Retina iPad Mini's Display Criticized Over Poor Color Gamut and Accuracy

[pocket3d]

It's not slander, it's basic deduction. Let's think about it for a second.
<. . . >
I'm not just making things up for the sake of olol i h8 apple. I'm thinking Apple sacrificed a bit of quality to keep the price of the new Mini down. Otherwise, it would've been about the same price as the larger Air.
< . . . >

A reasonable suggestion. But I'm suggesting that their alternative, IGZO, is not there not because of cost, but because it's technologically unavailable yet in quantity. Production and yield problems. A lot of rumors over the last year point to that.

It doesn't argue in your favor that they kept the price of the Air the same as previous iPads, in spite of adding a new processor, redesigning the case, and changing a lot more of the innards besides the IGZO backplane.

How would we explain that? They took a hit on margins? Tried to make it up by screwing the new mini users of a full visual experience? I think it's much more likely that they made the mini chassis IGZO-ready, then when Sharp couldn't come through, had to jam their old pre-LTPS retina panels in with lower-power backlighting to preserve battery life.

Better reasoning through mechanics, not invidious profit-margin speculation.

----------

I think they kept cost and equipment lower to sell the rMini at a price point in which they believe would be acceptable while they reap a +60% margin.

I hope you also will consider the arguments based on the technology and physics that have been laid out in this thread, compared to what you merely sneeringly speculate.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Accept that no one is getting an android or using an android.

http://9to5mac.com/2013/10/30/growt...n-q3-cut-apples-market-share-to-less-than-30/

Android has 70% of the worldwide tablet market. I think at least a few people must be buying them.

 

[Renzatic]

It doesn't argue in your favor that they kept the price of the Air the same as previous iPads, in spite of adding a new processor, redesigning the case, and changing a lot more of the innards besides the IGZO backplane.

How would we explain that? They took a hit on margins? Tried to make it up by screwing the new mini users of a full visual experience? I think it's much more likely that they made the mini chassis IGZO-ready, then when Sharp couldn't come through, had to jam their old pre-LTPS retina panels in with lower-power backlighting to preserve battery life.

Better reasoning through mechanics, not invidious profit-margin speculation.

How does that argue against me? Apple doesn't use the absolute latest and greatest in cutting edge tech. Practically no one does. They use the latest and greatest they can produce at X price while keeping Y amount of profit margin, so each generation doesn't become incrementally more expensive.

The old Mini was $299 because it leveraged older iPad 2 era tech. Cheap and easy to produce. The retina Mini is using more up to date parts, and is therefore...obviously...more expensive. Hence the extra hundred added to the price tag. Thing is, they couldn't price it any higher because it'd start eating into the Air's territory. They had to make a quality cut somewhere to keep the prices and margins within a certain threshold, and they did so by using a lower quality screen. A cut I'm assuming Apple found acceptable.

Otherwise, we'd be facing a situation where you would walk into a store to choose between a full sized 10" Air for $499, or a 7.9" Mini for $435. In other words, it'd end up in about the same boat the iPhone 5C is finding itself in now. Why opt for the cheaper option when going whole hog is just a relatively small bit more?

 

[pocket3d]

How does that argue against me?

You're suggesting they would have had to raise the price of the mini to use an IGZO screen.

Where is the price rise in the iPad Air for using an IGZO screen? The Air also had a retooling to factor in, along with all the internal changes the mini also got, even as its form factor remained essentially the same.

 

[rGiskard]

Apple didn't intentionally gimp the gamut on the Mini for better performance. That's complete BS. The most likely scenario is that they used lower quality screens as a cost cutting measure.

Product differentiation. Apple are scared that the Mini could cannibalize Air sales.

 

[Renzatic]

You're suggesting they would have had to raise the price of the mini to use an IGZO screen.

Where is the price rise in the iPad Air for using an IGZO screen? The Air also had a retooling to factor in, along with all the internal changes the mini also got, even as its form factor remained essentially the same.

