Apple begins shipping LTE-capable iPad mini models

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 55
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wisely View Post


    I have an IPAD third generation and have ordered the 4th generation.


     


    2 days ago I bought the IPAD mini for my children.  That was the reason I gave to my wife, but really I was more keen to try it out for myself.


     


    I have to say, the screen is good enough, other than very small fonts on certain websites and some magazines, the screen is good enough for everything else.


     


    In fact, I enjoy using it so much because of its portability and weight that I am now considering getting the IPAD mini cellular and cancelling my IPAD 4th generation.


     


    My perfect IPAD is probably Mini version 2 with Retina and A6 or IPAD 5 with reduced weight.  Unfortunately, these options are not available now.


     


    I suppose now it is a question of IPAD mini cellular landing at a shop nearby first before Apple shipped the IPAD 4 to me.  Under this scenario, I would be very tempted to get the IPAD mini cellular.  Mean time, the debate will continue as I handle the IPAD mini and my current IPAD 3 for the next few days.



    I'm in the same boat- but I'm just going to hold off on either until the next refresh.  A6 and Retina will be the deal sealer for me.  :)

  • Reply 42 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    It's amazing how earlier this year it seemed so improbable on many levels that Apple could introduce a 2028x1536 264 PPI display in the iPad with 10 hours battery life yet scarcely 6 months later people now expect that same battery life with a much higher PPI from a tablet that's about half the size and weight and at a much lower price point.

    wisely wrote: »
    My perfect IPAD is probably Mini version 2 with Retina and A6 or IPAD 5 with reduced weight.  Unfortunately, these options are not available now.
    andysol wrote: »
    I'm in the same boat- but I'm just going to hold off on either until the next refresh.  A6 and Retina will be the deal sealer for me.  :)

    This is not possible for the same reasons the iPad 3 doesn't have an A6.
  • Reply 43 of 55
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    It's amazing how earlier this year it seemed so improbable on many levels that Apple could introduce a 2028x1536 264 PPI display in the iPad with 10 hours battery life yet scarcely 6 months later people now expect that same battery life with a much higher PPI from a tablet that's about half the size and weight and at a much lower price point.

    This is not possible for the same reasons the iPad 3 doesn't have an A6.


    True on your first point.. It will be interesting what strides they will make by next spring/early summer on that front and if they'll be able to do it.  You know they're in the labs already testing it out and making tweaks.  If anyone can do it.....


    For the 2nd- the iPad 3 does have an A6... it's called the iPad 4.  :)

  • Reply 44 of 55
    macslut wrote: »
    I sold my iPad 2 for the mini and my iPad 3 for the iPad 4, so now I'm iPad-less until the mini comes.

    Wow, I couldn't stand that. There's not a day gone by since 2010 that I haven't used it.
  • Reply 45 of 55
    zozmanzozman Posts: 393member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    The question is: If the mini gets a retina display (same screen real estate as the larger iPad) and the same processor - why the 9.7" iPad?



    I guess they will always keep the Minis processor one generation behind the 9.7, they seem to get better at shrinking the CPUs down & getting better power management after the next gen processors come out.


    The 9.7 iPad is the flagship of the tablet world & still pushing the market forward, since they kept the same form factor for the last 3 iPads the next one might get a design change, im guessing to match the family look of the iPad mini & iPod touch.

    When you have some reading to do, the 9.7 iPads size is still the best.

     

  • Reply 46 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    andysol wrote: »
    For the 2nd- the iPad 3 does have an A6... it's called the iPad 4.  :)

    The iPad 3 has an A5X and the iPad 4 has an A6X. That X makes all the difference in deleuvering the pixels to the display on those Retina iPads. The iPad mini would be no different in terms of resolution so it would need to have a more powerful chip than the A5 or A6 can offer, which is why they aren't in those devices.
  • Reply 47 of 55
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,524member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Wow, I couldn't stand that. There's not a day gone by since 2010 that I haven't used it.

    Ain't it the truth, I was thinking the same thing. The handheld screen sure does make a difference. I bet the mini becomes even more of a "necessity."
  • Reply 48 of 55
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,524member
    gunslinger wrote: »

    Perhaps my expectations of the display were too high.  I assumed the reduction is size would make the pixels less obvious but could not see past it.  The size, weight, and portability of the Mini were great and as some have said I think it could replace the larger iPad for me.

    I have to admit I never considered a returned product ruined as a new device.  I find it easier to purchase online and use it in real life situations as the Apple Store is often too crowded and riddled with adolescents to get much objective use.  You do however, make a good point.

    That's a bit different than I imagined. I assumed you bought it at the store and were able to compare, I sure was cranky this morning . . .
  • Reply 49 of 55
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    The iPad 3 has an A5X and the iPad 4 has an A6X. That X makes all the difference in deleuvering the pixels to the display on those Retina iPads. The iPad mini would be no different in terms of resolution so it would need to have a more powerful chip than the A5 or A6 can offer, which is why they aren't in those devices.

    Probably- but I'm not 100% sure. The 3 core gpu of the A6 that powers the 4" retina iPhone might be enough to power the 7.8" mini. The 4 core X is obviously used for the 9.7". Again- I agree with you- the X is likely needed- but we don't know that for sure- do we?
  • Reply 50 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    andysol wrote: »
    Probably- but I'm not 100% sure. The 3 core gpu of the A6 that powers the 4" retina iPhone might be enough to power the 7.8" mini. The 4 core X is obviously used for the 9.7". Again- I agree with you- the X is likely needed- but we don't know that for sure- do we?

