No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad.
Why would a 1080p movie look any different on two screens with resolutions higher than 1920x1080?
They don't. Oh wait, the kindle HD is below that at 1280x800.
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD). How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
With all the manufacturing partnerships that Apple has, why is it that Google/Asus and amazon were able to produce their higher ppi screens, while Apple could not?
Perhaps the question really is, was this a question of production capability, or a purposeful choice?
I highly doubt the former. It seems that Apple purposely chose to use previous generation screen technology from the iPad 2 to save production costs, therefore increasing the profit margin on the iPad mini.
That's fine, but then they should have priced the mini accordingly (say, $50 cheaper).
For the price points the mini is selling at, I would expect at least to *match* the competition's ppi (which are noticeably better for displaying text).
Not only is the screen clearly inferior to anyone (power user or casual user) that uses Retina Display devices, but this apparent purposeful choice to use a previous generation screen is a bit of an insult that I have never experienced in my 12 years of purchasing Apple products...these are the reasons why I won't be replacing my iPad 3 with an iPad mini any time soon.
Look - Retina Display is not simple. Costs go up. More graphics processing required. More memory required. More battery juice.
It was remarkable that iPhone 4 actually became thinner and maintained the same battery life and price when RP was added. When RP was added to MBP, it also got thinner (but more expensive).
When Apple adopted RP in the iPad, it was not more expensive but got a bit fatter. Some tech-illiterate pundits and fans criticize this. This shows that more advances are needed before RP can be delivered in the form factor (i.e. thickness) and cost point that Apple wants.
Of course, one has to wonder if 326 ppi is necessary for a tablet.
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD). How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
Nobody has pointed this out? You have read everything available and no one explained this?
The answer is obvious and has two parts. First - cost and form factor. Google and Amazon are not trying to make a profit off the device. Apple is (and please don't bother with trite arguments that Apple should lower their margins). Google and Amazon also do not care about user experience and design geometry as much as Apple. Apple wanted to deliver a close to light as paper experience. Have you held an iPad Mini in one hand and a Kindle Fire HD in the other? Trust me, you will drop the Kindle Fire HD in 5 seconds. And I say this with the disclaimer that I am NO Apple fanboy - just an unbiased observer.
Second - Apple cares about consistency of user experience. They wanted all current iPad apps to work perfectly, seamlessly and smoothly on the iPad Mini. To do that, they had to use a screen resolution that is a multiple of 1024 x 768. Since doubling it on both sides is out of the question for now (see above), they chose a multiple of 1.
Engineering and design are not a single factor process. You don't just decide to increase PPI of your screen for the sake of specmanship. There are other factors to trade off.
And please tell me you have used the Nexus 7 or the Kindle Fire HD side by side with Mini before you deride the Mini on a single specification. In fact, have you used the Mini much?
Like the MacBook Air series, the iPad mini was designed to maximize portability (including weight, size, and battery life) while minimizing price. iPad mini is to iPad as Macbook Air is to rMacBook Pro. In each case, the former is an ultraportable, whereas the latter is (merely) portable. Also, in each case, something had to give and in each case it was a Retina display. It's not that difficult to understand Apple's strategy here and why this product was designed the way it was designed.
When the average Joe and Jane is in the market for real estate; they can ask for the best location, an unbeatable price, and massive square-footage, but can only ever have two of the three.
If anyone thinks Apple does not design around a price target, they should think again. The MacBook Air was designed to hit a just-under-a-grand psychological barrier. I believe for a number of reasons, the mini was designed around a $300 target, yet for various market reasons, they "missed" it. For next year, expect a price-drop to $299 before an increase in pixel density.
I'm in the minority in that I do not think that sales of the iPad mini will eclipse those of the 9.7" iPad, for the same reason I do not think MacBook Air sales will fully-eclipse sales of the MacBook Pro line. Nonetheless, portability freaks like me are well-served by the Air and mini lines in ways we may not be by the Retina and Pro lines. Similarly, neither the MBA nor the iPad mini will get Retina anytime soon. Apple understands that very many of its consumers will benefit from the choice of not being forced to have it (and pay for it) in every device-JMTC.
Comparing specs IMHO is useless because no one can tell the difference even gruber is wrong, he talked as if his eyes are super sharp and ken easily differential retina and non retina.
The trick is the word retina which automatically form an image in the mind but in reality the mini display looks just as good.
Kind of remind me that a photo taken by a Leica must be great while the rest is inferior but if there is no mention of a brand every photo looks the same and some even commented the other brands' photos were better.
The retinas of the human eye do not "automatically form an image in the mind". Sensory information becomes perceptual information as it is further processed in the optic ganglia, LGN, SCN, midbrain, occipital and temporal lobes, and many other CNS structures.
I went into the Apple store to buy an iPad mini because I have the iPad3 and although I really like it it's just at tad too big and too heavy for my taste, especially since it has such a big bezel around it (why the iPad4 has a big bezel and the iPad mini doesn't is a mystery to me since both were released at the same time!!! To me that's just inconsistent.)
Anyway, I pick up the iPad mini to play around with it and the first thing that stuck out to me was the cheap looking display, I was shocked! How could Apple want a premium price in this category with such a last last generation display with last last generation performance (A5 chip, only 512MB RAM!!!!!).
That is unacceptable to me so I left.
It is not a premium price; it is a normal and fair price for a company that wishes to make a reasonable profit. Two hundred dollar tablets appear to be fairly-priced because they are subsidized by retail (Amazon) and search/ad (Google) businesses. These companies admit that they do not make a profit directly from these devices (and it is unclear whether there are indirect profits.
They're cheap for the same reasons Wintel PCs are cheap, they use commodity parts and are subsidized with bloatware and ad stickers on the device from companies like Intel. Intel is still giving money to OEMs to manufacture competitively-priced laptops (sorry, ultrabooks).
I'd pay an extra $150 for a tablet any day just to not have my privacy owned (by Google) and be served ads all day (by Amazon). Heck, MS managed to bloat-out the Surface-about 16 GB of usable storage on a 32GB laptop.-really?!? And they just straight-out lied to the press about it.
But, you know, others make different choices with their dollars and eyeballs for a lower price-I get it.
After having used the mini since Friday, rest assured the screen is just fine. The whole issue is fairly overblown, unless you plan on having it one inch from your face.
imo the resolution is not a big issue for the first gen mini, weight and screen realestate is more important. But Apple really needs to work on reflections and color accuracy.
The one that is going to come up with a color screen that is fast and can be read in the sun is going to make tons of money. That a good place to put R&D.
…consumers will judge and use it as a *game computer*.
Why?
It's the same case with iPad already.
That doesn't sound right.
Originally Posted by lav1daloca
…especially since it has such a big bezel around it (why the iPad4 has a big bezel and the iPad mini doesn't is a mystery to me since both were released at the same time!!! To me that's just inconsistent.)
You have absolutely no idea what a bezel represents. Why are you talking about it?
That is unacceptable to me so I left.
Good. Apple shouldn't have to deal with people who don't understand the most basic aspects of what they're using. No company should!
After having used the mini since Friday, rest assured the screen is just fine. The whole issue is fairly overblown, unless you plan on having it one inch from your face.
Exactly. I have the mini and the nexus 7 here and nobody can tell the difference. As a retina ipad 3 owner I can spot pixels on non-retina in a nanosecond, but it seems people who didnt got spoil by a retina screen just cant see any difference. On the other hand, everyone see's that the mini as a bigger screen than the nexus 7 and feels lighter.
I was showing the ipad 2 and ipad 3 to a bunch of people and they really had to look closely for a long time to tell which is which. Once you explain to look at text fonts, they are much faster to spot the difference.
It is not a premium price; it is a normal and fair price for a company that wishes to make a reasonable profit. Two hundred dollar tablets appear to be fairly-priced because they are subsidized by retail (Amazon) and search/ad (Google) businesses. These companies admit that they do not make a profit directly from these devices (and it is unclear whether there are indirect profits.