They did have to raise the price of the Mini to compensate for the extra cost of the high density display and the more recent tech by a hundred bucks. I'm thinking they had to make a cut somewhere to keep it from either going much higher, or cutting into their margins.

The iPad Air costs Apple $280 in raw materials to make. The iPad Mini, being basically the same with a smaller battery and display, probably costs roughly the same in parts, probably about a $10 difference overall, yet sells for $100 less per unit. I'm thinking Apple had to use lower quality panels to keep their margins up. It's the only scenario that makes sense to me.

What else could it be? Did they use a lower gamut display to save battery life? Like I said before, that doesn't make sense considering their competitors products and their superior screens. Is it the fault of the IGZO screen vs. the tech being used in the Kindle HDX and Nexus 7? Apparently not, because the Air uses it to great effect without any sacrifices to color quality or battery life. And since IGZO supposedly consumes less power to achieve better results than old panel standards, then what other reason do we have to explain the rather lackluster results we're getting from the Mini?

...because LPTS is better? Then, if this is true, that means Apple bet a lot of money on a losing horse, because the greater standard has arrived, and IGZO is now an also ran, dragging the now inferior by association Retina Mini behind it.

That last bit I kinda doubt, because Apple, for all ups and downs, perks and faults, know the lay of the technological landscape fairly well. If IGZO wasn't as good as something up and coming, then they would've cut their losses instead of continuing to dump a ton of cash into it.

So your two options are "Apple screwed up with IGZO", or "Apple made an executive decision to sacrifice some screen quality to keep their margins up". All things considered, the latter makes more sense to me.

----------

Product differentiation. Apple are scared that the Mini could cannibalize Air sales.

I don't think they're worried about it, exactly. The sale of the Mini over the sale of the Air is still a sell that Apple's made.

But I do believe they don't want them to be nearly the exact same price, which I think would've happened if they used the highest quality parts available across the board.

 

[rGiskard]

Geez, what does it take? I said "high-draw," meaning that white LEDs use too much juice, not that they're too expensive! If it was a matter of spending a few more bucks per device, they would have given you your goddamned gamut.

It was a matter of maintaining battery life, or alternatively the size of the device.

And yet the incredibly thin Air manages a full sRGB color gamut without sacrificing battery life.

If you want to continue to delude yourself that it was a matter of a couple of dollars of margin, I feel sorry for you and I refuse to discuss it further with you.

Of course Apple care about their profit margins.

I mean get real. Apple would risk their reputation as display quality leaders for a couple of dollars?

They did exactly that with the original iPad Mini.

As to your second muddled paragraph, thanks for supporting my point. There isn't LTPS capacity on Apple's level because Apple, the market leader in LCD usage for mobile, hasn't chosen to develop it at scale, as far as we know. I would say they have good reasons why they haven't. Since they've spent nearly a billion on IGZO, you can't say they're cheaping out on displays.

Only the Air uses a leading edge IGZO display, the Mini uses an inferior design of unknown origins. As for supporting your point, lol, you're starting to flake out. You originally claimed that the retina Mini couldn't use a 100% sRGB high resolution display because of a lack of production capacity. To no avail I attempted to explain that the lack of production capacity is due to Apple's choice not to use such a display. Now you come around to this view, but act as if I've "proven your point". Along with all the ad hominems, it suggests a great deal of desperation on your part to defend Apple.

You seem to know a bit about components, you just don't understand product design and marketing. Apple don't aim to cram the maximum possible specs/tech into each and every product. They aim for the optimal mix of specs at a target price while considering how to differentiate different models. In the case of the iPads, the problem is simply that Apple considers the Retina Mini "low end" rather than "differently sized". Of course the Air has higher profit margins, so it's in Apple's interest to convince buyers that size matters.

----------

You're suggesting they would have had to raise the price of the mini to use an IGZO screen.

Where is the price rise in the iPad Air for using an IGZO screen? The Air also had a retooling to factor in, along with all the internal changes the mini also got, even as its form factor remained essentially the same.

