iPad Mini: would you be willing to sacrifice battery life and performance to get a retina screen

[brand]

You can only cram so much battery into such a small enclosure and you would need a more powerful GPU that uses more battery for the retina screen. To all those that are complaining about the iPad Mini not having a retina screen, would you be willing to sacrifice battery life and performance just to get a retina screen?

[HowardSmith]

Originally Posted by brand

You can only cram so much battery into such a small enclosure and you would need a more powerful GPU that uses more battery for the retina screen. To all those that are complaining about the iPad Mini not having a retina screen, would you be willing to sacrifice battery life and performance just to get a retina screen?

Just wait until Spring (or maybe sooner) and the Mini2 will have what you wish and likely be the same size.

[McreativeH]

I think that performance and battery life are a whole lot more important than a retina display

[Bih85]

Originally Posted by McreativeH

I think that performance and battery life are a whole lot more important than a retina display

I agree.

[phr0ze]

I can go to 6hrs battery. That would generally last all day.

I like the fact that the charger is small 5 water, saves space and is easier to carry.

I like the size and weight. I wouldn't want it thicker or heavier for any display. The thing I hated about ipad 3 is it got thicker.

[AlanKA]

I would easily give up 30% of my battery life for retina.

[urkel]

Originally Posted by McreativeH

I think that performance and battery life are a whole lot more important than a retina display

Not if your primary usage is indoors, at home or reading in bed.

This idea that "Retina CANT be done" on a 7" tablet isnt based on anything other than the fact that Apple hasn't done it...yet. Butid bet in their labs theyve got a retina Mini with decent battery/specs just waiting for the green light.

[Aspasia]

Great performance and battery life are crucial. Retina's not.

I have a retina screen on my iPod touch 5. It gives me no impetus to upgrade my iPad 2. Just not a big deal for me.

[rusty2192]

I finally got to play with a mini last night at Best Buy. The screen really isn't that bad. To be honest, the performance is what bugged me the most. I have had an iPad 1 since its release and just upgraded to a refurb 3 a week and a half ago. The UI was noticeably slower on the mini than the 3. So my answer is, no, I would not want performance sacrificed more than it is already for retina in a mini.

[jclardy]

Originally Posted by HowardSmith

Just wait until Spring (or maybe sooner) and the Mini2 will have what you wish and likely be the same size.

If it were a Spring release they would already have to have a manufacturer producing the proper sized/resolution display...which they don't. Also they waited until October for a reason - so that iPad updates will coincide with the holiday season.

Also I would rather keep my current mini if the new one had reduced performance/battery life and any weight or thickness gain. I already made the mistake once going from iPad 2 to iPad 3...the weight and thickness difference was minuscule, but so noticeable.

[h1kar1]

Originally Posted by brand

You can only cram so much battery into such a small enclosure and you would need a more powerful GPU that uses more battery for the retina screen. To all those that are complaining about the iPad Mini not having a retina screen, would you be willing to sacrifice battery life and performance just to get a retina screen?

Wow funny you posted this dead on with my thinking

This is my emails and posts from Nov 1st about it
"
Allot of people seem to be stuck on the fact the iPad mini does not have a retina display
But know one seems to consider battery life.

Including a retina display would eat up the battery allot faster at that size.

The reason apple did this could just be as simple as they wanted to keep the mini light and the battery life to 10hrs.

Which would you rather a mini with retina that you need to charge every 2hrs

Or a high quality display thats may not be retina but not that far off which can go for 10hrs.
"

[iHeartsteve]

5-6 hours would be fine. Anything less than 4 wouldnt be enough though. Works on iPhone w retina display for the past 3 generations so it's possible. iPhone 5 is light!

[HowardSmith]

Originally Posted by jclardy

If it were a Spring release they would already have to have a manufacturer producing the proper sized/resolution display...which they don't. Also they waited until October for a reason - so that iPad updates will coincide with the holiday season.

