iPad Mini: Received iPad Mini. One reviewer is spot on

[Defender2010]

It's amazing how long these Mini screen arguments go on for....
Today I viewed a mini at an Apple Store - if you used any retina device you will be disappointed. It looks terrible by comparison. If you are an iPad 3 user, for heavens sake don't sell it for a Mini because you are lured by the new form factor, it is slower and the screen is not only worse, but smaller obviously. Weight and heat are better than a fuzzy screen. This iPad Mini should be for people who can't afford a 9.7 inch iPad. It's a way for customers on a lower budget to get into the Ecosystem, but a disgrace of a product compared to every other current Apple product. Personally I feel they should have waited to next year to release it when the tech is available to make it retina and just left the iPad 4 available....full sized iPads seemed to be selling ok, this is greed at the expense of the customer. 2012 has not been Apples finest year with regard to customer satisfaction. Shame.

[joshwithachance]

Whining about not having a retina display will not magically make a retina display appear any quicker. Either enjoy the device, or return it. The people on this forum are literally crazy with all the moaning and bitching.

The screen is better than that on the iPad 2, and that screen isn't even that bad. Nobody is forcing you to desire or purchase an iPad mini. Most of us that bought one love it, even with it's less than flawless screen. With the iPad mini, the totality of the package is much greater than just the sum of it's parts.

[nickftw8686]

We should all start to bitch that they still offer non retina MacBook pros too, oh god how dare they offer cheaper options then the high end models... The mini screen is nice, retina no? Still nice? Yep. Smaller form factor, weighs less, runs cool, longer battery? Yep.... Works for me...

[fertilized-egg]

Originally Posted by Defender2010

If you are an iPad 3 user, for heavens sake don't sell it for a Mini because you are lured by the new form factor, it is slower and the screen is not only worse,

I only have take a brief look at the mini at a store but I don't think it feels any slower than iPad 3. I have both 2 and 3 and they feel just about the same.

The new form factor in the sleek package is extremely tempting. I have a 7" tablet too and it's just too small but iPad mini is just big enough to be usable and comes with all the great apps, not to mention it feels great in hand. Considering iPad 2 has been a better-than-expected seller, iPad mini with a better looking display will be a home run this holiday season.

After looking at it, I can't help but to wonder if this mini will push the bigger iPad into a smaller role. But we'll see.

On a related note, I find it odd nobody is recommending Nook HD even though it's the current pixel density champion among the 7" tablets and nobody recommends Playbook even though it's nearly half the price of Nexus 7 32GB.

[msh]

After using one at the Apple Store today, I concur with the Cult-of-Mac review. Its the screen stupid (and a few other things)!

Text is fuzzy and makes my eyes strain. I may be exaggerating but text on my first gen iPod Touch looks better! The other things are the older processor and small amount of RAM which will make this thing obsolescent quicker. This is a stillborn product. I wouldn't buy it at any price but I see they have already sold millions of them. As for me, I will wait for the retina version.

[Angus9541]

its very small, its very light, it has a decent battery life. And like the ipod mini, the nano, you loose some functions, its the circle of life!

[lianlua]

Originally Posted by fertilized-egg

I only have take a brief look at the mini at a store but I don't think it feels any slower than iPad 3.

You're right, it's not.

On a related note, I find it odd nobody is recommending Nook HD even though it's the current pixel density champion among the 7" tablets and nobody recommends Playbook even though it's nearly half the price of Nexus 7 32GB.

The Nook has the best display of any small tablet, but it kind of sucks at everything else except the e-reader app. Weak speakers, laggy UI, not great performance.

The Kindle Fire HD definitely has a better display than the Nexus 7, and the iPad mini's display looks to be better at everything than the Nexus as well (apart obviously from resolution). I'd need equipment to tell you whether the iPad mini or the Fire HD is better, though (again, resolution notwithstanding). They seem so close to me owning both that it comes down to whether you want the higher-resolution display or the larger viewing area.

Of course, apart from the screen, the Nexus 7 is better than the Fire HD in every way. Then there's the Samsung Galaxy Tab, which is about the same as the N7, but more expensive. There is no clear, decisive winner among these tablets. Every single one is compromised in some way and you just have to decide which one has the weakness that's least bothersome for you.

