I wouldn't think it would be difficult for Apple to best that. That's all I'm looking for - something that out classes the Nexus 7 and Fire HD. I don't think iOS in and of itself does that. Against the Fire HD OS sure. But against Jellybean? Not so sure.
Why don't you think iOS is better than Android 4.1?
Sitting at Applebee's right now ordering a creamy steak!
This is the part that is baloney, that is the concept of a planned upgrade cycle. Apple is producing the best hardware it can for each iPhone and tablet model they can. In a literal sense they have too because of the intense competition. As to iPad Mini 2 there is plenty of technology coming down the line.
This is what I think is interesting, if Sharp is indeed shipping IGZO screens to Apple then what are they going in. It should also be noted that the screens might not be retina but could still be a considerable improvement over run of the mill screens. At least that seems to be the common opinion, it isn't like I've actually seen one of these screens. In the end it is still a high value screen.
The other thing that tends to make me believe the screen will be high resolution is the rumor that Apple will target the E-Reader market. The difference between iPad 1 and iPad 3 is stunning in this use case. This is why I say how the device is marketed will have more to do with the screen selected than any idea of a need for an upgrade path.
I'm still not seeing it, especially with that battery that falls right between the iPod Touch and iPad 2 in Whrs. I don't think Apple would take IGZO and then stuff the iPad (3) display into it. The device wouldn't last very long with that battery and be too costly. The real benefit from IGZO would be for increased power efficiency for a given resolution/size so that they could lower the battery weight for a given duration to make the device comfortably one-handed for extended periods of time. I think lightness and usage time are a huge factor at play with this device, not something well over 1 lbs with a short battery life.
That makes no sense. Apple will likely make the battery as large as possible while keeping it below a certain weight threshold. We can calculate for using the same general components and wanting the same general usage but you are fooling yourself if you think the battery should be less than a percentage of a different product. Look at the iPod Touch or the G2 iPad 2 and you get an window that fits quite well with all the rumours that have been floating around.
You're missing the point. Apple ][ said that the battery size proved that the Mini would not have retina display. I was pointing out that it proves no such thing.
While it is possible that Apple would put in a larger battery than necessary, one can't assume that in order to 'prove' that it can't be retina. In the end, you may be right. It's entirely possible that this will be a non-retina display and Apple chose a massive battery to get 15 hours of use per charge. But the evidence does not support Apple ]['s conclusion that it CAN'T be retina.
Furthermore, Apple has focused on thin and light products in recent years. It is unlikely that they'd use a battery that was far larger than it needed to be.
Totally agree. Although I'm a big fan of Apple, I must admit Google did produce a solid tablet in its price range.
I like the Nexus also, but it isn't that great. You know that oft-heard criticism about iPads in general that they are only "consumption devices"? That's the failing of the Nexus 7. It's a great consumption device, but no more than that, whereas you can actually do usable work on an iPad.
The Nexus 7 has no good tablet apps that can be used for making anything (no iMovie, no iPhoto, no Pages, no Numbers, etc.), and the keyboard is completely awful in every way and is basically impossible to type on accurately. The keyboard is so bad it's actually kind of shocking that it shipped that way, especially because a few simple software tweaks could improve it immensely.
It is a nicely put together device hardware wise though and a good size for the hands.
You're missing the point. Apple ][ said that the battery size proved that the Mini would not have retina display. I was pointing out that it proves no such thing.
While it is possible that Apple would put in a larger battery than necessary, one can't assume that in order to 'prove' that it can't be retina. In the end, you may be right. It's entirely possible that this will be a non-retina display and Apple chose a massive battery to get 15 hours of use per charge. But the evidence does not support Apple ]['s conclusion that it CAN'T be retina.
Furthermore, Apple has focused on thin and light products in recent years. It is unlikely that they'd use a battery that was far larger than it needed to be.
In that sense you're right as there is no PROOF of anything until Apple announces the product but if we are assuming the 7.85" device because it scales inline with the current iPads for a given PPI then Retina would be 326 PPI, like in the iPhone 5. That means the same number of pixels as the iPad (3) but in a 40% smaller package. That seems highly unlikely to me, even without the consideration that such a device would likely be competing with the low end of the market, not being more expensive then the iPad (3) from additional component shrinkage costs.
