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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 13, 2012, 08:10 PM   #51
bcaslis
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kas23 View Post
...
My point is that the technology does indeed exist. It's on the market as I write. There would have been trade-offs though. Ones that they did not want to make. Instead, to pad their margins, they put a ****** screen in instead. But, it was a decision they made, not one that technology forced upon them.
No it doesn't exist. The Kindle and Nexus have higher resolution screens than the mini but they are far short of the iPad retina resolution. The whole purpose of the mini is to be lighter and more portable. It's lighter and thinner than those two devices and better built.

Seven months ago an iPad resolution retina display didn't even exist. Now people are saying the mini screen is terrible? Of course it's not as good as retina but if it was heavier and thicker I would not have bought it. I think Apple knows a lot more about what the majority of it's customers want than the critics on this forum. And the sales so far seem to back them up.
__________________
MacBook Pro Retina 13" 3.0GHz i7 8GB/512GB , iPad mini Verizon LTE 64GB, Mac mini server, iMac 24", iPhone 5s 64GB
bcaslis is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 08:20 PM   #52
Caliber26
macrumors 65816
 
Caliber26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottNWDW View Post
Bottom line people is that you are all crying over the fact that the iPad mini does not have retina. There is NOTHING wrong with the display. apple will no doubt add retina next year or the following year. I absolutely love the mini and quite frankly after upgrading from the iPad 1 to the iPad 3 I couldn't tell the difference in the retina display vs the iPad. Actually took both to my local Apple store to make sure the iPad 3 was actually an iPad 3 over the 2. I won the iPad 3, and was told it was a 3, but not seeing that much of a difference between the iPad 1's screen I had to be sure it wan't a 2 because if I recall they really didn't change the outer packaging.

Just my rant. Enjoy your iPad mini's, the screen is really quite remarkable.
You did that instead of going online and looking up the model number? Yeah, okay.

And just because the mini's display is good for you, it doesn't mean it's good for everyone else. Some people don't mind Sam's Choice Wal-Mart cola, while some have to have Coca-Cola. Everyone's different and entitled to their opinion. The OP's views might be different than yours, but to sit there and rant against it, well, it accomplishes nothing. You're not going to change his mind or anyone else's.

Last edited by annk; Nov 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM. Reason: Removed quote of and response to deleted post
Caliber26 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 08:45 PM   #53
Bokes
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Agree.
The mini is not all that mini.

The best e-reader for walk around/coffee bars/commute is the new Nook HD.

Actually small enough to fit in pocket. Super thin and light.
And the screen kills the iPad mini.
Expandable storage.
$199
Bokes is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:06 PM   #54
smiddlehurst
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kas23 View Post
Maybe you explain this non-existant screen technology thing a bit clearer to me. I see both larger (iPad) and smaller (iPod) devices having better pixel densities. Heck, I even see the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 having way better screens. But, the screen technology for a better screen on the mini "doesn't exist". So, which is it? Are my eyes deceiving me when I see the Fire and Nexus screen killing the mini's? An optical illusion perhaps?

So, it will need a bigger battery. Ok, your point? The Fire and Nexus must have bigger batteries. (Those exist too, right?)

Thickness? Weight? Ok, that's fine. It would have been thicker and heavier. Apple never puts out a perfect gen 1 device. Just like they'll do with the mini next year with the screen ("now with retina!), they could have made it "thinner" and "lighter" as marketing ploy for 2013. They've done that trick many times. Heck, if Apple wanted to they could have even skimped on the battery and used the "now, with 30% greater battery life" marketing tool in 2013.

My point is that the technology does indeed exist. It's on the market as I write. There would have been trade-offs though. Ones that they did not want to make. Instead, to pad their margins, they put a ****** screen in instead. But, it was a decision they made, not one that technology forced upon them.
Oh for the love of Jeff... are people really not able to understand this?

