ipad mini and what they should have done

Discussion in 'iPad' started by dukebound85, Oct 25, 2012.

  1. dukebound85 macrumors P6


    Jul 17, 2005
    5045 feet above sea level
    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
  2. WilliamLondon macrumors 68000


    Dec 8, 2006
    They have done that, it's called the iPad mini 2nd generation.
  3. Force332 macrumors member

    Mar 13, 2011
    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.
  4. Yr Blues macrumors 68020

    Jan 14, 2008
  5. cperry2 macrumors regular

    Jul 23, 2011
    Two constraints: Economics, and Physics.

    I expect it will be 1-2 years before it happens.
  6. MS2083 macrumors regular

    Mar 7, 2012
    what they should've done:

    - A6X Chip as in the 4th Gen iPad Retina
    - more RAM
    - Retina Display
  7. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Feb 6, 2009
    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.
  8. iBaloney macrumors 6502


    Jan 6, 2010
    No retina display was the deal breaker for me
  9. PlutoniusX macrumors member

    Mar 18, 2008
    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.


    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.
  10. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Feb 6, 2009
    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.
  11. j_maddison macrumors 6502a


    Mar 31, 2003
    Nelson, Wales
    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

Share This Page