All iPads Big Bang in iPads next year

[BuckusToothnail]

Let's face it, Apple purposely GIMPED the Mini's display with a low-resolution non-HD screen just so they could "introduce" Retina Display as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 2 in six months, compelling everyone to upgrade again.

Since all iPad apps since the introduction of iPad 3 have been optimzed for Retina, the iPad Mini was already obsolete before it was even released.

It's sad still use the reason of app compatibility as the excuse for the Mini's poor resolution is still being bandied about.

The fact is Apple could have given the Mini a 1536x1152 display, which would have suited iPad apps developed for both the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 resolutions equally, thus eliminating the need for Apple to squeeze the full-sized iPad's resolution into the Mini's 7.9" display.

A 1536x1152 resolution 7.9" screen could be rightly considered "Retina", offering 244.5 PPI which slightly surpasses the 243 PPI of the 7" Nook HD and easily outclasses the 216 PPI of both the Kindle Fire HD 7" and the Nexus 7, and making it comparable to iPad 3 and 4's 264 PPI.

In fact, I suspect the "Retina Display" resolution for the iPad Mini 2 will BE 1536x1152 rather than the 2048x1536 resolution of the iPad 3 and 4.

By using a 1536x1152 screen resolution for the iPad Mini 2 and 3, Apple can then "introduce" the full-sized 2048x1536 iPad resolution as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 4.

Smart business move by Apple. But are we dumb enough as consumers to fall for it (again)?

 

[yegon]

A six month upgrade to the mini is pure fantasy. IF the retina mini comes in v2, which I think it probably will, it'll be q4 2013, no earlier. All sorts of reasons, chief amongst them battery, thinness and cost issues (screen), and the small matter of Apple milking sales of v1 for at least 9 months. There's been ONE instance of a six month iPad upgrade, and now we assume ALL future upgrades will be 6 months? Get real.

 

[FlashHead]

Totally agree. It will be at least a year until they can bring a retina without severe increases in weight/cost/thickness.

 

[cardfan]

While Apple is ok for the moment with the mini as it is....they are not content with it staying that way...they certainly want it to go to retina, but keep the cost and weight down...I know this as I know someone who is in the display group.

But, they won't shift to the better screen until they get that cost down and the efficiency of the display up.

They were and are content with Macbook Air being non-retina for a few generations now. The Mini will be the same. Expect performance enhancements and lower pricing as it scales up.

It's not a matter of technology and cost. It's a matter of sales & marketing. Apple is currently reaching down a bit with 329 and thin & light. No doubt that price will lower as this current Mini ages a year. But they're not going to reach up with it. That would murder their bigger ipad sales and margins. The Mini isn't targeting you, but the masses, the majority of whom don't even know or care about high density screens. It's a small cute ipad..and its cheaper...buy it.

Explain how they could get away with selling an ipad 4 or 5 at 499 and this magical retina ipad Mini (which would cost more to make than a bigger ipad) at 329? You can dig up whatever new tech Apple is looking at but it won't change a few fundamentals.

Apple has cheapened things and created unrealistic expectations with the retina term. People expect it now. No doubt an ipad mini with retina & better processor (but no design changes) would be met with "no innovation" moaning. As the the ipad 3 was even though the thought of that high of resolution screen at 9.7" was incredible with many not believing prior to it that it could be done.

I think retina stays an exclusive feature of their bigger ipads. It's essential for Apple.

 

[zhenya]

Let's face it, Apple purposely GIMPED the Mini's display with a low-resolution non-HD screen just so they could "introduce" Retina Display as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 2 in six months, compelling everyone to upgrade again.

Since all iPad apps since the introduction of iPad 3 have been optimzed for Retina, the iPad Mini was already obsolete before it was even released.

It's sad still use the reason of app compatibility as the excuse for the Mini's poor resolution is still being bandied about.

The fact is Apple could have given the Mini a 1536x1152 display, which would have suited iPad apps developed for both the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 resolutions equally, thus eliminating the need for Apple to squeeze the full-sized iPad's resolution into the Mini's 7.9" display.

A 1536x1152 resolution 7.9" screen could be rightly considered "Retina", offering 244.5 PPI which slightly surpasses the 243 PPI of the 7" Nook HD and easily outclasses the 216 PPI of both the Kindle Fire HD 7" and the Nexus 7, and making it comparable to iPad 3 and 4's 264 PPI.

