Cognitive Dissonance and the iPad Mini 7’s Timeline

I am having some difficulty reconciling three of the latest bits of news/rumors about next year's iPad Mini 7

Recent rumors have pointed to the iPad Mini 7 coming out in the second half of calendar year 2024. Those reporting this timeline have also started putting the A16 chip in this revision. Finally, there are the reports that next year's versions of iOS and iPadOS will be major updates.

These three pieces of information have set up a certain cognitive dissonance, as the rumors do not feel like they play well together.

First, why release a device that is often associated with university students after they would have planned or purchased (or have purchased for them) their new year's devices in the late spring/early summer rather than in the fall?

This question is doubly applicable for the education-bulk-purchase focused iPad.

It feels like an odd timeframe for such release. It feels even stranger if the chips being used in the iPad and the iPad Mini are of an older generation than the M-series and the 3 nanometer process chips going into the rest of the iPad line.

Second, Apple has a history of tying major software advances to their hardware development. Pundits and users alike are routinely surprised that the latest software developments can be run on older than anticipated hardware.

There are two obvious ways to dispel this cognitive dissonance. The first would be for Apple to release the Mini earlier than the rumors indicate. This would permit students to order and buy before the start of the fall semester and not feel like the chips were old, relative to what we are expecting to see in the iPads Pro and Air that are rumored to be released in the spring.

But that solution does not solve for my (self-imposed) criterion that the new hardware be ready to leverage whatever is coming in iOS and iPadOS.

There is another explanation, of course — one that may be more wish fulfillment on my part than reality.

But hear me out.

If the reason for the delayed timeline is to put a three nanometer chip (e.g.. the A17) into the Mini and an MI into the iPad, the entire line may be capable of running Stage Manager, unifying the multitasking approach across all of its iPad and Mac platforms in advance of the Vision Pro’s arrival.

It would also explain why the release is later. Given the stories about how low the yield rate is for the nanometer chips is, the longer timeline for the is iPad Mini makes more sense, as it gives Apple and TMC more time to produce the chips they need for iPhones and the Vision Pro.

There are other explanations that would make sense, including explanations that I have not imagined. Apple may want to clear stock (chips or devices) or better recoup development costs — both of which could be cleared with more time, for example.

I suspect there are better ways to do that. I also suspect I may be trying to wish something into existence rather than be entirely dispassionate about my theories.

But it still feels like there are some surprises in store for the next iterations of the iPad and iPad Mini.

Confused by the Confusion (or, What iPad Should I Buy?)

With the release of the newest version of the Apple Pencil, I have begun to see a number of pundits and journalists talk about how confusing the iPad line has become. It is tempting to respond to this with a condescending claim about their own condescension towards "average" consumers — even if it would be wrong to do so.

Those poor, benighted non-techies really can't handle anything beyond the good/better/best progression ninety percent of the time so Apple needs to get rid of those extra models in the lineup, they might say.

Well, I might respond with equal condescension, you just don't get the iPad because your frame of reference is bound to the fourfold division of the Mac promulgated by Steve Jobs when he returned from NEXT, with desktop/ laptop on one axis and consumer/pro on the other — a model that doesn't fit the iPad. (Even though the model kind of does fit...)

Other than providing the smug satisfaction that comes along with any good strawman logical fallacy, this does no one any good. The pundits and reviewers claiming confusion and citing the clarity that adding a larger iPad Air would bring are expressing a real problem that they face every time a friend or family member asks what device they should buy.

It's one thing to offer the wrong advice to a reader or viewer you will never meet. It's another to get to hear the griping every holiday dinner and suffer through the implication that you are bad at your job.

It is equally true that the new Apple Pencil appears to be hinting that there is some kind of change coming. Whether it is a hardware redesign (Does USB-C signal a move away from magnetic charging to make space for a repositioned FaceTime camera?) or a shift in design philosophy (We need a good/better/best progression for the Apple Pencil.) remains to be seen.

That said, the decision tree as to which iPad to buy is simple.

1. Is price the most important thing for you? If yes, get the basic iPad. If not, go to question two.

2. Are you a videographer or professional (or similarly serious) photographer? If yes, get the Pro. If not, go to question 3.

3. Are you looking for maximum portability? Get the Mini.

4. If not, get the Air.

Yes, at each of these steps, there are other questions but those answers come easily. How much memory should I get? How much are you using? What about the screen size? Those who need a big screen or just love the Mini know who they are already.

Those are questions that can be walked through simply enough and most consumers can figure those out.

