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 DisplayMate Screen Review
- Thread starter dantay
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Got it. Although what I read from him says he thinks 99% of people couldn't tell the difference. I agree with that. This gamut thing is way overblown. For the small minority that knows and cares, the rMini is just not for them. They'll have to settle for the Air or wait for the rMini2. Maybe.
I got both of them at the same time, $400 mini retina price tag not worth in my opinion, just awful color reproduction.
A lot of things benefit from a better screen, but if the rest of the device is compelling enough then the screen won't be the deciding factor. So if you spend your time websurfing, emailing, and reading books the screen is good enough. If you spend your time looking at photos and videos then you will want to buy the Air. It all depends on what you use the iPad for.
Exactly! Apple is now the most recognized brand name in the world, and that's tough to beat in itself. Trek bicycles have been the most desired bike for years, and they are the Apple of their industry. I had a bike ship in the 1990's, and everyone wanted a Trek. We weren't a Trek dealer, but our major brand offered a few upgraded components, and a slightly lower price. Trek has truly gimped their bikes under $3,000, but people still want them. My son bought one last year for just under $1,000 USD. He complained about all sorts of problems with the wheels after less than 300 miles, and had to buy a new set from a proper wheel manufacturer. I knew that was coming, but he wanted a Trek.
Look at the Porsche Boxster compared to the 911. What began as a less expensive "girls" Porsche is now quite expensive, and gimped compared to the 911. Brand name and desirability give these manufacturers lots of leeway when it comes to product design and placement.
I would say that the majority of posters on this site said they would not buy a Retina Mini if battery life and weight were compromised. Most also wanted more base storage and a price of $299, but that's not what Apple chose. I don't sit in on board meetings at Apple, Samsung, Google, Kindle, etc, so I can't give you an exact answer.
Exactly.
Unless we are in the C-Suite or board room of Apple, we don't know their motivations. Perhaps they want to differentiate the Air from the mini. Perhaps they want to create another reason for more people to upgrade next year. Perhaps Sharp sold them a line and by the time they realized it, it was too late to fix it. Perhaps they were forced between a choice of waiting a few more months before getting any Retina display at all, or reducing the color gamut to meet their battery life/cost/pricing specs. Perhaps they just decided to go with a cheaper solution.
In any case, all that we as consumers can do is make an individual assessment as to whether the iPad mini with Retina Display is worth the purchase price. In my case, it was yes. For others, it might be no. The last time I checked, we can do what we want with our money.
People keep bringing up the other devices and price. Have you seen the screen sizes of those? The screen is much smaller. If apple made the display as good as the air's and charged the same amount as the air, people still wouldn't be happy. Remember apple makes it's profit off of the hardware. Google is ok with selling you a cheaper device because they can get their profits off of your data. Amazon can push you their comment. The tablet is just their entry into your wallet. Different business. Apple not only makes ios but also the hardware. Their core business is much different.
Yeah. Now you see what I mean though. It's disappointing. Not everyone spends all their time watching videos, or spends all their time playing games. Most people do a combination. I think the screen is the most important thing in the product, as it influences everything.
But yes, it's a compelling enough product overall, of course.
Its disappointing to some and not a big enough issue to others. That's what all the "the mini's gamut is eye-searingly bad" posts ignore. Not everyone considers it a big enough deal since the Mini is great in almost every other way.
Shame apple cheaped out on the display and didn't get a panel the same quality of both of the much cheaper competitors.
Why do you guys think they cheaped out again with these minis? First it was the low res on the 1st mini and now the lower gamut on the 2nd one.
Last edited:
If they were side by side, I wouldn't care. Mine has a higher PPI and is more portable, which is why I bought it.
Love my rMini
Profit maybe?
Its not battery life. The nexus 7's screen draws less than half the energy and has a much higher contrast ratio and color gamut. The nexus 7's screen is not half the size of the mini so clearly its more efficient yet has better colors and contrast.
Draws half the energy? Source please.
The iPad Mini screen has 34% more area than the Nexus 7. That's just math. And the Mini is rated for 1 hour longer than the Nexus. Plus you also need to consider the processors.
So yes, battery life plays a part. May not be the only reason, because, bear in mind, WE ARE ALL GUESSING HERE, but battery life has always been a strong focus of Apple's.
Look at the article in the original post of this thread. It has the power draws of the screens themselves listed. Scroll down to the Section titled Display Power Consumption.
Also despite being rated longer, the real world results paint a different picture.
Source anandtech:
Ok, so I'm confused. Why are you saying that battery life is not a valid reason for going with a lower gamut screen then? How do you increase power consumption 30% but keep the same run time?
From Anandtech - "The Retina mini now features a 44% larger battery (23.8Wh). Thats nearly the same battery capacity as the original iPad (25Wh), but in a chassis with only 1/3 of the volume. This is also the highest capacity battery weve ever seen in a tablet of this size. The negligible impact on weight and thickness is pretty impressive."
So they improved battery tech, stuck a 64bit 1.3GHz processor in there, a display that sucks 30% more power! and still had to increase the size by .3mm.
How much more power consumption, size and cost would a 100% gamut screen add to this delicate balancing act? So instead of complaining of the short gamut, we'd be complaining of the extra thickness or higher price?
A combination of wanting to spite the vendor who could have made the displays (Samsung) and choosing a vendor that lacked the ability to build them...
----------
Take some pictures of flowers and compare the image to the subject. It'll be easy to find images that don't match colors of the thing you took a picture of.
Try the hydrangea test - you'll be surprised.
Ok, so I'm confused. Why are you saying that battery life is not a valid reason for going with a lower gamut screen then? How do you increase power consumption 30% but keep the same run time?
From Anandtech - "The Retina mini now features a 44% larger battery (23.8Wh). That’s nearly the same battery capacity as the original iPad (25Wh), but in a chassis with only 1/3 of the volume. This is also the highest capacity battery we’ve ever seen in a tablet of this size. The negligible impact on weight and thickness is pretty impressive."
So they improved battery tech, stuck a 64bit 1.3GHz processor in there, a display that sucks 30% more power! and still had to increase the size by .3mm.
How much more power consumption, size and cost would a 100% gamut screen add to this delicate balancing act? So instead of complaining of the short gamut, we'd be complaining of the extra thickness or higher price?
The nexus 7 screen has a much higher color gamut, contrast ratio, and is also much brighter yet uses half the power of the iPad minis screen. Obviously the technology is there. Apple chose to use lower quality components. The nexus 7 has a much smaller battery than the mini yet still gets better battery life.
The simple fact of the matter is apple used a power inefficient display that also has terrible colors in comparison to the competition. Having a wider color gamut does not magically increase power consumption.
Last edited: