Apple’s ‘iPad mini’ event to focus on iBooks, and likely movies, alongside new hardware

“We’ve now heard from multiple sources that Apple’s as-yet-unannounced iPad mini event will have a strong focus on iBooks,” Matthew Panzarino reports for TNW.

“Since an iPad mini would likely be squarely aimed at those who wish to partake of media on their tablets, that would make a lot of sense,” Panzarino reports. “The event will, of course, be primarily devoted a new hardware device, which iMore first reported would be a thinner, cheaper version of Apple’s iPad. But the primary purpose of such a smaller tablet would be to act as a conduit for Apple’s content, namely iBooks publications and movies.”

Panzarino reports, “An iBooks-heavy event seems very likely, but we haven’t yet heard if Apple has anything in store for the other major kind of media people will be using an iPad mini for: movies. But I would be completely unsurprised if there was a movie-centric announcement as well.”

Read more in the full article here.


      1. >iMac is doubtful as supplies of iMacs are not constrained.

        Are you kidding? I don’t know where you live, but in my city they are incredibly constrained. I work at a fairly large mac reseller (4 stores in my city, about 80 in the chain) and there hasn’t been any stock in our central distribution for at least a month or more. Based on comments I’ve had from customers, they cannot find stock anywhere in town, so other chains are in no better boat.

        Maybe it’s different in the US (I’m Canadian), but iMac stock is very constrained right now for us (despite having some on order with Apple).

      1. @Cubert,
        Need an updated iWork with extended iCloud functionality that enable real-time collaboration, please! But my guess is we’ll have to wait until 2013. Come on Apple inhouse developers, can’t you walk and chew gum at the same time? I say all of the above as a huge Apple and iWork fan.

  1. IF this product does exist and is going to be released, the schools are going to eat this up. I’d imagine it’s going to be at least 40% less expensive than the normal iPad.

    1. This has been on my mind all the time since the rumors predicted “no retina display” + “focus on books”. I am so hooked up on retina displays now (owning iPhone 4S, iPad 3 and MacBook Pro) that I don’t want to read text on any low rez screen. I looked at the pixelated text all my life and I don’t want to go there again. Give me a retina display option in iPad mini for $100 more and I will gladly pay for.

  2. If iBooks is going to be one of the major reasons for the iPad mini, you can also rule out 16:9 in my opinion. Widescreen ration does not feel right in portrait. I would be very surprised to see Apple abandon 4:3. As Steve Jobs said at the first iPad launch, there’s no wrong way to hold iPad: no top, no bottom…

    1. Nope…
      I don’t know where people get this false premise.
      Two up pages (each page 7.5X10H) is 15:10 or 3:2
      16:9 is far too wide an aspect, 4:3 (which is what the existing iPads are) is far closer to the optimum (not to mention 16:9 sucks badly in vertical mode).
      The thing widescreen aspect is really good at are widescreen movies and HDTV. (seems kinds self evident)
      However keep in mind that many classic movies are in academy format (ie full frame (non anamorphic) 35mm which is 3:4 aspect) and also pre HDTV television content (also at 3:4)

      1. Yes, classic movies are often taller than 16:9, but the thousands of more recent movies are 1.85, 1.89, or scope. Scope results in massive black bars on a 4:3 display, so 1.85 (16:9) actually a nice compromise.

        As for books, two 7.5×10 AR pages do fit nicely on a 16:9 display if you let a little of the margin extend off the top and bottom (as you can on an iPhone 4 with 16:9 videos), but the point is rather moot, since the facing pages wouldn’t be any more readable on a 7.85-inch display than a single page is on an iPhone.

        A single 7.5x10AR page doesn’t fit that badly on a portrait 16:9 display. To say it “sucks badly” is major hyperbole. It’s not bad at all.

        Having done some design work for a vertical 16:9 display recently, it’s surprisingly decent.

        1. Scope? really?
          Been been a long time since I heard 2.38 referred to as ‘scope (scope is a scrunch of cinemascope which was an anamorphic 35mm standard created back in the 50’s)
          So, back to the point, yes 16X9 & 2.38 require letter boxing on a 3:4 however it’s really not that annoying visually. Oddly enough it is more annoying to watch 3:4 on a 16X9

          However I stand by my assessment, using a 16/9 tablet in the vertical mode is annoying as hell, it is just too skinny for books, magazines etc (unless you have content specifically made for tall vertical aspect (which is rare outside commercial trade and stage show work)

          I really hope that IF there is a new iPad mini is 3:4 and NOT 16:9.

          1. Yes, really. While “CinemaScope” certainly has the specific historical meaning you referenced, people in the film production, consumer electronics, and home theater industries now use the slang “‘Scope” to refer to 2.35:1, 2.39:1, or 2.40:1. It’s very common in both industries.

            I’d much rather watch the odd 4:3 program pillarboxed on a 16:9 display than watch every other new film shot in 2.40, letterboxed down to nearly HALF of the 4:3 display.

            I hope that if there is a new iPad mini, it’s the same resolution as the iPhone 5, which is nearly 16:9. If you’re so set on a 4:3 display for reading, then you can get an iPad 2 or 3!

        2. I disagree that a 16:9 ratio would be better for tablets. There are any number of 16:9 Android tablets out there that are selling very, very poorly. This is because the 16:9 ratio is not conducive to viewing in portrait mode which the way most people use their tablets. It is very awkward to hold a tablet in landscape mode for any length of time particularly if you’re using it as an e-reader. The RIM BlackBerry Playbook is designed to be used in landscape mode which has contributed to its poor sales.

          Besides the UI elements that are optimised for a tablet such as an iPad will scale down to the iPad mini. The reason why Android tablets are not selling well is because apps are designed for a smartphone for the most part and are not designed for tablets, unlike iPad apps that have UI elements that are unique to it.

          So your argument that 16:9 is preferable falls down on many levels. 4:3 is the most logical aspect ratio for the iPad mini. Any other ratio will be wilfully committing suicide.

          1. The Playbook’s poor sales are due in part because it’s designed to be used in landscape mode? That’s laughable. The Playbook’s poor sales are because it’s a piece of crap that nobody wants, with no significant apps, and no mail and messaging client. It’s a product without a buyer. None of that has anything to do with it’s screen aspect ratio or primary orientation.

            If 4:3 is such a foregone conclusion, why did Apple just update the iPhone 5 to nearly a perfect 16:9 display? Upon what do you base the idea that “any other ratio” is suicide?

            You do realize that neither the Nexus 7 or the Kindle Fire, i.e. the two tablets that have successfully taken a huge chunk of the tablet sales away from Apple in the last 6-12 months, are 4:3 aspect ratios, right? Neither are they 16:9, but they’re much closer to 16:9 than they are 4:3.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.