Again, i we are going to use any assumption of the 7.85" 4:3 display you don't have a choice but to go with 1024x768 or 2048x1536 as the resolution. There is much history to support that type of scaling and none to support that Apple will go ever so slightly higher than the current leading 7" tablet in resolution and/or PPI to say they have more. One can try but I will destroy any such argument swiftly and thoroughly.
However, if one wants to say that 7.85" made for a good "what if" hypothesis but that the size (and possibly aspect ratio) will be different there is then plenty of speculation that can be had because that opens up many doors that are closed by the 7.85" assumption. I personally think the 7.85" 1024x768 makes a lot of sense and creates ease and low costs for Apple, devs and consumers which makes it most likely but there are plenty of other variables that we can only speculate on at this time as to why will not go with that size (or aspect ratio). I welcome all out-of-the-box thinking
Is the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small and that's why Apple is building a mini?
Someone please tell me who the mini is for?
For people who think "the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small" -and- for people who think the 9.7" iPad is too costly would be my top two guesses.
I'm still not seeing it, especially with that battery that falls right between the iPod Touch and iPad 2 in Whrs. I don't think Apple would take IGZO and then stuff the iPad (3) display into it. The device wouldn't last very long with that battery and be too costly. The real benefit from IGZO would be for increased power efficiency for a given resolution/size so that they could lower the battery weight for a given duration to make the device comfortably one-handed for extended periods of time. I think lightness and usage time are a huge factor at play with this device, not something well over 1 lbs with a short battery life.
I think I'm going to be okay with whatever screen they put in as I also firmly believe that they will put in the best one they can (given the constraints), and really ... what more could one ask for than that? I also just don't think "Retina" is worth worrying over. I've said this before and been taken to task over it, but I just don't see "Retina" as that big of a deal.
There's no way anyone here could know if I was lying, but ... I happen to have absolutely excellent vision with above average colour perception, eye-tracking speed, focussing ability etc. (I was once tested for all these things while assisting with some video game research in a lab). When the iPad 3 came out with "Retina," I put it side by side with my non-retina iPad 2 and the visual difference was basically somewhere between moderate and non-existent. While all the reviews were talking about how "bright" and clear" the new screen was, to me it just seemed moderately clearer, but actually a bit dimmer. I've seen many many iPad 3's since then and have never changed my opinion on that. The difference is really quite minimal.
I also work in an area where I currently deal with or see, hundreds of iPads in a given month. It is often hard to tell the difference between the 2's and the 3's merely by visual inspection alone. If there is a pile of iPads on the table the quickest way to tell which are the 2's and which are the 3's is to pick one up, because the 3's are noticeably heavier, and the heaviness is the main differentiating factor, not the display. You could turn the displays on and off and compare them all day but different people will see different things and you'd be arguing for hours over which was the Retina display and which wasn't.
There are many factors which make a screen "good" or "bad," but pixel density is only one of them. It's also in my experience, a factor that the average person has a very hard time discerning in an actual test. If the screen turns out to be 1024x768, I'm sure it will be just fine and not affect sales in the slightest bit.
Why don't you think iOS is better than Android 4.1?
I prefer iOS to Android mostly because of the high quality apps. As a pure OS I don't really have a preference one way or the other. Right now iOS bests Android in terms of tablet apps. But google is working hard to change that. I don't think Apple can afford to be complacent.
I think I'm going to be okay with whatever screen they put in as I also firmly believe that they will put in the best one they can (given the constraints), and really ... what more could one ask for than that?
Despite Apple's repeated history of balancing all aspects of a product to give the best overall experience we still rampant comments from people saying Apple has to be the best or highest in a very specific dick measuring contest that ignores so many other aspects that the resulting device would end up being shit. I find it all unbelievable with so much history to show how Apple operates but we see it time and time again.
I prefer iOS to Android mostly because of the high quality apps. As a pure OS I don't really have a preference one way or the other. Right now iOS bests Android in terms of tablet apps. But google is working hard to change that. I don't think Apple can afford to be complacent.
So Google is working hard so Apple has to do something different? Are you saying Apple isn't working hard?
Let's examine a little history. The iPod was going to fail because it didn't have certain features of other PMPs. The iPhone was going to fail because it didn't have certain features of other smartphones. The iPad was going to fail because it didn't have certain features of other tablets. Now we're getting comments that iPad mini is going to fail if it doesn't have certain features of other 7-8" tablets. It's all BS!
I prefer iOS to Android mostly because of the high quality apps. As a pure OS I don't really have a preference one way or the other. Right now iOS bests Android in terms of tablet apps. But google is working hard to change that. I don't think Apple can afford to be complacent.
That, of course, ignores several key differences:
1. iOS is fluid, even on low end devices. Most reviews comment on the way Android lags or stalls. Sure, Google says it will be fixed in the next version, but they've been saying that for ages.
2. There's a long history of iOS upgrades being readily available even for hardware several years old while Android upgrades are rarely available - even for recent hardware.
3. Android has been shown to have stolen a variety of IP from Apple. Some people prefer not to use stolen property.
That, of course, ignores several key differences:
1. iOS is fluid, even on low end devices. Most reviews comment on the way Android lags or stalls. Sure, Google says it will be fixed in the next version, but they've been saying that for ages.
2. There's a long history of iOS upgrades being readily available even for hardware several years old while Android upgrades are rarely available - even for recent hardware.
3. Android has been shown to have stolen a variety of IP from Apple. Some people prefer not to use stolen property.
Is Android 4.1 on a the latest SoC as fluid as iOS on the first iPhone in 2007? That would be an interesting comparison. I do recall that RiM thought that Apple must have faked their live presentation because the didn't think an OS could that fluid on mobile HW. Jump nearly 6 years later and we're still seeing Google and their fan base saying soooon. You're better off waiting for Godot at this point.
Having said all that, I reman convinced that the resolution on the display will be non-Retina, but more dazzling due to the use of the IGZO technology that only recently has been producing better yield rates. In my view, the smaller iPad is the perfect test case for IGZO.
That sounds reasonable to me.
Spent an hour or so this morning reading up on IGZO. Very impressive. I would like to see this in the rumored smaller iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige
Is the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small and that's why Apple is building a mini?
Someone please tell me who the mini is for?
For people who think "the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small" -and- for people who think the 9.7" iPad is too costly would be my top two guesses.
Those are two groups of people who would potentially purchase the smaller iPad. I think there are at least a couple other groups. One is the group I'm in which is the one having iPhone, the regular iPad and also want the smaller version. Another is for specialization in commercial markets such as medical environments. It has also been mentioned around here that it would be a better size for reading on transit commuting as well as useful for education although I'm not so sure about the practicality of that last one.
The inclusion of a retina display will be dictated by the ability to manufacture the device at a price point that supports the marketing plans. That is it. We already see that retina is in the product line above and below this device so I think Apple will be putting a lot of effort into the screen. That might not be a retina. However they will stress quality and as such I'm expecting to see Sharps new screen in the tablet.
I'm wondering how Apple could sell the iPad Mini if it didn't have the Retina display. After all the smaller new iPod touch has it as well as the larger iPad.
I'm wondering how Apple could sell the iPad Mini if it didn't have the Retina display. After all the smaller new iPod touch has it as well as the larger iPad.
When we refer to a Retina display on the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 we don't have to qualify with any specifics because those details are set in stone. We know the aspect ratio. We know the resolution. We know the PPI. With any non-existent device you can't simply refer to needing to be Retina without have some specifics as to what that means. With the iPad mini rumours is that the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 display, the 262 PPI of the iPad (3) display, the 220 PPI of the 15" MBP display or something else entirely. It's a marketing term that is only defined when paired with a known, specific product. Any other usage is meaningless in the writer doesn't specify.
When we refer to a Retina display on the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 we don't have to qualify with any specifics because those details are set in stone. We know the aspect ratio. We know the resolution. We know the PPI. With any non-existent device you can't simply refer to needing to be Retina without have some specifics as to what that means. With the iPad mini rumours is that the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 display, the 262 PPI of the iPad (3) display, the 220 PPI of the 15" MBP display or something else entirely. It's a marketing term that is only defined when paired with a known, specific product. Any other usage is meaningless in the writer doesn't specify.