They're cheap for the same reasons Wintel PCs are cheap, they use commodity parts and are subsidized with bloatware and ad stickers on the device from companies like Intel. Intel is still giving money to OEMs to manufacture competitively-priced laptops (sorry, ultrabooks).
I'd pay an extra $150 for a tablet any day just to not have my privacy owned (by Google) and be served ads all day (by Amazon). Heck, MS managed to bloat-out the Surface-about 16 GB of usable storage on a 32GB laptop.-really?!? And they just straight-out lied to the press about it.
But, you know, others make different choices with their dollars and eyeballs for a lower price-I get it.
With 275,000 custom-sized Apps and counting, Apple went for the full slate option instead of the pundit-sized, 'blank slate' solution. A rationale quintessentially portable, ...a reenactment of consciousness emerging from evolution's creeping, empowering portability.
In this instance, pixels are no-brainers. Literally.
Unfortunately, Apple is starting to earn a reputation of stinging 1st generation early adopters. The first iPhone had no 3G, despite virtually every other phone having this at the time, the first generation iPad had only 256MB of RAM, something that would be a significant issue with the release of iOS 4.0 later the same year.
The iPad Mini's biggest appeal is you get into the iOS ecosystem at the lowest price possible so far. Mini2 will almost certainly get an A6 and Retina, but by then, you'd expect the competition to be a lot better too.
Having said all that... you have to spare some sympathy for Surface owners... seems like the RT browser is even slower than on an iPhone 4.
Soneira noted that such a panel would have required a 326-pixel per inch pixel density over more than four times the real estate of the iPhone 5.
Shows me that he doesn't really know what he's talking about or at least doesn't care to work with real and full facts.
There is math, developed by researchers in vision etc, that is how Apple defines Retina. They have been very open about this math and their use of it, even showing it during a keynote. One of the key factors is distance from the eye by the average user. Tablets, even 7 inch ones, are not held as close as a phone. Thus they don't need as high a PPI as the iPhone. As a self proclaimed expert Soniera should know these details and be talking about them not about erroneous spec wanking. As although he is right that cost and battery life are likely major factors in the decision making he blew it with his talk of what the goal is. He should be comparing the Mini to the iPad not the iPhone. It is folks like him and his errors that get people's expectations up and then the product is 'crap', because it doesn't have what Mr Expert said it has to etc
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD). How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
With all the manufacturing partnerships that Apple has, why is it that Google/Asus and amazon were able to produce their higher ppi screens, while Apple could not?
By not caring about resolution consistency, which Apple wants to.
They will sell a lot initially due to the size and lightness. I went Sunday to the Apple store and it is apparent the screen is not as good. This will be a easy fix with great fanfare in the spring. When people say that it will be a year I laugh sitting here with my iPad 3.
So what else is new? Anyone that had a CLUE already knew the iPad Mini's display was dismal compared to the other 7" tablets on the market.
The really sad thing is that Apple purposely GIMPED the Mini's display with a low-resolution non-HD screen just so they could "introduce" Retina Display as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 2 in six months, compelling everyone to upgrade again.
Since all iPad apps since the introduction of iPad 3 have been optimized for Retina, the iPad Mini was already obsolete before it was even released.
I'm sorry to see that even in Apple Insider the BS reason of app compatibility as the excuse for the Mini's poor resolution is still being bandied about.
The fact is Apple could have given the Mini a 1536x1152 display, which would have offered 100% scalability to iPad apps developed for both the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 resolutions, thus eliminating the need for Apple to squeeze the full-sized iPad's resolution into the Mini's 7.9" display.
A 1536x1152 resolution 7.9" screen could be rightly considered "Retina", offering 244.5 PPI which slightly surpasses the 243 PPI of the 7" Nook HD and easily outclasses the 216 PPI of both the Kindle Fire HD 7" and the Nexus 7, and making it comparable to iPad 3 and 4's 264 PPI.
In fact, I suspect the "Retina Display" resolution for the iPad Mini 2 will BE 1536x1152 rather than the 2048x1536 resolution of the iPad 3 and 4.
