or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Retina iPad mini display shows poorer color accuracy than Apple's iPad Air
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Retina iPad mini display shows poorer color accuracy than Apple's iPad Air - Page 4

post #121 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

Apple is charging an premium for the upgraded display yet it still has a fairly major flaw.

Show us where they are charging a premium for full sRGB? Show us where they claim anything other than what they state on their marketing and spec sheets?

If you call an intended compromise of doing business a flaw then you have to call anything less 100% a flaw, which then includes the iPad Air, not to mention the iPad Air having air space between the display and glass which means it's visibly not as good as the Kindle Fire HDX, especially with bright light sources at various angles.
post #122 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

What data do you have to backup that most people aren't. If that were true why would Apple now include a free copy of iLife? Are they doing this because people don't do photo work? Yeah that's logical. 

So you're argument is Apple is giving iPhoto away because too many people were buying it? WTF?!?!?!?!

It's clearly an incentive to sell more HW. That's where it begins and ends. If you are claiming people care more about full sRBG over 4x the number of pixels on their tablets you need to tell us why tablet sales are so high and Macs with IPS displays are so low compared to WinPCs which still use TN panels, and not the quality TN panels Apple has used for a decade, or prove that iPad buyers never used their WinPCs for photos.
post #123 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

99.9999% of consumers don't know about color gamut or give a sheet about it.

 

End of discussion.

Wrong. They may not know the term but they know when they see a screen that has poor color and looks washed out. If they are in an Apple store and look at a mini and an air they will see the difference right in the store.

 

Thats like saying if you go into Best Buy and look at all the TV's on the wall you can't tell which one has better color and which ones look washed out. They don't know it's color gamut but they know it looks bad. Consumers buy electronics based on color gamut more often than not, they just know what looks better to them, they just don't know the term. 

 

End of discussion. 

post #124 of 200
While I see differences in saturation, the example chosen isn't good, because it doesn't show loss of shades. A good example would be one that shows 16 shades of red in one display while the other just distinguishes -say- 12 shades. But if I need to display 255 different shades of red, the example shown doesn't tell if the gamut will be clamped on the Mini
post #125 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


So you're argument is Apple is giving iPhoto away because too many people were buying it? WTF?!?!?!?!

It's clearly an incentive to sell more HW. That's where it begins and ends. If you are claiming people care more about full sRBG over 4x the number of pixels on their tablets you need to tell us why tablet sales are so high and Macs with IPS displays are so low compared to WinPCs which still use TN panels, and not the quality TN panels Apple has used for a decade, or prove that iPad buyers never used their WinPCs for photos.

No I am saying Apple is giving the software away because it helps sell their hardware. It will also help sell iCould storage. 

 

There is more then one kind of IPS display. There are also better quality TN panels,  the Macbook Air that I am using right now proves that point.

 

I also use a W530 thinkpad because it is ISV certified and has a 97% color gamut. By the way it's a TN panel. It has a better TN panel then anything Apple has ever used. 

 

Besides all this aside doesn't take away the fact that the Mini has a narrow color gamut. Having an IPS panel has nothing to do with the color gamut. Many of the IPS panels Apple uses are prone to burn in, this is been well documented on the iMac been reported since 2007.

post #126 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post
 

Wrong. They may not know the term but they know when they see a screen that has poor color and looks washed out. If they are in an Apple store and look at a mini and an air they will see the difference right in the store.

 

Thats like saying if you go into Best Buy and look at all the TV's on the wall you can't tell which one has better color and which ones look washed out. They don't know it's color gamut but they know it looks bad. Consumers buy electronics based on color gamut more often than not, they just know what looks better to them, they just don't know the term. 

 

End of discussion. 

 

No one complained about the gamut until these tests came out. 

 

So are you telling me you know Apples consumers better than Apple?  What arrogance.  So you think Apple used less than perfect gamut thinking many customers would want perfect gamut?