That said, I want to go back to that two-by-two grid for a second, because it is hiding in the iPad lineup. If you look at those four questions, and don't get distracted by form factor, you can set up the grid -- based on most likely place of use -- with laptop replacement/desktop replacement on one axis and consumer/ professional on the other. The consumer laptop is the Mini. The consumer desktop is the Air ( living in its Magic Keyboard case). The pro laptop is the 11 inch Pro and its desktop counterpart is the 12.9 inch.

The more peripherals you add (e.g., keyboards, track pads, and external monitors), the clearer the alignment becomes.

If Apple were to add a larger iPad Air to the lineup, the grid gets simpler and the Mini becomes more of a specialty item, much as the base iPad is targeted at the education market. Like the Pro, you will know if you need it — either because it speaks to you or because you want a un companion for your Mac.

I am not going to argue iPads and Macs have become interchangeable. They aren't and each comes with strengths and limitations. What I will argue is that there is more consistency and less confusion than may meet the eye for the average consumer than we techies might initially think.

Managing Stages with Apple

Apple takes a much longer view with its hardware and software than most people realize. Developers are annually reminded of this at Apple's Worldwide Developer’s Conference (WWDC) when they are gently prodded to update their apps to use newer APIs -- sometimes years in advance of the hardware changes the APIs are designed to support..

This long term approach exists in tension with Apple's secretive approach to its future releases. As a result, so much of the innovative work being done only becomes clear in hindsight.

Take, for example, CarPlay. The new dashboard display that came with iOS13 was a fresh, new look—something more useful than the grid of apps. And having a map and some tappable controls available was a nice, creature comfort advance.

After the release of widgets in iOS and iPadOS the following year, however, the design of CarPlay began to look like a precursor of things to come. Now that widgets have became increasingly interactive, it is now obvious that Apple had been playing with the concept of a simplified, tappable interface for iPhones and iPads prior to its open deployment for users.

It's anyone's guess if this was always Apple's plan or if, one day, a clever engineer looked up, turned to their colleagues, and said, "You know, we could do this on a phone, too!”

I was considering this as I listened to the tvOS review on App Stories this morning — especially the parts about where Apple could go with its iOS equivalent of the Mac Mini.

Let me add to the wish list for such a device.

There is an underused USB part on the back of every AppleTV. Those USB ports are obvious places to connect a media server or a backup drive. That puts us one app away from an iOS-based Time Machine app.

As my old Mac Mini limps toward retirement, I would like to have a new method of backing up our family photos.in an ideal world, I would prefer an ids-based solution. A more advanced Apple TV is an obvious solution — especially for a growing customer base that is less interested in maintaining a macOS infrastructure alongside their iOS/iPadOS infrastructure.

In saying this, I recognize this may sound like a concern from a different era. But there is something about your child's baby pictures that makes you want to take the belt and suspenders approach to backing up your data.

At the Risk of (Briefly) Stating the Obvious

For those of you carrying an M-series iPad or Mac into the classroom and plugging into a projector, turn on Stage Manager. You will be able to keep your screen private (letting you access things that might violate FERPA or do searches on the web that make you hesitate).

While you are setting up Stage Manager, schedule a Focus Mode to turn on for class. This prevents all sorts of badly timed messages from accidentally disrupting class.

Not that I have ever done something like that to my wife.

These two small settings changes let your devices improve the quality of your life in the classroom.

Still Looking through a Glass Darkly: Thoughts on Apple’s Education 2018 Event

Let me begin with an unequivocal statement: Anyone wishing to get a sense of the challenges before Apple in the education arena need look no further than Bradley Chambers’ well reasoned and well written response on 9 to 5 Mac to the 2018 Apple Education Event. In his article, he clearly lays out the challenges facing Apple, as a hardware and service provider, and teachers as they try to implement solutions offered by Apple and others.[1]

And while I would not change a word, I would add one word to the title (which Chambers may or may not have written). I would argue that “Making the Grade: Why Apple’s Education Strategy is not Based on Reality” should read “Making the Grade: Why Apple’s Education Strategy is not Based on Today’s Reality”.[2]

Let me explain why.

As I wrote earlier, Apple included an interesting subtext in its event. It challenged the hegemony of the keyboard as the primary computing input device. In fact, there are no keyboards used in the entirety of the “Homework” video they produced to showcase the iPad in an educational setting — although the Pencil, I would note, appears on several occasions.

I don’t think this is Apple trying to hard sell the Pencil for the purpose of profit. If that were the case, we would not have seen the less expensive Logitech Crayon. Nor do I think it is an attempt to employ their famed Reality Distortion Field to deny the need for keyboards. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have seen the Logitech Rugged Combo 2 education-only keyboard.

