For the mini - it is unclear if it is intended to be a smaller iPad (base) or instead a smaller Air.
A smaller, „Air“-class device.
For the mini - it is unclear if it is intended to be a smaller iPad (base) or instead a smaller Air. Take the screen for example. iPad mini displays have the most superior pixel density of all iPads - 326 ppi. iPads (base), Airs and Pros each have a 264 ppi display. So while for other specifications the mini has a better display than the iPad (base), an equivalent display to the Air, and a worse display than the Pro, it still has a better pixel density. I'm sure someone will say 'that's because you are viewing it from a closer distance', but I'm not sure that is true.
It‘s probably due to the evolution of the iPad range and (earlier?) software limitations in HiDPI scaling.
The first iPad mini had the same display resolution as the larger 9.7“ iPad - just in a smaller form factor. In migrating to „retina“ displays, they just doubled the horizontal and vertical resolutions, quadrupling the total number of pixels. This 2:1 scaling factor was easiest to support in software - anything else was and still can be a bit messy, as seen across numerous operating systems and application.
Try reading an article or website on a 60Hz screen while scrolling, then do the same on 120Hz+ screen.
People scroll between reading.
They rarely scroll
while reading.
You will soon see the 60Hz screen is terrible.
It‘s not terrible.
It‘s good enough.
Non-retina resolutions could be considered „terrible“ for 2024.
But the benefits of higher frame rates are diminishing beyond 60Hz or so.
And it‘s not as if people‘s TVs or desktop computer did more than 60fps (not usually anyway).
Can I suggest you take the time to research the ProMotion screens, and try one out for yourself! Maybe you will see why so many people on this forum are so keen on them! Cheers
I get it - but that‘s just a handful of enthusiasts on online forums. Apple doesn‘t design their products for that clientele. Not their non-„Pro“ products at least.
And even among these people online, comments vary between:
- „I‘d never go back“
- „It‘s noticeable but not much of a game changer in daily use“
- „My friend/girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/parents don‘t notice a difference at all“
👉 Do I believe Apple could somehow have a „ProMotion“ with variable fps made work while retaining targeted battery life? Yes, most probably. But consumer perception is good indication that it‘s a non-essential feature - particularly when designing a non-„Pro“ product.
So they used the less expensive but good enough component.
