Rumored 'iPad mini' event to focus on iBooks, report says

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    rogifan wrote: »
    I thought it was Apple's motto to create what they feel are the best possible products, not just something that's "good enough". If Apple is going to release something that's just "good enough" so they can meet some price target and still keep decent margins then why even bother. We have the iPad 2, so just keep selling that then.

    If that is the case then explain to me the 4th gen iPod Touch that had a vastly inferior display than the iPhone? Are you going to tell use the iPod Touch is somehow different but an iPad mini should be speced so high that it would have to be more expensive than the current iPad (3).
  • Reply 82 of 131


    Originally Posted by fatusmiles View Post

    They have not destroy anything except applications


     


    So you don't consider owning 90% of the tablet market, 75% of the PMP market, 33% of the phone market (with six models), and having the cheapest and unquestionably best ultrabook to be… good.





    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

    I thought it was Apple's motto to create what they feel are the best possible products, not just something that's "good enough". If Apple is going to release something that's just "good enough" so they can meet some price target and still keep decent margins then why even bother. We have the iPad 2, so just keep selling that then.


     


    Exactly. They wouldn't make something "good enough" if they made it, but it's THEIR definition that matters.

  • Reply 83 of 131
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    SolipsismX nailed it. The size is very specific: 7.85". At 163 dpi that's exactly 1024 x 768. Is it a coincidence that the iPad Mini is being introduced (if it is) just as the 3GS drops out of the bottom of the lineup and there's surplus capacity to make 163-dpi mother glass? No way—that's the screen of the iPad Mini.


     


    At the distance you're going to hold it, it will be just fine for reading. I've read hundreds of books on a 15" screen with the same resolution, so that's only 85.33 dpi. Also just fine. The antialiasing on all of Apple's screens is very good. Don't worry about it.


     


    Of course iSheldon is either a paid troll or just insane and doing it for free, but e-ink is crap. I thought it sounded cool when people started talking about it 25 years ago, but remember that was when LCD displays were like a digital watch. The main advantages were supposed to be that they could be made in any size and would be cheap as dirt. Well, they finally showed up and they're tiny, expensive (for what you get—cheaper than a good LCD of the same size of course), coarse (with antialiasing impossible), and most importantly, display gray type on a very, very slightly lighter gray background—and of course, have to be brightly lit to be read at all. How anybody can tolerate these things is beyond me.



     


    People also forget that most of the buying public doesn't actually give a sh*t about "retina" displays either .  The "Retina display" is a marketing term, whereas most of the comments here are treating it like it was a spec instead.  What it means to the consumer is "great screen" or maybe "so fine you can't see the pixels" but in truth the average customer isn't looking for pixels and doesn't care.  As long as when they pick it up the words "great screen" go through their minds, that's all that's necessary.  I think this will happen whether it's 1024x768 or whether it's ten times higher resolution.  Because ... Apple. 


     


    I have given away my old iPhones and my old iPads to people who have never had one before and they absolutely gush over the "wonderful screen" (on the 3G!) and how "light it is" (the original iPad!).  All the tech blogs will carp if it's only 1024x768 but then just like with every other Apple product, the public will go out an buy it in droves and love it to death regardless.  


     


    There are lots of folks out there right now who are using "old" "crappy" screens on the 3G and 3Gs who are completely aware of the existence of the iPhone 4, 4s, and 5, who just don't care about the fact that their screen is technically not as good.  There are millions of people out there using iPad 2 right now who don't give a crap about the fact that their screen is technically inferior either.  

  • Reply 84 of 131
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Ever since I got my iPad my Nook has been collecting dust. Only time I use it is if I'm outside in direct sunlight. To me that's the only benefit of eink


     


    True enough.  Direct sunlight is hard even on the iPad 3 screen with the brightness cranked.  It wasn't even possible on the iPad 2 or the original.  

  • Reply 85 of 131


    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

    The "Retina display" is a marketing term, whereas most of the comments here are treating it like it was a spec instead. 


     


    Probably because it is.


     



    I think this will happen whether it's 1024x768 or whether it's ten times higher resolution.  Because ... Apple. 


