Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPad mini Would Happily Pay $529 for Mini w/ Retina

D

dsa420

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 23, 2007
440
14
Wish they would have followed suit of the MacBook Pro and offered retina and non retina version... I would happily pay a premium to cover the margin needed by Apple to support the retina display in the Mini..

Yes, I just posted another thread about the display cause its ****.... Will keep the Mini regardless cause of the form factor, flame away...
 
D

dsa420

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 23, 2007
440
14
It's really maddening especially since the size is just right for typing and Mail is where the screen looks at its worst. I wish Amazon/Google hadn't set the bar so low in terms of pricing, then perhaps we wouldn't be in this predicament, but then again if it weren't from Amazon/Google perhaps there would be no Mini at all...
 
Yr Blues

Yr Blues

macrumors 68030
Jan 14, 2008
2,687
889
nope, 499 is an ipad 4 with retina

2 inches larger

329 should have already had retina
 
nuckinfutz

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,539
406
Middle Earth
dsa420 said:
It's really maddening especially since the size is just right for typing and Mail is where the screen looks at its worst. I wish Amazon/Google hadn't set the bar so low in terms of pricing, then perhaps we wouldn't be in this predicament, but then again if it weren't from Amazon/Google perhaps there would be no Mini at all...
Click to expand...

iPad mini was in plan before the Nexus 7 and Amazon Kindle were delivered. Apple's not responding them with the mini...it was already being designed.
 
S

sealos

macrumors regular
May 12, 2008
169
21
That is seriously the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time. Why would you want to pay $30 MORE than a device that HAS retina display, better processor, bigger screen etc?

OP, you make NO sense.

If there is going to be any premium to some future mini with Retina, it'll come in at $399 or $100 less than the larger iPad equivalent.

But since the price point for ALL the large iPads has never changed, then I'm sure Apple will keep the price points the same for all Minis regardless of screen sense.
 
A

AdonisSMU

macrumors 604
Oct 23, 2010
7,298
3,047
Yr Blues said:
nope, 499 is an ipad 4 with retina

2 inches larger

329 should have already had retina
Click to expand...

I disagree. That wouldve made the device thicker and bulkier. Plus they may not have the tech to fit 2k pixels into a smaller space yet. We dont yet know why the compromises made were made. I wouldve added retina and just charged $399 and discontinued the iPad2
 
Yr Blues

Yr Blues

macrumors 68030
Jan 14, 2008
2,687
889
AdonisSMU said:
I disagree. That wouldve made the device thicker and bulkier. Plus they may not have the tech to fit 2k pixels into a smaller space yet. We dont yet know why the compromises made were made. I wouldve added retina and just charged $399 and discontinued the iPad2
Click to expand...

the ipod touch has retina at the same thickness

THEY FREAKING HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY

and you magically changed OP's 529 number to 399 and included retina :rolleyes:

so you're saying they don't know how to include retina (ipod touch) but you would include it at 399
 
S

seajewel

macrumors 6502
Aug 31, 2010
385
76
dsa420 said:
Wish they would have followed suit of the MacBook Pro and offered retina and non retina version... I would happily pay a premium to cover the margin needed by Apple to support the retina display in the Mini..

Yes, I just posted another thread about the display cause its ****.... Will keep the Mini regardless cause of the form factor, flame away...
Click to expand...

Honestly I would too, but I wouldn't even have ordered at that price point. It's only because I've used it for hours and can appreciate the incredible usability of the mini that I can say it was worth it. But now I prefer it way way over full iPad and the only bad part is the screen.
 
D

dsa420

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 23, 2007
440
14
sealos said:
That is seriously the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time. Why would you want to pay $30 MORE than a device that HAS retina display, better processor, bigger screen etc?

OP, you make NO sense.

If there is going to be any premium to some future mini with Retina, it'll come in at $399 or $100 less than the larger iPad equivalent.

But since the price point for ALL the large iPads has never changed, then I'm sure Apple will keep the price points the same for all Minis regardless of screen sense.
Click to expand...

Well perhaps I have more $$$ than sense.. Just trying to illustrate that I would pay more for a better screen, no need to take this post in a negative direction
 
S

sealos

macrumors regular
May 12, 2008
169
21
dsa420 said:
Well perhaps I have more $$$ than sense.. Just trying to illustrate that I would pay more for a better screen, no need to take this post in a negative direction
Click to expand...

Fair enough :) I would love to negotiate against you! Enjoy the Mini.
 
M

macbook123

macrumors 68000
Feb 11, 2006
1,869
85
+1 to the original post, with the exception that I'd say I'd be happy to pay $100 extra if the screen had 50% higher resolution (doesn't need to be a full doubling in both dimensions).

I would even pay this much if the battery life was cut in half.
 
Yr Blues

Yr Blues

macrumors 68030
Jan 14, 2008
2,687
889
macbook123 said:
+1 to the original post, with the exception that I'd say I'd be happy to pay $100 extra if the screen had 50% higher resolution (doesn't need to be a full doubling in both dimensions).

