iPad mini Received iPad Mini. One reviewer is spot on

[PeterKG]

I own a retina MBP 15", an iPhone 5, and came from an iPhone 4S. I bought the mini and returned it only due to the display.

I then bought the iPad 4, and today returned that because of the weight. I love the form factor of the mini, and the display of the iPad 4. I will wait and buy a mini in the next revision.

I blame Apple for this because they sold me on retina and then went backwards on the mini display. I understand totally why they did so to push this out for holiday sales, but I won't support giving them my money this cycle. I can't wait for the next mini!

 

[stickybuns]

Agreed, he's either a troll or a moron. The problem is even when you win an argument with an idiot, you still lose.

The technobabble from both sides puts me to sleep. While I gobble up the rumored specs as much as the next person, I'm far more interested in how the device feels in my hands once it is out in the stores.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Im now thinking Apple introduced a retina display screen too son on the iPad and that they shouldve waited until what is now the iPad 4 to introduce retina display iPads to the general public. This wouldve allowed them to introduce the mini instead of the iPad 3. People wouldve bought that in droves and then they wouldnt have had to release two big iPads within 6 months of each other and a "flawed" iPad mini. Apple totally got the marketing wrong on this one trying to parse features. I still love my mini but i have to call a spade a spade.

 

[sparks9]

You have to remember that if the display was retina it would also need a better processor and battery. It would all add to the cost and bulk and overall you would end up with a worse iPad. In time prices will come down and retina will be within range for the mini as tech is always improving and we are kind of in a transition period for displays...

 

[PeterKG]

You have to remember that if the display was retina it would also need a better processor and battery. It would all add to the cost and bulk and overall you would end up with a worse iPad. In time prices will come down and retina will be within range for the mini as tech is always improving and we are kind of in a transition period for displays...

I'm sure this is not the case. Look at the iPod Touch. I'm sure they already have a retina version in the pipeline for release next year.

 

[lianlua]

I'm sure this is not the case. Look at the iPod Touch. I'm sure they already have a retina version in the pipeline for release next year.

The iPod touch is almost five times smaller than the iPad mini--much less backlight power required. It also is a lower resolution than the iPad mini--meaning it doesn't require any more GPU power to run.

A retina iPad mini display would also be the biggest panel ever manufactured in volume at 326 ppi. It's not an easy thing just because it's been done on smaller panels.

There's a reason why retina displays start at the smallest size and work up. Unfortunately for Apple, the 7.9" size requires the same, extremely expensive 326ppi that goes into the iPhone/iPod touch. It took almost two years to get the iPad out at 264ppi, a comparatively easy feat, and two full years to get the 220ppi MacBook going. There is far too little appreciation for the difficulty of this work around here.

 

[saud0488]

I'm sure this is not the case. Look at the iPod Touch. I'm sure they already have a retina version in the pipeline for release next year.

YUP. Next year, which happens to be a year from now. Or....the future. Stuff isn't made overnight, and R&D takes time. It's likely a 7.9 inch retina would have pushed the price to 500 right now, or perhaps the battery wasn't ready.

Or maybe, just maybe, apple knew that even w/o a retina display (which really isn't that great on iPad), the thing would sell like crazy. And early reports have them as being absolutely correct.

 

[macingman]

You say the non retina display is not a huge problem then you say retina is not the greatest thing in the world ?

If retina isn't the greatest then how is your non retina screen not really a problem ?

Lol. The two points fit into each other. Retina not being greatest therefore it doesn't matter that much.

 

[Deasnutz]

Im now thinking Apple introduced a retina display screen too son on the iPad and that they shouldve waited until what is now the iPad 4 to introduce retina display iPads to the general public. This wouldve allowed them to introduce the mini instead of the iPad 3. People wouldve bought that in droves and then they wouldnt have had to release two big iPads within 6 months of each other and a "flawed" iPad mini. Apple totally got the marketing wrong on this one trying to parse features. I still love my mini but i have to call a spade a spade.

I'm sure they did it in response to competitors. The tablet market has always been about first to market. Also you have to remember that apple wants to sell you each idevice and Mac separately, so they need the differentiation.

 

[ElRojito]

After receiving the Mini and playing with it for the better part of the evening, the screen is definitely leaving something to be desired.

Only one reviewer so far has hit the nail on the head: Cult of Mac.

They basically sum it up by saying this is the most frustrating Apple device EVER. It is not worth a penny more than $329 and it will potentially be the best Apple product ever if it gets a retina upgrade next year.

I like it a lot so I don't think I will return it since what is available is simply reality, but man am I noticing the screen difference.

I guess they never used MobileMe.
I don't worry too much about the Retina -- Would it be nice? Yeah, but I like mine enough, it's a great device. Price-wise if you buy a kindle you're basically screwed into giving money to Amazon so I'd say that the price is fair. You don't HAVE to buy apps from the App Store, so Apple needed some head-room.

 

[PeterKG]

YUP. Next year, which happens to be a year from now. Or....the future. Stuff isn't made overnight, and R&D takes time. It's likely a 7.9 inch retina would have pushed the price to 500 right now, or perhaps the battery wasn't ready.

Or maybe, just maybe, apple knew that even w/o a retina display (which really isn't that great on iPad), the thing would sell like crazy. And early reports have them as being absolutely correct.

Who is doubting the mini will sell like crazy and people are loving it. I think it is great for the shareholders. But Apple also has sold many on the retina display. The same day they released the mini, they also released a 13" retina MBP.

Of course "stuff isn't made overnight, but Apple just didn't decide a few months ago to make a mini. It has been in the works a long time. Just like the next revision that will be a retina mini with an A6 chip.

Remember they hold back features so they can update in cycles, and keep us all upgrading and spending more money.

 

[lianlua]

It has been in the works a long time. Just like the next revision that will be a retina mini with an A6 chip.

I wouldn't get hung up on the "next revision". The retina display will come in a future version, but there's no telling whether that's one or three generations away, or 8 months or two more years.

They'd have absolutely nothing to lose by releasing a premium version of the mini with a retina display right now...if such a thing existed at a non-insane price. Until they're able to put one out at less than $499 that isn't monstrously thick and heavy, we're not going to see it.

 

[hugesaggyboobs]

Actually you are the one who has no idea what you are talking about. You are either stupid or a troll.

You are either an idiot or a troll. Actually it's probably both.

You realize you offer zero in this thread. Nothing. Just name calling.

----------

Agreed, he's either a troll or a moron. The problem is even when you win an argument with an idiot, you still lose.

The problem with idiots chiming into threads calling other people idiots and trolls is that they ruin any meaningful discussion. They just call people trolls. They sit in their basements with no experience or understanding of what's being discussed and project their hate for others who are smarter than them.

 

[DVK916]

You are either an idiot or a troll. Actually it's probably both.

You realize you offer zero in this thread. Nothing. Just name calling.

----------



The problem with idiots chiming into threads calling other people idiots and trolls is that they ruin any meaningful discussion. They just call people trolls. They sit in their basements with no experience or understanding of what's being discussed and project their hate for others who are smarter than them.

You know you just aren't worth it, continue being an idiot.

 

[hugesaggyboobs]

You know you just aren't worth it, continue being an idiot.

Continue being an idiot and offering zero to the discussion other than name calling. Classic sign of frustration when someone doesn't know much about what's being said.

 

[emaja]

Please.

Just.

Stop.

The penis fight has gotten old.

 

[Spungoflex]

No, he's right. There is no relationship between display size and ppi. You can have 100ppi on a 0.25" screen or on a 32' screen.

You are completely wrong. Screen size and resolution are the ONLY two factors that need to be taken into consideration when calculating PPI. That is a stone cold fact.

 

[lianlua]

You are completely wrong. Screen size and resolution are the ONLY two factors that need to be taken into consideration when calculating PPI. That is a stone cold fact.

Neither resolution nor screen size determines ppi. That you can calculate one value by knowing the other two does not establish causality.

The metric of pixels per inch is based on the size of the pixels and nothing else. There is zero causal relationship between screen size and pixel density.

