iPad Mini: would you be willing to sacrifice battery life and performance to get a retina screen

[MacRumorUser]

Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa

iPhone 5 has retina screen, A6 proc., and same battery life as the iPhone 4 but it's thinner and much lighter.

So I don't get where people are saying major sacrifices have to be made for the iPad mini to get a Retina screen. My guess is that Apple has a prototype in their lab, but they are milking the novelty of the mini concept for all they can before they start pushing a workhorse model. Plus they needed to keep costs down so they would be too far out of the 7in pricing ballpark.

Well the iPhone 5 isn't pushing 2048 x 1536. It's 1136 x 640 resolution is less pixels than the iPad mini's current 1024 x 768.

They need to use the more powerful GPU (A6X) to drive the 2048 x 1536 display and that's where the necessity for bigger battery etc comes into play.

iPad 4 (45 watt battery) and it has less battery life than the 16 watt battery In the iPad mini.

If they doubled te battery in the mini to 32 Watt it would undoubtably add weight because of the increased density and thickness to the device.


The reality is that the retina display wont be in production till Q3 2013 so the chance Apple has them working in prototypes at this stage is remote.

Add they would need to revamp or revise the A6X so it moves to 22nm manufacturing in order to reduce power it consumes, this isn't road mapped till Q2/3 2013 either.

We will see a Retina iPad mini, but it won't be until Q4 2013 at the earliest, as that's when the displays are going into production.

[Chupa Chupa]

Originally Posted by MacRumorUser

Well the iPhone 5 isn't pushing 2048 x 1536. It's 1136 x 640 resolution is less pixels than the iPad mini's current 1024 x 768.

I wouldn't expect a Retina iPad Mini to be pushing 2048x1536. It's screen is 33% smaller than the iPad. Remember Retina is not about conventional resolution, it's about PPI. The iPad mini has 31 more PPI than the iPad 2 at the same resolution.

[clyde2801]

How would the IGZO screen featured in the mashable rumor about the 2 affect power consumption?

I'm thinking this model is to whet everyone's appetites about the size and form factor, and prepare everyone for the two.

And I'm okay if this is the case, sound like pretty new technology that won't be ready until late 2013. If they released a model that has tech that's available now, I'd be pissed.

And even more so if I actually bought a current mini!

----------
Nevermind, found the answer myself:

http://www.cultofmac.com/196382/an-i...single-charge/


Up to 24 hours on a single charge?!? Egads, what kind of sorcery is this?!?

[KittyKatta]

Originally Posted by darngooddesign

It's not that it can't be done, of course it can, it's that it can't be done without getting thicker and heavier.

A lot of times people just make up things in order to defend Apple, so if that is true then please cite your source because I'd love to read the reasons why.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa

I wouldn't expect a Retina iPad Mini to be pushing 2048x1536. It's screen is 33% smaller than the iPad. Remember Retina is not about conventional resolution, it's about PPI. The iPad mini has 31 more PPI than the iPad 2 at the same resolution.

What would the resolution be then?

This exact issue has been extensively discussed here. The crux is that Apple has chosen a pixel doubling strategy as it's the only way to have no scaling artifacts. They could choose an alternative resolution, and make developers update their apps, but in the meantime, it would break compatibility with every existing app.

[maflynn]

Originally Posted by HowardSmith

Just wait until Spring (or maybe sooner) and the Mini2 will have what you wish and likely be the same size.

Apple is not going to release a retina display this spring, its too soon. All the rumors have been that parts manufactures may ramp up production for a 3Q release.

[Chupa Chupa]

Originally Posted by zhenya

What would the resolution be then?

This exact issue has been extensively discussed here. The crux is that Apple has chosen a pixel doubling strategy as it's the only way to have no scaling artifacts. They could choose an alternative resolution, and make developers update their apps, but in the meantime, it would break compatibility with every existing app.

The next gen LCD panels are higher pixel density in the same size screen of today's devices.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa

The next gen LCD panels are higher pixel density in the same size screen of today's devices.

Yes, that's true. You still need to define a resolution though.

If it's not 1024x768, and it's not 2048x1536, it must be somewhere in-between. If it's in-between, there are no other resolutions that are an exact integer multiple, so you will either have to do scaling, which will create artifacts, or define a new resolution for developers to work with, breaking existing app compatibility.