In fact, I suspect the "Retina Display" resolution for the iPad Mini 2 will BE 1536x1152 rather than the 2048x1536 resolution of the iPad 3 and 4.

By using a 1536x1152 screen resolution for the iPad Mini 2 and 3, Apple can then "introduce" the full-sized 2048x1536 iPad resolution as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 4.

Smart business move by Apple. But are we dumb enough as consumers to fall for it (again)?

We have discussed the possibility of just such a scenario many times here. Please explain how you think it would be done, because it seems very unlikely that Apple would allow apps to scale by a non-exact multiplier.

Unless they decide to change the aspect ratio from 4:3 (dear god I hope they don't), the resolution will be 1024x768 and 2048x1536 when it goes retina.

 

[HowardSmith]

They need to leave the iPad alone. It was never too heavy or too thick until the mini was introduced. I returned my mini in 24 hours and went back to my iPad 3. The mini was cheap feeling.

There is room for both, pick what you want!

 

[BuckusToothnail]

All sorts of reasons, chief amongst them battery, thinness and cost issues (screen)

You still buy this FUD?

Explain to me then how the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD 7" and Nook HD are all able to achieve "Retina"-level displays of 216-243 PPI (as opposed to the iPad Mini's 163 PPI) but Apple can't?

And not only are they not experiencing "battery, thinness and cost issues", but actually cost 65% or $130 LESS than the Mini AND have faster CPUs and double the RAM to boot.

And despite the Nook HD screen having 65% HIGHER resolution than the iPad Mini, it's still only 0.15" thicker than the Mini, and yet ALSO 0.22" shorter and 0.3" less wide, and in general a less bulky device. It's also nearly IDENTICAL in weight with only 0.01 LB difference between the two.

And both the Kindle Fire HD 7" and the Nook HD have LONGER battery life with the Kindle Fire HD at 11 hours and NOOK HD at 10.5 hours compared to the iPad Mini's 10 hours. That's right, LONGER battery life even when driving a screen with 65% more resolution.

So what are these "battery, thinness and cost issues" you're going on about?

And let's not forget that the iPhone has had Retina since iPhone 4 was released in June 2010. That's nearly two and a half years ago! And the iPhone 5 with the HIGHEST resolution of any iPhone ever at 1136×640 is also the THINNEST and LIGHTEST iPhone ever.

Do you actually believe a Retina Display can be miniaturized to 3.5" and 4" screens but not to 7.9"?

A 7.9" iPad Mini screen even with the full-sized iPad resolution of 2048x1536 would STILL be 326 PPI, EXACTLY the pixels per inch as the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPhone 5, not to mention the iPod 4 and 5.

Tell me again how this can't be done?

 

[zhenya]

Do you actually believe a Retina Display can be miniaturized to 3.5" and 4" screens but not to 7.9"?

A 7.9" iPad Mini screen even with the full-sized iPad resolution of 2048x1536 would STILL be 326 PPI, EXACTLY the pixels per inch as the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPhone 5, not to mention the iPod 4 and 5.

Tell me again how this can't be done?

There is a HUGE difference between making a 7" screen at 1280x800 and a 7.9" one at 2048x1536 - the latter has nearly 4x as many pixels, so, just like in the full sized tablets, this requires much more powerful graphics chips to operate, which in turn requires a much larger battery, which in turn adds weight and cost. Apple was not looking to make the Mini their top of the line tablet, they were building it to a specific price point.

The question you should be asking is 'where are the super-high resolution 7" Android tablets?'

And that thickness difference that you downplay between the Mini and the Nook HD? It's more than 50% thicker than the Mini!

 

[fertilized-egg]

Let's face it, Apple purposely GIMPED the Mini's display with a low-resolution non-HD screen just so they could "introduce" Retina Display as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 2 in six months, compelling everyone to upgrade again.
.
The fact is Apple could have given the Mini a 1536x1152 display, which would have suited iPad apps developed for both the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 resolutions equally, thus eliminating the need for Apple to squeeze the full-sized iPad's resolution into the Mini's 7.9" display.

The "Fact" is that Apple couldn't have given mini a 1536x1152 display without having to change the way they do the resolution independence for the developers, which is 2x. Every single time they went to "Retina", they doubled the linear resolution because that's the easiest and trouble free way of handling it. Going to a non-linear multiplication of resolution would've been tricky.

Do you actually believe a Retina Display can be miniaturized to 3.5" and 4" screens but not to 7.9"?

A 7.9" iPad Mini screen even with the full-sized iPad resolution of 2048x1536 would STILL be 326 PPI, EXACTLY the pixels per inch as the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPhone 5, not to mention the iPod 4 and 5.

Tell me again how this can't be done?

Because they use different technologies. I'm a non expert to say the least, but let me explain.

The iPhone Retina display is made by using LTPS type transistors. This is great, wonderful technology that allows very high resolution and low power usage. Great. HOWEVER, LTPS is expensive and they haven't managed to get LTPS in large size panels in massive quantity that Apple require. In other words, LTPS at this point isn't suitable for tablet screens, say bigger than 5 inches diagonal.

Thus LTPS is out and Apple is using the a-Si for iPad panels. a-Si is proven with larger panels and much cheaper to produce. But the technology doesn't allow for high resolution. In fact many were surprised that Apple's suppliers managed to get a-Si work for iPad's high resolution. Also Apple had to pack a much bigger battery because a-Si isn't particularly efficient for high resolution displays.

This is where IGZO comes in. It sits somewhere between LTPS and a-Si in performance but it's cheaper than LTPS to produce and reportedly more suitable for larger panels. However, it's still very much a work in progress. Sharp and others are taking a long time to bring the technology to market in the quality and quantity required by Apple.

To sum it up, Apple really had no choice with iPad mini. IGZO isn't ready and LTPS also isn't ready which means they had to go with a low resolution a-Si display. We'll have to wait for one of those aforementioned technologies to mature and become economically viable to get Retina in an iPad mini without making it heavier and thicker.

And again, Apple so far has only went with doubling the linear resolution for Retina and this probably will not change anytime soon. Thus the iPad mini will have the same resolution as the new iPad, and the same pixel density as iPhone. This will be a tough task and personally I don't know if it's guaranteed that we get a Retina mini a year from now.

 

[yegon]

You still buy this FUD?

Explain to me then how the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD 7" and Nook HD are all able to achieve "Retina"-level displays of 216-243 PPI (as opposed to the iPad Mini's 163 PPI) but Apple can't?

And not only are they not experiencing "battery, thinness and cost issues", but actually cost 65% or $130 LESS than the Mini AND have faster CPUs and double the RAM to boot.

And despite the Nook HD screen having 65% HIGHER resolution than the iPad Mini, it's still only 0.15" thicker than the Mini, and yet ALSO 0.22" shorter and 0.3" less wide, and in general a less bulky device. It's also nearly IDENTICAL in weight with only 0.01 LB difference between the two.

And both the Kindle Fire HD 7" and the Nook HD have LONGER battery life with the Kindle Fire HD at 11 hours and NOOK HD at 10.5 hours compared to the iPad Mini's 10 hours. That's right, LONGER battery life even when driving a screen with 65% more resolution.

So what are these "battery, thinness and cost issues" you're going on about?

And let's not forget that the iPhone has had Retina since iPhone 4 was released in June 2010. That's nearly two and a half years ago! And the iPhone 5 with the HIGHEST resolution of any iPhone ever at 1136×640 is also the THINNEST and LIGHTEST iPhone ever.

Do you actually believe a Retina Display can be miniaturized to 3.5" and 4" screens but not to 7.9"?

A 7.9" iPad Mini screen even with the full-sized iPad resolution of 2048x1536 would STILL be 326 PPI, EXACTLY the pixels per inch as the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPhone 5, not to mention the iPod 4 and 5.

Tell me again how this can't be done?

Lot of fail in this comment.

Who's producing 2048x1536 7.9" screens in volume right now? No one. Prior to the Nexus 10 launch, there wasn't a single screen in mass production that came even close to 2048x1536 under 10".

Equally, why are the 3 & 4 heavier than the years old 2? Battery. Even trickier in smaller form factor, surely the whole point of the mini. Apple aren't going to go back on 10hr battery life now.

A middle ground res between 1024x and 2048x? Been covered extensively elsewhere, not going to happen.

Combine these factors, and the only conceivable retina mini released now would be the same or higher cost than the 9.7", either thicker/heavier with 10 hr battery, or same thickness with 5hr battery. 3/4 has 42.5kw battery, mini has 16.5kw, go figure.

 

[BuckusToothnail]

We have discussed the possibility of just such a scenario many times here. Please explain how you think it would be done, because it seems very unlikely that Apple would allow apps to scale by a non-exact multiplier.

