain.
you don't need promotion if you're going to use it for movies, but OLED is a huge improvement in this regard.
the price is a bit high, but that's all apple products.
i do think this means a lot of android tablets on this form factor are going to start coming out with OLED screens as well though, which is good, as they will be much cheaper.
I think the Mini's primary use case that benefits a 120hz screen is art apps, but the artists I know would prefer OLED over 120hz. For entertainment, video is video, and games on tablets often lock to 30 by default to preserve battery life.
For the iPad Air (especially the 13" model!) I agree 100%.
Apple likes to slow roll features out. It's kind of a necessity when Wall Street expects you to put out a desirable hardware version every few years. Gotta protect that runway!
I'm shocked Apple haven't acquired Procreate yet. It's nearly always in iPad marketing material. Personally I know so many artists who've bought iPads, and the only app they have installed is Procreate.
It’s possible they simply don’t want to sell. ProCreate parent company is extremely successful on its own, it’s possible being part of Apple wouldn’t bring anything to the table for them. Looking at some apps Apple acquired it’s not clear that being part of a mega corporation benefits creative tools.
Just because it's good doesn't mean it can't be better
The novelty of how thin my M5 iPad Pro is still hasn't worn off. Sometimes it's just nice to hold some tech in your hand that feels like it's from the future.
Since when have we established "thinner and lighter" equals "better"?
In the case of iPhone Air and Galaxy Edge phones, there were notable compromises to achieve a thinner body, for which many people don't consider an improvement.
Granted, I have not seen or used the new iPad mini, and I don't know if any such compromise has been made. But probably should leave it open until we conclude this is a plus.
I thought the same thing about iPhones, then I got an iPhone Air and can’t imagine going back to those fat bloated bricks people lug around daily. Worse, they put a thick case on it making it even more portly, because the aluminum bodies dent so easily. iPhone Air is what Steve Jobs would have wanted: a super thin strong Titanium phone that doesn’t need any case to feel complete.
I wish Apple did an iPhone Uno or iPad nano — basically a wide phone with camera cutout, status and dock on the right or left side. Yes, two design versions for both left and right handed people. It will be so amazing for multi-tasking on mobile by quickly changing between apps with a permanent dock.
I don’t see homeview being worth it unless they allow app installs. $300 for a display that shows photos and smart home controls is kinda pointless. You can’t even put up your home assistant dashboard on it.
I think there will be be app integration, but hopefully no App Store. We know that apps can work on HomeView using CarPlay. Not sure that is sufficient long term, perhaps just to jump start things. They may need to enhance that library to allow more kinds of apps to work with HomeView.
Right now, I think they are bringing out an MVP and waiting to see how people react to it and what kinds of things turn out to be useful. When they launched the Watch, no one was sure what kinds of things we would want to do on it. It took a while to see what was useful. I think a model where apps on your phone provide HomeView widgets like the Watch might be better than writing apps specifically for such a device.
Sure, but it’s weird to consider a device to be good value when the reason for that value is features you hope will launch in future updates maybe years down the line.
The homeview is DOA, I'm sorry. Who is the target for this?
There is no app store. I mean maybe they will add one later, but still until that happens I really dont see any use case besides setting some kitchen timers.
Yes, smart home is a thing, but tons of people need apps like Hue or Shelly to control their setup.
> This will make sure my kids can FaceTime their grandparents whenever they want
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that charged iPads are not the primary constraint here. If you can't trust them to keep their iPads charged, there's a good chance that you'll come back in a year and the HomeView hasn't left the setup screen, or is sitting in a box somewhere.
I don't like when they force a storage upgrade just to get a matte screen. I have no need for more storage, but would like a matte screen. As a $100 upgrade for nanotexture, it already seems steep, but forcing it to a $200 upgrade due to a needless storage bump is too much to ignore.
I also question what is required for nanotexture. I read the iPhone Duo has this in a replaceable screen protector, effectively. A replacement, under AppleCare is $15. Are we being charged $100 for a factory installed screen protector? If so, why does that need to be tied to certain levels of storage to reduce SKUs?
There’s a tiny segment of folks (like me) who have been waiting a very long time for an 8ish inch OLED tablet. For some reason, until mid 2025, they were extremely rare, even in the Android multiverse. I’m excited because I read a ton with white text on black, and an OLED display (especially with this nanotexture stuff) will make a huge difference.
OLED is really good for media consumption, and IMO, this form factor is one of the best for carrying around in trips and watching movies on the car/plane/train/etc.
But the price is a bit high, that's the history of Apple though. On the other hand, I think this particular screen is probably going to be sourced by cheaper small android tablets at a much more competitive price, and if you're using it for media consumption, there's no difference between an Apple and an Android tablet.
Is Stage Manager with an external monitor possible with this new iPad Mini or still artificially limited to M chips? I mean it’s more powerful than the M1 iPad Air which supports it.
I'd like to have that confirmed too. Size wise, I'd love to get a Mini, but only being able to mirror to an external display, especially at this price, is a no from me.
I don't see anything suggesting it can perform this, so likely the artificial limit is still in place.
As a life long and continuous Apple user (and iOS SWE), I recently got a $150 Samsung Android tablet that I can use as a claude interface. It can take in voice commands, and create new builds of itself on a network Mac. So I can essentially have whatever screen or interface I want for any given moment. Right now I'm tuning my motorcycle with an OBD bluetooth device and recording engine behavior on rides.
How would an OLED screen be an improvement over an ipad 8th generation? I'm debating on what to upgrade to but I mainly use my ipad for reading comics nowadays. Movies/TV are for the big screen.
And furthermore Apple’s OLED screens tend to have more color reproduction issues. I don’t have an iPad any more but gather a group of people using OLED iPhones. Use light mode and open the Settings app at the same time. You will see that different OLED screens render the same white menu items differently. Some will have a yellowish tint, others an unpleasant green tint. This happens regardless of whether one turns on or off TrueTone. This has been going on since the very first OLED iPhones. The old LCD iPhones never had this problem. It is highly subjective but it bothers me way more than a 60Hz refresh rate.
In general display technologies are highly subjective. Besides LCD versus OLED, there are people who love nano texture and there are people who hate them. There are people who absolutely need 120Hz and there are people who can’t tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz. It’s a shame that we can’t customize the display technology exactly as we want.
Nano texture was the entire reason I upgraded to an iPad Pro M4. The camera on the long edge is a major regression as far as I am concerned, however. The only drawback is fingerprints are harder to remove,you really need that special microfiber cloth or one of the cheap Chinese clones.
I own no iPads but all my screens are OLED and I would never buy anything else. The true black is an absolute killer feature. It makes the device just a glowing wonder at night, magical feeling, no way to overstate it.
OLED + dark mode after sundown are awesome. On Android we also get the extra dim mode which makes it perfect for lights-out.
I use GrapheneOS on my Pixel and it gets very dim. Also, I have the night mode (orange tint) cranked way up - something that the stock OS should allow you to do.
It's not. OLED screens use PWM, i.e. they are switching to almost black 256 times a second. That's tiresome for the eyes. Especially when you read from it with artificial lighting which is dim, that makes those black periods long and noticeable. Yes, recent iPhones sometimes don't go full black, but that's only for near-100% brightness.
And with a 1-nit minimum brightness, iPad mini is even more suitable for dim environments, from users reading in bed at night to pilots checking their electronic flight bag in the cockpit.
As per other comments, my guess is somewhere between 1% and 5% of ipad mini sales are to pilots. It's gotta be significant or they wouldn't drop a line that in their main copy!
Can definitely attest to this. When I was doing my PPL I had an iPad that had a built-in cellular modem loaded with ForeFlight for GPS positioning mounted to the inside of the cessna's window.
I've been hoping for a water and dust resistant tablet for use in the pottery studio for a while (for photographing work in progress, cataloguing glaze ingredients, taking notes, etc), as it's a wet and dirty environment, but the price kills all interest.
I like using my 6th gen as an erader. With the right color settings the screen doesn’t fatigue me, and it’s nice to be able to read from any source (kindle, Apple Books, Libby, a pdf, etc).
One of my beloved devices was the Nexus 7, it was an excellent affordable template that didn't feel cheap, nor fancy or pro. Just a good media consumption / general purpose small tablet.
I wish Apple would make a similar device. I'm fine with recycled chips and getting a bit gimped on RAM size.
Like the MacBook Neo of iPads; I just really want a media consumption device. A20 Pro means nothing to me.
That's not the same thing at all as "selling it as a Pro product". They just happened to put a chip in it which has "Pro" in the name, and which this press release accurately names. They're still selling it as an "iPad Mini" at the same segments and value props that they've always sold iPad Minis at.
And the "Pro" in the chip name doesn't mean anything anyway, "Pro" is actually the lowest-power suffix for A/M-series chips (behind "Max" and "Ultra").
Perhaps they are planning to launch application features that require or benefit from the A20. Anyway it looks like the base model of the new iPad is using binned CPUs that were not quite good enough for the iPhone 18: 5 cores instead of 6, 1 neural engine instead of 2.
They have enough bezel room to make it into 8.7" or even 8.9" version without changing the dimensions of the mini.
I believe this is the lightest iPad at only 255g. I just wonder how much more weight can they shave off.
And if they are going to kill the iPad? The current iPad line up is split into Pro, Air, (iPad) and Mini. Surely the mini could replace the normal iPad?
My iPad Pro is six years old now, the last generation before they started putting M chips in them. Still not interested in buying another until I can run a Linux VM on it.
The iPad is great for sketching, and for making music. It's like having a precision tool, such as a quality chef's knife. If you like to cook, you may not need a nice knife every day, but when you do need it, it's outstanding.
Mine is a notebook, a sketch book and a reading device. I read books and queued Instapaper articles, take meeting notes, and make digital art. I love that device to bits.
I would love Apple to actually make something that is worthy of the name Apple. When Steve was alive, Apple was A-P-P-L-E and now it is just a shell of its self.
Back in the mid 2000s, Palm sold Treo smartphones with the camera removed, for high-security places that forbade cameras. Why do I tell this story? It means there is (was) a market for it. I would LOVE and iPad mini with the camera (and its bump) removed. A nice thin slab.
I don’t know about everyone else but I’m just so sick of Apple releasing marginally improved products, calling it their biggest update ever, and then jacking up prices. $700 for an iPad mini is absurd RAM price increases or not.
Do there exist any good small Android tablets at a reasonable price?
There were none available in Canada with cellular when I looked a few years ago so I ended up buying an African-region Galaxy Tab A9 for $170. It's functional, but by God is it slow, and that's after adb-removing about 50 pieces of Samsung bloat.
Samsung Galaxy Tab A11 X130 with 8GB of RAM costs around 220 EUR, I haven't tested that one though.
Another alternative is the Lenovo Legion Tab TB321FU, 12GB RAM, 256GB, but this one costs 500 EUR.
But you are right, there are not a lot of alternatives with 8GB RAM out there. Most Android Tablets with a screen size of 8-9" have 4GB, which would make them slow.
> Samsung Galaxy Tab A11 X130 with 8GB of RAM costs around 220 EUR, I haven't tested that one though.
This unfortunately looks to be basically the same as the A9 - the A11 is just lightly refreshed with a newer stock OS and higher refresh screen — the SoC and memory are the same.
It's the SoC that's really killing these tablets, the Helio G99 is about on par with the A10 Fusion from 2016.
The Google Pixel Tablet can be degoogled with GrapheneOS, but it was discontinued last month. It also does not have cellular connectivity. But it’s an excellent device, and the one I am using as part of my effort to wean myself off dependency on fast-enshittifying Apple.
They are working on it (CXMT for RAM and YMTC for NAND flash) but not having access to ASML’s EUV lithography equipment hobbles them.
The US government is also trying to kneecap them, threatening Apple with tariffs if they went ahead with YMTC storage, even if only for the Chinese market.
They are thus primarily focusing on the Chinese market, but if they weren’t there, DRAM and flash is a global commodity market and prices would have gone up even more insanely than today.
This is a disappointment. Apple has so much potential with iPad minis, but they consistently hold back simply because they don’t want to cannibalize their pro models.
That's the whole iPad line. No multi-user because they don't want families to buy only one iPad, no support for running apps outside of the app store, etc.
Ok, how is this a disappointment - what does it not have that the pro does that you're seeking? To me, this just looks like a large phone without cellular. Not sure I'd want this, as I already have a large phone - good enough.
With OLED, this is going to be the best e-book reader in dark mode, and given that it's water resistant you could even use it in bath/hot tub w/o destroying the device - if you're willing to put down $700 for an e-reader that is.
Literally the one thing it needed was 120hz. I could somewhat understand that being a "Pro" feature in 2018, but in the big '26 there's no excuse.
They should stop handicapping the non-Pro displays at 60hz refresh rate. The world moved on 5 years ago. It’s getting tiring now.
Agreed.
If they INSIST that it MUST be 60 Hz, I'd accept the consolation/compromise of 60 Hz but 0ms-ish latency. (Maybe they already do it that way.)
As in waiiiiit until the 16.67ms between frames is almost up while sampling inputs, then bam!, render quicky, bam!, transfer it over a link that could carry more than 60 frames per second, bam!, fast OLED display. Each frame fresh and close to input.
