Photos of 4:3 Display from Apple's 'iPad Mini' Surface

[D.T.]

I think we've flogged this horse enough, but what the heck ... one more time

Apple has three options with the resolution for this product (if it exists in the specifications that have been knocked around):


1024x768
This gives the device terrific compatibility with existing apps, easier future development, lower cost and can be coupled with a low[er] cost CPU/GPU that's also lower power (i.e., longer battery life with a smaller battery). It's also ~164PPI based on the size.

2048x1536
Incredible PPI at 326 (funny enough the same as the iPhone 4/5), however, would need a stouter CPU/GPU combo. The A5X is hot, high consumption, so that might suggest the A6, however, not sure if it's capable at that resolution (that's way more pixels vs. an iPhone 5). Also the battery requirement would really escalate, not too mention, cost which I think is a primary driver. Would be instantly compatible with most apps not unlike the 1024 option.

[some other resolution]
The A5 could probably push (or possibly a slightly tweaked version) some interim resolution that's a good mix of PPI, power consumption, for example, 1600x1200 is ~254PPI which is the "retina" spec of the 3rd gen.

[Editing this, I meant to say something like 1440x1080 would be decent at ~230PPI or 1280x960 at ~203]

The obvious - and MAJOR - downside, is app compatibility/development. A new resolution would require new layouts, graphic assets, etc.

I believe Apple favors OOTB app availability over specifications.

 

[BillyBobBongo]

Only if the iMac screens would be confirmed already

Indeed, been telling my Dad to hold off buying one as I just knew that they were coming. Far more important than someone taking an iPad and making it...smaller...wow, just wow.

 

[wrkactjob]

Wow the size 162x124 is small!

My Samsung Galaxy tab 2 7.0 is 193x122.

 

[everything-i]

Surface?

Can't use 'Surface' any longer talking about tablets M$ has associated it with their tablets now, makes it confusing.

 

[Navdakilla]

sooo sick.. ME WANT ONE

 

[GoodBoy]

Wait a minute I don't get it.... Has the alleged site made macro photos of the iPad mini display to find out what's the resolution?

 

[Rogifan]

This is really pathetic if the resolution is really 1024x768. Hoping those are just rumors.

All depends on how it looks to the human eye. Microsoft is claiming the Surface display is superior to iPad 3.&. I have a hard time believing it, but lets see what the first reviews say.

 

[koppie644]

Is there the possibility that the PPI is the same as the retina display found on the iPad, like iPhone 5 vs iphone 4s?

for example 1536*1152?

16:9 is only good for watching movies. When you hold the iPad vertical it is rubbish. Especially for reading books, which will be a _major_ use of the iPad mini. On the iPhone 5, there is the positive that you can still cover the width with one hand, that won't work on an iPad mini so no redeeming advantage.

And there is one feature that sets it absolutely apart: Less size. No other difference is needed or wanted.




1024 x 768 means all software runs unchanged (just smaller). Pixel density would be higher than on the iPad 2, so you would have "almost but not quite retina" quality. 2048 x 1536 would be a waste of money. You also need more power with more pixels, and you don't have the space for a large battery on an iPad Mini.

 

[dwhittington]

What are those displays sitting on top of in the photo? I'm referring to the glossy black surface that appears to have bolts in the side of it.

 

[wrkactjob]

What are those displays sitting on top of in the photo? I'm referring to the glossy black surface that appears to have bolts in the side of it.

The new iPad Maxi.

 

[jmpnop]

I think we've flogged this horse enough, but what the heck ... one more time

Apple has three options with the resolution for this product (if it exists in the specifications that have been knocked around):


1024x768
This gives the device terrific compatibility with existing apps, easier future development, lower cost and can be coupled with a low[er] cost CPU/GPU that's also lower power (i.e., longer battery life with a smaller battery). It's also ~164PPI based on the size,

2048x1536
Incredible PPI at 326 (funny enough the same as the iPhone 4/5), however, would need a stouter CPU/GPU combo. The A5X is hot, high consumption, so that might suggest the A6, however, not sure if it's capable at that resolution (that's way more pixels vs. an iPhone 5). Also the battery requirement would really escalate, not too mention, cost which I think is a primary driver. Would be instantly compatible with most apps not unlike the 1024 option.

[some other resolution]
The A5 could probably push (or possibly a slightly tweaked version) some interim resolution that's a good mix of PPI, power consumption, for example, 1600x1200 is ~214PPI which is pretty nice, plus that's a decent amount of pixel space. The obvious - and MAJOR - downside, is app compatibility/development. A new resolution would require new layouts, graphic assets, etc.

I believe Apple favors OOTB app availability over specifications.

If they went with 2048x1536 resolution, iPad mini would have a better screen than their flagship product. Also like you said it'd require as much power as iPad 3, that in a smaller device would mean reduced battery life. Heat and price are other issues. People are too unrealistic to expect retina display in a device thats expected to cost nearly half of iPad, let alone technical difficulties. Would be surprised if Apple did it though.

 

[Okeo]

162x124 is not exactly 4:3, so this might be the size of the display assembly, not strictly the display itself..

But, if we're talking display only, then that yields a 8.03" diagonal.

 

[gnasher729]

Wow the size 162x124 is small!

My Samsung Galaxy tab 2 7.0 is 193x122.

That's because you are comparing the claimed size of the iPad Mini screen with the device size of the Galaxy tab. Take a ruler and measure the size of the screen, then post again.

 

[klover]

I'm sure Apple will find a way to brand this as Retina without meeting it's existing definition.

 

[vmachiel]

Yes! no 16:9. It's terrible to hold in portrait mode, which you'll do a lot with a smaller tablet.

 

[Okeo]

Also, I see plenty of talk of this selling for about $249 for the 'base' model (whatever that ends up being... are they going to build an 8GB version?), but with the new iPod touch at $299, is that a realistic assumption?

 

[Dwalls90]

I could see a 1536x1152, but I would hope they stick with 1024x768 to keep costs down and to keep fragmentation lower.

 

[gnasher729]

Is there the possibility that the PPI is the same as the retina display found on the iPad, like iPhone 5 vs iphone 4s?

for example 1536*1152?

Technically possible, but software wouldn't run unchanged. Worse, unlike the iPhone 5 where old software runs just fine with a bit of a black gap at the top and bottom, this would give you fewer points, so without any changes many old apps would cut off stuff at the sides. Quite horrible.

And remember that a 1024 x 768 screen is already better than the screen on the iPad and iPad 2, and nobody complained about their quality (until the new iPad was released).

----------

Also, I see plenty of talk of this selling for about $249 for the 'base' model (whatever that ends up being... are they going to build an 8GB version?), but with the new iPod touch at $299, is that a realistic assumption?

What would the iPod Touch have to do with it? One device is a tablet, the other a portable music player + games console. Totally different markets.

 

[Skika]

Probably 800x600, only next generation will we see 1024x768 and then when it reaches 3rd, retina display.

Haha, this is a joke right?

Right?

 

[APlotdevice]

...So the display isn't 16:9 ratio? That would have set it apart a little better from its bigger brother.

And either render existing apps incompatible or put black bars on the top and bottom (proportionally wider than the ones on the iPhone 5). Either way developers would have to tweak their apps yet again.

----------

162x124 is not exactly 4:3, so this might be the size of the display assembly, not strictly the display itself..

But, if we're talking display only, then that yields a 8.03" diagonal.

You also have to consider that pixels aren't always perfectly square.

 

[Okeo]

What would the iPod Touch have to do with it? One device is a tablet, the other a portable music player + games console. Totally different markets.

Well -- everything in this supposed new tablet (CPU, battery, camera(s), etc) would be at least as good (if not better) than what is in the new iPod Touch. The screen would be larger, albeit not as dense. So in terms of cost, this can't really be any cheaper to produce than an iPod Touch, IMO.

Is Apple really willing to reduce their typical profit margin on this product?

 

[D.T.]

If they went with 2048x1536 resolution, iPad mini would have a better screen than their flagship product. Also like you said it'd require as much power as iPad 3, that in a smaller device would mean reduced battery life. Heat and price are other issues. People are too unrealistic to expect retina display in a device thats expected to cost nearly half of iPad, let alone technical difficulties. Would be surprised if Apple did it though.

Yeah, I agree, *if* they wanted to produce a "retina" display, they'd want to keep it around 250PPI to match the iPad 3.

Er, I also just noticed my PPI vs. resolution isn't correct where you quoted me - going to edit the original post I had about 4 or 5 different resolutions I was working out, got them a little mixed up.

In fact, the 1600x1200 I mentioned +is+ ~254PPI which would be just about perfect for this device ... though still subject to the major downside of app compatibility - plus factor in the discussion about the ever growing app sizes, I don't think we need a 3rd set of iPad assets in an app!

 

[iSee]

...and measures 162 mm x 124 mm

That makes it almost exactly 8" diagonally... I thought we were expecting 7.8" or something like that.

I'm dying to know if it's "retina" or not -- whoever has that needs to examine it closely and let us know!

 

[Mago]

1024x768 this gen is more likely, equipped with same A6 cpu on iPhone 5 or same a5 as iPad2 gen 2.

Next year maybe Apple will release it at Retina Display density, but this means to Kill the iPad 3.

 

[Woodcrest64]

My guess is 1024x768. If Apple does have the 2048x1536 resolution it would put the iPad mini over 320dpi similar to the iPhone with its retina display. However I don't think that is doable for cost and production that Apple wants.