Someone justify the iPad mini's screen being worse than every competing product

Discussion in 'iPad' started by Pjstock42, Oct 23, 2012.

  1. Pjstock42 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #1
    yet the iPad mini still costing $100+ more than those competing products.

    In an era where everything is moving to high-res displays, how is it that the iPad mini can cost so much more than the competition yet have a lower quality display than the Nook HD / Kindle HD & Nexus 7?
     
  2. acorntoy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #3
    It works with all the apps that where designed for the iPad 2 and original iPad, no waiting for developer updates it will just work.


    That's apples justification at least....
     
  3. jman240 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #4
    It has the same pixel count as the iPad 1 and 2. This is done so that they don't introduce yet another grid for developers to target. It was done for app compatability which is a major strength of the iOS platform. Apple can release any form factor as long as it uses 1 of 2 resolutions. They could pop out a 5 or 6 inch iPad with the same res and all the apps would still work perfectly. That's the main reason they did this. It probably helps a lot that it cuts down on their BoM costs as well. To use a 4x resolution would have been very costly in that size I would imagine.

    Also, they need an upgrade path. There has to be something in the iPad Mini V2 that entices buyers. Could be retina, could be A6, could be better camera. All in all, it leaves the device an upgrade path. You'd really have to have your head in the sand to not notice that Apple doesn't always put the best they have in every device all the time. The iPod touch is a frankenstein product using parts from the last 3 iPhones for it's makeup after all.
     
  4. UmbraDiaboli macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    #5
    We will have to wait and see official video reviews that compare the iPad Mini to its competition.
     
  5. urkel macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    #6
    Exactly. I'm getting one and all but they're totally using a "Look the other way" approach to solving this issue.
     
  6. justin216 macrumors 6502

    justin216

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #7
    Boils down to resolution compatibility without introducing a special resolution for the iPad Mini line (all iPad apps will work fine out of the box on this thing without developers having to remember yet another resolution at UI design/compile time), and cost savings on the bill-of-materials.

    One benefits consumers and developers (not having to wait for special iPad Mini-ready apps), one benefits Apple (cost savings).
     
  7. Pjstock42 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #8
    I get that, but imagine someone with an iPhone 4/4s/5, full size iPad, retina MBP...If they buy an iPad mini, they are going to take one look at the screen and want to puke. This move just isn't consistent with what the direction of the company has been over the last year.
     
  8. HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #9
    Hitting a strategic price target while maintaining a desirable (Apple) margin.

    OR, the "hold something back" curse of not getting what it should have been until version 2.

    OR, they can get the "I won't pay up for the iPad Maxi" crowd without too many prospective buyers interested in the Maxi cheaping out for the Mini. That particular very tangible feature is probably enough to motivate that on-the-fence segment to go ahead and pay up for the Maxi. If the Mini had come with retina, the pull from the Maxi would have been bigger screen size and some "guts" advantages. The average Joe won't care so much about the invisibles (guts) so they might just save the cost difference rather than pay up for the added screen area. In short, Apple is trying to walk a tightrope of minimizing the cannibalization of what would otherwise be iPad 4 sales while trying to take a big bite out of the "iPad is too expensive at $499" crowd (though personally, I still think they should have tried to make their margin at $299 or $279).
     
  9. dmelgar macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    #10
    Its not "worse". Prejudging. Just looking for confirmation.

    Its a bigger display. iPad mini smaller side bezel. Overall device thinner and lighter than competition.

    Typical apple, its generally a premium device.

    Due to Apple's software architecture, they couldn't realistically ship a somewhat higher res display. A double res display would have been cost prohibitive.
     
  10. Pjstock42 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #11
    Your last point makes total sense to most companies, but Apple has never been in the business of offering bargain-bin tech gadgets and it's odd to see them start doing so now...
     
  11. Ztormie macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    #12
    No, they're not. It won't be as sharp and fantastic looking as the retina display, but that resolution on a smaller screen will still look great. Saying it's going to make people puke is just a really lame exaggeration.
     
  12. Jinzen macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    #13
    Planned obscelesence.

    iPad mini 2 with retina display.
     
  13. bsquared397 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    #14
    This. No need to update apps, and it is easier to adopt. They market this as a a 7in alternative with a "true" app ecosystem. As far as no retina, people have already said that while pixel density is lower than tabs like the N7, the overall quality is far better.
     
  14. Pjstock42 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #15
    How so? Not being facetious, I just really don't understand how it's better.
     