[53x12]

Originally Posted by Defender2010

It's amazing how long these Mini screen arguments go on for....
Today I viewed a mini at an Apple Store - if you used any retina device you will be disappointed. It looks terrible by comparison. If you are an iPad 3 user, for heavens sake don't sell it for a Mini because you are lured by the new form factor, it is slower and the screen is not only worse, but smaller obviously. Weight and heat are better than a fuzzy screen. This iPad Mini should be for people who can't afford a 9.7 inch iPad. It's a way for customers on a lower budget to get into the Ecosystem, but a disgrace of a product compared to every other current Apple product. Personally I feel they should have waited to next year to release it when the tech is available to make it retina and just left the iPad 4 available....full sized iPads seemed to be selling ok, this is greed at the expense of the customer. 2012 has not been Apples finest year with regard to customer satisfaction. Shame.

That fanboys will despise you for stating the truth.

[fertilized-egg]

Originally Posted by lianlua

Every single one is compromised in some way and you just have to decide which one has the weakness that's least bothersome for you.

Precisely, couldn't have said it better myself. iPad mini's industrial design and ecosystem are just far too ahead of the competitors and unlike with mobile phones, tablets still have to convince the consumers why they need one.

[IbisDoc]

Originally Posted by emaja

I'm glad you can see through my eyes and judge what I can and cannot see. Thanks for that.

Seriously, people are making the screen out to be some crappy 8 bit green screen crap. It's a good display for what it is trying to be at the price point Apple wanted.

Don't like it? Return it already.

Sheesh!

Don't like his opinion? Move on to a iPad mini slurper thread.

Sheesh!

[hugesaggyboobs]

Originally Posted by Spungoflex

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. You are comparing smaller devices with 16:9 aspect ratios, so of course ppi will be different. The mini could have easily had a higher ppi if apple just made it smaller. But guess what, that would have been stupid.

1024x768 for a small tablet with a 4:3 ratio is perfectly fine and basically no different than a 1280x800 on a 16:9 tablet. Those tablets only have 1280 vertical pixels because they are longer. Of course a longer screen will have more vertical pixels.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. If you knew what you were talking about...

First, the aspect ratios of, say, the Nexus 7 is NOT 16:9. It's 16:10. and no, the screen is not "longer", it's actually slightly shorter than the Mini. Second, just because you think it's "stupid" to make the Mini smaller so the ppi goes up doesn't mean that changes the screen that the Mini has right now. It's stuck with a low ppi and washed out colours with an OS that's scaling everything down smaller by an order of 20%.

PPI matters, in a big way. It's a large part of what defines the current screen technology we use as a standard. Calibration, etc. are also important. Until we move away from screen technology that uses pixels, ppi reins supreme.

Here's reality:

http://youtu.be/hsjUuVJVz6s?t=2m16s

Posts like this, even from long-term members here, flooding the forums:

"Today I viewed a mini at an Apple Store - if you used any retina device you will be disappointed."

"Text is fuzzy and makes my eyes strain. I may be exaggerating but text on my first gen iPod Touch looks better! The other things are the older processor and small amount of RAM which will make this thing obsolescent quicker. This is a stillborn product. I wouldn't buy it at any price but I see they have already sold millions of them. As for me, I will wait for the retina version."

In other words, I'm not alone in my assessment of the Mini. And it's not my assessment, it's science. It just has a really low res screen with crappy calibration.

[hugesaggyboobs]

Originally Posted by lianlua

No. As they say, "put up or shut up". This place is overrun with bald assertions by people unwilling to back them up. It's ridiculous.

The pixel density and the size reduction of the iPad mini are exactly matched. There is no scaling at all.

The only thing that's ridiculous is what you think your basic math is giving you. There are multiple variables that are factored in to determine the fitness of a screen. That's aspect ratios, ppi, screen technology, the physical size of the screen, the average distance user uses the screen, the calibration, etc. There's a logarithmic curve that exists to determine the quality of a screen. We've got a review coming where we've tested the Mini with special equipment that we use to test and calibrate screens/TVs/monitors. I'll link to it here when it's up.

