or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › iPad mini display found to be 'just very capable,' outperformed by rivals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPad mini display found to be 'just very capable,' outperformed by rivals - Page 2

post #41 of 90

Can someone explain this to me?

 
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD).  How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
 
With all the manufacturing partnerships that Apple has, why is it that Google/Asus and amazon were able to produce their higher ppi screens, while Apple could not?
 
Perhaps the question really is, was this a question of production capability, or a purposeful choice?
 
I highly doubt the former.  It seems that Apple purposely chose to use previous generation screen technology from the iPad 2 to save production costs, therefore increasing the profit margin on the iPad mini.
 
That's fine, but then they should have priced the mini accordingly (say, $50 cheaper).
 
For the price points the mini is selling at, I would expect at least to *match* the competition's ppi (which are noticeably better for displaying text).
 
Not only is the screen clearly inferior to anyone (power user or casual user) that uses Retina Display devices, but this apparent purposeful choice to use a previous generation screen is a bit of an insult that I have never experienced in my 12 years of purchasing Apple products...these are the reasons why I won't be replacing my iPad 3 with an iPad mini any time soon.
post #42 of 90

Look - Retina Display is not simple. Costs go up. More graphics processing required. More memory required. More battery juice.

 

It was remarkable that iPhone 4 actually became thinner and maintained the same battery life and price when RP was added. When RP was added to MBP, it also got thinner (but more expensive).

 

When Apple adopted RP in the iPad, it was not more expensive but got a bit fatter. Some tech-illiterate pundits and fans criticize this. This shows that more advances are needed before RP can be delivered in the form factor (i.e. thickness) and cost point that Apple wants.

 

Of course, one has to wonder if 326 ppi is necessary for a tablet.

post #43 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat Bastard View Post

Can someone explain this to me?

 
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD).  How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
 

 

Nobody has pointed this out? You have read everything available and no one explained this?

 

The answer is obvious and has two parts. First - cost and form factor. Google and Amazon are not trying to make a profit off the device. Apple is (and please don't bother with trite arguments that Apple should lower their margins). Google and Amazon also do not care about user experience and design geometry as much as Apple. Apple wanted to deliver a close to light as paper experience. Have you held an iPad Mini in one hand and a Kindle Fire HD in the other? Trust me, you will drop the Kindle Fire HD in 5 seconds. And I say this with the disclaimer that I am NO Apple fanboy - just an unbiased observer.

 

Second - Apple cares about consistency of user experience. They wanted all current iPad apps to work perfectly, seamlessly and smoothly on the iPad Mini. To do that, they had to use a screen resolution that is a multiple of 1024 x 768. Since doubling it on both sides is out of the question for now (see above), they chose a multiple of 1.

 

Engineering and design are not a single factor process. You don't just decide to increase PPI of your screen for the sake of specmanship. There are other factors to trade off.

 

And please tell me you have used the Nexus 7 or the Kindle Fire HD side by side with Mini before you deride the Mini on a single specification. In fact, have you used the Mini much?

post #44 of 90

Like the MacBook Air series, the iPad mini was designed to maximize portability (including weight, size, and battery life) while minimizing price. iPad mini is to iPad as Macbook Air is to rMacBook Pro. In each case, the former is an ultraportable, whereas the latter is (merely) portable. Also, in each case, something had to give and in each case it was a Retina display. It's not that difficult to understand Apple's strategy here and why this product was designed the way it was designed.

 

When the average Joe and Jane is in the market for real estate; they can ask for the best location, an unbeatable price, and massive square-footage, but can only ever have two of the three.

 

If anyone thinks Apple does not design around a price target, they should think again. The MacBook Air was designed to hit a just-under-a-grand psychological barrier. I believe for a number of reasons, the mini was designed around a $300 target, yet for various market reasons, they "missed" it. For next year, expect a price-drop to $299 before an increase in pixel density.

 

I'm in the minority in that I do not think that sales of the iPad mini will eclipse those of the 9.7" iPad, for the same reason I do not think MacBook Air sales will fully-eclipse sales of the MacBook Pro line. Nonetheless, portability freaks like me are well-served by the Air and mini lines in ways we may not be by the Retina and Pro lines. Similarly, neither the MBA nor the iPad mini will get Retina anytime soon. Apple understands that very many of its consumers will benefit from the choice of not being forced to have it (and pay for it) in every device-JMTC.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #45 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC View Post

Try it out the mini display is great.

