If you expect the iPad mini to have anything other than the same kind of LED screen than the iPad and iPhones have, you're delusional..
If they intend to market it as a reading device, and they don't do something to substantially reduce the glare that you get on the current models, they'll be setting themselves up for another round of the same thing that's happening with maps. There will be no end of over the top "man blinded trying to use iPad" type stories being carried my the mainstream press. And they'll actually have a point this time. My iPad is completely unusable outside because of the excessive glare. They can use the same LCD panel, but they have to do something about the glossy glass on top of it. Look at the amazing difference just taking the glass off does for the Macbook Pros.
They did with the iPod Touch. It was released after the iPhone and it always had a worse display (up until the latest one). Even when the iPhone 4 got an IPS display the 4th gen iPod Touch was stil only TN. I think this will be a low-cost device compared to the iPad (3), not unlike the iPod Touch is a low-cost device compared to the iPhone.
Sure but the Touch is a continuing product which always improves with each new version. The iPad mini is a new iPad model and it would seem unnatural to make a new version with substantially worse specifications than any other product that proceeded it in its product category. They might as well call it something else besides iPad if they are not going to make it at least as good as its predecessors.
Look at the amazing difference just taking the glass off does for the Macbook Pros.
Those matte displays look washed our and faded. It's what I'd expect from a display after swimming in a heavily chlorinated pool for a day. Those RMBP with the glass front, IPS and full sRGB look great.
Sure but the Touch is a continuing product which always improves with each new version. The iPad mini is a new iPad model and it would seem unnatural to make a new version with substantially worse specifications than any other product that proceeded it in its product category. They might as well call it something else besides iPad if they are not going to make it at least as good as its predecessors.
That has been my argument since this first came up. I don't think a budget table should sully the name of the iPad and I don't see how people are expecting it to be more costly than the current iPad for a given capacity with their talk of iPhone resolution on 4.27x the display area but with the iPad (3)'s resolution and performance.
I wouldn't call the thing an iPad at all, but this is Apple and they tend to go the opposite way in naming conventions. There are very Apple products whose names i like... but I don't buy Apple's products for their names so it's a moot point for me.
PS: I don't know what you mean by continuing product. When it debuted in 2007, months after the iPhone, it was a brand new product that was a lesser version in every way than the iPhone that came before it.
I'm under the impression that only Mac OS X has anti-alising, which explains why the RMBP text looks so good despite only being around 200 PPI compared to the iPad (3).
My bad! was talking about reading on my old g4 PowerBook. To tell you the truth, I didn't realize iOS didn't have anti-aliasing, because their dot pitch is so fine anyway. Seriously, the pixels on the 9.7" XGA iPad are unresolvable unless you hold it too close and look for them—and I'm over 4 powers farsighted, which means my glasses magnify everything quite a bit.
My bad! was talking about reading on my old g4 PowerBook. To tell you the truth, I didn't realize iOS didn't have anti-aliasing, because their dot pitch is so fine anyway. Seriously, the pixels on the 9.7" XGA iPad are unresolvable unless you hold it too close and look for them—and I'm over 4 powers farsighted, which means my glasses magnify everything quite a bit.
I wonder why it's not on there. Perhaps too resource heavy to figure all that out? Or because they are using a finite number of pixels that they don't need it because there is wide variety of scalable windows and placement like with desktop OSes? I'm not a font guy so this stuff is very much over my head.
I don't know much about the actual manufacturing process but if you examine the path Apples usually takes with the evolution of technology you will rarely see them go backwards. I
True. But you also don't see them putting in specs just to say its there. So if a retina display etc is deemed overkill and spec wanking, they generally don't do it.
Bottom line, the display has to be "retina" for this thing to compete at all (but not necessarily the same density as the iP5 or new iPad). Since the 3GS is gone, that actually opens up the door to create a new third resolution for developers, in addition to the iPhone 5 and iPad (the iPad 2 will likely be dropped when this tablet comes out as well).
1) it does not have to be retina to compete. See I can baldly assert things as well.
2) Eliminating the 3GS does not open any doors for a new third resolution. The 3GS is the same for most devs (i.e. non OpenGL ones) as the 4 and 4S. 320x480 POINTS. Just as the iPad, iPad 2 and iPad 3 are all 1024x768 POINTS. The actual new third resolution (320x568 points) is to support the iPhone 5. Adding yet another so quickly would be kinda bad for devs.