By using a 1536x1152 screen resolution for the iPad Mini 2 and 3, Apple can then "introduce" the full-sized 2048x1536 iPad resolution as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 4.
Smart business move by Apple. But are we dumb enough as consumers to fall for it (again)?
I ask this question out of simple ignorance. What exactly does a 62 versus 86 percent color gamut mean to me, the user? Does it mean colors aren't as bright? Or that each color has a smaller range of shades? Or something completely different? In what applications would the ostensibly "better" number show a significant difference to me?
Comments
They don't. Oh wait, the kindle HD is below that at 1280x800.
Can someone explain this to me?
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD). How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
With all the manufacturing partnerships that Apple has, why is it that Google/Asus and amazon were able to produce their higher ppi screens, while Apple could not?
Perhaps the question really is, was this a question of production capability, or a purposeful choice?
I highly doubt the former. It seems that Apple purposely chose to use previous generation screen technology from the iPad 2 to save production costs, therefore increasing the profit margin on the iPad mini.
That's fine, but then they should have priced the mini accordingly (say, $50 cheaper).
For the price points the mini is selling at, I would expect at least to *match* the competition's ppi (which are noticeably better for displaying text).
Not only is the screen clearly inferior to anyone (power user or casual user) that uses Retina Display devices, but this apparent purposeful choice to use a previous generation screen is a bit of an insult that I have never experienced in my 12 years of purchasing Apple products...these are the reasons why I won't be replacing my iPad 3 with an iPad mini any time soon.
Look - Retina Display is not simple. Costs go up. More graphics processing required. More memory required. More battery juice.
It was remarkable that iPhone 4 actually became thinner and maintained the same battery life and price when RP was added. When RP was added to MBP, it also got thinner (but more expensive).
When Apple adopted RP in the iPad, it was not more expensive but got a bit fatter. Some tech-illiterate pundits and fans criticize this. This shows that more advances are needed before RP can be delivered in the form factor (i.e. thickness) and cost point that Apple wants.
Of course, one has to wonder if 326 ppi is necessary for a tablet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat Bastard
Can someone explain this to me?
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD). How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
Nobody has pointed this out? You have read everything available and no one explained this?
The answer is obvious and has two parts. First - cost and form factor. Google and Amazon are not trying to make a profit off the device. Apple is (and please don't bother with trite arguments that Apple should lower their margins). Google and Amazon also do not care about user experience and design geometry as much as Apple. Apple wanted to deliver a close to light as paper experience. Have you held an iPad Mini in one hand and a Kindle Fire HD in the other? Trust me, you will drop the Kindle Fire HD in 5 seconds. And I say this with the disclaimer that I am NO Apple fanboy - just an unbiased observer.
Second - Apple cares about consistency of user experience. They wanted all current iPad apps to work perfectly, seamlessly and smoothly on the iPad Mini. To do that, they had to use a screen resolution that is a multiple of 1024 x 768. Since doubling it on both sides is out of the question for now (see above), they chose a multiple of 1.
Engineering and design are not a single factor process. You don't just decide to increase PPI of your screen for the sake of specmanship. There are other factors to trade off.
And please tell me you have used the Nexus 7 or the Kindle Fire HD side by side with Mini before you deride the Mini on a single specification. In fact, have you used the Mini much?
Like the MacBook Air series, the iPad mini was designed to maximize portability (including weight, size, and battery life) while minimizing price. iPad mini is to iPad as Macbook Air is to rMacBook Pro. In each case, the former is an ultraportable, whereas the latter is (merely) portable. Also, in each case, something had to give and in each case it was a Retina display. It's not that difficult to understand Apple's strategy here and why this product was designed the way it was designed.
When the average Joe and Jane is in the market for real estate; they can ask for the best location, an unbeatable price, and massive square-footage, but can only ever have two of the three.
If anyone thinks Apple does not design around a price target, they should think again. The MacBook Air was designed to hit a just-under-a-grand psychological barrier. I believe for a number of reasons, the mini was designed around a $300 target, yet for various market reasons, they "missed" it. For next year, expect a price-drop to $299 before an increase in pixel density.