Apple were going to deliver only one of two screen sizes for the iPad Mini - 1024 x 768 or 2048 x 1536. Anything else would wreck the major benefit the iPad Mini has over all other 7"-ish tablets, it's app store. The message I replied to wanted an iPad 4 in an iPad Mini shell so you need a 2048 x 1536 screen, A6X processor and a ~40wH battery. To do that would have required a ludicrously big and heavy battery pack for the size of the device which would have utterly ruined the point of having an iPad MINI. Bringing a 15mm thick iPad Mini that weighs over half a kilo to market would have been an utter farce.

You say this tech must exist to drive the Nexus 7 and Fire HD, I suggest you have a closer look at the tech specs. Let's go with the Nexus 7 shall we?

198.5 x 120 x 10.5 mm, 340g, 4,325mAh (if it's 5V that's around 21wH).

That's running a Tegra 3 processor (arguably more powerful than the A5) and a slightly higher resolution screen at 800 x 1280.

But here's the thing, compare those specs to the iPad Mini and it's broadly in line. The bigger battery requires a bigger case (volume of the Nexus 7 is 250,110 cubic mm) and there's a corresponding increase in weight. Yet it's still nowhere near what you'd need to power a retina display and A6X SoC. Remember that pixel density is utterly irrelevant to the conversation, an iPhone 5 packs a 326ppi screen but it's still only running at 1,136x640 which helps it get away with a 5.45 watt-hour battery pack. Less screen real estate means a slower GPU can produce the same performance with less of a battery hit.

So no, the tech is not "on the market as you write", that's utter cobblers. Does it exist? Yes, you'd probably need an IGZO screen and a SoC on a 20nm fabrication process along with a bump in GPU power to get down from 4 cores to 2 and that all that does exist right now. What doesn't exist is the ability to produce that tech in sufficient quantities to bring it to production devices either through sheer capacity limitations or because it's still in the testing phase. It just so happens that, if all the rumours are right, a lot of this stuff will line up in 2013 / 2014 and I suspect you'll see a retina equipped iPad mini within the next couple of years. This year though? No bloody chance.

Look, let me put this another way. A few years ago some companies decided to put out dedicated gaming laptops while mobile CPU's and GPU's were still less than fantastic for that particular job. Their solution was to put desktop class components in laptop chassis resulting in very heavy machines generating a lot of heat and with a battery life that was best thought of as an emergency backup. For all practical intents and purposes Apple have done the same in the tablet space with the retina iPad. The A5X was a ludicrous chip and the A6X is still verging on silly territory. The fact they've managed to do it in a package with such relatively small compromise as the iPad 3 / 4 is astonishing but to expect that solution in a mini is, from an engineering perspective, insane. 12 to 18 months from now we'll have the equivalent of ULV core i5 CPU's and mobile Geforce 600 series parts and the game will change but right now that's not the case.
smiddlehurst is offline   16 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:22 PM   #55
Dstopsie
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LOS ANGELES BABY!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixotic3 View Post
No, I did not buy it blind. But I do have buyers remorse though... I feel that since the much smaller iPhone 5 has a better screen, camera, processor, gps, etc they could have fit those things into the mini. I am disappointed that it did not match up to their other products and it could have. I am worried that this is a big misstep for Apple as I am a stock owner. I have been a long time fan of Apple and I am worried that they are heading in the wrong direction. Do I as a customer have to wait for the second iteration of each product to get what should have been in the first and let early adopters beta test an inferior product for me? Shish, right back at you
The front and back camera on the mini is exactly the same as the front and back camera on the iPad 4 and on the iPhone 5 so they did not cheapen the camera on the iPad mini
Dstopsie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:36 PM   #56
syd430
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binarymix View Post
Screen technology, and Apple testing the waters.
I'll be buying it again for sure if it has a retina screen (without any screen issues). It's really the perfect size for typing with my thumbs