Also I would rather keep my current mini if the new one had reduced performance/battery life and any weight or thickness gain. I already made the mistake once going from iPad 2 to iPad 3...the weight and thickness difference was minuscule, but so noticeable.

You could keep your current mini, you do not have to get another. But I am still betting that there will be an upgrade in the 1st quarter, 2nd quarter at the latest

[Awakener]

Originally Posted by urkel

Not if your primary usage is indoors, at home or reading in bed.

This idea that "Retina CANT be done" on a 7" tablet isnt based on anything other than the fact that Apple hasn't done it...yet. Butid bet in their labs theyve got a retina Mini with decent battery/specs just waiting for the green light.

This. The iPad Mini with retina is probably ready. iPhone has no battery issue. iPad has no battery issue. iPad Mini with retina will have no battery issues.

[Bih85]

If apple reduces battery life to 5 or 6 hours on iPad mini to include retina, all I have to say is Good luck with selling them!

[Ladybug]

Battery life is more important to me personally. Not to mention increased charge times which I know isn't a problem for many people, but for me it is an issue. I hope they do make a retina mini, but I don't want any substantial compromises to made. Guess we'll find out soon enough where Apple takes this.

[ThatsMeRight]

Originally Posted by brand

You can only cram so much battery into such a small enclosure and you would need a more powerful GPU that uses more battery for the retina screen. To all those that are complaining about the iPad Mini not having a retina screen, would you be willing to sacrifice battery life and performance just to get a retina screen?

The problem is not really the GPU: it's the backlighting of the display.

Light bulbs, even LEDs, are generally very inefficient and waste a lot of energy.

The GPU problem can be fixed: both the A6X and A5X chips are manufactured on a 45 nm progress. Apple has already switched to 32 nm processes for their other chips (think A5, think A6). If they switch to an A5X/A6X chip build on a 32 nm-line next year, energy usage of a 32 nm A6X (with quad-core graphics) could be similar to a 32 nm A6 (without quad-core graphics).

So the real problem is the energy needed to light up the display (with LEDs). Current-generation Retina displays need about double the amount of LEDs compared to the non-Retina displays.

This problem can be solved by using IGZO technology: 50% les LED lights are needed and the LCD panel itself is more energy-efficient. This technology is relatively cheap and saves A LOT of energy, and it will be available as of Q4 2012 and it is expected to be even better available in Q1 2013.

This means next year they can launch an iPad mini that's got a Retina display and an A6X chip without the need for much bigger batteries.

Also, the costs of high density displays will definitely come down after 12 months.

If they launched the iPad mini with Retina display today it would mean:
- A thicker device
- A heavier device
- A huge battery needed, takes a lot of time to charge
- Energy usage extremely high
- Double the amount of LEDs needed
- Using expensive Retina displays
- A5X chip, high power usage, worse graphics performance than iPad 2

If they are going to launch an iPad mini with Retina display (and A6X chip) next year, it would mean:
- A device that isn't thicker (maybe they can even make it thinner)
- A device that's not much heavier
- A similar battery is needed as they use today
- 50% less LEDs needed
- Retina display will be cheaper and more energy-efficient
- A6X chip, better performance, similar power usage

Releasing an iPad mini with Retina display today would be stupid (when viewed from a business-perspective). Releasing an iPad mini with Retina display and A6X next year would be much smarter: you get a Retina display without any compromises and as a company you save a lot of costs.

[macbook123]

I would sacrifice 75% battery life for a retina iPad Mini. Yes, I would happily accept 2.5 hours of battery life for a screen that is a joy to lay my eyes on.

[HarryWarden]

I'd gladly sacrifice 40-45% of battery life for retina. 6 hours is more than enough on one charge, at least for me.

[darngooddesign]

Originally Posted by urkel

Not if your primary usage is indoors, at home or reading in bed.

This idea that "Retina CANT be done" on a 7" tablet isnt based on anything other than the fact that Apple hasn't done it...yet. Butid bet in their labs theyve got a retina Mini with decent battery/specs just waiting for the green light.

It's not that it can't be done, of course it can, it's that it can't be done without getting thicker and heavier.

[seajewel]

I like the current battery life, but I could do 6-8 hours with a beautiful retina screen. It's not ideal but it depends on your priorities. For me retina and weight are both important, and performance less so, as I don't really game or do anything intensive on the iPad. Just reading and web browsing, some writing. And yes I know, weight might go up with a retina screen, but technology is always getting better and devices are getting lighter and better. I saw a thread somewhere about IGZO technology screen making VERY light and VERY long battery life devices possible.

http://androidadvices.com/sharp-aquos-pad-sht21/

So 24 hours of battery life, and lighter than the iPad mini. (Probably a smaller, narrower 7" tablet, but still). It's not quite "retina" but it is higher PPI than iPad mini. So the technology is there, and I'm not convinced it wasn't possible this year (even without IGZO), but Apple decided to go with cheaper components. That's their prerogative and mine to buy at a premium despite my quibbles with it.

[Defender2010]

Originally Posted by ThatsMeRight

The problem is not really the GPU: it's the backlighting of the display.

Light bulbs, even LEDs, are generally very inefficient and waste a lot of energy.

The GPU problem can be fixed: both the A6X and A5X chips are manufactured on a 45 nm progress. Apple has already switched to 32 nm processes for their other chips (think A5, think A6). If they switch to an A5X/A6X chip build on a 32 nm-line next year, energy usage of a 32 nm A6X (with quad-core graphics) could be similar to a 32 nm A6 (without quad-core graphics).

So the real problem is the energy needed to light up the display (with LEDs). Current-generation Retina displays need about double the amount of LEDs compared to the non-Retina displays.

This problem can be solved by using IGZO technology: 50% les LED lights are needed and the LCD panel itself is more energy-efficient. This technology is relatively cheap and saves A LOT of energy, and it will be available as of Q4 2012 and it is expected to be even better available in Q1 2013.

This means next year they can launch an iPad mini that's got a Retina display and an A6X chip without the need for much bigger batteries.

Also, the costs of high density displays will definitely come down after 12 months.

If they launched the iPad mini with Retina display today it would mean:
- A thicker device
- A heavier device
- A huge battery needed, takes a lot of time to charge
- Energy usage extremely high
- Double the amount of LEDs needed
- Using expensive Retina displays
- A5X chip, high power usage, worse graphics performance than iPad 2

If they are going to launch an iPad mini with Retina display (and A6X chip) next year, it would mean:
- A device that isn't thicker (maybe they can even make it thinner)
- A device that's not much heavier
- A similar battery is needed as they use today
- 50% less LEDs needed
- Retina display will be cheaper and more energy-efficient
- A6X chip, better performance, similar power usage

Releasing an iPad mini with Retina display today would be stupid (when viewed from a business-perspective). Releasing an iPad mini with Retina display and A6X next year would be much smarter: you get a Retina display without any compromises and as a company you save a lot of costs.

Great post! I agree entirely!

[Chupa Chupa]

iPhone 5 has retina screen, A6 proc., and same battery life as the iPhone 4 but it's thinner and much lighter.

So I don't get where people are saying major sacrifices have to be made for the iPad mini to get a Retina screen. My guess is that Apple has a prototype in their lab, but they are milking the novelty of the mini concept for all they can before they start pushing a workhorse model. Plus they needed to keep costs down so they would be too far out of the 7in pricing ballpark.

[Lampmeister]

For me a retina screen isn't that much of a selling point...I'd favor battery life.

[seajewel]

Originally Posted by Lampmeister

For me a retina screen isn't that much of a selling point...I'd favor battery life.

I'm starting to think Apple might keep the existing Mini, drop it to like $299, and sell a retina mini either at $330 or for $399 next year. We'll see, I guess. For me: Retina, yes please!