As for the scaling, yes, the entire OS and all Apps scale down smaller by a factor of about 20% because the pixels are smaller. Buttons, window sizes, search fields... everything is smaller and closer together. iOS is not scaling up to the size of the iPad 2 for obvious reasons. They got away with this with the rMBPs because the screen sizes were the same as non-Retina MBPs so everything is the exact same size but just packed with way more pixels. With the Mini, the screen is too small to scale up... in other words, they'd need an iPad 2 with 162 ppi.

But there're more issues here. There're thresholds of quality for ppi that exist at x distance. It turns out that if you made the iPad 2 screen 162 ppi vs. it's 132 ppi the user wouldn't notice much difference in quality at all. This is determined by a logarithmic curve that tells you the optimal ppi for certain screen sizes. It factors a bunch of things in like size of screen and the average distance needed to focus, among others. Anyway, the review is coming.

Originally Posted by lianlua

The first sentence is not supported by the second.

You live with William Shatner.

Originally Posted by lianlua

The questions, which you are continuing to evade, are: How are smaller pixels worse but even smaller pixels better? How does a directly proportional shift size and physical scale result in disproportional clarity? In what way is the iPad mini display worse, as you claim, than the iPad 2?

The answers, of course, are that they aren't statements supported by reality.

Yes, answers are supported by reality. Whether you choose to live in that reality is entirely up to you.

By now, you should have some clue as to how industry can determine answers to questions like "Is this ppi on an 8" screen any good?"

I know Apple has people who know this stuff. Who work with screen logarithmic curves daily... But somebody at Apple insisted that they do this Mini thing probably despite engineers from telling them the drawbacks to the screen.

My money's on Phil Schiller, somebody who knows very little about technology with no vision and Steve Jobs' old yes man. Tim Cook is, ultimately responsible and I can't imagine either of them wanting to use the Mini.

[jsw]

Originally Posted by Spungoflex

You are comparing smaller devices with 16:9 aspect ratios, so of course ppi will be different.

Aspect ratios have nothing to do with ppi.

Originally Posted by Spungoflex

The mini could have easily had a higher ppi if apple just made it smaller.

Screen size has nothing to do with ppi.

[lianlua]

Originally Posted by hugesaggyboobs

The only thing that's ridiculous is what you think your basic math is giving you.

Physical size does not require a lot of calculus. The number of characters that fit into a space is quite straightforward, as is the size of a given grid of pixels.

There's a logarithmic curve that exists to determine the quality of a screen.

Now you're just trying to drop long words. There's no one "logarithmic curve" that "determines the quality" of a display.

We've got a review coming where we've tested the Mini with special equipment that we use to test and calibrate screens/TVs/monitors.

"We" being whom?

As for the scaling, yes, the entire OS and all Apps scale down smaller by a factor of about 20% because the pixels are smaller.

Again, your misuse of basic terminology gives you away. The OS isn't scaling anything down. The fact that elements are smaller is not in dispute. You lose quality when objects shrink disproportionately with the number of pixels used to display them. You cannot simultaneously complain that the iPad mini's resolution is too low and also that the pixels are too small.

They got away with this with the rMBPs because the screen sizes were the same as non-Retina MBPs so everything is the exact same size but just packed with way more pixels.

Again, not in dispute.

This is determined by a logarithmic curve that tells you the optimal ppi for certain screen sizes.

Angular size is not a logarithmic curve.

The rambling posts you keep making still avoid any support for the statements you put forward. Again, I ask:
How are smaller pixels worse but even smaller pixels better? How does a directly proportional shift size and physical scale result in disproportional clarity? In what way is the iPad mini display worse, as you claim, than the iPad 2?

No generalities. No blanket decrees of washed out colors. Support your argument.

[emaja]

Originally Posted by IbisDoc

Don't like his opinion? Move on to a iPad mini slurper thread.

You don't need to be a jerk. For someone to tell me that my opinion is wrong or that i am an idiot for thinking the screen is fine is not right. Compound that with your drivel and it gets old.

HEY LOOK! ANOTHER thread about the iPad mini screen! I can't wait to read it!

[swandy]

Originally Posted by nStyle

I don't think you quite understand. It's not as easy as simply "return it" and be done. We WANT a form factor like this without sacrificing anything we are already used to. Cult of Mac is spot on: it's frustrating. The difference in reading is night and day on a Mini and an iPad 3, unfortunately.