To the why?-sayers: Because the difference is noticeable. We can get all philosophical and discuss whether it's a competitive advantage for someone to not notice the difference, or vice versa. Why the why?, why not just… take us difference-noticers on our word? Like… we're not taking your 60Hz 16.67ms crunchiness away from you?
Using a 60hz screen after you’ve been on high refresh rate screens for a few years literally feels like something is broken.
Like, is the battery running out or is a setting misconfigured somewhere? I won’t spend a dime buying any device that can’t hit at least 90-100hz+
> I won’t spend a dime buying any device that can’t hit at least 90-100hz+
Sounds like you'd buy the RapidWipe 120 wipers too. Much smoother sweep, but you'll go through a windshield a week.
/s
> (Maybe they already do it that way.)... take us difference-noticers on our word
You didn't convince me.
Has any non pro consumer ever noticed a display greater than 60 hz. I can barely get the regular people in my life to nice anything above 30 hz or turning off motion smoothing. I really don't see how any of this stuff matters for most people
Someone was complaining to me that Apple took a long time to add 120 Hz displays to phones. I didn't even know what my iPhone had, turns out it's 60 Hz cause it's a 12 mini. I've used 120 Hz displays before. Cannot tell the difference.
If you use a 120 Hz iPhone for 6 months and then switch back to your 12 mini, you'll notice immediately.
What you definitely notice between 60Hz vs 120Hz on a phone is the battery drain.
Depends a lot on the usage I guess. In a tablet where you may draw etc you can notice the difference definitely. Or if you play games on the phone. But otherwise I don't think the difference is that important as it is sometimes claimed.
Not for me. I tried out the high refresh rate thing, switched back to 60.. can't tell any difference at all. Same for high DPI vs "regular" DPI screens.
Screen flicker on CRTs with low refresh rates was terrible for me, but with modern flat panels.. nope, can't really tell the difference.
I think this varies a lot from person to person. I find the effect to be incredibly subtle - one of my monitors reset it self to 60hz a while back, and I didn't catch the problem for days.
Can you not literally see the frames skip as you move the mouse cursor across the screen? To me it’s OBVIOUS and excruciating and I’m only a light/casual gamer and use all my computers for work.
Scrolling text, I notice IMMEDIATELY
Sure, and maybe I'm odd, but I don't read text while scrolling. I stop scrolling and then read. So yes, if I just scroll up and down quickly I can see the refresh is different, but otherwise I don't notice it in my regular usage.
Plus we all grew up reading the 24fps text scroll in the Star Wars intro just fine. Until we convince a new generation of cinematographers to shoot in 120fps, it all seems a bit moot - even most digitally-authored content doesn't exceed 60fps (and tech people are the first to complain about things like the soap opera effect...)
The way frame rate work on conventional film vs. an LCD are completely different. It’s like trying to ask the bitrate of a Vinyl record.
Conventional film projectors don’t show each frame continuously, they transition the shutter blade smoothly between frames, and projectors often flash each one a couple of times (48 or 72hz). A cinema projector is going to demolish a LCD in smoothness and motion quality even if it technically has a higher refresh rate on paper.
There is a big difference between watxhing a movie and operating a device where your input makes things move on the screen, you notice the depay way more.
If something is not noticeable when it gets "better", but it leads people to notice other stuff is "worse" over time, then I'd argue it's not actually a good thing to get.
Imagine if someone said "this food won't really taste better to you when you first eat it, but after 6 months you'll find other food tastes worse". To me, this would not be a selling point.
I didn't know how bad TV looked in the 90s. We watched a low res 19 inch TV from across the room. Did moving to HD make any real difference in our lives? Do we really enjoy TV that much more? Once the excitement wears off about 20 minutes into watching it, its still the same thing. If the story is good, you get into it either way and forget what you're watching it on.
Watching older TV shows I notice a lot more close ups of actors faces. I’m convinced it’s because the shows were produced with small screens in mind.
I watched TV and used computers in the 90s and the whole time I was desperate for display technology to improve. Mainly CRT refresh rates, which often gave me a headache, but yeah I noticed the crappy pixel density all the time too. The nice Apple display I have now is one of my fave things I’ve ever bought and could only be improved by being >60Hz (which I do notice, but it’s not a big deal).
CRT refresh rates is super high, usually starting at 120hz... and now we are trying to do the same? you want to feel headache again?
> CRT refresh rates is super high, usually starting at 120hz...
That’s not my memory of it at all. They were often set to 60Hz by default, and increasing the setting to 75Hz would make it noticeably less flickery.
> and now we are trying to do the same? you want to feel headache again?
The headaches were from when it was too low.
That’s what I’m talking about. 80Hz was just enough to keep the headaches away for me and that was either impossible or came with other compromises for some monitors / video cards.
Depends on the content. When people are talking in a nondescript (thing the "12 Angry Men" movie), SD is quite fine. Now compare it to Blade Runner or Scarface. Those movies absolutely benefit from more detail and colors.
Yes, I definitely remember noticing how much better TV was when we moved from 20" sets from last century to HD LCDs (and then much larger/higher-res LCDs) over the last 25 years.
And I would disagree that only the story matters. If that were the case, people wouldn't go to the theater (a trend that has started happening in the last 15 years as people have been able to rig their living rooms to give an experience that is nearly theater quality, especially when considering cost and convenience. When we had 20" TVs, they were no substitute for going to the movies.
People had giant TV’s in the past as well. They are cheaper now.
Either way, a larger screen is not the same improvement as higher resolution. And more importantly, the reason people may not go to the movies when they have a home theater system is partly due to justifying the cost of the theater system.
It's the same dynamic as with how we optimize for web pages speed. People don't immediately think that website responding 200ms faster is better. But they enjoy the experience more anyway (even if at some subconscious level) and they end up liking it more and spending more time with it.
With food also you could be incrementally getting better and better food and when you then try v1 it would taste bad.
It seems that we might also be noticing slight degradation more than slight improvement in general? No idea if that's true.
I don't think that's a good comparison.
I've often had new phones that are 'faster' but I barely notice the fastness until I go back to my old phone and realise that my finger-memory needs adapting because things take just a bit longer to load.
I'd assume it's similar for screen refresh rates.
That's not been my experience with the refresh rates, and it's not what GP and GGP said either. I have a 13 mini and have bought both 16 and Air. I kept them for 2 weeks and then returned.
When I got the phones, I did not notice any benefit related to screen refresh. I also did not notice any detriment when I went back to my 13 mini after two weeks on a 120 Hz screen.
But if it was as GP said, and it's only something you notice when you go back to a "lesser" screen, then that would not be a selling point in my book.
I always wondered why Windows users didn't notice the jagged text in 2001 and see a Mac as obviously better. You don't know what you aren't missing until it's gone.
I used to switch between a MacBook Pro with a 120Hz display and a MacBook Air with a 60Hz display and never noticed any difference. I think I could probably have noticed if I'd put them side by side and compared the feel of the scrolling, but why would I do that?
There's a minority of people who really do notice stuff like this, which is fine. The problem is that for some reason, they sometimes have difficulty accepting that they're a minority.
Some people are born with nervous systems which aren’t capable of noticing the difference, just like there are people who can’t see better than 20/20 no matter how good their optical acuity is.
Maybe I'd be able to tell in a blind test if I'm looking for it. Just meant it's not something I'd passively notice.
If you have any devices with a faster screen, you can see them side-by-side on https://testufo.com/
Not a blind test, but the smoothness when tracking a moving object is very obvious
Thanks for the link, checked it and well even side by side on my mbp, the difference is not that super obvious. 30 to 60 fps is very obvious and night and day. 60 fps and 120 fps, I only notice the difference side by side if I pay attention...
But maybe it's because I'm 40+ with relatively bad eye vision and 20 years earlier I'd be noticing the difference much more.. But I'd say going from 1080p to 4k was a lot more obvious than that...
I've never understood the 120hz hype. Sure it looks a tiny bit better, but I'd trade that in a heartbeat for more battery.
I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns for display refresh rates, but I can tell you from experience that it is definitely higher than 60hz. 90hz feels meaningfully smoother (on a Steam deck), and 120/144hz (on a desktop monitor in my case) feels smoother than that. Even mouse input latency is perceptibly lower. I've never used a display faster than 144hz but I honestly would not be surprised to discover that one can still tell the difference well past 144hz.
60fps is basically fine as long as you are unaware that it can be any better, but once you find out you are forever spoiled by the knowledge.
I'm sure mouse latency is a big issue for iPad Mini users.
I know there's a sizable contingent of people who just think a bigger number is better, but realistically this is a device for passively consuming text and video content that is typically around 30 fps anyway. Why waste the battery power on faster refresh?
I know you’re being sarcastic with that first line, but touch latency is even more noticeable than mouse latency.
Does the page look and feel glued to your finger as you scroll?
> Does the page look and feel glued to your finger as you scroll?
Yes, for me issues with apps have mainly been in poorly optimized code causing lag, slow loading and the like. The 60hz/120hz thing has never really been a practical issue.
Yes? That was true even of the first iPad.
Not sure about iPads, but going from a pixel 3 to a pixel 5 made me feel like my pixel 3 was broken. Xr to 16 pro was similar, but that is because Xr was legit broken.
The ProMotion screens have variable refresh rate depending on the content displayed. 10Hz to 120Hz for iPhones and 24Hz to 120Hz for iPads. So in theory the power consumption should be even better than a regular screen for static content like reading text.
Yup. For me up until 90/100ish it's a pretty significant improvement all the way up and after that I don't know if I could notice outside of a fast game or wiggling the cursor over a contrasting color
I'm sure a lot of people now would feel odd if you gave them a 60Hz phone after high refresh has become so common, even if they don't pay conscious attention to that kind of stuff
Having seen faster screens, I find 120 is where the diminishing returns ramp up for me. I wouldn’t bother with more.
For doomscrolling or watching videos it makes little difference. For an iPad that advertises drawing with the pencil, the latency of the brushstroke is a massive difference between the two. The more immediate feedback unlocks more confidence and reduces a lot of friction.
I think Apple has held off 120 Hz for so long precisely because the average person gets a bit of a jolt of "this device is fast, it runs so smooth compared to..." they can't quite immediately place until someone explains it's the refresh rate.
Without this, it'd be very hard for an average user to "feel" a performance difference between an A18 Pro in the Neo and say as far as the M5 Max in a MacBook Pro unless they had a "special" use case which really needed the extra CPU/GPU cores.
Of course, they can't stay forever on that. E.g. with the iPhone 17 they finally flipped the non-Pro over. Probably because it was starting to make the iPhone seem sluggish/stuttery compared to other phones more than it was making the iPhone 18 seem fast. Tablets have never seemed to be as fierce a market in terms of your average Joe comparing them, but I'd expect the same switch to being a liability instead of a tool will happen there as well (if they aren't already late to the game).
I think they made iOS run slower for 60Hz devices. Like 2-3 version ago they changed all the animations and it makes it unbearable to use my iPHone 17 on 60Hz when I used to prefer running my old Samsungs on 60Hz several years ago.
From what I can tell, it's the thing they notice more than almost anything else. I was recently shopping for a new phone and my brother, who has no interest in tech, kept telling me I need to get the one with it (I forgot the exact term he used, it wasn't 120hz admittedly).
I would be surprised if >10% of people didn't notice a difference between 60Hz and 120Hz.
Whether the hardware can keep up with Liquid Glass and push 120 frames a second is a different story, of course.
notice, maybe, but care, definitely not. there's a reason TV manufacturers get away with leaving on that awful AI smoothing by default.
That argument goes the other way though? The only reason TV manufacturers would leave frame interpolation on by default is that a decent chunk of people notice, those people care, and most of the people who notice are "normal people" who aren't repulsed by it.
If only "pro consumers" noticed or cared... well, those "pro consumers" are the ones who think it looks like shit and would rather have a TV without it.
> I can barely get the regular people in my life to nice anything above 30 hz or turning off motion smoothing. I really don't see how any of this stuff matters for most people
"I don't have an issue with it, so most people also don't have an issue with it"
False Consensus Effect (or false consensus fallacy):
It happens when someone overestimates how much other people agree with them, assuming that their own personal beliefs, values, or experiences are the default for everyone else.
But in this case, most people really truly don't have an issue with it.
It's a very small minority who cares.
> It's a very small minority who cares.
Cite your sources, please or you're just echoing "trust me, bro".
You can’t prove your inverse take tho.
Reading comprehension is important. There was no inverse take here. Just pointing out anecdotal evidence isn't enough to draw a conclusion over a larger sample size.
Most people don’t even know what a refresh rate is. They don’t know why it’s measured in hz. They certainly don’t know what 60 vs 120 means.
You don't have to know what Hz is to see that scrolling on some devices is smooth and on other (coug..Apple) devices is choppy. 60Hz feels like a decade old phone.
If your phone is choppy when scrolling a list on a 60 Hz display, it's not going to scroll smoothly on a 120Hz display.
> it's not going to scroll smoothly on a 120Hz display
It will be buttery smooth between the chops.
