I dont think so. I have searched to see if it is and all I can find is a bunch of speculation threads claiming the iPad mini would have an IGZO display but I havent seen anything mentioned in the reviews Ive read (only cnet and the verge). I could be wrong though so maybe somebody else will chime in.
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 reviews: screen leaves something to be desired
- Thread starter 53x12
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I dont think so. I have searched to see if it is and all I can find is a bunch of speculation threads claiming the iPad mini would have an IGZO display but I havent seen anything mentioned in the reviews Ive read (only cnet and the verge). I could be wrong though so maybe somebody else will chime in.
Yes, the display is measured in pixels, but the underlying iOS coordinate system is measured in points. The iPad retina screen has 264 pixels per inch, but it only displays 1024x768 points; that's why it is so sharp. Read the documentation to get yourself clear on this distinction.
On non-retina displays 1 point = 1 pixel. On retina displays 1 point = 2 pixels. It HAS to be an exact multiple because you can't display 1/2 pixel. The reason you aren't getting this is because you are still thinking in pixels and iOS, since the release of iOS4, works in points.
Once the coordinate system has been redesigned like this, their only option is to run old apps letterboxed like they did with the move to the iPhone 5 if they move to a non-exact multiple. They could get away with that because it was a relatively small change. To go to say 50% more pixels on the iPad mini - 1536x1152 they'd have something that looks like this:
ipad mini screen of 1024x768 on hypothetical 1536x1152 retina screen:
That's not going to fly.
I agree with you saying that it's common sense to assume the next version will be better, but c'mon, you honestly don't think they purposely hold back features and hardware?
2010: iPad 1st gen premieres. Some are curious as to why there's no cameras after they make such a big deal about facetime on the iPhone and iPod touch. Apple apologists on this forum opine that there wasn't enough space to put in a camera given the size constraints and form factor of the tablet.
2011: iPad2 appears. Despite being smaller and lighter, it has (crappy) front and back cameras! When some brave souls asked why a better camera couldn't be included, the apologists cited size, room, and cost constraints.
March, 2012: iPad 3 arrives. Despite having a retina screen and larger battery, Apple magically puts a better camera on the back of the tablet, at the same price points.
October, 2012: iPad 4 introduced. Despite having the same retina screen and larger battery, a better camera is introduced on the front of the tablet, for the same price point, even with the improved processor.
Now if a real hardware and components nerd can show up and demonstrate that these camera components got progressively smaller, cheaper and required less current or processing power within this time frame, fine, I'll shut up. But in the absence of such evidence, it sure looks to me that certain features were parceled up to encourage updates and consumer upgrades.
I think I could almost make the same argument concerning system RAM, except that ordinary laptop RAM has gotten astoundingly cheap within the last six months. Then again, I believe I've read numerous articles over the years about 'Apple buys xx% of the world's (ssd, flash production, etc)' to insulate themselves from the vagaries of the market that everyone else has to face.
Come to think of it, I thought the Mini had the same components as the 2 in a smaller form factor, how come it can have Siri but the 2 cannot? If someone has a valid technological reason, I'll listen with an open mind.
Yes, I drank the cool aid and stood in line for the first three tablets without anyone sticking a gun to my head, true enough. Even though I all but knew apple marketing was already building the next improved version using components already available. Don't call me a hater, I'm just another loyalist with upgrade fatigue. Or maybe I'm just growing up a little bit-don't tell anyone!
Totally awesome how you missed the point of the thread as it is regarding the screen of the iPad mini and not the rest of it. Also awesome how you ignore the fact that these are actual reviewers (others just like them) were they state the screen is less than optimal. These weren't fabricated reviews. Go on and keep your head in the sand if that makes you happy.
Thanks. I am also searching for some answers but I'm not sure anyone knows at this point.
People will make their own decision. Some will care that it is not Retina and others will not. The iPad 2 is still selling well enough to exist as a product and it's PPI is lower than the iPad mini.
The opposite of Retina isn't "Poor". Those "poor" screens have been delivered on the iPad for its first two version and few had complaints.
Today it's not feasible to deliver Retina iPad mini. Moving to Retina means
No way to get that done at $330
The opposite of Retina isn't "Poor". Those "poor" screens have been delivered on the iPad for its first two version and few had complaints.