3) I would prefer they not drop the iPad 2 but slot the mini in between iPad 2 and iPod Touch in the lineup.
If I did my math right* a 44x44 point target on the iPad is 0.33" and about 0.27" on the iPad mini (and iPhones). 44x44 is the suggested minimum size for a tappable UI element in the HIG.
7.85" @ 1024x768 @ 163 PPI lines up for screen size, screen resolution and HIG recommendation for minimum sizes.
It is vaguely possible to do a scale factor of 3 and start with 320x568 (or 320x480) and end up with a physical 960x1704 (or 960x1440) iPad mini using the iPhone 5 (or 4) point layout. Mmmm...using a pixel density of 264 results in a 3.6"x6.45" device or 7.39" diagonal that is compatible with iPhone 5 apps. Uh, no. 1024x768 despite the non-retina resolution makes a lot more sense to me.
--
* it is not just possible but actually likely I screwed up the math somewhere...
I wouldn't be shocked if we see some iTunes Store updates in terms of content deals etc, even perhaps a nice Apple TV box
Maybe all these rumors are true. Remember the one that the much-anticipated Apple "TV" was really a new high-tech remote? Maybe the iPad Mini is a Kindle-killer eReader, with iBook Store, and also a remote that knows (or can learn) the control codes of any TV, stream video over Wi-Fi and AirPlay it to a Wi-Fi dongle you plug into your TV's HDMI. It could calibrate your TV by looking at it with the camera and twiddling the settings. Content supplied by the much-rumored Apple "Cable" network.
PS: I don't know what you mean by continuing product. When it debuted in 2007, months after the iPhone, it was a brand new product that was a lesser version in every way than the iPhone that came before it.
Just that it was not a variation on the iPhone. It was always part of the iPod line up. The iPad mini name means it is part of the iPad line up. Hardware characteristics aside, just the name of the product line. Just like the aTV runs iOS and has similarities but you don't compare it to other iOS devices spec-wise.
I also firmly believe that the 10" size is much better for textbooks as well as for pre-school aged children. ... A smaller screen is not a good platform for K-12 in my opinion.
Perhaps not for content, but I have heard the exact opposite from educators in that arena who say that a smaller lighter tablet would be preferred for smaller hands.
I also firmly believe that the 10" size is much better for textbooks as well as for pre-school aged children. ... A smaller screen is not a good platform for K-12 in my opinion.
Perhaps not for content, but I have heard the exact opposite from educators in that arena who say that a smaller lighter tablet would be preferred for smaller hands.
Hand size has little to do with it in my opinion because the ideal setting for education, especially for young children, is to have the device sitting on a table where they are seated, the device is not held. The large screen allows for large buttons that mimic all previously tested and approved early childhood learning tools.
Just that it was not a variation on the iPhone. It was always part of the iPod line up. The iPad mini name means it is part of the iPad line up. Hardware characteristics aside, just the name of the product line. Just like the aTV runs iOS and has similarities but you don't compare it to other iOS devices spec-wise.
It has no phone HW in it so it can't be an iPhone but it's surely the same OS, same base HW, some look from the front, same UI, etc. What was just an iPod app on the iPhone became two apps on the Touch known as Music and Videos, but it's much more than just a PMP, yet didn't warrant it's only category. I'd argue they really just expanded the PMP category to include the phone-less iPhone which puts it a lot closer to a PDA and than a PMP. It's one of the reasons I thought a small, cheap tablet could be classified as an iPod Touch but seeing as the iPod event is over I'd say it's going to be in the iPad category.
I wonder why it's not on there. Perhaps too resource heavy to figure all that out? Or because they are using a finite number of pixels that they don't need it because there is wide variety of scalable windows and placement like with desktop OSes? I'm not a font guy so this stuff is very much over my head.
Anti-aliasing is simply "smoothing" the spaces between the pixels at the edge of characters, which is particularly helpful for readability of smaller type on lower resolution displays. I believe it generally requires licensing tho as a patented feature. AFAIK it's not at all resource heavy. As an example Garmin has used it for years on their PND's with very low-end processors and minimal memory.
I agree that Apple will lead the field, but it will be A LOT subtler than most think. I think that it's getting harder and harder to "redefine" (as you put it) any mobile device. I just can't see many more dramatic changes that can be made. We're maxing out on evolutionary changes (like screen resolution, camera quality, screen size, snappiness, voice recognition, etc.), I mean, how sexier can a smart phone or tablet get?
"How much sexier," you ask? How about the new iPad Mini sitting in your lap and reading you the text in Barbara Eden's voice?
Perhaps not for content, but I have heard the exact opposite from educators in that arena who say that a smaller lighter tablet would be preferred for smaller hands.
I would agree with you but then why do the schools hand little kids pencils and markers the diameter of mop handles??
Comments
If they intend to market it as a reading device, and they don't do something to substantially reduce the glare that you get on the current models, they'll be setting themselves up for another round of the same thing that's happening with maps. There will be no end of over the top "man blinded trying to use iPad" type stories being carried my the mainstream press. And they'll actually have a point this time. My iPad is completely unusable outside because of the excessive glare. They can use the same LCD panel, but they have to do something about the glossy glass on top of it. Look at the amazing difference just taking the glass off does for the Macbook Pros.
Originally Posted by bsenka
There will be no end of over the top "man blinded trying to use iPad" type stories being carried my the mainstream press.
Never been blinded reading on my iPad in the years I've had it. Pretty sure everyone will be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They did with the iPod Touch. It was released after the iPhone and it always had a worse display (up until the latest one). Even when the iPhone 4 got an IPS display the 4th gen iPod Touch was stil only TN. I think this will be a low-cost device compared to the iPad (3), not unlike the iPod Touch is a low-cost device compared to the iPhone.
Sure but the Touch is a continuing product which always improves with each new version. The iPad mini is a new iPad model and it would seem unnatural to make a new version with substantially worse specifications than any other product that proceeded it in its product category. They might as well call it something else besides iPad if they are not going to make it at least as good as its predecessors.
Those matte displays look washed our and faded. It's what I'd expect from a display after swimming in a heavily chlorinated pool for a day. Those RMBP with the glass front, IPS and full sRGB look great.
That has been my argument since this first came up. I don't think a budget table should sully the name of the iPad and I don't see how people are expecting it to be more costly than the current iPad for a given capacity with their talk of iPhone resolution on 4.27x the display area but with the iPad (3)'s resolution and performance.
I wouldn't call the thing an iPad at all, but this is Apple and they tend to go the opposite way in naming conventions. There are very Apple products whose names i like... but I don't buy Apple's products for their names so it's a moot point for me.
PS: I don't know what you mean by continuing product. When it debuted in 2007, months after the iPhone, it was a brand new product that was a lesser version in every way than the iPhone that came before it.
Actually, tech IS created in a bubble.
Jony Ive is at the center, and I've heard it's an absolute bastard to get in and out of without a security pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm under the impression that only Mac OS X has anti-alising, which explains why the RMBP text looks so good despite only being around 200 PPI compared to the iPad (3).
My bad! was talking about reading on my old g4 PowerBook. To tell you the truth, I didn't realize iOS didn't have anti-aliasing, because their dot pitch is so fine anyway. Seriously, the pixels on the 9.7" XGA iPad are unresolvable unless you hold it too close and look for them—and I'm over 4 powers farsighted, which means my glasses magnify everything quite a bit.
I wonder why it's not on there. Perhaps too resource heavy to figure all that out? Or because they are using a finite number of pixels that they don't need it because there is wide variety of scalable windows and placement like with desktop OSes? I'm not a font guy so this stuff is very much over my head.
True. But you also don't see them putting in specs just to say its there. So if a retina display etc is deemed overkill and spec wanking, they generally don't do it.
I wouldn't be shocked if we see some iTunes Store updates in terms of content deals etc, even perhaps a nice Apple TV box
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Bottom line, the display has to be "retina" for this thing to compete at all (but not necessarily the same density as the iP5 or new iPad). Since the 3GS is gone, that actually opens up the door to create a new third resolution for developers, in addition to the iPhone 5 and iPad (the iPad 2 will likely be dropped when this tablet comes out as well).
1) it does not have to be retina to compete. See I can baldly assert things as well.
2) Eliminating the 3GS does not open any doors for a new third resolution. The 3GS is the same for most devs (i.e. non OpenGL ones) as the 4 and 4S. 320x480 POINTS. Just as the iPad, iPad 2 and iPad 3 are all 1024x768 POINTS. The actual new third resolution (320x568 points) is to support the iPhone 5. Adding yet another so quickly would be kinda bad for devs.
