or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Pictures show alleged 16.7 watt-hour 'iPad mini' battery
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Pictures show alleged 16.7 watt-hour 'iPad mini' battery

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
Images of a purported "iPad mini" battery hit the web early Sunday, showing Apple's much-rumored 7.85-inch tablet may employ a 16.7 watt-hour battery, which would offer more energy than the cells found in Google's Nexus 7 and Amazon's Kindle Fire HD.

iPad mini Battery
Alleged iPad mini battery. | Source: MacRumors


AppleInsider cannot confirm the image's pedigree and offers the following information for purposes of discussion only.

The photos acquired by MacRumors claim to be a final or near-final version of the battery set to be used in the so-called "iPad mini," with the purported unit bearing a product number of A1445 and APN, or Apple product number, of 616-0641. In comparison, the third-generation iPad's battery is identified as part number A1389, and carries an APN of 616-0593.

Further investigation of the supposed iPad mini battery reveals the unit is a 3.72-volt, 16.7 watt-hour cell that holds a charge of 4,490 mAh. This is compared to the third-generation iPad's huge 43 watt-hour, 11,560 mAh battery, the iPad 2's 24.8 watt-hour cell, and the iPhone 5's 5.45 watt-hour unit.

The alleged battery's markings are incomplete and have placeholders for certain regulatory text, numbers and government regulation insignias, suggesting the part is not a production model. However, the general shape of the unit is consistent with previously "leaked" components, including the rear shell, front display assembly and LCD.

iPad mini Battery Full


If legitimate, the 16.7 watt-hour cell could mean the smaller iPad's battery life will be comparable to the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD, which employ a 16 watt-hour and 16.43 watt-hour unit, respectively. Weighing heavily into the runtime calculation of any device is the processor, which in some cases can diminish performance by hours.

It remains to be seen what processor Apple will choose to run the alleged iPad mini, though the company's most recent A-series system on chips are either on par or more efficient than competing silicon. A report in early October claimed that an unknown iPad, thought to be the iPad mini, appeared in an app developer's access logs, with the device operating an A6-series chip much like the component found in the iPhone 5.

Apple is widely expected to unveil its small form factor tablet at an event on Oct. 23.
post #2 of 48
I ran the numbers. Using the rumoured iPad mini info we've seen for months we have a display area that is 4.27x the display area of the iPod Touch which only has an 3.8 Whr battery. That means the iPad mini battery is 4.39x the capacity of the Touch battery with only a slighter higher pixel density than the Touch. That helps makes this rumoured part and the previous leaks seem plausible.
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/13/12 at 11:54pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 48

I'd say that this puts an end to all of the ignorant and unrealistic wishes from certain people. No, the iPad mini, or whatever it's going to be called, will not be Retina. That was fairly obvious from the get go. If you want a retina iPad, go buy the 9.7" "new iPad". If you want a smaller iPad, go buy the "iPad mini". If you want a piece of crap, go buy an Android tablet.

post #4 of 48
Apart from a new product launch and needing to sort out how it runs against the 'competition' (toe in the water and all that) another reason it won't have a retina display is they need to have an upsell next year.

If the battery is similar to that in the nexus 7, it will be interesting seeing what the difference in performance is.
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
post #5 of 48
Another misleading AI article. The big point here is that display backlighting is often the single biggest power draw in these devices. If not the biggest it is very significant, significant to the point that screen selection can impact battery lifetimes. Apple will most likely strive to find a balance between screen power draw and processor power draw with the idea of all day usability. I don't mean that screen is on all day just that the device can support reasonable usage patterns.

To that end the discussion about what type of screen is in the device is open ended. It could be IPS, it could be Sharps new technology or something different again. It could be retina, traditional resolution or something in between. We don't know because we don't know how Apple will market the device. However I'm leaning towards Apple pulling out all the stops!

