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 3

post #81 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Five different ones?

Five different splash screens:

iPhone/iPod touch

iPhone/iPod touch retina*

iPhone 5*

iPad

iPad retina*

 

Also need to submit different screen shots to the App Store for each of the *ed ones.

 

These provide an optimal user experience, but are a pain for developers.  Apple did developers a big favor by NOT creating any new requirements for the iPad mini.  

post #82 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Having varying resolutions would be an issue for devs and therefore users. If you are suggesting they could go with 2048x1536 (double the resolution) I

I am not sure why it has to be double. When you zoom on a webpage with an iPad it zooms smoothly with pixel interpolation. Sure it is better to not interpolate but when you have such high density it really shouldn't matter. Consider when devs layout their app UI, they place buttons where they look good without any real concern for the pixel alignment. Apple already wrote some software for the retina MBP that scaled the elements and the text in five different preset resolutions. They could do something similar for iPad and then run whatever custom slightly higher resolution screen was compatible with their battery and heat dissipation requirements. Some dev choose to write specific Retina version but other did not (yet) but they still look good.


Edited by mstone - 11/6/12 at 12:44pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #83 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I am not sure why it has to be double. When you zoom on a webpage with an iPad it zooms smoothly with pixel interpolation. Sure it is better to not interpolate but when you have such high density it really shouldn't matter. Consider when devs layout their app UI, they place buttons where they look good. Apple already wrote some software for the retina MBP that scaled the elements and the text in five different preset resolutions. They could do something similar for iPad and then run whatever custom slightly higher resolution screen was compatible with their battery and heat dissipation requirements. Some dev choose to write specific Retina version but other did not (yet) but they still look good.

The options in the RMBPs are a great example because 1) it doesn't look as crisp as with a pixel-perfect representation, and 2) it reduces the power usage from what I hear. If the latter is true then we have not just a desktop UI, which is designed to be scalable, but a windowless UI that is now using more power to process an unnatural UI on a native display with a relatively small battery.

I say the best option is to just wait for the technology to catch up instead of shoehorning a poor solution just to get another checkbox on a spec sheet. They didn't add '3G' right away or add LTE immediately and yet Apple has a huge lead amongst all vendors. I full expect they'll do the same with Retina on the iPad mini when they can get Rogue 6 and other components that will also the entire package to be less than 400g (if not lighter) and still get at least 10 hours of 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 #84 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

... Some dev choose to write specific Retina version but other did not (yet) but they still look good.

 

Because doubling pixels is easy and looks fine.  Non-integer interpolation doesn't look as good.  

 

Fonts are defined in terms of curves using mathematical formula, so they can be scaled very well.  That's not how (for the most part) icons and UI elements are defined.

 

Assuming you're on a MacBook or have a Magic Trackpad, do the pinch-to-zoom on this page,  You'll immediately see what elements are vector based (and therefore scale well and always look sharp) and those that don't.  

post #85 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?
 
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.

 

I believe Apple got a great marketing strategy.  Inferior screen but sells millions and millions of them just because it's an ipad.  Comes next Feb., the updated Retina ipad mini will sell another millions and millions of them to at least 50% of people who bought the first gen ipad mini.  Talking about double milking the consumers.  If they rolled out the retina ipad mini this time, what kind of upgrade the next Feb. will have?  faster cpu, more mem?  I doubt many first gen buyer will buy again just for the cpu and mem which are mostly for geeks anyway. 

post #86 of 90
Quote:
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 which ipad looks better and sounds better than the Kindle Fire HD.

 

You're already looking idiotic.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

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

 

Easy. The only ipad that looks better than the $199 Kindle Fire HD is the $499 ipad with retina. But that one has 2 speakers under a single 1.5" grille. The Kindle Fire HD has 2 speakers on opposite ends of the unit which provides superior stereo imaging.

 

Therefore, no ipad looks better or sounds better than the Kindle Fire HD.

 

 

Your turn.

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 #87 of 90

I have to say that as an owner of an iPad 2,  3 and  Nexus 7 I don't personally consider the display resolution to be the key attribute that makes me like or want to use one or the other. 

