Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPad

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:31 PM   #26
macbook123
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yr Blues View Post
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
Multiply both by the same factor is what I meant. 1.5 instead of 2.0.
macbook123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:32 PM   #27
magrat22
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by magrat22 View Post
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
Sorry just noticed MacRumorUser said pretty much the same thing. That's what I get for not reading the whole thread.
__________________
11.6' MacBook Air l iPod Nano 8G 16gb l iPhone 5s 32gb |iPad Mini Retina 32gb l iPhone 6 128gb (soon)
magrat22 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:40 PM   #28
reputationZed
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: 3455′42″N 8044′41″W (34.928201, -80.744835)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clyde2801 View Post
Well, time will tell. Apple will either release a retina with an a5x or a6x, and he'll be wrong. Or they'll not release one, and refuse to do so until there's a newer, cooler running chip, and we'll be wrong.
Surely not an A5x. Huge SoC, way to big to be practical in a 7" tablet. I'd be willing to bet the A5x was half the reason Apple killed off the 3rd gen. The next mini will most likely be some variant of the A6 though not necessarily an A6x. Would a 7" retina need a four core GPU? My hope is that by the time the mini gen 2 launches Apple will be producing A6 rev 2's on TSMC's 20nm process.
reputationZed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:41 PM   #29
Yr Blues
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, Texas
Quote:
Originally Posted by macbook123 View Post
Multiply both by the same factor is what I meant. 1.5 instead of 2.0.
then everyone's still going to have to remake their apps. all of the diagonal will look like zigzags.
Yr Blues is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:46 PM   #30
MacRumorUser
macrumors Demi-God
 
MacRumorUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by reputationZed View Post
. Would a 7" retina need a four core GPU? .
Technically 2048 x 1536 is 2048 x 1536 regardless of it being 7.9" or 9.7" so if a 9.7 requires that oomph, the 7.9" would equally need the same also.
__________________
A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.
MacRumor:User
Microsoft MVP : Macintosh
MacRumorUser is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:50 PM   #31
seajewel
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
I wouldn't mind a better processor for more speed either. Def having to wait a while for webpages to load. I know there are compromises required for the weight and battery life but I've no doubt the mini 2 will be great.
__________________
Dropbox! Click for an extra 500MB free storage for both of us! Thank you!
seajewel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 03:58 PM   #32
reputationZed
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: 3455′42″N 8044′41″W (34.928201, -80.744835)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumorUser View Post
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..).

----------




"Should" doesn't always equal "it was currently possible"....
I tend to agree that the decision to go non retina was for technical reasons and not to meet a price point. However I think it's also possible that the decision was based on a design consideration. A product is usually designed around several goals the designer and engineers want to hit. It's impossible to hit all these goals so the design team needs to set one or two core goals that are more or less laid in stone. Compromises are made with the other goals to ensure the core goals are met. It's quite possible that the core goals for the mini were thinness and lightest possible weight. So even if the retina was possible at this time it may have been rejected if incorporating the higher resolution screen would have resulted in a thicker or heavier mini.
reputationZed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:03 PM   #33
bidwalj
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
I would too but I understand the costs for them may hurt their profit margins. They already have a lower profit margin on this thing compared to other devices they sell.

I also get they want to keep apps working so they couldn't mess with the resolution. What really makes me upset is they didn't even try to laminate the screen like the iphone 5 and make it a bit better. The screen lacks no doubt but they could have done all they can to make it look as nice as possible.
bidwalj is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:13 PM   #34
lianlua
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yr Blues View Post
nope, 499 is an ipad 4 with retina

2 inches larger
Yep, and actually cheaper to produce. The iPad mini would need all the same hardware as the iPad 4, but it's got to fit in a smaller space with a much more expensive display. Smaller doesn't mean cheaper.

For comparison (cost estimates from iSuppli)
iPhone 5 326 ppi display assembly: $44 [6.7 sq in] =$6.56 per sq in
iPad 4 264ppi display assembly: $127 [45.2] = $2.81
Nexus 7 216ppi display assembly: $52 [22] = $2.36
iPad mini 163ppi display assembly: $57 [29.6] = $1.93
Retina MBP 220ppi display (LCD+backlight only): $160 [106.6] = $1.50
Non-retina MBP 110ppi display (LCD+backlight only): $68 [106.6] = $0.64

The iPad mini's 326ppi retina display would cost somewhere between $140-190 assuming they could hit the same yields (which they can't yet). They'd be selling it for at least the same price as the iPad 4, only it would also need a much bigger battery than the current mini, so it'd be a lot thicker, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yr Blues View Post
the ipod touch has retina at the same thickness

THEY FREAKING HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY
The iPod touch is 1/5 the size of the iPad mini's screen. Backlighting that much area takes a ton more power and a different design. The current iPad mini would need a battery 65%+ larger with a retina display. That's a considerable bump in thickness.

The iPod touch with retina display has a battery of just 1030mAh. The non-retina mini needs 4490mAh. A retina mini would suck down around 7500. For comparison, the full-size iPad has an 11,560mAh battery.