For example, the size of a pixel used on the Kindle Fire HD is 0.00464". Whether you made a display of five inches, 15 inches, or 50 inches with those pixels, it would always be 215.5ppi. Whether you made a display of 1024x768, 1280x800, or 2560x1600 with those pixels, it would always be 215.5ppi. It doesn't matter to the pixels how many you pack together (size) or what configuration (resolution) you put them in.

A display's ppi is fixed in its physical existence. Neither changing the size nor changing the resolution of a display will in and of itself change the size of the pixels that it contains.

Your statement:

The mini has a higher PPI than the ipad 2 even though both devices have the exact same resolution. Why? Screen size.

Is not accurate. It should say: the mini has a higher ppi than the iPad 2 even though both devices have the exact same resolution. Why? Pixel size.

The smaller screen doesn't make ppi increase, the smaller pixels do.

 

[Spungoflex]

Neither resolution nor screen size determines ppi. That you can calculate one value by knowing the other two does not establish causality.

The metric of pixels per inch is based on the size of the pixels and nothing else. There is zero causal relationship between screen size and pixel density.

For example, the size of a pixel used on the Kindle Fire HD is 0.00464". Whether you made a display of five inches, 15 inches, or 50 inches with those pixels, it would always be 215.5ppi. Whether you made a display of 1024x768, 1280x800, or 2560x1600 with those pixels, it would always be 215.5ppi. It doesn't matter to the pixels how many you pack together (size) or what configuration (resolution) you put them in.

A display's ppi is fixed in its physical existence. Neither changing the size nor changing the resolution of a display will in and of itself change the size of the pixels that it contains.

Your statement:

Is not accurate. It should say: the mini has a higher ppi than the iPad 2 even though both devices have the exact same resolution. Why? Pixel size.

The smaller screen doesn't make ppi increase, the smaller pixels do.

Are you deliberately being silly or is this an actual argument? Screen size and resolution are the only to things that matter.

Two screens:

1) 7 inches @ 1920x1080

2) 42 inches @1920x1080

Of course the 7 inch screen at a resolution of 1920x1080 will require more (and smaller) pixels per inch than a 42" screen at the same resolution. No kidding. The fact remains that the decision to go with a smaller screen is what made it NECESSARY to pack in more (and smaller) pixels per inch to be able to achieve the 1920x1080 resolution.

Had apple decided to go with a 16:10 aspect ratio, their device would be running 1280x800. You know that. I know that. We all know that. They decided on 4:3 so 1024x768 was the only option on a 7.9 inch device. When they decide to include a retina display on the mini, it will be 2048x1536 and the ppi will double. Double the resolution, double the ppi. Resolution and screen size are the two determining factors here. Any argument that says otherwise is just based on semantics. Companies usually don't chose a ppi and work backwards. They chose screen size and resolution, ppi is just a statistic based on those two decisions.

 

[steve dave]

I don't get what the confusion here is. Every element on the screen of the ipad mini is made up of the exact same number of pixels as it is on the ipad 2. Everything is rendered exactly the same except that it is smaller. This isn't rocket science. It isn't like the mini is rendering smaller text on fewer pixels.

 

[lianlua]

Are you deliberately being silly or is this an actual argument?

The latter. You're misstating the relationship of pixel density to display size. That's the only point I'm making.

Screen size and resolution are the only to things that matter.

Neither one determines pixel density. In fact, of the three, the only two you have control over are pixel size and the number you put together (resolution).

Of course the 7 inch screen at a resolution of 1920x1080 will require more (and smaller) pixels than a 42" screen at the same resolution. No kidding. The fact remains that the decision to go with a smaller screen is what made it NECESSARY to pack in more (and smaller) pixels to be able to achieve the 1920x1080 resolution.

It would need smaller pixels, yes. No one's disputing any of that (edit: except that the 7" and 42" would need the SAME number of pixels, just different sizes). It's just that you told jsw he was wrong when he wasn't. That's all.

They decided on 4:3 so 1024x768 was the only option on a 7.9 inch device.