The 10" iPad 4 already had a high end Retina display, it wasn't much of a jump from that to the Air's display.

The original Mini had a low res joke of a display like something out of 2003. It would be a HUGE increase in cost for an IGZO Retina display.

 

[Renzatic]

The original Mini had a low res joke of a display like something out of 2003. It would be a HUGE increase in cost for an IGZO Retina display.

Well, more like something out of 2011. But LCD tech has grown by leaps and bounds since then, so it kinda makes it seem that long ago.

edit: It's kinda scary to think about, but tablet power in general has exploded since the release of the original iPad. It's been a little over 3 years since the original iPad came out. It was really a glorified 1.6 pound smartphone back then, with a good-enough screen, and the processing power of about a Pentium II-III. In that short amount of time, it's shed a third of that weight, is about half as thick, has a mindboggling display, and can match Core2Duo era computers in power.

It's freaky is what it is.

 

[rGiskard]

So your two options are "Apple screwed up with IGZO", or "Apple made an executive decision to sacrifice some screen quality to keep their margins up". All things considered, the latter makes more sense to me.

Possibly, but it's unlikely that gimping the gamut saved Apple much money. Competing tablets like the Nexus 7 updated high density displays to full color gamut without any radical cost increases.

Pixel density costs money. 100% sRGB? Not so much.

 

[Renzatic]

Possibly, but it's unlikely that gimping the gamut saved Apple much money. Competing tablets like the Nexus 7 updated high density displays to full color gamut without any radical cost increases.

Pixel density costs money. 100% sRGB? Not so much.

You'd be surprised. Yeah, getting that extra pixel density does cost a helluva lot more, but producing displays capable of 100% isn't exactly chips and dip.

Think about how many tablets are able to display near 100% of sRGB. There aren't many, and those that can are almost always the higher end options (at least this was the case until recently, anyway). Most of them usually peg out around 75% or so. The reason being is that going with lower quality panels is an easy way to save money on production to get that price down for the consumer.

 

[pocket3d]

For the last time, to both of you, one more chance to get it right, very simple:

The iPad Air, IGZO, full sRGB, enough display efficiency to make the case smaller, several internal improvements, no price rise from previous models.

The iPad mini, no IGZO but instead amorphous silicon with lower-draw backlighting, high pixel density, several internal improvements, $70 price rise from earlier mini. Slightly larger battery and case, same battery life.

The LTPS screens used by no-profit Amazon and Google are full sRGB and energy efficient, but not available in quantities needed by Apple, mostly because Apple is using more than two-thirds of all production capacity for their phones and iPod touches. In other words, they know enough about the technology to have financed increased production years ago, but as far as we know they have instead chosen to back IGZO production, at the level of hundreds of millions.

You and Raymond Soneira can continue to believe that Apple backed the wrong technology, IGZO instead of LTPS, but the Air suggests you may be wrong. They managed to shrink the form, add a bunch of new stuff, and still keep the price the same. Soneira and common sense tell us that the mini will also get IGZO screens, and that means that the color gamut will normalize, battery life may increase, the case will remain the same, and judging by the Air, the price will remain the same.

Notice in all this we are dealing only with the facts and reasonable extrapolations of the facts of the hardware, the technology, the use-cases, etc. There are no "I thinks" or "I believes" or "it seems to me."

I do have one of those though, because it's pointed at the future: I think you and Soneira will probably have to eat your words about Apple's backing of IGZO and their supposed regard for margins over product integrity before a year is out.

As for the original iPad mini and its "gimped" pixel density as an example of Apple's willingness to compromise user experience, consider what we now know is necessary to put a retina display in such a light and thin package. Start with the A7, iOS 7, and go on from there. It's cynical to pretend they could have done this a year ago.

Finally, me defending Apple? Not so much as I'm offended by sloppy attention paid to basic cause-and-effect reasoning made in the service of slandering a company that has more decency than the average, which in a decent mind would earn it some respect.

 

[Señor]

People complain, buy a Samsung tablet, and come back the next year the minute they heard it has a bigger/better screen.