 

The point is the gamut is not horrible.  Its very good and very few can discern it without test patterns or a trained eye.  If the gamut was terrible then you have a point but even the reviewer said most won't even know the difference.

 

End of discussion.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #127 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

No one complained about the gamut until these tests came out. 

So are you telling me you know Apples consumers better than Apple?  What arrogance.  So you think Apple used less than perfect gamut thinking many customers would want perfect gamut?

The point is the gamut is not horrible.  Its very good and very few can discern it without test patterns or a trained eye.  If the gamut was terrible then you have a point but even the reviewer said most won't even know the difference.

End of discussion.

No, he's saying we should all hate Apple for charging more money for the new iPad Mini for what he says is for a wider gamut that doesn't exist. Apple is big ol' fibber and we're just stupid sheeple if we actually want an iPad Mini after reading AnandTech's review.
post #128 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

This was a review and it was noted that the display has the same narrow color gamut as the non retina display on the previous Mini. I don't care what Samsung, Amazon or anyone else does, I don't buy their products. I have even said in my previous posts to others that if you take every other company out of the loop the Mini should at least have the same color accuracy as the Air. 

Apple is charging an premium for the upgraded display yet it still has a fairly major flaw. Most consumers won't care or won't notice, however we already know that members of this forum know more than most consumers. 

It's a valid topic to debate, it's also valid to debate if it's something that Apple should address. 

Apple is charging more for the new mini because of of the new higher density battery, the new processor, the tooling change for the case, the high density screen, and for who knows what else. You don't know if we overpaying, which is what you are suggesting. I and others have made the point that it is technologically impossible for them to have made a full-gamut screen without compromising the form factors, weight, size and battery life. Address those directly instead of making limp assertions about "premium" prices.

They will address it in the future when they have power-saving displays available, you can be sure of that.
post #129 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The fun part is that if some $79 whitebox tablet running Android 2.3 had shitty gamut, Anandtech wouldn't have a story. It's only fun to dig dirt on Apple.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 

It doesn't have a "shitty" gamut. The gamut is just not QUITE as high as that of the iPad Air, in a way that not a single consumer would notice, nor a single reviewer without scientific testing. Every single hands-on/review has said the screen looks just as good as that of the Air's. But nice use of subtlety there. 

 

It doesn't have a shitty gamut or a higher or lower gamut, because one cannot describe a gamut as such. Similarly, you can be skinny or fat but you don't have a shitty weight, or a higher weight.

 

If you want to comment as if you know better, please learn to know better first. Thank you. :)


Edited by StruckPaper - 11/18/13 at 1:26pm
post #130 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Apple is charging more for the new mini because of of the new higher density battery, the new processor, the tooling change for the case, the high density screen, and for who knows what else. 

Higher density battery? Most definitely no. In fact, evidence suggests the battery is notably larger (commensurate with more juice).

post #131 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

And you know this for a fact? Keep in mind the thickness of the Air.

The Air may be IGZO.
post #132 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Higher density battery? Most definitely no.

I think I read that in Anand's review.
post #133 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I think I read that in Anand's review.

Me too, but at any rate we're talking about at least 4x more pixels, a 2 generation bump in the SoC (which Apple has never done except for the iPod Touch which had also skipped a year between an update so it averaged out), and a nearly 50% higher Whr battery.

And none of that includes the new MIMO WiFi which is making it's 802.11n faster than many vendors attempt at power guzzling 802.11ac. I'm pleasantly surprised this is on the new iPad Mini.
post #134 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post
 

No, Apple does not need to provide anything, there are off the shelf hardware that can read color. For example, X-Rite has a device called i1Display Pro, which can also read color from your screen for $270

 

But if people used these devices to analyze the iPad screens, they would be accused of trying to look for issues instead of taking Apple's word.

post #135 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

But if people used these devices to analyze the iPad screens, they would be accused of trying to look for issues instead of taking Apple's word.

Who accused Anand Shimpi of any of this when he analyzed the iPad Mini (and nearly every other Apple product) in exceptional detail?
post #136 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleinsiderFrm View Post

If apple decided to put a crappier display in the mini it's only because they knew what we wanted before we wanted it, and I for one welcome the smaller range of colors.

This statement can not be serious. You would truly want a smaller range of colors? Are you serial stupid or just uninformed?

post #137 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post
 

 

But if people used these devices to analyze the iPad screens, they would be accused of trying to look for issues instead of taking Apple's word.

The actually analyze both devices using the exact same set of color swatches on each screen. Each color swatch will then be compared to a chart, the screen that matches the chart the closest "wins" the.

 

I actually prefer the mini over the Air, the mini is much more portable, the screen issue is a non-issue for me.

bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #138 of 200
Is a consumer really going to notice a thing, one thing to be better than this vein advertised on par, but to advertise IPad air as best.
post #139 of 200
Raymond Soneira sticks his nose way out into Apple's decision-making process on backing IGZO.:

http://www.displaymate.com/Tablet_ShootOut_4.htm

He too is way out of line, calling incompetence without the slightest reference to production realities among LTPS, IGZO and Amazon's treacherous pricing on its quantum dot foray.

He needs an editor in the worst way, as I've said before. Among other things, someone needs to tell him he sounds like he's in Amazon's pocket, which is of course unthinkable.
Edited by Flaneur - 11/18/13 at 1:53pm
post #140 of 200

So in summary, the more expensive device is somewhat better? (reprise of 5s vs. 5c anyone?)

 

Not totally stunned if true.

post #141 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

The iPad mini cost $399 for the 16GB version. I should hope they mention that it has a sub-sRGB display. After all it's by far the most important component of the iPad. By far!

Of course. The rule is: whatever deficiency the iPad has becomes the the "most important component by far." Not battery life, software, OS security, aspect ratio, CPU, memory, user experience, size or build quality. Just one thing: gamut. The only reason to spend $399 is for gamut, not a great tablet.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #142 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


I think I read that in Anand's review.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


Me too

No, you didn't. Read more carefully.

post #143 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

No, you didn't. Read more carefully.

Next time you may want to take a moment to do a quick search of the topic in question before you claim we didn't what we you clearly something you clearly didn't notice.

"I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
post #144 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post

Next time you may want to take a moment to do a quick search of the topic in question before you claim we didn't what we you clearly something you clearly didn't notice.

"I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."

That was what caught my eye. Thanks for jogging my memory.

But I'm surprised so little has been said about it, if it's true. I'm also surprised hardly anyone has looked into the IGZO question besides Soneira. I suspect that Apple was hoping IGZO would be more available, enough for the mini this year, but that didn't happen, so they had to compromise on backlighting. Anything but make the device thicker and heavier, of course, which is the main feature of the mini.
post #145 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

That was what caught my eye. Thanks for jogging my memory.

But I'm surprised so little has been said about it, if it's true. I'm also surprised hardly anyone has looked into the IGZO question besides Soneira. I suspect that Apple was hoping IGZO would be more available, enough for the mini this year, but that didn't happen, so they had to compromise on backlighting. Anything but make the device thicker and heavier, of course, which is the main feature of the mini.

He may mean it's a larger battery in an overall case that isn't much larger or heavier. He certainly didn't show the new and old battery's mass and volume, and then figure out the Whr for a given mass or volume for comparison. Perhaps iFixit weighed them.
post #146 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post
 

This is unacceptable. I hope someone at Apple is pounding the table and yelling that this should not have gone out like this.  The Aandtech.com review goes into depth on the issue 

 

How is it that companies with a fraction of the resources can ship much better displays at volume?  

I agree, Apple used to be the clear leader in screen quality on such devices. Now both Google but especially Amazon are putting out tablets with far superior displays, not just better than the Retina Mini, but better than the iPad Air too, add to that the far more accurate touchscreen electronics found in competitors smartphones as compared to the iPhone 5S and Apple seem to be losing or neglecting to a certain extent their engineering prowess of late. I wish they would put as much engineering excellence into such things as they do into their superior SoC designs.

post #147 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

AT THIS POINT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Difference? None of course. The iPad mini retina has shipped. As long as the failing gamut is not due to any manufacturing defect, there's nothing to be done. You either buy it or buy something else with your money. The forum thread seems to be about that magical word: "should." What Apple should have done, or what should have been. Contained in that one magical word is an entire imaginary alternate universe that people use to compare reality to, and ding Apple for. Bigger screens, smaller screens, cheaper this, DVD drive that, more memory, SD card slots, too thick, too thin, new icons, sRGB gamut. Whatever Apple don't got becomes a crisis, the most important thing by far, a sign of doom. How dare they charge $399 for a tablet if it can't beat the Nexus on one benchmark? Pitchforks for everyone!

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #148 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


Next time you may want to take a moment to do a quick search of the topic in question before you claim we didn't what we you clearly something you clearly didn't notice.

"I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."

Really?

 

Here's the sequence, each one citing the previous.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Apple is charging more for the new mini because of of the new higher density battery, the new processor, the tooling change for the case, the high density screen, and for who knows what else. 

 

Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Higher density battery? Most definitely no.
 
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I think I read that in Anand's review.
 
 
What is there to misread? There is NOTHING in the Anand review talking about higher battery density. What is there to misread?
 
You know jack and don't want to admit it. That's cool.
post #149 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Really?

Here's the sequence, each one citing the previous.

Flaneur wrote, "I think I read that in Anand's review."
I wrote, "Me too"
You wrote, "No, you didn't. Read more carefully."
Then I quoted the exact line that Anand wrote in his iPad mini review, "I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
post #150 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

How about we take all other companies out of the loops and simply set the standard that the color gamut should be as good as the iPad 4 which to date had the best color gamut followed by the Air. The Mini isn't even remotely close to either.

My question is partially rhetorical because I think whatever the answer is would (unless you surprised me with a good reason for it) be a completely arbitrary standard. And I want to hear a justification for arbitrary standards, otherwise, there's no hope of agreement. I mean why should I agree with that particular standard?

Here is my reason for the passionate responses I've been giving on this thread:
In the CRT era, anyone who needed seriously wide color gamut for professional use would buy a specially made monitors like the EIZO or something and always use a color calibration tool. People doing design or print work, or photographers. Are the people in this thread seriously demanding the iPad mini meet such a standard? If so, WHY? No one in this thread has argued that they want to replace their wide gamut, calibrated monitors with an iPad of any kind. And the rest of us non-pros use whatever Dell or Samsung or whitebox Chinese monitors is on sale at Newegg without ever giving gamut a single thought. Price, resolution and size (and maybe refresh rate) seems to be how we choose monitors.

But all of sudden, gamut matters! Gamut gamut gamut! When the hell did this happen? When Anandtech put a benchmark on their site making the iPad mini look bad? Where was outrage over the lack of gamut on the iPad 2? Or the gamut on the iPhone 3GS? Or the MacBook? Or the Cinema Display? Why does the iPad mini have to even have the same gamut as the iPad Air? You demand the same gamut as the iPad Air for $100 less? How about you demand the same sized screen for $100 less?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #151 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


Flaneur wrote, "I think I read that in Anand's review."
I wrote, "Me too"
You wrote, "No, you didn't. Read more carefully."
Then I quoted the exact line that Anand wrote in his iPad mini review, "I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."

That's rhetoric. Read the review *carefully*. Check the specs CAREFULLY! Power density DID NOT IMPROVE. IT IS A LARGER BATTERY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

post #152 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

That's rhetoric. Read the review *carefully*. Check the specs CAREFULLY! Power density DID NOT IMPROVE. IT IS A LARGER BATTERY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

I am the one the stated first stated in thread there is no evidence that battery is denser in Anand's article. Flaneur then followed up with a comment regarding that very thing. You merely stated he never said that despite proof that he did in fact say that. If you want to call out Anand for not choosing his words properly then 1) go for it but don't tell us we didn't read what we have proven to have read, and 2) you need to first note all these comments in which you failed to choose your words properly because you cast the first stone at someone whose credibility far exceeds yours.


PS: You're claim that we didn't read what we've proven we read is because it's an artful figure-of-speech in a technical review is completely asinine. You made an ass of yourself. Don't dig that hole any deeper.

PPS: Son, we live in a world that has tech reviews, and those tech reviews have to be read by men with brains. Who's gonna do it? You? You, StruckPaper? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Anand, and you curse Flaneur. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Anand's choice of words, while tragic, probably doesn't really matter. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, speaks the truth. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me to read those tech reviews, you need me to read those tech reviews. We use words like efficiency, performance, usability. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent comprehending technical data. You use them as a buzzword. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the accountability that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, otherwise, I suggest you obtain some tech knowledge, and write your own posts. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Edited by akqies - 11/18/13 at 5:51pm
post #153 of 200

I agree with the majority of the posters that Apple should of upgraded the the RBG gamut for the Mini 2!  But they decided to save some dough and not do it!

 

Like everyone else; I will still buy the Apple Mini with Retina.  I not going to wait another year and like most people; I am not a "pro" photographer so it really does not affect me.  Apple marketing probably knew this going in to the design for the upgrade Mini.  $2 dollar savings on each Mini retina sold is still a lot of money to Apple.

 

Just the way it goes sometimes!   You either buy it or someone else will!  Just as simple as that!

post #154 of 200
@akqies Epic reply.
post #155 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Wild View Post

I agree with the majority of the posters that Apple should of upgraded the the RBG gamut for the Mini 2!  But they decided to save some dough and not do it!

Like everyone else; I will still buy the Apple Mini with Retina.  I not going to wait another year and like most people; I am not a "pro" photographer so it really does not affect me.  Apple marketing probably knew this going in to the design for the upgrade Mini.  $2 dollar savings on each Mini retina sold is still a lot of money to Apple.

Just the way it goes sometimes!   You either buy it or someone else will!  Just as simple as that!

For the last goddamn time, it's not about the money, it's about the size and weight of the device. Now go back and read the thread, and try to understand.
post #156 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Wild View Post

I agree with the majority of the posters that Apple should of upgraded the the RBG gamut for the Mini 2!  But they decided to save some dough and not do it!

Like everyone else; I will still buy the Apple Mini with Retina.  I not going to wait another year and like most people; I am not a "pro" photographer so it really does not affect me.  Apple marketing probably knew this going in to the design for the upgrade Mini.  $2 dollar savings on each Mini retina sold is still a lot of money to Apple.

Just the way it goes sometimes!   You either buy it or someone else will!  Just as simple as that!

You agree that if they had to choose between adding 4x the number of pixels (aka Retina) and going with full sRBG you would rather choose a better color gamut? If they had done that I wouldn't have bought an iPad Mini this year. I would have instead just kept my iPad 3 and waited for the iPad Mini to go Retina. Would have it been nice? Of course, but so would a wider memory bus and 4x performance with half the power draw on the A7, as well as 3x MIMO, and an 802.11ac chip that uses less power than the currently WiFi chip, and on and on and on…

Now I disagree with Flaneur on why it wasn't utilized this year but I think it's a lot closer than the "Apple is evil. They only care about raping our App-holes" comments. I think it's most likely due to low yields that required a loosening of the thresholds for acceptance in order to make a decent production run.

But that could also be the case in terms of battery life, but the least likely reason is to eek a little more profit from customers when they have a long and current history of supplying great displays and other great HW at impressive volumes, and in areas that no other vendor seems to care about because it doesn't fit on a spec sheet.
post #157 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


You agree that if they had to choose between adding 4x the number of pixels (aka Retina) and going with full sRBG you would rather choose a better color gamut? If they had done that I wouldn't have bought an iPad Mini this year. I would have instead just kept my iPad 3 and waited for the iPad Mini to go Retina. Would have it been nice? Of course, but so would a wider memory bus and 4x performance with half the power draw on the A7, as well as 3x MIMO, and an 802.11ac chip that uses less power than the currently WiFi chip, and on and on and on…

Now I disagree with Flaneur on why it wasn't utilized this year but I think it's a lot closer than the "Apple is evil. They only care about raping our App-holes" comments. I think it's most likely due to low yields that required a loosening of the thresholds for acceptance in order to make a decent production run.

But that could also be the case in terms of battery life, but the least likely reason is to eek a little more profit from customers when they have a long and current history of supplying great displays and other great HW at impressive volumes, and in areas that no other vendor seems to care about because it doesn't fit on a spec sheet.

 

 

I find it difficult to believe that Apple's screen producers could not do the job of producing HD+ displays with higher color gamut, when you see in the marketplace Nexus 7 -2013 and Amazon Kindle HDX -7 with same resolution displays as the rMini with much higher color gamut.  Apple knew the specs of both since they were in the marketplace in July and August - 2013.  It is about Apple again holding back technology for the future to be released and increasing it profit margin this quarter and every quarter until the next iPad Mini comes out!

post #158 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Wild View Post

I find it difficult to believe that Apple's screen producers could not do the job of producing HD+ displays with higher color gamut, when you see in the marketplace Nexus 7 -2013 and Amazon Kindle HDX -7 with same resolution displays as the rMini with much higher color gamut.  Apple knew the specs of both since they were in the marketplace in July and August - 2013.  It is about Apple again holding back technology for the future to be released and increasing it profit margin this quarter and every quarter until the next iPad Mini comes out!

What is it with people not being able to comprehend what is written in plain English? To be blunt, what the fuçk does the Kindle or Nexus have to do with the volume Apple needs? You have to be aware that Apple's needs far exceed what both of those vendors will need for a given model but instead you want to think it's some lame conspiracy theory where you ignore all reason and logic if it doesn't fit your ignorant and stupid assumptions.
post #159 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Wild View Post


I find it difficult to believe that Apple's screen producers could not do the job of producing HD+ displays with higher color gamut, when you see in the marketplace Nexus 7 -2013 and Amazon Kindle HDX -7 with same resolution displays as the rMini with much higher color gamut.  Apple knew the specs of both since they were in the marketplace in July and August - 2013.  It is about Apple again holding back technology for the future to be released and increasing it profit margin this quarter and every quarter until the next iPad Mini comes out!

Nope. Read Soneira's report. Those others are LTPS.

It was reported last year on AI that Apple's demand for LTPS screens for their phones would use up 70% of the world capacity. There was no way they could cover the iPads with that tech. They left the crumbs for the low-volume players like Amazon and Google, and continued to bet on IGZO.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/05/29/apples_next_iphone_expected_to_consume_70_of_high_res_ltps_screen_supply

All this may be too much detail for you, but I include it so others won't be misled by your taking the simple-minded route.
Edited by Flaneur - 11/18/13 at 8:42pm
post #160 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Enjoy subjectivity.


Then don’t bother replying at all. Again, if the above statement was in any way true, you wouldn’t have bothered replying. 

Either speak your mind or quit whining entirely.
Sorry but Apple screwed up the expectations game. Thats not my fault. With mini 1 they set expectations low people werent surprised or disappointed. I think people couldve swallowed the underclocked A7m7 and inferior color gamut to every other current tablet around. People wouldve paid an additional $100 for a full experience Apple rMini. They get upset when you try to charge a premium dollar and arent forthcoming about the deficiencies.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Retina iPad mini display shows poorer color accuracy than Apple's iPad Air
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Retina iPad mini display shows poorer color accuracy than Apple's iPad Air