What I do think is that Apple is trying to get the education market to rethink education’s relationship to technology.

Education, almost always, comes to technology as a tool to solve a known problem: How to we assess more efficiently? How do we maintain records? How do we process students in our systems? How do we crunch data? How to we produce a standard and secure testing environment? How do we make submitting assignments and grading assignment more efficient? How can we afford to deploy enough devices to make a difference?

That we ask these questions is no surprise. These are important questions — critically important questions. If we don’t get answers to them, the educational enterprise begins to unravel. And because of that, it is more than understandable that they form the backbone of Bradley Chambers’ article and the majority of the commentary behind most of the responses I have read or listened to. They are the questions that made Leo LaPorte keep coming back to his wish that Apple had somehow done more in Chicago when the event was being discussed on MacBreak Weekly.

What they are not, however, is the list of questions Apple was positioning itself to answer. As Rene Ritchie pointed out in his response to the event, Apple is focusing on creativity — not tech specs. And from what I have seen from a number of Learning Management Systems and other education technological products, it is an area that is very much underserved and undersupported by ed-tech providers.

Apple is trying to answer the questions: How do you get students to be engaged with the material they are learning? How do I get them to think critically? How do I get them to be creative and see the world in a new way?

Alex Lindsay pointed out in the above-mentioned MacBreak Weekly episode when he said that he was interested in his children (and, by extension, all students) learning as efficiently possible in school. To do that, students have to be engaged and challenged to do something more than the obvious provided in lowest common denominator solutions. Their future will also need them to do more than answer fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice questions on a test. They need to produce the kinds of projects that Apple put on display in Chicago.

Apple is offering the tools to do that.

I don’t think this is an idealized or theoretical response. If Apple wasn’t aware that these things were a challenge, they would not have made the teacher in the “Homework” video a harried individual trying to (barely) keep the attention of a room filled with too many students. Apple has hired too many teachers and gone into too many schools to not know what teachers are facing.

I would also point out that there is something to Apple’s answer. My daughter was in the room with me when I was watching the keynote. Her immediate response was that she wanted her homework to be like what she saw rather than what she did.[3]

Her school, I would point out here, uses Chromebooks. That she would jump that quickly at the chance to change should give anyone considering a Chromebook solution pause and make them look carefully at why they are making the choice they are.[4]

Nevertheless, Apple’s challenge is that it still has to address the questions Bradley Chambers and others have raised or their answers will only be partial solutions for educators.

Because Apple needs to answer these questions, I am very interested in the details of the Schoolwork app once it is released — even if it appears to be targeted at K-12 and not higher education.

I do think that we in education need to listen carefully to Apple’s answer, though. Our questions may be mission critical but they may not be the most important questions to answer. After all, if we are first and foremost not trying to answer “How do we get our students engaged?”, we have ceased to be engaged in education. And while I have a great deal of sympathy for my friends and colleagues in IT (and am grateful for their ongoing support at JCSU), they are there to support my students’ and my work — not the other way around. And every time we take a shortcut to make IT’s job easier,[5] as we have done too often when trying to answer how to assess student learning outcomes, we are decreasing our students’ chances for success.

For those placing long-term bets, however, I would point out one thing: Apple’s positioning itself as the source for solutions for generating curiosity and creativity is a better solution for education than Google’s positioning itself as the solution for how to create a new batch of emails for the next year’s worth of students.

---

[1] The most important section of the article, incidentally, is this section:

One of the things I’ve become concerned about is the number of items we tend to keep adding to a teacher’s plate. They have to manage a classroom of 15–30 kids, understand all of the material they teach, learn all of the systems their school uses, handle discipline issues, grade papers, and help students learn.

When do we start to take things off of a teacher’s plates? When do we give them more hours in the day? Whatever Apple envisioned in 2012, it’s clear that did not play out.

[2] I wouldn’t run the word today in bold and italics, of course. I am using them here so you can easily find the word.

[3] Or thought she did. When I asked her what stopped her from doing her homework in that manner, she thought and said she didn’t know how she would get it to her teacher. I told her that I could help her with that.

[4] It still might be the best choice, of course. These decisions are a series of trade-offs. But I would point out that if she begins to use an iPad at home to do things her classmates cannot with their Chromebooks and gains a superior education because of her engagement with the material as a result, the argument for deploying Chromebook is significantly weakened.

[5] Making IT’s job easier, I would stress, is significantly different from asking if what is being proposed is technically and practically possible.

---

Dr. Matthew M. DeForrest is a Professor of English and the Mott University Professor at Johnson C. Smith University. The observations and opinions he expresses here are his own. You are very welcome to follow him on Twitter and can find his academic profile at Academia.edu.