Sorry to sound rude, but 9% of consumers are morons.

 

[Renzatic]

Finally, me defending Apple? Not so much as I'm offended by sloppy attention paid to basic cause-and-effect reasoning made in the service of slandering a company that has more decency than the average, which in a decent mind would earn it some respect.

...jesus.

Am I slagging Apple here? Have I ever said they suck? Did I not spell out my theories as to why the Mini screen wasn't as good as it could be in a rather straightforward, step by step manner? Did I ever say IGZO sucked?

It's like you're only reading the parts you want to read, and missing what I'm actually saying.

 

[pocket3d]

...jesus.

Am I slagging Apple here? Have I ever said they suck? Did I not spell out my theories as to why the Mini screen wasn't as good as it could be in a rather straightforward, step by step manner? Did I ever say IGZO sucked?

It's like you're only reading the parts you want to read, and missing what I'm actually saying.

No, I'm criticizing your first easy, cheap, common and most wrong-headed assertion that Apple gimped the display in order to preserve their precious margin, when all the technical evidence and reasoning shows that IGZO is not available yet in the quantities they need for the iPad mini.

THAT should have been your first assertion. It's not being generous, it's in accord with the evidence. Instead you took the lazy and sloppy route favored by the general run of flow-heads on this and other generally anti-Apple websites.

Apple is greedy, they like to make their margin above all, even above their vaunted user experience, they have all that money, etc., etc., never mind the hardware facts. Don't get impatient with me. You started it by yes, slagging Apple. I see it happening all the time here, can't be bothered to put out all the inflamed jealous egos bruised by Apple's success. I'm not saying that's your problem, but I happen to care about this one because display technology is probably Apple's riskiest and most expensive investment to date, and you guys are jumping in with your Soneira-like glib answers way too early.

 

[Renzatic]

I see it happening all the time here, can't be bothered to put out all the inflamed jealous egos bruised by Apple's success. I'm not saying that's your problem, but I happen to care about this one because display technology is probably Apple's riskiest and most expensive investment to date, and you guys are jumping in with your Soneira-like glib answers way too early.

Explain this. IGZO is, according to you, the only way to produce a small high gamut screen. If this were true, the iPhone 5/5S wouldn't be able to come close to matching 100% sRGB gamma, yet...bam. It matches the quality of the iPad 3/4, and the IGZO equipped Air.

The iPhone 5 is also the most pixel dense of all the iDevices. It's also got the smallest battery of all the higher end iDevices. Yet despite this, all those extra colors and higher quality backlights aren't draining the battery any faster than the lower quality iPhone 4 screens.

...it also starts at $650.

So why is it that that the comparatively considerably larger retina Mini doesn't sport a display that can run the full sRGB gamma?

...I'm thinking it's because it starts at $399, and Apple had to make a quality cut somewhere to keep it within a lower price range than the Air, and maintain profit margins.

So no, I'm not slogging off Apple just to slog off Apple. It's the only...only...answer that makes sense when you take everything into consideration.

 

[pocket3d]

It's the only...only...answer that makes sense when you take everything into consideration.

Then take everything into consideration. The 5/5S are both LTPS. I pointed that out a few times in the course of this. It's the reason that Apple knows all about LTPS, and it's the reason there isn't enough capacity left over from the massive iPhone use to furnish the iPads with LTPS. (There is enough for the low volumes of the Kindle and Nexus.) It's the reason that I suspect that Apple knew what they were doing when they backed IGZO over LTPS, but that is speculation. We don't seem to be getting any help from Soneira on that point.

I am counting on you to read the presented facts and keep them in your head. Again, the point is, don't accuse Apple of gimping their technology to maintain their margins, when it is the technology that is gimping Apple. Temporarily.

 

[Renzatic]

I am counting on you to read the presented facts and keep them in your head. Again, the point is, don't accuse Apple of gimping their technology to maintain their margins, when it is the technology that is gimping Apple. Temporarily.

