Wait, answer this. Apple said that retina was better because the distance from which you would hold the iPad, ie about reading distance was close enough to see pixles and not a sharp image. And a smaller screen would be, be default, that you would hold it even closer due to the smaller text, all things being equal. Therefore, if Apples marketing spin on the need for retina was correct and not just a can of crap, then a smaller screen, held closer to the user would require a much higher resolution screen than even the normal iPad....
And yet, somehow, NOW its perfectly fine? So which is right, you need retina in a larger screen held further way, or you do not need it in a smaller screen held closer?
Oh and next year when the retina mini is released, and everyone trades up and buys that, and Apple raves about how the text is sharper and clearer and how much better it is...and all the threads about how its "retina or nothing" as they did about the iPad 3 and MBP retina, then what of the statements that retina is not needed in a small tablet like the mini? Because you know, a brighter screen, with nice colors and tons of reflection just highlights in a brighter way how bad it is...the reflection is a bonus for all the MBP and previous gen iMac owners out there; because you know the reflection out in the sunlight might actually make your mini screen look better since you can't see it.
Really, why can't owners of the mini and defenders of the Apple crown just admit, that a better display would be great, that the current display is okay, but no where near as good as the Nexus nor the Kindle Fire HD and Apple pulled a fast one by rushing this device to market with the full plan to release a retina one next spring (just my guess) to double their mini sales to all the lemingings who ran out to buy the current one?
Really, why can't the blind Apple fans see what Apple has started doing with these device releases and upgrades over the past 2 to 3 years, it is so obvious.