  15. seajewel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    #16
    honestly I find even the iPod nano screen, which supposedly has 220 ppi if wikipedia is correct, to be very pixelly in comparison with the iPhone 5 and iPod touch. (Actually I thought the ppi was lower before just checking on wikipedia, as it truly looked terrible to my eyes.) I would not be happy reading off of a screen with distinctly less sharp font, and the difference turned me off in the store (comparing iPad 2 to iPad 3, etc.) and I'm sure I'd feel the same way about a mini if I had one. Which at that price and those specs, I won't. :/
     
  16. poloponies macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #17
    It's thinner that the Kindle Fire, 25% lighter and has double the battery life. So far all those crying out for a more portable iPad this gives you a nice feature set - clearly sacrificing higher resolution for greater "portability."

    Really simple decision-making involved - it either meets your expectations or it doesn't. If higher-res is the clincher then go with the competition.
     
  17. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #18
    It's an iPad 2 in a smaller form factor with improved cameras and a higher quality display for $70 less than the iPad 2 was selling for yesterday.
     
  18. rmhop81 macrumors 68020

    rmhop81

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #19
    then obviously someone with all the top of the line ***** isn't going to buy a mini with low quality screen.
     
  19. HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #20
    Step back in time. When iPad 1 was a mature rumor, the intelligent guessers here were throwing around entry prices of $699 to $999. When $499 rolled out, the vast majority here were entirely shocked. The word "bargain" was tossed about in good volume.

    This mini wouldn't be "bargain bin" at $299, $279, or $249. In fact, it would still be toward the premium pricing end of the 7" mix of tablets. However, breaking $300 would have been a big psychological win. As is, I think it's still a little too close to the Maxi. Apparently with all of the whining in the announcement thread, I'm not the only one who thinks the price is just not quite right.

    More personally, I probably would have jumped on it at $279 day one. At $329, I'd probably just pay the difference for the "4". Apple wins either way. But the difference is getting the day one money vs. causing that pause to think it over. Sometimes thinking it over never leads to the actual sale (a few days from now, the rumors for iPad 5 in approx. March will heat up and motivate some of the "think it over" crowd to just wait for March).
     
  20. Pjstock42 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #21
    Those $699 - $999 price points that were being estimated were when everyone thought the "iPad" was going to be a tablet Mac computer, I remember this clearly. When the actual iPad was announced, many people were upset that it was just a "bigger iPod" (lol).

    I just feel that while Apple products come at a premium price point, they almost always bring with them premium components that at least somewhat justify the price. In this case, the iPad mini releases with a display that is already worse than every competing product and that's a big deal to me when you consider that this will be used heavily for reading.
     
  21. HobeSoundDarryl, Oct 23, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2012

    HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #22
    I don't feel as you feel. That Mini screen is a shrunk iPad 2 screen, upping the dpi density (just not to what Apple calls "retina"). iPad 2 looks great unless you absolutely love retina on iPad 3. A shrunk iPad 2 screen is going to look sharper than an iPad 2 screen at full size. I suspect it will look very good when you can see one in person. Yes, it won't quite hit "retina" but that doesn't stop people from still buying iPad 2 even today.

    Not everyone cares enough about that density of pixels to pay up for the difference. And this Mini comes with other benefits. I do think a lot can be said for the smaller size, fit-in-one-hand, lighter benefits- retina or not.

    If you really want the Mini but must have retina, just stand by. iPad Mini 2 will probably "upgrade" to retina sometime next year.

    To include retina in this product meant another resolution for developers to deal with or trying to compact the full retina of iPad 3 down into this smaller screen. Had they done the latter, I think they would have seriously cut into the iPad 4 buyer market. Basically, the Mini would have the best looking screen vs. the 4... at a cheaper price... with more portability... lighter... etc. Apple still wants to sell tons of iPad 4s to everyone who is not too pinched to afford one. This Mini is trying to get more of those pinched.

    I think the product that is going to really feel the pain is iPod Touch. For only a little more than the Touch price, one can get a considerably bigger screen.
     
  22. PlutoniusX macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    #23
    I was blown away with the price and features. I thought Apple wasn`t run by a munch of Morons.

    Bye Bye Ipad Mini,
    Bye Bye Apple
    Hello Nexus 7.
    I think Im gonna not cry :cool:
     
  23. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #24
    If you watch a 16:9 movie, the total visible screen space will likely be the same between the Nexus 7 and the Mini.
     
  24. darngooddesign macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #25
    And if that is all you use your ipad for then it doesn't make sense. That is a fraction of why I use mine for so I'm glad Apple kept the aspect ratio.
     

Share This Page