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
When this has a retina display and A6 processor at the minimum in a year or two, this things will be a beast to say the least
I totally agree but I really wonder how much thicker or heavier it will get because of those upgrades. I find the current thickness and weight to be fantastic.
I haven't used a Nexus 7, but I was very disappointed with the Kindle Fire when I finally got my hands on one for this reason... So much so, that I decided not to buy one.
I was going to buy it as a less expensive smaller tablet, that would also give me something different than my iPad.
I do not see a reason in owning an iPad and an iPad Mini (unless I had too much money to care, which I dont... or I used it for that sweet set up we saw on the iOS blog with an iPad Mini in place of a car's head unit).
I'm holding one right now in an Apple store. The display is beautiful. I don't know what people are complaining about. I have an iPad 3, and yeah the Mini isn't as crisp. But it's much nicer than I'd been led to believe.
You're crazy HAHAH. Apple ALWAYS has selling points, and even if they don't have many, people still buy their products. They simply couldn't do it due to battery/CPU/price. They'd need a better battery, A5X or A6, and then it would cost too much.
Actually, Apple confirmed it was only the iPad 4 and Mini sales that topped 3 million.
When comparing cheap, inexpensive products (Windows PCs, Androids) to Apple products, it's EXPECTED that the numbers are in the favor of the cheaper product. There should be more Fords sold every year than Lamborginis.
But if the OPPOSITE happened - more Lamborginis instead of Fords were sold, despite the more expensive price, clearly Lamborgini is the winner. This is the same with Apple products.
For example, there are 2 soda machines. One is stocked with Coca Cola for $1.00 a bottle. The other is stocked with RC Cola for 40 cents a bottle. They are very similar products. You would expect RC Cola to win based on price. If Coca Cola wins (more sold), it's clear that Coca Cola is the better product - people will pay extra for it.
.
Why ANYONE would buy a mini iPad is beyond me. Unless you are girl with small purse, why buy tiny, fuzzy, washed out screen??
Defeats the purpose of iPad.
I see it's primary purpose being for lecture. As someone to stands in front of a group every day to present different topics, an iPad mini is my dream cue card.
Apple sells iPhones to carriers. They count those as "sold". If you mean the number of devices in consumer hands, no one uses exact figures.
Also, you seem to have bought into the belief that hapless vendors buy crate loads of Android devices and leave them sitting around in warehouses, as opposed to buying based on demand. They buy based on demand.
IMHO on the 3 factors described:
Lower Resolution: Not a big issue for me and I understand the tradeoff for lighter weight and lower cost of the panel.
Reflectance: Being someone who is in the display business, I am a little disappointed that the reflectance is as high as it is. It sounds like the touch panel or one of the glass layers is not as well bonded as it can be.
Color Gamut: This is the one I really don't understand. It should be relatively easy to get a good color gamut with the LEDs they are using to backlight the display. Not to mention that IPS displays routinely give 75%-80% color gamuts. This would indicate they need to work on the driver a bit.
Lower Resolution: Not a big issue for me and I understand the tradeoff for lighter weight and lower cost of the panel.
Reflectance: Being someone who is in the display business, I am a little disappointed that the reflectance is as high as it is. It sounds like the touch panel or one of the glass layers is not as well bonded as it can be.
Color Gamut: This is the one I really don't understand. It should be relatively easy to get a good color gamut with the LEDs they are using to backlight the display. Not to mention that IPS displays routinely give 75%-80% color gamuts. This would indicate they need to work on the driver a bit.
They don't either Jay. I think they need to make an appointment at their Optometrist.
I totally agree but I really wonder how much thicker or heavier it will get because of those upgrades. I find the current thickness and weight to be fantastic.
That's a very good point. I'm hoping by the end of next year or 2014 they will be able to develop the product so that it can utilize the screen and handle the power it needs while keeping it thin, we'll see though.
That's a very good point. I'm hoping by the end of next year or 2014 they will be able to develop the product so that it can utilize the screen and handle the power it needs while keeping it thin, we'll see though.
So the others are better unless you are looking at them with your eyes?
Last edited by a moderator:
I could see a very significant difference. Are you possibly borderline ready for reading glasses by chance? I don't say that being rude, but something like that can possibly explain differences in reactions to these two side by side. It's very noticeable to me. Maybe something else was in play during your comparison, maybe finger print smudging from others playing with the devices before you?
For a long time, the iPad was the cheapest tablet of its size with anything near its hardware. Thus, it was the Ford.
Arguably, until the Mini, this has remained the case, or a the very least it's Toyota vs Lexus. It's not now, nor has it ever been, Ford vs. Lamborgini.
Until the Mini. And we'll see how sales pan out over the year.
- The screen that would make the iPad mini have a higher DPI than its competitors doesn't exist
- Such a screen using existing IPS technology would not get 10 hours of battery life
- Using the screens their competitors are using would be a new form factor, requiring apps to be rewritten for the new form factor, thus fragmenting the app ecosystem. It would not be an "iPad".
- The screen is NOT the same as the iPad 2. It is smaller, so the DPI is higher. Text is crisper than the iPad 2.
What, exactly, is the problem here? How could Apple have met its goals of having an iPad that is 7.9 inches, runs exactly the same software, and gets 10 hours of battery life by doing anything other than what they chose to do?
Anyone have any suggestions?
- Such a screen using existing IPS technology would not get 10 hours of battery life
- Using the screens their competitors are using would be a new form factor, requiring apps to be rewritten for the new form factor, thus fragmenting the app ecosystem. It would not be an "iPad".
- The screen is NOT the same as the iPad 2. It is smaller, so the DPI is higher. Text is crisper than the iPad 2.
What, exactly, is the problem here? How could Apple have met its goals of having an iPad that is 7.9 inches, runs exactly the same software, and gets 10 hours of battery life by doing anything other than what they chose to do?
Anyone have any suggestions?
Do I detect more of the Microsoft negative spin machine at work here? Every time Apple launches a new product, a cadre of negative critics appears from out of nowhere to rubbish it.
I assume this means you also made this post with it? Nice.
Also, there are tons of Android options and they are available on all carriers already. While iOS is only on the iPhones, and not every carrier has them.
I like the Coca Cola comparison btw.
ESPN Fantasy Football is one that immediately comes to mind because I use it so much and because the iPad app really takes advantage of the screen - but the truth is there aren't hardly any tablet specific apps - those apps that are designed to take advantage of a larger screen/high res. If you've never used an iPad and experienced these apps, I can understand you being fine with the N7 - I just wasn't. Android apps are designed to scale to any of the MANY resolutions out there on Android devices - meaning developers really can't take advantage of the increased real estate unless they build different apps for individual resolutions - a daunting task to say the least.
The apps on my iPad are designed for my iPad - this fact really is a big deal.
The iPad 3's only distinguishing feature was the Retina display. The slightly improved camera and Bluetooth were'nt enough. Apple needed two suppliers LG and Samsung and even in the beginning it was pretty rocky once supply dried up.
Bingo
Like a Phoenix of fecal matter they rise up out of the **** and stink up the place.