by 
The last time {complink 379|Apple Inc.} was rumored to be releasing a mini-iPad, we got the "new iPad" (aka iPad 3). (See: Behind Apple's Alleged Move to Small Screens.)
Net result: same size, better display.
A new spate of mini-iPad reports is surfacing, fueling speculation behind Apple's strategy. Is it competing with Microsoft's Surface, Google's Nexus, Amazon's Kindle Fire, or Samsung's Galaxy smartphones? Is Apple providing a broader tablet array for its already-converted iFans? Or is trying to reach a price point that won't discourage new buyers when the next "new" iPad (iPad 4?) renders the last "new" iPad (iPad 3) obsolete?
The answer is in the screen, which has as much speculation behind it as the mini-iPad itself.
Various media reports have LG Display, AU Optronics, or Sharp manufacturing the mini's display. Notably absent is Samsung, which is the largest manufacturer of the Retina display, featured in the iPad 3. (LG and Sharp manufacture limited quantities of the Retina.)
Here's what we know about LG Display and AU: they focus primarily on LCD screens and tend to be price leaders in the LCD screen market. Sharp, which has been struggling, recently received a large cash infusion from Foxconn Electronics, which also manufactures Apple's smartphones and iPads. Sharp is also likely to be cost competitive: Foxconn is a vertically integrated company, which means its manufacturing arm gets preferred pricing from its component businesses. I doubt that Sharp will be any different.
Most of the speculation around the mini-iPad is a price point that will cause its competitors apoplexy (in other words, less than $500 -- much less). If AU, LG, or Sharp (or all three) are making the screens -- the single most expensive component on any tablet, smartphone, or mobile device -- look for a mini priced below the iPad. LCD is still a great technology and only gets better as screens get smaller.
Net result: smaller size, decent display.
Also more affordable.
Barb, If Apple comes out with a “mini-iPad” it would also be taking a leaf from several of its competitors. It may also signal that rivals are beating it slowly at its own game.
Hi Barb. Sounds to me that it might be a lesser product in terms of features, quality and price. I hope it has a one year warranty.
That trend is bringing to my mind what happened in the area of “mini”, for example for netbook; it seems results in terms of profit was not so good, but in such way it open the doors to new competitors making the market more excited. But if Samsung has decided to not play in the sector, I am sure there is a good reason for explaining it.
With the iPad mini, Apple is probably planning to slow down Samsung's successful upward trend on its similar sized tablet on the market. Given that porting the iOS to a smaller tablet should not be a big problem, this is a great opportunity for Apple to establish its presence in the small tablet market. However, small screen size will mean that the existing iPad applications will need to be redesigned to support the new small screen size and therefore the adoption of the new mini may take some time until there is a good base of applications available for it. I think having a cheaper and smaller version of the iPad is a good move and I can see a good market for it.
I agree that if the mini comes in at a lower price point, Apple is responding to the market rather than leading it. That typically isn't Apple's strategy. So I wonder, if, similar to the iPad 3, something unexpected will happen with the mini. If so, what will that be?
The tablet PC market is going to be in a flux for a while. While companies like HP have temporarily given up, others like RIM are still keeping a toe in while new ones are diving in with varying platform offerings. The mini-iPad, if/when Apple launches it, will further divide the market. It will be positioned against devices from so many other companies and may even end up eroding sales of the original iPad.
Aside from Apple, it's going to be a while before we know who will win and lose here.
Coming from a technical background, I often find myself looking for whitepapers with the hope that I will get technical information. However, I have been disappointed with many white papers written by marketing and sales people that seriously falls short in meeting my expectations. Most of the time you access such whitepapers via web links that are indicated with an eye catching technical title. This is where the readers are intentionally mislead. The sales people know that the technical people will be looking for the technical title they have come up with and therefore that link will get many hits. However, it still does not deliver the content expected by the readers. Worse is that you often need to provide a valid e-mail address to be able to download such white papers. Therefore, while looking for a seemingly useful white paper, you not only end up with a blank paper in your hand in pdf format but your inbox starts to fill up with more spam messages because you had to give away your e-mail address!
I am much more cautious with whitepapers these days – especially with the ones that require an e-mail address before giving you access to information.
I think the tips for writing a useful white paper are all great but how many people will actually adhere to those useful guidelines when there is so much pressure on people to sell stuff?
@Cryptoman, You summed it up nicely. If the White Paper isn't worth the readers' time, then don't give them. The whole idea has been abused but it can still work.
Cryptoman – Thanks for your agreement. Bolaji, you bet the tool has and is being abused by tech marketers daily. Its almost as poorly applied as the news release. Self-publishing too often lacks reader-focused editorial direction that independent publications typically demand for any content.
The answer to Crypto's closing question is:
When marketers become aware that demonstrating expertise and providing informative content via a white paper or many other media formats, in fact, helps “sell stuff.” A degree of communication subtlety often works far more effectively than full-frontal, blatant product promotion. Teaching wins over telling and a sales hype dressed as a white paper merely allienates the prospective customer.
I often look for white paper which typically provides concised summary of some new technology. Some are too lengthy and go into much technical depth. But most are mere marketing brochures in disguise. Typically a 2 to 3 page would be sufficient.
App developers will have a bit of problem with all the screen layout issues especially when they want to do apps that can run on all devices. This has been a trouble for android developers.
It would be interesting hearing from people about their length preferences and also about the use of video as an aid to text or still images. White papers can be rich media documents, not just text only.
What do you think?
Yeh why not. Would any company spend the effort to make a white paper with video ?
White papers can be rich media documents, not just text only.
@Ford, that is a very interesting concept. To be frank I havent come across any such white paper which uses rich media content. But I am sure rich media content in white paper will make it more interesting for the end user.
Well, speaking for myself, according to Ford's editorial, whitepaper is in pole, but the battle involving paper or media depends on the task and the original scope from end users for example. If you have to study or if you have to learn or if you have to teach, paper is absolutely necessary, become humans work by store&forward paradigm, instead of cut-through. If you have to listen to some news, video-media could be enough, because it brings a bit of info just for the time slot needed.
I agree with you on that, Its just that what effect will this have on Apple,s competitors and competition among other brands
Well, its definitely more work for developers. But if Apple releases a device with a 5.55″ screen, they will go nuts but end up developing a new app. They can't afford to miss out.
I think I heard Jobs (?) say that they woudn't compromise performance for price, etc. Do you think that's about to change?
I don't think that will change soon, unless technology can be improved much more without significant cost.
Well, we'll have to wait and see but I do belive Apple will release a smaller iPad that can target the Fire and Nexus!