     


    It wouldn't happen at 1024x768 because of the PPI.


     



    There are lots of folks out there right now who are using "old" "crappy" screens on the 3G and 3Gs who are completely aware of the existence of the iPhone 4, 4s, and 5, who just don't care about the fact that their screen is technically not as good.



     


    People don't know what they want until you show it to them.

  • Reply 86 of 131
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    So you think Apple is using Retina displays solely because they can advertise the pixel density and not because it actually makes the user experience better? Yet you've ignored that they don't have the highest capacity RAM or highest number of CPU cycles or even the fact that the iPhone 3GS was falling behind other phones in PPI and resolution because they didn't simply bump the spec willy nilly to make a spec sheet look better at the risk of hurting the user experience. No, they balanced the pros and cons only releasing the Retina display when it made sense because scaling the resolution by 2x was best for developers and customers. If you think Apple cares about a spec sheet over the totality of the device then you don't understand Apple at all.
    I never said Apple focuses on spec sheet. But I do think they care about specs in the sense of wanting to create the best product possible. Hey if they can build an 8" tablet with a superior display but lower ppi then I have no problem with that, my concern is building something inferior so they can meet a lower price point and still achieve decent margins. To me Apple competing in a race to the bottom is a mistake.
  • Reply 87 of 131
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    People might not care about the marketing term retina but they know what they see. If you give someone a retina display device for a week and then force them to go back to a non retina screen they'll certainly know the difference. My parents have a flat screen TV but just a basic cable package. One day they happened to stumble across some HD channels they didn't know they had. Needless to say the only time they watch a SD channel is if there isn't an HD equivalent available.
  • Reply 88 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    rogifan wrote: »
    I never said Apple focuses on spec sheet. But I do think they care about specs in the sense of wanting to create the best product possible. Hey if they can build an 8" tablet with a superior display but lower ppi then I have no problem with that, my concern is building something inferior so they can meet a lower price point and still achieve decent margins. To me Apple competing in a race to the bottom is a mistake.

    Whether you realize it or not that was your implication when you ignored the user experience for a given price point.

    Tell us all the specs, including weight and price you expect to see. Also include how you think Apple can achieve some of the more magical things you've implied for which I think are highly unrealistic. Make your case.
  • Reply 89 of 131
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    If that is the case then explain to me the 4th gen iPod Touch that had a vastly inferior display than the iPhone? Are you going to tell use the iPod Touch is somehow different but an iPad mini should be speced so high that it would have to be more expensive than the current iPad (3).
    All im saying is a smaller iPad needs to have as good as or better display than Fire or Nexus 7. Unless they're reslly going to do something radical in this space. But somehow I doubt that. A smaller iPad 2 is just "meh" as far as I'm concerned. It's then basically a defensive product, a Apple is worried about $199 tablets, a product that's about meeting a low price but maintaining margins, not about creating a better product in that space.
  • Reply 90 of 131
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    ...


    It wouldn't happen at 1024x768 because of the PPI.


     


    People don't know what they want until you show it to them.



     


    You are actually arguing that if it doesn't come up to the defined level of a Retina PPI that absolutely no one on the planet will "love the screen" when they pick up the device?  Absolutely ridiculous. 


     


    You also missed my main point which is that I have direct experience of exactly the *opposite* of your third claim above.  I know lots of people who use an older iPhone or iPad with the supposedly awful screens, who are as I said, completely aware of the devices around them with "better" screens (because all their friends have iPhone 4 or 4s, duh!), and don't care.  Some of these people actually think the screens (on their supposedly crappy devices) are "beautiful," and in fact they are.   


     


    Retina is overplayed IMO.  I see people all the time with $3,000 plus Retina MacBooks and you know what?  They look slightly better than a regular screen.  The main effect is that the dock icons look extra sharp (unless it's an old app then it looks like crap).  


     


    Obviously if you can get a Retina screen instead of a non-retina one, why not?  But people salivate over them like dogs without even thinking if they are actually going to be useful or if it really matters that much to their computing experience.  A lot of people would probably fail to even detect which screen was "Retina" in a side by side comparison.  

  • Reply 91 of 131
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Whether you realize it or not that was your implication when you ignored the user experience for a given price point.
    Tell us all the specs, including weight and price you expect to see. Also include how you think Apple can achieve some of the more magical things you've implied for which I think are highly unrealistic. Make your case.
    I'm not ignoring user experience. But both the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7 received very good reviews. People i know that own the Nexus 7 like it a lot. Apple has competition in this space. I think Apple either has to not worry about price and make a truly superior product, or if they are concerned about price then be willing to take a hit on margins so they can offer a superior product at a lower price point. Of course Wall Street would hate that idea.
  • Reply 92 of 131


    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

    You are actually arguing that if it doesn't come up to the defined level of a Retina PPI that absolutely no one on the planet will "love the screen" when they pick up the device?  Absolutely ridiculous. 


     


    That's only because it's not what I'm arguing and in no way can that be inferred from what I've said.



    …who are as I saidcompletely aware of the devices around them with "better" screens (because all their friends have iPhone 4 or 4s, duh!), and don't care.



     


    Aware ? ownership and use. More often than not you'll see hold-outs upgrade and wonder weeks later why they were foolish enough to have thought they didn't need or want what they have now.


     



    Retina is overplayed IMO.  I see people every day with $3,000 plus Retina MacBooks and you know what?  They look slightly better than a regular screen.



     


    So… do you know at all why retina is happening?






    A lot of people would probably fail to even detect which screen was "Retina" in a side by side comparison.  



     


    I doubt that, but that's me.

  • Reply 93 of 131
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    Retina is overplayed IMO.  I see people all the time with $3,000 plus Retina MacBooks and you know what?  They look slightly better than a regular screen.  The main effect is that the dock icons look extra sharp (unless it's an old app then it looks like crap).  


     



    I love my rMBP. I can tell you one benefit that is dramatically better than my previous MBP.


     


    When I travel I often need to VNC into my office desktop which has a 30" cinema. On the old MBP you had to zoom in and pan around to be able to read the text on the screen because the cinema has so much higher resolution. With the new retina screen the text is legible even when zoomed out. It really makes a big difference in being able to complete a task without a risk that you might make a mistake because you can't read the text clearly enough.


     


    I realize this is an unusual circumstance but the screen really is a pleasure to work with in all normal usages as well. 


     


    I think is time for a car analogy: BMW vs Chevrolet. Both nice cars but the BMW has just a better fit and finish, better handling and more luxury. They both get you to and from the grocery store although you get more exercise with the BMW because you park it at the far end of the parking lot.

  • Reply 94 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    I love my rMBP. I can tell you one benefit that is dramatically better than my previous MBP.

    When I travel I often need to VNC into my office desktop which has a 30" cinema. On the old MBP you had to zoom in and pan around to be able to read the text on the screen because the cinema has so much higher resolution. With the new retina screen the text is legible even when zoomed out. It really makes a big difference in being able to complete a task without a risk that you might make a mistake because you can't read the text clearly enough.

    That is something I think of whenever I log in remotely to work machines on my 13" MBP. It's not a good experience at all. I think people don't realize just how much better 2x the resolution, 4x the pixels, better color gamut, and IPS instead of TN does for a display.
  • Reply 95 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Can you explain how the capacity for production can be "obsolete"? If you need any production then production isn't obsolete.

     


     


    Apple doesn't need 163ppi panels anymore unless they explicitly choose to use that resolution for iPad Air. For reasons you mentioned and others, that is a practical decision. But redirecting the 163ppi production capacity to 326 ppi may have its merits. I say with some reservation because 326 ppi does seem unnecessarily high.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    But lets look at margins. You're talking about not just taking the 4" iPhone 5 displays that are rumoured to a be key component that Apple can't get produced fast enough and putting that same tech into what is rumoured to be a low cost tablet. A tablet that will have a lower profit margin... and that is even without considering the additional cost for yield issues of producing the same display at 4.27x the area. Everything about that idea says it's not a smart move.