3) I would prefer they not drop the iPad 2 but slot the mini in between iPad 2 and iPod Touch in the lineup.
If I did my math right* a 44x44 point target on the iPad is 0.33" and about 0.27" on the iPad mini (and iPhones). 44x44 is the suggested minimum size for a tappable UI element in the HIG.
7.85" @ 1024x768 @ 163 PPI lines up for screen size, screen resolution and HIG recommendation for minimum sizes.
It is vaguely possible to do a scale factor of 3 and start with 320x568 (or 320x480) and end up with a physical 960x1704 (or 960x1440) iPad mini using the iPhone 5 (or 4) point layout. Mmmm...using a pixel density of 264 results in a 3.6"x6.45" device or 7.39" diagonal that is compatible with iPhone 5 apps. Uh, no. 1024x768 despite the non-retina resolution makes a lot more sense to me.
--
* it is not just possible but actually likely I screwed up the math somewhere...
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
I wouldn't be shocked if we see some iTunes Store updates in terms of content deals etc, even perhaps a nice Apple TV box
Maybe all these rumors are true. Remember the one that the much-anticipated Apple "TV" was really a new high-tech remote? Maybe the iPad Mini is a Kindle-killer eReader, with iBook Store, and also a remote that knows (or can learn) the control codes of any TV, stream video over Wi-Fi and AirPlay it to a Wi-Fi dongle you plug into your TV's HDMI. It could calibrate your TV by looking at it with the camera and twiddling the settings. Content supplied by the much-rumored Apple "Cable" network.
Hey, a guy can dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
PS: I don't know what you mean by continuing product. When it debuted in 2007, months after the iPhone, it was a brand new product that was a lesser version in every way than the iPhone that came before it.
Just that it was not a variation on the iPhone. It was always part of the iPod line up. The iPad mini name means it is part of the iPad line up. Hardware characteristics aside, just the name of the product line. Just like the aTV runs iOS and has similarities but you don't compare it to other iOS devices spec-wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I also firmly believe that the 10" size is much better for textbooks as well as for pre-school aged children. ... A smaller screen is not a good platform for K-12 in my opinion.
Perhaps not for content, but I have heard the exact opposite from educators in that arena who say that a smaller lighter tablet would be preferred for smaller hands.
Hand size has little to do with it in my opinion because the ideal setting for education, especially for young children, is to have the device sitting on a table where they are seated, the device is not held. The large screen allows for large buttons that mimic all previously tested and approved early childhood learning tools.
It has no phone HW in it so it can't be an iPhone but it's surely the same OS, same base HW, some look from the front, same UI, etc. What was just an iPod app on the iPhone became two apps on the Touch known as Music and Videos, but it's much more than just a PMP, yet didn't warrant it's only category. I'd argue they really just expanded the PMP category to include the phone-less iPhone which puts it a lot closer to a PDA and than a PMP. It's one of the reasons I thought a small, cheap tablet could be classified as an iPod Touch but seeing as the iPod event is over I'd say it's going to be in the iPad category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I wonder why it's not on there. Perhaps too resource heavy to figure all that out? Or because they are using a finite number of pixels that they don't need it because there is wide variety of scalable windows and placement like with desktop OSes? I'm not a font guy so this stuff is very much over my head.
Anti-aliasing is simply "smoothing" the spaces between the pixels at the edge of characters, which is particularly helpful for readability of smaller type on lower resolution displays. I believe it generally requires licensing tho as a patented feature. AFAIK it's not at all resource heavy. As an example Garmin has used it for years on their PND's with very low-end processors and minimal memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808
I agree that Apple will lead the field, but it will be A LOT subtler than most think. I think that it's getting harder and harder to "redefine" (as you put it) any mobile device. I just can't see many more dramatic changes that can be made. We're maxing out on evolutionary changes (like screen resolution, camera quality, screen size, snappiness, voice recognition, etc.), I mean, how sexier can a smart phone or tablet get?
"How much sexier," you ask? How about the new iPad Mini sitting in your lap and reading you the text in Barbara Eden's voice?
You won't fall asleep, that's for sure!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Perhaps not for content, but I have heard the exact opposite from educators in that arena who say that a smaller lighter tablet would be preferred for smaller hands.
I would agree with you but then why do the schools hand little kids pencils and markers the diameter of mop handles??