iPad mini iPad mini 2 will NOT have retina display, stop dreaming!

[Vanilla35]

I didn't know there were still ignorant people who actually think the ipad mini won't get a retina screen. It'll either happen this fall, or early spring, but it definitely will get a retina screen. I'm stating this on my own intuition, but read this article too. If you think apple only creates one product for each release, you're wrong. They have multiple "potential" product releases, and they choose which one they're going to release based on competition, cost of components, and other elements. Believe it or not business is based more on reality than it is ideology.

http://www.zdnet.com/the-retina-ipa...-the-nexus-7-into-a-frozen-turkey-7000018882/

 

[saintforlife]

1.

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.

Learned something new today! Can you explain the scaling multiple vs pixel doubling a bit more? I guess I had it wrong.

 

[teknikal90]

Learned something new today! Can you explain the scaling multiple vs pixel doubling a bit more? I guess I had it wrong.

1.
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.

Can you please explain this further? The way I perceive this:
iPad 2 - 1 pixel in the 1024 x 768 matrix:
.____
|_|_|
|_|_|

iPad 3 - the same 'pixel' in the same 1024x768 matrix, but is now 2048 x 1536:
.____
|_|_|
|_|_|

Since the size of both 'pixels' above are the same, the scaling works.
How would this 3 step work??

EDIT: nevermind... i overcomplicated it... obviously it will be like this:

iPad 6 - 3072 x 2304
.______
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|

whilst maintaining the same size as the pixel on the iPad 2. You're correct

that would be awesome. except I'm not sure how developers can easily translate from iPad 3's res to iPad 6's without losing some detail.
on the iPad 2 - 3 transition, no data is lost, in fact it is multiplied, 4 times (1 pixel -> 4 pixels). But 9 isn't a multiple of 4, which means they'd have to do something tricky.

 

[MythicFrost]

Learned something new today! Can you explain the scaling multiple vs pixel doubling a bit more? I guess I had it wrong.

Pixel doubling is just a term for the iPad stretching iPhone apps in 2x mode. All that's happening is the existing pixels are being quadrupled, as opposed to scaling which is rendering the same "content" over more pixels, making everything sharper -- which of course requires a higher resolution display. (Also have a read below.)

Can you please explain this further? The way I perceive this:
iPad 2 - 1 pixel in the 1024 x 768 matrix:
.____
|_|_|
|_|_|

iPad 3 - the same 'pixel' in the same 1024x768 matrix, but is now 2048 x 1536:
.____
|_|_|
|_|_|

Since the size of both 'pixels' above are the same, the scaling works.
How would this 3 step work??

EDIT: nevermind... i overcomplicated it... obviously it will be like this:

iPad 6 - 3072 x 2304
.______
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|

whilst maintaining the same size as the pixel on the iPad 2. You're correct

that would be awesome. except I'm not sure how developers can easily translate from iPad 3's res to iPad 6's without losing some detail.
on the iPad 2 - 3 transition, no data is lost, in fact it is multiplied, 4 times (1 pixel -> 4 pixels). But 9 isn't a multiple of 4, which means they'd have to do something tricky.

You're pretty close.

The pixels aren't multiplied -- that's just like stretching a low res video to full screen on your computer, it looks really bad. All that's happening is the content is being rendered over more pixels rather than less pixels.

However the screen size of the iPad doesn't enter the equation here at all. The important factor, and the reason why this works at 3072x2304, is the size of the actual app -- and that's 1024x768 points, and a point can be represented by any number of pixels.

As long as the iPad's display is a multiple of 1024x768, then any app can run on it and be scaled (not stretched) to that resolution. All that changes is the scaling factor on iOS for that device (and of course higher resolution assets.)

For example: at 1024x768 the scaling factor is 1, at 2048x1536 it's 2, at 3072x2304 it's 3, and at 13312x9984 it's 13.

Imagine a button with the dimensions {9, 11, 31, 28} and then see how that multiplies with the scaling factor. At 2x it becomes {18, 22, 62, 56} and at 3x it becomes {27, 33, 93, 84}.

Does that explain everything?

 

[CausticPuppy]

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.

There's no reason why Apple wouldn't release a mini with a higher PPI than the larger model. They already do this with the retina Macbook Pro. The 13" has a higher pixel density than the more expensive 15".