People fail to see that this sized device serves an entirely different market than the current iPad. As such there will be little in the way of overlap in sales.
post #6 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

Apart from a new product launch and needing to sort out how it runs against the 'competition' (toe in the water and all that) another reason it won't have a retina display is they need to have an upsell next year.
I don't know what this device will be like but the statement above is baloney. The inclusion of a retina display will be dictated by the ability to manufacture the device at a price point that supports the marketing plans. That is it. We already see that retina is in the product line above and below this device so I think Apple will be putting a lot of effort into the screen. That might not be a retina. However they will stress quality and as such I'm expecting to see Sharps new screen in the tablet.
Quote:
If the battery is similar to that in the nexus 7, it will be interesting seeing what the difference in performance is.
That is certainly true. However I doubt it will make one bit of difference in sales.

One thing I need to do is review IPhone tear downs. I'm not even sure Apple is using Sharps screens in the iPhone. If not it makes you wonder where all of Sharps production is going.
post #7 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

Apart from a new product launch and needing to sort out how it runs against the 'competition' (toe in the water and all that) another reason it won't have a retina display is they need to have an upsell next year.
I don't know what this device will be like but the statement above is baloney. The inclusion of a retina display will be dictated by the ability to manufacture the device at a price point that supports the marketing plans. That is it. We already see that retina is in the product line above and below this device so I think Apple will be putting a lot of effort into the screen. That might not be a retina. However they will stress quality and as such I'm expecting to see Sharps new screen in the tablet.
Quote:
If the battery is similar to that in the nexus 7, it will be interesting seeing what the difference in performance is.
That is certainly true. However I doubt it will make one bit of difference in sales.

One thing I need to do is review IPhone tear downs. I'm not even sure Apple is using Sharps screens in the iPhone. If not it makes you wonder where all of Sharps production is going.

I don't know about baloney; it might be just cheese 1smile.gif Anyway, I don't think it will be retina because it is the first version and their needs to be a planned upgrade cycle. Apple is a business. And it does not need to be retina straight out of the box. But you could be right, in fact as a consumer I would hope you are right.

And yes, it would be interesting if these are the new sharp IGZO screens. I recall reading somewhere that the iphone 5 was using LG screens.
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
post #8 of 48

I've done some number crunching, taken the incremental screen size increases in the Note series and come up with a 6.8" screen size for the note 3 when it eventually debuts next year.  With my 100% accurate methods, I've come to a conclusion that Apple should make this a mega iPhone instead of a mini iPad to compete with the Note 3 and call it a iPhone Legal Pad.  It can include cool innovative features like the one I like to call "throw against a wall to decline the call from your mistress while your girlfriend is in the next room".  You just turn the feature on and set the contact as mistress which automatically sets it as your uncle Fred so the gf will be none the wiser. Another feature which Android will be catching up on is fist bump your screen to automatically call your "bro".  That's just a few of the innovative features. 

 

The biggest selling point will be instead of including one stylus, it can open up a new market with all types of different styluses that will sell separate (Apple does like to rip us off because Android fans tell us so).  They will come in crayola styluses that write in color of course, chalk styluses that leave a white residue on your fingers, and finally, the one I'm still trying to wrinkle out the obvious drawback on, the permanent marker stylus. 

 

Take that Samsung! If you think you can shrink the GS3 and compete in iPhone territory, Apple can do the same.  Apple if your reading just ask and I'll email you my resume.  Samsung if your reading I've already patented this on behalf of Apple.

 

Oh, and to comment on the topic of the article about the battery.  A picture of a battery from a upcoming device just doesn't make me tingle in the lower region.  The leaks are getting stupid.  I prefer back when nothing was leaked and it was speculation prior too and surprise after the press conference.  I guess I'm just weird or something.

post #9 of 48
Quote:

 

Oh, and to comment on the topic of the article about the battery.  A picture of a battery from a upcoming device just doesn't make me tingle in the lower region.  The leaks are getting stupid.  I prefer back when nothing was leaked and it was speculation prior too and surprise after the press conference.  I guess I'm just weird or something.