That's funny because I can type just as fast with my thumbs in portrait mode on the full sized ipad than the ipad Mini. Must have something to do with that split keyboard that nobody here seems to know exists.
  0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:37 PM   #57
kas23
macrumors 603
 
kas23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcaslis View Post
No it doesn't exist. The Kindle and Nexus have higher resolution screens than the mini but they are far short of the iPad retina resolution. The whole purpose of the mini is to be lighter and more portable. It's lighter and thinner than those two devices and better built.
I see you've never tested one of these devices out. I couldn't care less if they're not "retina" or some other Apple marketing buzzword. These screens look absolutely stunning compared to the Mini's screen.
kas23 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:38 PM   #58
hkfan24
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kappaknight View Post
Talk about missing the forest for a tree. I've been using the mini since launch day and have already used this way more than my iPad 2 due to its size. Is it possible to cram better tech in it today? Sure, but why? I don't have any complaints on the speed, the camera or the screen. Better yet, with the current tech that's in there, I don't have complaints about its weight, battery life or heat either.

For me the experience is spot on and best of all, I can type on this way faster than my iPhone or full sized iPad. If you use it for reading and focus on the apps and content, the spec envy goes away. At the end of the day, it's about what you can do with it, not what's inside it.
Probably the best post I have read since the mini was released. People on these boards seem to forget that a large majority of Apple consumers dont follow the spec trends. It's just so much more magnified on these boards.
hkfan24 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:52 PM   #59
syd430
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
Sure, they could have done all of that. But then the iPad mini would be bigger, more expensive, and get less battery life. Design is about trade offs!
So than maybe the Mini shouldn't have been released in its current form in the first place?

As far as I can see, The Apple of the last decade wasn't built on the mantra of "rush it and get that crap out the door, who cares about usability because the holiday season is coming up!". But yes, it seems that is the new mantra, and that's exactly what has been signalled to shareholders.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixotic3 View Post
I am worried that this is a big misstep for Apple as I am a stock owner. I have been a long time fan of Apple and I am worried that they are heading in the wrong direction.
They are. I called it a major misstep here yesterday:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...9&postcount=15

see my post here too:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...5&postcount=21
  1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:55 PM   #60
Yr Blues
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, Texas
I suspect the chassis was designed for the larger retina battery so that there wouldn't be a thickness change on the mini 2.

That's why it feels kind of hollow.
Yr Blues is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:57 PM   #61
syd430
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkfan24 View Post
Probably the best post I have read since the mini was released. People on these boards seem to forget that a large majority of Apple consumers dont follow the spec trends. It's just so much more magnified on these boards.
You can't view forums like macrumors or any news site with a busy layout in portrait mode without constantly panning in.

You could on the iPad 1,2 (even at the same resolution) and the iphones load-up the mobile versions. The Mini is the odd one out, and it's because they crammed an OS designed for 10", into a 7.9" screen, without bothering to optimize it for the smaller screen (including the way font renders).

That there is just one example that has nothing to do with following "spec trends" and more to do with usability issues and a rushed product for the holiday season.
  1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:58 PM   #62
kas23
macrumors 603
 
kas23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by smiddlehurst View Post
Oh for the love of Jeff... are people really not able to understand this?

Apple were going to deliver only one of two screen sizes for the iPad Mini - 1024 x 768 or 2048 x 1536. Anything else would wreck the major benefit the iPad Mini has over all other 7"-ish tablets, it's app store. The message I replied to wanted an iPad 4 in an iPad Mini shell so you need a 2048 x 1536 screen, A6X processor and a ~40wH battery. To do that would have required a ludicrously big and heavy battery pack for the size of the device which would have utterly ruined the point of having an iPad MINI. Bringing a 15mm thick iPad Mini that weighs over half a kilo to market would have been an utter farce.

You say this tech must exist to drive the Nexus 7 and Fire HD, I suggest you have a closer look at the tech specs. Let's go with the Nexus 7 shall we?

198.5 x 120 x 10.5 mm, 340g, 4,325mAh (if it's 5V that's around 21wH).

That's running a Tegra 3 processor (arguably more powerful than the A5) and a slightly higher resolution screen at 800 x 1280.

But here's the thing, compare those specs to the iPad Mini and it's broadly in line. The bigger battery requires a bigger case (volume of the Nexus 7 is 250,110 cubic mm) and there's a corresponding increase in weight. Yet it's still nowhere near what you'd need to power a retina display and A6X SoC. Remember that pixel density is utterly irrelevant to the conversation, an iPhone 5 packs a 326ppi screen but it's still only running at 1,136x640 which helps it get away with a 5.45 watt-hour battery pack. Less screen real estate means a slower GPU can produce the same performance with less of a battery hit.

So no, the tech is not "on the market as you write", that's utter cobblers. Does it exist? Yes, you'd probably need an IGZO screen and a SoC on a 20nm fabrication process along with a bump in GPU power to get down from 4 cores to 2 and that all that does exist right now. What doesn't exist is the ability to produce that tech in sufficient quantities to bring it to production devices either through sheer capacity limitations or because it's still in the testing phase. It just so happens that, if all the rumours are right, a lot of this stuff will line up in 2013 / 2014 and I suspect you'll see a retina equipped iPad mini within the next couple of years. This year though? No bloody chance.

Look, let me put this another way. A few years ago some companies decided to put out dedicated gaming laptops while mobile CPU's and GPU's were still less than fantastic for that particular job. Their solution was to put desktop class components in laptop chassis resulting in very heavy machines generating a lot of heat and with a battery life that was best thought of as an emergency backup. For all practical intents and purposes Apple have done the same in the tablet space with the retina iPad. The A5X was a ludicrous chip and the A6X is still verging on silly territory. The fact they've managed to do it in a package with such relatively small compromise as the iPad 3 / 4 is astonishing but to expect that solution in a mini is, from an engineering perspective, insane. 12 to 18 months from now we'll have the equivalent of ULV core i5 CPU's and mobile Geforce 600 series parts and the game will change but right now that's not the case.
Yes, I get all that. But there is no need to place an "iPad 4 in an iPad Mini shell". There are screens out there that can deliver much more crisper text (not fuzzy like the mini does) at lower resolutions than 2048 x 1536. That said, I do admit that changing the resolution would have caused no apps to available for the mini. I get that too. And that is probably the #1 reason the mini does not have a better resolution.

Although you may not have said it, screen technology does exist that would deliver a much better picture than the Mini's current screen. The lack of technology is not a reason they didn't put a better resolution screen in the Mini. A resulting lack of apps would be a reason though. So, you don't have to keep rattling on about a retina display and A6X SoC because the mini wouldn't have needed that to be more serviceable than it is now.
kas23 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 10:17 PM   #63
hkfan24
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by syd430 View Post
You can't view forums like macrumors or any news site with a busy layout in portrait mode without constantly panning in.

You could on the iPad 1,2 (even at the same resolution) and the iphones load-up the mobile versions. The Mini is the odd one out, and it's because they crammed an OS designed for 10", into a 7.9" screen, without bothering to optimize it for the smaller screen (including the way font renders).

That there is just one example that has nothing to do with following "spec trends" and more to do with usability issues and a rushed product for the holiday season.

Says who. You? I'm reading this site as we speak on a mini and haven't panned or zoomed in once. You're not looking at the bigger picture here. A smaller sized ipad works well in many cases. My son for example loves his new mini and my wife loves hers as well. She loves the fact that she can now throw it in her purse and conceal it easier than she ever could before we sold her ipad 3. My son would sometimes drop my ipad 3 because of the size/weight. Heck this past weekend we went on a small trip and fit my son's mini inside his Nintendo 3DS XL bag making it much more convenient. At the end of the day, the ipad mini is doing everything the bigger ipad has done but in a smaller shell. It does what its supposed to do. You keep claiming in so many threads that the mini is basically a mistake overall but you're flat out wrong. The mini is here to stay and will only get better from here on out.