I think the difference will in the other hardware; the iPad5 will probably have much better graphics capability, maybe more storage (mini won't have 128GB option), and maybe faster lightning connector transfer.

The iPad Mini with retina may be "only" as fast as the current iPad4, but that's pure speculation. And that would be PERFECT!

 

[Spacial]

It seems that Apple may have avoided the retina display originally due to its higher cost. Maintaining high gross profits are the hallmark of Apples success. Proving they can sell the mini with its current low res display has reinforced Apple's track record. I see no reason to go to retina for at least one or two more generations. Especially since the mini's have already eaten into iPad 4 sales.

 

[MythicFrost]

There's no reason why Apple wouldn't release a mini with a higher PPI than the larger model. They already do this with the retina Macbook Pro. The 13" has a higher pixel density than the more expensive 15".

I think the difference will in the other hardware; the iPad5 will probably have much better graphics capability, maybe more storage (mini won't have 128GB option), and maybe faster lightning connector transfer.

The iPad Mini with retina may be "only" as fast as the current iPad4, but that's pure speculation. And that would be PERFECT!

Good point. The 13 inch does indeed have a higher pixel density than the 15 inch. Yeah, definitely. It'll be all "specs" just like the mini / iPad 4. The mini could have used the A6, but then there's less differentiation between the two.

 

[charlituna]

Let me repeat that. The iPad mini 2 will NOT have retina display.

While I doubt that the Mini 2 will have a retina, I'm not going to state as a fact that it won't.

Why?

Because I don't work for Apple and thus have no grounds to know such facts.

And I suspect neither do you, so please stop trying to front like you know anything about what is and isn't fact. If Apple wants to put a retina in the Mini 2 they will figure out a way and will do it.

----------

What's the battery have to do with it?

Battery life is a spec that even the biggest tech noob can understand and thus one that Apple holds rather sacrosanct. When they establish an 'up to' for a device they are loath to do anything to diminish it greatly.

A retina screen has more pixels thus needs more power to run it, destroying part of the battery life. Or it needs more efficient pixels which means they would need to be using a totally different type of screen etc. Some folks are saying that type of screen doesn't exist yet. But who knows. Perhaps it does and Apple is using it and that's the real magic trick. Not the colors or the shape of the enclosure etc

 

[Sex]

Let me repeat that. The iPad mini 2 will NOT have retina display. Here is why:

1. If they put a retina display in it, their only screen resolution choice is the resolution of the iPad 4. If they do that the iPad mini's will have a higher ppi than the iPad 4 making it even better than bigger iPad. That is never happening. Apple will never compromise their high end product like that or people who buy the more premium product will start complaining that their display is inferior. The only way the iPad mini gets a retina screen is if the bigger iPad doubles its pixels from its current level and that ain't happening for a few years for technical and economic reasons.

2. Squeezing a retina display on the mini for the next generation will cause heating and battery life issues, possibly forcing Apple to make the mini thicker and heavier (because battery technology just isn't there). That is a design path I bet Apple will never go towards again. The iPad 3 was a mistake and everyone knows it. iPad 4 is a minor patch work job to fix that somewhat. iPad 5 will be the best big iPad ever. It will be thinner and lighter than the 3/4.

So the bottom line is, iPad mini is not getting a retina display for a couple more generations at least. People need to start accepting that.

=======

I am going to add what I posted in my 3rd post here. People keep just referring to my OP, when I put in a lot more details in my subsequent posts to justify my line of thinking:

vvvvvvvvvvv


Are you even familiar with Apple's pixel doubling strategy to maintain app backwards compatibility? I am thinking you don't. Apple will not pick an arbitrary higher resolution screen out of thin air. It is double or nothing. Doubling the iPad 4's 2048-by-1536 is not happening any time soon. Please read my 1st and 2nd posts.

----------


Here we go again. I repeat Apple will NOT pick an arbitrary resolution like that out of thin air! When will people start realizing that? They are stuck with these multiples:
1024-by-768
2048-by-1536
4096-by-3072 --> NOT HAPPENING ANY TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE!

I repeat, these are the only resolutions possible on both the larger iPad and the smaller iPad to maintain app compatibility. Apple will not deviate from this.