"prior to"  Had to correct myself.

post #10 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/153364/rumor-pictures-show-alleged-16-7-watt-hour-ipad-mini-battery#post_2211038"]I'd say that this puts an end to all of the ignorant and unrealistic wishes from certain people. No, the iPad mini, or whatever it's going to be called, will not be Retina. That was fairly obvious from the get go. If you want a retina iPad, go buy the 9.7" "new iPad". If you want a smaller iPad, go buy the "iPad mini". If you want a piece of crap, go buy an Android tablet.
Except the Nexus 7 isn't a piece of crap.
post #11 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Except the Nexus 7 isn't a piece of crap.

 

Totally agree. Although I'm a big fan of Apple, I must admit Google did produce a solid tablet in its price range.

post #12 of 48

   If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that the "iPad Mini" would have the same resolution as the original iPad.  That would make sense so that all the apps written for it specifically for [the original iPad] would display properly without modification.  Of course this would reduce the size of everything to about two thirds (7.85 squared divided by 9.7 squared approximate calculation... assuming the aspect ratio doesn't change much if any).  Regardless, resolution (ppi) should increase by about 25% (9.7 divided by 7.85 minus one) which is still very good.  Also, I doubt that Apple will have another [retina display] resolution for the "iPad Mini" in the future as that would require developers to rewrite their apps.

   With regard to the battery,  I'm sure Apple will design the "iPad Mini" to have class leading battery life.  That is one of their 'core' features.

   Finally FWIW, with it's rumored price ($249 to $299), the "iPad Mini" will compete more with the iPod Touch [and the iPad 2 which will probably be 'EOL'ed soon anyway] than with the 'new' iPad.

post #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/153364/rumor-pictures-show-alleged-16-7-watt-hour-ipad-mini-battery#post_2211038"]I'd say that this puts an end to all of the ignorant and unrealistic wishes from certain people. No, the iPad mini, or whatever it's going to be called, will not be Retina.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Here's what they say:
"Further investigation of the supposed iPad mini battery reveals the unit is a 3.72-volt, 16.7 watt-hour cell that holds a charge of 4,490 mAh. This is compared to the third-generation iPad's huge 43 watt-hour, 11,560 mAh battery, the iPad 2's 24.8 watt-hour cell, and the iPhone 5's 5.45 watt-hour unit."

Now, a 7.85" iPad would be about 60% the size of a 9.7" iPad. The rumored battery size is 67% the size of the iPad 2 and 40% the size of the iPad 3.

Let's compare it to the iPad 2. The battery usage from the screen (the largest energy user) would scale roughly linearly. In addition, the Mini would be using a newer generation (i.e, more energy efficient) CPU. It is also rumored to eliminate the 3G system which saves energy. So one would expect that the battery should be LESS than 60% the size of the iPad 2, not more.

Now, compare it to the iPad 3. First, with the smaller screen, it is likely that a single backlight would be sufficient even if the screen IS retina. Second, a less energy intensive CPU. Finally, no 3G system. All of those things reduce the energy usage significantly. Enough for the battery to be only 40% the size of the iPad 3 instead of 60%? Maybe. That second backlight was reported to be a major factor in the power consumption of the iPad 3.

Now, the evidence isn't conclusive that the iPad Mini would be retina, but it absolutely does not support your claim that it can't be.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #14 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

Apart from a new product launch and needing to sort out how it runs against the 'competition' (toe in the water and all that) another reason it won't have a retina display is they need to have an upsell next year.
If the battery is similar to that in the nexus 7, it will be interesting seeing what the difference in performance is.

That might be a somewhat cynical view; Apple needn't upsell anything. I simply do not believe that is the way Apple does business. I truly believe they try to deliver the best product they can as soon as they can, so long as they do not sacrifice long-term goals for that product (or other products they sell) or sacrifice the long term goals of Apple itself to do so. If you happen not to believe that, how would you explain the breakneck pace of innovation over the life of this company (during Jobs' and Cooks' tenure) and how new PC and CE categories and features in those product categories consistently are introduced by Apple, not its competitors?

 

The smaller iPad may not get Retina for a variety of reasons: Apple may be working on new, more efficient battery tech to drive the pixels in a device we're hearing likely will be crazy thin; production of Retina displays likely still need to be ramped up in order to satisfy orders for existing products; products for which Retina adds more value will get them first (13" and 15" Retina MBAs, for example); and, according to Gruber, historically, new iOS products never have gotten Retina in their first generation of production. Retina displays should be more abundant and cheaper next year because of increased manufacturing efficiencies and because design and production will have been further amortized, allowing Apple not to eat into profits sooner than necessary-or ever.

 

When Tim Cook exclaimed that they are a patient company, I believed him whole-heartedly. They also ask their customers to be patient. Getting out the best products takes time, not just go-to-market time, but also in terms of generational iterations. The major fails we've seen by Apple competitors' products do not simply reflect a lack of design competence, more often it appears to be poor execution leading to products that clearly were half-baked. The flailing amongst those competitors, to me, also seem to be the result of weak go-to-market strategies.Technology design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution on the scale is executes is unprecedented. It takes boatloads of cash if the company wants to hire the best talent, give them the best tools, make the best products, take them to market in a timely fashion, stay in business, and grow. So, in terms of profit-taking, the last statement can be stated with more nuance:

 

a) Apple wants it's ~30-40 percent (so it can have the cash it needs to continue to make category-defining products) and/or

 

b) Apple can put the extra cash they make from "withholding" Retina in an 8" iPad this year into designing, developing, and purchasing better components for that iPad next year while also adding Retina.

 

Having said all that, I reman convinced that the resolution on the display will be non-Retina, but more dazzling due to the use of the IGZO technology that only recently has been producing better yield rates. In my view, the smaller iPad is the perfect test case for IGZO.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlowe View Post

Totally agree. Although I'm a big fan of Apple, I must admit Google did produce a solid tablet in its price range.
I wouldn't think it would be difficult for Apple to best that. That's all I'm looking for - something that out classes the Nexus 7 and Fire HD. I don't think iOS in and of itself does that. Against the Fire HD OS sure. But against Jellybean? Not so sure.
post #16 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So one would expect that the battery should be LESS than 60% the size of the iPad 2, not more.

That makes no sense. Apple will likely make the battery as large as possible while keeping it below a certain weight threshold. We can calculate for using the same general components and wanting the same general usage but you are fooling yourself if you think the battery should be less than a percentage of a different product. Look at the iPod Touch or the G2 iPad 2 and you get an window that fits quite well with all the rumours that have been floating around.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

Having said all that, I reman convinced that the resolution on the display will be non-Retina, but more dazzling due to the use of the IGZO technology that only recently has been producing better yield rates. In my view, the smaller iPad is the perfect test case for IGZO.

That sounds reasonable to me.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jivanile View Post


Oh, and to comment on the topic of the article about the battery.  A picture of a battery from a upcoming device just doesn't make me tingle in the lower region.
Especially when this is a preproduction piece and could be a prototype for anything. It might be for a laptop for all we know.or it could be from a testing for a 7-8 inch model iPad that was rejected as still not worth continuing just as Steve said.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #19 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

another reason it won't have a retina display is they need to have an upsell next year.

Or they will simply use the same upsell as the iPad 4th gen
Edited by charlituna - 10/14/12 at 7:44am

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I don't think iOS in and of itself does that. Against the Fire HD OS sure. But against Jellybean? Not so sure.

Of course not. What else are you expected to say?

