The now-iconic photo of Apple’s marketing chief Phil Schiller holding the original iPad Mini captures more than just the launch of a new product—it embodies the reverence and theatrical flair with which Apple unveils its latest innovations. Schiller’s off-camera gaze almost begs interpretation. Was it pride? Confidence? Or perhaps a hint of unease about how this smaller tablet might disrupt Apple’s existing product lineup, particularly the full-sized iPad?
If that concern was present, it may have been justified. Reports from sources like Digitimes suggest Apple reduced component orders for its larger iPads, revising sales projections downward in response to surging demand for the iPad Mini. Originally, the company aimed to ship 60 million full-sized iPads and 40 million Minis. The updated estimates flipped the balance: 33 million big iPads and 55 million Minis.
That’s a phenomenal win for the iPad Mini’s product team, signaling overwhelming consumer demand for a more compact, affordable Apple tablet. But here’s the catch—overall iPad sales fell short of expectations, with Apple now forecasting total unit sales of 88 million, down from 100 million. This dip raises deeper strategic questions about Apple’s long-term tablet revenue mix and average selling prices.
Why does this matter? Because the iPad Mini, while a hit in volume, carries slimmer profit margins compared to its larger counterpart. More units sold doesn’t necessarily mean more revenue—or more importantly, more profit. Lower margins on the Mini mean Apple may be trading short-term volume for long-term profitability, a move that could ripple across earnings reports and investor confidence.
Can consumers’ appetite for lower-priced Apple tablets harm the brand’s premium image? Is the iPad Mini cannibalizing the iPad’s market position, or is it a gateway product strengthening Apple’s foothold in education, travel, and casual use segments? These are the types of questions buyers, analysts, and tech enthusiasts increasingly search for—especially those evaluating whether to invest in a Mini or upgrade to a larger Pro model.
Of course, all of this hinges on the credibility of the reports. Digitimes, while often cited, has a reputation for mixed accuracy—misspellings like “supplpy chains” don’t inspire full confidence. Still, the implications of a shift toward more affordable Apple tablets are worth considering.
Does Phil Schiller ever regret launching the iPad Mini? Unlikely. From a brand strategy perspective, it was a calculated move. The Mini expanded Apple’s reach into price-sensitive markets without completely diluting the perceived value of its flagship products. It cleverly positioned the larger iPad as the premium option—highlighting the Mini’s relative affordability while still keeping margins decent in comparison to Android competitors.
Today, the iPad Mini serves a critical role in Apple’s ecosystem. It’s not just a cheaper option; it’s a tactical product that opens up new demographics while reinforcing the brand’s adaptability. So while it may have trimmed short-term profits, it also deepened Apple’s market penetration—an essential trade-off in a rapidly evolving tablet landscape.
Does Phil Schiller sometimes lie awake at night wishing Apple had never made that damn Mini? Does he lurk outside Apple stores and curse the cheap bastards who keep buying Minis just because they’re $170 cheaper than the big one?
Maybe not. Maybe Phil and his team figure they pulled off a pretty amazing coup. They milked ridiculous margins out of the original iPad for a long, long time. And now that big iPad serves a purpose – it makes the iPad Mini look cheap. Which it’s not, considering that you can get roughly comparable Android tablets for a lot less.
Then again this entire report could be bullshit, since it comes from Digitimes, and Digitimes is perhaps not the most reliable publication in the world, as reflected in the headline the story to which I linked, which mentions issues with Apple’s “supplpy” (sic) chains.
There are so many reasons to love this photo of Apple marketing boss Phil Schiller holding up an iPad Mini. For one thing, it captures the kind of hushed sanctimony and reverence with which Apple introduces things that are, essentially, little plastic gizmos. But mostly I love Phil’s weird off-camera gaze, which reminds me of this photo from Stepbrothers. What is he looking at? What’s he thinking? Is he fearful, even then, on the day of the introduction, that this cool new device is going to kill sales of the bigger iPads and thus drag down Apple’s profit margins?