 

Comparing specs IMHO is useless because no one can tell the difference even gruber is wrong, he talked as if his eyes are super sharp and ken easily differential retina and non retina.

 

The trick is the word retina which automatically form an image in the mind but in reality the mini display looks just as good.

 

Kind of remind me that a photo taken by a Leica must be great while the rest is inferior but if there is no mention of a brand every photo looks the same and some even commented the other brands' photos were better.

The retinas of the human eye do not "automatically form an image in the mind". Sensory information becomes perceptual information as it is further processed in the optic ganglia, LGN, SCN, midbrain, occipital and temporal lobes, and many other CNS structures.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #46 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post

I went into the Apple store to buy an iPad mini because I have the iPad3 and although I really like it it's just at tad too big and too heavy for my taste, especially since it has such a big bezel around it (why the iPad4 has a big bezel and the iPad mini doesn't is a mystery to me since both were released at the same time!!! To me that's just inconsistent.)
Anyway, I pick up the iPad mini to play around with it and the first thing that stuck out to me was the cheap looking display, I was shocked! How could Apple want a premium price in this category with such a last last generation display with last last generation performance (A5 chip, only 512MB RAM!!!!!).
That is unacceptable to me so I left.

It is not a premium price; it is a normal and fair price for a company that wishes to make a reasonable profit. Two hundred dollar tablets appear to be fairly-priced because they are subsidized by retail (Amazon) and search/ad (Google) businesses. These companies admit that they do not make a profit directly from these devices (and it is unclear whether there are indirect profits.

 

They're cheap for the same reasons Wintel PCs are cheap, they use commodity parts and are subsidized with bloatware and ad stickers on the device from companies like Intel. Intel is still giving money to OEMs to manufacture competitively-priced laptops (sorry, ultrabooks). 

 

I'd pay an extra $150 for a tablet any day just to not have my privacy owned (by Google) and be served ads all day (by Amazon). Heck, MS managed to bloat-out the Surface-about 16 GB of usable storage on a 32GB laptop.-really?!? And they just straight-out lied to the press about it. 

 

But, you know, others make different choices with their dollars and eyeballs for a lower price-I get it.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #47 of 90
After having used the mini since Friday, rest assured the screen is just fine. The whole issue is fairly overblown, unless you plan on having it one inch from your face.
post #48 of 90
Doesn't come as a surprise at all. All the comparisons clearly showed that the displays of other devices fare way better than iPad Mini.
post #49 of 90

imo the resolution is not a big issue for the first gen mini, weight and screen realestate is more important.  But Apple really needs to work on reflections and color accuracy.

 

The one that is going to come up with a color screen that is fast and can be read in the sun is going to make tons of money. That a good place to put R&D.

post #50 of 90
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
Just in case some of you already forgot...

 

We only "forgot" because it's a blatant lie.


Originally Posted by Doxxic View Post
…consumers will judge and use it as a *game computer*.

 

Why?


It's the same case with iPad already.

 

That doesn't sound right.


Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post
…especially since it has such a big bezel around it (why the iPad4 has a big bezel and the iPad mini doesn't is a mystery to me since both were released at the same time!!! To me that's just inconsistent.)

 

You have absolutely no idea what a bezel represents. Why are you talking about it? 

 

That is unacceptable to me so I left.
 

Good. Apple shouldn't have to deal with people who don't understand the most basic aspects of what they're using. No company should!

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #51 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post

After having used the mini since Friday, rest assured the screen is just fine. The whole issue is fairly overblown, unless you plan on having it one inch from your face.

 

Exactly. I have the mini and the nexus 7 here and nobody can tell the difference. As a retina ipad 3 owner I can spot pixels on non-retina in a nanosecond, but it seems people who didnt got spoil by a retina screen just cant see any difference. On the other hand, everyone see's that the mini as a bigger screen than the nexus 7 and feels lighter.  

 

I was showing the ipad 2 and ipad 3 to a bunch of people and they really had to look closely for a long time to tell which is which. Once you explain to look at text fonts, they are much faster to spot the difference.


Edited by herbapou - 11/6/12 at 6:19am
post #52 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

It is not a premium price; it is a normal and fair price for a company that wishes to make a reasonable profit. Two hundred dollar tablets appear to be fairly-priced because they are subsidized by retail (Amazon) and search/ad (Google) businesses. These companies admit that they do not make a profit directly from these devices (and it is unclear whether there are indirect profits.

They're cheap for the same reasons Wintel PCs are cheap, they use commodity parts and are subsidized with bloatware and ad stickers on the device from companies like Intel. Intel is still giving money to OEMs to manufacture competitively-priced laptops (sorry, ultrabooks). 

I'd pay an extra $150 for a tablet any day just to not have my privacy owned (by Google) and be served ads all day (by Amazon). Heck, MS managed to bloat-out the Surface-about 16 GB of usable storage on a 32GB laptop.-really?!? And they just straight-out lied to the press about it. 

But, you know, others make different choices with their dollars and eyeballs for a lower price-I get it.

With 275,000 custom-sized Apps and counting, Apple went for the full slate option instead of the pundit-sized, 'blank slate' solution. A rationale quintessentially portable, ...a reenactment of consciousness emerging from evolution's creeping, empowering portability.

In this instance, pixels are no-brainers. Literally.
post #53 of 90
Unfortunately, Apple is starting to earn a reputation of stinging 1st generation early adopters. The first iPhone had no 3G, despite virtually every other phone having this at the time, the first generation iPad had only 256MB of RAM, something that would be a significant issue with the release of iOS 4.0 later the same year.

The iPad Mini's biggest appeal is you get into the iOS ecosystem at the lowest price possible so far. Mini2 will almost certainly get an A6 and Retina, but by then, you'd expect the competition to be a lot better too.

Having said all that... you have to spare some sympathy for Surface owners... seems like the RT browser is even slower than on an iPhone 4.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #54 of 90
I always thought this guy was something of a joke. A hit whore, pandering perhaps at the request of particular parties, or at least with his own bias.

But this

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Soneira noted that such a panel would have required a 326-pixel per inch pixel density over more than four times the real estate of the iPhone 5.

Shows me that he doesn't really know what he's talking about or at least doesn't care to work with real and full facts.

There is math, developed by researchers in vision etc, that is how Apple defines Retina. They have been very open about this math and their use of it, even showing it during a keynote. One of the key factors is distance from the eye by the average user. Tablets, even 7 inch ones, are not held as close as a phone. Thus they don't need as high a PPI as the iPhone. As a self proclaimed expert Soniera should know these details and be talking about them not about erroneous spec wanking. As although he is right that cost and battery life are likely major factors in the decision making he blew it with his talk of what the goal is. He should be comparing the Mini to the iPad not the iPhone. It is folks like him and his errors that get people's expectations up and then the product is 'crap', because it doesn't have what Mr Expert said it has to etc
Edited by charlituna - 11/6/12 at 7:41am

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 #55 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat Bastard View Post

Can someone explain this to me?

 
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD).  How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
 
With all the manufacturing partnerships that Apple has, why is it that Google/Asus and amazon were able to produce their higher ppi screens, while Apple could not?
 

 

By not caring about resolution consistency, which Apple wants to.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #56 of 90

They will sell a lot initially due to the size and lightness. I went Sunday to the Apple store and it is apparent the screen is not as good. This will be a easy fix with great fanfare in the spring. When people say that it will be a year I laugh sitting here with my iPad 3.

post #57 of 90
I ask this question out of simple ignorance. What exactly does a 62 versus 86 percent color gamut mean to me, the user? Does it mean colors aren't as bright? Or that each color has a smaller range of shades? Or something completely different? In what applications would the ostensibly "better" number show a significant difference to me?
/bs
Reply
/bs
Reply
post #58 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

It's amazing how appealing the iPad mini is to about 89% of the population. Us nerds here on AI think we represent most users. We don't. Most of us (ie., our parents) could give a shit about 'color gamut'.

So things look right? Yes. That's all 99% of folks care about.
Quote:
It's funny watching Apple reps have to talk about cores and RAM and gamut; it makes them cringe, as it doesn't define the experience nor the way their products are intended to be used.