My pixel lets me pick between 60 or 120Hz refresh rate, the bump in perceived smoothness is substantial, to the point that 60Hz does appear choppy in comparison.
iOS at 60Hz is so much worse than Android at 60Hz, I don't know why. maybe Apple did it intentionally to sell more iphones
I just tried it on my iPhone right now, and yeah, something seems wrong. Switching from 120Hz to 60Hz on my Mac, I can barely tell. On the iPhone, 60Hz feels more like 30Hz.
Really, my case it's opposite. I was quite happy with the 60hz on my ip13mini, even if my main phone is Android 120hz phone.
I got a Pixel 7 Pro for work, and it's so laggy. Idk what a 120hz display is for when stock apps like Google Maps are running at like 30fps. I thought maybe some corp security stuff was slowing it down, but I showed it to people at work who have only ever used Android, and they thought it was normal.
Outdated comparison now that Liquid Glass is lagging my phone.
For whatever map rendering in Google Maps is capped at 30fps, yes. Google doesn't seem to care.
Yeah the Android is capable of 120 but often lower than 60 in practice
Phones today have plenty of power to generate 120 screens per seconds. Capping them with a screen is a terrible idea. Smooth form a decade ago isn't the same as smooth of today.
20 years ago I was gaming at 30fps and called it smooth. Now 120Hz feels like bare minimum.
I still game at 30 fps and don't really notice it, but scrolling at 30 fps gives me a headache.
As someone who occasionally browses Hacker News on a Kindle e-Reader, having a low refresh rate really doesn't matter.
I'd love to have eInk at 90-120Hz. But I agree that 60Hz or 5Hz is pretty much similar expeirience when it comes to scrolling.
E ink is at 60hz now. Look up Bigme B7 (it's wild!)
Yeah I wanted to love the form factor of the Mini and thought the 60 he wouldn't be an issue but was reminded any time I used the device.
Actually surprised to learn Apple did the OLED swap and didn't use the opportunity to bump it up at least to 90 hz like the OLED Steam Deck.
Nobody ever wanted a >60Hz display, but once you've used one it's hard to go back. It's like having a higher-performance car. You're now stuck with paying more just for baseline happiness.
It's probably not actually as hard to go back as we think it is, but holding on to stuff is in our genes.
I keep hearing this all the time, and I think this is an absolutely massive overstatement that you cannot go back to 60 hz after experiencing high refresh rates.
My personal experience is that I do notice the difference - for like a minute - and then I adjust and never care anymore.
Strangely enough, I can't use a sub-120hz phone anymore, but I have no problems using my 60hz laptop or 75hz desktop monitor. Maybe the different form factors let people compartmentalize their experiences.
Yeah, we're talking more like reducing the amount of sugar in your tea hard, not quitting heroin hard.
As an experiment I put my phone into 60Hz after posting this comment. 5 hours later I've remembered. I didn't notice.
I think it only really matters for gamers, but seriously, who's gaming on an iPad?! Use a PC or console!
It's worth pointing out that mobile gaming surpasses PC and console combined, in terms of marketshare and revenue. https://playercounter.com/gaming-industry-revenue-statistics...
I don't know how "mobile" gamers are using iPads (or tablets), but considering the size of the market, I doubt it's particularly niche.
If you give me a choice between buttery smooth >60Hz refresh rate animations, and better battery life, I'll choose the battery life 100% of the time. But that's just me. But then again, with the insides of a typical tablet being 90% battery these days (along with a little motherboard along one edge) maybe that's all a nonissue. Phones, on the other hand... my unambitious, cheap (from when you could still get half decent cheap phones) one goes two days on a charge easily, whereas a friend with an "advanced" phone struggles to get through one day with it, often running out during all-day outdoor adventures. Tradeoffs!
This tradeoff doesn’t exist.
Look at Apple’s own smartphone lineup. The Pro models with 120Hz screens get better battery life than the low end iPhone models.
You could make up for the difference in battery life with an almost undetectable amount of extra battery capacity from both a cost and size standpoint.
Phones use VRR displays, they don't always scale up all the way to 120Hz, only when justified by the content.
Even on the 120Hz displays, you can choose to cap them to 60Hz in settings.
the irony is that 120hz screens are actually 1-120hz vs constant 60hz which makes it more battery efficient most of the time except for when you're scrolling
What's magical about 60 there? I'd naively think you'd just want VRR and some power saving render rate behavior rather than a fixed target framerate equal to the max framerate for all types of content all the time. The latter gives you neither good power saving nor good experience in most combinations.
I think you missed the point of their comment. The point is they are reducing features (marginal cost difference for them) to provide a worse experience for a cheaper model. I'm pretty sure it's less complicated to have a shared manufacturing process with fewer SKUs than to have two separate displays (if they're even different and not just software locked).
Do you think they couldn't add a refresh rate control to the device if you wanted to have lower battery? They already have variable refresh rate implemented, a much harder problem.
I remember the age of when Intel used to lock down hardware multipliers for overclocking behind the K versions, and GPUs did too. This is a well known practice, and Apple is not above it.
While I agree 100%, I'm more interested in the variable refresh down to 1hz that comes with 'Promotion' to save on battery when viewing lots of static text.
The base iPhone 17 has a 120 Hz display, I suspect they are going to drip feed it through their products as a cheap spec bump (vs adding extra RAM or storage).
Or this will be an anomaly and they'll drop the base iPhone and keep the E model for the new base, the Air, the Pro and now the Duo.
> I suspect they are going to drip feed it through their products as a cheap spec bump (vs adding extra RAM or storage).
The iPhone sells way more units than the iPad, so it makes sense that it's not a feature for the iPad mini yet.
Came in to say exactly that. That’s what’s holding me back from upgrading my older Pro. I refuse to go back to 60hz.
The non-Pro iPhone 17 has ProMotion. I have to assume it's a matter of time before it'll make its way to the non-Pro iPads.
Sure, but the parent comment is saying the “matter of time” should be in the past. I wouldn’t buy a 60hz device today.
If you needed a mini tablet you would cause there's practically zero competition
I bought the new 8 inch Alexa tablet the other day, and the price was decent but it's a piece of shit. I only wanted it for putting on a video in bed while I fall asleep but it can't even do that because when you drop the brightness to minimum, the display randomly turns off (not actually locking the screen, it's still running the app and active, you can touch stuff you can't see, but the pixels are turned off)
I've seen some TVs do that, turn off the screen when it gets dark (not talking OLED). Often takes too long and is a nuisance. There's a similar awful gimmick with speakers turning off when quiet, but it results in sound cutting out because it's too slow. I've seen some monitors that even try to do this when using headphones through them.
> I bought the new 8 inch Alexa tablet [...] for putting on a video in bed while I fall asleep
That's...horrifying.
Have you tried closing your eyes?
To everyone over here stating the pro vs regular consumer argument:
- Apple introduces OLED and talks about deep blacks and 1200 bits
- Why do they think people care about the above and not 120hz as well?
To the average consumer, neither matters much. True. But the above did not make much sense to me.
Apple introduced Tandem OLED there is a difference most of the PC world is still using single OLED with all its shortcomings along with Thunderbolt 4.
120hz at 5k requires Thunderbolt 5 (ie better graphics card, more info down the pipeline.
Which is why most of the PC world is on cheap 4k monitors still.
LG were the first to ship products with Tandem OLED, in the automotive market. Apple were not even the first in the mobile or PC markets, being beaten by Huawei and Dell, respectively.
Most 5K monitors on the PC side are not going to be driven over Thunderbolt, but rather DisplayPort or HDMI.
And the most popular resolution on PC is not 4k, but rather 1080p and 1440p.
> And the most popular resolution on PC is not 4k, but rather 1080p and 1440p.
Because that market, in aggregate, only spends extra on monitors for gaming.
To the average consumer, deep blacks will look great in the next Avengers movie.
To the average consumer, obsessing over scroll feeling not completely perfect is a distraction from watching the next Avengers movie, if not downright neurotic behavior.
To a prosumer, the value may be obvious but the price may not be worth it. Which can lead to a distaste for the company, for not being a more accommodating company.
To a professional, if you need it, you need it, and you begrudgingly pay for it. Because you need it.
I don’t even know what my phone screen has. Wasn’t why I bought the pro at the time. Wanted the additional ram. So I wouldn’t feel as pressed to upgrade now. (Prosumer, aka neurotic.)
I always change back my devices to 60Hz. There's no brain here. I get motion sickness easily.
Usually it's low FPS (if FPS at all) that causes motion sickness. This comes up in VR discussion a lot. IIRC like 90Hz is considered a minimum.
I get horribly motion sick playing some games like Half-Life 2, Metroid Prime, or the original DOOM. I run my phone at 120Hz and like it. For games, cranking up the FoV tends to help, also disabling effects like viewbobbing, blur, shaking, etc.
I understand this is not fun to experiment with, though. Once I'm motion sick, I tend to be the entire day, only sleeping fixes it, so I'm not usually excited to keep trying to tweak the thing that makes me sick. I tend to dive into settings before playing any game now. I hate when it auto starts the game to appear cinematic.
Oh you should try the accessibility feature for that with the little dots on the screen.
Why?
I could not care less about any refresh rate over 30.
You can care about it, but that just means it sounds like a differentiator to me, not something everyone should pay for just because you care about it.
You will have to somehow prove it if you would say that the panel and driver chip are all already ready to do 100+ hz for free by default, and are actually artificially limited, and that that artificial limitation doesn't come with some other advantage like battery life (allowing a smaller battery or less cost in some other way).
Why? Because.
Or, jokes aside, I honestly think that you might just have beefier time-integrating sensory-processing circuits in your brain than I do. Really. I do profoundly notice the difference, and it's a gritty and distracting thing. A slight but persistently intrusive and distracting perceptual thing. I honestly wish I didn't notice, but I do. I basically ask this: believe us when we ask for higher framerates and lower end-to-end latency.
And I'm fairly certain that the hardware and software to do higher frame rates across the board is a baseline commodity in the Apple source hardware ecosystem the build and integrate from. And it's certainly a better fit to consider it a line drawn between "pro" and "not pro" for marketing and pricing purposes than any fundamental and meaningful price-of-equipment threshold.
For movies, 30fps is good enough, but for a screen which you interact with, the change to 120hz is dramatic. And there is no reason why they should not be adding it.
High refresh rate displays are an interesting feature because most users do not notice the difference.
I can spot a 60Hz display from jiggling the mouse pointer for a second.
I’ve also done side-by-side comparisons of full screen scrolling on 60Hz and 120Hz screens for less technical people who could barely perceive a difference when I was pointing it out, but it took some time to get them to see it.
MKBHD (YouTube tech video and reviewer) talks about this a lot: It’s highly valuable to people like you and me who are attuned to the performance of our devices, but most people don’t notice. Or care!
I would appreciate high Hz displays everywhere, but I admit that Apple has probably made the right consumer choice tradeoff to compromise on refresh rate for these lower end devices where minimum cost and maximum battery life are the two most important features for those who buy them.
I'm one of those who can't spot a difference. I've tried to with the mouse trick or scrolling and I just can't see it. I can see the difference between 30fps and 60fps but anything north of 60fps is imperceptible to me. Maybe it's from a lifetime of gaming on toaster specs where I'd scarcely break 25fps.
Motion picture film 24 frames per second, old line NTSC 30 frames per second.
I think another thing to keep in mind is that there’s probably an element of sensory adaptation at play here. Like when you wear a watch: you notice it at first, and then you don’t notice it on your wrist anymore.
So if you’re actively moving between a high-refresh-rate device (like a lot of people here with their 144hz monitors) and then one with a lower refresh rate, you’re probably more sensitive (and potentially annoyed) by the discrepancy.
You will notice this as soon as you use a low dpi device again for any length of time. First 10 minutes you see the pixels. After that you stop seeing the pixels.
Viewing distance plays a factor too. I realized 4k tvs are useless to me because I can't perceive 1080p pixels unless I'm comparison shopping in a TV show room from 2 feet away (probably why they don't let you experience appropriate TV viewing distances in these spaces in the first place).
Did it? Most devices are still at 60
do people have NASA sensors instead of eyes? 48hz is fine, let alone 60hz. Probably they save a lot on battery as well.
Right? Pro devices should be 240hz now
Why? Reference monitors in the production industry aren't.
A 40% price increase compared to pre June pricing, a 60Hz display (that’s likely just software locked), and still starting at 128GB of storage.
I was actually excited for this, but now I’m going to pass.
Thanks AI.
I wanted to upgrade my air(gen4) but with these prices it's just not happening. Oh and no support for the perfectly fine apple pencil I already got with it is just....
... AI and the RAM-pocalypse.-
It's hard to even know what price to use to calculate the delta, since there are different processors with different memory capacities, different CPUs based on memory, and higher price for the nano-texture display.
But yeah, a top-of-the-line iPad mini costs well more than an MBA, which seems kind of nuts. Add on a keyboard case and Apple Pencil Pro and you're looking at $1,500.
I would not assume it is software-locked. Display controller on 120Hz ProMotion displays is more expensive. Also, the panel itself is likely cheaper LTPS vs. LTPO.
Such a shitty proposition. Why would anyone buy this.
Now I get why they only announced it via press release...
