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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.)
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 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'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 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.
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.)
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 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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They should stop handicapping the non-Pro displays at 60hz refresh rate. The world moved on 5 years ago. It’s getting tiring now.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
I think it only really matters for gamers, but seriously, who's gaming on an iPad?! Use a PC or console!
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.
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.
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.
Even on the 120Hz displays, you can choose to cap them to 60Hz in settings.
Phones use VRR displays, they don't always scale up all the way to 120Hz, only when justified by the content.
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.
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 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).
> 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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.)
Did it? Most devices are still at 60
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 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'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.
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....
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 $1,500.
Such a shitty proposition. Why would anyone buy this.
I would not assume it is software-locked. Display controller on 120Hz ProMotion displays is more expensive. Also, the panel itself is likely cheaper LTPS vs. LTPO.
Now I get why they only announced it via press release...
Value/$ 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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
Oh I long for the days when every 2 years prices for compute FELL.
In 2012, that iPad mini ran YouTube videos at the same resolution as today but without ads!
…progress?
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
Can I please have an iPhone mini next?
Higher brightness and nano-texture make this a must-have for ForeFlight. Too bad it'll probably require a new yoke mount.
Well this is great news for ereaders. Guess I’m upgrading my kindle now
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 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.
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.
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™
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.
AKA non-foldable Duo.
Not in a snarky way but who is the target market for this?
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.
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!
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.
60hz. hard pass
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?
So it's like my iPad 3 but newer. Hope I can read epubs on this one too ;)
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!
Goodness, Apple is going back to the luxury item category... thanks ai
Anyone use a cell version instead of a phone?
What's the value proposition compared to the iPhone Duo? Aren't they relatively similar now?
Less than half the price and less fragile, for people who often carry a bag or purse with them.
Screen won't kill itself
The iPad Mini has more screen real estate. The taskbar on the Duo eats up a noticeable portion.
Is iPad mini finally smaller than iPhone maxi?
Or this exciting marketing twist still to come?
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.
Whats the closest Android equivalent to this?
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.
interesting this is so close to the iPhone Duo release.
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?
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.
$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.
where iPhone mini
do it you cowards
Oh yay, they made a kindle
I wish they would do that. I'd love a dedicated $200-$300 ereader from Apple.
will it run Omarchy?
The 60Hz display is pretty disappointing. The size is just right, though.
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.
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.