An Always Engaged Audience

Some background: For those in other parts of the world who may not know, this fall has been unusually rough when it comes to the bugs that have been floating around here in North Carolina. Like most parents, my wife and I have a working arrangement — subject to change based on the needs of the day — as to who will stay home with our daughter when she has to stay home from school. Since we are both professors, this pattern generally aligns with the Monday-Wednesday-Friday (MWF)/Tuesday-Thursday (TR) split. 

This semester, I have the MWF shift. This is counterintuitive, as my classes this semester are on MWF. She, however, has classes with more in-class assignments on MWF than I do. As a result, my MWF schedule is more open to alternate approaches.

I have been using Periscope to stream classes when I stay home. It is an imperfect vehicle for what I am attempting[1], but it gets the job done. 

In a strange way, I have noticed that I find it a surprisingly comfortable experience to hold class via Periscope. And after class today, I think I have settled on why this is. 

For those of you who have never taught, facing a room full of students can be a depressing task. I know that my students are more engaged than they look. Their questions and comments have, on more than one occasion, proved that just moments before I was about to succumb to despair. But if you know the semi-blank look that people assume when they watch television, you know what you will see looking out at a room full of students. Not all of them look like this, of course. Some are more animated and some are less. Nevertheless, there is a passive look that pervades the room. This can be true with the most engaged of students. If one is taking notes, for example, you do not get to see the animation in their face because they are looking down.[2]

When you broadcast on Periscope, you look at yourself. It is a feature that lets the broadcaster know what his audience is seeing. So, when I am talking about Mark Twain and H. G. Wells,[3] I am looking at someone who is actively engaged — not a classroom of students who are paying attention and trying to process what is being presented or discussed.[4] 

I know that when I present, I feed off of those who are actively engaged. Most people in front of an audience do. When that is happening, I feel like I am doing a better job (Whether I am or not is a different question.). With Periscope, I provide myself with a positive feedback loop.

As a result, classroom performance, in the literal sense of the nature of what is presented rather than its content, could (Let me stress: could.) improve on the in-room experience with access to this technology, if it can be successfully linked to a mechanism for student participation, as discussed in footnote one below. It might also be worth considering and weighing for those running experiments with classroom delivery, as can be seen at Minerva University or through on-demand services like Kahn Academy.  

---

[1] If you want to see what can be done with a streamed class that functions very much as an interactive seminar, I would highly recommend that you tune in to one of Signum University’s open classes. You will find me sitting in on “Exploring Lord of the Rings” most Tuesday evenings, beginning at roughly 9:30 PM Eastern. Professor Corey Olsen simultaneously broadcasts via Periscope/Twitter, Twitch, and Discord while being “present” in Lord of the Rings Online. The online version of Middle Earth allows for the classes to take field trips to locations of note every week. (The broadcasts are then made available on YouTube, as can be seen in this randomly chosen example.) He manages to juggle three chat areas (Discord is the primary location for the comments and questions.), where people ask questions and offer comments.

Since this blog is about the iPad in the educational space, I will let you know how I attend. I run  Twitch (which contains the video and audio stream I use) and Discord (where I am present in the chat) in split screen mode on my 10.5” iPad Pro. I find it quicker to type my comments on the Smart Keyboard but often use the onscreen keyboard. To get a fuller picture and sound, I AirPlay the Twitch stream to my Apple TV. That, however, is a creature comfort and allows me to avoid resizing the split screen view to see more of the slides presented on the screen and/or type. It is possible to have a decent experience doing it all on the iPad.

[2] In case you are a student and are wondering, your professors can tell when you are writing about their class rather than another. The rhythm of your engagement in the class and the engagement with the page are either aligned or are not.

[3] Today’s 9AM class, which is on the way people understand time and how that is expressed in art and society, wrapped up A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court and started The Time Machine.

[4] For those who might want to offer a well-meaning critique here and talk about active learning, let me offer a quick distinction: The look on a student’s face is a function of what they are doing rather than the pedagogical structure they are existing within. The same look will pervade on the faces of students during the kind of discussion or activity you might suggest I try. There is a material difference in the look worn by a student when they are “on” — when they have the floor or are talking — and when they are not, whether they are in a lecture or working in a small group. As a practical matter, it is impossible for everyone to be fully active at once. It is a question of how often they are fully active, how often they are partially active, how often they are passively active, and how often they are disengaged.

---

Dr. Matthew M. DeForrest is a Professor of English and the Mott University Professor at Johnson C. Smith University. The observations and opinions he expresses here are his own. You are very welcome to follow him on Twitter and can find his academic profile at Academia.edu.