Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There will NOT be an iPad Mini
- Thread starter freudling
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Once again, you're not making any sense. What are you talking about with "fragmenting resolution"? They could either make the mini at the current iPad2, or the iPad3 resolution.
Did somebody say knucklehead? I can't believe I'm taking the time to explain how wrong you are. How you have no clue about any of this.
1. They CANNOT make an iPad Mini at 1024 x 768 because it wouldn't have the pixel density to qualify as Retina. This assumes that they will only release new mobile products with Retina screens. And that assumption is valid: Apple will not, at this point, release any mobile device that doesn't have a Retina screen. Within a year, likely all of the computers will sport Retina screens. There's no turning back on this.
2. They CANNOT make an iPad Mini at the same resolution as the iPad 3 because the pixel density would be too high: the pixels would have to be so small and that technology isn't around right now. And even if it was, the battery size of an iPad Mini would be about half what it is compared to an iPad 3. Therefore, trying to drive the same resolution screen on a battery half the size won't get you the battery life you need (~5 hours). In other words, it's basically impossible and they won't do it.
I don't have any interest whatsoever in your bet. Apple may or may not produce a mini this year. I'm thinking they likely will, but if they don't, I'll start seriously looking at the competitors options that are coming up -- as I'd imagine most of the other people that have been saying they want a mini will too.
In other words, you have zero courage of your convictions and aren't confident in your position that Apple will release an iPad Mini.
Did somebody say knucklehead? I can't believe I'm taking the time to explain how wrong you are. How you have no clue about any of this.
1. They CANNOT make an iPad Mini at 1024 x 768 because it wouldn't have the pixel density to qualify as Retina. This assumes that they will only release new mobile products with Retina screens. And that assumption is valid: Apple will not, at this point, release any mobile device that doesn't have a Retina screen. Within a year, likely all of the computers will sport Retina screens. There's no turning back on this.
2. They CANNOT make an iPad Mini at the same resolution as the iPad 3 because the pixel density would be too high: the pixels would have to be so small and that technology isn't around right now. And even if it was, the battery size of an iPad Mini would be about half what it is compared to an iPad 3. Therefore, trying to drive the same resolution screen on a battery half the size won't get you the battery life you need (~5 hours). In other words, it's basically impossible and they won't do it.
I don't have any interest whatsoever in your bet. Apple may or may not produce a mini this year. I'm thinking they likely will, but if they don't, I'll start seriously looking at the competitors options that are coming up -- as I'd imagine most of the other people that have been saying they want a mini will too.
In other words, you have zero courage of your convictions and aren't confident in your position that Apple will release an iPad Mini.
Let me ask everyone of you something: how many of you use a 7" tablet? Let the lies begin...
I don't because Apple does not sell one.
...yet.
It really isn't.
The 7.85 mini at 1024x786 pixels would have the exact same pixel density as the original iPhone and Touch -- 163 PPI. The exact same screen technology could be used to make the mini.
I was also being way overly generous when I told freudling that he almost came close to having a point about the higher density retina display (he seemed to need a bit of good news...). The exact same screen technology that's used in the current iPhone and Touch could be used to make a retina mini today. Either will work right now. The lower resolution could just be done at lower cost.
Edit: And I just checked, and IGZO currently can exceed what would be needed for retina on the mini.
Last edited:
Time to go to school knucks:
Yes, the resolution is important. The reason is that Apple CANNOT and WILL NOT release a 7.whatever" tablet at a resolution of 1024 x 768 because the pixel density (163 ppi) is not near high enough to qualify as a Retina display.
Ready?
The smaller the device, the closer people hold it to their face. Since the iPad Mini is smaller than an iPad, it needs to use more ppi because it's held closer to the face. iPhones and iPod Touches need even more ppi because their held even closer to the face. The min. benchmark for a Retina display as espoused by Steve Jobs is 300 ppi: where the human eye at x distance cannot discern individual pixels.
The closer the screen to the face, the more a person can make out individual pixels. The farther the person is from the screen, the less pixelation they see.
And we can see the pattern here:
iPod Touch, iPhone 4/4S: 326 ppi
iPad 3: 264 ppi
rMBP: 220 ppi
iPad 2: 132 ppi
Having just 30 more pixels per inch (iPad Mini at 7.85" 1024 x 768 - 163 ppi - vs. the iPad 2 at 9.7" 1024 x 768) is not good enough. It's a smaller device held closer to the face and the pixel density does not even meet the minimum threshold for Retina. Not by a long shot.