I do understand your views and opinions from your perspective but you should understand others and their perspectives, needs, wants, and uses. The mini serves a purpose whether you can find a way to expand your outlook or not. I for one as a long time Apple customer am thrilled that we have an option with ipad sizes. We are no longer in the age of "one size fits all."

Different people, different preferences.

Last edited by hkfan24; Nov 13, 2012 at 10:31 PM.
hkfan24 is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 10:50 PM   #64
richorlin
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kas23 View Post
I see you've never tested one of these devices out. I couldn't care less if they're not "retina" or some other Apple marketing buzzword. These screens look absolutely stunning compared to the Mini's screen.
The Kindle HD and Nexus 7 may have better screens than the iPad Mini, but the rest of the tablet(s) suck. The main purpose of the Kindle HD is for getting you to buy, buy , buy from the Amazon ecosystem. As for the Nexus 7, well, it's Android 4.1 and Jelly bean may be a tablet-specific OS but all the apps running on it are phone apps. Slow, laggy and upscaled - and the same goes for the Kindle HD.
__________________
richorlin
richorlin is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 11:37 PM   #65
bcaslis
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kas23 View Post
I see you've never tested one of these devices out. I couldn't care less if they're not "retina" or some other Apple marketing buzzword. These screens look absolutely stunning compared to the Mini's screen.
I see you think your opinion is the right one. I have seen them. Their screens are OK but don't look better to me than the mini. More pixels but not better at all. Add in cheap bodies and poor OS and apps and the mini is way better in my opinion.

And nice backtracking there. You claimed that the technology exists for a retina display in a small tablet. Now it doesn't matter, anything to "prove" the mini is not good enough. Typical.
__________________
MacBook Pro Retina 13" 3.0GHz i7 8GB/512GB , iPad mini Verizon LTE 64GB, Mac mini server, iMac 24", iPhone 5s 64GB
bcaslis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 11:56 PM   #66
Awakener
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by kas23 View Post
Maybe you explain this non-existant screen technology thing a bit clearer to me. I see both larger (iPad) and smaller (iPod) devices having better pixel densities. Heck, I even see the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 having way better screens. But, the screen technology for a better screen on the mini "doesn't exist". So, which is it? Are my eyes deceiving me when I see the Fire and Nexus screen killing the mini's? An optical illusion perhaps?

So, it will need a bigger battery. Ok, your point? The Fire and Nexus must have bigger batteries. (Those exist too, right?)

Thickness? Weight? Ok, that's fine. It would have been thicker and heavier. Apple never puts out a perfect gen 1 device. Just like they'll do with the mini next year with the screen ("now with retina!), they could have made it "thinner" and "lighter" as marketing ploy for 2013. They've done that trick many times. Heck, if Apple wanted to they could have even skimped on the battery and used the "now, with 30% greater battery life" marketing tool in 2013.

My point is that the technology does indeed exist. It's on the market as I write. There would have been trade-offs though. Ones that they did not want to make. Instead, to pad their margins, they put a ****** screen in instead. But, it was a decision they made, not one that technology forced upon them.
Of course the technology is available now. It is in the iPhone, iPad 3, iPad 4. Just a matter of scaling. The Mini is already priced for retina, and it would have been slightly thicker, about 3 more ounces, and profitable. Forget it. People are making excuses and justifying, but just watch how they will rush to buy the retina version.
Awakener is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 12:13 AM   #67
syd430
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awakener View Post
Of course the technology is available now. It is in the iPhone, iPad 3, iPad 4. Just a matter of scaling. The Mini is already priced for retina, and it would have been slightly thicker, about 3 more ounces, and profitable. Forget it. People are making excuses and justifying, but just watch how they will rush to buy the retina version.
No. Apple told me it doesn't need retina. It would have been nice, but apple told me that the $329 price is correct and well priced even without retina.

What am I supposed to do? Just not buy it and wait for the retina version?