They don't really talk about it, they rush over the features to harp on the way more important benefits. The only reason the mention the pecs is that they are presenting to media who give a crap and will flood them with repeated questions if they don't

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 #59 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

Unfortunately, Apple is starting to earn a reputation of stinging 1st generation early adopters. The first iPhone had no 3G, despite virtually every other phone having this at the time, the first generation iPad had only 256MB of RAM, something that would be a significant issue with the release of iOS 4.0 later the same year.

Check the battery life of the iPhone 3G that came out a year later then come back and tell us how the original iPhone was going to fair with the 3G chips of the day.
Quote:
The iPad Mini's biggest appeal is you get into the iOS ecosystem at the lowest price possible so far. Mini2 will almost certainly get an A6 and Retina, but by then, you'd expect the competition to be a lot better too.

That won't happen. 100% guaranteed.
Quote:
Having said all that... you have to spare some sympathy for Surface owners... seems like the RT browser is even slower than on an iPhone 4.

Because Safari on iOS is such a horrible experience¡

"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 #60 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsdofny View Post


It goes from 1x to 4x or 9x.  It is double the width and double the length.  Also, I think that Apple wants to conform the same screen size.  In the iPhone5 comes out with an extra row of icon, it happens that most of the apps are conformed to the iPhone4 standard.  So a lot of apps do not take advantage of the extra row. 

Apple wants to keep the choices low but the iPhone 5 shows that they aren't scared of mixing it up a little. As someone that is working with app development for some custom stuff for work I get the notion of not making an update just for this new size since the old one does work. Bring in '5' compatibility with the net bug fix or feature pack

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 #61 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai 

Please enlighten me how a 1536x1152 display for the iPad Mini would create "more problems", if any?

786,432 v. 1,769,472 pixels which means you'l need a lot more power to push to that display which means a thicker and heavier battery and the inability to use the A5 as at least a triple core A%x would be needed. It should be clear by now that weight is key to the iPad mini's design.

Then you have a wonky resolution (and who knows what size you are projecting on this device) that now doesn't show any App Store apps pixel perfect without being windowed, so you have a new SDK and users have to wait for devs to adjust their apps for a new resolution. It should be clear to you why Apple is doubling the resolution instead of just pulling a number out of a hat like you did.

"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 #62 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post

Let's not sugar coat things. The iPad mini made some compromises because Apple figured, probably quite correctly, that it could get away with it for now. My guess is that it gets a Retina Display in a year or two once yields improve. At that point, it might well supplant the 9.7" iPad as Apple's most popular tablet. For now, I see this product having lots of appeal with women (because of the size), children, schools, and budget conscious people who want access to the Apple ecosystem

Your sexism aside, you are perhaps right about the kids etc. These are not folks that need high power and such. Especially not at the risk of battery life. If we couldn't get a guaranteed 6 hours minimum with near constant use for anything it would be a no go on set. Because that's the time between meals and that's the only time we can really charge or change out gear

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 #63 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Who the heck is 'DisplayMate' anyway? Just going by the name, sounds like some third-rate doofus Toys R'Us outfit that AI just made famous....

Self proclaimed display tech expert and gets press hits etc. he's about on par with analysts in my book

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 #64 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

I am slightly surprised Apple didn't go with a higher resolution screen on the 32 or 64 GB versions-- they have the margin easily.

Who knows if they do. We know the BOM but not the full per unit costs

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 #65 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

The retinas of the human eye do not "automatically form an image in the mind". Sensory information becomes perceptual information as it is further processed in the optic ganglia, LGN, SCN, midbrain, occipital and temporal lobes, and many other CNS structures.

Not what he said. You might want to read it again.

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 #66 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sure thing: That's, what, about halfway between the first and second resolutions? All text needs redone. That can be easy if it's done with fonts, but if it's images, they need redone. All images need redone, in fact. So does all formatting of everything, since it's not a 4:1 size increase. 

It would look terrible. 

Good. Force them to stop bloating up app sizes by using images for text etc

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 #67 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpadhiyar View Post

Doesn't come as a surprise at all. All the comparisons clearly showed that the displays of other devices fare way better than iPad Mini.

Notice they look at specs and still shots. So no one notices the jerky video or the shifty battery life

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 #68 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Notice they look at specs and still shots. So no one notices the jerky video or the shifty battery life

I've only watched a couple of movies on my Nexus7, but "jerkyness" wasn't an issue at all (nor has battery life been problematic). Frame rates have been fine.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeowulfSchmidt View Post

I ask this question out of simple ignorance. What exactly does a 62 versus 86 percent color gamut mean to me, the user? Does it mean colors aren't as bright? Or that each color has a smaller range of shades? Or something completely different? In what applications would the ostensibly "better" number show a significant difference to me?

for me the greater the color gamat, the greater the Ability to be able to reproduce the color of a flower in the picture you've taken of it...

Basically it means that it only shows 62% of all visible colors versus 86% of all visible colors... or the shades of colors...

i.e. off topic... i have noticed that the colors of the "polo" brand shirts are more Vibrant or "jewel" like than the "knock-off" shirts that have the same color.

Resolution, accuracy and repeatability... color gamat refers to the accuracy of the color represented...

but it is moot point because Individuals have different color sensitivities... The old saw of women care more about colors then men....

ok, colour gamut referes to the "fancy" named colors in those paint chips... No the colors that are infinite variations on red blue green brown and purple.... um fushia isn't just a bright purple lol...
post #70 of 90

I've had the mini since Friday and truly enjoy almost everything about it.  If it were not for the screen I would keep it over my iPad 3.  It's an amazing device but there is room for improvement.
 

post #71 of 90
As far as the colours go, the iPad Mini screen looks better:





The Nexus and Kindle have a yellowish tint. Apple also clearly made a better choice with the screen size.
post #72 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

Just in case some of you already forgot...

 

 

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

We only "forgot" because it's a blatant lie.

 

 

Did you forget three days ago you said since just saying things without any evidence is usually considered idiotic.  So prove to us which ipad looks better and sounds better than the Kindle Fire HD.

 

You're already looking idiotic.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply
post #73 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

As far as the colours go, the iPad Mini screen looks better:


The Nexus and Kindle have a yellowish tint. Apple also clearly made a better choice with the screen size.

That's an amazing comparison, assuming brightness levels are adjusted the same. Any info on that?

Afterthought: Did the higher pixel density on the others require more backlighting, which was not provided?
(To save on battery life, lack of design follow-through, not add thickness and weight, etc.)
post #74 of 90
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
Did you forget three days ago you said since just saying things without any evidence is usually considered idiotic.  So prove to us…

 

You've made a claim. Think you ought to prove it as well. So far you fall under that umbrella.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #75 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur 
That's an amazing comparison, assuming brightness levels are adjusted the same. Any info on that?

Afterthought: Did the higher pixel density on the others require more backlighting, which was not provided?
(To save on battery life, lack of design follow-through, not add thickness and weight, etc.)

Those images came from here:

http://www.digitalversus.com/tablet/apple-ipad-mini-p13790/apple-ipad-mini-screen-test-results-now-n26838.html

They don't say about screen brightness settings but in the following video you can see the same effect and they are set to the same 50% brightness (skip to 5 mins for the display comparison):



That 16:9 aspect looks so weird next to the iPad Mini, I'm glad they stuck with 4:3.
post #76 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Those images came from here:
http://www.digitalversus.com/tablet/apple-ipad-mini-p13790/apple-ipad-mini-screen-test-results-now-n26838.html
They don't say about screen brightness settings but in the following video you can see the same effect and they are set to the same 50% brightness (skip to 5 mins for the display comparison):T

I'd assume that the settings were not the same, or perhaps the difference in angles to the camera made a difference since your link source also says:

 

Contrast: 783:1

We measured a respectable average contrast ratio of 783:1 for Apple's iPad Mini, which is on par with the first iPad and with Amazon's Kindle Fire HD. The Nexus 7, however, pushes up over 900:1. This, twinned with a maximum brightness of 330 cd/m2, keeps the (Nexus 7) onscreen image easy to read in most conditions, both indoors and outdoors. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai 

The 1536x1152 resolution being a 50% increase in multiple over the iPad Mini's 1024x768 display and a 25% decrease in multiple from the 2048x1536 display of the full-sized iPads means that it would offer 100% SCALABILTY for apps created for EITHER of the resolutions.

