![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
iPad Mini Review
- Thread starter AQ_OC
- Start date
mongoosenco
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91
I just do not understand why someone would buy the IPad Mini. It is like a IPad 2 just smaller and it is way more expensive that other tablets of similar size. Hell I would buy a new Ipod Touch before I bought this.
if you like apple and have a huge library of software that you dont wanna loose.. spending $70 more on an ipad mini than another device may not be a big deal
7.9" is a good size. It feels significantly smaller than the 10" iPads due to the slimmed down screen, bezel and thickness. I wouldn't carry around an 10" iPad all day but I can see myself doing that with a Mini. iPhone/iPod Touch is too small to comfortably read an e-book, surf the net etc. It is overpriced but good enough for it to be so. I will probably buy one once it is in the refurb store.
You answered your own question.
D
Deleted member 232162
Guest
On topic, it's a great size, and lets you keep that big library of apps on the go (even more rather, not that the other ones weren't portable).
Price point is decent I suppose, could have been $299 though, meh.
Price point is decent I suppose, could have been $299 though, meh.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, except that it would have bit into the 5th Gen iPod Touch's territory. 5G Touch should have been $199-249, though. $299 for the Touch is overpriced when the Nexus 4 costs the same and has a 3G radio. iPad Mini could have made more of a splash if it launched at $299, but Apple's other products were in its way.
mongoosenco
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91
Wow I am amazed how much the IPad mini is defended. I own an IPad 3 my wife owns an IPad two and my kids even have IPod touches, but Apple release a blatantly inferior tablet to what is currently out. Apple is supposed to innovate, but they really handed out a bad product at a smaller size and claim it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Tim Cook comments are laughable he said "that the company would never make a 7-inch slate (the iPad mini has a 7.9-inch display). "We would not make a 7-inch tablet. We don't think they're good products," he said recently, adding that the iPad mini is "in a whole different league" compared to competing devices.
Different league with worse specs NICE.
Tim Cook comments are laughable he said "that the company would never make a 7-inch slate (the iPad mini has a 7.9-inch display). "We would not make a 7-inch tablet. We don't think they're good products," he said recently, adding that the iPad mini is "in a whole different league" compared to competing devices.
Different league with worse specs NICE.
Elaborate. It's basically just a tiny iPad 2 that costs less. I'm surprised more people aren't upset about Apple's decision to continue selling the iPad 2 at the exact same price instead of axing it and putting the iPad 3 in its spot.
D
Deleted member 232162
Guest
Which brings up the point that the iPod touch should be $200 MAX for the biggest size, agreed on the fucked up pricing.
64GB of flash memory is not going to be in any Apple product costing <$200 anytime soon. The price of all products scales up greatly as the flash storage increases. It's not weird that the max storage iPod costs more than a low storage iPad. I'm just talking about the base price for the entry-level version of a particular product line (16GB for iPad Mini/3/4 and 32GB for iPod Touch 5).
Lots of big sites have their reviews up. Consensus is VERY positive.
Superb build quality, Close to 300K tablet apps designed for this resolution, insane battery life (longest of anything engadget tested). Not retina, but still nice screen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/31/ipad-mini-review
http://www.slashgear.com/ipad-mini-review-apple-aims-for-the-everyman-30254875/
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/30/ipad-mini-review/
Superb build quality, Close to 300K tablet apps designed for this resolution, insane battery life (longest of anything engadget tested). Not retina, but still nice screen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/31/ipad-mini-review
http://www.slashgear.com/ipad-mini-review-apple-aims-for-the-everyman-30254875/
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/30/ipad-mini-review/
Last edited:
It's not an inferior tablet because it is light and small and that is not true of the iPad 2, 3 and 4. Those tablets don't travel well. The mini will attract a lot of folks who didn't buy those simply because of their size.
Also, the reason there is not retina display right now is because it isn't really feasible. If you use the same ppi asin the 3 and 4, then you introduce an odd resolution, which creates headaches for developers. If you do the same 2x in each direction as in the 3 and 4 compared to the 2, and thus go to 2048x1536, then you have to produce displays in this size with that many pixels. Apparently, that isn't feasible yet, else Apple would offer it. As for the chip, I do wish they could have included the A5x (same as in iPad 3) but my guess is they didn't because of battery life and size constraints.
It is one thing to talk about specs, its another thing to build a device that delivers a compelling experience that works for everyone (those who buy it & developers). I agree with others that some of this pricing is screwed up...the touch is really too expensive and only kids really need mp3 players these days....most phones take that role these days.
Maybe by next year we can get a retina-level display and a faster chip, but I'm going to enjoy mine (assuming the lower resolution doesn't drive me batty -- if it does I'll send it back and wait until next year).
A5X only adds additional graphics cores. The CPU is the same. I'm not sure the extra GPU cores would be of any real use at 1024x768. The A5 GPU (SGX543) is already fairly powerful and is used in some tablets with 1080p screens.
You can't trust the big review sites as they are all pro-Apple without exception. The cons are hardly mentioned and the device is hyped beyond all measure.