----------

This below spec sheet is from the Apple website. The iPad mini is not getting a retina screen (2048-by-1536) unless the larger iPad gets a 4096-by-3072 screen because Apple CANNOT have a lower PPI screen on their more premium device. That is never going to happen.

The iPad mini's only screen choice to go retina is (2048-by-1536). I hope people stop throwing random higher resolution screen sizes around. Apple can never break apps backward compatibility.


Image

The 2nd gen mini will be equipped with Retina.

Agreed. Have no idea what OP is saying

 

[mr.lavender]

Please, tell me why the iPad 3 was a mistake...

The iPad 3 is gone. You can buy an iPad 2. But not an iPad 3. It was something about the battery, and the excessive heat.

 

[MythicFrost]

The iPad 3 is gone. You can buy an iPad 2. But not an iPad 3. It was something about the battery, and the excessive heat.

It's gone because it's been succeeded by the 4, not because there was something wrong with it. The 2 has been kept as it's a cheaper, "non retina" alternative.

 

[daywiz]

It's gone because it's been succeeded by the 4, not because there was something wrong with it. The 2 has been kept as it's a cheaper, "non retina" alternative.

In that case what's your take on the upcoming setup? iPad 5 shifts to a $399 model with 16gb and upto 128gb?

or the ipad 2 stops and ipad 4 takes over that slot. Doesn't make sense though to have both though!

 

[MythicFrost]

In that case what's your take on the upcoming setup? iPad 5 shifts to a $399 model with 16gb and upto 128gb?

or the ipad 2 stops and ipad 4 takes over that slot. Doesn't make sense though to have both though!

I see a few possibilities. I think iPad 5 will start at 32GB at $499 regardless. We could have the iPad 2 remain at $399 (but not the 4 as it competes with the 5.) Or Apple could have a Retina mini at $399ish and discontinue the iPad 2.

 

[mrmarts]

The rumours strongly suggest that a retina mini with a slimmer bazel this year is a hit, whilst this thread is a miss.

 

[CausticPuppy]

It's gone because it's been succeeded by the 4, not because there was something wrong with it. The 2 has been kept as it's a cheaper, "non retina" alternative.

The iPad4 is what the iPad3 was originally supposed to be, but the new CPU was not coming along quickly enough.... so the iPad3 was released on the existing A5 CPU with additional GPU cores added, as a compromise.

It's a compromise because it has the same CPU power as an iPad2, 4 times the number of pixels, but only twice the GPU power.... so the overall result is roughly half the graphics speed of the iPad2 when running at full resolution.

That's pretty much what I've come to accept, that the iPad3 was a compromise product designed to get retina screens out on the market before the rest of the hardware was really ready.

Source: I have an iPad3 and I'm ancy to upgrade

----------

I see a few possibilities. I think iPad 5 will start at 32GB at $499 regardless. We could have the iPad 2 remain at $399 (but not the 4 as it competes with the 5.) Or Apple could have a Retina mini at $399ish and discontinue the iPad 2.

I hope so, a RAM bump is long overdue. The base models have the same memory as they did 3 years ago.

For the big iPad, they should go 32/64/128 configurations.
For the Mini, 16/32/64 most likely.

32GB used to be the sweet spot but so many games are multiple GB now, you'd want 64GB if you want to keep using it for a few years.

If only it were up to me.

 

[loybond]

Hard to see how it will have retina... When Apple made the mini in response to the N7 and others, it did so with old hardware so it could maintain a huge profit margin.

If Apple was to make a retina mini, that device would need a fairly substantial spec upgrade (as even the iPad 3/4 are not buttery smooth all the time). The cost of that spec upgrade + screen upgrade + premium positioning would put the retina mini at or near the price point of the 10" iPad.

Since consumers are already trained to think of 7/8" tablets as lower end than 10" ones... doesn't seem to make a lot of business sense. Doesn't seem likely that Apple would do what Google does and eat the profit margin... Google does that so it can catch up in market share, sales and awareness, but Apple doesn't need to.

 

[alkimio]

Let me repeat that. The iPad mini 2 will NOT have retina display. Here is why:

1. If they put a retina display in it, their only screen resolution choice is the resolution of the iPad 4. If they do that the iPad mini's will have a higher ppi than the iPad 4 making it even better than bigger iPad. That is never happening. Apple will never compromise their high end product like that or people who buy the more premium product will start complaining that their display is inferior. The only way the iPad mini gets a retina screen is if the bigger iPad doubles its pixels from its current level and that ain't happening for a few years for technical and economic reasons.