They ticked all the boxes.
Add to that a locked OS, and you got a bingo.
Value/$ in iPad basically has not changed since 2022. Inflation (general and AI/antitrust-driven component shortages) has cancelled out technical gains.
I doubt the display is hardware locked. Apple is too good at protecting its margin to do that.
128gb...
it's water resistant
that's huge
Who can afford this shit?
I can, easily, wouldn’t feel the cost in any way.
The question you I think should ask is who finds this value reasonable?. To which, I can only answer my myself who can’t see any reason to upgrade from my iPhone 15.
Cellebrite.
I'm on iPhone 13 and only reason I'd like to upgrade is my battery is poor now and because I have a small crack on the back glass, Apple requires me changing both the back glass and battery which is $500 CAD.
> To which, I can only answer my myself who can’t see any reason to upgrade from my iPhone 15.
It's cool that you have extra cash to blow on pointless devices, but you were looking to upgrade from an iPhone to an iPad mini?
> I can, easily, wouldn’t feel the cost in any way
This is probably the single most well, excuuuse me, princess moment I have ever witnessed around these parts. Alright Mr Richie Rich.
Software engineers in a good chunk of Europe/US/Canada/Australia make 6 figure salaries, of course they can easily afford an iPad Mini.
Yep. That’s pretty much common knowledge at this point. What I’m surprised about is reading someone not-at-all-humble brag about it.
I have a 2022 mini that I use constantly. I was looking forward to this update. I like the oled and the lower weight, but it's just too expensive for what you get. The processor upgrades etc. mean nothing to me, my 2022 mini isn't slow. I don't want the camera on the side either.
It's too bad because Apple only updates these things every couple years and the price never goes down, so this is the best moment to update. Oh well. Maybe I'll buy a new cover for my old mini.
Whenever I get bored with my m1 ipad, I buy a new cover for it, and then I enjoy using it again :)
Supports extended display - with Apple ignoring the capabilities of Pro iPhones (give us the Dex already!), this is now the smallest device you can take on trips to have it become a (nerfed by software) workstation when plugged to USB-C monitor.
It makes no sense to make the devices so thin and then having a fat camera. This requires a cover to equalize the size with the camera for haptic reasons. Better use this space for other stuff like larger batteries and make the device the same thickness everywhere.
The carousel 2nd image appears to have erased the camera to make it fit the marketing narrative? That's pretty bold.
It's the top image on the product page: https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/
I would assume, however, that they didn't "fake" it - that they instead chose a filming position and lens such that camera was obscured behind the edge of the device (the edge facing the viewer is the far side from the camera). Bit of trickery for sure though.
For anyone curious, a diagram with the camera can be found here: https://www.apple.com/v/ipad-mini/a/images/specs/buttons_con...
from this page: https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/specs/
> I would assume, however, that they didn't "fake" it - that they instead chose a filming position and lens such that camera was obscured behind the edge of the device
I’d suspect the same. From that angle, the camera bump is on the opposite edge; when I hold my iPad Air in the same position, the camera bump is also just about hidden.
That being said, I’d also suspect that Apple chose that angle deliberately.
Is that a real video or cgi? The motion reminds me of motion tweening.
Historically, Apple used real photos and video for marketing material, only lit and polished to perfection to create a sort of hyper-real effect. Nowadays, who knows.
If I recall they did the exact same thing with the first iPhone that had the camera bump.
Definitely an odd choice. Especially when two images later has it again
The usual narrative is that Apple are meticulous, therefore it is only proper that we assume they did this on purpose.
I wonder if at this point a camera bump is too closely associated with quality.
A minimal camera bump means they've advanced the technology to make it small, but no camera bump makes it look like they're using a cheaper camera?
Nobody cares if a tablet has a shit camera.
woah - that's pretty shocking to me actually. in the past they generally have just used flattering angles. This is downright deception.
This is literally just a flattering angle. Not saying it's not deceptive, but they didn't "edit" the camera bump out of the image.
https://www.apple.com/v/ipad-mini/a/images/overview/product-...
this is directly side-on. they've def removed the camera bump. In the initial animation at the top where the hand grabs it too. the bump is very clear in shots later!
wait... could they have hidden it under the hand? and why does that person's thumb seem extra long?! the more I look at this the less I understand it.
Perspective is still at play. At arms length, on my phone, if I make it so the flat surface is completely aligned with my center of vision, the bottom side covers at least 1mm of whatever is on the underside. The closer one gets to the phone, the more pronounced the effect.
The video keeps triggering my sense of seeing CGI, but the hiding effect on display can absolutely be accomplished in camera.
That thumb looks incredibly photoshopped (or AI edited).
I presume it is a flattering angle instead of a falsified image. The camera bump is near the one large button, which was furthest from the camera when they rotate it, so the iPad could have been angled slightly to hide the bump. Maybe someone can try to reproduce it after it comes out to see if it is a false image.
Yeah, the picture of the iPad is probably taken like /, not like |.
It always reminds me of the imac from 15 or so years ago when they were touting how thin the imac was.
In reality the back was curved, and they took pictures from an angle that only showed off the edge of the screen and not how far back it curved
> In reality the back was curved, and they took pictures from an angle that only showed off the edge of the screen and not how far back it curved
You only see the thickness at the back from an angle where you can't actually use the computer (and for many people, that whole angle is going to be against the wall). This is the good kind of design - making something appear beautiful without compromising the core function.
I'm distinctly less convinced about ever-thinner mobile devices that I immediately have to slap a case on...
The older iMacs that were the same thickness all the way across, they still looked good. Except they were some of the best machines to service. Literally two screws in the bottom, the whole thing split in half, and your hard drive, memory and other components were right there. I worked on tons of them and they were fantastic. It saved people money in the long run when they needed an upgrade because it took less time. Even replacing the screen or logic board in them was a piece of cake.
I'm ok with the bump, but make it not wiggle on a damn table. Google figured this out. The first MacBook Airs figured this out (wedge).
They came up with the plateau, just make the whole plateau flat already.
[read in Steve Jobs voice]: "You are putting it down wrong" If you put the screen size on the table, the device does not wobble ;P
before you vote down, this is not a serious response
The argument is most people use a case regardless, so if it were the same thickness across the device, the iPad would be considerably thicker once in a case. That and weight. I don’t use cases so it bothers me too, but it does make some sense.
It's still very strange how much work goes into the materials for the case and the ergonomics and weight of holding the devices without a case just to assume everyone will put it in a case. I'm with you on iPads, they get too heavy/thick for their primary uses once in a case. The phones I sort of get but I still think it ruins a lot of the aesthetic choices they make about the case design.
I've always thought this too. An iPad with an integrated case would be able to fill the entire flat back area with a battery, and just have rubber on the edges where impact protection is needed. The existing design is really optimized around having an impressive experience in the store when holding an uncased product, before you inevitably cover it.
Why would you want an integrated case? The soft impact absorbing materials degrade much faster than the aluminum. Look at the average ipad users case and it's falling to pieces, you don't want that permanently fixed to the device.
There's also many users who don't need a case. A lot of ipads are POS systems that are fixed to the bench so they don't need a case either.
> Why would you want an integrated case? The soft impact absorbing materials degrade much faster than the aluminum.
Given that the impact-absorbing parts could be [0]
and could obviously be designed to be replaceable, either by a handy user or an Apple Technician, why wouldn't you want Apple to design the feel and balance of a device with a case that has built-in impact protection?Apple's decision to make most of its handhelds out of various grades of "fragililum" has boggled my mind since they sold the first iPhone with an easily-shattered glass back. That choice makes sense for a conspicuous status symbol that people are going to take very good care of... but most folks either end up with one with damage that makes plain how theirs is not the kind of life that makes that possible, or they have installed some aftermarket shell that ruins the effect by covering up the conspicuously fragile part of the hardware.
[0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50247743>
I find it annoying too, I assume it's because thin and light devices sell more (both in promo photos and when used in Apple stores).
My mum's Samsung S23 Ultra has a ridiculous camera bump and rocks back and forth when you use it, even with some thinner cases. You need a super thick case for it to stay stable.
I have a hard time believing the camera bump isn't the result of intensive consumer psychology experiments. Setting a bare apple device down on a flat surface feels like chair with a leg sawed off. They need you to buy the accessories. This is part of making the ecosystem viable.
Nah it’s just easier to pick up a phone when one edge is higher than the other.
Half the time their mid-year fresh is just a new color, with a huge marketing push. If everyone has a case, colors become a moot point.
I also don’t think I’ve ever seen an Apple exec use a case, as it would imply the phones are durable and a case is needed, which they don’t want to convey. (Bumpers for antenna-gate aside)
The correct answer. The camera bump is intentional and so is building phones that aren't resilient to drops out of the box. What do you mean I can't have a phone with rubber bumpers on the corners?
> phones that aren't resilient to drops out of the box
What year is it, 2012?
There used to be an "Active" line of Galaxy phones that had built in umpers before they discontinued them.
> umpers
To "b" or not to "b". Apparently the latter.
>resilient to drops
I would be content if they'd stop making phones slippier than a wet bar of soap. My Pixel 8a is ridiculous, I don't know how they do it. If you have dry hands, it's nearly impossible to hold on to.
Yeah, I added a boring case on day 1 and would have trouble describing the feel of the bare device right now.
Found one on Amazon so I dodge Google's exorbitant plastic markup, and it is a relatively minimalist wrap that smooths out the camera bump and makes it more grippy in hand, in pockets, and on flat surfaces.
The behavior of those slippery phones in pockets is almost the bigger gripe to me. Like they are a new class of motion amplifier, trying to rotate and squirt their way out at the slightest twitch.
This made me realize I have an inconsistency I never noticed.
I would never use a case with a phone of any sort. I don't like the extra bulk, and the friction they add is annoying.
Meanwhile I never use a tablet or kindle device without a cover.
like the apple tv remote.. plus those are so sensitive too
Google Chromecast remote is bad, too.
The curvature on the back of those is such that it's harder to rotate into a position so the thumb can hit the right button than a flat surface would be.
It also means that resting it on the arm of a recliner produces about the same result as just dropping it into the void to begin with: It's going to wind up there either way.
Airpod cases are horrible. Best wrapped a rubbery non-slip case
I have my iPhone 13 in a $10 cover for years now. I don’t like the bump, but I don’t think it’s a scheme to buy covers.
Also my favorite smartphone was a motorola with a cloth back (ballistic something) and a metal frame. No cover was needed for this one.
If they levelled it out you could surely fit a far larger battery in it too. I'd far rather have a device 1.5mm thicker with a battery lifespan twice as long and no silly bump on it.
Would you also like the extra weight of such a device?
what premium would you pay for this? asking for a friend.
Zero. Ignoring that Apple prices are already inflated beyond all reason, a larger battery would add a single digit dollar amount to the BOM.
Ok, so they'll continue making thinner devices that appeal to more people then.
>implying that Apple cares about what users want
They do. That’s why they discontinued the mini phones. Nobody likes those.
Since basically everybody uses a case anyways, the important factors are weight and width with the case on. This design makes both of those significantly smaller than your suggestion.
Even stupider for iPads because who even is using the back camera? Just get rid of it entirely and the device will be exactly as functional.
A surprising amount of people use the back camera for document scanning.
Probably if the (in)famous airdrop was more reliable, people could figure out they can scan with their phone and airdrop to their tablet.
Too bad though, there's no way to put a scanned document onto iPad in Apple's ecosystem other than the otherwise useless camera.
Some people don't have iPhones though. Rare, I know. I have an iPad and my wife has an iPhone but I have never owned one at all and instead have always used Android right from the HTC G1.
I use it quite often for scanning QR codes.
To be fair, the iPad mini is a way better form-factor for camera use than any of the big iPads. I think the only time I've ever used the rear camera on the 12" iPad was to scan a document...
I've seen asshats at concerts holding their iPads up to record. Bad enough when people hold their phones up, but this was next level.
WAT. Just because you do not does not mean you get to dictate how others can use it. I know lots of people that use the rear camera on iPads. I'm one of them.
> Just because you do not does not mean you get to dictate how others can use it.
No one attempted to dictate anything. They expressed an opinion. HN is a discussion forum. This is exactly what it’s for.
Your point would look stronger if you had only included your last two sentences without the indignation of the first two.
"Just get rid of it entirely and the device will be exactly as functional."
That is not expressing of an opinion but dictating an action. "I think they should get rid of it entirely..." would be the expressing of an opinion.
Do you imagine that Apple designers are trolling HN to generate their next device plans?
He’s literally expressing an opinion. There is no in here to “dictate” to.
then everything would be just tiptoeing and nothing would be interesting.... it's not like someone saying that will actually cause Apple to get rid of it
Yes they are just whining into the void about something they can’t change. Great use of everyone’s time all around.
More likely though they’re trying to signal their membership to the in-group that’s always circle jerking on every iPhone/iPad post about SD cards, removable battery, thick small phone, flush camera, etc.
Whining into the void is most conversation online is. It’s what you are doing, too.
The top comment thread here is complaining about the camera bump.
it's what actually starts conversations.
it's not super "ethical" if you're like triggered by (maybe) harsh opinions, but it gets people to chime in vs just lurking
No, I’m whining to the source
Literally you are not. You whined to r_lee about paxy’s comment.