It's also funny that people justify anything Apple does with 'they couldn't do it right now' but other companies don't get that treatment. And their execs get to act like total jerks, insult other companies and their products, lie on stage, and its all ok.
It's a disgusting double standard.
It's also funny that people justify anything Apple does with 'they couldn't do it right now' but other companies don't get that treatment. And their execs get to act like total jerks, insult other companies and their products, lie on stage, and its all ok.
It's a disgusting double standard.
Now with the Nexus 10 taking the Hi-Rez crown,watch the Apple guys start talking about higher rez not mattering.
Zinn
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,490
I don't think anyone would argue higher rez doesn't matter. They'd argue higher than apple rez doesn't matter
I will never understand people who think technology is the sum of a spec sheet.
Apple's position will remain the same; that it's the content you see and use on that display which matters. And they win on content.
More accurately, Apple's position is - 'what Apple does is the best, nothing else matters'.
When they have inferior specs (iPad mini), then it's all about the OS and the apps.
When they do a spec bump (4S, iPad 3) then suddenly Apple starts talking about specs and benchmarks.
So basically they can't lose right? A 9.7" tablet was the only acceptable size, and a 3.5" phone was the largest humans could operate, right till the point Apple decides to make a larger/smaller one, and then you get all the patronizing ads as if they invented the new size.
It's the same with anything. Now they are saying the Mini can display more of a webpage, next summer they'll increase the resolution to what everyone else has and call it magical/retina etc.
When they have inferior specs (iPad mini), then it's all about the OS and the apps.
When they do a spec bump (4S, iPad 3) then suddenly Apple starts talking about specs and benchmarks.
So basically they can't lose right? A 9.7" tablet was the only acceptable size, and a 3.5" phone was the largest humans could operate, right till the point Apple decides to make a larger/smaller one, and then you get all the patronizing ads as if they invented the new size.
It's the same with anything. Now they are saying the Mini can display more of a webpage, next summer they'll increase the resolution to what everyone else has and call it magical/retina etc.
Sure... Trust no one, except basement dwelling internet trolls with a chip on their shoulder.
Often it isn't even a sum of spec sheet argument. It is merely fixations on one or two specs.
The whole being greater than the sum of it's parts is something that will remain beyond them.
And why does this only apply to Apple? Its ok for iPad mini to have an inferior screen, but it's not ok for Nexus 7 to have a slightly smaller size yet much better apps for things like email, maps, navigation, you know things most people use frequently.
This is also Microsoft's position on their products, Google's position on their products, Samsung's position on their products, etc. You aren't making the point that you think you are.
Inferior to what? No, seriously—as a usable device, what is the iPad mini inferior to? Judging by reviews, it's the best in its class.
Please don't disguise your opinion as fact.
As for why this applies only to Apple—it doesn't, but I'm accepting your premise for the sake of argument—it's because detractors of Apple products most often cite hardware specs, usually using that as proof of inferiority. Example: your dismissing of the iPad mini due to "an inferior screen".
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
It's "okay" for both products to have what they have. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to argue.
There are reasons why a person would choose a mini over a 7 and there are reasons why a person would choose a 7 over a mini. These things are similar, but it's not as though the Nexus 7 is just a cheaper carbon copy of the mini.
While I believe the mini could be cheaper, I still think you're in the realm of getting what you pay for with it.
When Androids showed up with 1920 x 1600 displays, less than the iPad 3, that talk started. So you can hardly expect it to not continue.
Last edited:
Good point. That means Apple brought the product to make that makes the most sense for what they were trying to achieve. It sounds as if they have done a good job, too.
I doubt that. They will put a 2048 x 1536 screen in that same space and blow everyone else out of the water. And content surely does matter...otherwise, I would not buy...who cares about specs if it there is nothing to do with the device? Well, no one in their right minds cares about specs only....
What? This thread isn't about the nexus 7. Nobody is knocking it here....but there are lots of ways to do email, maps, and Nav....those aren't going to be nearly enough to create a great experience for millions of people.
This isn't a thread dogging some other tablet....why bother trying to turn it into that? You don't have to buy an iPad mini. Or anything Apple for that matter.
I came from a Droid Incredible, and those have plenty of Android Apps. Also have an Acer Iconia and a GN7. My GN7 is a fav android at the moment. I still don't prefer the shape of the screen, though. It only works well for movies, and I prefer to watch most movies on a 67-inch screen with 6.1 surround sound. But the GN7 helped me realize that my iPad 3 sucked when sitting on the couch. Not a great second screen, IMO.
Zumino Zufeilon
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 920
Where as for me, I've always considered Retina an over-priced, under-value addon.
Seriously, a "retina screen" gives you the same usable workspace as a non-retina screen, for the tradeoff of lower battery life, heavier, and costs more.
I'll stick with non-retina when given the option, thank you very much.
For me, if I were in the market for a tablet right now, the Ipad Mini would be my choice for 3 reasons.
1) The Ipad Mini is the size I want (7-8inches): A few people in my family have 10" tablets of various flavors (ipad, samsung, etc), and I find them to be too big, at least for me.