[BrennerM]

Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa

iPhone 5 has retina screen, A6 proc., and same battery life as the iPhone 4 but it's thinner and much lighter.

So I don't get where people are saying major sacrifices have to be made for the iPad mini to get a Retina screen. My guess is that Apple has a prototype in their lab, but they are milking the novelty of the mini concept for all they can before they start pushing a workhorse model. Plus they needed to keep costs down so they would be too far out of the 7in pricing ballpark.

iPad mini screen is about 4X the size (area) of the iPhone 5, therefore it requires 4X the illumination, meaning that it would consume significantly more battery life with a current-gen Retina screen.

[Kendo]

I think we all wish the iPad mini had Retina and it is easy to complain about the screen, but would you really rather have had the Retina display at the expense of a thicker and heavier iPad? What is the lesser of two evils? The way it is now, or a much bulkier unit?

[zhenya]

Don't forget to add 'at $429...'

[metsjetsfan]

There is an in app purchase for $99.99 that allows the current ipad mini to turn to retina. Don't people here know this.

ok sorry but I would definitely sacrifice 2-3 hours of batt life for it. Probably not any significant weight no more than 10-15 grams probably.

[ditzy]

To me the advantage of the mini is that it is so thin and light. If it was twice as thick or twice as heavy I would rather buy the 9.7 inch. It wouldn't be worth it for me to be more or less be carrying the same weight but losing all that extra screen real estate.
However if it remained the same weight more or less, added a retina screen, but added $50 to $100 I would buy.

[Yr Blues]

no i wouldn't

[ZBoater]

Originally Posted by Yr Blues

no i wouldn't

Me neither. I would have kept my iPad 3...

[saving107]

Originally Posted by metsjetsfan

There is an in app purchase for $99.99 that allows the current ipad mini to turn to retina. Don't people here know this.

So there really is an app for everything

As to the original question, No. I had the original iPad and iPad 2 and just speaking about weight, the iPad mini is at a good spot. Though the iPad mini has the same resolution as the iPad mini, because of its smaller screen size the PPI is greater than the iPad 2 and currently I am not having any issues with readying small fonts on webpages or iBooks.

[HowardSmith]

Originally Posted by maflynn

Apple is not going to release a retina display this spring, its too soon. All the rumors have been that parts manufactures may ramp up production for a 3Q release.

Before the 3rd quarter.

[CTHarrryH]

Maybe a couple of hours of battery life because it is great now and more than fits my needs. I would not for significant weight or thickness. I haven't found the display to be that bad but I don't also have a retina device with which to constantly compare.

[ixodes]

Originally Posted by Kendo

I think we all wish the iPad mini had Retina <snip>

Uh... No, you're assumption is just that.

Apple wants us to desire retina, that's the big lure they use, to get people to buy replacements for their perfectly good non-retina Macs & iDevices.

It's brilliant... and typically Apple.

[ZivaD]

No, utterly stupid,if you want a brick get a regular ipad

[jimHdk]

No.

[darngooddesign]

Originally Posted by KittyKatta

A lot of times people just make up things in order to defend Apple, so if that is true then please cite your source because I'd love to read the reasons why.

Compare the iPad 2 and the iPad 3. Barring new battery and screen technology, you need a bigger and heavier battery to drive that screen.

On the plus side, since Apple likes to keep their price points the same on iPads and iPhones, while the current Mini feels like it's too expensive for the specs, a Retina Mini priced at 330 will feel better.

[ActionableMango]

There is a lot I would do. I would pay a lot more. I would accept less battery life. I would accept slightly thicker and slightly heavier.

But no, not twice as thick and twice as heavy.

It is obvious that the iPad3 is an exercise in compromise. We're talking about a tablet that has more pixels than the vast majority of full-size desktop monitors. I liked the screen, but didn't like the tablet behind it.

As compelling as the larger iPads are, my first and only iPad is the Mini, and it had nothing to do with price.

[robanga]

Likely i would not have. Part of the mini's appeal is it lightness.

[d123]

Another No, I am happy enough with the current display, it is perfectly functional and does all I want.

If there was a retina at the same weight and size but slightly more expensive (£60/$100) I would buy one.

But bigger/heavier/thicker? No.