Literally I am
Tangentially related: this is the funniest rant about this "devices with a fat camera bump that don't lay flat" rant that exists: "Why?" - Lazy Posy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP7lYuyGTmg
I always keep my phone in a case... I've had one too many drops, and I'm super-careful.
That being said, even with my Pixel in a case, the camera still protrudes.
It would be interesting to try a camera where the lens extends out when the camera is activated; and flat otherwise.
> This requires a cover to equalize the size with the camera for haptic reasons.
Not really! The cover just follows the seam. And larger batteries will increase the weight as well, which Apple definitely doesn't want.
> larger batteries and make the device the same thickness everywhere
thermals.
apple literally uses batteries as thermal mass.
Aren't most people using their device with a case anyways?
Not sure about the iPad Mini, but I've really only seen the bigger iPads with a case. There's just so much screen to damage, and you do really want some kind of way to prop up the bigger iPads. I very rarely remove my iPad Pro from its keyboard case.
This is why I believe the Pixel 10a is the best designed phone to date.
It looks like 1:1 iPhone copy minus camera bump.
All phones are just rectangles. The no camera bump is the most important part. It is completely flat on both sides.
More battery means more weight, and no one wants these to be heavier.
Then just remove the camera in return for nothing. Less weight and a slimmer form!
Yeah it's infuriating. I love how even Apple are embarrassed by it, since in the first two animations of people holding and rotating the device they've left off the camera bump, making it look smooth flat.
More material, bigger battery = heavier device. For something this size I figure people want something they can comfortably hold in one hand for a session.
Perhaps if they put a very small lip around the camera lens and a physical bump on the other side so the device doesn't rock, at least it would be symmetrical and the glass would be slightly less prone to surface contact.
The iPad Mini has never had a camera bump.
Looking at my now "old" ipad mini 2024: you might want to delete that comment - and google picturesearch a bit ;)
Isn’t the bump already used to pack components that don’t fit in the rest of the device body? I don’t believe it’s only used for the camera.
Though I do hate that bump. I just tried a duo and the bump makes it awkward to hold as a tablet
A lot of their devices do that, but I doubt there is space in the iPad mini bump to fit anything.
The big examples are iPhone Air and iMac.
From my experience, the iPhone bumps are a lot more noticeable than their iPad siblings.
It makes sense for the manufacturer, they save a LOT of materials.
Like nitrogen and oxygen gas that would take up the extra space inside?
Density is insanely highly correlated with the perception of premium quality. No one’s increasing the volume of premium devices beyond what’s needed to hold components.
iOxygen and iNitrogen can be quite expensive, especially if you get the Apple+ option.
The most advanced form of Oxygen and Nitrogen ever seen. Steve Jobs himself invented the precise mixture of isotopes.
What about weight?
The extra volume can be air like it is in most consumer electronics.
But don't you just need a big camera on your giant tablet? How will you ever manage if you don't have a nice camera on both sides of all your handheld devices? /s
If they put the tiny "front-facing" camera pointed out the back it would be enough for the vast majority of people I imagine.
That's the thing - I genuinely don't understand the user or usage Venn diagram : when and who will 1. Have an expensive ipad with them and require a good big camera, but 2. Not have an equivalently competent phone with them?
Don't get me wrong, I understand it happens - back when I did wedding photography, one of my massive pet peeves were the uncles and grandparents who stepped into the aisle with their massive tablets just as bride is starting her walk... But I do not understand it at all :-/.
I'd absolutely happily completely kill the rear facing tablet camera. I've had at least a dozen android and ipad tablets and I genuinely don't think I took a single photo with them - it'd feel weird and awkward and so ostentious.
(As always as a consumer, clearly I'm in minority here :-})
When I use the rear camera, it's part of a feature of some other app that clearly makes sense to use as a tablet. You're bogged down as it being used as a primary camera as a photographer. There are other needs for cameras other than portraits. Using the rear camera in an AR mode is quite handy in apps.
Fair - thank you for that context! :)
Yes that stupid camera bump ... I hope those designers lose their jobs to AI. Then again, perhaps they already did :)
Why are these things always The Biggest Update Ever.
If that were literally true, by now we'd be walking around with devices the size of Mt. Rushmore.
"We just changed a couple things, no biggie, don't buy it" is the reality, but that doesn't sell. Marketers optimize for sales saying what they can get away with.
You're not wrong. The video video on Youtube gives a very good (and quick) overview of the marketing behind phone screen glass marketing claims; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YrdI7h2XoY
The same will apply to everything any company is marketing, at the very least it will always be their 'best' 'new' product.
That's just the nature of (slow) exponential gains. If the processor gains 1% in flops each generation, the absolute flop increase is always the largest ever. Now consider that a device has tens of marketable metrics and that is always a defensible claim.
I am so glad that I bought so much new tech before 2025 that I can make do without them for a while now.
These prices are insane and there is no sign of things slowing down.
The Apple TV really threw me, $299 new but last gen started at $129
It's especially bad if you're non-American with multiple TVs.
e.g. I've got three screens in my house (office TV, living room TV, basement projector) in Canada — upgrading to the latest Apple TV on each of them would cost me $1,287.
You can choose to not upgrade, or forego Apple TV altogether.
I say this as an Apple shareholder.
> You can choose to not upgrade, or forego Apple TV altogether.
Sure, and I can also complain about the pricing being unreasonable — which I also say an an Apple shareholder.
Root-cause analysis suggests blaming the monopolists hogging all the silicon fab.
I have two televisions - living room TV with an AppleTV and bedroom TV with some Roku device. I'm going to buy the new AppleTV and put it in the living room, then move that AppleTV to the bedroom, then recycle the Roku (finally, I hate that thing).
It should be less expensive but I rely on it (cancelled cable TV and just have streaming now) and so I'm just happy they are still working on it.
Depending on what you subscribe to, streaming services are now as expensive (if not more) than cable was if you got premium channels. I hear also Disney will add ads to all tiers as well.
I'm sure we're spending more money, but the AppleTV just works so much better than any cable box I've ever had.
The key is to subscribe to Jellyfin, but even THAT is getting expensive if you buy drives.
In Europe, it’s closer to $400, which is downright insulting for what is essentially a cheap smartphone without a screen or battery.
I would happily give up on the entire AI industry in exchange for more affordable hardware. No hesitation. The worldwide inflation resulting from the AI rollout is shameful to say it politely
I've thought a lot about that actually. I have a number of hardware purchases I'd like to make but I'm delaying due to the insane prices. That said, would I give up LLMs for the prior prices? No. Prices will come down eventually once more factories come online (it's just slow to bring up a new factory/fab, especially for RAM) and LLMs are such an awesome tool that I'll take the short-term pain of higher hardware.
But it is impacting everything. Even the new Sony RX camera has a slower sensor readout from the years old model simply because they can't get hold of the DRAM.
That’s if you’re considering your personal situation. The increase in hardware is impacting every single institution that needs computers. Smaller hardware companies with low margins cannot operate in the current situation. That means less consumer choices, new projects delayed or cancelled. The impact on less developed countries is of course exacerbated. Hospitals, schools, government agencies are getting less for the same level of spending. And of course that results in worst services, worst infrastructure, more expensive services and goods
Luckily absolute performance still exists, it's just that we've normalized shipping less efficient software slopped out because there'll probably be new silicon in a few years so it doesn't matter.
Commodity hardware is plenty powerful and can be taken advantage of should prices signal efficiency is important again.
Maybe institutions and companies are gonna have to get smarter at making use of stuff that they have instead of just churning thru hardware. It's hard to see it being sustainable anyway to be constantly turning over hardware every few years if not yearly. In a way, this chilling of consumerism is kinda neat.
Yeah my 2006 core 2 duo running linux was more productive than any corporate Windows laptop I have ever used.
This is due to 20 versions of enterprise spyware running in the background + Windows being garbage.
The original iPad had a 9.7" screen; it was later bumped to 10.2", and today the smallest iPad/iPad Air screen is 11".
The iPad Mini started with a 7.9" screen, bumped today to 8.5".
The iPhone Duo inner display is 7.6", there are already rumors saying a gen 2 or gen 3 might be 7.9".
It's interesting how smooth the iPhone/iPad continuum is becoming.
Unlike the iPhone getting bigger, the iPad with the 9.7/10.2/11" screen is still basically the same size though. It's just the bezels getting smaller.
Quick look at the Mini dimensions also seems like it barely got bigger overall since 1st gen.
Still waiting for a 13 Mini refresh :(
iPhone Air is leaps and bounds better (source: owned 13 Mini)
The iPhone Air is larger than an iPhone 17 in height and width. Every non-plus/max iPhone since the 13 Mini came out is smaller than the Air in height and width. Wouldn't they be a more logical upgrade than the Air?
The main body of the iPhone Air is thinner, of course, but including the camera bulge, I think it's thicker than all non-pro iPhones up to the 16.
Is there something about making the main body thinner that makes the iPhone Air more comfortable to hold than other smaller phones? Is it the weight? The 17e is only 4 g heavier than the Air, and the 16e is only 2 g heavier.
I have never been interested in the Air because of the size, so I can't even remember if I have picked one up in an Apple Store.
Forget the dimensions and size on paper. I tried the iPhone 17 for two weeks, came running back to the Mini. Later on, I upgraded to the Air and I'm very pleased. Yes, it's slightly larger in hand but it's still delightful to use like the Mini. Even though its 25g heavier than the Mini, it feels lighter because it's less dense.
It's bigger in all the wrong ways: https://phonesized.com/compare/#2739,1863
I reluctantly upgraded to the Air from the 13 Mini after I accidentally dropped it in water. After 3 weeks of using it now, I completely agree.
Make it 3/4 an inch narrower and an inch shorter and I'll get one
How is it better exactly, apart from the new SOC ?
There's an obvious gap where the iPhone mini used to be. Please fill that gap Apple!
I kinda feel that way too, but I can see why 3% of iphone sales wasn’t a compelling case at apple.
An easy fix, just name it iPhone 18 and all the people will buy it because it’s the default. Have a Max for all the actual big screen addicts.
I see what you did there!
What isn't smooth is the separation between the iPad and iPhone teams. I'm pretty sure new things being visited on the Duo such as the split keyboard interface have already been tried on the iPad side.
This iPad mini is actually slightly smaller than the previous gen; it's just the bezels that got smaller; the device footprint didn't grow.
The outer dimensions are largely the same, it's mostly a reducing the bezel size to increase the display size.
I love this dude's "reviews" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTiiZTi3aC8
when he goes "iphone small (big)" "iphone big (bigger)" and so on. He has a bunch of them.
Hopefully as Apple's own N-series Wifi chips mature and get rolled into more products, they will include GPS/GNSS capabilities into the chips, as right now if you want that functionality you have to purchase the "Wi-Fi + Cellular" variant:
* https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/specs/ § Location
Edit: to perhaps make it more clear, I meant still sell a +Cellular variant with the C-series chips (or whatever), but move the GNSS functionality into the N-series chips. So you'd have a non-cellular and a cellular, but both would have GNSS.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. I think the +cellular is enough of a differentiator that Apple will always charge for it.
The buyer is also signing up for a monthly payment. So clearly they have the cash to make an “extra monthly payment” or two up front.
It's part of it. Another part of the reason is patent related royalties that they have to pay to the likes of Qualcomm, Nokia, etc. for any device that has a working 5G stack inside of it. Apple actually has had their own 5G modem implementation for a few years now; they clearly have the technology to deliver this with a clean full in house chip design.
But any device that has that embedded would have some royalty overhead added to the BOM. Which is why they've always had ipads with and without 5G and have so far never really bothered with adding this on laptops (which actually would make a lot of sense from a technical point of view). Operators would probably love that because it's a nice up-sell opportunity on monthly subscriptions. And with soft sims there would not be a need for a hardware sim card.
For the same reason, you don't see this feature on many other laptops either. There are a few obviously but it's a less common feature than you'd expect given how important good connectivity is to most laptop users.
So the reason they have not released a +cellular MBP is down to them not wanting to make royalty payments? What do they care? They just roll that payment into the +cellular price bump. It's not like they are dipping into their own billion dollar cash on hand balance.
Do you have a better reason? I think the price difference is probably too high to justify the feature. I don't see any technical reason why they wouldn't do this. But patent royalties and additional overhead related to device certification would definitely add some complexity and cost.
No, but there's a lot of examples of "I don't have a better reason" regarding Apple decisions. I know that there's a lot of bad blood between Apple and Nvidia hence AMD GPUs every where before the M-series chips. Clearly, they are tired of of their cellular vendors, otherwise they would not have developed their own chips. But they already have the cellular relation for the iPhone/iPads, so what would extending that to allow MBP inclusion mean that makes it a non-starter for Apple?
I can only speculate. But my guess is that they don't anticipate additional mac sales if they were to ship this feature. So, the only reason to do this for them would be if it would bring in more revenue. And given the cost overhead related to patents that I outlined, it might just not be that interesting. My guess is that a lot of the agreements they have for this might cover iphones and ipads but not laptops.