    If it is, then why isn't in in the iPad 4? And it's not just about the GPU cores, it's about the others parts of the ASIC to put 4x as many pixels out to the display.

    Even the iPad 3 has a more powerful ASIC than in the iPhone 5 for the number of pixels needed to push to the display.

    Note that the iPhone 5 has less pixels than the iPad mini despite one being classified as "retina". You have about 1/5th the pixels in the iPhone 5 compared to the iPad 3/4 yet the GPU benchmarks don't show the iPhone 5 being good enough to push about 4.5x as many pixels and still be functional. Does the A6 even have a Quad-Channel, 128-bit memory controller? If not that would have to addressed before they could go with a 326 PPI display on the iPad mini.
  • Reply 51 of 55
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    If it is, then why isn't in in the iPad 4? And it's not just about the GPU cores, it's about the others parts of the ASIC to put 4x as many pixels out to the display.
    Even the iPad 3 has a more powerful ASIC than in the iPhone 5 for the number of pixels needed to push to the display. Note that the iPhone 5 has less pixels than the iPad mini despite one being classified as "retina".

    It's a quarter of the size- it should have less pixels. I'm not a gpu technical genius- I appreciate the link, I enjoy learning on this stuff. From all I read the A6 and A5X are identical in performance- the main difference is bandwidth- 128 vs 64- and that's what makes the difference in it being used in a large screen. I'm just curious how large? I'm curious if the A6 were in the iPad 3 and the 5X side by side if you could tell a noticeable difference. If its negligible, then why couldn't it be used in a mini? (Note: not saying they would be negligible- I'm curious if it would be). Obviously the 6X/6 is huge. But is the 5X/6

    Edited to your edit :) - it likely wouldn't be 326 would it? Wouldn't it have to be around 285+ to be "retina"- or does the aspect ratio have to match up?
  • Reply 52 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    andysol wrote: »
    It's a quarter of the size- it should have less pixels. I'm not a gpu technical genius- I appreciate the link, I enjoy learning on this stuff. From all I read the A6 and A5X are identical in performance- the main difference is bandwidth- 128 vs 64- and that's what makes the difference in it being used in a large screen. I'm just curious how large? I'm curious if the A6 were in the iPad 3 and the 5X side by side if you could tell a noticeable difference. If its negligible, then why couldn't it be used in a mini? (Note: not saying they would be negligible- I'm curious if it would be). Obviously the 6X/6 is huge. But is the 5X/6?

    The performance that was measured as "identical" was not the load the GPU had to do to for the display. This is a 1:1 ratio as AnandTech noted in their iPad 3 review. The iPad 2 took 3MB of RAM for the display and the iPad 3 took 12MB.

    The same will go for the iPad mini, but remember it's not just about putting in an A6X and calling it a day. They have to use the same display that is iPhone, to wit a 326 PPI display, to get 2048x1536. That means they could be more expensive than the 264 PPI display for the current iPads because shrinking components is tougher than simply making them smaller. We're not talking about taking an iPad 4 display and cutting it to 7.9" but taking an iPhone 5 display and cutting them to 7.9" instead of 4".

    Then you have the battery life to deal with. Remember the size and weight that increased YoY for the iPad 3 over the iPad 2. In no way do I see this an option for the iPad mini and consider how much more thick and heavier it would have to be because it's already so small. It's a much higher percentage than going from the iPad 2 to 3 which means it becomes much more noticeable.

    For these reasons I do not expect to see a retina iPad mini until (at least) the Rogue GPU can be put in.


    PS: Yes, you could tell the difference, hence Apple having to make the A5X and A6X in the first place. It's just too many pixels for those ASICs to handle without the increased GPU focus.
  • Reply 53 of 55
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    Yes, but the problem is that there is no clear definition of what resolution means.



     


    Don't muddy the waters.  The clear definition of resolution is width (in pixels or points) x height (in pixels or points)


     


     


    Quote:


    Ppi is a better way of describing how sharp a screen image is (it is the measure of resolution in a printed image - dpi). Screen real estate is directly linked to ppi, and not screen size. So it gets confusing because the mini has a higher ppi than an iPad 2 but the same resolution, the same screen real estate but a smaller screen.



     


    No.  Screen real estate is directly related to resolution and usable UI element size.  If the minimum UI size is 44 points then a simple computation for maximum amount of usable screen real estate = resolution in points/44 points.


     


    In other words the maximum touchable UI elements you can cram on an iPad screen is 23x17.  If you want to see what this looks like, open up the calendar app on your iPhone and go to the month view.  In portrait mode the days of week are (obviously) 7 across.


     


    320 points/44 points = 7.27 across.  Each day on the calendar is around 44x44 points.


     


    PPI is not a good way of describing how sharp a screen image is.  PPD (pixels per degree) is a good way of describing how sharp a screen image is since it measures pixel size at the eyeball and not at the screen.  PPD is a function of PPI and distance.  A retina screen stops being retina if you hold it too close.  HDTVs are "retina"...at the recommended seating distances.

  • Reply 54 of 55
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member


    What part of "Apple begins shipping LTE-..." do the last 15 posts have to do with the thread? 


     


    Mod, please put this on track.

  • Reply 55 of 55
    sandau wrote: »
    What part of "Apple begins shipping LTE-..." do the last 15 posts have to do with the thread? 

    Mod, please put this on track.

    Might all be OT, but damn, did I learn something from reading it all!
Sign In or Register to comment.