It doesn't work like that. You can't will pixels of a certain size into existence. They wanted to make a tablet in the 8" ballpark. They decided to go with 1024x768. At that point, they looked at manufacturing processes and identified their 163ppi IPS process. It is that which then determined that their finished display would be 7.85" in size, and they designed around that.

They chose screen size and resolution, ppi is just a statistic based on those two decisions.

No, it's not a statistic based on display size and resolution. It's a statistic based on pixel size. It's not an abstract figure. It's a very physical reality.

You can't design a display and size it down to the hundredths of an inch and then assume everything magically fits. You are constrained by physical processes. You pick a general target size, determine the display resolution, and then go shopping for pixels. If they had identified a hypothetical 170ppi process to manufacture the iPad mini, it'd be a 7.52" display. If they'd picked a hypothetical 160ppi process, it'd be a 7.98" display.

 

[zhenya]

Are you deliberately being silly or is this an actual argument? Screen size and resolution are the only to things that matter.

Two screens:

1) 7 inches @ 1920x1080

2) 42 inches @1920x1080

Of course the 7 inch screen at a resolution of 1920x1080 will require more (and smaller) pixels than a 42" screen at the same resolution. No kidding. The fact remains that the decision to go with a smaller screen is what made it NECESSARY to pack in more (and smaller) pixels to be able to achieve the 1920x1080 resolution.
.

Why do you need more pixels to render 1920x1080 on a 7" screen than 1920x1080 on a 42" screen? The total number of pixels is EXACTLY the same; 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels tall.

Lianlua is correct here.

 

[Spungoflex]

The latter. You're misstating the relationship of pixel density to display size. That's the only point I'm making.

Neither one determines pixel density. In fact, of the three, the only two you have control over are pixel size and the number you put together (resolution).

It would need smaller pixels, yes. No one's disputing any of that (edit: except that the 7" and 42" would need the SAME number of pixels, just different sizes). It's just that you told jsw he was wrong when he wasn't. That's all.

It doesn't work like that. You can't will pixels of a certain size into existence. They wanted to make a tablet in the 8" ballpark. They decided to go with 1024x768. At that point, they looked at manufacturing processes and identified their 163ppi IPS process. It is that which then determined that their finished display would be 7.85" in size, and they designed around that.

No, it's not a statistic based on display size and resolution. It's a statistic based on pixel size. It's not an abstract figure. It's a very physical reality.

You can't design a display and size it down to the hundredths of an inch and then assume everything magically fits. You are constrained by physical processes. You pick a general target size, determine the display resolution, and then go shopping for pixels. If they had identified a hypothetical 170ppi process to manufacture the iPad mini, it'd be a 7.52" display. If they'd picked a hypothetical 160ppi process, it'd be a 7.98" display.

Unreal

And btw, you knew full-well I mean pixels per inch, not total pixels. I edited my post to make that more clear even before you replied.

----------

Why do you need more pixels to render 1920x1080 on a 7" screen than 1920x1080 on a 42" screen? The total number of pixels is EXACTLY the same; 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels tall.

Lianlua is correct here.

Read my post again. He's incorrect and so are you. It's more pixels (per inch). I edited my post before either of you replied to clarify what should have been clear, considering we are discussing PPI, which is just a statistics based off resolution and screen size.

Then again, everyone already knows this. Enjoy your semantic arguments.

----------

 

[lianlua]

I edited my post before either of you replied

Obviously not, or those edits would be reflected in the replies.

Everyone on this forum already knows how PPI is calculated

How you can calculate it is not the same as what causes it.

so there's no use discussing it with him any further.

Please let that be true.

 

[zhenya]

Read my post again. He's incorrect and so are you. It's more pixels (per inch). I edited my post before either of you replied to clarify what should have been clear, considering we are discussing PPI, which is just a statistics based off resolution and screen size.

Then again, everyone already knows this. Enjoy your semantic arguments.

I've read your post.

Answer this simple question, based on your claims in post #193;

How many MORE pixels are there on the 7" 1920x1080 screen than on the 42" one?

It's clear you don't even understand the basics of how screens are described, let alone how they are designed.

You can't argue semantics if you don't know the vocabulary.