Even without the super hi-res "Retina" resolution of the third gen iPad, the iPad Mini is going to have a very nice display and things will look very nice on it.
The iPad Mini will have the same 1024 x 768 resolution as found on the iPad 1 & iPad 2, except that the display size will be shrunken down, so everything will look sharper on the iPad Mini, compared to the iPad 1 & iPad 2.
I'm wondering how Apple could sell the iPad Mini if it didn't have the Retina display. After all the smaller new iPod touch has it as well as the larger iPad.
No problem at all. As long as it's a high quality display, they can sell it as an economy iPad.
The iPad Mini will have the same 1024 x 768 resolution as found on the iPad 1 & iPad 2, except that the display size will be shrunken down, so everything will look sharper on the iPad Mini, compared to the iPad 1 & iPad 2.
Everything will look the same as it does on the pre-retina iPhone and iPod touch, just on a bigger screen.
Seems odd to want to push that as a new product when they're pushing retina for their computers and everything else, but still…
Seems odd to want to push that as a new product when they're pushing retina for their computers and everything else, but still…
If it's true that it's going to be priced around $250, then it's basically a budget iPad. Are you really surprised that such a product wouldn't feature a retina display?
And with the bottom model featuring 8GB, it's clear that Apple was trying to price the entry level model low.
If we ignore the iPhone and iPod Touch, which feature tiny screens, then only two Apple products with larger screens feature a retina display, the third gen iPad and the Macbook Pro 15" retina. I'm guessing that those will be joined by a Macbook Pro 13" retina soon.
Comments
Why don't you think iOS is better than Android 4.1?
I'm still not seeing it, especially with that battery that falls right between the iPod Touch and iPad 2 in Whrs. I don't think Apple would take IGZO and then stuff the iPad (3) display into it. The device wouldn't last very long with that battery and be too costly. The real benefit from IGZO would be for increased power efficiency for a given resolution/size so that they could lower the battery weight for a given duration to make the device comfortably one-handed for extended periods of time. I think lightness and usage time are a huge factor at play with this device, not something well over 1 lbs with a short battery life.
You're missing the point. Apple ][ said that the battery size proved that the Mini would not have retina display. I was pointing out that it proves no such thing.
While it is possible that Apple would put in a larger battery than necessary, one can't assume that in order to 'prove' that it can't be retina. In the end, you may be right. It's entirely possible that this will be a non-retina display and Apple chose a massive battery to get 15 hours of use per charge. But the evidence does not support Apple ]['s conclusion that it CAN'T be retina.
Furthermore, Apple has focused on thin and light products in recent years. It is unlikely that they'd use a battery that was far larger than it needed to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlowe
Totally agree. Although I'm a big fan of Apple, I must admit Google did produce a solid tablet in its price range.
I like the Nexus also, but it isn't that great. You know that oft-heard criticism about iPads in general that they are only "consumption devices"? That's the failing of the Nexus 7. It's a great consumption device, but no more than that, whereas you can actually do usable work on an iPad.
The Nexus 7 has no good tablet apps that can be used for making anything (no iMovie, no iPhoto, no Pages, no Numbers, etc.), and the keyboard is completely awful in every way and is basically impossible to type on accurately. The keyboard is so bad it's actually kind of shocking that it shipped that way, especially because a few simple software tweaks could improve it immensely.
It is a nicely put together device hardware wise though and a good size for the hands.
In that sense you're right as there is no PROOF of anything until Apple announces the product but if we are assuming the 7.85" device because it scales inline with the current iPads for a given PPI then Retina would be 326 PPI, like in the iPhone 5. That means the same number of pixels as the iPad (3) but in a 40% smaller package. That seems highly unlikely to me, even without the consideration that such a device would likely be competing with the low end of the market, not being more expensive then the iPad (3) from additional component shrinkage costs.
