I love the scaled up iphone apps on my ipads. Those ones are classy and feel great. Sure the native resolution of all apple current iphones is close to the ipad2/mini, but hey, render it at 480x320 and just double it. Classy.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad Mini Display Judged 'Very Capable', But Falls Short of iPad and Android Competitors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love the scaled up iphone apps on my ipads. Those ones are classy and feel great. Sure the native resolution of all apple current iphones is close to the ipad2/mini, but hey, render it at 480x320 and just double it. Classy.
I haven't read all the posts on this thread but I know they'll be a bunch of people slating the iPad Mini and those that love it.
I bought an iPad Mini because I thought the size would be better for my needs along with the weight. I also have no idea when Apple will bring out a Retina Display for the iPad Mini (could be 6 months, could be a year...who knows?!) so established that I'd just sell mine nearer the time Apple brings out the Retina Display version so am not bothered either way.
I can't get over how much I enjoy my Mini, I'm actually enjoying it much more so than my iPad 3 (display could obviously be better but it's surprisingly good), it's so light and comfortable to use and haven't had any issues with lagging or not coping with all the apps I've thrown at it. I also find I'm using it much more than the iPad 3 and not just because it's new but there's something about it that makes it much more accessible to pick up and use.
I can't wait for the Retina version but in the meantime I know I'm really going to enjoy my Mini until the time comes to upgrade. I don't regret my purchase one little bit and probably one of the most enjoyable experiences from any Apple product I've bought and I've been buying Apple products since 1988!
I bought an iPad Mini because I thought the size would be better for my needs along with the weight. I also have no idea when Apple will bring out a Retina Display for the iPad Mini (could be 6 months, could be a year...who knows?!) so established that I'd just sell mine nearer the time Apple brings out the Retina Display version so am not bothered either way.
I can't get over how much I enjoy my Mini, I'm actually enjoying it much more so than my iPad 3 (display could obviously be better but it's surprisingly good), it's so light and comfortable to use and haven't had any issues with lagging or not coping with all the apps I've thrown at it. I also find I'm using it much more than the iPad 3 and not just because it's new but there's something about it that makes it much more accessible to pick up and use.
I can't wait for the Retina version but in the meantime I know I'm really going to enjoy my Mini until the time comes to upgrade. I don't regret my purchase one little bit and probably one of the most enjoyable experiences from any Apple product I've bought and I've been buying Apple products since 1988!
Last edited:
This is getting ridiculous... who gives a crap about the spec difference between the different devices. I wanted a smaller tablet that runs iOS. The Mini does it. None of the rest do, so they are a non issue. I'm getting sick of people calling folks like me sheep, blind, etc.. The display on the iPad is fine for me. If its not for someone else, then don't buy it. But comparing specs on machines that run different operating systems when people are happy with, and have an investment in, one of the operating systems, makes no sense.
Well said...
I thought the screen looked great when I saw it at Best Buy on Saturday. And its size and weight make it perfect for women and purses...
This makes it perfect for my GF, and makes it all the more useful because she will be willing to bring it with her more often. Giving it so much more value for her than a full size iPad, just like it would for others.
Can someone who has had an iPad but also got a 16:10 or 16:9 tablet let me know was it awkward to make the transition? I ask because I've never tried anything other than iPad's and by looking at pictures the 16:10 Nexus 7 for example just looks weird. I love holding the iPad in portrait by the way.
Load a full-size web site like cnn.com on a Mini, Nexus 7, and Kindle Fire HD. You will need to rotate to landscape and/or zoom to read and operate them comfortably. In portrait mode, when viewing a web site scaled to fit horizontally, and assuming a 1" wide character to keep things simple, the Mini obviously has 163 pixels in which to render that character. Not so obviously, the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD have only about 170 pixels to render that same character. This is due to the 7" 16:10 tablets being only about 79% the width of the 7.85" 4:3 Mini, so that 1" wide character on the Mini is only .79" on the other tablets. Being smaller also means you have to squint more. Things improve in landscape mode, but the Mini gets an advantage from being able to display more vertically; IOW, it sucks less in landscape mode than the other tablets.