I would even pay this much if the battery life was cut in half.
Click to expand...

you can't double the horizontal without doubling the vertical or else you'll have a totally different aspect ratio

and people will be calling for cook's head if it only had 5 hours battery
 
MRU

MRU

macrumors Penryn
Aug 23, 2005
25,368
8,948
a better place
It's Not About Cost of a Retina Display...

Look lets get to the facts.

No one is manufacturing a 2048 x 1536 7.9" display just yet.

The iPad 3 & 4 require more powerful processor in order to drive the display. This A5X & A6X abridged processors also requires almost double the capacity battery and size (compared to the mini) in order to provide the 10 hour battery life.

So based on current requirements would you have happily accepted a 7.9" ipad mini that was a lot heavier and thicker than the current ipad mini with possibly dramatically reduced battery life, one that runs a lot hotter (less surface area for heat dispensation as the 3rd gen. and 4th gen. get much hotter than the mini) .

And then despite the extra weight, reduced battery performance would you still be happy to shell out the $529 your thread title boasts ?

The retina display in the mini was not feasible currently.

I've heard a lot of BS from posters on these forums the last few weeks declaring "but the iPod touch and iPhone 5 have retina displays", as justification for why the iPad mini should have had one, regardless of the fact that 1) no one is actually manufacturing one and 2) the iPhone 5 with 1136 x 640 resolution actually has LESS pixels than the iPad mini at 1024 x 768 (some 50k less pixels to be precise).


When & 'IF' apple can gain access to a processor that runs cooler and can still provide enough GPU grunt to drive a 3 million pixel display without requiring large battery or generating extra heat, then the iPad mini will get Retina.

This is not about Apple cutting costs, it's about the practicalities of putting the required hardware to drive a 2048 x 1536 display currently available into the mini's tiny frame. It simply doesnt exist in a form currently or to a the degree where the benefits (screen resolution) are outweighed by the cons (battery life, power requirements, weight etc..).

----------
Yr Blues said:
nope, 499 is an ipad 4 with retina

2 inches larger

329 should have already had retina
Click to expand...


"Should" doesn't always equal "it was currently possible"....
 
Last edited:
Buskape

Buskape

macrumors 6502
Dec 10, 2008
300
0
NGC 4889
Well at least apple is leaving you time to save money, what is it gonna be, in 6 months? So putting 100$ under your bed every month should do the trick.
 
D

dsa420

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 23, 2007
440
14
MacRumorUser said:
Look lets get to the facts.

No one is manufacturing a 2048 x 1536 7.9" display just yet.

The iPad 3 & 4 require more powerful processor in order to drive the display. This A5X & A6X abridged processors also requires almost double the capacity battery and size (compared to the mini) in order to provide the 10 hour battery life.

So based on current requirements would you have happily accepted a 7.9" ipad mini that was a lot heavier and thicker than the current ipad mini with possibly dramatically reduced battery life, one that runs a lot hotter (less surface area for heat dispensation as the 3rd gen. and 4th gen. get much hotter than the mini) .

And then despite the extra weight, reduced battery performance would you still be happy to shell out the $529 your thread title boasts ?

The retina display in the mini was not feasible currently.

I've heard a lot of BS from posters on these forums the last few weeks declaring "but the iPod touch and iPhone 5 have retina displays", as justification for why the iPad mini should have had one, regardless of the fact that 1) no one is actually manufacturing one and 2) the iPhone 5 with 1136 x 740 resolution actually has LESS pixels than the iPad mini at 1024 x 768 (some 50k less pixels to be precise).


When & 'IF' apple can gain access to a processor that runs cooler and can still provide enough GPU grunt to drive a 3 million pixel display without requiring large battery or generating extra heat, then the iPad mini will get Retina.

This is not about Apple cutting costs, it's about the practicalities of putting the required hardware to drive a 2048 x 1536 display currently available into the mini's tiny frame. It simply doesnt exist in a form currently or to a the degree where the benefits (screen resolution) are outweighed by the cons (battery life, power requirements, weight etc..).

----------




"Should" doesn't always equal "it was currently possible"....
Click to expand...

Too many variables to know for sure, but seems reasonable.. Technological constraints is a much easier pill to swallow here vs. competitive pricing pressure.

I guess we will never know for sure, would be great to have an "off the record" POV from someone at AAPL.
 
magrat22

magrat22

macrumors 6502
Apr 29, 2010
347
84
Calgary, AB
Just because they have the technology to make a retina screen for the touch and the 9.7" iPad doesn't mean they can just automatically create it for the mini. As we know with all Apple devices they design to the finest detail so they aren't just going to chop the 9.7" screen to fit the mini. Templates need to be created to make a screen of that size or who knows with Apple maybe they have a separate machine for each device, they make enough of them it would be worth there while. Building a machine to create the screen takes time and money and in business you don't waste an opportunity so if the non-retina was in the works you keep it there as it'll sell anyway and then get prepared for the next version.

I have the mini and am perfectly happy with the screen. Yes I have retina everything else but honestly with 11hrs+ of battery and a device that barely weighs anything it's a compromise I'm willing to make.

Screen isn't that bad: http://imgur.com/a/edDwY
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom