Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
and Google, Amazon ... all offer 7" tablets with FullHD resolution :D

Speaking of Amazon, the U.S. press has given its verdict on the Kindle Fire HDX 7: thanks to the ecosystem developed by Amazon, the Kindle tablet can rival with the Nexus7 and surpass it in terms of power ( Snapdragon800 at 2.2Ghz, 2Gb RAM, Adreno 330, FullHD screen insensitive to reflections ...):
http://www.techhive.com/article/205...ew-third-times-the-charm.html#tk.twt_techhive
http://www.slashgear.com/amazon-kindle-fire-hdx-7-review-01299910/
http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/02/amazon-kindle-fire-hdx-review/
http://www.slashgear.com/amazon-kindle-fire-hdx-7-review-01299910/

Interesting that Amazon is charging $40 increments for the same memory capacity bumps that Apple charges $100 for. More proof how Apple jacks its customers for additional storage...
 
Bogus!
Apple has no problem making a 4" retina display for iphone.. No proble making a 9.7 inch retina display for ipads...but they hav a problem with making a 7.9 diplay.
Yup 7.9 is a very challanging size to make ... Lol ...

You are ignorant. Apple does not make retina displays. They buy them from manufacturers such as Sharp and Samsung. You probably also don't know that these displays need to be sourced from these companies and that there is a limited production capacity for these displays. They might be in short supply just as Apple claimed a major portion of the global supply of 9.7 inch displays when it introduced the iPad.

In addition, it is not the size but the pixel density that is relevant here.

and a suggestion: adding "LOL" doesn't do you any favours in terms of credibility.
 
This exactly. The whole purpose of a mini is it's portability. The thinness and lightness of the current iPad mini combined with the new iOS7 is second to none.

I just couldn't bare the weight of the Nexus 7 despite the higher resolution. No doubt, the screen is nice and I don't mind android too much either, but due to the added heft of the Nexus 7 I'd rather be using my iPad mini.

It's just that hard for an iPad mini user to trade significant weight and size for higher resolution.

Are you sure you're playing/holding the new nexus 7 and not the old?

The official weight of the mini is 308g for wifi, 312g for celluar

The official weight for the fhd nexus 7 is 290g for wifi, 299 for cellular.

the older nexus 7 weighed 340g.

I have yet to see anyone dispute that the listed weights are wrong.
 
That's exactly how I read the situation as well. Apple was ready to roll out another standard def mini with minor updates(A6) around this time, but the competition,which was already ahead display wise, REALLY up'd the game with latest nexus 7.

That caused Apple to have to regroup and has caused this apparently delay/lack of raw materials to meet demand. If you read the stories about the updated Nexus 7, and it's design/production, it sounds a lot more Apple like than our guessed at original meager update for the mini

My new Nexus 7 gets rather poor battery life so hopefully Apple will take the time to do it right.
 
I currently own an iPhone 5. I don't consider my phone just "good enough". Please don't compare the 5 with the iPad mini.

What does "good enough" really mean? The 5c is better than the 5 (unless you are comparing the amount of metal used on the rear, than the 5 wins!)

I skipped the iPhone 5 because it wasn't good enough for an upgrade, but I jumped at the chance to go with the 5s.

My iPad mini is doing really great and I have no complaints, I cannot see upgrading even if it does get 2048x1536 resolution (putting the ppi at iPhone 4s/5s level!)
 
I'm thinking of selling my 2 so I can get the current Mini now. Then selling my 3 so I can get the 5 when it's out. And when the Mini 2 Retina comes out...I'll have no money for it b/c I just blew it on a Mini 1 and 5...wait wut? :confused::D
 
I wouldn't consider a high res display "leap frogging". The competition isn't revolutionizing the tablet space. They're making iterative improvements just like Apple.


No, the competition is not "revolutionizing the tablet space", but that is a different topic.

Instead, the goal post was whether or not, and how, the competition is "leapfrogging" the iMini. And if the only manner in which competing tablets exceed the iPad was a high res display, then maybe you'd be right. But the differences go deeper, and competing products have indeed leapfrogged the Mini.

Is that really, really hard to accept? Why?
 
Doesn't need double the res to be retina, it's like 85% there already. And for most folks looks damn good. Doubling the resolution would be a major power drain. The A7/M7 combo may not be efficient enough to handle the additional need.

And THAT, not some supply issue BS is why we won't get a retina mini if that is what happens.

When the iPad 3 came out with a retina display, didn't people here on MacRumors wonder how it'll affect the UI? If they double the resolution, it's enough to just pixel double everything. But if it's some non-integer times the resolution (say 1.5x), it's not that easy to pixel double or whatever,

It would be the same resolution (number of pixels) but would have a higher ppi (pixels per inch)

iPad mini is currently 163 ppi at 1024x768 resolution on a 7.9 inch screen
iPad 2 is currently 132 ppi with the same 1024x768 resolution on a 9.7 inch screen
iPad 4 is currently 264 ppi at 2048x1536 resolution on a 9.7 inch screen

You're mistaken, I think. Let's say the iPad Mini doubles its PPI to 326. To stay a 7.9" screen, it will need to be 2048 X 1536. If you keep the # of pixels the same while doubling the PPI, the screen would have to be 1/2 as big. PPI = Pixels Per Inch.

an iPad mini with retina display of 2048x1536 resolution on a 7.9 inch screen would have 324 ppi (about the same as iPhone) so actually a much "better" screen than a full size iPad (unless iPad 5 goes to 4096x3072, but that is just silly)

Maybe a bit silly. I feel we're getting to the point of diminishing returns in terms of resolution. Even on the iPad's 9.7" or the Mini's 7.9" screen, how much more detail can the average person really make out? I think after a certain point, it's not a matter of seeing better detail, but just a bragging contest. Like "My tablet's screen has a higher resolution than you! Haw-haw!"
 
I don't think that Steve would have released a non-retina iPad a year after introducing the iPad 3. I'm assuming you're basing your comment on a vague statement Tim made a year ago about Steve's view on a smaller screen size. Nothing was said about resolution. And no, the rumour that Steve set in to motion the product pipeline for the next few years doesn't really mean anything as realistically many of the products would have been revised since then, especially when running in to engineering challenges.



Yet he released a Non Retina iPad 2 in March 2011 after releasing the Retina iPhone 4 on June 7, 2010?

So he'd never do that, despite the fact that he did it.

Gotcha.
 
It doesn't take a genius to determine Apple got cheap to drive up its profits.

Everything that Apple ever does is to drive up its profits. Everything.

So it should be no surprise whatsoever that this is done for the same reason that everything else is done.
 
What, that the mini 2 will have 4th gen iPad specs?

original mini has the iPad 2 specs. Apple's quick replacement of the iPad 3 shows that they thought the innards(A5x) of the iPad 3 were insufficient. That leaves the A6X. Maybe a lower clock speed than compared to the iPad4, to maximize the chop yields.

What were you expecting? The mini to have the same specs as those in the soon to be updated main iPad? Sorry, this is :apple:
 
and Google, Amazon ... all offer 7" tablets with FullHD resolution :D

Speaking of Amazon, the U.S. press has given its verdict on the Kindle Fire HDX 7: thanks to the ecosystem developed by Amazon, the Kindle tablet can rival with the Nexus7 and surpass it in terms of power ( Snapdragon800 at 2.2Ghz, 2Gb RAM, Adreno 330, FullHD screen insensitive to reflections ...):
http://www.techhive.com/article/205...ew-third-times-the-charm.html#tk.twt_techhive
http://www.slashgear.com/amazon-kindle-fire-hdx-7-review-01299910/
http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/02/amazon-kindle-fire-hdx-review/
http://www.slashgear.com/amazon-kindle-fire-hdx-7-review-01299910/

Is Cyanogenmod available for it yet? The best hardware can be crippled by a mediocre OS. Apple makes great hardware, but most people prefer to buy Android stuff.

If the Amazon tablet can be made to have the best available OS, then it could be a great choice for some people. But the lack of an HDMI output means that I would never even consider it.
 
Last edited:
How hard can it be? They put it in the iPhone, iPod, full size iPad and the MacBooks...
 
This exactly. The whole purpose of a mini is it's portability. The thinness and lightness of the current iPad mini combined with the new iOS7 is second to none.

I just couldn't bare the weight of the Nexus 7 despite the higher resolution. No doubt, the screen is nice and I don't mind android too much either, but due to the added heft of the Nexus 7 I'd rather be using my iPad mini.