Unless they decide to change the aspect ratio from 4:3 (dear god I hope they don't), the resolution will be 1024x768 and 2048x1536 when it goes retina.

What people generally assume when they hear of a "non-exact multiplier" resolution bandied about is they immediately think that developers will now have to rewrite all their apps to accommodate this "new" resolution.

That's absolutely not true. In fact, no iPad app would need to be "rewritten". Rather, all the apps will be scaled up or down appropriately on the DEVICE side whether it's done on hardware or through iOS.

The 1536x1152 resolution being a 50% increase in multiple over the iPad Mini's 1024x768 display and a 25% decrease in multiple from the 2048x1536 display of the full-sized iPads means that it would offer SCALABILITY for apps created for either of the resolutions EQUALLY.

What are the benefits of giving the 7.9" iPad Mini a 1536x1152 resolution instead of 1024x768?

For one, any older generation iPad app with a 1024x768 resolution should look no worse scaled up to 1536x1152 if proper upscaling algorithms were used, and might even look better due to the benefits of upscaling.

However, the real advantage would be when it was running Retina Display iPad apps with 2048x1536 resolution. A 1536x1152 screen actually has two-and-a-quarter times as much pixel information as a 1024x768 screen, or 225% the resolution.

That means it would retain that much more resolution when scaled down from 2048x1536.

It's the exact difference between 1080p and 720p, with 1080p having 225% the resolution of 720p and two-and-a-quarter times the number of pixels.

Now using this analogy, would 720p material look any worse on a 1080p screen of the same size? And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p display or a 720p display?

Now let's address your claim that "it seems very unlikely that Apple would allow apps to scale by a non-exact multiplier".

First of all, if you remember when the first generation iPad was released (taking for granted that you had one), there wasn't a whole lot of dedicated iPad apps and for a few months a lot if not most of the apps anyone was using were iPhone apps.

Now is 480x320 which is the original iPhone resolution an "exact multiplier" of 1024x768, the original iPad resolution?

Of course not, it's not even close!

And did Apple "allow apps to scale by a non-exact multiplier"?

Of course they did!

One of the selling points of the first-gen iPad was that it could run almost all iPhone apps. If Apple really care so much about "exact multiplier" compatibility they would have used 960x640 as the resolution of the first iPad instead.

Now I'm sure some people are thinking, "but iPhone apps look HORRIBLE on the iPad!" That's pretty much true, there's no argument there.

But the difference with this scenario is that you're comparing how an app designed for a 3.5" screen looks on a 9.7" screen. On the bigger screen, low resolution apps will absolutely look stretched out and blurry.

In our scenario, however, we're not dealing with a different screen size for the iPad Mini which remains 7.9". The difference would be the RESOLUTION, with 1536x1152 containing more than twice the resolution of 1024x768, allowing for a much sharper, smoother and superior viewing experience on the iPad Mini.

 

[fertilized-egg]

In our scenario, however, we're not dealing with a different screen size for the iPad Mini which remains 7.9". The difference would be the RESOLUTION, with 1536x1152 containing more than twice the resolution of 1024x768, allowing for a much sharper, smoother and superior viewing experience on the iPad Mini.

That'll work for movies and photos without much visual downgrades but doesn't work as well for the vector graphics and fonts. Again Apple so far hasn't shown that they are willing to take the immediate multiplier. Anything is possible but I doubt it unless the IGZO panels take forever to get ready in which case Apple will have no choice but to consider other options.

 

[Panch0]

If apple ever shift the iPad to 16x9 they'll do it in 2014 (I believe) and that would bring a 300+ ppi 9.7" iPad. Either way I think we'll see an even higher res iPad screen in the next 2 years. I don't see the point, but I think we will...

I still don't see them improving battery/screen tech enough by next year to fit a retina screen into something as small as a mini, but boy i hope I'm wrong.

switching from current A6 production at 32nm to the reported 20nm process that TSCM is supposed to be bringing on-line next year will be huge for battery life. You could basically put the A5X or A6X onto a smaller chip that draws less power. Not sure that is going to happen in time for a product release next year though.

 

[zhenya]

What people generally assume when they hear of a "non-exact multiplier" resolution bandied about is they immediately think that developers will now have to rewrite all their apps to accommodate this "new" resolution.