Again, i we are going to use any assumption of the 7.85" 4:3 display you don't have a choice but to go with 1024x768 or 2048x1536 as the resolution. There is much history to support that type of scaling and none to support that Apple will go ever so slightly higher than the current leading 7" tablet in resolution and/or PPI to say they have more. One can try but I will destroy any such argument swiftly and thoroughly.
However, if one wants to say that 7.85" made for a good "what if" hypothesis but that the size (and possibly aspect ratio) will be different there is then plenty of speculation that can be had because that opens up many doors that are closed by the 7.85" assumption. I personally think the 7.85" 1024x768 makes a lot of sense and creates ease and low costs for Apple, devs and consumers which makes it most likely but there are plenty of other variables that we can only speculate on at this time as to why will not go with that size (or aspect ratio). I welcome all out-of-the-box thinking
Someone please tell me who the mini is for?
For people who think "the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small" -and- for people who think the 9.7" iPad is too costly would be my top two guesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm still not seeing it, especially with that battery that falls right between the iPod Touch and iPad 2 in Whrs. I don't think Apple would take IGZO and then stuff the iPad (3) display into it. The device wouldn't last very long with that battery and be too costly. The real benefit from IGZO would be for increased power efficiency for a given resolution/size so that they could lower the battery weight for a given duration to make the device comfortably one-handed for extended periods of time. I think lightness and usage time are a huge factor at play with this device, not something well over 1 lbs with a short battery life.
I think I'm going to be okay with whatever screen they put in as I also firmly believe that they will put in the best one they can (given the constraints), and really ... what more could one ask for than that? I also just don't think "Retina" is worth worrying over. I've said this before and been taken to task over it, but I just don't see "Retina" as that big of a deal.
There's no way anyone here could know if I was lying, but ... I happen to have absolutely excellent vision with above average colour perception, eye-tracking speed, focussing ability etc. (I was once tested for all these things while assisting with some video game research in a lab). When the iPad 3 came out with "Retina," I put it side by side with my non-retina iPad 2 and the visual difference was basically somewhere between moderate and non-existent. While all the reviews were talking about how "bright" and clear" the new screen was, to me it just seemed moderately clearer, but actually a bit dimmer. I've seen many many iPad 3's since then and have never changed my opinion on that. The difference is really quite minimal.
I also work in an area where I currently deal with or see, hundreds of iPads in a given month. It is often hard to tell the difference between the 2's and the 3's merely by visual inspection alone. If there is a pile of iPads on the table the quickest way to tell which are the 2's and which are the 3's is to pick one up, because the 3's are noticeably heavier, and the heaviness is the main differentiating factor, not the display. You could turn the displays on and off and compare them all day but different people will see different things and you'd be arguing for hours over which was the Retina display and which wasn't.
There are many factors which make a screen "good" or "bad," but pixel density is only one of them. It's also in my experience, a factor that the average person has a very hard time discerning in an actual test. If the screen turns out to be 1024x768, I'm sure it will be just fine and not affect sales in the slightest bit.
Despite Apple's repeated history of balancing all aspects of a product to give the best overall experience we still rampant comments from people saying Apple has to be the best or highest in a very specific dick measuring contest that ignores so many other aspects that the resulting device would end up being shit. I find it all unbelievable with so much history to show how Apple operates but we see it time and time again.
So Google is working hard so Apple has to do something different? Are you saying Apple isn't working hard?
Let's examine a little history. The iPod was going to fail because it didn't have certain features of other PMPs. The iPhone was going to fail because it didn't have certain features of other smartphones. The iPad was going to fail because it didn't have certain features of other tablets. Now we're getting comments that iPad mini is going to fail if it doesn't have certain features of other 7-8" tablets. It's all BS!
That, of course, ignores several key differences:
1. iOS is fluid, even on low end devices. Most reviews comment on the way Android lags or stalls. Sure, Google says it will be fixed in the next version, but they've been saying that for ages.
2. There's a long history of iOS upgrades being readily available even for hardware several years old while Android upgrades are rarely available - even for recent hardware.
