All iPads Why iPad mini won't get a retina display just yet...

Discussion in 'iPad' started by giraffeboy27, Jul 1, 2013.

  1. giraffeboy27 macrumors member

    Jan 5, 2013
    Here's my theory... (BTW, don't take this as a stab at the iPad mini. I love it. Just trying to think realistically :)

    Double the pixel density of the mini (163ppi), and you get : 326ppi.
    Current ppi of iPad with retina display : 264.

    Obviously, apple won't let the mini steal the fullsize iPad's main selling point. So, they will likely double both resolutions at the same time.

    iPad with retina display is most likely going to get a redesign this year, judging from the current design trend from apple (light, thin, with lots of annodizing).

    Now, the full size iPad will likely get the mini's design. I reckon this is gonna be hard for apple, as they will have to reduce display thickness, battery size etc.

    Can you really see apple managing to fit in a higher res display aswell?

    Doesn't it make more sense to save the higher res displays til next year, when they have better tech and a tested design?

    2013 :

    iPad 5 - redesign, with better camera and A7. Retina Display

    iPad Mini 2 - A6 chip, ram upgrade etc. Colours?

    2014 :

    iPad 6 - Same design as 5, but with 528ppi. Ultra Retina Display

    iPad mini 3 - Retina display

    Just my opinion. What do you guys think.?
  2. skiltrip macrumors 68030

    May 6, 2010
    New York
    I just don't see any need for "ultra retina".
  3. DesertEagle, Jul 1, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2013

    DesertEagle macrumors 6502a


    Jan 10, 2012
    /home @
    Déjà vu. But of course, Apple may want to milk the cow as long as possible. It's just that if the iPad mini 2 doesn't cannibalize the iPad 5, a non-Apple-device might cannibalize it instead. That way, Apple would be even worse off.
  4. AppleRobert macrumors 603

    Nov 12, 2012
    The price of the 5 needs to be closer to the Mini 2 especially if it comes with retina. It needs to be given serious thought as for folks to decide whether to go with the 5 or Mini 2. The first go round sure seemed to be a no brainer in favor of the Mini given the sales and I do not know how anyone can dispute the price being a big factor, maybe even more than the form factor to tell the truth.
  5. braddick macrumors 68040


    Jun 28, 2009
    Encinitas, CA
    There was also, "I don't see the need" for color TV back in the early 70's, yet here we are today...
  6. TJ61 macrumors 6502a

    Nov 16, 2011
    Well, I'm not comfortable with the word "need", but I think the average person back in the 70's could comprehend the value of color over B&W TV.

    But explain to me how having 4x the pixels that my eye can see is worth the extra cost required to make that happen.

    I agree that the mini's price was one factor in its acceptance. I don't see how Apple could put out a 326ppi device and keep the lower price point. That's higher density than a full size iPad, and would result in very low yield.
  7. vmaniqui macrumors 6502a


    Mar 8, 2013
    black and white tv and color tv are two different things compare to retina and non retina (both with color). so no comparison there. it's more of - do i buy a KIA car or a BMW car ? both will take you from point A to point B. aesthetically the other one is a premium car and the other one just a regular one. some will like the KIA car as cost is cheaper. but to others, cost is not enough as they want more premium stuff.
  8. Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Apr 2, 2006
    Shropshire, UK
    I don't really think you can compare B&W / Colour TV and whether it's beneficial to put almost full aperture 4K resolution (same horizontal resolution and 40 pixels shy on the vertical) on a 9.7 screen!
  9. braddick macrumors 68040


    Jun 28, 2009
    Encinitas, CA
    You're right. You can't compare using today's standards, yet that is what is happening now with Retina improvements.
    If you go back to the early 70's that was the sentiment: Color TV was a fade and wasn't needed.

    My comparison is this: 30 years from now it will be as laughable when it comes to the current standards of tweaking visuals ("ultra Retina", for example). We will shake our heads in disbelief that we held a conclusion there wasn't a need.

    The difference is all the difference.
  10. Moonjumper macrumors 68000


    Jun 20, 2009
    Lincoln, UK
    The iPad Mini will get a retina screen when the screens are cheap enough to not require a price increase.