For larger text, like the default size in iBooks, the Mini looks fine to me. The real problem is with rendering insanely small text as in the scenario described above, and I would expect PDFs would be another problem area for all these small, low resolution tablets, but I didn't test that. In another thread, I talked about "pinching in" to shrink cnn.com down to Mini size on a Retina iPad, and at the 7.85" 4:3 Mini size, the iPad's 264 PPI still looked pretty darn good on the scaled-down web page. A 7" 16:10 tablet would need 264/.79 = 334 PPI to look as good at rendering web pages at their standard size in portrait mode. The Retina Mini will no doubt be 326 PPI like the iPhone/Touch and look fantastic; the 7" tablets would need 326/.79 = 413 PPI to be as sharp. They'll likely be considerably less than that though and look fine.
In summary, 216 > 163 isn't the whole story.
For larger text, like the default size in iBooks, the Mini looks fine to me. The real problem is with rendering insanely small text as in the scenario described above, and I would expect PDFs would be another problem area for all these small, low resolution tablets, but I didn't test that. In another thread, I talked about "pinching in" to shrink cnn.com down to Mini size on a Retina iPad, and at the 7.85" 4:3 Mini size, the iPad's 264 PPI still looked pretty darn good on the scaled-down web page. A 7" 16:10 tablet would need 264/.79 = 334 PPI to look as good at rendering web pages at their standard size in portrait mode. The Retina Mini will no doubt be 326 PPI like the iPhone/Touch and look fantastic; the 7" tablets would need 326/.79 = 413 PPI to be as sharp. They'll likely be considerably less than that though and look fine.
In summary, 216 > 163 isn't the whole story.
They're only trying to justify their position. If they can ignore that iOS is such a better tablet os than anything out there and get you focused on why you need a quad core 7" tablet that does nothing particularly well they will try their hardest.
People really should hold and play with this thing. It's like holding the iPhone 5 for the first time, it's just awesome (because of how light it is).
I bought a Mini Friday afternoon for my wife who'd been using my old iPad Original because it's smaller, lighter, fits in her purse, and replaces her carry-along Kindle reader. She loves it.
I've been using an iPhone 5 and the iPad 3 since they came out, and although I haven't bothered to do a side-by-side comparison, I noticed no difference from what I'm used to. The lack of a retina screen is no issue for us; adding weight, cost, or battery load would all be less acceptable than the lower resolution screen.
I do think Apple missed an opportunity to capture a lot of new customers by pricing it where they did. As sticky as is Apple's ecosystem (iCloud, Apps library, tech and customer support) making the first one free--or at least affordable--could have replayed the iPod's role in winning over new Apple fans.
I've been using an iPhone 5 and the iPad 3 since they came out, and although I haven't bothered to do a side-by-side comparison, I noticed no difference from what I'm used to. The lack of a retina screen is no issue for us; adding weight, cost, or battery load would all be less acceptable than the lower resolution screen.
I do think Apple missed an opportunity to capture a lot of new customers by pricing it where they did. As sticky as is Apple's ecosystem (iCloud, Apps library, tech and customer support) making the first one free--or at least affordable--could have replayed the iPod's role in winning over new Apple fans.
If 216 ppi is so much better than 163, why is 163 not better than 132?
The iPad 2 and iPad mini have the same screen resolution, but the mini has a smaller screen therefore the same number of pixels packed tighter into a smaller screen.
You had credibility until you posted this nonsense. As an owner of all the iPad generations thus far AND a user (limited in BBY and Apple stores) of the mini I can tell you with absolute certainty the mini's screen is better than the iPad 2's.
I can also tell you that the Kindle Fire HD's screen is noticably better than the N7's screen - but *gasp* they have the same resolution and ppi! How can this be!.....
Not all about resolution folks - The iPad mini's display was surprisingly (I didn't have high expectations given the resolution) nice. I had been without my iPad 3 (sold for an iPad 4) for about 10 days and went in on Friday to buy a new 4. I also wanted to check out the mini. When I first looked at it I was struck at how nice the screen was (based on my expectations). It wasn't until I put the retina iPad and the mini side-by-side that I noticed the difference - though this difference was no where near as big as the iPad2-to-iPad3.