 

/s

post #21 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

I don't know about baloney; it might be just cheese 1smile.gif
Sitting at Applebee's right now ordering a creamy steak!
Quote:
Anyway, I don't think it will be retina because it is the first version and their needs to be a planned upgrade cycle.
This is the part that is baloney, that is the concept of a planned upgrade cycle. Apple is producing the best hardware it can for each iPhone and tablet model they can. In a literal sense they have too because of the intense competition. As to iPad Mini 2 there is plenty of technology coming down the line.
Quote:
Apple is a business. And it does not need to be retina straight out of the box. But you could be right, in fact as a consumer I would hope you are right.
And yes, it would be interesting if these are the new sharp IGZO screens. I recall reading somewhere that the iphone 5 was using LG screens.
This is what I think is interesting, if Sharp is indeed shipping IGZO screens to Apple then what are they going in. It should also be noted that the screens might not be retina but could still be a considerable improvement over run of the mill screens. At least that seems to be the common opinion, it isn't like I've actually seen one of these screens. In the end it is still a high value screen.

The other thing that tends to make me believe the screen will be high resolution is the rumor that Apple will target the E-Reader market. The difference between iPad 1 and iPad 3 is stunning in this use case. This is why I say how the device is marketed will have more to do with the screen selected than any idea of a need for an upgrade path.
post #22 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I wouldn't think it would be difficult for Apple to best that. That's all I'm looking for - something that out classes the Nexus 7 and Fire HD. I don't think iOS in and of itself does that. Against the Fire HD OS sure. But against Jellybean? Not so sure.

Why don't you think iOS is better than Android 4.1?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Sitting at Applebee's right now ordering a creamy steak!
This is the part that is baloney, that is the concept of a planned upgrade cycle. Apple is producing the best hardware it can for each iPhone and tablet model they can. In a literal sense they have too because of the intense competition. As to iPad Mini 2 there is plenty of technology coming down the line.
This is what I think is interesting, if Sharp is indeed shipping IGZO screens to Apple then what are they going in. It should also be noted that the screens might not be retina but could still be a considerable improvement over run of the mill screens. At least that seems to be the common opinion, it isn't like I've actually seen one of these screens. In the end it is still a high value screen.
The other thing that tends to make me believe the screen will be high resolution is the rumor that Apple will target the E-Reader market. The difference between iPad 1 and iPad 3 is stunning in this use case. This is why I say how the device is marketed will have more to do with the screen selected than any idea of a need for an upgrade path.

I'm still not seeing it, especially with that battery that falls right between the iPod Touch and iPad 2 in Whrs. I don't think Apple would take IGZO and then stuff the iPad (3) display into it. The device wouldn't last very long with that battery and be too costly. The real benefit from IGZO would be for increased power efficiency for a given resolution/size so that they could lower the battery weight for a given duration to make the device comfortably one-handed for extended periods of time. I think lightness and usage time are a huge factor at play with this device, not something well over 1 lbs with a short battery life.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #24 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That makes no sense. Apple will likely make the battery as large as possible while keeping it below a certain weight threshold. We can calculate for using the same general components and wanting the same general usage but you are fooling yourself if you think the battery should be less than a percentage of a different product. Look at the iPod Touch or the G2 iPad 2 and you get an window that fits quite well with all the rumours that have been floating around.

You're missing the point. Apple ][ said that the battery size proved that the Mini would not have retina display. I was pointing out that it proves no such thing.

While it is possible that Apple would put in a larger battery than necessary, one can't assume that in order to 'prove' that it can't be retina. In the end, you may be right. It's entirely possible that this will be a non-retina display and Apple chose a massive battery to get 15 hours of use per charge. But the evidence does not support Apple ]['s conclusion that it CAN'T be retina.

Furthermore, Apple has focused on thin and light products in recent years. It is unlikely that they'd use a battery that was far larger than it needed to be.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlowe View Post

 

Totally agree. Although I'm a big fan of Apple, I must admit Google did produce a solid tablet in its price range.

