I would think that upgrading the iPad mini to a retina display would require a concurrent bump in the processor to handle the increased resolution, which would cause a larger battery drain. The iPad mini has a lower clocked processor specifically to lower battery drain because it has a significantly smaller battery than the full size iPad. I think this is probably the reason why they didn't include a retina display in the current gen, because Apple needed the battery life to be competitive with other tablets on the market.
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.
All iPads Why iPad mini won't get a retina display just yet...
- Thread starter giraffeboy27
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah. Unfortunately, its all interdependent. I absolutely love the battery life on the iPad mini as it is. I'd go so far as to say I would NOT sacrifice battery life for a higher resolution. I would like to see 1GB of RAM though!
I get the sense that there's a misunderstanding about what "Retina" means, how the pixel density comes into play, and why Apple doubles the numbers.
The idea behind "Retina display" is that the human eye can't distinguish individual pixels at the expected viewing length. As one post above correctly stated, the smaller screens tend to be used closer to a person's face and thus need a higher pixel density than larger screens that are held farther away.
So why would the Mini need to have a pixel density of 326 when the current iPad has a pixel density of 264 PPI, even though they're both likely to be held at similar distances? It's for the same reason why the iPad Mini has a higher pixel density than the iPad 2: resolutions for developers. In order to prevent creating a fourth resolution for app developers to worry about the iPad Mini runs at 1024x768, same as the iPad 2. However, bearing a smaller screen it required a greater pixel density to accommodate that resolution.
Why the doubling of the pixel density to achieve Retina? If the iPad Mini had 264 PPI like the full-sized iPad it would be a "retina" display and its pixels would be very difficult to make out, but the resolution would be something unique. Doubling the pixels (and the resolution) makes scaling very easy for app developers to pull off. As a result, there is little choice but for Apple to double the pixel density here, as well.
The Mini's display is better than the iPad 2 but it is far from being a retina display. I write notes on my Mini all day. I never had difficulty reading my notes on my iPad 3, even though my writing is small and I used a setting for thin brush strokes (this is partly by necessity - able to fit more information on the screen at once). With the Mini, I struggle to read my writing and frequently need to enlarge and zoom around the screen. I would not trade the battery life for a retina display, but the retina display will greatly improve the usability of the device for me.
I think 326 ppi for iPad mini makes sense since if I were to get it I would use it a lot closer than I would use an iPad. Secondly in the next gen Apple could differentiate between the two by boasting significantly better graphical performance on the iPad while the iPad mini would be about equivalent in graphical performance to current gen. If the next iPad is significantly thinner and lighter I might even prefer that over the retina iPad mini so in a sense a thinner and lighter next gen iPad could be cannibalizing retina iPad mini sales. They could also boast significantly better battery life, screen quality, stereo speakers, brightness, higher base model memory on the next gen iPad. There would then be a significant chance of the next gen iPad cannibalizing retina iPad mini sales.
Good point. I played with a mini-sized $129 Nook in Barnes and Noble the other day. It's got a really nice screen. Better than the mini. If all I wanted to do was surf the internet it would be perfect for me. The competition are catching up.