iPad mini I wonder how much the "non retina" decision had to do with technology and costs...

Discussion in 'iPad' started by CNeufeld, Nov 1, 2012.

  1. CNeufeld macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    #1
    And how much it had to do with not introducing yet another resolution into the rapidly fragmenting iOS world. After all, other 7 inch devices are out there with higher resolution screens, respectable battery life, and lower prices.

    Clint
     
  2. fizzwinkus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    #2
    Yes and no. Apple only supports 1x and 2x. The battery and tech were not available for 2x, so apple shipped with 1x. The reason for this is that supporting 1.2x, 1.4x, would be insanely hard for developers. Once you introduce such variability in screen res, the easy way to support them is to scale your phone apps. You lose the tight, custom developed ui. Then you're stuck with the bad software android has with all their different screen sizes.
     
  3. 8a22a macrumors 6502a

    8a22a

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    Location:
    Yorkshire, UK
  4. theautopilot macrumors 6502a

    theautopilot

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #4
    Indeed.

    It's all about the apps. Gives Apple an instant huge lead in the "7 market.
     
  5. reputationZed macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    34°55′42″N 80°44′41″W (34.
    #5
    My guess is that retina would have lead to a slightly thicker slightly heavier mini and that was a compromise Apple was not willing to make.
     
  6. AdonisSMU macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #6
    Plus the technology to shoe horn in a 2048 pixel screen may have been too costly but id love to see them try.
     
  7. kappaknight macrumors 68000

    kappaknight

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009

Share This Page