It's just that hard for an iPad mini user to trade significant weight and size for higher resolution.

You realize the N7 2013 is lighter than the iPad Mini, right?

http://www.gizmag.com/ipad-mini-vs-nexus-7-2013/28450/
 
Just because some analyst says it doesn't make it so. Remember the "grotesquely low" supplies of the iPhone 5S right before they went on to sell more than ever the opening weekend?

Maybe it's a planted rumor to generate excitement and interest? And lines! Maybe you won't be able to pre-order it either.
 
There is a big difference between "Released" and "Widespread Availability". To me, "Widespread Availability" means that I can walk into any store at any time and get the model I want. Just because that isn't the case doesn't mean that Apple hasn't released the device and that there isn't sufficient stock to fill most demand during a holiday shopping season.

In Apple's world, "constrained supplies" means "we can only make 10 million for launch day rather than the 12 million we wanted to make. We'll have to catch-up thereafter".

I expect that the Mini 2 launch will be very similar to what we saw with the 5s. They will sell out of initial stock in the first day, Gold will be hard to come by, and they will start backfilling orders within 1-4 weeks with new stock.
 
It would be the same resolution (number of pixels) but would have a higher ppi (pixels per inch)

iPad mini is currently 163 ppi at 1024x768 resolution on a 7.9 inch screen
iPad 2 is currently 132 ppi with the same 1024x768 resolution on a 9.7 inch screen
iPad 4 is currently 264 ppi at 2048x1536 resolution on a 9.7 inch screen

an iPad mini with retina display of 2048x1536 resolution on a 7.9 inch screen would have 324 ppi (about the same as iPhone) so actually a much "better" screen than a full size iPad (unless iPad 5 goes to 4096x3072, but that is just silly)

You're mistaken, I think. Let's say the iPad Mini doubles its PPI to 326. To stay a 7.9" screen, it will need to be 2048 X 1536. If you keep the # of pixels the same while doubling the PPI, the screen would have to be 1/2 as big. PPI = Pixels Per Inch.

I am not sure where I made a mistake. I also did not start with "doubling the PPI" I just used the same pattern that was used before: Full size iPad resolution moved to an iPad mini screen (1024x768 for the iPad 2->mini and hypothetically 2048x1536 for the iPad 3/4->miniRetina) I then calculated the PPI based on the number of pixels and the screen size being 7.9" not just "doubling PPI" (I quoted Apple's figures from the existing iPads come from their site, but are actually a little higher than they should be, they round up, even for the mini which is really 162.03 PPI)

Use this: http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/computer/hardware/ppicalc.html Do not base any calculations on the PPI, just use number of pixels and screen size.
 
How hard can it be? They put it in the iPhone, iPod, full size iPad and the MacBooks...

I take it you have no understanding of how screens are made, process run up time, or economies of scale. I mean, how complicated could a billion dollar process be right?:rolleyes:
 
You realize the N7 2013 is lighter than the iPad Mini, right?

http://www.gizmag.com/ipad-mini-vs-nexus-7-2013/28450/

This comes directly from the link you posted.

"If you look at weight relative to surface area, though, the iPad mini actually comes in at about eight percent lighter. So it's possible the iPad mini will, in a sense, feel lighter in hand."

I had no prior knowledge of actual weights when I held the two devices and played around with the Nexus 7. Other friends who were comparing the two made similar observations.

We all felt that the iPad mini is lighter.

So, thinness (a factor of 'weight relative to surface area') also matters.
 
Interesting that Amazon is charging $40 increments for the same memory capacity bumps that Apple charges $100 for.

The problem is that if you buy an Amazon tablet, you're stuck with an Amazon tablet.
 
This is what Steve was good for. He would of told his team to buckle down and make it happen. Next year would not have been good enough.

Then again Steve wouldn't have released a non-retina iPad mini in the first place.

Edit: yes I'm aware that the iPad 1-2 didn't have a retina display, I meant releasing a non-retina iPad in 2012 after the iPad 3 was already introduced.

And yes I knew I would get flamed for the "Steve would have" comment. I was half joking but you have to admit that Tim likes to take the easy way out more often than not.
Exactly Steve would do exactly whatever you think he would do.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.