ipad mini and what they should have done

[dukebound85]

They should have used the a5x with a retina screen of the same resolution as the ipad 3/4 in a 7.9in factor

That way, the same reasoning as using the ipad 2 resolution would apply

I wonder if there are displays feasible at whatver ppi that would be?

At any rate, I bet that is what will happen when the ipad mini goes retina....will go super retina

 

[WilliamLondon]

They should have used the a5x with a retina screen of the same resolution as the ipad 3/4 in a 7.9in factor

That way, the same reasoning as using the ipad 2 resolution would apply

I wonder if there are displays feasible at whatver ppi that would be?

They have done that, it's called the iPad mini 2nd generation.

 

[Force332]

Assuming for a moment that they would have used the resolution you suggest, that would mean the device would have been thicker and heavier due to the much larger battery similar to the third generation iPad. People would have complained then too. Everyone complained because iPad 2 didn't have a retina display. Then the third generation has a retina display and everyone still complains because of the physical properties necessary to make retina happen. People said they should have waited to put in retina until they didn't need to make it thicker and heavier.

I'm tired of people complaining. If they would have somehow made this mini iPad retina, people would still be complaining.

 

[Yr Blues]

Dude, that's what the iPad mini 2 will be.

 

[cperry2]

They should have used the a5x with a retina screen of the same resolution as the ipad 3/4 in a 7.9in factor

That way, the same reasoning as using the ipad 2 resolution would apply

I wonder if there are displays feasible at whatver ppi that would be?

At any rate, I bet that is what will happen when the ipad mini goes retina....will go super retina

Two constraints: Economics, and Physics.

I expect it will be 1-2 years before it happens.

 

[MS2083]

what they should've done:

- A6X Chip as in the 4th Gen iPad Retina
- more RAM
- Retina Display

 

[Stetrain]

A retina display and an A5X chip would have increased the cost and decreased the battery life.

Next year when IGZO displays are in full production swing with reducing costs and the A6 chips get cheaper they will do it.

 

[iBaloney]

No retina display was the deal breaker for me

 

[PlutoniusX]

what they should've done:

- A6X Chip as in the 4th Gen iPad Retina
- more RAM
- Retina Display

Would have bought it in a heartbeat. I don`t mind spend more for better components. The current iPad Mini does not excite. The big error they made was the perception that it should be a mini iPad 2. NO, it should have been a mini ipad 3 or 4.

----------

A retina display and an A5X chip would have increased the cost and decreased the battery life.

Next year when IGZO displays are in full production swing with reducing costs and the A6 chips get cheaper they will do it.

Wasn`t the price difference between the chips only like 5-10 dollars per component? Obviously such a difference adds up after millions of units are sold.

 

[Stetrain]

Would have bought it in a heartbeat. I don`t mind spend more for better components. The current iPad Mini does not excite. The big error they made was the perception that it should be a mini iPad 2. NO, it should have been a mini ipad 3 or 4.

The iPad 3 and 4 require a gigantic battery, twice the size of the one in the iPad 2, to get 10 hours of battery life. A downsized version would require a somewhat smaller battery, but it would still have be proportionately pretty large to power the A6X and display backlight.

Such a device would have to be much thicker and heavier than the iPad Mini is, and would probably be just as if not more expensive than the full sized version.

Sharp's new IGZO technology should help that somewhat, but even if price were no object we don't know if they could turn out enough of them at high enough quality standard to meet the demand that Apple is expecting. By next year that should be much more feasible.

 

[j_maddison]

A retina display and an A5X chip would have increased the cost and decreased the battery life.

Next year when IGZO displays are in full production swing with reducing costs and the A6 chips get cheaper they will do it.

I'm not sure why the IGZO displays weren't used this time around. Sharp were claiming they have good yields now, or maybe this is a relative term and Apples demands would have been too significant.

I'm hoping we'll see a proliferation of IGZO displays across the entire Mac and iPad lineup next year. The notebook range, especially the Air could do with it, and the significant battery increase it would yield would have a major impact for everything from iPhones up. Quite exciting times if the hype surrounding IGZO is to be believed