I just sold my iPad3 and while I agree there is a difference in the two reading apps I use (iBooks and Kindle) I would certainly not say the "difference is night and day".
Do you notice it if you really try - sure. If you hold it at a "normal reading distance" probably not so much.
But for me the increased enjoyment of an iPad that is so much smaller and lighter is MORE than worth the decrease in the sharpness of the type.

[emaja]

Originally Posted by johndoejohndoes

They can pack it into the iPhone and iPods...I'm sure the mini isn't that small for them to out the screen in

Of course it's possible, but it's a balance between size, weight, and cost. Apple obviously felt that putting a retina display in the mini was going to cut into their margins enough so they left it out.

[clyde2801]

Originally Posted by hugesaggyboobs

You live with William Shatner.

I think I love you.

[hugesaggyboobs]

Originally Posted by lianlua

Physical size does not require a lot of calculus. The number of characters that fit into a space is quite straightforward, as is the size of a given grid of pixels.

No. There are multiple variables that are factored into determining the quality of a screen. Regardless, the ppi is much lower on the Mini than it is on devices like the Nexus 7 and it shows in real world usage. There is no argument on this. It is a fact.

Originally Posted by lianlua

Now you're just trying to drop long words. There's no one "logarithmic curve" that "determines the quality" of a display.

It's a long word to you because you don't know what you're talking about. Go to Google like you most probably have been frantically doing and research it. Then, predictably, you'll come back here after reading Wikipedia and some other stuff and pretend to be an expert on the subject.

There's nothing "fancy" about a logarithmic curve. People both create them and use them all the time for a variety of things. It's simply a way to incorporate a number of known variables/correlation coefficients to determine optimization ranges.

Originally Posted by lianlua

"We" being whom?

We being my partner and me. We own an audio/visual company. We test and calibrate displays for OEMs.

Originally Posted by lianlua

Again, your misuse of basic terminology gives you away. The OS isn't scaling anything down. The fact that elements are smaller is not in dispute. You lose quality when objects shrink disproportionately with the number of pixels used to display them. You cannot simultaneously complain that the iPad mini's resolution is too low and also that the pixels are too small.

My point is more specifically related to what happens to all of the Apps and the OS as they are shrunk down 20% in size. Yes, it is because of the ppi that this is happening so everything can fit on the screen. The problem is the hit areas, the buttons, search fields, etc. get both smaller and closer together. This presents serious usability problems. It's even worse because the resolution isn't good, so at a smaller size things are predictably grainy but less clear (you need to study optics to learn how the eye focuses on things and how elements that are really small, like on the Mini screen, present major problems for humans with 20/20 vision). There are cases where there is not enough pixel density at this lower size to render things like text in enough detail to be acceptable without zooming.

This is jarring. It's one thing to stand at x distance from lines of differently sized letters on paper in an eye test. You're basically seeing a "Retina" version of the letters in real life: high fidelity with no pixelation. Put the iPad 2 and the iPad Mini, both with crap resolution, next to each other with digital eye charts and conduct the same eye test. The smaller size is a serious problem which is obvious because everything will be ~20% smaller so you'll have to move closer to it to see the letters than you would looking at the iPad 2. But it's bad because the resolution is terrible. This is why you see people posting on here thinking the Mini screen is worse than the iPad 2. Even though the resolutions relatively are roughly the same, the fact that the iPad 2... everything is larger is what makes people think it's better because it's easier to see everything. In this respect, it is a better screen because everything is much more visible and easier to read.

The solution would have been to forget using iPad 2 Apps... to not shrink everything down and look at this device as unique. As something that itself needs unique UIs for the size of its display.

Originally Posted by lianlua

The rambling posts you keep making still avoid any support for the statements you put forward. Again, I ask:
How are smaller pixels worse but even smaller pixels better? How does a directly proportional shift size and physical scale result in disproportional clarity? In what way is the iPad mini display worse, as you claim, than the iPad 2?

No generalities. No blanket decrees of washed out colors. Support your argument.

You will without question read our review next week and you will: either completely disappear or continue to post rambling rants.

[Farns514]

I was contemplating the mini, tried it out in the store and decided to go with the 4th gen iPad. Size felt great in my hand, but just like everyone else the retina display was a huge decision maker for me.