I'm in the minority in that I do not think that sales of the iPad mini will eclipse those of the 9.7" iPad, for the same reason I do not think MacBook Air sales will fully-eclipse sales of the MacBook Pro line. Nonetheless, portability freaks like me are well-served by the Air and mini lines in ways we may not be by the Retina and Pro lines. Similarly, neither the MBA nor the iPad mini will get Retina anytime soon. Apple understands that very many of its consumers will benefit from the choice of not being forced to have it (and pay for it) in every device-JMTC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC
Try it out the mini display is great.
Comparing specs IMHO is useless because no one can tell the difference even gruber is wrong, he talked as if his eyes are super sharp and ken easily differential retina and non retina.
The trick is the word retina which automatically form an image in the mind but in reality the mini display looks just as good.
Kind of remind me that a photo taken by a Leica must be great while the rest is inferior but if there is no mention of a brand every photo looks the same and some even commented the other brands' photos were better.
The retinas of the human eye do not "automatically form an image in the mind". Sensory information becomes perceptual information as it is further processed in the optic ganglia, LGN, SCN, midbrain, occipital and temporal lobes, and many other CNS structures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lav1daloca
I went into the Apple store to buy an iPad mini because I have the iPad3 and although I really like it it's just at tad too big and too heavy for my taste, especially since it has such a big bezel around it (why the iPad4 has a big bezel and the iPad mini doesn't is a mystery to me since both were released at the same time!!! To me that's just inconsistent.)
Anyway, I pick up the iPad mini to play around with it and the first thing that stuck out to me was the cheap looking display, I was shocked! How could Apple want a premium price in this category with such a last last generation display with last last generation performance (A5 chip, only 512MB RAM!!!!!).
That is unacceptable to me so I left.
It is not a premium price; it is a normal and fair price for a company that wishes to make a reasonable profit. Two hundred dollar tablets appear to be fairly-priced because they are subsidized by retail (Amazon) and search/ad (Google) businesses. These companies admit that they do not make a profit directly from these devices (and it is unclear whether there are indirect profits.
They're cheap for the same reasons Wintel PCs are cheap, they use commodity parts and are subsidized with bloatware and ad stickers on the device from companies like Intel. Intel is still giving money to OEMs to manufacture competitively-priced laptops (sorry, ultrabooks).
I'd pay an extra $150 for a tablet any day just to not have my privacy owned (by Google) and be served ads all day (by Amazon). Heck, MS managed to bloat-out the Surface-about 16 GB of usable storage on a 32GB laptop.-really?!? And they just straight-out lied to the press about it.
But, you know, others make different choices with their dollars and eyeballs for a lower price-I get it.
imo the resolution is not a big issue for the first gen mini, weight and screen realestate is more important. But Apple really needs to work on reflections and color accuracy.
The one that is going to come up with a color screen that is fast and can be read in the sun is going to make tons of money. That a good place to put R&D.
Originally Posted by Russell
Just in case some of you already forgot...
We only "forgot" because it's a blatant lie.
Originally Posted by Doxxic
…consumers will judge and use it as a *game computer*.
Why?
It's the same case with iPad already.
That doesn't sound right.
Originally Posted by lav1daloca
…especially since it has such a big bezel around it (why the iPad4 has a big bezel and the iPad mini doesn't is a mystery to me since both were released at the same time!!! To me that's just inconsistent.)
You have absolutely no idea what a bezel represents. Why are you talking about it?
That is unacceptable to me so I left.
Good. Apple shouldn't have to deal with people who don't understand the most basic aspects of what they're using. No company should!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez
After having used the mini since Friday, rest assured the screen is just fine. The whole issue is fairly overblown, unless you plan on having it one inch from your face.
Exactly. I have the mini and the nexus 7 here and nobody can tell the difference. As a retina ipad 3 owner I can spot pixels on non-retina in a nanosecond, but it seems people who didnt got spoil by a retina screen just cant see any difference. On the other hand, everyone see's that the mini as a bigger screen than the nexus 7 and feels lighter.