2) The format I want: Other people in my family have the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire, and I have a Nook Tablet. I honestly do not like the 16:9 aspect ratio for tablets, I'd prefer 4:3, but there are limited options in 4:3.
3) It can use all the app's I already have. I got a generation 1 ipod touch, upgraded through Gen3, before getting an iPhone4. Needless to say, I have a lot of apps that I've already purchased, and am quite familiar with. I've started collecting apps on the Nook Tablet, but I'm considering selling the Nook Tablet and getting an iPad Mini anyways.
Screen size gives you functionality (more space to work).
Retina/ppi is more about Aesthetics (though some argument can be made for increased functional readability of tiny fonts).
Retina is nice when all else is equal, but when it isn't it becomes a tradeoff, and a great many people were still choosing the non-retina iPad 2, side of that tradeoff.
It is not big deal to me at all. The Mini (if I get one) would still have the best DPI of any device I own. So I can't see how that will disappoint me.
Zinn
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,490
Paying more for less would disappoint me...
Get used to it. It is your entire life.
If I didn't have an iPad already, I think I would find it really hard to justify the new mini in terms of use and at that price point.
- Smaller size, "different use," is complete BS. This is still a tablet, you can't put 7.9" in your pocket unlike a phone, so function wise, a smaller screen hurts in the traditional tablet sense, e.g., tablets are just big screens. Reading on a 10" is better than reading on a 7.9". As far as "iPad is too big," again, it's still a tablet. Cutting out an inch diagonally isn't going to make a LOT smaller.
- Price point, is bad. 4G iPod Touch $199 is good, 5G iPod Touch $299 is meh, iPad 2 $399 is good, mini iPad $329?!
Based on the above, it comes down to really two things. If you want something to fit in your pocket, get an iPod touch. If you want the faster one, get the 5G otherwise save a some money and get the 4G. (side note: not sure why you don't put your iPod Touch money into an actual smartphone though). If you want a tablet, why the hell are you NOT paying the extra $70 for an iPad 2 is just absolutely baffling.
- Smaller size, "different use," is complete BS. This is still a tablet, you can't put 7.9" in your pocket unlike a phone, so function wise, a smaller screen hurts in the traditional tablet sense, e.g., tablets are just big screens. Reading on a 10" is better than reading on a 7.9". As far as "iPad is too big," again, it's still a tablet. Cutting out an inch diagonally isn't going to make a LOT smaller.
- Price point, is bad. 4G iPod Touch $199 is good, 5G iPod Touch $299 is meh, iPad 2 $399 is good, mini iPad $329?!
Based on the above, it comes down to really two things. If you want something to fit in your pocket, get an iPod touch. If you want the faster one, get the 5G otherwise save a some money and get the 4G. (side note: not sure why you don't put your iPod Touch money into an actual smartphone though). If you want a tablet, why the hell are you NOT paying the extra $70 for an iPad 2 is just absolutely baffling.
I feel just about exactly the opposite. After seeing the Mini I was having a hard time imagining that anyone would still buy the iPad 2.
The mini is essentially a Shrunken iPad 2, but with better cameras, better Wifi, and reportedly better color reproduction, and a bonded screen that should reduce reflections.
So a slightly better iPad 2 shrunken in size. So other than size the Mini is in the lead. Oh and you save $70 as well.
Now how does size enter the equation:
Pro: Much Lower Weight (about half)
Pro: smaller size, MUCH easier to handle in one hand, and will fit many jacket pockets making it more easily transportable.
Con: Smaller screen.
Other than screen size it is wins across the board for the Mini. The real question is the size still big enough to have good usability. The image on the screen doesn't seem to have shrunk that much.
http://images.gizmag.com/inline/ipad-mini-vs-ipad-4-9.jpg
When I tried a 7" Android, the screen struck me as too small for frustration free web browsing. This is what I will have to find out in person for the Mini before I buy one, but I like what I see so far.
Agree 100%. The fact that Apple is still trying to hock the iPad 2 at $399 is an insult to whatever perceived customer base would ever buy it. Hopefully it dies for good in the next product refresh.
You would be surprised. The 7-8 inch class might not be pocketable, but that 2-3 inches does worlds to make it more portable, even if only psychologically. The 10" feels way too big and obtrusive to just whip out when you're out and about. (This paragraph's turning out awkward...) But between the reduced size and the halved weight, the smaller class of tablet is much more convenient to actually use on the go. As a result, I end up using my Nexus 7 much more than my iPad 3, even though I feel that the iOS's UI and user experience is mostly better than Android (Tablet Edition)'s
80% of the size of an iPad 2, at 80% of the price. Aside from the new iPod Touch's price point being a touch high, I don't see a problem.
I'd argue the opposite. Why did they not dump the iPad 2 outright? It'd leave a nice, clearly delineated product line, and would remove the iPad2/iPadMini similarity point of contention.
If people want it, it isn't an insult to sell it. In the summer there was a report that ~40% of iPad sales were still iPad 2.
That is with only 16GB models and no advertising, no retina etc...
While I think iPad 2 sales will evaporate, I could be wrong, it they stay strong, iPad 2 stays, if they tank, it will be discontinued. I would bet on tanking.