That's crazy talk, I have to buy the flawed and over-priced one apple selling me now, and then I will buy the retina one again in 7 months. Your just an Apple hater for not supporting the company.
  1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 12:33 AM   #68
Awakener
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by syd430 View Post
No. Apple told me it doesn't need retina. It would have been nice, but apple told me that the $329 price is correct and well priced even without retina.

What am I supposed to do? Just not buy it and wait for the retina version?

That's crazy talk, I have to buy the flawed and over-priced one apple selling me now, and then I will buy the retina one again in 7 months. Your just an Apple hater for not supporting the company.
Yes, that is what you must do.
This iPad Mini commercial spoof sums this whole thread up:

Last edited by dejo; Nov 14, 2012 at 09:49 AM. Reason: Please use [youtube] tags.
Awakener is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 01:13 AM   #69
Tikatika
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern California
Thank you Awakener for ending my day with pure, tears streaming down the face, laughter
Tikatika is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:46 AM   #70
smiddlehurst
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kas23 View Post
Yes, I get all that. But there is no need to place an "iPad 4 in an iPad Mini shell". There are screens out there that can deliver much more crisper text (not fuzzy like the mini does) at lower resolutions than 2048 x 1536. That said, I do admit that changing the resolution would have caused no apps to available for the mini. I get that too. And that is probably the #1 reason the mini does not have a better resolution.

Although you may not have said it, screen technology does exist that would deliver a much better picture than the Mini's current screen. The lack of technology is not a reason they didn't put a better resolution screen in the Mini. A resulting lack of apps would be a reason though. So, you don't have to keep rattling on about a retina display and A6X SoC because the mini wouldn't have needed that to be more serviceable than it is now.
You're really not getting this. Yes, Apple could have put a 1280 x 800 screen in the mini (although that does depend on how much headroom the A5 has to drive a higher resolution screen at the same performance level as the 1024 x 768 panel it does now). But as you said that would kill app compatibility and that makes NO sense whatsoever. Does the tech for that solution exist? Yes, but (and this is the critical part) it's not a solution Apple would ever use because it would be stupid beyond belief!

Seriously, Apple have spent all this time and effort building up the App store, have around 250,000 iPad apps that'll work immediately on the Mini and... you want them to throw it away for a screen with minimal benefit to the end user just to satisfy the spec nerds? Oh, and as you're changing aspect ratios you'd also need to do an entirely new build of all the apps, it wouldn't be a case of scaling to fit. To put some figures on it the Nexus 7 has 216 PPI screen where the mini has 163PPI. But, of course, that's with a 7" screen in the Nexus which we know Apple doesnt like. If they kept the same diagonal 7.9" (for arguments sake) you'd be looking at 191PPI.

I'm just in disbelief that you'd think a minor improvement in PPI is worth throwing away everything that makes the iPad line special and fragmenting the lineup. The route they've chosen will almost certainly result in a retina display running at a higher PPI than the iPad 3 & 4 somewhere in the next two years with no disruption to the consumer whatsoever. To go with your suggestion they'd either have to dead-end the product when they made that transition or continue with two entirely different target platforms in the same product line thus wrecking the massive advantage they hold over the rest of the industry and starting over for a gain that the vast majority of the customer base won't give a damn about.

Oh, and Awakener, I did the maths (albeit crudely) up-thread, you're not looking at 3oz and a slight increase in thickness, more like double the weight and almost double the thickness. Again, that's NOT a product Apple is going to make and they're right not to. Small tablets live and die on the form factor first and foremost, putting out something like that really WOULD have been something "Steve would never do".

Look, I get it, some people want a retina display and there's a really simple answer to that: wait. Don't buy this one, wait until it has it. It's absolutely fine not to want the Mini because it doesn't have a retina panel. But to whinge about 'Apple could have done it but they just wanted to hold it back' is ridiculous. The numbers don't lie, you HAVE a point of reference in the iPad 3 and 4 for weight and power requirements and if you really think that Apple should have released a Mini (note: Mini) iPad that weighs more than 500g and is almost as thick as a Macbook Air I'd suggest you maybe don't have a great grasp on what Apple's market is...