That's absolutely not true. In fact, no iPad app would need to be "rewritten". Rather, all the apps will be scaled up or down appropriately on the DEVICE side whether it's done on hardware or through iOS.

The 1536x1152 resolution being a 50% increase in multiple over the iPad Mini's 1024x768 display and a 25% decrease in multiple from the 2048x1536 display of the full-sized iPads means that it would offer SCALABILITY for apps created for either of the resolutions EQUALLY.

What are the benefits of giving the 7.9" iPad Mini a 1536x1152 resolution instead of 1024x768?

For one, any older generation iPad app with a 1024x768 resolution should look no worse scaled up to 1536x1152 if proper upscaling algorithms were used, and might even look better due to the benefits of upscaling.

However, the real advantage would be when it was running Retina Display iPad apps with 2048x1536 resolution. A 1536x1152 screen actually has two-and-a-quarter times as much pixel information as a 1024x768 screen, or 225% the resolution.

That means it would retain that much more resolution when scaled down from 2048x1536.

It's the exact difference between 1080p and 720p, with 1080p having 225% the resolution of 720p and two-and-a-quarter times the number of pixels.

Now using this analogy, would 720p material look any worse on a 1080p screen of the same size? And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p display or a 720p display?

Now let's address your claim that "it seems very unlikely that Apple would allow apps to scale by a non-exact multiplier".

First of all, if you remember when the first generation iPad was released (taking for granted that you had one), there wasn't a whole lot of dedicated iPad apps and for a few months a lot if not most of the apps anyone was using were iPhone apps...

I have never said that developers would have to re-write their apps. That said, scaling will have artifacts; you can't get around it. Apple chose the 2x multiplier because it's the only way that they could avoid those artifacts, and it makes sense for a detail-obsessed company like Apple. Android was always intended to run on virtually any hardware, so they don't have the luxury of tightly controlling options to maximize the user experience.

Scaling videos is a very different challenge than scaling static bitmaps where pixel boundaries are very clearly defined.

As for the original iPad, Apple HAD to allow for upscaling because it was a new category of device - if they wanted people to adopt the platform, they needed to allow them to use the apps they'd already paid for. Now that the iPad is a mature platform, you won't see that happening again.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

What people generally assume when they hear of a "non-exact multiplier" resolution bandied about is they immediately think that developers will now have to rewrite all their apps to accommodate this "new" resolution.

That's absolutely not true. In fact, no iPad app would need to be "rewritten". Rather, all the apps will be scaled up or down appropriately on the DEVICE side whether it's done on hardware or through iOS.

The 1536x1152 resolution being a 50% increase in multiple over the iPad Mini's 1024x768 display and a 25% decrease in multiple from the 2048x1536 display of the full-sized iPads means that it would offer SCALABILITY for apps created for either of the resolutions EQUALLY.

What are the benefits of giving the 7.9" iPad Mini a 1536x1152 resolution instead of 1024x768?

For one, any older generation iPad app with a 1024x768 resolution should look no worse scaled up to 1536x1152 if proper upscaling algorithms were used, and might even look better due to the benefits of upscaling.

However, the real advantage would be when it was running Retina Display iPad apps with 2048x1536 resolution. A 1536x1152 screen actually has two-and-a-quarter times as much pixel information as a 1024x768 screen, or 225% the resolution.

That means it would retain that much more resolution when scaled down from 2048x1536.

It's the exact difference between 1080p and 720p, with 1080p having 225% the resolution of 720p and two-and-a-quarter times the number of pixels.

Now using this analogy, would 720p material look any worse on a 1080p screen of the same size? And if there was HD material that was 1440p (2560x1440), would you rather view it on a 1080p display or a 720p display?

Now let's address your claim that "it seems very unlikely that Apple would allow apps to scale by a non-exact multiplier".

First of all, if you remember when the first generation iPad was released (taking for granted that you had one), there wasn't a whole lot of dedicated iPad apps and for a few months a lot if not most of the apps anyone was using were iPhone apps.

Now is 480x320 which is the original iPhone resolution an "exact multiplier" of 1024x768, the original iPad resolution?

Of course not, it's not even close!

And did Apple "allow apps to scale by a non-exact multiplier"?

Of course they did!

One of the selling points of the first-gen iPad was that it could run almost all iPhone apps. If Apple really care so much about "exact multiplier" compatibility they would have used 960x640 as the resolution of the first iPad instead.

