Throwback: My Original Apple iPad Mini Review from 2012 (Premium)

Apple released its first iPad mini in November 2012, and it was precisely the iPad I wanted, “an incredibly desirable device, almost without peer.”

I didn’t review the OG iPad mini formally. But I did write up a first impressions-style “compete report,” part of a series I described as “overviews of competitive products from outside the Microsoft ecosystem” and “a peek at the other side of the fence.” Re-reading this today, however, it seems reasonably complete. This is ironic, given that many misread “compete” and “complete,” which caused me to stop using the term. Compete, not complete. You know what, never mind.

Here’s my original 2012 write-up, stripped of a related overview of the iPod touch, with a bit of commentary.

Compete Report: Apple iPad Mini

Apple’s mini-tablet is stellar

Folks, welcome to my secret shame. For the past few days, the new iPad mini. This product is demonstrably better than the competition, despite my long-time complaints about the underlying iOS software. But there’s no way to overstate this: The new iPad mini is just an incredibly desirable tech device. It’s almost without peer.

Note: Some have misunderstood the point of my Compete Report articles. They are not meant to be in-depth reviews, or “complete” reports, but are rather overviews of competitive products from outside the Microsoft ecosystem. They’re a peek at the other side of the fence.

I assume that by this point, you’ve heard of the iPad mini and understand the basic value proposition here. Stung by the low-end competition, Apple has shrunk the iPad 2 down to a 7-to-8-inch form factor that retains the classic Apple design, quality, and thinness, costs significantly more than the comparable competition ($329 to start vs. $200 for the Kindle Fire HD or Nexus 7), and is of course backed by the same ecosystem of apps, games, and content as are Apple’s other devices. Most have lauded the device itself but bemoaned the fact that the screen, at 1024 x 768, is both lower resolution (1280 x 800 typically) than the competition, and not widescreen.

A quick overview for context.

Amazon released its first Android-based mini-tablet, the Kindle Fire, one year earlier, in November 2011, about four years after it released its first Kindle e-reader. The first few Kindle e-readers were awkward in many ways–most obviously they lacked touch screens, and the initial designs were not elegant–but by 2011, the product had become quite nice, and almost Apple-like. The Kindle Fire included the Amazon Appstore for Android, which had arrived the previous March. And, this was Amazon. “If any company can take on Apple, it’s Amazon,” I wrote in September 2011. “The reason is simple: Only Amazon offers the full suite of ecosystem services–digital music, TV shows, videos, eBooks and audiobooks, apps, and other content–that Apple does.”

In my eventual review, I said that the Kindle Fire, which featured a 7-inch display, “wasn’t an iPad killer” because it wasn’t a “1:1 replacement for Apple’s far pricier and complex device.” It cost just $200 to start, less than one-third the price of a (full-sized) mid-level iPad), provided 8 GB *(!) of storage, and it made low-cost tablets mainstream. It was a good option for “e-reading, apps, and games.”

The Google Nexus 7 was a far more recent entry: The first version arrived in July 2012, just months ahead of the iPad mini. As with other Nexus products, the Nexus 7 was a made by a hardware partner, in this case ASUS. And while I went on to love the product, and its sole successor even more, my initial impressions were more mixed. I described it as “not demonstrably better than the Kindle Fire or Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus that [I’d] used quite a bit over the [previous] year.” The bigger issue–and this will resonate today, interestingly–was that the Google Play ecosystem was still playing catch-up to Apple (which I then described as the “iTunes ecosystem.” Plus, the price was pretty good: The base model with 8 GB of storage was $200, and you could get a 16 GB version for $250.

I have a few thoughts about these issues.

First, however, I would reminder readers that when Apple first introduced the iPad, I complained that a smaller, 7-inch version would be the more appropriate size for such a device, assuming of course that you intended to use it as I do, as a consumption device. (That is, you’re not going to replace a laptop and connect a keyboard.) Through various Kindle Fire devices and, more recently, the Google Nexus 7, this opinion has held up. And now that I see Apple’s take on it—a slightly wider 7.9-inch variant of the 7-inch tablet—I’m happy to announce, for once, I told you so. This is the ideal iPad.

This is interesting (to me, at least). The iPad uses a 4:3 display that works well for reading in portrait mode, though many Android-based tablets continue to use widescreen 16:9 or 16:10 displays to this day. Those displays were then, and are now, lousy for reading in portrait mode. The dig against the iPad was that 4:3 isn’t great for videos, as most movies and modern TV shows have widescreen aspect ratios (16:9 or more), so there are black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. My argument here comes down to the adage “optimize for the everyday.” And while everyone is different, I read every day and I watch videos on a tablet infrequently. For me, 4:3 (or a similar aspect ratio like the 3:2 displays that Surface uses) is better.