The iPad Mini has better ppi than the more expensive iPad 2..
Also, the iPod touch has better ppi than any iPad (and is cheaper too).

 

[MythicFrost]

The iPad4 is what the iPad3 was originally supposed to be, but the new CPU was not coming along quickly enough.... so the iPad3 was released on the existing A5 CPU with additional GPU cores added, as a compromise.

It's a compromise because it has the same CPU power as an iPad2, 4 times the number of pixels, but only twice the GPU power.... so the overall result is roughly half the graphics speed of the iPad2 when running at full resolution.

That's pretty much what I've come to accept, that the iPad3 was a compromise product designed to get retina screens out on the market before the rest of the hardware was really ready.

Source: I have an iPad3 and I'm ancy to upgrade

It was definitely a compromise. It wasn't exactly how they wanted to release it, but it started the shift to develop Retina support on the iPad and it did work well. I owned one myself.

I hope so, a RAM bump is long overdue. The base models have the same memory as they did 3 years ago.

For the big iPad, they should go 32/64/128 configurations.
For the Mini, 16/32/64 most likely.

32GB used to be the sweet spot but so many games are multiple GB now, you'd want 64GB if you want to keep using it for a few years.

If only it were up to me.

You mean storage? Though I'd like a RAM bump as well... to 2GB.

Hard to see how it will have retina... When Apple made the mini in response to the N7 and others, it did so with old hardware so it could maintain a huge profit margin.

If Apple was to make a retina mini, that device would need a fairly substantial spec upgrade (as even the iPad 3/4 are not buttery smooth all the time). The cost of that spec upgrade + screen upgrade + premium positioning would put the retina mini at or near the price point of the 10" iPad.

Since consumers are already trained to think of 7/8" tablets as lower end than 10" ones... doesn't seem to make a lot of business sense. Doesn't seem likely that Apple would do what Google does and eat the profit margin... Google does that so it can catch up in market share, sales and awareness, but Apple doesn't need to.

The mini would only need the A6X, and that won't cost them much more. The display could cost ~$40 more, however some components may be cheaper by now so it'll level out somewhat. I'd argue that the reason the iPad mini used the A5 is for differentiation.

 

[teknikal90]

Pixel doubling is just a term for the iPad stretching iPhone apps in 2x mode. All that's happening is the existing pixels are being quadrupled, as opposed to scaling which is rendering the same "content" over more pixels, making everything sharper -- which of course requires a higher resolution display. (Also have a read below.)

You're pretty close.

The pixels aren't multiplied -- that's just like stretching a low res video to full screen on your computer, it looks really bad. All that's happening is the content is being rendered over more pixels rather than less pixels.

However the screen size of the iPad doesn't enter the equation here at all. The important factor, and the reason why this works at 3072x2304, is the size of the actual app -- and that's 1024x768 points, and a point can be represented by any number of pixels.

As long as the iPad's display is a multiple of 1024x768, then any app can run on it and be scaled (not stretched) to that resolution. All that changes is the scaling factor on iOS for that device (and of course higher resolution assets.)

For example: at 1024x768 the scaling factor is 1, at 2048x1536 it's 2, at 3072x2304 it's 3, and at 13312x9984 it's 13.

Imagine a button with the dimensions {9, 11, 31, 28} and then see how that multiplies with the scaling factor. At 2x it becomes {18, 22, 62, 56} and at 3x it becomes {27, 33, 93, 84}.

Does that explain everything?

yup. but thats to do with vector objects, which are easily scalable. What is difficult are objects that are of absolute size. ie. buttons made from jpeg images.
or a more complicated case - games made to render at 2048 x 1536.
how would you render those without making everything look off? on a game rendered at 1024 x 768, the game can still be rendered at 1024x768 on an ipad 3, thereby not introducing any rendering issues, device to device, the display merely scales this up by displaying 1 pixel as 4 pixels. but now that games are rendered at 2048x1536, i think developers are going to find it hard to show that same resolution on a 3x multiple screen. text for example, may look off as the scaling inevitably loses detail.