3. Android has been shown to have stolen a variety of IP from Apple. Some people prefer not to use stolen property.
Is Android 4.1 on a the latest SoC as fluid as iOS on the first iPhone in 2007? That would be an interesting comparison. I do recall that RiM thought that Apple must have faked their live presentation because the didn't think an OS could that fluid on mobile HW. Jump nearly 6 years later and we're still seeing Google and their fan base saying soooon. You're better off waiting for Godot at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia
Having said all that, I reman convinced that the resolution on the display will be non-Retina, but more dazzling due to the use of the IGZO technology that only recently has been producing better yield rates. In my view, the smaller iPad is the perfect test case for IGZO.
That sounds reasonable to me.
Spent an hour or so this morning reading up on IGZO. Very impressive. I would like to see this in the rumored smaller iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige
Is the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small and that's why Apple is building a mini?
Someone please tell me who the mini is for?
For people who think "the iPad screen to big and the iPhone screen to small" -and- for people who think the 9.7" iPad is too costly would be my top two guesses.
Those are two groups of people who would potentially purchase the smaller iPad. I think there are at least a couple other groups. One is the group I'm in which is the one having iPhone, the regular iPad and also want the smaller version. Another is for specialization in commercial markets such as medical environments. It has also been mentioned around here that it would be a better size for reading on transit commuting as well as useful for education although I'm not so sure about the practicality of that last one.
STILL no article here about the iMac with "a redesign of epoch-making significance" that was leaked?
Some of us still care about the computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The inclusion of a retina display will be dictated by the ability to manufacture the device at a price point that supports the marketing plans. That is it. We already see that retina is in the product line above and below this device so I think Apple will be putting a lot of effort into the screen. That might not be a retina. However they will stress quality and as such I'm expecting to see Sharps new screen in the tablet.
I'm wondering how Apple could sell the iPad Mini if it didn't have the Retina display. After all the smaller new iPod touch has it as well as the larger iPad.
When we refer to a Retina display on the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 we don't have to qualify with any specifics because those details are set in stone. We know the aspect ratio. We know the resolution. We know the PPI. With any non-existent device you can't simply refer to needing to be Retina without have some specifics as to what that means. With the iPad mini rumours is that the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 display, the 262 PPI of the iPad (3) display, the 220 PPI of the 15" MBP display or something else entirely. It's a marketing term that is only defined when paired with a known, specific product. Any other usage is meaningless in the writer doesn't specify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
When we refer to a Retina display on the iPad (3) or iPhone 5 we don't have to qualify with any specifics because those details are set in stone. We know the aspect ratio. We know the resolution. We know the PPI. With any non-existent device you can't simply refer to needing to be Retina without have some specifics as to what that means. With the iPad mini rumours is that the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 display, the 262 PPI of the iPad (3) display, the 220 PPI of the 15" MBP display or something else entirely. It's a marketing term that is only defined when paired with a known, specific product. Any other usage is meaningless in the writer doesn't specify.
Even without the super hi-res "Retina" resolution of the third gen iPad, the iPad Mini is going to have a very nice display and things will look very nice on it.
The iPad Mini will have the same 1024 x 768 resolution as found on the iPad 1 & iPad 2, except that the display size will be shrunken down, so everything will look sharper on the iPad Mini, compared to the iPad 1 & iPad 2.
No problem at all. As long as it's a high quality display, they can sell it as an economy iPad.
Originally Posted by Apple ][
The iPad Mini will have the same 1024 x 768 resolution as found on the iPad 1 & iPad 2, except that the display size will be shrunken down, so everything will look sharper on the iPad Mini, compared to the iPad 1 & iPad 2.
Everything will look the same as it does on the pre-retina iPhone and iPod touch, just on a bigger screen.
Seems odd to want to push that as a new product when they're pushing retina for their computers and everything else, but still…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Seems odd to want to push that as a new product when they're pushing retina for their computers and everything else, but still…
If it's true that it's going to be priced around $250, then it's basically a budget iPad. Are you really surprised that such a product wouldn't feature a retina display?
And with the bottom model featuring 8GB, it's clear that Apple was trying to price the entry level model low.
If we ignore the iPhone and iPod Touch, which feature tiny screens, then only two Apple products with larger screens feature a retina display, the third gen iPad and the Macbook Pro 15" retina. I'm guessing that those will be joined by a Macbook Pro 13" retina soon.