Point being the screen res serves its purpose - all tablet apps work out of the box without any additional scaling/updates from developers (my N7 looked awful at times because of the scaled up apps). Text looks nice (though not as crisp as on the retina iPad) and the form factor/design is drool-worthy. I have a mini on my Christmas list and have already purchased one for my wife (she originally had an iPad 2).
Hey, hey, heeeeeeeeeeeey.... it's perfect for men too okay
After using the Mini a few times now I can't help but think the 7.9" is perfect for proper tablet use (everywhere, anywhere, all the time). The 9.7" feels like I'd only really want to use it in bed where I rest it on my chest
You Apple apologists are hilarious. I can't wait to see you all change your opinions when Apple upgrades the mini with a "Retina Display" in six months like they did the ipad to be more competitive with the Android/MS tablets. The fact is it's one of the worst display on a current mobile product period. It's also the most expensive mobile product in it's segment. You people are just stupid fanboys that can't bring yourselves to accept the fact that Apple blew it. It's really quite pathetic actually lol.
It sold millions anyway. We have been spoiled by the retina
The retina and the rest of the >$150 tablet market.
I got a iPad Mini to day ...
Must say. The idea is good. But wooowwww the quality is poor. It's like the screen is so thin, when you put your finger on it, the colors underneath totally blur out. Looks and feels so cheap.
But will still love the ipad mini - it just looks very cheap build.
I will mount mine in the car.
I hate badmouthing Apple but lately... :-(
Must say. The idea is good. But wooowwww the quality is poor. It's like the screen is so thin, when you put your finger on it, the colors underneath totally blur out. Looks and feels so cheap.
But will still love the ipad mini - it just looks very cheap build.
I will mount mine in the car.
I hate badmouthing Apple but lately... :-(
JUST THE HARDWARE is not what consumers are buying. Consumers are buying a complete package - hardware AND software.
The iPad Mini's internals spec-wise are worse than the competition. But that isn't the whole story. The physical exterior shell and software is much better than the competition. This is why Apple chose to price it higher.
I think Apple should have chose to price it lower, like $249-279, but they chose not to. Maybe Apple's strategy is this: The iPad Mini's $329 price is a teaser price to get people to come into the store, and consumers might be upsold to a $499 iPad, which is well worth the price difference?
The Windows / Macintosh battle in the 80's to 90's actually consisted of 4 major players: Apple, IBM (Windows), Atari and Commodore. Atari and Commodores were cheaper, by more than half, and much better computers spec-wise. The Apple was the most expensive. IBM (Windows) won due to software, even though the spec were the worst. The specs didn't matter for consumers, SOFTWARE did. I think the same thing is happening in the iPad / Android / Amazon battle.
I agree that the iPad Mini displays web pages better for a number of sites (not all, but many) when in landscape mode. However, in portrait mode, I see more of your example (cnn.com) on my 7 than on my co-worker's Mini. The "longer" screen works in its favor.
Still, this is all nit-picking. Both devices display web pages fine, and web browsers aren't the sole reason to buy smaller tablets anyway.
Not sure what you're talking about - I never experienced the color blurring out when I played with the mini both at BBY and the Apple store near me.
...makes me think of this post. And another MS fail post I read (and can't find again) that followed similar logic, stating that 4 million is an abject failure, because it makes up less than a percent of the entire Windows market. But Mountain Lion selling 3 million in 4 days? It's a resounding success, because the Mac market is so much smaller.
The problem with reading blogs for our news is that everything is an editorial, and most of the people writing them don't seem to have a clear idea of what reality is.
This is one of the first times I've heard someone say that about it. I find it built really well.
Hey, hey, heeeeeeeeeeeey.... it's perfect for men too okay
After using the Mini a few times now I can't help but think the 7.9" is perfect for proper tablet use (everywhere, anywhere, all the time). The 9.7" feels like I'd only really want to use it in bed where I rest it on my chest
It took Apple fans a few years but it looks like they are coming on board with those who knew (because they had Android tablets) that 7" (and 7.7" and 8.9" etc.) that smaller tablets had their advantages
