Next iPad mini rumored to get OLED, but you'll have to wait a while

I wouldn't ever usually advise on waiting for a potential future product, especially for years. 

But, for me, the iPad Mini is just a fun, slightly more useable consumption companion device to my iPhone 16Max that isn't really a necessity 

Given how much it costs.... i will wait.

Well, that prediction is eventually going to be correct, no? It seems Apple has settled on OLED, or, OLED has won the display quality for the price war with miniLED, LCD, and whatever else. The wait will be longer for OLED 27" and larger 220 to 250 PPI monitors. Apple is basically the only customer for that kind of PPI.

Also, be mindful that Ross Young has made so many miniLED predictions for Apple products in the past. He doesn't want to wait until the mass production contract is awarded. Like 5 years ago, he was predicting 6 products would have miniLED. The mass economies of scale just didn't go fast enough for miniLED to get into lower end products while OLED has improved faster. So, there you go.

It will depend on the component cost Apple is getting for OLEDs in an iPad mini. If too much, it's just going to be pushed to the next cycle.

There is no rush LCD, OLED, tandem OLED, 60 Hz to 120 Hz only those on tech forums get a rise out of (120 Hz) as a talking point those things don’t matter to the non gamer general public who are just using and enjoying their devices, a user of 11 Pro iPhone, a XDR monitor and a M4 iPad Pro and sees no real difference using any of them Hz wise, however, I do see other differences quality wise with the ppi, fit and finish of all curated Apple monitors which tend to have great screens on them and yes, they usually cost more in comparison to the PC competition. 

tht said:

It will depend on the component cost Apple is getting for OLEDs in an iPad mini. If too much, it's just going to be pushed to the next cycle.

Some readers of tech media sites don't understand that just because a component exists doesn't automatically mean it will be included in a BOM.

All technology comes with a price. There's probably some sort of battery technology that will let cars run 1000 miles between charges but those batteries might cost $100,000.

Clearly Apple has a target COGS for each of their products and if certain components are coming up too expensive, Apple will punt until parts come down in price. It's not like Apple could stick WiFi, solid state storage, and Bluetooth in the original iPod (2002) and arrive at a consumer-friendly price point.

Hell, some tech journalists and pundits don't get it. They simply don't see the forests for the trees. Some technology advances rapidly. Some other technologies advance more slowly than anticipated. Progress is not linear.

mpantone said:

tht said:

It will depend on the component cost Apple is getting for OLEDs in an iPad mini. If too much, it's just going to be pushed to the next cycle.

Some readers of tech media sites don't understand that just because a component exists doesn't automatically mean it will be included in a BOM.

All technology comes with a price. There's probably some sort of battery technology that will let cars run 1000 miles between charges but those batteries might cost $100,000.

Clearly Apple has a target COGS for each of their products and if certain components are coming up too expensive, Apple will punt until parts come down in price. It's not like Apple could stick WiFi, solid state storage, and Bluetooth in the original iPod (2002) and arrive at a consumer-friendly price point.

Hell, some tech journalists and pundits don't get it. They simply don't see the forests for the trees. Some technology advances rapidly. Some other technologies advance more slowly than anticipated. Progress is not linear.

Totally agree. There is a big difference between technology for technology's sake and technology used in Product Development. 

Products have to bring in revenue and profits to be considered successful. Those profits don't simply materialize out of thin air because a product is built with jazzy technology. Those profits come from the product builder being able to sell their products at a price that is substantially higher than their costs of building their products, maybe not at an individual product level but as an aggregate, e.g., the razor vs razor blades model. 

Truth be told, it's not only the tech media or consumers pushing technology. Companies who build products sometimes (often?) lean on the technology too much to sell their products, hoping that the technology wow factor itself will move the product. I know I may be jumping the gun, but I currently feel like there is a ton of this happening now with companies trying to wow up the buying public with all the talk around AI technology. Sometimes they need to quit talking so much about the technology and just focus on the product and the value it delivers to consumers.

At the end of the day consumers buy products and services that do something for them in their lives, like solving a problem or making them happier. At the same time product builders have to make money and earn profits. Both sides in the sales transaction have to walk away feeling good about the whole deal. Making that happen often requires cost control on the product development side. Companies that lean too hard on pushing the technology alone can end up setting up their customers for disappointment either because the product doesn't live up to expectations because of cost constraints or it's just too damn expensive.