[pruhawk]

The display is a hugh problem. Will wait for the next version.
Absolutely love the size and weight.

Apple put out a product that could have been better so that they can built improvements into it bit by bit, its what they do. Big changes come when the competition starts passing them by and sometime not even then as they have a great built in base of consumers in their eco-system. Heck, I am one of them.

That said, at $329 I will wait. If I had to buy something this season it would probably be the 8.9" kindle fire for $299 that comes with the retina display.

Looking forward to next year.

[StoneJack]

Originally Posted by pruhawk

The display is a hugh problem. Will wait for the next version.
Absolutely love the size and weight.

Apple put out a product that could have been better so that they can built improvements into it bit by bit, its what they do. Big changes come when the competition starts passing them by and sometime not even then as they have a great built in base of consumers in their eco-system. Heck, I am one of them.

That said, at $329 I will wait. If I had to buy something this season it would probably be the 8.9" kindle fire for $299 that comes with the retina display.

Looking forward to next year.

Of course you don't mind that Kindle is heavier, slower, have less apps and has no camera at all.

[Royalcards]

The screen is disappointing... Small text are harder to read beacuse the screen is scaled down. There would be no problem if this has been retina. For this it is easier to read in ipad 2 for small text because it has bigger screen.

A workaround, If u double tap and zoom at ipad mini, the text are improved a lot u can hardly notice if its retina or not. And if u want to surf whole page of a website its better to be in lanscape not portrait..the small text of the ipad mini in portrait is very small you add that with the fuzziness of non retina, it will strain your eyes a lot...another thing is to turn up brightness that which suits you, mine is about 2/3 of brightness.

Now im happy ipad mini owner, its light and easier to carry around. And yes the design of the mini made the larger ipad look like antique...hehe...sorry for my english...

[Awakener]

iPad mini vs. iPad 2 vs. iPad 4 vs. iPhone 5: Display density macros
http://www.imore.com/ipad-mini-vs-ip...-density-macro

[lianlua]

Originally Posted by hugesaggyboobs

No. There are multiple variables that are factored into determining the quality of a screen.

Yes, but you're continuing to talk around your statements.

Regardless, the ppi is much lower on the Mini than it is on devices like the Nexus 7 and it shows in real world usage. There is no argument on this. It is a fact.

It is lower, yes. But it is incremental broadly to the same degree that the iPad mini is to the iPad 2, and you're making contradictory arguments about them. If the iPad mini's characters are too small to be legible, the N7's added density does not do anything to solve that with your statements on physical size. That's the point. The Nexus 7 is sharper to broadly the same level that the iPad mini is sharper than the iPad 2. It can't be good on one and bad on the other.

There's nothing "fancy" about a logarithmic curve. People both create them and use them all the time for a variety of things. It's simply a way to incorporate a number of known variables/correlation coefficients to determine optimization ranges.

No, there's nothing fancy about them, but you're not talking about anything in which a logarithmic curve applies. You're just repeatedly speaking in generalities to dodge that you have no actual facts to support your assertions, peppered with terms and phrases that you think make it sound like you're offering facts.

The problem is the hit areas, the buttons, search fields, etc. get both smaller and closer together. This presents serious usability problems.

The targets are the same physical size as on the iPhone.

It's even worse because the resolution isn't good, so at a smaller size things are predictably grainy but less clear

Clarity is a function of pixel density until the physical size of characters drops below the resolvable threshold. Things are "grainy but less clear" only where size reduces but pixel density does not. That is not happening here. If you were versed in this conversation, you'd know that 0.05" is considered the minimum threshold to present legible text (6px at 100ppi). Apple's UI presents nothing smaller than 12pt (16px) Helvetica at 132ppi, which is roughly 0.12". The iPad mini's labels, with the same level of clarity, are 0.10" in size, still double the physical size threshold and offering curves of the exact same smoothness as the iPad 2. They are smaller to the exact degree that they are sharper.

Meanwhile, at the same physical size as the iPad 2, the iPad mini provides 20px, a 25% increase in smoothness over the iPad 2.

You continue to exhibit a flawed understanding of all of this, and you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for an evaluation by "hugesaggyboobs" given the repeated misstatements in this thread.