Why the iPad mini 3 is a waste of $100

The iPad mini 3's only difference from the mini 2 is a new color option and Touch ID. But the iPad mini 2 is also $100 cheaper.

Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP/File
Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, discuss the pricing of the Apple iPad line-up during an event at Apple headquarters on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2014 in Cupertino, Calif.

Blink, and you could have missed it.

During Apple's event today, Tim Cook and crew barely mentioned the iPad mini 3; in fact, they uttered a few short words about the new device, despite previously spending at least 10 minutes fawning over the updates on the iPad Air 2. Why, exactly, did Apple downplay its own product announcement? Probably because the iPad mini was barely updated at all.

The update mainly seems underwhelming since Apple also declared that it would keep selling the iPad mini 2 (previously known as the iPad mini with Retina) at a lower price point; the mini 2 will now sell for $299, while the brand-new iPad mini 3 will check in at $399. But what does that extra $100 get you? Not a whole lot, it turns out.

Although the iPad Air 2 got some serious spec upgrades, including a significantly faster processor, the only difference between the mini 2 and mini 3 is the inclusion of a Touch ID sensor on the start button, and the fact that you can choose the color gold as an option. That's it.

The fingerprint sensor on the mini is admittedly cool, and if you're a fan of gold, then this new option is surely great. But for the vast majority of tablet seekers, these two upgrades don't warrant the extra $100. When it comes down to it, unless you really want those two perks, you'd be far wiser to save the money and opt for the cheaper iPad mini 2.

Readers, what do you think? Is the iPad mini 3 worth it?

Lindsay Sakraida is the features director for dealnews.com, where this article first appeared: http://dealnews.com/features/For-Most-People-the-New-iPad-mini-3-is-a-Waste-of-100/1169987.html 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.