So why didn't Apple use the iPad 3/4 tech for the retina Mini? I still don't completely buy that there's a technological reason behind the screen's limitations.

...well, I could argue thickness, but the difference in depth between an iPad 4 and a retina Mini is 1.9mm. Not a vast amount.

 

[2IS]

I was going to comment, then I read your signature.

1) You did comment. My sig simply made your comment more useless than it may otherwise have been... Maybe not actually, you seem like the type who'd make a pretty useless statement regardless.

2) My sig has a history and is there to make a point to the person who said it.

My guess is, after reading my post, you recognized yourself as an Apple enthusiast who makes excuses for an inferior product and were bothered by it enough to say something, even though what you said was nothing more than a waste of bandwidth. But please, comment on how you're not going to comment again.

 

[pocket3d]

So why didn't Apple use the iPad 3/4 tech for the retina Mini? I still don't completely buy that there's a technological reason behind the screen's limitations.

...well, I could argue thickness, but the difference in depth between an iPad 4 and a retina Mini is 2mm. Not a vast amount.

I'm assuming you're asking a sincere question. I wish others more versed in resolution language were answering, but anyway:

The problem is that to preserve the apps' scaling, they have to use the same resolution as the iPad 3/4, but squeezed into the smaller area of the mini's screen. So the pixel density increases to 326 ppi on the mini. Two techs in the past from Apple, as you probably know, have used this density. They can't use the 5/5S, because that's scarce LTPS. I believe they must be using the 4/4S tech. Why don't you see if you can verify or disprove that? I have work to do . . .

 

[Tubamajuba]

So why didn't Apple use the iPad 3/4 tech for the retina Mini? I still don't completely buy that there's a technological reason behind the screen's limitations.

...well, I could argue thickness, but the difference in depth between an iPad 4 and a retina Mini is 1.9mm. Not a vast amount.

The older screen technology required more power, therefore requiring a bigger battery which would cause more heat. Never mind the extra weight to go along with the increased thickness.

So yes, there is a technological reason.

 

[Renzatic]

The older screen technology required more power, therefore requiring a bigger battery which would cause more heat. Never mind the extra weight to go along with the increased thickness.

I'd think more weight than heat, but yeah...that does make sense.

I guess I stand corrected.

 

[verpeiler]

Product differentiation. Apple are scared that the Mini could cannibalize Air sales.

No, you are completely wrong.. In fact, they brought both nearly on par. The worse screen is just more cost efficient. It's a sad thing apple ships the mini with a subpar screen, but hey, it will still sell millions...

They were never scared about cannibalizing the 9,7" sales.. they introduced the mini because if they wouldn't sell a smaller tablet they'd fall behind. And they were right.

 

[pocket3d]

No, you are completely wrong.. In fact, they brought both nearly on par. The worse screen is just more cost efficient. It's a sad thing apple ships the mini with a subpar screen, but hey, it will still sell millions...

They were never scared about cannibalizing the 9,7" sales.. they introduced the mini because if they wouldn't sell a smaller tablet they'd fall behind. And they were right.

Another one. Could I suggest you read the thread, the exchanges between Renzatic, rGiskard and me, then see if you still want to post that.

The "worse screen" is just what's possible right now that will fit the mini form factor and battery capacity. Nothing to do with cost efficiency. There is no screen available anywhere that work with the form without sacrificing battery life.

 

[Renzatic]

There is no screen available anywhere that work with the form without sacrificing battery life.

Now that's not true, and you know it. The Nexus 7 might have a slight smaller screen, but the DPI is just as high, and it gets roughly the same battery life as the Mini (9-12 hours depending on usage).

 

[pocket3d]

Now that's not true, and you know it. The Nexus 7 might have a slight smaller screen, but the DPI is just as high, and it gets roughly the same battery life as the Mini (9-12 hours depending on usage).

You are being perverse. You know what I mean by now. THERE AREN'T ENOUGH LTPS SCREENS IN THE WORLD TO SUPPLY APPLE!!!

Stop it!