It's not just Apple. 5G stacks in laptop are just very uncommon. Most vendors seem to independently come to the conclusion that they are better off not bundling that. Of course the difference is that Apple now has their own modems and chips for this. Which might change things but so far hasn't.
The reasons Apple want to vertically integrate everything and own it are easier to grasp: chips, firmware and software made by them are easier to control and upgrade by them. With qualcomm, they are basically getting them, their development teams, their supply chains for chips on the critical path to shipping products. And they are outsourcing what is a pretty major part of the whole phone experience to a third party.
Apple has been working on their own 5G modem for many years before they shipped it. I don't know for sure but I would not be surprised if efforts for that started when Steve Jobs was still alive even. This was always the logical move for them to make as soon as they got the idea of doing their own chipsets for their phones.
Is it possible its related to data traffic with carriers?
I would say this is the main reason, given tethering has caps, but maybe also how cell tower capacity probably would not do great with a whole new product market segment that's also high-bandwidth during the LTE days. With 5G's promise of increased capacity and 6G on the way, maybe it'll be possible soon enough.
I'm partially wondering if we're going to see a cellular Macbook this week on a C1/C2-derivitive modem for 'mobile computer' use.
The C3 modem is just around the corner though, as is the satellite network Globalstar's been building behind the scenes for it.
https://investors.globalstar.com/news-releases/news-release-...
It's now live and on-air for testing...
> The buyer is also signing up for a monthly payment. So clearly they have the cash to make an “extra monthly payment” or two up front.
I know of pilots who buy the +Cellular simply for GNSS and do not get a separate plan.
Charging more for the C-series hardware is understandable, but if there's enough of a 'transistor budget' it would be nice for the GNSS functionality to be more universal (since the N-series seems to be going into everything).
AI Doomer: AI is going to rise up and destroy humanity!
AI Optimist: AI is going usher in an era of unparalleled productivity and achievement
The reality: RAM/Chip prices are way, way up. The starter iPad mini is $700.
The cheapest configuration of the original model was $329 in 2012 [0]. Even when corrected for inflation, that would still be less than $500 in today's money -- so quite a bit less than $700!
Is the comparison unfair because today's model is much more powerful than the one from 14 years ago? Perhaps. But perhaps it shouldn't be compared to the past, but to its relative competitors?
[0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2012/10/23Apple-Introduces-iP...
In 2012, that iPad mini ran YouTube videos at the same resolution as today but without ads!
…progress?
Oh I long for the days when every 2 years prices for compute FELL.
On the plus side, devices are designed to last longer, be more repairable and be updated for longer than they were in 2012.
The upfront cost of a device is less important than the total cost of ownership, which highly depends on the lifespan of the device. An ipad that lasts 2.5 years needs to be half the price of one that lasts 5 years.
Not really unfair, as the basic use case is still the same for either model.
A toilet from a hundred years ago in the same product tier serves the same function as one today. Old models were also more expensive when adjusted for inflation, but today's toilets can tackle more turds with less water.
The alternative approach leads to those "costs have dropped by 7 orders of magnitude in the last 50 years" style of deceptive graphs popular among people with an agenda to insist AI memory price inflation isn't a real problem.
> RAM/Chip prices are way, way up
So that cloud providers can have servers and GPUs sitting unpowered in warehouses and datacenters.
Right. The prices are up for Nvidia’s benefit (and Micron, Sandisk by extension).
I know it’s now a trope to say “an incoming Democratic Congress should…” but there are really serious questions to ask about the means by which Nvidia is securing such a radically high value buy-and-hold strategy, and whether it amounts to deceptive channel stuffing.
The whole tech industry is using apparent demand for Blackwell GPUs as a proxy for AI demand, when this is a wholly broken metric because Nvidia seems to be gaming it, and everyone (consumer and business alike) is paying more as a result.
The whole supply demand spherical cow model of capitalism really breaks down when suppliers decide they'd collectively use their cartel to not engage in demand and instead gouge prices.
It doesn't, capitalism is the free association without coercsion. When the government can mandate that you cannot sell certain GPUs to customers in specific areas or that your model is too scary and you must shut it down and can give or take government contracts that are work hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, and the federal reserve will bail out the banks If they make mistakes, you have a crony capitalist environment that has very little to do with the free market.
How does AI explain the mini being $250 more expensive than the regular 11-inch iPad?
> How does AI explain
The iPad mini is not a mini version of the base model iPad. It's more or less a scaled down iPad Air.
Sure, but that tells you that the upgraded specs and pricing is a conscious decision made by Apple, not something forced by AI. Making an entry-level small screen equivalent of the 11-inch iPad is always an option. They’re choosing not to take it.
Memory and storage is expensive as hell, so they're gonna ration it for their more expensive devices.
Same reason this year, for the first time ever, Apple announced their new Pro phones (and the ultra-expensive Duo) but no base-model iPhone 18. They're paying more for memory so they're gonna use it on the devices where they make more on a sale.
When did Apple last refresh that? (not a rhetorical question sorry!)
It got a price bump 3 months ago.
> The reality: RAM/Chip prices are way, way up. The starter iPad mini is $700.
This has tiny 128 GB of storage and unknown but obviously not too high amount of RAM. At best 16, but probably less.
That's just Apple beeing greedy as usual.
Apple was "greedy" before too and were able to sell it cheaper. So obviously they're being impacted by increased storage/memory/whatever prices.
More like they were not able to find a pretext to sell it for more.
I can open my local store and will see shitty 8/128 Android tablets for less than 150 euro. If memorypocalypse was the main reason for pricing new ipad mini as it is, the budget tablet segment would be completely dead because manufacturers just wouldn't be able to afford memory at all.
Is it new model or from last year, the shortage only began in last year.
Given the criticism the Duo has had for not being a very good iPhone[1], I was hoping for a foldable iPad mini, which would seem to dodge those problems. Maybe in a year or two (does anyone remember the iPod Touch, which was an iPhone without the phone bit? I loved that thing.)
[1] - See "far the worst iPhone experience ever" Daring Fireball review: https://daringfireball.net/#:~:text=one.%20The%20outer%20dev...
The point of foldables is that they fit a big screen in your pocket. What's the point of a foldable display? Fit a 10 inch in your tiny purse? Very hard sale for double the price.
We will eventually see "foldable MacBook" because I genuinely want a 20" screen in my backpack or even just a smaller 16" MacBook. I guess not coming before 2035
Your comment reminded me of the old Thinkpad foldable keyboard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChlD_ZfpPdw
It makes me think of a Bento-box laptop with a foldable keyboard and a tri-fold display, where both the display and the keyboard unfold when you open the computer. Extremely thick, but a very small footprint when closed.
I'm not sure whether that's amazing or something that'll bankrupt any company that tries to sell it with longer than a 3-day warranty.
Just curious, is that based on your own experience or negative reviews you’ve read online? I’m using the Duo now and quite like it. It’s a first-gen device, so it has its quirks, which is expected. Calling it the worst phone is a bit of an exaggeration though. It’s a foldable, not a conventional phone, so you can’t really expect to use it the same way.
I expected the Duo to closer to the size of a normal iPad. I didn't realize it was a foldable iPad Mini that's also a phone. imo It's too small for the bulkiness that it adds. Also sacrificing the camera was not worth the fold.
The price justifies even a supernote manta if you're looking for some nice tech to write on.
Apple: Just fix the software. I have an iPad Mini (6?) and it's clearly just such an orphaned product. They're not even TRYING to make it usable. The on-screen keyboard takes up the majority of the screen when in landscape mode. In portrait mode, the "drawer" on the left side of the screen takes up so much space in apps like Maps/Flighty that it covers the location you're currently at.
They've clearly given almost no thought into how the (already marginal) iPadOS renders on a smaller screen.
Last iPad Mini I bought in 2015 was 32gb for $379CAD, one today 11 years later is $949CAD for 128gb, 2.5x over 10 years, I know there is different tech, inflation and times are different but I always though the mini as the budget option, now with this recent releases Apple is just going for: it's expensive because that's the only way we can keep growing....
The mini is not the budget option, at least not anymore. The base 11" iPad starts at $450 in the US (and can often be found on sale for less). It is the cost-down with lower-spec components, and is probably a more compelling product for the consumer looking for the cheapest iPad option than a cost-down mini would be.
Exchange rate is also a factor.
The iPad mini hasn’t been the budget iPad for quite a few years now. It is more like a small iPad Air now.
It is a very rare event what is going on right now. The prices are mostly up due to memory shortage.
I wish this was somehow listed as a separate line item with the price, assuming prices will normalize at some point. I don’t want these prices to be considered the new normal, even after memory prices come down. I think transparency in the pricing would help with that.
In 1974, soda prices spiked with a sugar shortage.
- They never came back down.
- Diet soda and seltzer prices spiked too.
> I don’t want these prices to be considered the new normal
“Oh, ho, ho… you sweet summer child.” —Capitalism
Plenty of prices have risen and fallen before
> I always though the mini as the budget option
Keeping up appearances:
Lease from $14.99/mo. per month for 36 mo.months with Apple Upgrade Footnote ※
8.7% annual inflation is pretty high but most luxury goods have kept up with that
Check Porsche 911 / Boxster pricing in Canada over those years or Chanel bags
Luxury inflation > normal inflation
Luxury inflation is more than normal inflation, but this isn't a luxury even though it's not necessary, and the price isn't going up due to the steady cause of inflation (money creation).
Computers are a “luxury good” now?
Ones made by Apple? Definitely. There are other cheaper options.
The cheap ones have gone up in price even more as a %
In what world is the latest and greatest Apple product NOT a luxury good?
Yes, Apple iPad minis are luxury goods
If we remove the last year of AI-related storage/RAM cost increases, the rate of inflation is way lower if not flat.
The iPad is not the only device that has had price increases in the last year.
Their budget iPad I think got 70% increased in price a couple of months ago. I was planning to upgrade my iPad mini to the normal 11inch iPad and when I checked the price it was nowhere near the price I remembered I last saw it.
I bought a used iPad for my daughter for her birthday about a year ago for about $500.
M4 chip.
Her mom's cats chewed on the corner of the screen. It won't turn on.
The cost to replace that screen: $1200.
Apparently OLED screens break completely if just a single pixel is damaged.
I don't think that's unique to OLED. There's all manner of things that could've gone wrong when breaking a corner in both LCD and OLED
Where do you find an iPad with M4 and OLED screen for $500 ?
Because you gave the context clues of M4 chip and OLED screen and $1200 repair cost, this means you somehow snagged an iPad Pro 13” with the cellular modem for $500, which is way below market value.
The current version of this model of iPad purchased brand new is $1700.
In other words, this is the highest end iPad available. Any other lower spec model reduces the repair cost lower than what you were quoted.
your ex’s cat chewed on the corner of an iPad? Does the cat have some more interesting stories of destruction since it apparently likes chewing on metal/glass, a higher level of destruction setting than the standard cat.
Only Apple can properly replace these screens and pair the parts (FaceId etc), so setting the standard repair cost high enough helps push people toward Apple Care eligible new devices, handicapping the second hand market.
That has been the case basically since Apple Care existed IMHO.
> Only Apple can properly replace these screens and pair the parts
Not true. Apple has a self-service repair program for most of its products, including the iPad mini.
All the repair manuals are available online and you can buy official Apple parts. [1] They'll even sell or rent the tools you will need.
[1]: https://selfservicerepair.com/en-US/home
You're right, the self-service repair program exists. It doesn't clear neither the pairing issue nor parent's hurdles though, as Apple parts are still required , you can't get any similar enough screen you'd want, and they'll be priced the same as in Apple Stores.
As far as I remember, the self-repair kits only make sense in very niche cases (I think repair shop get a different contract ?) and won't work around any limitations Apple puts on parts or repairs.
I did not call Apple, this was a local "fix my iPad" shop.
It was funny, the guy was narrating as he is searching saying "Whoa, this is the most I've ever seen... Wow, oh man... Hold on..."
I knew it was not going to be good.
I asked if there were any DIY options for me.
He said I could possibly find a used iPad online and swap that screen. But, given the insane prices of the replacement screen, I assume the secondary market for a salvageable iPad that works is really tough.
At this point it makes sense to just buy another used iPad.
> The cost to replace that screen: $1200.
That's Apple saying to you: omg, stop being so poor and wasting our time, just buy another one
Yup. Had an MacBook Air. Slight water damage near charging port. Laptop functioned correctly on AC power. Extensive battery diagnostics: Healthy. Just the charging circuit saying "go ahead, charge device"...
At the Genius Bar expected something reasonable, realistic... $300? Parts and labor.
"So we have a quote for you, $950. Perhaps we go out and look at the new Macs together?"
90% of the cost of the laptop to replace the charging port.
Her mom keeps jungle cats or something?
That happened to my MBP without OLED. Fortunately I had Applecare.
You mean that the corner was damaged, not that a cat also chewed on the corner of your MBP, right? I'm still in shock that a cat would chew on glass and metal enough to damage it - two cats doing it is too much in one day!
Yeah it was my cat. One bite and the screen turned black. He was a kitten at the time. Kittens chew on everything.
Nice, but I don't see anything that compels me to trade up from my current-gen Mini (which I use daily).
