Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Tim Cook: iPad Mini Priced 'Aggressively'

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A5

Products that include the Apple A5
iPad 2 (A5 Dual-core 45 nm) – March 2011; (A5 Dual-core 32 nm) – March 2012
iPhone 4S (A5 Dual-core 45 nm) – October 2011
Apple TV (3rd generation) (A5 Single-core) – March 2012
iPad (3rd generation) (A5X Dual-core) – March 2012
iPod Touch (5th generation) (A5 Dual-core 32 nm) – October 2012
iPad Mini - (A5 Dual-core 32 nm) – November 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution

XGA (1024×768)

XGA, the Extended Graphics Array, is an IBM display standard introduced in 1990. Later it became the most common appellation of the 1024×768 pixels display resolution, but the official definition is broader than that. It was not a new and improved replacement for Super VGA, but rather became one particular subset of the broad range of capabilities covered under the "Super VGA" umbrella.

The initial version of XGA expanded upon IBM's VGA, adding support for two resolutions:
800×600 pixels with high color (16 bits per pixel; i.e. 65,536 colors).
1024×768 pixels with a palette of 256 colors (8 bits per pixel)

Like its predecessor (the IBM 8514), XGA offered fixed function hardware acceleration to offload processing of 2D drawing tasks. XGA and 8514 could offload line-draw, bitmap-copy (bitblt), and color-fill operations from the host CPU. XGA's acceleration was faster than 8514's, and more comprehensive in that it supported more drawing primitives and XGA's 16 bits per pixel (65,536 color) display-mode.

XGA-2 added Truecolor mode for 640×480, high color mode and higher refresh rates for 1024×768, and improved accelerator performance. All XGA modes have a 4:3 aspect ratio rounded to 8 pixels.

XGA should not be confused with EVGA (Extended Video Graphics Array), a contemporaneous VESA standard that also has 1024×768 pixels.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WUXGA (1920×1200)

WUXGA stands for Widescreen Ultra Extended Graphics Array and is a display resolution of 1920×1200 pixels (2,304,000 pixels) with a 16:10 screen aspect ratio.

It is a wide version of UXGA, and can be used for viewing high-definition television (HDTV) content, which uses a 16:9 aspect ratio and a 1920×1080 resolution.

The 16:10 aspect ratio (as opposed to the 16:9 used in widescreen televisions) was chosen because this aspect ratio is appropriate for displaying two full pages of text side by side.[19]

WUXGA resolution is equivalent to 2.304 megapixels. An 8-bit RGB WUXGA image has an uncompressed size of 6.912 MiB. This was the highest resolution that was commonly available in the computer display industry until the release of the Retina MacBook Pro in 2012. However, outside the 17" MacBook pro, its use had been almost completely ended by 2010 as the rest of the computer industry moved to the 16:9 aspect ratio (i.e., 1920×1080 is the highest resolution available from most laptop and computer monitor manufacturers besides Apple). This resolution is currently available in a few high-end LCD televisions and computer monitors, the latter of which are typically in the size range of approximately 23"–28" for desktop monitors, but has become almost completely unavailable on non-Apple notebook monitors. A small number of 22" WUXGA desktop monitors exist (i.e., Lenovo L220x and Samsung T220P). WUXGA use predates the introduction of LCDs of that resolution. Most QXGA displays support 1920×1200 and widescreen CRTs such as the Sony GDM-FW900 and Hewlett Packard A7217A do as well.

The next lower resolution (for widescreen) before it is WSXGA+, which is 1680×1050 pixels (1,764,000 pixels, or 30.61% fewer than the WUXGA); the next higher resolution widescreen is an unnamed 2304×1440 resolution (supported by the above GDM-FW900 & A7217A) and then the more common WQXGA, which has 2560×1600 pixels (4,096,000 pixels, or 77.78% more than WUXGA).

There are two wider formats called UWXGA 1600×768 (25:12) and UW-UXGA that has 2560×1080 pixels, a 2.37:1 or 21⅓:9 or 64:27 aspect ratio, sometimes erroneously labeled 21:9.
 
econgeek said:
That would work, and they might do that in the future, but they can't do that now for a couple reasons.

The primary reason is cost. This would probably add $100-$150 to the manufacturing price of the device, if they did it today.

Second is availability. The lamination process Apple has developed produces really high quality displays-- and this is a huge competitive advantage-- but there are only so many such displays they can make in a month.

To do what you suggest would not only drive the price up to where it is near the iPad price (remember the iPad has several years of driving costs down with volume, while the mini is a brand new form factor) but it would significantly lower the availability of the device. (which actually makes it even more expensive since there are lower volumes.)

For new devices/form-factors, Apple has to strike a balance that will let them manufacture 10-50 million of them the first year, and at a reasonable price, even though the costs are much higher for new models (a lot of new molds have to be made, new machinery, etc.) and new technology (This screen lamination method didn't exist a year ago.)
Click to expand...

I didn't know that about the screen lamination and stuff, but yeah, it makes sense that they'll be able to keep prices down by bumping the specs up gradually. i'm not one that whines about an "Apple tax," (I use the products and their quality and cost reflect each other in my opinion) but I was curious why they didn't just give it a Retina Display so they could start touting how much better their displays are than everyone else's sooner rather than later. Thanks for the information :)
 
TE=econgeek;16138426]Well, it seems to be working. Look at all the rabid android fans you see on the web who think that Apple "stole" the mac from Xerox, or that Android was started in 2005 and thus pre-dates the iPhone's touch UI, or that 2001: A Space Odessy is "prior art" for Apple's multi-touch patents.

These people are not driven by facts, logic or reason. They are driven by ideology.

The reason they call anyone who defends Apple against falsehoods a "cultist" is because they are projecting.[/QUOTE]

Pot calling the kettle black. Total BS, Can you back up any of those claims?


Poor
 
When they do upgrade the screen down the line I can see how they would want or need a set price, so what we think today may not apply as much next year with a better upgrade. Something like $250 may feel like a better price this year yet if they wanted to add a retina screen next year they would likely say they could not keep that price.

I do wonder what the numbers will be on this. So much more then just price for people.
 
kas23 said:
When you read on your iPad 3 and then change to the iPad 2, can you honestly say that the lack of a Retina Display on the iPad mini is no big deal?
Click to expand...

I think for those that are looking for a smaller or cheaper alternative to the original size iPad, the Retina Display isn't an issue if it's the size that is their main priority - however, I will absolutely agree with you and say for me Retina is a feature I've come to expect and a feature that I'm willing to pay a little more for.
 
Webduo said:
I think for those that are looking for a smaller or cheaper alternative to the original size iPad, the Retina Display isn't an issue if it's the size that is their main priority - however, I will absolutely agree with you and say for me Retina is a feature I've come to expect and a feature that I'm willing to pay a little more for.
Click to expand...

apple's been doing this for years. this is the reason why the 13" macbook pro still has a crappy resolution.

i mean come on, the base 15" has a 1440x900 resolution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back