I agree that it's a range (and they would be able to attain "retina" quality at something other than 264 ppi for a tablet) however the reason iPhones have 320+, iPads have 260+ and MacBook Pro's 220 is the distance. Sure some of it might be marketing - but they aren't simply arbitrary numbers.
There is a distance component, but there is a component price point component there too. Larger sized screens at constant ppi wouldn't be affordable (or profitable). But yes, the fonts and objects on smaller screens tend to be smaller so that a critical mass of info can be presented on the screen at the same time. On larger screens it is just easier to make things discernible at a farther distance. You don't have to pull the screen closer to your face to see them.
When the N7 and the Fire HD pack 1280x800 screens in a smaller area (more ppi) - I gotta think Apple will do something more than the 2 yr old 1024x768 from the iPad 2.
The flexibily that N7 and Fire HD is that:
1. sold at cost. No where near Apple's targeted margins.
2. Smaller App library which don't really care about being in conflict with.
Apple basically has two choices with the 7.85" screen if want just automatic scaling of iPad apps. The 1024x768 or 2048x1536. They hiccuped the screen a bit on the iPhone5 but that is not a new product line , has more inertia, and easier just centered and framed. (just got taller). They appear to have both shorted and narrowed the iPad mini which pushes them into matching the two iPhone ppi metrics.
I think that "average distance" story is going to be weak when it comes to the iPad mini. It is going to be more capability driven than need to move to screen closer to eyes in order to see.
Especially when Apple is the one who started this whole display war and no new product since the 2 is anything less than retina.
There is a difference between new product and product update. Apple has never started a new product category with a retina display. iPhone 4 was a an upgrade to 3GS, Touch with non-retina touch. iPad 2012 upgrade to iPad 2 , MBPr 15"/13" variants on MBP 15"/13" . [ The MacBookPro are being sold alongside non retina for a while but the core product category has largely due to pricing and more slowly evolving product category. ]
If Retina was a factor then I don't think Apple probably wouldn't split the iPad mini line up with it. Either all Retina ( and skimp on Flash storage this round) leaving the sub $300 price points or all
A form factor with the exact same container/case with two different screen densities would be new for the iOS line-up. [ And was/is marginally effective in the laptop line-up ; e.g., MBP 15" 'high res' antiglare option ... which didn't have ease of scaling. ]
----------
I worry about the threat this poses to the simplistic model of product lines that Apple has embraced the last 10 years. Get too complicated and it messes things up.
Varying case colors doesn't really introduce much complexity.
Varying the Flash memory sizes doesn't do much either. These are all single chip implementations. It is just a matter of making the circuit board with the same size chip. The only "complexity" is making the right number of the right variation. That isn't very hard when make them "just in time". When they get ordered you make it. There is not much guessing ahead of time of what product mix users will want. For the most part they basically just follow the trends as they occur.
The variance on celluar radios is out of their control. An increasingly larger component of the variance between radio implementations is just software and validation. There are some tweaks on frequencies and associated amplifiers but is just part of being in the celluar device business worldwide . It still the case that 95+% of the components are all the same for worldwide iOS devices.
The other factor is that not all of the Apple products are moving at the same rate of evolution. The shuffle , iPod classic , and iPod Touch are all moving at different rates. Same is true to a lessor extent on the Mac product line laptops , versus desktops moving at different rates.
----------
If they give us a 16:9 iPad mini I hope it has a 1080p screen.
They did. It is called the iPod Touch (5th generation). It is a tad more "mini" than perhaps you are looking for.
I don't think Apple is going to switch to 16:9 for the much larger screens.
16:9 drives a skewed orientation of which is the "correct side is up" since one side is almost double the length.
Which if it does, with 16 GB for $299 would be awesome.
It's 32GB $299.