 

[Vanilla35]

It was definitely a compromise. It wasn't exactly how they wanted to release it, but it started the shift to develop Retina support on the iPad and it did work well. I owned one myself.

You mean storage? Though I'd like a RAM bump as well... to 2GB.


The mini would only need the A6X, and that won't cost them much more. The display could cost ~$40 more, however some components may be cheaper by now so it'll level out somewhat. I'd argue that the reason the iPad mini used the A5 is for differentiation.

I agree with this for the most part. Question: I wasn't paying much attention to iPads before last year, what was the price change from the iPad 2 --> iPad 3? Was it $50 or $100 more for the iPad 3? (Comparing both at launch, of course).

I think they could totally make an iPad Mini 2 retina for $375 without really eating too much, or at all, into the margins. The chip is almost negligible since the A5 is seriously extremely cheap at this point, and the A6X has to be getting there too. So that really only leaves the bump in screen cost, and a few more dollars for bigger battery, etc. I think they could easily make a completely updated product for $50 on their end; effectively maintaining the same price margin.

But that's where my question comes in, have they done that before? I'm not sure Apple would increase the price of their product? But I see the iPad retina is much more expensive than the 2, not just a little bit more.

 

[MikeyMike01]

If the Google can figure out how to have a 1920x1200 7" display in the Nexus 7 at $229, there's absolutely no reason Apple can't figure out how to make a 2048x1536 display at 7.9" for $329.

 

[MythicFrost]

yup. but thats to do with vector objects, which are easily scalable. What is difficult are objects that are of absolute size. ie. buttons made from jpeg images.
or a more complicated case - games made to render at 2048 x 1536.
how would you render those without making everything look off? on a game rendered at 1024 x 768, the game can still be rendered at 1024x768 on an ipad 3, thereby not introducing any rendering issues, device to device, the display merely scales this up by displaying 1 pixel as 4 pixels. but now that games are rendered at 2048x1536, i think developers are going to find it hard to show that same resolution on a 3x multiple screen. text for example, may look off as the scaling inevitably loses detail.

Correct. Apps will of course require higher resolution assets just as was the case with the shift from non-Retina to Retina.

Regarding games, they will stretch across the screen until they're updated. They won't look the best, but nor did non-Retina games on Retina devices. Also I wouldn't say games only target 2048x1536, until the mini is several generations out I expect 1024x768 to still be a target resolution for a while longer.

I agree with this for the most part. Question: I wasn't paying much attention to iPads before last year, what was the price change from the iPad 2 --> iPad 3? Was it $50 or $100 more for the iPad 3? (Comparing both at launch, of course).

I think they could totally make an iPad Mini 2 retina for $375 without really eating too much, or at all, into the margins. The chip is almost negligible since the A5 is seriously extremely cheap at this point, and the A6X has to be getting there too. So that really only leaves the bump in screen cost, and a few more dollars for bigger battery, etc. I think they could easily make a completely updated product for $50 on their end; effectively maintaining the same price margin.

But that's where my question comes in, have they done that before? I'm not sure Apple would increase the price of their product? But I see the iPad retina is much more expensive than the 2, not just a little bit more.

From memory both were exactly the same price -- $499. Also yeah, it's really just the screen and battery that will up the price.

 

[CausticPuppy]

If the Google can figure out how to have a 1920x1200 7" display in the Nexus 7 at $229, there's absolutely no reason Apple can't figure out how to make a 2048x1536 display at 7.9" for $329.

The difference is Google doesn't have to make money on their tablet; they sell you the tablet at a razor thin margin and make money by letting marketers know every single thing you do on that tablet.

 

[kazmac]

Good point. The 13 inch does indeed have a higher pixel density than the 15 inch. Yeah, definitely. It'll be all "specs" just like the mini / iPad 4. The mini could have used the A6, but then there's less differentiation between the two.

Thanks for bringing up the rMBPs, you've made my choice a lot easier.

As far as the iPad mini retina, whenever it happens it will be great for the product. I loved mine except the screen was brutal on my vision.

 

[MikeyMike01]

The difference is Google doesn't have to make money on their tablet; they sell you the tablet at a razor thin margin and make money by letting marketers know every single thing you do on that tablet.

I know. But that's where the extra $100 comes in.