The Mini will need at least 260 ppi for this to qualify as a Retina display: the iPad 3 needs a minimum of 240 ppi (held at 15-18" from face) - less than the iPhone because users hold this device at about 12-15" from the face... ~20% farther away. The benchmark is 300 ppi as with an iPhone. Apple overshot the iPhone and iPod Touch by 26 ppi. Holding an iPad 3 ~20% farther away from the face than an iPhone, you can subtract 60 ppi from the min. Retina ppi requirement (300 dpi) for the iPad 3. Therefore, a minimum of 240 ppi is required for a 9.7" iPad 3 to be considered a Retina display. If we assume a user holds the device 10% closer to their face for the tweener Mini compared to the iPad 3, then the min. ppi required for Retina status is 260 ppi.
Therefore, 163 ppi is over 100 ppi less than what is the minimum required resolution that an iPad Mini would need to qualify as a Retina display. Which means Apple would need to pack an iPad 3 screen resolution in a much smaller device. Because of the technology not being available to do this and the battery life issues, it won't happen. But not only that, the user interfaces would have to change because the display would need to scale things and you don't have enough room for things like on an iPad 3, unless you would view things at native resolution in which case the pixels would be so small you wouldn't see hardly anything: everything would be incredibly tiny.
It's too easy to argue with people over the Mini armed with this knowledge. Apple won't do it. And I'm still waiting for at least one big mouth to take my bet.
Last edited:
Do you seriously believe that Apple would release a mobile product without a Retina display? No, they will not. Ever. Any new Apple mobile device will have a Retina display.
You sure do seem to think typing a lot counts of something ... but it doesn't.
It's as simple as I said:
The mini could be currently made at 163 PPI for shooting for low cost, or 326 PPI, for far in excess of retina resolution for the mini's closer viewing distance than the iPhone retina as you just went over to excess (I think pretty much everyone here already knew all that). That's Apple's choice.
I am glad to know that you specifically work on the iPad team at Apple and can 100% backup your claim with real proof from Apple headquarters directly because you obviously 100% know their business plan.
They should have just made you CEO instead.
----------
Let me ask everyone of you something: how many of you use a 7" tablet? Let the lies begin...
My mom has a Kindle Fire (7 inch tablet) that I rooted and flashed to stock Android for her. It's really comfortable and easy to use. Content is just as amazing as it is on my uncle's iPad.
I've ordered a Nexus 7. Can't wait.
7 inch tablets are great for budgets. Let me ask you, have YOU used a 7 inch tablet before?
Typing is one thing, having an audience with a reading level above a small child is another.
Apple will not release a 1024 x 768 iPad Mini because it will not be a Retina display. And no matter what resolution it is the UI must change to accommodate the tweener size device. This is fragmentation full stop.
----------
Tweeners: great for geeks like us, but reality is reality my friend. Nobody needs nor wants them:
http://www.geekosystem.com/kindle-fire-2012/
----------
Yes, I have. I develop software for tablets. I have lived and breathed tablets for the past 3 years, before that I was involved with Apple's Newton.
I don't really care how blue in the face anyone gets over this topic. Jobs was full of a lot of BS: half of what he said was disinformation but the other half was truthful. In the tweener case, he was spot on. No matter who makes it or what it can do, the tweener will never penetrate. It's all about smartphones and the larger iPad. That's what sells. Nobody needs tweeners, especially with how explosive 4-5" Android smartphones are: they're not even really smartphones anymore but mini tablets.
The only "Mini" tablets that sell and have a specific place in the world outside jumbo smartphones are eInk readers like the Kindle. Non-color, non-multi-touch readers. These are good at something very specific: reading whilst causing little eyestrain, particularly in the bright light. That's why people continue to buy them to read novels and is driving Amazon's business. But smaller tweener multi-touch tablets are a deadend because they're not really good at anything at all. Not any better at pretty much anything compared to a smartphone... which is itself a mini tablet, or a larger iPad... which has enough of a screen jump to make it worth the use over a smartphone. That is, the tweener replicates what smartphones do and what the iPad does in a size nobody wants: it's not a pocketable device like your smartphone and it's screen is too small and compromises too great to compete with your smartphone. The only thing that compels people to ditch the smartphone in the evening is the larger screen size.
It's all about the screen.
In other words, the tweener is your awkward cousin with nowhere to go.
I'm sorry guys, it might be fun to "argue" on the Internet, but reality is something different. And there is a reality beyond your little basements...
