Well, kudos for admitting it and sticking around here!
The legions of people who said "there's no way there will ever be an iPad Mini" mostly disappeared one day in late October last year. Many crows were sitting around waiting to be eaten.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad mini iPad mini 2 will NOT have retina display, stop dreaming!
- Thread starter saintforlife
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Well, kudos for admitting it and sticking around here!
The legions of people who said "there's no way there will ever be an iPad Mini" mostly disappeared one day in late October last year. Many crows were sitting around waiting to be eaten.
I read your post and it' was logically presented and well-written.
I hope to hear your opinions now.
It's refreshing to read well-argumented and intelligent posts.
Don't be hard on yourself. Because when Apple decides to release a rentina ipad mini it's going to destroy the ipad 9.7". I think the question now is will they still price it at $329. Releasing the ipad mini was good for the consumer but horrible for ipad 9.7" sales. Hence the reason why Apple would release the ipad 5 first and then the ipad mini. You now have an internal battle on your hands.
The mini will do well when it has a retina, but there will always be people who want the bigger screen.
And the new iPad 5 will be lighter, thinner and narrower then previous iPads so all the complaints of the ipad being heavier then the mini are no longer valid.
...which is not a problem, since the 9.7" is to be replaced... by reducing the ipad retina bezels... but keeping same overall dimensions and put a bigger screen in there.
That's my entirely made-up prediction/rumour.
I'm intending to resist the urge to get an ipad mini NOW (well, next few days), as i've been using a Nexus 7 (version1) for a month and am not sure I can wait to see about the next ipad mini...
If i get the ipad mini next week, it'll pretty much guarantee retina for the next version
Since there are no concrete facts about the ipad 5 be prepared to be disappointed.
Unless the weight gets to < .5 lb it will be too heavy.
Not so sure about that. I've had a few people ask me if they could have a look at the Mini over the last couple of months and they've all decided they'd rather stick with the iPad. Even with a retina screen the mini is a bit too small for some and even the current iPad design is more than thin enough to be easily carried around if necessary.
It's an interesting point though, how do Apple differentiate between the two if the screens are broadly the same (physical size notwithstanding). I'm not sure but the same idea keeps coming around in my head: the iPad becomes the iPad Pro. Not saying that'd be the name necessarily but it's a good way of summing it up.
Basically the Mini gets an A7 with, for example, dual core CPU and dual core GPU, while the iPad gets quad core for both. Couple that with versions of Apple's pro software (logic, aperture, final cut) for the iPad Pro and you've got a potentially very simple but very powerful distinction between the two devices without compromising the Mini (as you'd still have iPhoto and Garageband available for all devices).
Who knows if it'll ever happen but it's sure going to be interesting to see which way they go with this one!
1. It's not "compromising" the 9.7 inch iPad by introducing the Mini with a higher PPI. Several key factors in choosing an iPad are display size, weight and specs. A difference of 60 PPI isn't a big deal at such already high pixel densities.
2. Unless they use an IGZO display, which would reduce power consumption and heat substantially. In combination with a larger battery (I'd say around 25-30w, which is at best +30g weight) battery shouldn't be negatively impacted and weight is largely the same.
I agree with what you say about Apple using only backwards compatible resolutions, however I will point out a few things:
3. "Pixel doubling" is stretching which is ugly as all hell. You're talking about scaling.
4. The next step in resolution is 3072x2304, not 4096x3072. Try not to think of the iPad 3+'s resolution as 2048x1536, rather 1024x768 with a scaling factor of two. Anything that's a multiple of 1024x768 is possible while maintaining app compatibility. At 3072x2304 the scaling factor becomes three. I could explain in more detail if you wanted.
5. It would only break app compatibility as much as the iPhone 5 did, which really wasn't much. However I don't believe the iPad needs an aspect ratio change, so there's no reason for them to do it at all.
Some other guy pulled that number out of his ass.
Parroting what he thinks does not make it true.
Besides other people thought he was crazy that it needs to be that low, they also think he is weak.
And the reason it didn't break apps is because the screen was the same number of pixels wide by more pixels tall, so older apps could be displayed with black bars top and bottom.
I think changing the aspect ratio on the iPad would be bad as right now it's the right ratio for reading a book in portrait mode and also works well for reading in landscape (2 columns). I think a taller/narrower iPad would be bad for book reading.
That's correct, but they could make it wider as well and have black bars on the sides. As long as no dimension is getting smaller, it could be done. But like you I don't think an aspect ratio change is a good idea at all for the iPad.
Lets see 9to5Mac reports finding code in iOS 7 that points to a non retina mini. They didn't claim there wouldn't be a retina mini but they knew other sites would run with the story and spin it that way. Shortly after 9to5Mac's story, the WSJ reports that there will be a retina mini. And after that Bloomberg corroborates the WSJ story. If there wasn't going to be a retina mini this year wouldn't Apple try to tamp down expectations? Of course they're never going to comment on the record about rumors but they have ways of feeding stuff to the media they want to get out. I think it would be a disaster if the "chatter" was pointing to a retina mini and Apple doesn't deliver one. I think it would be a disaster anyway because of the Nexus 7 and all the rumors pointing to new Kindle's with a better display than the 7.
What would make most sense is for Apple to release a retina mini but keep a non retina mini in the lineup for those who care most about price, battery life, thickness and weight. Allow people to decide whether they want 12h battery life or retina screen.
What would make most sense is for Apple to release a retina mini but keep a non retina mini in the lineup for those who care most about price, battery life, thickness and weight. Allow people to decide whether they want 12h battery life or retina screen.
In my opinion, it's better they don't use a Retina display if the battery life will drop too low. I think the Mini currently trumps all the other tablets' battery life.
Remember when they said there would never be an iPad Mini?
The pattern here is the more loudly a poster states that HE and only only HE holds the revealed TRUTH from on high,and that anyone skeptical is simply a pathetic fool,the more likely that they will be proven wrong.
IPhone 4 leak-Cheap Chinese knockoff
Never a Mini
Never a plastic 5c
Never a plastic 5c in the US market
Steve would never...
The truth is no one on here knows,and stating your opinion as fact just looks bad,and usually makes you look stupid.
Three resolutions to date...
They already have changed how iOS works and reports on various sites are most developers while annoyed are also jumping in to supporting the new way even to the extent of freezing support for pre-iOS 7 versions.
A new resolution is coming soon the most obvious would be to up the iPad up to 300+dpi so that developers get access to more screen real estate of the near 10" screen.
The rule of business is that if anyone is going to cannibalize your own sales, it should be you. Apple was quite happy to do it with the iPad itself, cannibalizing OS X Macs, and I'm sure they'll be happy to do it with the iPad mini. Let's see. Until then, I'll enjoy my 2013 Nexus 7, which is a brilliant little tablet.
Totally agree with you, and I do feel that its likely that 3072x2304 ( 396 ppi) might be the way to go to push the full-size ipad far away from the opponents and a retina mini. Also if they are introducing IGZO and GF ditto for the full size ipad, along with a more efficient SoC, you are looking at driving the battery consumption down by nearly 50% but at the same time the screen tech supports resolution that can cross 400 ppi. A close to 1/3 reduction in the battery capacity, means around 30% of the saved 50% power savings is gone. The remaining 15% would be utilised to drive the more powerful screen. We would still end up with nearly the same battery life but with a much better screen. Question is will Apple do it? Probably not.
Actually, not that much. There are of course _stupid_ developers who have the assumption "iPad screen is 1024 x 768 pixels" built hard into their apps instead of asking iOS "how big is the screen of this device".
But iOS7 has already lots of features that make properly designed layouts a necessity. User interface elements have different sizes than in iOS 6. Importantly, the user can choose how big fonts in the user interface should be, and therefore even buttons on two iOS 7 iPads don't have the same size.
If you can handle the fact that buttons on your 1024 x 768 screen don't always have the same size, then you can handle screens with different sizes.
----------
Non-retina iPads are cheaper than retina iPads. Of course you get less (iPad 2 vs. iPad 4), but they are cheaper.
With the laptops, the prices are the same or retina is even cheaper. HOWEVER the retina laptops don't offer the cheaper 4 GB and hard drive options. But compare a retina MBP with a non-retina with same RAM and same SSD drive, and the retina is same or lower price.
----------
He's probably Brazilian. You would have said "for dollars", he said "for reals". At least that's what jumped to my mind when I read it.
Yeah. It's hard to estimate the power savings from using an IGZO display, it could be quite substantial.
I don't think Apple will actually go to 3072x2304 on the 9.7 inch iPad as the benefit would be rather negligible, and it would be quite taxing on the battery life. (As opposed to using IGZO to improve battery life and weight.)
With the rumours of a 12.9 inch iPad, I wondered what its pixel density would be at 3072x2304, and interestingly enough, it would be 294. And I think (and hope) that may be what happens.
I think IGZO would hold a big key to upping the resolution without sacrificing the battery. At the same time things like flexible battery, efficiency improvements in LED panels, a shift into 20nm process for the SoC and other chipsets, should help drive the battery consumption down, while helping to raise the screen resolution without sacrificing battery. It's going to take a while, though
Wouldn't that place the ipad 9.7 inch as the until with the lowest ppi ( if indeed the 12.9 picks up the 3072 x 2304, and the mini goes retina and ipad stays the same
I'd say there's minimal benefit to increasing the 9.7 inch iPad's resolution past 2048x1536 to 3072x2304 when you could put all those power savings into less battery (for a lighter device) or just more battery life.
That's right, but I really don't think it matters because it already has such a high pixel density.Wouldn't that place the ipad 9.7 inch as the until with the lowest ppi ( if indeed the 12.9 picks up the 3072 x 2304, and the mini goes retina and ipad stays the same
That would give us:
9.7 inch iPad @ 264 PPI
7.9 inch mini @ 326 PPI
12.9 inch iPad @ 294 PPI
Me wansta xD
- Status