Now I'm sure some people are thinking, "but iPhone apps look HORRIBLE on the iPad!" That's pretty much true, there's no argument there.

But the difference with this scenario is that you're comparing how an app designed for a 3.5" screen looks on a 9.7" screen. On the bigger screen, low resolution apps will absolutely look stretched out and blurry.

In our scenario, however, we're not dealing with a different screen size for the iPad Mini which remains 7.9". The difference would be the RESOLUTION, with 1536x1152 containing more than twice the resolution of 1024x768, allowing for a much sharper, smoother and superior viewing experience on the iPad Mini.

Your iPad 1 argument is quite flawed. Back then, it was brand new device category. Today, the iPad is not a brand new device category for Apple. 720P content does look very pixelated on a 1080P screen. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. You can use scaling algorithms but at the end of the day, an exact multiplier is much better than even the best algorithm. The reason why it's so damn hard to develop apps for other platforms is because of resolution density differences between devices of even the same category (phone to phone or tablet to tablet). Apple has ensured easiness by using exact multipliers. Your point about the iPad 1 not having an exact multiplier as an iPhone carries no meaning. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They're different, so what? Does it mean anything significant? No. Trust me, I have written apps for iOS, Android, BlackBerry and working with WP8 right now. iOS is the easiest to scale apps for different screen sizes because you know the resolution density. It's either 1024x768 then optimize for Mini vs full size, or 960x640 for iPhone (or half of each dimension for older iPhones/iPods) or the retina class iPad. For Android... oh dear god although BB and WP8 are slightly better.

 

[Lara F]

I see them having a base mini and a Mini(r) at a premium price offering

If the tech isn't there to replace the current Mini at $329, I definitely see them going that route too.

Personally I hope it's been priced high relative to the competition now precisely in order to give them that room next year.

 

[lianlua]

The 1536x1152 resolution being a 50% increase in multiple over the iPad Mini's 1024x768 display and a 25% decrease in multiple from the 2048x1536 display of the full-sized iPads means that it would offer SCALABILITY for apps created for either of the resolutions EQUALLY.

This causes three problems:
1. Poor display performance with scaling artifacts. You can't divide by half or quarter pixels and still deliver an image with acceptable levels of alignment and clarity. Running an LCD at a non-native resolution is not a good experience. To blunt this on the retina MacBooks, non-native resolutions are rendered offscreen at double the resolution, which an iOS device simply does not have the GPU power to do, and it still doesn't look great.
2. It creates a third size for bitmap artwork and UI layouts because developers are not going to stick to two suboptimal non-native resolutions.
3. iPad mini apps would show at different sizes depending on whether a "retina" version is available. Scaling up by 50% and scaling down by 25% on the same physical area results in different object sizes.

None of these is world-ending, but weighed against the other considerations in price and performance, with the relatively minor consequence of having a lower resolution than some of the competition, it's easy to see why it didn't shake out that way.

Now using this analogy, would 720p material look any worse on a 1080p screen of the same size?

Video is much more forgiving of scaling than other media, particularly compressed video streams as typically viewed on mobile devices.

And did Apple "allow apps to scale by a non-exact multiplier"?

Of course they did!

No, they didn't.

One of the selling points of the first-gen iPad was that it could run almost all iPhone apps. If Apple really care so much about "exact multiplier" compatibility they would have used 960x640 as the resolution of the first iPad instead.

They did. iPhone apps on the iPad are displayed in a frame exactly 960x640 pixels in size.

With IGZO now in full production, Apple will be able to provide a Retina display for the iPad Mini in 2013. It is merely a matter of when. The benefits of IGZO include thinner bezels, cheaper cost of production and power savings (using up to 20% power of traditional panels). Since the display uses the greatest amount of battery life, IGZO should allow Apple to produce a Retina quality display while not sacrificing battery life.

Not quite. IGZO still requires a powerful backlight, and although 20% power savings is massive, it's only about 1/3 to half of the power consumption difference. An IGZO retina LCD still needs a lot more power than a non-retina LCD, something that will still need some work.

That device is already available in Japan and will probably be announced in the US on November 13th during a HTC/Verizon event.

It's not shipping yet, and when it does, it will be in Japan only. They don't have yields high enough for a worldwide launch on that single model, which would sell a fraction of what the iPad would, and it's on a 5" display, which is around three times smaller than the iPad mini. It's still a long way from being a viable contender here. IGZO production is ramping up and it's very likely to appear in a retina mini, but it's not going to be in just a few months, or the exact part would already be in volume production.