Since this iPad is a different size, it will need a new case (I use a Moshi), and those may take some time to show up.
Ctrl+F "ProMotion" 0 results
non-starter
60hz is the reason i sold mine. Otherwise I loved that little ipad
Yep, I've long been envious of my wife's iPad Mini for the form factor, but my eyes want to scream when using 60hz refresh.
This is a major reason why I'm ponying up the dough for the iPhone Duo.
The iPhone Duo is as close as we're getting to the iPad Mini Pro we've all been asking for.
Seriously, what’s the point if it doesn’t have ProMotion? 60hz feels so sluggish.
I really dont understand the hardon for refresh rates.
This isn't even a "people dont see that fast".
It just, it seems more like a perceptual addiction to a trivial feature. A penis measuring contest more than a useful advancement of technology.
There is an entire field of study dedicated to this sort of thing called Psychophysics. It’s hardly trivial. Perception isn’t an absolute measure of sensory input as it’s influenced by context, comparison, as well as prior experience. Improvements in one experience can change the standards by which we judge subsequent ones. These principles have had profound implications across entire industries. A good primer is the book Priceless: the hidden psychology of value by Poundstone.
And what is it being used for though? To better scroll instagram and various message app inboxes? We needed 120hz for this? I mean a lot of people including here on HN are just buying this to scroll x. It is an iphone after all, walled garden means that's about all the sort of things you can do with this thing.
It's not a trivial feature. The Class A surface on an iPad is the screen.
If you plan to look at moving things, like scrolling, which is a central part of using the device, 120fps makes the scrolling less blurry and therefore more pleasant to look at.
This is like asking why people have a hardon for cars with nicer materials for seats and interiors if a normal cheap plastic interior could pass all the same crash tests.
Im usually big on refresh rates but this one doesn’t bother me. I move between 60hz iPads and iPhone to 120hz iPad Pros and my mind doesn’t register a difference between them.
I can see the 120hz nice scroll when I’m paying attention but I’m normal use on these devices I forget about it. Basically it wouldn’t be a dealbreaker for me but I agree it should probably be the standard
I don't know about for phones/tablets.
The only genuine performance increase I could see is if you're using it for drawing/notes because the Apple Pencil samples at 240/s so you would see a difference in drawing smoothness between 60/120/240hz screens. This would mirror the use case in fast-paced and high action games - more info for your eyes sooner allowing better reaction times.
Also, isn't ProMotion just branded VRR? Allowing for lower battery use in static/low change applications?
It's not just the maximum refresh rate, the variable refresh rate allows for power saving.
That's a problem already solved by having a lower refresh rate, though. You can't get extra battery drain from 120hz when your device can only achieve 60hz.
But can save more by dropping the refresh rate to 1hz and upping to 30, 60, 120 as needed.
I agree. I have an iPhone 18 Pro. I don’t notice the difference between it and my older, non-ProMotion iPad that I use side by side.
It’s a penis measuring contest for display enthusiasts, much like gold connectors are for audio enthusiasts.
It's probably very subjective, but I actually feel dizzy using my phone in 60 Hz mode.
It’s weird too I use a 60hz monitor all day and it doesn’t bother me. But if my iPhone switches to 60 it’s really noticeable.
It is a real thing. If you experienced the shift from CRT to the first generation of LCD screens and the CRT bros are not moving to the new technology because it gives them headaches and the majority of people are OK with the refresh rates. The 60fps to 120fps perception is hard to explain.
you don't need promotion if you're going to use it for movies, but OLED is a huge improvement in this regard.
the price is a bit high, but that's all apple products.
i do think this means a lot of android tablets on this form factor are going to start coming out with OLED screens as well though, which is good, as they will be much cheaper.
120hz is nice for movies because you get non fractional frame pull down for 24, 30, and 60 fps which the more common video frame rates.
I think the Mini's primary use case that benefits a 120hz screen is art apps, but the artists I know would prefer OLED over 120hz. For entertainment, video is video, and games on tablets often lock to 30 by default to preserve battery life.
For the iPad Air (especially the 13" model!) I agree 100%.
Apple likes to slow roll features out. It's kind of a necessity when Wall Street expects you to put out a desirable hardware version every few years. Gotta protect that runway!
Same. But thats what drives me to duo. Probably the whole point
Shouldn't it rather drive you to a Samsung Fold?
I was hoping the next mini would. Guess I’ll keep my 6th gen around.
I'm shocked Apple haven't acquired Procreate yet. It's nearly always in iPad marketing material. Personally I know so many artists who've bought iPads, and the only app they have installed is Procreate.
It’s possible they simply don’t want to sell. ProCreate parent company is extremely successful on its own, it’s possible being part of Apple wouldn’t bring anything to the table for them. Looking at some apps Apple acquired it’s not clear that being part of a mega corporation benefits creative tools.
Everyone and everything is for sale for the right price.
Especially when you have Apple money.
Seems like they made their decision when they acquired Pixelmator.
> in an even thinner and lighter design
Never once did I hold my iPad mini with a case and think, "damn this thing is heavy"
Just because it's good doesn't mean it can't be better
The novelty of how thin my M5 iPad Pro is still hasn't worn off. Sometimes it's just nice to hold some tech in your hand that feels like it's from the future.
Since when have we established "thinner and lighter" equals "better"?
In the case of iPhone Air and Galaxy Edge phones, there were notable compromises to achieve a thinner body, for which many people don't consider an improvement.
Granted, I have not seen or used the new iPad mini, and I don't know if any such compromise has been made. But probably should leave it open until we conclude this is a plus.
I thought the same thing about iPhones, then I got an iPhone Air and can’t imagine going back to those fat bloated bricks people lug around daily. Worse, they put a thick case on it making it even more portly, because the aluminum bodies dent so easily. iPhone Air is what Steve Jobs would have wanted: a super thin strong Titanium phone that doesn’t need any case to feel complete.
Call me when it can boot into macOS and they all have some standard docking
$700? Dang. Prices are climbing so fast.
No need to involve dang in this. He's had nothing to do with these price hikes.
That plus an iPhone cost less than a Duo. But yeah that's expensive.
Yes, those AI subscription prices have a hidden cost ...
Higher brightness and nano-texture make this a must-have for ForeFlight. Too bad it'll probably require a new yoke mount.
Unlike the rest of the comments I actually do think this is the biggest upgrade to the iPad mini lineup.
Everything looks really good and way better than I’d expected.
Yes, the price increase sucks. I feel it is kinda warranted given the feature increase and current market. But only kinda.
Yes, 120hz would have been nice, but we all now Apple is gating that for their pro lineup. So no surprise.
Yes, the camera bump is stupid. An iPad that doesn’t lay flat is silly. But all the other I-devices has a big bump so again, no surprise.
I’ve been in the market for a mini and I am glad I hesitated.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, I love that they are advertising minimum NITS and not just max!
I wish Apple did an iPhone Uno or iPad nano — basically a wide phone with camera cutout, status and dock on the right or left side. Yes, two design versions for both left and right handed people. It will be so amazing for multi-tasking on mobile by quickly changing between apps with a permanent dock.
I saw a lot of people say the homeview is stupid, they can get an iPad and a dock
The homeview at $299 is the great value Apple product by far, compared to the price of new iPads
The 512 nano texture iPad mini with a case and pencil and Apple care and tax and tip in Canada is well over $2000!!!
I don’t see homeview being worth it unless they allow app installs. $300 for a display that shows photos and smart home controls is kinda pointless. You can’t even put up your home assistant dashboard on it.
I think there will be be app integration, but hopefully no App Store. We know that apps can work on HomeView using CarPlay. Not sure that is sufficient long term, perhaps just to jump start things. They may need to enhance that library to allow more kinds of apps to work with HomeView.
Right now, I think they are bringing out an MVP and waiting to see how people react to it and what kinds of things turn out to be useful. When they launched the Watch, no one was sure what kinds of things we would want to do on it. It took a while to see what was useful. I think a model where apps on your phone provide HomeView widgets like the Watch might be better than writing apps specifically for such a device.
Sure, but it’s weird to consider a device to be good value when the reason for that value is features you hope will launch in future updates maybe years down the line.
The homeview is DOA, I'm sorry. Who is the target for this?
There is no app store. I mean maybe they will add one later, but still until that happens I really dont see any use case besides setting some kitchen timers.
Yes, smart home is a thing, but tons of people need apps like Hue or Shelly to control their setup.
Old people
I’m buying one for my parents and in-laws
They have iPads
iPads are never charged and in some random spot in their being empty houses
This will make sure my kids can FaceTime their grandparents whenever they want
That’s worth $300 to make my kids and my parents happy
> This will make sure my kids can FaceTime their grandparents whenever they want
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that charged iPads are not the primary constraint here. If you can't trust them to keep their iPads charged, there's a good chance that you'll come back in a year and the HomeView hasn't left the setup screen, or is sitting in a box somewhere.
I haven't been in Canada in a while. I don't understand why you are tipping on an iPad mini. Are you Doordashing it? What changed since I left?
You tip for purchases from a shop in Canada? Or is that a joke that's gone over my head?
That was a joke lol Tipping culture is so insane in North America
I don't like when they force a storage upgrade just to get a matte screen. I have no need for more storage, but would like a matte screen. As a $100 upgrade for nanotexture, it already seems steep, but forcing it to a $200 upgrade due to a needless storage bump is too much to ignore.
I also question what is required for nanotexture. I read the iPhone Duo has this in a replaceable screen protector, effectively. A replacement, under AppleCare is $15. Are we being charged $100 for a factory installed screen protector? If so, why does that need to be tied to certain levels of storage to reduce SKUs?
Nanotexture on non-folding displays is etched glass.
There’s a tiny segment of folks (like me) who have been waiting a very long time for an 8ish inch OLED tablet. For some reason, until mid 2025, they were extremely rare, even in the Android multiverse. I’m excited because I read a ton with white text on black, and an OLED display (especially with this nanotexture stuff) will make a huge difference.
Costs as much as the full-size one did until recently.
Tech price appreciation is really throwing me off!
OLED is really good for media consumption, and IMO, this form factor is one of the best for carrying around in trips and watching movies on the car/plane/train/etc.
But the price is a bit high, that's the history of Apple though. On the other hand, I think this particular screen is probably going to be sourced by cheaper small android tablets at a much more competitive price, and if you're using it for media consumption, there's no difference between an Apple and an Android tablet.
So I'm happy to see OLED on this model.
Is Stage Manager with an external monitor possible with this new iPad Mini or still artificially limited to M chips? I mean it’s more powerful than the M1 iPad Air which supports it.
I'd like to have that confirmed too. Size wise, I'd love to get a Mini, but only being able to mirror to an external display, especially at this price, is a no from me.
I don't see anything suggesting it can perform this, so likely the artificial limit is still in place.
Tech pundits should just talk to me. I bought AirPods the week before the new ones came out, and I bought a new iPad 48 hours ago!
Luckily I didn’t buy a iPad Mini, but I really like the form factor.
Lucky 10000, there is a return window of 2 weeks :)
As a life long and continuous Apple user (and iOS SWE), I recently got a $150 Samsung Android tablet that I can use as a claude interface. It can take in voice commands, and create new builds of itself on a network Mac. So I can essentially have whatever screen or interface I want for any given moment. Right now I'm tuning my motorcycle with an OBD bluetooth device and recording engine behavior on rides.
I looked at the tech specs but I don't see how much ram it has. I ended getting more storage than I needed on my pro because it also gave it more ram.
Gizmodo thinks it will have at least 12GB RAM, but it sounds more like an educated guess than a confirmed fact:
https://gizmodo.com/ipad-mini-oled-a20-pro-chip-2000830541#:...
The 512GB option actually has a better chip with 1 more CPU core and twice the neural engine...
What does twice the "neural engine" get me?
For about the same cost, I can get a used M5 chip with both a Neural Engine™ and GPU cores each with Neural Accelerators™
> Apple gives iPad mini its biggest update ever
That's it! Hitting "Buy". This was all I needed to read. Even though the ™ symbol is missing it will do.
How would an OLED screen be an improvement over an ipad 8th generation? I'm debating on what to upgrade to but I mainly use my ipad for reading comics nowadays. Movies/TV are for the big screen.
They have better blacks and no light bleed. The colors are more vivid and spectral too. That's cool for watching movies in the dark
However, whether you really notice a difference reading on the thing I kinda doubt.
And furthermore Apple’s OLED screens tend to have more color reproduction issues. I don’t have an iPad any more but gather a group of people using OLED iPhones. Use light mode and open the Settings app at the same time. You will see that different OLED screens render the same white menu items differently. Some will have a yellowish tint, others an unpleasant green tint. This happens regardless of whether one turns on or off TrueTone. This has been going on since the very first OLED iPhones. The old LCD iPhones never had this problem. It is highly subjective but it bothers me way more than a 60Hz refresh rate.
In general display technologies are highly subjective. Besides LCD versus OLED, there are people who love nano texture and there are people who hate them. There are people who absolutely need 120Hz and there are people who can’t tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz. It’s a shame that we can’t customize the display technology exactly as we want.