 

I like the Nexus also, but it isn't that great.  You know that oft-heard criticism about iPads in general that they are only "consumption devices"?  That's the failing of the Nexus 7.  It's a great consumption device, but no more than that, whereas you can actually do usable work on an iPad.  

 

The Nexus 7 has no good tablet apps that can be used for making anything (no iMovie, no iPhoto, no Pages, no Numbers, etc.), and the keyboard is completely awful in every way and is basically impossible to type on accurately.  The keyboard is so bad it's actually kind of shocking that it shipped that way, especially because a few simple software tweaks could improve it immensely.  

 

It is a nicely put together device hardware wise though and a good size for the hands. 

post #26 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're missing the point. Apple ][ said that the battery size proved that the Mini would not have retina display. I was pointing out that it proves no such thing.
While it is possible that Apple would put in a larger battery than necessary, one can't assume that in order to 'prove' that it can't be retina. In the end, you may be right. It's entirely possible that this will be a non-retina display and Apple chose a massive battery to get 15 hours of use per charge. But the evidence does not support Apple ]['s conclusion that it CAN'T be retina.
Furthermore, Apple has focused on thin and light products in recent years. It is unlikely that they'd use a battery that was far larger than it needed to be.

In that sense you're right as there is no PROOF of anything until Apple announces the product but if we are assuming the 7.85" device because it scales inline with the current iPads for a given PPI then Retina would be 326 PPI, like in the iPhone 5. That means the same number of pixels as the iPad (3) but in a 40% smaller package. That seems highly unlikely to me, even without the consideration that such a device would likely be competing with the low end of the market, not being more expensive then the iPad (3) from additional component shrinkage costs.

Again, i we are going to use any assumption of the 7.85" 4:3 display you don't have a choice but to go with 1024x768 or 2048x1536 as the resolution. There is much history to support that type of scaling and none to support that Apple will go ever so slightly higher than the current leading 7" tablet in resolution and/or PPI to say they have more. One can try but I will destroy any such argument swiftly and thoroughly.

However, if one wants to say that 7.85" made for a good "what if" hypothesis but that the size (and possibly aspect ratio) will be different there is then plenty of speculation that can be had because that opens up many doors that are closed by the 7.85" assumption. I personally think the 7.85" 1024x768 makes a lot of sense and creates ease and low costs for Apple, devs and consumers which makes it most likely but there are plenty of other variables that we can only speculate on at this time as to why will not go with that size (or aspect ratio). I welcome all out-of-the-box thinking

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #27 of 48
Is the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small and that's why Apple is building a mini?

Someone please tell me who the mini is for?
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post

Is the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small and that's why Apple is building a mini?
Someone please tell me who the mini is for?

For people who think "the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small" -and- for people who think the 9.7" iPad is too costly would be my top two guesses.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #29 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm still not seeing it, especially with that battery that falls right between the iPod Touch and iPad 2 in Whrs. I don't think Apple would take IGZO and then stuff the iPad (3) display into it. The device wouldn't last very long with that battery and be too costly. The real benefit from IGZO would be for increased power efficiency for a given resolution/size so that they could lower the battery weight for a given duration to make the device comfortably one-handed for extended periods of time. I think lightness and usage time are a huge factor at play with this device, not something well over 1 lbs with a short battery life.

 

I think I'm going to be okay with whatever screen they put in as I also firmly believe that they will put in the best one they can (given the constraints), and really ... what more could one ask for than that?  I also just don't think "Retina" is worth worrying over.  I've said this before and been taken to task over it, but I just don't see "Retina" as that big of a deal.  