Explain to me then how the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD 7" and Nook HD are all able to achieve "Retina"-level displays of 216-243 PPI (as opposed to the iPad Mini's 163 PPI) but Apple can't?

It's not about "can't". Those displays (except the Nook HD+, which doesn't have the volume to support an iPad) just don't fit with Apple's other technical and design needs. The options in the 8" 4:3 class right now are 1024x768 and 1280x960. They probably could have dumped enough money into LG to make their Kindle display in an odd 1352x1024 size, but for an extremely high cost and little benefit.

And not only are they not experiencing "battery, thinness and cost issues", but actually cost 65% or $130 LESS

They don't cost that much less to make, and of course they're having battery, thinness, and cost issues. The 7" tablets have bigger batteries and screens that are 35% smaller to illuminate. It's not the resolution that eats the battery primarily; it's the backlight.

Tell me again how this can't be done?

It can be and it will be, but not today and not tomorrow.

 

[poloponies]

Explain to me then how the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD 7" and Nook HD are all able to achieve "Retina"-level displays of 216-243 PPI (as opposed to the iPad Mini's 163 PPI) but Apple can't?

And not only are they not experiencing "battery, thinness and cost issues", but actually cost 65% or $130 LESS than the Mini AND have faster CPUs and double the RAM to boot.

Tell me again how this can't be done?

It can certainly be done, but not at the same weight, thickness or price point. The Kindle Fire is appreciably heavier and still has lower battery life (pick one up and you'll see how much denser it is than what you'd expect). The iPad's display is 1/3 larger than the Nexus or Fire. That also comes at a cost. So Apple had choices to make:

Meet the display specs of the other devices but lose on weight and thickness (close to a pound and not appreciably thinner than the current iPad)

or

Differentiate it sufficiently for iPad buyers who want a smaller and much lighter device.

As for price, you have to compare it to what the other devices cost to make, not their selling price. It would probably add $30 to Apple's cost, so you'd have a significantly heavier device that's also thicker but with a better display for about $379-$399.

 

[MacPod]

Again, explain how they'll sell bigger ipads at their current prices while at the same time selling a just as fast Mini with a better quality screen that costs more to make?

That really doesn't matter. Some people will want a bigger screen, some will want a smaller device, some will want both. This is just like how Apple does with all their multiple-sized devices.

The idea that there has to be some artificial differentiation isn't valid. Apple will be happy if you buy an iPad mini instead of an iPad, because you're at least still buying from them.

But if they keep this non-retina solely to keep their products different, they'll also be making their product different from those of the competition. The fewer reasons to buy an Android tablet, the better it is for Apple.

I don't see Apple going with a premium ipad mini while keeping a basic version which is what you're assuming.

They already do this with the iPad (and have for quite some time). You can buy an iPad 2 or an iPad with Retina Display, and that's exactly what he's proposing.

I don't think a retina iPad is a foregone conclusion, and there are definitely some technical hurdles to overcome (as you pointed out), but if they can do it while maintaining reasonable costs and not bulking up the mini, they most certainly will do it. There's really no reason not to.

 

[iknows]

Since everyone is playing the prediction game. Here is my take:

New iPads release in late 2013.

iPad 5:

same retina display
new technology allows same body style as the iPad mini
IGZO screen, better camera or with flash same camera (can't have a better camera than the iPhone something has to be "less")
A7X, 1 GB Ram, iOS 7, slightly lighter but still over 1 lb
models are exactly the same and price as now, starting $499

iPad mini:

NO retina display, come on this is Apple they always go with two generations before a MAJOR upgrade. (See iPhone 3, 3GS, 4; iPhone 4, 4S, 5; iPad , 2, 3. I can even predict the future also! See iPad 3, 4, 5 (2013 new design!). See iPad mini 1, 2, 3 (2014 w/retina display!)
A6 chip, 1GB Ram, iOS 7, same weight as now.
models are exactly the same and price as now, starting $329

People always go wild with rumors thinking Apple will give them ALL they want. Apple has never done that especially with the iPhone and iPad.

 

[MacPod]

You still buy this FUD?

How is any of that Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt?

Explain to me then how the Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD 7" and Nook HD are all able to achieve "Retina"-level displays of 216-243 PPI (as opposed to the iPad Mini's 163 PPI) but Apple can't?

And not only are they not experiencing "battery, thinness and cost issues", but actually cost 65% or $130 LESS than the Mini AND have faster CPUs and double the RAM to boot.

The Nexus and Kindle are smaller screens, are thicker and heavier than the iPad mini. They are also sold at close to cost, or even at a loss. Additionally, Apple can't just bump the mini up to a "retina-level" resolution, they have to double the resolution, or come up with yet another screen size (which they will not do unless truly necessary).

I don't think anyone is saying that a retina iPad mini is impossible (so asking how "Apple can't" is a straw man), but that it's not possible to do, while still fitting into the parameters Apple wishes to meet.

Or simply, look at it in reverse. If Apple could make a retina mini, while still keeping price, size, weight, pixel dimension, and production rate the same, why wouldn't they?

Of course they would. The fact that they haven't strongly implies that at least one or more of those are unattainable at the same time. And that also matches with a reasonable assessment of the current state of the technology involved.

 

[BuckusToothnail]

There is a HUGE difference between making a 7" screen at 1280x800 and a 7.9" one at 2048x1536

Which is why I was ACTUALLY talking about the iPad Mini having the 1536x1152 resolution, NOT 2048x1536. And the Nook HD actually has a resolution of 1440x900, NOT 1280x800.

That would give the Mini a PPI of 245 and just SLIGHTLY edging the Nook HD's 243 PPI, hardly a "HUGE difference".

And that thickness difference that you downplay between the Mini and the Nook HD? It's more than 50% thicker than the Mini!

And yet the Nook HD has a 65% higher resolution than the Mini!

Really, with such a low-resolution screen you would expect the iPad Mini to be at least TWICE as thin as the Nook HD, not just 31% less, which in real world terms is just 0.13" or 3.3mm thinner.

Now if "thin" is SO important to you, even preferring a reduction of 0.13" in thinness over a 65% increase in resolution, then you might be heartbroken to find out that the Nexus 10, despite having over 30% HIGHER resolution, 0.355" bigger screen AND 35 higher PPI, is also THINNER than the iPad 4.

 

[CaneCollegeboy]

Since everyone is playing the prediction game. Here is my take:

New iPads release in late 2013.

iPad 5:

same retina display
new technology allows same body style as the iPad mini
IGZO screen, better camera or with flash same camera (can't have a better camera than the iPhone something has to be "less")
A7X, 1 GB Ram, iOS 7, slightly lighter but still over 1 lb
models are exactly the same and price as now, starting $499

iPad mini:

NO retina display, come on this is Apple they always go with two generations before a MAJOR upgrade. (See iPhone 3, 3GS, 4; iPhone 4, 4S, 5; iPad , 2, 3. I can even predict the future also! See iPad 3, 4, 5 (2013 new design!). See iPad mini 1, 2, 3 (2014 w/retina display!)
A6 chip, 1GB Ram, iOS 7, same weight as now.
models are exactly the same and price as now, starting $329

People always go wild with rumors thinking Apple will give them ALL they want. Apple has never done that especially with the iPhone and iPad.

Again we have no idea but im thinking the new ipad retina with a redesign will come out in spring next year. And come fall the mini will be retina. Remember apple is not just competing with itself but with the world. The days of saying well we need a better camera on the iphone instead of the ipad are over

 

[BuckusToothnail]

Lot of fail in this comment.
Who's producing 2048x1536 7.9" screens in volume right now? No one.

The "fail" is ALL YOURS considering I wasn't talking about "2048x1536 7.9" screens", but rather a proposed 1536x1152 resolution for the iPad Mini.

Prior to the Nexus 10 launch, there wasn't a single screen in mass production that came even close to 2048x1536 under 10".

And this is where you FAIL AGAIN. Since we're talking about 7" tablets, the metric that we should be using to compare to the full-sized iPads is not its resolution, given the iPad's vastly larger screen size, but its PPI.

The iPad 3 and 4's PPI is 264. The Nook HD's PPI is 243, which is comparable. The iPad Mini's 163 PPI, however, is NOT.

 

[Awakener]

They need to leave the iPad alone. It was never too heavy or too thick until the mini was introduced. I returned my mini in 24 hours and went back to my iPad 3. The mini was cheap feeling.

There is room for both, pick what you want!

The mini does feel cheap. Too light and thin.
If Apple made a retina mini it would add slight thickness, might weigh about 80 grams more.