Regarding my comments about the original iPad in 2010, I had purchased the original model on day one. And while I was initially skeptical of this “deeply flawed device,” a “glorified iPod touch, just made bigger,” within a month, I was describing it as “essential,” thanks, I think, to developers embracing it and adapting apps to work well on the bigger display. But I wanted a smaller version.

“The current iPad is too big and too heavy, and any refresh should use Amazon’s Kindle as a guide: In fact, it should be the exact same size and weight as Amazon’s device if possible,” I wrote in mid-2010. “Granted, not everyone is going to want a 7-inch iPad. But this model, positioned squarely between the iPod touch and currently 10-inch iPad, would provide a perfect middle ground, especially for those who will continue to use the iPad for consumption purposes only. (As is the case with virtually all iPad owners today, by the way.) And that would provide an opening for the larger device to turn into more of a mainstream computing device.” In a year-end most with the deliberately provocative title How Apple Can Fix the iPad in 2011, I once again focused on the size and reiterated this desire for a smaller iPad.

So I was pretty happy with the iPad mini, despite its relative lateness to market. Sound familiar?

In fact, it may be the ideal mini tablet. Take that, Amazon and Google.

The stories you’ve heard about the vaunted build quality are true: The iPad mini is a gorgeous, gorgeous device. It’s thin and light and can really be held in one hand. I’m not a huge fan of the “diamond chiseled” edges, which I find hard to the touch. And while I know the back is in fact aluminum, it seems like plastic to me … Until you try to flex the device, which you can’t since it’s so stiff and well-made. The iPad mini is the BMW of the tablet world. It’s nicer looking and better made than the competition. In this case, you really do get what you pay for.

(In full devil’s advocate mode, please do remember that the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7 are in fact much better deals, financially. If you’re not independently wealthy, do consider those options, too.)

As for the screen … I think we all agree that Apple will trumpet a Retina display-based iPad mini by next year, and that they will be applauded for it. And I think anyone can look at specs and quickly decide that 1024 x 768 is a lower resolution than 1280 x 800. But here’s the thing. As was the case with the supposedly limited 800 x 480 resolution on Windows Phone for two years there, the screen on this new iPad is in fact beautiful. It is in fact not limiting at all.

Apple announced the iPad mini 2 in October 2013 and it was indeed marketed as the iPad mini with Retina display. The screen resolution was now a more impressive 2048 x 1536 (326 PPI, vs. 163 PPI for the OG iPad mini).

To test this, I viewed a number of high resolution photographs–Microsoft’s Windows Personalization site is a great place to find such things–and watched the latest episode of The Walking Dead, in HD, side-by-side on the iPad mini and Kindle Fire HD. They were identical looking to me, absolutely identical.

Part of the reason the iPad mini screen works so well, of course, is that the iOS software was fine-tuned for 1024 x 768 two years ago. Part of it is that Apple upscales standard definition (and likewise downscales HD) video content to a near-HD tweener format to accommodate the screen resolution. And part of it is simply that Apple clearly knows what it’s doing when it comes to displays. So while you may opt out of the iPad mini because of the price (valid) or simply because you’re not an Apple fan (understandable, I guess, but perhaps less defensible), doing so because of the screen is, in my opinion, a mistake.

So here I go again: The iPad mini runs iOS, of which I’m not a fan. But the combination of the hardware–which is both beautiful and an ideal size–and the irreproachable content ecosystem simply puts this device over the top. Yes, the Amazon Kindle Fire HD and Google Nexus 7 are viable alternatives, and both are very good. But the iPad mini is the top of the heap. And if money is no object, I have a hard time recommending otherwise.

Final thoughts

While some Apple products lend themselves to easy criticism, the new iPad mini is pretty incredible. Yes, the same pricing complaints arise, and of course it’s based on the out of date iOS system, which, if I’m reading the tea leaves right, is about to change in hopefully remarkable ways.

I can’t recall what this was in reference to. But Apple bifurcated iOS–which had started life as iPhoneOS in 2007–into iOS and iPadOS in 2019, the same year it shipped the iPad mini (5th generation) (and iPad (7th generation)).

But the quality of this device leaves me speechless. It is beautiful, thin, light, and remarkably well-made. It is the market leader. And yes, it is highly recommended. If Microsoft, Amazon, or Google intends to take on Apple in this market, they’re going to need to step it up.