Today it's not feasible to deliver Retina iPad mini. Moving to Retina means
- Larger Battery
- Beefier SoC
- More costly Display
No way to get that done at $330
Don't generalize. One reviewer said "less than optimal".
Read the review roundup from 9to5mac.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/10/30/review-round-up-ipad-mini-reviews-hit-the-web/
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not pitching scaling up from 1024 x 768. I'm talking about scaling down from full-sized iPad retina: 2048 x 1536. Unless I'm missing something, scaling down to- say- 82% of the resolution should work as good as scaling down a 1080p movie to fit- say- a 1024X768 screen now (only my suggested scale would not be nearly so much and would maintain the exact same full-size retina aspect ratio).
You're point is about points. Could the pixel resolution scale to about 82% but the point model work in fractions? In other words, can it definitely NOT work or could the pixel resolution slide down to- say- 1679 X 1259 for a iPad Mini 2 while the point system just adapts to approx. 82% of full-sized iPad retina points. If the coordinate system is just the model to track where buttons begin & end, it seems like this could work. Graphics would be just as sharp- just smaller- and coordinates would just scale accordingly.
Conceptually, this would be like taking a full-sized iPad with retina screen and trimming it down to 7.9" for an iPad Mini 2. This would lop off a bunch of pixels in both dimensions and result in a screen that is about 82% of the original. That yields the same ppi metric (the remaining pixels would still be packed in exactly as before) only a smaller resolution (to about 1679 x 1259 rounded up or down a few points to get it exactly right for byte sizes, etc.
Or maybe the coordinate system must be integer based (no fractions)? I'm not a iOS developer, so I don't know. I just have a harder time imagining the iPad Mini 2+ has only 2 options for a new display- stay at 1024 x 768 or double to 2048 X 1536. Nobody expects the former. Everybody expects "retina" for version 2, but if 2048 is the ONLY option for retina, then the iPad Mini 2 will have the sharper screen vs. the iPad 5 (pixels will be more densely packed). I just don't see the smaller, cheaper iPad ending up with the (arguably) sharper screen.
So, if we assume THAT, then maybe Apple officially picks another size somewhere in the middle. Does that mean the coordinate system of points requires a big overhaul to support a new Apple-selected retina screen resolution somewhere in the middle? If Apple picked iPad Mini 2 resolution around 1679 x 1259, what happens?
Last edited:
I'm not saying they're fabricated. I'm also getting your point just fine. You want to harp on the screen resolution, rather than the entire device and user experience.
My head isn't in the sand - I know what the screen specs are, and I know that I, like all the others who've purchased them, will be happy with the device overall. Despite the ramblings of a spec-obsessed person who is going to sit and pretend that screen resolution is going to change the fact that it'll be an incredible device.
Read the first post again. This is "generalization." It is more than one review from different writers.
- "Therefore, the lack of a Retina display is a let down. (It also leads us to believe people should hold off on the iPad mini for a year under the assumption Apple will add Retina in the next model.) The early reviews of the iPad minis are largely positive, but there's one common complaint. The screen is wanting."
- "if there is a weakness of this device, its the screen"
- " the downgrade to a non-retina display is quite noticeable."
- " the Mini cant play video in high definition."
- "Pixels are noticeable, especially in webpages, books, and when viewing email"
- "If you're an obsessive over crisp text, you'll notice the fuzziness."
Yes because every complaint or negative trait of an Apple product is just wrong because Apple makes perfect products each and every time. Any complaint about an iPad is a generalization. Keep your head in the sand if that makes you feel comfortable. I am just posting what other reviewers are noting regarding the screen. If you don't care, good.
I thought I have bad eyes, but the difference to me between an ipad1 and 3 is HUGE. I can barely look at an iPad1. I've never seen a display bother me so much.
I am very "hopeful" that the iPad mini will be better enough that it doesn't drive me batty.
Since I got my MacBook Air, I find myself using my iPad 3 less and less. my 13.3" Air is just as easy to transport. For short meetings, I find myself grabbing a notebook because the iPad is just too much at times. I think the Mini is the perfect device to complimentary to an iPhone and Air user. When I had my 15" Pro, it was a different story. I don't need razer sharp pixels, I need my apps and I need it to work.
Unfortunately i am just too used to the retina display on my phone, ipad 3 and rMBP to pre-order one of these. However, i am still hugely tempted as it's such a sexy looking device and after trying to read a book on my ipad with arm ache, I can see the appeal.
I'm reserving full judgement until I try one in the apple store, but I suspect it will just annoy me. I do agree that 163ppi is actually good - although if you are used to a retina display, going back just makes everything else look terrible (unless of course your eyesight is not good enough to notice).
I never thought my ipad2 screen was that bad until I got my ipad3, but as soon as I look at another ipad2, the quality just looks awful. Hopefully the smaller screen helps that a little bit. Let's see.
I'm reserving full judgement until I try one in the apple store, but I suspect it will just annoy me. I do agree that 163ppi is actually good - although if you are used to a retina display, going back just makes everything else look terrible (unless of course your eyesight is not good enough to notice).
I never thought my ipad2 screen was that bad until I got my ipad3, but as soon as I look at another ipad2, the quality just looks awful. Hopefully the smaller screen helps that a little bit. Let's see.
My last point to this discussion... Yes retina is obviously better, that is fact not an opinion. Whether or not the iPad mini screen is bad, ugly, terrible, unusable, etc. is an OPINION. Period. No matter how many people whine, complain, or trash the screen, it does not make it a matter of fact that it's "bad" and vise versa.
Get a Nexus 7 then until the retina Mini appears. In the UK the 16GB is a mere £159. And the screen is excellent. I've ordered a Mini but if the screen is pants it's going back and I'll stick with my Nexus 7.
The Mini is a nicer device by all accounts but nice is fine if it isn't annoying.
I think it's safe to assume that they are always planning ahead. I realize that they don't just start planning the next iPad right after they release the current one, they are probably already working on it. However, I have no idea (and neither does anyone outside of Apple) the exact reason why a feature or hardware is left out. It could be related to cost/margin, it could not be "ready" yet, or a number of other reasons.
I just don't believe in "waiting for the next version". If you want something now, get it now. If you want the next version too, then get that too if you want. The great thing about Apple devices is they retain value, so reselling to fund the new version isn't a huge waste.
No one is complaining about the display. The iPad mini's biggest negative is the resolution, absolutely. But that's just one aspect of it, and I think what people are responding negatively to is your exaggeration of the claims. You're changing the reviewers' conclusions by highlighting the critical elements as if they are the only observations in the reviews.
"Less than optimal" isn't the same thing as bad. The flash storage performance of the Nexus 7 is markedly worse than iOS hardware. It's not as good. But it's not bad.
For example, the reviews you posted that are allegedly critical of the display actually are rather positive about it:
TechCrunch: "That’s not to say the iPad mini screen is bad — it’s not by any stretch of the word. It’s just not retina-level ... However, the overall display quality (brightness, contrast, color levels) of the iPad mini seems better than the Nexus 7."
The Verge: "But how does it look? Well for starters, it's a really good looking display in general terms. Apple is using the same treatment here as it does on the iPhone 5 and iPad, and it makes for a crystal-clear screen that seems to hover just a tiny bit beneath glass. Colors are vibrant and blacks are deep, and games, photos, and video look terrific."
Mossberg: " I found it easy to see and read material on the screen and to tap and swipe. ... In my tests, video looked just fine, but not as good as on the regular iPad."
CNet: "But oh, that screen. It's not bad, not at all, but it's not Retina Display."
They're critical of the resolution, and that's a fair point to discuss in the review. But none of them says it's a bad display, because it's an excellent one. It's just not a high-resolution display.
Not a chance. They wait until the performance and price fits what they're looking for, but Apple hasn't purposefully passed on any hardware that fits their needs and price points just because they want to stretch things out. That's a ludicrous idea floated by conspiracy theorists who don't understand how things actually work in the technology industry.
Cameras don't weigh much and there was plenty of room in the first iPad. It was more likely that, like the majority of the population, the thought of taking photos or videos with a tablet seemed ridiculous to engineers at the time, and they spent the money elsewhere until they realized that customers would rather have it and not use it very much than not have it at all. Then it gets shoehorned in when they shave a few dollars off their costs in other areas.
There's nothing magical about what happens after that. Just like with phones, cameras improve every year and hit the same price points. When you leverage mature production lines and volume efficiencies, it becomes fairly easy to continue incremental improvements. Tablets aren't on the bleeding edge of technology for cameras--they let the phones take the cost hit and tend to trail somewhat.
Lenses got bigger and shallower and cameras got good enough noise reduction to cram more sensing elements on the CCD. Each camera has better optics, thinner profiles, and lower costs than the last. You can see the compromise on some of the thinner Android phones that were forced to have a camera bumpout while waiting to catch up.
It's not like there was a thinner camera available for the price and they thought it would be fun to have a lumpy phone. Same thing here.
It doesn't seem to me that you're talking about scaling at all. You're talking about taking a 9.7" iPad screen and literally chopping it down to the 7.9" size.
There are at least four significant problems with this:
1. It introduces a new configuration to target for apps, because you can't simply take an app that is meant either for iPad 1/2 or iPad 3/4 sizes and run it on this hypothetical display--all content would shrink and the smaller touch targets would be impossible to hit.
2. It breaks compatibility for scaling apps, because lines will no longer correspond to pixel boundaries. You can't work in fractional pixels, so if your points don't correspond to integer values, you don't have true display fidelity. Everything looks a little "off" except photos and videos, which are more amenable to scaling.
3. It lowers the performance of the tablet. Running a higher resolution means that with the same CPU and GPU, you're going to suffer.
4. It drives up costs. Other than the display itself being more expensive and the need to go with a more powerful and more expensive CPU/GPU, there are other more expensive components needed. You've got to get a much brighter backlight and somehow keep it the same size, so that's really expensive (also why the Android tablets are dimmer), and you need a bigger battery to power the hungrier GPU, CPU, display, and backlight. All of that increased power draw also throws off more heat, so you need to figure out how to keep temperatures down, and even the case costs a little bit more because you need it to be a little bit bigger. Then the whole thing weighs a little more, which means it costs more to ship. Lots of little things add up.
None of it is unsolvable, but it does come with consequences. In a year or two when component costs continue to go down and maybe if we get lucky and battery technology can be squeezed into a smaller and lighter package, then we'll see that change.
As you said in the beginning of the thread, the point of this thread is the quality of the screen. The quality is apparently superb. Many reviewers stated this.
Engadget:
"In fact we found the brightness and color reproduction to be improved over the iPad 2, comparable to the latest Retina displays. Colors are very pleasing to the eye and viewing angles, as ever with an Apple display, do not disappoint. You can line up as many friends as you like and sit them shoulder-to-shoulder, theyll all have a bright, clear picture. Yes, mini owners may have to make do with some resolution envy, but they at least wont be lacking in any other regard."
The resolution is the same as other pre-retina apple displays and is hardly up for question, it's a known quantity, you either like it or you don't. You don't need a review to tell you about that. The only thing left for discussion is the quality of the display.
So, it didn't occur to the engineers to include a camera in the original iPad after Steve already took the stage to tout facetime on the iPhone and Touch?
Really? What were they thinking, "Frak him, what does he know?!?"And if it was a feature that they believed no one wanted, why did they make such a big deal out of their inclusion on the 2?
You don't think there's a possibility they didn't include cameras on the 1 so they could get extra mileage out of their inclusion on the 2?
What's your argument of why Siri can run on the mini, but not on the 2?
I agree with you saying that it's common sense to assume the next version will be better, but c'mon, you honestly don't think they purposely hold back features and hardware?
2010: iPad 1st gen premieres. Some are curious as to why there's no cameras after they make such a big deal about facetime on the iPhone and iPod touch. Apple apologists on this forum opine that there wasn't enough space to put in a camera given the size constraints and form factor of the tablet.
2011: iPad2 appears. Despite being smaller and lighter, it has (crappy) front and back cameras! When some brave souls asked why a better camera couldn't be included, the apologists cited size, room, and cost constraints.
March, 2012: iPad 3 arrives. Despite having a retina screen and larger battery, Apple magically puts a better camera on the back of the tablet, at the same price points.
October, 2012: iPad 4 introduced. Despite having the same retina screen and larger battery, a better camera is introduced on the front of the tablet, for the same price point, even with the improved processor.
Now if a real hardware and components nerd can show up and demonstrate that these camera components got progressively smaller, cheaper and required less current or processing power within this time frame, fine, I'll shut up. But in the absence of such evidence, it sure looks to me that certain features were parceled up to encourage updates and consumer upgrades.
I think I could almost make the same argument concerning system RAM, except that ordinary laptop RAM has gotten astoundingly cheap within the last six months. Then again, I believe I've read numerous articles over the years about 'Apple buys xx% of the world's (ssd, flash production, etc)' to insulate themselves from the vagaries of the market that everyone else has to face.
Come to think of it, I thought the Mini had the same components as the 2 in a smaller form factor, how come it can have Siri but the 2 cannot? If someone has a valid technological reason, I'll listen with an open mind.
Yes, I drank the cool aid and stood in line for the first three tablets without anyone sticking a gun to my head, true enough. Even though I all but knew apple marketing was already building the next improved version using components already available. Don't call me a hater, I'm just another loyalist with upgrade fatigue. Or maybe I'm just growing up a little bit-don't tell anyone!
A truer post has not been written in a long time. I am also another loyalist who has upgrade fatigue.
And I think one of those 'other reasons' is having a clear upgrade path for later iterations of the product.
It depends also what you mean by 'retaining value'. With all of the current models on the market and already sold, their resale value are diminishing. Their's almost a glut of them out. Go on your local craigslist and see how many people are trying to dump their 3's to get the 4's. On mine, there's a bunch of ones on there that haven't moved.
Not hating, but being open eyed realistic.
No people are complaining about the quality of the screen.
If you want to argue semantics, we can do that in another thread regarding resolution vs. screen vs. display. That is not the point of this thread.
Lord, if it doesn't have something you've seen on other Apple products and you need it, don't buy it and complain about upgrading when it becomes available. And if you decided that you don't need it and then the next version has it, all of the sudden, you do need it? That sounds like a personal issue and nothing to do with Apple.
It seems like everyone complaining just buys things to have the latest and greatest without caring whats missing, until they realize it's missing, then they want to other kid's toy.
I watched the ipads since the beginning and evaluated what came out each year on it's own against what I felt I needed and wanted. Sure, retina would be a bonus, and maybe it will come next year, but if they have to make it as thick as the kindle fire and especially the nexus 7 which is about the thickness of the original ipad, I'll pass, just like I did with the full size ipad.
All the products are at varying stages of development and can't get everything that every other product has, just because another product has it.
It seems like everyone complaining just buys things to have the latest and greatest without caring whats missing, until they realize it's missing, then they want to other kid's toy.
I watched the ipads since the beginning and evaluated what came out each year on it's own against what I felt I needed and wanted. Sure, retina would be a bonus, and maybe it will come next year, but if they have to make it as thick as the kindle fire and especially the nexus 7 which is about the thickness of the original ipad, I'll pass, just like I did with the full size ipad.
All the products are at varying stages of development and can't get everything that every other product has, just because another product has it.
They were probably more concerned about getting back to their time machine before rush hour, since the iPad had been out for several months before FaceTime was announced.So, it didn't occur to the engineers to include a camera in the original iPad after Steve already took the stage to tout facetime on the iPhone and Touch?
Because people wanted it, so they included it. It's not rocket science.
No. For one, there was no extra mileage to gain, since reviewers were lamenting its absence the whole time. I really don't think that the number of upgrades caused by the addition of the camera was leaps and bounds ahead of the number of people who didn't buy the first one because it didn't have a camera.
I don't really know a lot about Siri. Couldn't tell you.
If I had to guess, I'd say that based on the iPad mini having a noise-canceling microphone setup that differs from the iPad 2 and iPhone 4, that there's different audio processing hardware involved and that Apple felt that was their starting point baseline. Apple doesn't tend to reach backwards to do extra work to backport new features into old hardware, whether it would be feasible or not.
Siri's really a separate question, though, unless you're arguing that they should have launched Siri on the iPad 2 and instead sat on it for months until the 4S came out...and I don't see any reason to believe that claim.
Right....like they had to make the iPad3 and 4 twice as thick as the 2 to include the retina display on it. Oh, wait....
You can bet your sweet bippy they're going to include retina on the m2.