I was showing the ipad 2 and ipad 3 to a bunch of people and they really had to look closely for a long time to tell which is which. Once you explain to look at text fonts, they are much faster to spot the difference.
With 275,000 custom-sized Apps and counting, Apple went for the full slate option instead of the pundit-sized, 'blank slate' solution. A rationale quintessentially portable, ...a reenactment of consciousness emerging from evolution's creeping, empowering portability.
In this instance, pixels are no-brainers. Literally.
The iPad Mini's biggest appeal is you get into the iOS ecosystem at the lowest price possible so far. Mini2 will almost certainly get an A6 and Retina, but by then, you'd expect the competition to be a lot better too.
Having said all that... you have to spare some sympathy for Surface owners... seems like the RT browser is even slower than on an iPhone 4.
But this
Shows me that he doesn't really know what he's talking about or at least doesn't care to work with real and full facts.
There is math, developed by researchers in vision etc, that is how Apple defines Retina. They have been very open about this math and their use of it, even showing it during a keynote. One of the key factors is distance from the eye by the average user. Tablets, even 7 inch ones, are not held as close as a phone. Thus they don't need as high a PPI as the iPhone. As a self proclaimed expert Soniera should know these details and be talking about them not about erroneous spec wanking. As although he is right that cost and battery life are likely major factors in the decision making he blew it with his talk of what the goal is. He should be comparing the Mini to the iPad not the iPhone. It is folks like him and his errors that get people's expectations up and then the product is 'crap', because it doesn't have what Mr Expert said it has to etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat Bastard
Can someone explain this to me?
Nobody has pointed out that competitor's have managed to squeak out higher ppi's in their 7" tablets (Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle Fire HD). How did they manage to accomplish this, while Apple could not?
With all the manufacturing partnerships that Apple has, why is it that Google/Asus and amazon were able to produce their higher ppi screens, while Apple could not?
By not caring about resolution consistency, which Apple wants to.
They will sell a lot initially due to the size and lightness. I went Sunday to the Apple store and it is apparent the screen is not as good. This will be a easy fix with great fanfare in the spring. When people say that it will be a year I laugh sitting here with my iPad 3.
The really sad thing is that Apple purposely GIMPED the Mini's display with a low-resolution non-HD screen just so they could "introduce" Retina Display as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 2 in six months, compelling everyone to upgrade again.
Since all iPad apps since the introduction of iPad 3 have been optimized for Retina, the iPad Mini was already obsolete before it was even released.
I'm sorry to see that even in Apple Insider the BS reason of app compatibility as the excuse for the Mini's poor resolution is still being bandied about.
The fact is Apple could have given the Mini a 1536x1152 display, which would have offered 100% scalability to iPad apps developed for both the 1024x768 and 2048x1536 resolutions, thus eliminating the need for Apple to squeeze the full-sized iPad's resolution into the Mini's 7.9" display.
A 1536x1152 resolution 7.9" screen could be rightly considered "Retina", offering 244.5 PPI which slightly surpasses the 243 PPI of the 7" Nook HD and easily outclasses the 216 PPI of both the Kindle Fire HD 7" and the Nexus 7, and making it comparable to iPad 3 and 4's 264 PPI.
In fact, I suspect the "Retina Display" resolution for the iPad Mini 2 will BE 1536x1152 rather than the 2048x1536 resolution of the iPad 3 and 4.
By using a 1536x1152 screen resolution for the iPad Mini 2 and 3, Apple can then "introduce" the full-sized 2048x1536 iPad resolution as a "new feature" for iPad Mini 4.
Smart business move by Apple. But are we dumb enough as consumers to fall for it (again)?
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
The fact is Apple could have given the Mini a 1536x1152 display, which would have offered 100% scalability…
Not really. It would have created even more problems.
Originally Posted by BeowulfSchmidt
I ask this question out of simple ignorance. What exactly does a 62 versus 86 percent color gamut mean to me, the user?
It can reproduce a smaller range of visible colors than a display with a higher gamut.