Nano texture was the entire reason I upgraded to an iPad Pro M4. The camera on the long edge is a major regression as far as I am concerned, however. The only drawback is fingerprints are harder to remove,you really need that special microfiber cloth or one of the cheap Chinese clones.
LCD iPhones defo had this. I thought it was to do with panel supplier
I own no iPads but all my screens are OLED and I would never buy anything else. The true black is an absolute killer feature. It makes the device just a glowing wonder at night, magical feeling, no way to overstate it.
OLED + dark mode after sundown are awesome. On Android we also get the extra dim mode which makes it perfect for lights-out.
For nighttime viewing with my Pixel 8 Pro (OLED), I wish I could make the screen even dimmer at night. The extra dim mode barely does anything.
I use GrapheneOS on my Pixel and it gets very dim. Also, I have the night mode (orange tint) cranked way up - something that the stock OS should allow you to do.
It's not. OLED screens use PWM, i.e. they are switching to almost black 256 times a second. That's tiresome for the eyes. Especially when you read from it with artificial lighting which is dim, that makes those black periods long and noticeable. Yes, recent iPhones sometimes don't go full black, but that's only for near-100% brightness.
I have the gen 6 mini for reading and notes. It'sthe least needy, most capable of my devices. I bring it everywhere.
I'm excited for the OLED display because it would make bedtime reading easier on the eyes. I'm also happy about the weight reduction.
Still, it's €749 vs €549 in 2021. I will use mine until it stops fulfilling its role, which might take a few more years.
I hope you’re a patient person. My 2017 iPad Pro is still getting security updates.
That's why I buy Apple products now. This iPad still feels as good to use as when I bought it.
Can I please have an iPhone mini next?
Not in a snarky way but who is the target market for this?
And with a 1-nit minimum brightness, iPad mini is even more suitable for dim environments, from users reading in bed at night to pilots checking their electronic flight bag in the cockpit.
As per other comments, my guess is somewhere between 1% and 5% of ipad mini sales are to pilots. It's gotta be significant or they wouldn't drop a line that in their main copy!
from previous [1] threads on the iPad Mini, at least aircraft pilots are a target audience
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19421163
Can definitely attest to this. When I was doing my PPL I had an iPad that had a built-in cellular modem loaded with ForeFlight for GPS positioning mounted to the inside of the cessna's window.
I've been hoping for a water and dust resistant tablet for use in the pottery studio for a while (for photographing work in progress, cataloguing glaze ingredients, taking notes, etc), as it's a wet and dirty environment, but the price kills all interest.
They only sell around six million minis per year, so it's not a large market (for Apple).
I predict it’ll be less than 6 million a year at these ludicrous prices.
I like using my 6th gen as an erader. With the right color settings the screen doesn’t fatigue me, and it’s nice to be able to read from any source (kindle, Apple Books, Libby, a pdf, etc).
I can give you at least one group that loves them. Taxi/uber drivers who use them as bigger displays for their maps and apps.
People waiting for >v1 Duo? Same processor, 1" larger screen, lower cost but you still carry a phone.
I understand ram shortages but what is the justification behind selling the mini as a “pro” product? People want a smaller base iPad, that’s it.
One of my beloved devices was the Nexus 7, it was an excellent affordable template that didn't feel cheap, nor fancy or pro. Just a good media consumption / general purpose small tablet.
I wish Apple would make a similar device. I'm fine with recycled chips and getting a bit gimped on RAM size.
Like the MacBook Neo of iPads; I just really want a media consumption device. A20 Pro means nothing to me.
In what way are they selling it as a "pro" product?
By putting the A20 Pro chip in it rather than A16/A17/A18 which is on base iPads and iPhones.
That's not the same thing at all as "selling it as a Pro product". They just happened to put a chip in it which has "Pro" in the name, and which this press release accurately names. They're still selling it as an "iPad Mini" at the same segments and value props that they've always sold iPad Minis at.
And the "Pro" in the chip name doesn't mean anything anyway, "Pro" is actually the lowest-power suffix for A/M-series chips (behind "Max" and "Ultra").
Perhaps they are planning to launch application features that require or benefit from the A20. Anyway it looks like the base model of the new iPad is using binned CPUs that were not quite good enough for the iPhone 18: 5 cores instead of 6, 1 neural engine instead of 2.
They have enough bezel room to make it into 8.7" or even 8.9" version without changing the dimensions of the mini.
I believe this is the lightest iPad at only 255g. I just wonder how much more weight can they shave off.
And if they are going to kill the iPad? The current iPad line up is split into Pro, Air, (iPad) and Mini. Surely the mini could replace the normal iPad?
Well this is great news for ereaders. Guess I’m upgrading my kindle now
Boneless iPhone Duo
iPad still don't support multi-user profiles, which makes it really uncomfortable sharing my iPad with my kids (Tailscale, Bitwarden etc).
It would be great if it can use fingerprint to unlock different profiles.
Starting at $949 before tax (~$1050 after tax in most provinces) in Canada for 128GB
Zoinks
It's the same price as a MacBook Neo
£700 here (VAT incl). That's ~$1,310 CAD!
Starting at $1,099 AUD. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
edit: That's more than a MacBook Neo, they're only $1,049!
So it's like my iPad 3 but newer. Hope I can read epubs on this one too ;)
Goodness, Apple is going back to the luxury item category... thanks ai
Only the 512GB version gets the full fledged A20 Pro CPU (6 core 7 core GPU), the 128 and 256GB version only gets the 5 core CPU.
My iPad Pro is six years old now, the last generation before they started putting M chips in them. Still not interested in buying another until I can run a Linux VM on it.
I don't understand why the color gamut is only P3. With an OLED display, I assume it's quite easy to push gamut > P3, no?
Anyone use a cell version instead of a phone?
Double the price of the original iPad mini when it first released in 2012
And again a useless camera with a bump forcing clients to use it with cover, otherwise it will wobble on a table..
As much as form factor is intriguing, I'd rather keep my 'old' pixel9a and wacom movink 14 combo.
(Bonus points, not supporting Epstein crowd with my money)
What's the value proposition compared to the iPhone Duo? Aren't they relatively similar now?
It is just over a third of the starting price of the Duo
Screen won't kill itself
Less than half the price and less fragile, for people who often carry a bag or purse with them.
The iPad Mini has more screen real estate. The taskbar on the Duo eats up a noticeable portion.
With a 5G radio, this is so much more appealing than the Duo
Is iPad mini finally smaller than iPhone maxi?
Or this exciting marketing twist still to come?
AKA non-foldable Duo.
It's year 2026 and still no use-case for the iPad in sight...
The iPad is great for sketching, and for making music. It's like having a precision tool, such as a quality chef's knife. If you like to cook, you may not need a nice knife every day, but when you do need it, it's outstanding.
Mine is a notebook, a sketch book and a reading device. I read books and queued Instapaper articles, take meeting notes, and make digital art. I love that device to bits.
You can look skyward. I don't know a pilot who doesn't use one.
Media viewer wherever you want it. Planes, trains, treadmill, whatever. I don’t have one but it’s an obvious (nice to have, not needed) use case?
Nice to have until you need to charge because you forgot about it. Tbh the only use case for me was using it to study; afterwards it collected dust.
This is it, they are media consumption devices.
People who want to consume movies without a TV, people who want to read more comfortably on a non-e-ink tablet, millions of POS terminals.
Lack of 120hz display on a $700 device is non-negotiable.
Whats the closest Android equivalent to this?
I can only point to a big one, without a camera and with non-glossy oled high refresh rate screen - wacom movinkpad 14
There is none when it comes to software/hardware combo, long life and resell value.
I would love Apple to actually make something that is worthy of the name Apple. When Steve was alive, Apple was A-P-P-L-E and now it is just a shell of its self.
Back in the mid 2000s, Palm sold Treo smartphones with the camera removed, for high-security places that forbade cameras. Why do I tell this story? It means there is (was) a market for it. I would LOVE and iPad mini with the camera (and its bump) removed. A nice thin slab.
Delivering iPad mini but no iPhone mini is double disappointing.
interesting this would come out so close to the iPhone Duo release.
interesting this is so close to the iPhone Duo release.
The second image in the carousel (well, video, really) hides the camera bump. This seems highly disingenuous of Apple.
I don’t know about everyone else but I’m just so sick of Apple releasing marginally improved products, calling it their biggest update ever, and then jacking up prices. $700 for an iPad mini is absurd RAM price increases or not.
749 € starting price WTF ?
I want to upgrade my old Mini 5 with Lightning since I want one with USB-C, and the OS is getting slower and slower, but at these prices?
All I do is read websites and watch Youtube on it anyway, so maybe I'll just get an Android Tablet for 300 €.
This is getting ridiculous!
Do there exist any good small Android tablets at a reasonable price?
There were none available in Canada with cellular when I looked a few years ago so I ended up buying an African-region Galaxy Tab A9 for $170. It's functional, but by God is it slow, and that's after adb-removing about 50 pieces of Samsung bloat.
Samsung Galaxy Tab A11 X130 with 8GB of RAM costs around 220 EUR, I haven't tested that one though.
Another alternative is the Lenovo Legion Tab TB321FU, 12GB RAM, 256GB, but this one costs 500 EUR.
But you are right, there are not a lot of alternatives with 8GB RAM out there. Most Android Tablets with a screen size of 8-9" have 4GB, which would make them slow.
> Samsung Galaxy Tab A11 X130 with 8GB of RAM costs around 220 EUR, I haven't tested that one though.
This unfortunately looks to be basically the same as the A9 - the A11 is just lightly refreshed with a newer stock OS and higher refresh screen — the SoC and memory are the same.
It's the SoC that's really killing these tablets, the Helio G99 is about on par with the A10 Fusion from 2016.
Lenovo Legion Y700, Well built, a little too flashy, put it in the case if you mind.
Unfortunately no cellular connectivity - I use my mini tablet when travelling light.
The Google Pixel Tablet can be degoogled with GrapheneOS, but it was discontinued last month. It also does not have cellular connectivity. But it’s an excellent device, and the one I am using as part of my effort to wean myself off dependency on fast-enshittifying Apple.
The pixel tablet is still supported and will be until after June 2028.
$699 for 128GB is wild. Between this and HomeView apple has two meh launches in a row now.
Another (earlier?) post:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50243646
Everything old is new again - return of the phablet.
$700 bucks entry level model in this economy?
It’s not the entry level mode, that’s the base iPad.
Not being able to receive phone calls is the single greatest feature of the iPad.
this would be nice with an eSim and an agent application so I can control DSH on my M5U at home. would that be possible?
As I understand the model with cellular still can't make calls without iPhone?
Right, iPhone and iPad must be on the same wifi network for normal phone calls to work.
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/ipad/ipadf97892b2/ipad...
Facetime / Signal will work fine over just data.
Meanwhile you put a regular SIM in a Samsung tablet and you can make phone calls
With Apple ads there is always something uncanny with the hands, like the fingers get unnaturally longer behind the device.
60hz. hard pass
Oh yay, they made a kindle
I wish they would do that. I'd love a dedicated $200-$300 ereader from Apple.
No Face ID, still Touch ID. Are they serious?
I was considering buying one, but will skip until the older model becomes unsupported or when Apple adds Face ID.
will it run Omarchy?
$1,099 CAD for 256GB. Yeah, no.
where iPhone mini
do it you cowards
The 60Hz display is pretty disappointing. The size is just right, though.
> 60 Hz screen
lol, no, thanks
A bit disappointed it lacks ProMotion adaptive refresh.
"We have released another mind-enslavement tool for your kids! It's the most potent ever!"
Thought China would have flooded the ram market by now
They are working on it (CXMT for RAM and YMTC for NAND flash) but not having access to ASML’s EUV lithography equipment hobbles them.
The US government is also trying to kneecap them, threatening Apple with tariffs if they went ahead with YMTC storage, even if only for the Chinese market.
They are thus primarily focusing on the Chinese market, but if they weren’t there, DRAM and flash is a global commodity market and prices would have gone up even more insanely than today.
You can't just spin up factories producing top of the line components like RAM. It's an extremely expensive process
10-20 billion dollars and 2-3 years, witch is nothing to the Chinese or a company like Apple or TSMC if the will is there.
Maybe with enough money. Terafab ~ Q3 2027
two-three years out.
This is a disappointment. Apple has so much potential with iPad minis, but they consistently hold back simply because they don’t want to cannibalize their pro models.
That's the whole iPad line. No multi-user because they don't want families to buy only one iPad, no support for running apps outside of the app store, etc.
Isn’t all that potential shown off in the duo?
Ok, how is this a disappointment - what does it not have that the pro does that you're seeking? To me, this just looks like a large phone without cellular. Not sure I'd want this, as I already have a large phone - good enough.
Pro-motion, 120FPS display.
I’m not interested due to the inclusion of parts designed in israel.
Not questioning your motivations, but that seems like a tough exclusion to make. Do you exclude every product with an Intel chip?
Also https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/01/03/apple-ceo-tim-coo...
Okay, he's not a CEO anymore, but the aftertaste remains.
With OLED, this is going to be the best e-book reader in dark mode, and given that it's water resistant you could even use it in bath/hot tub w/o destroying the device - if you're willing to put down $700 for an e-reader that is.