 

Are you serious - or just always having bad luck when thinking?

Hint: 50% increase or 25% decrease (i.e. 75%) can never be 100% scalable...

 

Just do the math (it is not that hard).

Text example: If you have 7 pixel (normal) and 14 (retina) pixel fonts you end up with 10,5 px ... and - as there are no half pixels - the text will either become distorted or blurry. Images will in many cases work fine - but fine lines etc. will definitely render strange (due to the lack of half pixels).

 

As a content developer I really appreciate the simple 1x and 2x way of making iOS layouts. 

I would definitely have loved an über high res 2048x1536 screen - but until that is possible I do think Apple made the right decision..

post #78 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai 

So what else is new? Anyone that had a CLUE already knew the iPad Mini's display was dismal compared to the other 7" tablets on the market.
The really sad thing is that Apple purposely GIMPED the Mini's display with a low-resolution non-HD screen just so they could "introduce" Retina Display as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 2 in six months, compelling everyone to upgrade again.
Since all iPad apps since the introduction of iPad 3 have been optimized for Retina, the iPad Mini was already obsolete before it was even released.
I'm sorry to see that even in Apple Insider the BS reason of app compatibility as the excuse for the Mini's poor resolution is still being bandied about.
The fact is Apple could have given the Mini a 1536x1152 display, which would have offered 100% scalability to iPad apps developed for both the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 resolutions, thus eliminating the need for Apple to squeeze the full-sized iPad's resolution into the Mini's 7.9" display.
A 1536x1152 resolution 7.9" screen could be rightly considered "Retina", offering 244.5 PPI which slightly surpasses the 243 PPI of the 7" Nook HD and easily outclasses the 216 PPI of both the Kindle Fire HD 7" and the Nexus 7, and making it comparable to iPad 3 and 4's 264 PPI.
In fact, I suspect the "Retina Display" resolution for the iPad Mini 2 will BE 1536x1152 rather than the 2048x1536 resolution of the iPad 3 and 4.
By using a 1536x1152 screen resolution for the iPad Mini 2 and 3, Apple can then "introduce" the full-sized 2048x1536 iPad resolution as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 4.
Smart business move by Apple. But are we dumb enough as consumers to fall for it (again)?

 

Talk to an app developer before you make a bunch of assumptions about how things work.  For text-based apps (and, admittedly there are lots of those) the OS could scale the app nicely just like you assume.  The same is true for apps that just use vector graphics.  But every custom button, icon, or graphic that's included in an iOS app today (unless the developer doesn't bother and doesn't care) has two versions.  The developer has to produce a non-retina image and one with twice the resolution and include both in the app.  For example, if I have a icon called editPencilIcon.png, I have to include a second higher-resolution one called editPencilIcon@2x.png, and iOS automagically displays the right one based on what device is being used.  An iPad mini would use the original and most other devices will use the @2x ones.  The hack your suggesting would either require developers to create and include "@1.5" version of all their art, or have iOS scale up and scale down one of the two available images.  The former would be a ton of work for developers (nuisance effort that could be instead spend on making the app better) and the latter would look bad--worse than showing the lower resolution version at its intended resolution.  Going to 1.5x resolution would be solving a problem that doesn't exist, and create lots more.  Developers already have to upload 5 different splash screen images for their apps; it's getting a bit ridiculous.

post #79 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View PostDevelopers already have to upload 5 different splash screen images for their apps; it's getting a bit ridiculous.

Five different ones?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 90
I agree to a certain extent that most potential users of the mini won't care about any of this (unless - maybe if they compared the look of these tablet screens in a shop for themselves). But Apple has a reputation for excellence and the mini's screen is definitely not that! I know it would of cost more money, but the margins on this device seem to be very high according to what I've read, so I think they could of afforded to provide a screen up to Apple's usual high standards without going Retina in resolution. Especially as pertains to screen reflectivity, which is a bit of an iPad bugbear.
Edited by 1983 - 11/6/12 at 12:20pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › iPad mini display found to be 'just very capable,' outperformed by rivals