Last edited by lianlua; Nov 3, 2012 at 04:27 PM.
lianlua is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:19 PM   #35
HKPDW
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post
I wouldve added retina and just charged $399 and discontinued the iPad2
I too, was wondering why Apple didn't just discontinue the IPad 2 and release a $399 retina Mini. Seems like Apple is content selling old tech as long as people continue to buy it...
HKPDW is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:20 PM   #36
reputationZed
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: 3455′42″N 8044′41″W (34.928201, -80.744835)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumorUser View Post
Technically 2048 x 1536 is 2048 x 1536 regardless of it being 7.9" or 9.7" so if a 9.7 requires that oomph, the 7.9" would equally need the same also.
Good point.
reputationZed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:26 PM   #37
caoap1
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
retina ipad mini will not come out until 2014
caoap1 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:31 PM   #38
AdonisSMU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yr Blues View Post
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

so you're saying they don't know how to include retina (ipod touch) but you would include it at 399
Yeah I see what you are saying but I think Apple was trying to hit a certain price point. It's likely that they couldn't get to a $329 price tag with retina display. The touch is already $300 for retina display and it's half the size of a mini iPad. So we are talking $500 bucks minimum. i would've gotten rid of the lower end iPad 4 and instead done a retina display mini iPad at $500 bucks. At least give people the option to pay more if they are willing to. That's all I am saying.
AdonisSMU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:35 PM   #39
AJsAWiz
macrumors 68000
 
AJsAWiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ohio
Send a message via AIM to AJsAWiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsa420 View Post
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.
Makes sense to me also.
__________________
AJsAWiz
AJsAWiz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:35 PM   #40
AdonisSMU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by caoap1 View Post
retina ipad mini will not come out until 2014
I hope it comes out in March honestly.
AdonisSMU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 04:45 PM   #41
MrXiro
macrumors 68030
 
MrXiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsa420 View Post
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...
I don't think it's a matter of money that they didn't put the Retina in the iPad Mini... it probably had more to do with the combination of not wanting to cannibalize iPad 4 sales with a smaller Retina Display device and not wanting to stick a fatter back to power the iPad Mini.

I also firmly believe that the iPad Mini is the entry level device into the iPad line with the iPad 4 more of the "pro" of the series.
__________________
Whole lotta , very little $.
MrXiro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 05:38 PM   #42
dsa420
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Sadly I suspect we won't see retina until next summer. Clearly I have no foundation for this assumption just my hunch.

I hope I am wrong..
dsa420 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 05:54 PM   #43
lianlua
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrXiro View Post
I don't think it's a matter of money that they didn't put the Retina in the iPad Mini... it probably had more to do with the combination of not wanting to cannibalize iPad 4 sales with a smaller Retina Display device and not wanting to stick a fatter back to power the iPad Mini.
They'd have no problem cannibalizing the iPad 4 sales with a retina mini.

If they could have done it, even at $499, they'd have nothing to lose by doing so. It's a simple matter of it being flat-out undoable right now. They could keep the existing iPad mini at $329 and iPad 2 at $399 (bargain A5 family) and offer a separate retina iPad line in both sizes at higher prices (premium A6 family). They'd make their margin either way, so at the end of the day they wouldn't care which product you bought.

The problem is that right now, a retina iPad mini would cost more than its big brother, which is a non-starter. We won't see a retina mini until they can price it at or below $499. Could be 8 months, could be 2 years.
lianlua is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 05:55 PM   #44
macbook123
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yr Blues View Post
then everyone's still going to have to remake their apps. all of the diagonal will look like zigzags.
Can you explain this a bit more for me? Why does it look like zigzags for 1.5, but not for 2.0?
macbook123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:38 PM   #45
dsa420
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
According to a source "close to Apple" the reason retina was not included in current Mini is 2 fold:


"- cost to produce 7.9" retina currently too high for the lower price point of this product
- AAPL's ODM partner could not have retina ready for this launch time frame

Mini 2 will remain at $329 and include retina, with Mini 1 dropping to $279 or $269. "

None of this seems surprising and has been speculated by many others on this board. Just thought I would pass along the information that was shared with me.
dsa420 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:56 PM   #46
richy d
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post
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
The iphone 5 & ipod touch have retina & are not bulky.
richy d is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 05:03 PM   #47
darngooddesign
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Enjoy your heavier & thicker Mini.
__________________
128 giggity... giggity... gigg-i-ty
Lego Apple Store
darngooddesign is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPad

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad Mini: iPad mini retina = 1st gen retina = bad Mjmar iPad 5 Jun 5, 2014 09:23 AM
TB and retina MBP vs iMac and iPad mini retina Cyborg21 Buying Tips and Advice 4 Oct 29, 2013 09:17 AM
Would you pay $300 more for a CMBP with Retina? zipur MacBook Pro 23 Sep 14, 2013 04:17 PM
Resolved: I'm Going to Sell Retina MacBook Pro and Live on Retina iPad Mini, BUT I NEED........ HappyDude20 iPad 40 Sep 2, 2013 02:09 AM
Apple's 2013 Product Roadmap Predictions: Multiple iPhones, Retina iPad Mini, All-Retina MacBook Pros MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 381 Mar 6, 2013 12:27 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC