Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPad

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 28, 2012, 04:05 PM   #26
google
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
IF they wanted retina on the mini it would have already be on it.

They don't so they can release the next one with it so you will want to upgrade.

Why are you folks so nieve and still think Apple is thinking about you and want you first.

They got you where they want you. You will buy it no matter what.
google is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2012, 05:18 PM   #27
Mrbobb
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
I say this:

Apple used to not care about what everybody else did. Apple make their own stuff and that was that.

The fact that the Mini is born out of competition with the Kindle/Nexus starts a new chapter in Apple history.

Will see what happens.
Mrbobb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 08:51 PM   #28
cnev3
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrbobb View Post
I say this:

Apple used to not care about what everybody else did. Apple make their own stuff and that was that.

The fact that the Mini is born out of competition with the Kindle/Nexus starts a new chapter in Apple history.

Will see what happens.
That was Jobs point of view. He made decisions based on his own personal ideas and convictions, and not what shareholders, consumers, or market researchers are asking for.

People bashed the original iPad when it was first announced, and look where it is now. Many financial analysts and tech bloggers thought the Apple Store was going to be a multi million dollar flop and suffer the same fate as Gateway stores, but Jobs pushed forward despite people saying it was going to fail. Now it grosses more money per square foot than any brick and mortar retail store.

Tim Cook isn't operating on his own personal ideas and convictions. He's a crowd pleaser, and is more a follower than a leader.
cnev3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 09:26 PM   #29
sagnier
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZBoater View Post
Steve dissed the 7" tablet concept.

The iPad mini is not a 7" tablet. It's 7.85. It's wider and bigger, although thinner and lighter.

Oh, the mini has Steve's fingerprints in it. You can be sure of that.

WHAT?! i thought they fixed this with the 3GS. ok now im definitely not buying one.
sagnier is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 09:35 PM   #30
Mak47
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Harrisburg, PA
The price is not the reason it doesn't have a Retina display.

Here is where the tech is as of now:

iPad 3/4 require additional graphics capability to power the display. This uses a lot of power.

The displays are also power hogs.

In order to put a Retina display in a tablet, and have a battery that lasts more than 3 hours you need to include an enormous battery. Enormous batteries require more space and add a ton of weight. You could add thickness to accommodate the physical size of the battery, but it would end up weighing just about the same as the full size iPad.

People are loving the iPad mini because of it's light weight and super thin form factor. If you're going to make it thick and heavy, what's the point of making it at all?

Over the next 1-3 years we'll see IGZO displays become usable in mass quantities. When that happens, power consumption will be reduced dramatically. We'll also see Apple's standard ARM chips become more capable at pushing lots of pixels. When those things happen, we'll see a Retina display in the mini. Until then, we won't.

Even when we do see a Retina mini, the display will likely be in the ballpark of 1600x1200 (+/- a few dozen pixels each way). A more powerful standard ARM chip (like iPhone) will be able to power that resolution much faster than 2048x1536. It will also require less power to do so.

Right now there are effectively 3 resolutions for iOS developers to work on (iPhone 3Gs being dead). Adding a 4th wouldn't be a popular idea. Within 2 years at the most iPhone 4/4S, old iPod touch will be dead, along with their resolutions. iPad mini will have gained a significant user base and developers will want to build for it as a result, so the new resolution won't be a huge problem.

Factoring all those things in, it's clear that there are legitimate reasons for there not being a Retina display in the mini. It's easy to say it's all about money and greed, but it just isn't.
Mak47 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 09:51 PM   #31
ejb190
macrumors 65816
 
ejb190's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: At the intersection of Indy Cars and Amish Buggies
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnev3 View Post
I think if Jobs was alive, he would have made the iPad mini with the retina display
And you have inside knowledge to know that Steve Jobs had access to the right size Retina display, with no quality control issues, at a competitive price and an adequate supply within in the desired timeframe for production, but no one else at Apple could have done this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnev3 View Post
When Apples at it's best, they focus on making a good product, not products to win back marketshare...
When Apple is at its best they are making products that the public hasn't figured out they need yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Oh lookie here, another person who thinks he knows what Jobs would have done better than those who have worked with him for years.
Exactly!
ejb190 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 09:58 PM   #32
jarofclay73
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
So you do think Apple really wanted a non-retina display to get at the current price point or maybe there were supply issues that couldn't guarantee a certain number of iPad Minis?
__________________
13" 2012 MacBook Air, 1.8 Ghz Intel Core i5, 4GB, 256GB SSD
iPhone 5, 64GB, AT&T, Slate
iPad Air, 128GB, AT&T, White
Apple TV, 1080p
jarofclay73 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 10:07 PM   #33
Spungoflex
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnev3 View Post
I think if Jobs was alive, he would have made the iPad mini with the retina display, and priced it at $399/$499/$599. He would have seen a 7" iPad existing because of it's form factor, not because of the lower price point.

There's no way they could make the iPad in the same ballpark price wise as the Kindle Fire. If someone wants a $200 tablet, let them buy a $200 tablet.

When Apples at it's best, they focus on making a good product, not products to win back marketshare by updating it with a new model that's inferior to it's predecessor, and effectively degrading the allure of the brand.

I see it as a compromise, and a poor decision for Apple in the long run. Stubborn, idealistic Jobs would have never allowed it. I think Tim Cook operates at the whim of the shareholders, and that could be the cause of Apples demise. History tends to repeat itself.




Spungoflex is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 10:24 PM   #34
NMF
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
This is a dumb thread. Apple has directly competed for marketshare via price with the iPod Nano, Mac mini, etc. This is not unprecedented. It also makes good business sense. It's exactly what "Steve would have done."
__________________
MacBook Air 13" (2013) Mac mini (2011) OS X Server + Drobo 5D
AirPort Time Capsule (2013) iPhone 5 TV 3
NMF is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 10:30 PM   #35
ttexxan
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Geeze guys not rocket science. Guaranteed jobs new about the mini. This is the way apple operates. I fully expect in 6 mo a retina display. They are not going to give away the farm all at once. Apple knows all the fans will buy now and then yet once again to have a retina display when it comes out. How hard is that to understand it business
ttexxan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 10:31 PM   #36
reputationZed
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: 3455′42″N 8044′41″W (34.928201, -80.744835)
The only one who knows what Jobs would or would not have done died last October. "This is how Steve would have saved ..." Is becoming the Deus ex machina of 2012
reputationZed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 10:33 PM   #37
Joey51
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Steve just talked to me on my ouji board-
He said use the mini now -when battery technology gets better which is what he is working on right now ,it will get retina and be the same size with
10-12 hrs of battery life
He said the fanboys should quit whining and using his name in vain

THATS WHAT HE SAID MY CHILDREN
Joey51 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:04 PM   #38
iHeartsteve
macrumors 6502a
 
iHeartsteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koziakauzu View Post
Yup, the new connector was ready anyway, but it would have hold off a lot of people from upgrading their iPads...and they had to launch a new model at that time.
The iPhone was the only way for them to force people to accept the lightning connector.
yes I agree with this. they thoughtfully planned out which device would first get the new connector.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarofclay73 View Post
So you do think Apple really wanted a non-retina display to get at the current price point or maybe there were supply issues that couldn't guarantee a certain number of iPad Minis?
yes, at least I think so no one knows for sure, unless some apple employee from corporate quotes steve jobs last dying words hahah.

if there was short supply of getting us retina display, they should have just waited longer. we waited forever for this 7 inch size that it wouldn't have mattered if they waited 6 more months. people were actually beginning to believe there would never be a 7inch tablet. tim cook just wanted this thing out before the holiday season to make money. AND what do you know, ipad 4 with the new connector also comes out!
__________________
iPhone5 64G
iPad3 32G LTE
AppleTV3 | iPad mini 16G LTE
MacBook Pro | 15 Retina Display
iHeartsteve is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:09 PM   #39
aristobrat
macrumors Demi-God
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Virginia Beach
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipZap View Post
Considering that Steve did not want the ipad mini configuration I would say he had ZERO to do with this product.
April 29, 2004 - Steve Jobs says it again: no video iPod

October 12, 2005 - Fifth Generation iPod Now Plays Music, Photos & Video

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spungoflex View Post
three awesome pictures
The Mac mini and iPod mini were the first things that sprung into mind when the OP mentioned that Apple's at its worst when it releases newer models that are inferior to preceding models, just to win back marketshare.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by iHeartsteve View Post
if there was short supply of getting us retina display, they should have just waited longer.
How much longer would the new battery technology have taken?

Didn't the iPad 3's retina display require the battery to be 40% larger than the iPad 2's, to get about the same run-time?
aristobrat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:09 PM   #40
GeekLawyer
macrumors Demi-God
 
GeekLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The post is coming from inside the house!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spungoflex View Post
You win. Nice job!
GeekLawyer is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:11 PM   #41
christophermdia
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankied22 View Post
It's been stated that Steve had a hand in the next few years of products at Apple before he passed away. To think he had nothing to do with the mini is just silly. Apple plans these products so far in advance.
yes....of course he knew....R&D is not a 1 year process.....what you see coming out today is probably 5 year old technology, just takes that long to figure out the how....
christophermdia is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:11 PM   #42
Noisemaker
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by F123D View Post
So they clearly knew they were screwing over customers who just bought an iPad 3 when they released the iPad 4.
How were they screwed over? They got the product that was advertised, and surprisingly, they still work. Just like they did the day before the iPad 4 was announced.

Whiners.

Noisemaker is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 06:29 AM   #43
ZipZap
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mak47 View Post
The price is not the reason it doesn't have a Retina display.

Here is where the tech is as of now:

iPad 3/4 require additional graphics capability to power the display. This uses a lot of power.

The displays are also power hogs.

In order to put a Retina display in a tablet, and have a battery that lasts more than 3 hours you need to include an enormous battery. Enormous batteries require more space and add a ton of weight. You could add thickness to accommodate the physical size of the battery, but it would end up weighing just about the same as the full size iPad.

People are loving the iPad mini because of it's light weight and super thin form factor. If you're going to make it thick and heavy, what's the point of making it at all?

Over the next 1-3 years we'll see IGZO displays become usable in mass quantities. When that happens, power consumption will be reduced dramatically. We'll also see Apple's standard ARM chips become more capable at pushing lots of pixels. When those things happen, we'll see a Retina display in the mini. Until then, we won't.

Even when we do see a Retina mini, the display will likely be in the ballpark of 1600x1200 (+/- a few dozen pixels each way). A more powerful standard ARM chip (like iPhone) will be able to power that resolution much faster than 2048x1536. It will also require less power to do so.

Right now there are effectively 3 resolutions for iOS developers to work on (iPhone 3Gs being dead). Adding a 4th wouldn't be a popular idea. Within 2 years at the most iPhone 4/4S, old iPod touch will be dead, along with their resolutions. iPad mini will have gained a significant user base and developers will want to build for it as a result, so the new resolution won't be a huge problem.

Factoring all those things in, it's clear that there are legitimate reasons for there not being a Retina display in the mini. It's easy to say it's all about money and greed, but it just isn't.
Well stated and absolutely accurate. Notwithstanding retina, we could still see display improvements but no retina for a while.
ZipZap is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 06:55 AM   #44
rockyroad55
macrumors 68040
 
rockyroad55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Phila, PA
I wish people would stop complaining about lack of retina. This device is really nice to carry around now. The iPad 3 wasn't bad to carry around but this is just better. I believe the mini's main selling points are size and portability. I mean, heck, when Phil introduced it, the first thing he said was that it can now fit in one hand. The mini is an alternative to the regular iPad, not a replacement.
__________________
The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it.
rockyroad55 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 07:25 AM   #45
(Marty)
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapnJackGig View Post
There's a lot of bad decisions involved with the Mini. Steve probably had his hands in some of them. He wasn't the brightest guy all the time. The decision to make the Mini a premium priced product but filled with inferior hardware was a lame one. That's a huge reason for the large jump in Kindle Fire HD sales that occurred immediately after the Mini announcement. Apple had a chance to wipe out the competitors in the 7 inch tablet market, but instead they just made the other options more attractive. Mini will cannibalize iPod Touch and regular iPad sales. Comparing it to the 7 inch tablets was also really lame on Apple's part. They missed the point of why those smaller tablets are selling so well - video. The screen dimensions on the Nexus are much better for widescreen movies than the Mini, which is why in their presentation Apple never showed that aspect.
So when you say better for video are you forgetting that even with the bars the iPad mini can show a larger video than any 7" 16:10 or 16:9 tablet? And the same holds true for any of the widescreen ratios. All of this while being more or less the same size as the kindle and just a little wider than the nexus.

Also why would I spend $200 or more on a tablet to watch video on? My iPad is used for web browsing, document creation, text book, games, audio, and video if I'm traveling. If I'm going to watch a movie I would rather utilize my tv.
(Marty) is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 07:57 AM   #46
iEvolution
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
It is a good thing that macrumor posters aren't the general population otherwise Apple would have a real hard time pleasing their customers.

I'm talking about me too.
iEvolution 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 AM.

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

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