 

My favourite is still the iPad 2.  And I'm a photographer, so I care about how things look.  Without a doubt,  the iPad 3 has a beautiful display and if that was the only consideration it would be the machine of choice for me. 

 

However, I prefer the lighter and thinner iPad 2 because I use it in my mobile life as my goto device when I am shooting.  Its just easier to cart around in my camera bag during a shooting day. 

 

Nexus 7?  Fine in its way, but its a plasticy device, with a screen thats too small to be enjoyable to surf the web. In many ways a fine piece of kit, but it does creak if any pressure is placed on the screen. I know these things are not meant to last forever, but I know that the Apple devices will last well, and I don't think thats true of the Android tablets. 

 

So I can't pass judgement on the iPad mini because I can't buy one yet, I'm waiting for the 4G LTE version.  However for me the question is a more global one of how the tablet feels and operates on a practical level. I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to love it. I find the normal iPads a bit too large for comfortable reading in bed.  I still think the iPad 2 with its large screen, thinness and great battery life will fit in better as my mobile go to tablet. 

 

I'm also an iPad developer, and I'd have to caution people who think its a small matter to recode UI's to different resolutions. One of the reasons the Android devices have less good apps than the iPads is that the cost of handling the fragmented device landscape of Android,  different resolutions and many variants of OS, is simply too high for an independent developer like myself. I could not make it pay if there were many device types and resolutions  to support. My app is a visual productivity app and it could be a significant amount of work for me to handle arbitrary resolutions.  So I greatly thank Apple for making the iPad mini compatible, as I'm sure the wider reach of the device will extend my market and maybe make it large enough to make my business more successful and thereby make it possible for me to improve and extend my product range. 

post #88 of 90
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
Easy. The only ipad that looks better than the $199 Kindle Fire HD is the $499 ipad with retina. But that one has 2 speakers under a single 1.5" grille. The Kindle Fire HD has 2 speakers on opposite ends of the unit which provides superior stereo imaging.

 

Therefore, no ipad looks better or sounds better than the Kindle Fire HD.

 

Right and a single H-IPS panel of 2560x1440 looks worse than two TN panels of 640x480.

 

I'm talking actual tests run on the sound coming out of the speakers, not "this one has one, that one has two; that one is better".

 

And as secondary questions that I am adding now and drawing attention to the fact that I am adding them now so that you can't complain about "moving the goalposts", I'd like to know how well, if at all, stereo speakers can work when they're that close to one another. And also whether 'imaging' is a valid word to use for audio.

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 #89 of 90
 

I am shocked to see you actually attempted a reply when no good reply was possible.

 

 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Right and a single H-IPS panel of 2560x1440 looks worse than two TN panels of 640x480.

 

I'm talking actual tests run on the sound coming out of the speakers, not "this one has one, that one has two; that one is better".

 

And as secondary questions that I am adding now and drawing attention to the fact that I am adding them now so that you can't complain about "moving the goalposts", I'd like to know how well, if at all, stereo speakers can work when they're that close to one another. And also whether 'imaging' is a valid word to use for audio.

 

 

Neither the Kindle Fire HD's resolution nor the Retina's resolution is 2560x1440 or 640x480. So why bring this up? It's irrelevant. It's nothing more than a distraction.  Trying to scare me with your technical prowess? hahaha....

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I'm talking actual tests run on the sound coming out of the speakers, not "this one has one, that one has two; that one is better".

 

 

 

I have listened to both devices and the Kindle Fire HD is better. Independent reviews support my claim.

I doubt you've listened to either device.

 

"While watching movies, playing games, or listening to music, I found the Fire HD's speakers deliver clear, loud (if you need it to be) sound that's noticeably better than what I've heard from other tablets.

http://reviews.cnet.com/tablets/amazon-kindle-fire-hd/4505-3126_7-35436489-2.html

 

 

"...The stereo sound is head and shoulders above what we're used to from handheld devices,..."

http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/tablets/amazon-kindle-fire-hd-7-1095316/review/5#articleContent

 

 

"Here they're well-positioned so that you get maximum stereo separation when watching a movie or playing a game and we found that they work well even when covered by your hands. That, too, isn't something that can be said for the sound ports on other slabs."