     


    But you are ignoring one perspective - if they really believe the iPad Air will sell 10M in the Christmas quarter and, say, 20 M in the other three quarters, then they may be able to decrease costs of 326 ppi panels because of increase production volume and (potentially) efficiency. That could lead to greater margins for iPhone 4, 4S and 5. In theory, that's a net gain for Apple if they have make zero profit off the iPad Air (but I am not for a moment suggesting they will not profit from this).


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    If we're talking about a 7.85" 4:3 display then a 163 or 326 PPI are a foregone conclusion because the only reason for that specific size and aspect ratio are for using a resolution that is already found on the iPad. There is unequivocally no argument to support that size. The latter is foolish if you except this to be a lightweight (one-handed), cost effective tablet that can compete with the current 7" tablets. In fact, the idea of the 326 PPI display on the 7.85" iPad mini would make it considerably more costly to make over the iPad (3) because of the increased difficulty. It's just not feasible to think that anything other than 163 PPI makes sense if you believe the 7.85" rumour.


     


    Cost is an issue and I do not have a good answer except, to repeat, this can increase margins for iPhone 5, etc. As for weight, consider this: The Retina Display iPad has a mass of 650g, just 37g more than the non-RP iPad 2, and 30g less than the original iPad. Furthermore, the iPhone gained all of 2g when it went from the non-RP 3GS to the RP version 4. The arithmetic is nonlinear but it is clear that there is no history or simple formula that says weight must increase significantly with Retina Display. So I believe there are good arguments to say that 326 ppi is indeed feasible. But perhaps it's not likely.


     


    Finally, the 7.85" rumor originated from the assumed use of 163ppi panels. With the ceased production of 3GS, I believe the foundation of that rumor is weakened.


     


    But, as I said, the strongest case seems to be 163ppi. This does make the iPad Air resolution noticeably lower than others out of the gate, which is an uncommon tactic for Apple, even if we argue they are not a spec-driven company.

  • Reply 96 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    Retina is overplayed IMO.  I see people all the time with $3,000 plus Retina MacBooks and you know what?  They look slightly better than a regular screen.  The main effect is that the dock icons look extra sharp (unless it's an old app then it looks like crap).  


     



     


    With all due respect, unless you have used the rMBP first hand for a period of time, you simply have no ground to stand on in arguing that the main benefit is better dock icons. That's just baseless.

  • Reply 97 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    [quote name="Harbinger" url="/t/153336/rumored-ipad-mini-event-to-focus-on-ibooks-report-says/80#post_2210849"]But you are ignoring one perspective - if they really believe the iPad Air will sell 10M in the Christmas quarter and, say, 20 M in the other three quarters, then they may be able to decrease costs of 326 ppi panels because of increase production volume and (potentially) efficiency. That could lead to greater margins for iPhone 4, 4S and 5. In theory, that's a net gain for Apple if they have make zero profit off the iPad Air (but I am not for a moment suggesting they will not profit from this).[/QUOTE]

    I'm ignoring nothing and have previously addressed that issue. You're ignoring or nor realizing that there is a ceiling to economies of scale and if you force this mthical 326 PPI 2048x1536 display on the rumoured iPad mini you will increased costs across the board. You get the highly profitable iPhone which is mostly paid by carriers when subsidized now being put on this iPad mini with a much lower yield rate because it's 4.27x larger and you need more machines to produce them which can be problematic if you are already getting all viable vendors making the machines that to supply enough displays. You make it sound as if Apple can pull a lever and they can simply speed up some conveyer belt in a Wonka factory. The reality simply isn't like that.

    Take the original iPad display. Why did they use the 132 PPI display when they were already using 163 PPI displays for years*. If your hypothesis is correct they would have simply cut larger panels of the 18% higher pixel density iPhone displays rather than using the lower resolution display that came with the iPad. The GPU could have handled 18% more pixels if they made it the same, 9.7" size or they could have made it 7.85". The path is much different for the clear reasons stated previously.

    [QUOTE]Cost is an issue and I do not have a good answer except, to repeat, this can increase margins for iPhone 5, etc. As for weight, consider this: The Retina Display iPad has a mass of 650g, just 37g more than the non-RP iPad 2, and 30g less than the original iPad. Furthermore, the iPhone gained all of 2g when it went from the non-RP 3GS to the RP version 4. The arithmetic is nonlinear but it is clear that there is no history or simple formula that says weight must increase significantly with Retina Display. So I believe there are good arguments to say that 326 ppi is indeed feasible. But perhaps it's not likely.[/QUOTE]

    Again, they gain nothing by having to short their iPhone 5 production to push the quoted 10 million units of iPad minis this quarter. That's 42.7 million iPhone 5 displays!!!! If they are short on iPhone 5 displays now what makes you think they can produce ones that are 4.27x the size at a rate of 10 million for their first quarter. This makes absolutely no sense from a logistical standpoint. "We can't produce enough of these so let's create new products that use them to cut down on price." Do you work for the gov't?

    [QUOTE]Finally, the 7.85" rumor originated from the assumed use of 163ppi panels. With the ceased production of 3GS, I believe the foundation of that rumor is weakened.[/QUOTE]

    So Apple invested in all this tech and you think it's cheaper for them to send the machines off for scraps instead of leveraging their investments and expertise? That makes no sense.

    * I asked you or someone else a series of questions earlier to get the ol' grey matter thinking but I didn't get any replies. Here's another one: If Apple wouldn't go with a lesser PPI then when why did the 2010 iPad have a lower PPI than the 2007 iPhone?
  • Reply 98 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I'm ignoring nothing and have previously addressed that issue. You're ignoring or nor realizing that there is a ceiling to economies of scale and if you force this mthical 326 PPI 2048x1536 display on the rumoured iPad mini you will increased costs across the board. You get the highly profitable iPhone which is mostly paid by carriers when subsidized now being put on this iPad mini with a much lower yield rate because it's 4.27x larger and you need more machines to produce them which can be problematic if you are already getting all viable vendors making the machines that to supply enough displays. You make it sound as if Apple can pull a lever and they can simply speed up some conveyer belt in a Wonka factory. The reality simply isn't like that.

    Take the original iPad display. Why did they use the 132 PPI display when they were already using 163 PPI displays for years*. If your hypothesis is correct they would have simply cut larger panels of the 18% higher pixel density iPhone displays rather than using the lower resolution display that came with the iPad. The GPU could have handled 18% more pixels if they made it the same, 9.7" size or they could have made it 7.85". The path is much different for the clear reasons stated previously.

    Again, they gain nothing by having to short their iPhone 5 production to push the quoted 10 million units of iPad minis this quarter. That's 42.7 million iPhone 5 displays!!!! If they are short on iPhone 5 displays now what makes you think they can produce ones that are 4.27x the size at a rate of 10 million for their first quarter. This makes absolutely no sense from a logistical standpoint. "We can't produce enough of these so let's create new products that use them to cut down on price." Do you work for the gov't?

    So Apple invested in all this tech and you think it's cheaper for them to send the machines off for scraps instead of leveraging their investments and expertise? That makes no sense.

    * I asked you or someone else a series of questions earlier to get the ol' grey matter thinking but I didn't get any replies. Here's another one: If Apple wouldn't go with a lesser PPI then when why did the 2010 iPad have a lower PPI than the 2007 iPhone?




    I conceded some points and proposed others that are quite reasonable. You are assuming that they are short on iPhone 5 displays - i.e. you pay credence to rumors that support your point but heap disdain on others that conflict with your view. Regardless, if unjustified condescension is required for you to emphasize your points, then they are pointless.

  • Reply 99 of 131


    Anything with a smaller screen then a iPad would be a pain to read on. 

  • Reply 100 of 131
    19831983 Posts: 1,224member


    You might be on to something there. I've recently had a look at the iFixit breakdown of the new iPod Touch, where they mention that the display (while having the same 326ppi as the iPhone 5) is a much simpler and cheaper unit. So why not use a scaled up version of that cheaper display at the iPad (3) 264ppi for the iPad Mini. High-res enough to compete with the latest near-retina displays of the latest Amazon and Barnes & Noble tablets, yet still relatively cheap to produce.

Sign In or Register to comment.