Full disclosure: I have a mini coming for work use as the size and weight is absolutely key for me. I have no problem with the resolution whatsoever, though of course I would have preferred a retina panel. Will I upgrade when a retina product drops? I have no idea, depends what other improvements there are, how the current mini is performing, how much I like the form factor etc. But for me a retina screen is a nice feature to have, not an essential and the current Mini fits my requirements damn near perfectly.
smiddlehurst is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 04:34 AM   #71
Hpye
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixotic3 View Post
I so wanted to love the Mini. I pictured myself casually pulling the mini out of a coat pocket at some coffee bar and surfing the web or maybe playing some angry birds. In reality the mini is too big and I had all of the same problems toting it around that I did with the normal size iPad ***but that is Not why I returned it. The screen... well I can honestly say that not having the retina was not a huge deal at first... I am old my eyes aren't what they used to be... but it kept bothering me for some reason... oh yeah, no... I got it ... the price. The reason I buy the best is... to... get... the best and I feel that my MBP retina is hands down the best laptop out there, and I feel that if I called apple support they will have an answer for me ( a company so far that isn't trying to do more with less...) so why Apple did you cheap out on the mini? It could have been the best thing ever just like all of your other products and at the premium that I paid over it's competitors it should have been. It should have had a better screen, better camera that did at least what the iPhone 5 camera does, more ram, and if you couldn't fit it in the size you released then you shouldn't have released it, Steve would not have...
why dont you buy GALAXY NOTE 2, It can serve web, angry bird..etc.. stop complaining
__________________
MacBook pro 13", iPhone 4s 32gb white, iphone 5, samsung galaxy s3, ipad mini slate/black MacBook Pro Retina Display 15"
Hpye is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 04:37 AM   #72
wrkactjob
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixotic3 View Post
......so why apple did you cheap out on the mini?....I am worried that this is a big misstep for Apple as I am a stock owner.
Yeah they're not going to make any money on this product...personally I will be surprised if they sell any and they will probably have to give them away.
wrkactjob is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 05:01 AM   #73
syd430
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrkactjob View Post
Yeah they're not going to make any money on this product...personally I will be surprised if they sell any and they will probably have to give them away.
How it affects the the brand long-term is the real question. Obviously with the kind of momentum Apple has with their iOS devices, this thing was going to sell out no matter what it had in it, and we all know it.

don't play dumb.
  0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 05:02 AM   #74
LaunchpadBS
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: iLondon/iDurban
A mini with a retina screen the same as the iphone 5 (glass wise) would be a definite buy for me
__________________
Mac Mini i7 2012 - 13" MBP 2012 - iPhone 5 - iPod Shuffle - iPad Air - iPod Classic - ATV 2
LaunchpadBS is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 06:12 AM   #75
fenjen
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
I think all the changes were retty neccesairy. It had to be light and portable but still last 10 hours. If they had put a retina display in there, there also had to be a better gpu and with that a better cpu in there. I don't tink that would've lasted the 10 hours it does now.
fenjen is offline   1 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
All iPads: iPad Mini with Retina Display Returned! AdonisSMU iPad 40 Nov 17, 2013 11:11 PM
iPad Mini: I think I used to own the rarest iPad mini ever! But I returned it... aPple nErd iPad 3 May 30, 2013 11:28 PM
iPad Mini: Returned my iPad Mini, smart choice? iMichael! iPad 37 Jan 14, 2013 11:27 AM
iPad Mini: Returned iPad Mini today - too many headaches - now what? manito2000 iPad 107 Nov 21, 2012 03:55 PM
iPad Mini: Returned iPad 4 for mini and loving it! insimbi iPad 7 Nov 6, 2012 02:18 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 AM.

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

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