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/11/amazon-kindle-fire-hd-review-7-inch/

 

 

Need more?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And as secondary questions that I am adding now and drawing attention to the fact that I am adding them now so that you can't complain about "moving the goalposts", I'd like to know how well, if at all, stereo speakers can work when they're that close to one another.

 

 

I understand what you mean about "moving the goalposts", because I've seen you do it. And you're doing it now.

 

How well can stereo speakers work when they're that close together?  Common sense tell us farther apart is better. But Apple put the ipad speakers right next to each other, in the same grille! Amazon put the speakers as far as possible.

So whose implementation is better?

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And also whether 'imaging' is a valid word to use for audio.

 

 

Now you want to change the audio industry vernacular?  Nothing but more meaningless distractions.

 

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 #90 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell 
How well can stereo speakers work when they're that close together?  Common sense tell us farther apart is better. But Apple put the ipad speakers right next to each other, in the same grille! Amazon put the speakers as far as possible.

So whose implementation is better?

Overall, the Kindle Fire HD looks like it offers better sound.

"In terms of audio, the iPad mini’s sound was rather loud and clear, thanks to its stereo speakers. The Kindle Fire HD produces louder sounds but, sadly, suffers a bit of distortion when you crank up the volume to max. This drawback is greatly compensated with the Kindle Fire HD’s Dolby Digital Plus that gives off more pleasant tunes. Enabling this option will make you hear virtual surround sound, almost as if you have a 5.1-channel speaker plugged to your tablet.

If you’re a music buff, you might want to tinker with your sound equalizer settings. The iPad mini has sound equalizer presets you can choose from in the Settings menu, but those are the only ones you can use. No custom equalizer profiles, sorry. The iPad mini’s equalizer presets are a blessing, though, compared to the Kindle Fire HD’s lack of them. No equalizer, not even presets on the Kindle Fire HD.

The iPad mini’s speakers are located at the bottom side of the tablet, which was a good move because it brings the sound closer to the viewer. However, when holding the device in landscape mode, those speakers may get covered up by your hand. The Kindle Fire HD’s dual driver speakers, on the other hand, are better placed. They’re located at the lower part of the tablet’s back and, although you may occasionally cover them with your hands, it doesn’t muffle the sound. If you’re bothered, though, simply rotate the tablet so that the side with the speakers will be located above your hand."

http://www.androidauthority.com/ipad-mini-vs-kindle-fire-hd-130456/

"The speakers I mentioned earlier are Dolby Digital-blessed and dual-driven. The wildly hyperbolic Amazon PR page for the Fire HD describes "loud, rumbling movie soundtracks," and "room-filling stereo sound." You won't get anything near those lofty renditions, but they do sound quite nice, and it's a welcome change to have stereo sound (at least in landscape orientation)."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/11/3317586/kindle-fire-hd-review-7-inch

In portrait mode, it probably won't make much difference but watching a movie in landscape without headphones would sound better on the Kindle. I assume they flip left and right depending on the tablet orientation.

There's a review here comparing the iPad Mini and Kindle Fire and they do a small audio test at the end (23:00):



The review is pretty funny because the guy on the left is clearly an Android fan and typical of what you see in forums. If you skip to 11:00, they review a comic book app and the bit where it lags is comedy gold. He tries to compensate at the end by cranking the volume up to max on a song that shows off the speakers (a different song from the iPad of course). Also remember folks, Amazon is an all-in-one shop for all like reading and media but Apple relies on 3rd parties - perhaps he's not aware they both have stores selling 3rd party content.

Even from that poor audio test, the Kindle sound seemed a bit fuller but as a whole package, I'd take the iPad. Usually I'd watch a movie with headphones but for watching a movie without headphones or external speakers, having the dual stereo speakers of the Kindle would be better. I doubt Apple will ever do this though because they have a cellular model unlike the Kindle so they can't put anything at the top.
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