    Don't forget the full size iPad has current generation processing, while the Mini has older tech, so there is still a reason for the large price difference. But maybe that will all change.
  11. darngooddesign macrumors G3

    Jul 4, 2007
    Atlanta, GA
    I think this is more a case of does the user see the need for 4K television over HDTV.
  12. Tubamajuba macrumors 68020

    Jun 8, 2011
    Done with MacRumors, the trolls have won
    I understand your point, but rather than look at the iPad vs. iPad mini strictly in terms of PPI, think about it in terms of where you hold the device. I know I tend to hold my iPad mini just a tad bit closer to me than my full size iPad. In general, I'm willing to guess that most people do the same. As such, the full size iPad's "reduced" PPI wouldn't really be noticeable compared to a Retina mini.
  13. whooleytoo macrumors 604


    Aug 2, 2002
    Cork, Ireland.
    The problem is - you're getting ever depreciating returns. To see the difference between Retina and "ultra Retina', you'd probably need to be a couple of inches from the screen, so you wouldn't be deriving a huge benefit from it. On the other hand, an 'ultra Retina" display would possibly be thicker and heavier, cost more and have a greater power draw. Not to mention apps would need to be updated again for the new resolution, and the app size would grow.

    At this point (and with the current screen sizes) it seems like it's minimal gain for a lot of pain.
  14. ihakim macrumors member

    Jun 11, 2012
    Stanford, CA
    I agree. It makes more sense to increase performance with a new CPU/GPU than use it to just keep up with an "ultra retina" display.
  15. jhr3uva90 macrumors newbie

    Feb 7, 2011
    Color TV was already prevalent by the early 1970s.
  16. SeanR1 macrumors 6502


    Jan 4, 2009
    I had B&W past the early 70's :( I think the poster that said its more like 4K vs HDTV is right. Oh and I didn't even have an HDTV until last year :)
  17. skiltrip macrumors 68030

    May 6, 2010
    New York
    I still don't have an HDTV. Lol.
  18. rovex, Jul 4, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2013

    rovex macrumors 65816

    Feb 22, 2011
    Makes sense, but do you think it would sell well with presumably an A6 and better camera?
  19. Defender2010 macrumors 68030


    Jun 6, 2010
    Another fortune teller with inaccurate predictions...based on...not much.
  20. raccoonboy macrumors 6502a

    Oct 22, 2012
    It wouldn't hurt to add 1gb of ram to mini 2. Hate it when my ipad 2 refresh pages all the time.

    Also with multiple color like Ipod touch would be a great welcome, no need to spend on additional case just pick the color you want and a screen cover or a pouch.

    imo, retina display already max out the beautifulness of a screen. I see android device with better resolution but i couldnt really tell a diff from a retina.

    Honestly, play with new form factor and add a better horse power is enough.
  21. Nightarchaon, Jul 5, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2013

    Nightarchaon macrumors 65816


    Sep 1, 2010
    Why iPad mini won't get a retina display just yet...

    Because there is no need for it

    ipad Mini 1024-by-768 resolution at 163 pixels per inch (ppi) Used at arms length (or book length as i call it)

    iPad Retina 2048-by-1536 resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi) Used at arms length

    iPhone 5 1136×640 resolution at 326 pixels per inch (ppi) Usually used much closer than arms length, so the pixels NEED to be smaller to not be detectable.

    so what do people who want "retina" actually want ? a slower iPad mini with less battery life (because the screen is a thirsty part of the device) at 2048-by-1536 with a PPI of 326 to match the iPhone 5s resolution ? [bearing in mind you should be using an ipad mini MUCH further from your eyes than a phone and therefore shouldn't be able to notice the difference between 163 resolution and 326 resolution at that distance anyway]

    i think this demand for a retina mini is just people wanting something they don't need, and wont notice if they do have it. Instead of demanding a useless feature, how about demanding an SD card slot ? something everyone CAN make use off ? Or better yet, make the mini 16x9 ratio instead of 4x3 so it matches the iPhone 5 for display shape
  22. madgibbon macrumors regular

    Mar 1, 2013
    I hope they don't make the any iPad 16x9, they only thing that's good for is watching movies. I've used lots of 16x9 Android/Windows tablets from 7-11 inch and they all feel like you are looking through a post box.
  23. CairnsRock macrumors regular


    Jan 9, 2013
    If the small iPhone format can have retina, why couldn't the much larger mini screen have retina?
  24. hacke macrumors member

    Nov 15, 2011
    It's no problem to produce a ipad mini retina, only if apple wants to do this. just as mentioned: apple wants to have some aces up their sleeves ;)
  25. cjc811wvfd73 macrumors member

    Jun 12, 2013
    Yep, I agree. I think they might want to have both retina to keep the competition at edge.

Share This Page