"All sorts of reasons, chief amongst them battery, thinness and cost issues (screen)"
How is any of that Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt?
Really? You need me to explain?
"If the iPad Mini gets a Retina Display,
1) the battery will die so much quicker and be so much heavier!
2) it's going to be SO thick, maybe even 0.13" or more than 50% thicker!!!
3) it'll end up costing WAY more than the full-sized iPad!"
The Nexus and Kindle are smaller screens, are thicker and heavier than the iPad mini.
Yes, the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD 7" have smaller screens, but with 30% HIGHER resolution. That's the point.
The Nook HD weighs 315 grams compared to the iPad Mini which weighs 308 grams.
So yes, the iPad Mini is "lighter" by 7 grams or around 2% less than the Nook HD, which I guess for you is a fair counter-balance to having 65% less resolution.
They are also sold at close to cost, or even at a loss.
I agree and I'm not saying Apple should do the same or not expect to make a tidy profit with their products, which is entirely their right and why any company is in business.
My point is that I can't imagine Apple not being able to produce a "Retina"-level iPad Mini, ESPECIALLY with a resolution of 1536x1152, when its competitors have all done so with screens of comparable PPI AND within a reasonable cost.
Additionally, Apple can't just bump the mini up to a "retina-level" resolution, they have to double the resolution, or come up with yet another screen size (which they will not do unless truly necessary).
Well that's debatable and no one has truly answered why that's not possible. All I'm reading is "it'll look bad!" and "vector graphics can't scale like that!" which I'm not sure is even true.
Case in point, when an iPad user does the "pinch-to-zoom" and enlarges the screen size by 50% or decreases it by 75%, how would this look different to scaling the iPad app's resolution up 50% or down 75% to 1536x1152?
I "pinch-to-zoom" all the time on my iPad, and not just on "photos and videos", but in all types of apps with "vector graphics", and well beyond just a 50% zoom in or 75% zoom out and everything in between, and to me it always looks fine.
It seems people here equate scaling with primitive techniques like proximal interpolation, which of course will result in jagged edges and artifacts, even at 2x multiple, but there's a lot more sophisticated ways to scale like utilizing anti-aliasing algorithms or vectorization.
And isn't the whole premise behind "Retina Display" is that the naked eye can't make out the individual pixels on the screen?
The 1536x1152 resolution on the iPad Mini's 7.9" screen would be 245 PPI which is comparable to the full sized iPad's PPI of 264, and higher than the PPI of the MacBook Pro 15" which is 220 so it could rightly be considered "Retina".
So since the eye can't even resolve individual pixels on a Retina Display, how is it the 1536x1152 resolution on the 7.9" iPad Mini screen would produce "jagged edges" or "artifacts"?
I don't think anyone is saying that a retina iPad mini is impossible (so asking how "Apple can't" is a straw man), but that it's not possible to do, while still fitting into the parameters Apple wishes to meet.
If you read my sentence in the context of the post, you would know I was specifically addressing those "parameters" that the poster had given as the reasons why Apple "can't" put a Retina Display in the iPad Mini, and not ascribing to anyone the idea that Apple couldn't produce a Retina Display iPad Mini no holds barred, which has now become YOUR "straw man" argument.
Specifically, the "parameters" he mentioned were "battery, thinness and cost issues" which I went on to address, as well as the fact that not only did they achieve the "Retina"-level screen, but also added faster CPUs and double the RAM at 65% the price of the iPad Mini.
Or simply, look at it in reverse. If Apple could make a retina mini, while still keeping price, size, weight, pixel dimension, and production rate the same, why wouldn't they?
Seriously?
It's called "planned obsolescence". Apple purposely "gimped" the iPad Mini with a low resolution screen so they could release Retina Display on the next model and everyone would be compelled to "upgrade" again.
About "still keeping price, size, weight...", how do you reconcile that with the fact that the iPad 3 was actually heavier AND thicker than the iPad 2?
Of course they would. The fact that they haven't strongly implies that at least one or more of those are unattainable at the same time. And that also matches with a reasonable assessment of the current state of the technology involved.
This is, of course, EXACTLY what Apple WANTS you to believe.
Apple has always held back technology and released timed the release of certain "new" features not based on any real technological hurdles or production cost issues, but purely as part of a pre-planned "upgrade" schedule.
After all, are we to believe that phone cameras were so costly and technologically unavailable in 2010 when the first-gen iPad came out that no cameras were included at all?
Or that cost-effective 1.2MP FaceTime cameras were only available just recently when with the release of iPad 4?
And that STEREO SPEAKERS are still such an advanced, unattainable and future technology that they couldn't possible be included on a $499 tablet PC?