 

There's no way anyone here could know if I was lying, but ... I happen to have absolutely excellent vision with above average colour perception, eye-tracking speed, focussing ability etc. (I was once tested for all these things while assisting with some video game research in a lab).  When the iPad 3 came out with "Retina," I put it side by side with my non-retina iPad 2 and the visual difference was basically somewhere between moderate and non-existent.  While all the reviews were talking about how "bright" and clear" the new screen was, to me it just seemed moderately clearer, but actually a bit dimmer.  I've seen many many iPad 3's since then and have never changed my opinion on that.  The difference is really quite minimal.  

 

I also work in an area where I currently deal with or see, hundreds of iPads in a given month.  It is often hard to tell the difference between the 2's and the 3's merely by visual inspection alone.  If there is a pile of iPads on the table the quickest way to tell which are the 2's and which are the 3's is to pick one up, because the 3's are noticeably heavier, and the heaviness is the main differentiating factor, not the display.  You could turn the displays on and off and compare them all day but different people will see different things and you'd be arguing for hours over which was the Retina display and which wasn't. 

 

There are many factors which make a screen "good" or "bad," but pixel density is only one of them.  It's also in my experience, a factor that the average person has a very hard time discerning in an actual test.  If the screen turns out to be 1024x768, I'm sure it will be just fine and not affect sales in the slightest bit.  


Edited by Gazoobee - 10/14/12 at 9:18am
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Why don't you think iOS is better than Android 4.1?
I prefer iOS to Android mostly because of the high quality apps. As a pure OS I don't really have a preference one way or the other. Right now iOS bests Android in terms of tablet apps. But google is working hard to change that. I don't think Apple can afford to be complacent.
post #31 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I think I'm going to be okay with whatever screen they put in as I also firmly believe that they will put in the best one they can (given the constraints), and really ... what more could one ask for than that?

Despite Apple's repeated history of balancing all aspects of a product to give the best overall experience we still rampant comments from people saying Apple has to be the best or highest in a very specific dick measuring contest that ignores so many other aspects that the resulting device would end up being shit. I find it all unbelievable with so much history to show how Apple operates but we see it time and time again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I prefer iOS to Android mostly because of the high quality apps. As a pure OS I don't really have a preference one way or the other. Right now iOS bests Android in terms of tablet apps. But google is working hard to change that. I don't think Apple can afford to be complacent.

So Google is working hard so Apple has to do something different? Are you saying Apple isn't working hard?

Let's examine a little history. The iPod was going to fail because it didn't have certain features of other PMPs. The iPhone was going to fail because it didn't have certain features of other smartphones. The iPad was going to fail because it didn't have certain features of other tablets. Now we're getting comments that iPad mini is going to fail if it doesn't have certain features of other 7-8" tablets. It's all BS!

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I prefer iOS to Android mostly because of the high quality apps. As a pure OS I don't really have a preference one way or the other. Right now iOS bests Android in terms of tablet apps. But google is working hard to change that. I don't think Apple can afford to be complacent.

That, of course, ignores several key differences:

1. iOS is fluid, even on low end devices. Most reviews comment on the way Android lags or stalls. Sure, Google says it will be fixed in the next version, but they've been saying that for ages.

2. There's a long history of iOS upgrades being readily available even for hardware several years old while Android upgrades are rarely available - even for recent hardware.

3. Android has been shown to have stolen a variety of IP from Apple. Some people prefer not to use stolen property.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #33 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That, of course, ignores several key differences:
1. iOS is fluid, even on low end devices. Most reviews comment on the way Android lags or stalls. Sure, Google says it will be fixed in the next version, but they've been saying that for ages.
2. There's a long history of iOS upgrades being readily available even for hardware several years old while Android upgrades are rarely available - even for recent hardware.
3. Android has been shown to have stolen a variety of IP from Apple. Some people prefer not to use stolen property.

Is Android 4.1 on a the latest SoC as fluid as iOS on the first iPhone in 2007? That would be an interesting comparison. I do recall that RiM thought that Apple must have faked their live presentation because the didn't think an OS could that fluid on mobile HW. Jump nearly 6 years later and we're still seeing Google and their fan base saying soooon. You're better off waiting for Godot at this point.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #34 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

Having said all that, I reman convinced that the resolution on the display will be non-Retina, but more dazzling due to the use of the IGZO technology that only recently has been producing better yield rates. In my view, the smaller iPad is the perfect test case for IGZO.

That sounds reasonable to me.

 

Spent an hour or so this morning reading up on IGZO. Very impressive. I would like to see this in the rumored smaller iPad.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post

Is the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small and that's why Apple is building a mini?
Someone please tell me who the mini is for?

For people who think "the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small" -and- for people who think the 9.7" iPad is too costly would be my top two guesses.

 

Those are two groups of people who would potentially purchase the smaller iPad. I think there are at least a couple other groups. One is the group I'm in which is the one having iPhone, the regular iPad and also want the smaller version. Another is for specialization in commercial markets such as medical environments. It has also been mentioned around here that it would be a better size for reading on transit commuting as well as useful for education although I'm not so sure about the practicality of that last one.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #35 of 48

STILL no article here about the iMac with "a redesign of epoch-making significance" that was leaked?

Some of us still care about the computers. 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #36 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The inclusion of a retina display will be dictated by the ability to manufacture the device at a price point that supports the marketing plans. That is it. We already see that retina is in the product line above and below this device so I think Apple will be putting a lot of effort into the screen. That might not be a retina. However they will stress quality and as such I'm expecting to see Sharps new screen in the tablet.

 

I'm wondering how Apple could sell the iPad Mini if it didn't have the Retina display. After all the smaller new iPod touch has it as well as the larger iPad. 

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

I'm wondering how Apple could sell the iPad Mini if it didn't have the Retina display. After all the smaller new iPod touch has it as well as the larger iPad. 

When we refer to a Retina display on the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 we don't have to qualify with any specifics because those details are set in stone. We know the aspect ratio. We know the resolution. We know the PPI. With any non-existent device you can't simply refer to needing to be Retina without have some specifics as to what that means. With the iPad mini rumours is that the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 display, the 262 PPI of the iPad (3) display, the 220 PPI of the 15" MBP display or something else entirely. It's a marketing term that is only defined when paired with a known, specific product. Any other usage is meaningless in the writer doesn't specify.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #38 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


When we refer to a Retina display on the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 we don't have to qualify with any specifics because those details are set in stone. We know the aspect ratio. We know the resolution. We know the PPI. With any non-existent device you can't simply refer to needing to be Retina without have some specifics as to what that means. With the iPad mini rumours is that the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 display, the 262 PPI of the iPad (3) display, the 220 PPI of the 15" MBP display or something else entirely. It's a marketing term that is only defined when paired with a known, specific product. Any other usage is meaningless in the writer doesn't specify.

Even without the super hi-res "Retina" resolution of the third gen iPad, the iPad Mini is going to have a very nice display and things will look very nice on it.

 

The iPad Mini will have the same 1024 x 768 resolution as found on the iPad 1 & iPad 2, except that the display size will be shrunken down, so everything will look sharper on the iPad Mini, compared to the iPad 1 & iPad 2.

post #39 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

I'm wondering how Apple could sell the iPad Mini if it didn't have the Retina display. After all the smaller new iPod touch has it as well as the larger iPad. 

No problem at all. As long as it's a high quality display, they can sell it as an economy iPad.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #40 of 48
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
The iPad Mini will have the same 1024 x 768 resolution as found on the iPad 1 & iPad 2, except that the display size will be shrunken down, so everything will look sharper on the iPad Mini, compared to the iPad 1 & iPad 2.

 

Everything will look the same as it does on the pre-retina iPhone and iPod touch, just on a bigger screen.

 

Seems odd to want to push that as a new product when they're pushing retina for their computers and everything else, but still…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Pictures show alleged 16.7 watt-hour 'iPad mini' battery