Last edited:
And again, there you go making no sense.
You fill up a page typing out things everyone already knew about "retina" displays, and then fall back to the ridiculous claim that the iPads UI is required to change to scale it to 7.85".
Please stop spouting nonsense. Just a few weeks ago, Apple released a whole slew of MacBooks (mobile devices last time I checked) with non-retina displays. Only high end 15" model got retina.
Sure, as cost and power consumption of HiDPI screens drops over time - we will see retina screens across more products in Apple lineup - MacBook Air, iMac, etc. But in the year 2012 - retina remains a premium feature.
So it would be entirely consistent with Apple strategy to limit retina to premium 10" iPad, while sticking with non-retina for low cost 7.85" model.
No it would not. Period. I don't care what they do with MacBooks or iMacs. I said MOBILE. No MOBILE device that Apple releases will be non-Retina. There is no going back. It's all Retina mobile from here. iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad.
So MacBooks no longer qualify as mobile devices because they don't fit your silly predictions?
Think I am done wasting time with you, have a good night.Everyone didn't know anything about Retina displays that I wrote. If they did, they wouldn't have clung to thinking they'd make a 1024 x 768 resolution screen and that a screen like that on a 7.85" size could be Retina at 163 ppi.
Second, the only thing ridiculous is your lack of understanding computers and software.
YOU MUST CHANGE THE UI ON A 7.85" SCREEN. YOU MUST CHANGE THE UI ON A 7.85" SCREEN.
Visual to help you understand it. I'll go slow:
Imagine your iPad Mini with a 1024 x 768 screen at 7.85".
Now imagine the iPad 1024 x 768 standard iBookstore on the Mini. What happens? You don't know, do you? In order to fit everything on the screen, everything becomes smaller because it has to squish to fit a smaller screen (the pixels are significantly smaller). All of a sudden the UI breaks down: touchpoints are smaller, too close together, etc. The whole thing starts to collapse upon itself. This is what Jobs meant about applying sandpaper to your fingers on tweeners.
Imagine this for many, many Apps that will have to be revamped to accommodate a tweener.
None of this is trivial and involves a lot of user testing and a complete revamp of iOS and Apps. It's what landed Android in hot water because there were virtually no Apps for tweeners and none of the smartphone designed Apps for 10" designed Apps worked well on the tweener size.
In other words, tweeners demand their own unique UIs that take into consideration the size of the screen and number of pixels.
What else would you like to learn tonight?
knucklehead replies: "Duh... you just make no sense."
Wow. You have ISSUES.
Why do you care about this enough to spend THIS much time writing all these redundant, angry posts? What abuse did you suffer that you need to expend this much energy berating people who disagree with your theory about what Apple might or might not release?
Therapy, man... seriously.
Why do you care about this enough to spend THIS much time writing all these redundant, angry posts? What abuse did you suffer that you need to expend this much energy berating people who disagree with your theory about what Apple might or might not release?
Therapy, man... seriously.
No, you need therapy. I'm so sick of delusional people on the Internet, and then stragglers like you who come along making judgement calls. I'm being called an idiot... that I make no sense... etc.
When in fact I'm one of the only ones in here who actually knows what he's talking about. Stop with the personal attacks and address the topic at hand.
I have clearly shown why Apple won't release a Mini. I have shown how it can't be a Retina. How it will fragment iOS. Those are the issues. If you or anyone cares to address that specifically then by all means.
And by the way, I started this thread, so if you don't like it, you can go to another one.
Android smartphones are not low end. They cost as much as the iphone. And guess what, they are becoming more and more popular.
They no longer dominate the mobile phone biz, if you haven't noticed. More and more people are using Android. Why? Because Android is a good OS. And the ecosystem is getting better and better. And when the ecosystem gets better, more more people begin using it. Currently, Apple dominates the tablet market, but they're not going to continue dominating if they just sit still.
Erm... if you are really getting so agitated by the viability - or non-viability - of a rumoured gadget, then maybe it's time you got a sense of perspective...
No? Ok, so Apple doesn't dominate the mobile phone biz, yet they make the most profits of any other handset maker in the world off of their smartphone. And they have growing marketshare in countries such as Canada (28% growth this year). And 89% growth in iPhone business year-over-year?
Hmmm... I'd like to see what data you're reading... or smoke what you're smoking.
http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/02/iphone-market-share-june-2012-android-blackberry/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales_Share.png
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/24/idc-q1-2012-world-smartphone-share/