There's a fairly large "update every time and sell the old model" crowd. Pretty certain that doesn't make them arrogant, of all things.
They are if they assert that a mid-year update that helps consumers who don't use their model is "less desirable" because it does not help them. But if you believe the term "selfish" to be more accurate than "arrogant" that works for me but it's probably more than a bit of both.
They are if they assert that a mid-year update that helps consumers who don't use their model is "less desirable" because it does not help them.
To be clear, 'model' in this sentence refers to the method of purchasing rather than a physical product model, right? If so, my reply is the same: quicker turnover of product drastically reduces its value at all points in its lifespan. One month after launch, you won't be able to sell a 6-month iPad for anywhere near what you could a 1-year model. You've seen the value of Android phones that aren't even a year old (next to nothing). That's where this is headed if the updates aren't the best they can possibly be every time.
If not, and either way, my reply is that I don't at all use this schema myself, so your poorly-veiled insults need to be directed elsewhere.
Besides taking a gigantic leap forward in processing technology and power, I am completely clueless as to what other major new features and improvements the iPhone 6 will have. As I said, I would live to see those patents Apple has been hoarding finally make it into the design, but I can't expect that to happen so soon. In absence of those patents, I am at a lose as to what else (besides the CPU and camera improvements) it's going to have! Anyone want to venture a guess?
This is backwards. The iPod mini cost a lot more compared to the iPod [Classic] and yet it was the best selling iPod. $249 v $299 wasn't going to make a difference, especially when considering the $249 price point only yielded you 40% of the capacity of the larger model. I certainly had no interest in the iPod until the Mini came along and it had everything to do with size.
Now the iPad mini, as attractive as it is, currently does not appeal to me compared to my iPad (3), but at about half the size of it's brother I can see how it's very appealing. I know plenty of people that will be getting the iPad mini when they replace their iPad and many that are now interested in the iPad because it's smaller. Price is the reason for someone to save $70 over the iPad 2.
I think the lighter weight also helps as part of the total package. The big iPad isn't necessarily heavy, but it seems so in comparison. People do care about price, but those people generally aren't Apple customers, I don't see the price difference being enough on its own.
Well, yeah. And I see twice a year for tablets, too. But not yet. ARM isn't moving fast enough.
The iPad will replace the MacBook. The iMac will turn into a big, immobile iPad. Tablets will definitely be updated faster, the question is when that will actually make sense to happen.
I don't see development happening faster, hardware improvements given don't seem to justify an accelerated release schedule. If ARM isn't moving fast enough now, I don't see why the future will bring about faster ARM developments. The software development doesn't seem to be accelerating. I really don't see what's in it for Apple to double the number of updates. If we're not happy with the pace of improvements now, releasing half the improvements twice as often isn't really changing the pace.
Apple was TOO predicable there for a while. This allowed the competition to work up a year long release cycle to drain off Apple sales for 60 to 90 days before the next expected Apple tablet or phone release. Now Apple is mixing it up more and becoming harder for competitors to build an ad release campaign around an expected date. Apple may go to a twice a year release of various products, or they may go to an unpredictable release schedule that will be more frequent than once a year, but not twice either.
The 'Apple can do anything' mantra doesn't hold water. Apple was the one that brought the Retina iPad to use in 2012 and look what they had to do to bring it. It's much thicker and heavier. Now a device with a much smaller footprint but the same resolution means that using the same tech will need to be even thicker but will be slightly lighter than the current iPad. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't. I think weight is a key component to how Apple views the iPad mini. Note that all this so far has ignored price which require a more expensive display if you want to put a 2058x1536 panel in about half the size. So how is Apple is going to achieve this miracle of keeping the product lightweight and inexpensive? I hope you are right and i am wrong but so far not a single person has given a single detailed rebuttal as to how Apple could do it except to say "if anyone can do it, it's Apple."
And? There were 2 generations of the iPad before it was Retina and 3 years of the iPhone and Touch before they were Retina but for their cheapest tablet with the most expensive and complex display you expect to offer it for the 2nd gen simply because you don't like it not being Retina and can't think of additional upgrades? That's not a valid argument!
And it can't get an A6 if you want it to be Retina. It has to be at least an A6X, but that likely won't do because the A6X is shown to use too require too much power which is why I've been saying that it needs to be Rogue 6, which doesn't look to be available until the 2nd half of 2013. Perfect timing? Not if you note if you notice that the iPad mini is using the A5 right now (i.e.: a year behind) and that the iPod Touch is too and has yet to jump ahead 2 years just because.
How can the Nook HD weigh only 7 grams more than the mini, have a 243 ppi screen that is beautiful and battery still last 9.5 hours to the minis 10 hrs but Apple can't pull that off in the next 9 months?
The mini is extremely nice, came very close to buying one for my daughter for Xmas and even through the display is better than 3GS it still is the weak link. Apple brought retina to market so that has to be priority even if it is the end of next year.
I have thought that since 4th gen iPad that 5th gen would be out in March. 4th gen was mainly about lightning connector but the processor bump and camera were added to make it worthwhile. Still the iPad design will be three years old in March. That was the time we saw the redesign of the iPhone. The new iPad needs to be lighter through thinner glass and slimming of battery somehow (not sure but that is for apple to figure out).
When you are in the apple store and hold a mini or 5 the first thing people notice when they hold it is how light it is. Then the opposite when you hold the iPad. It looks bulky and feels heavy in comparison.
March also keeps the iPad in March and the new iPhone 6 months later which could possibly include the mini at that time. March should be all about the new iPad only. If not we all wait 9 months for the next apple upgrade cycle?
The 'Apple can do anything' mantra doesn't hold water. Apple was the one that brought the Retina iPad to use in 2012 and look what they had to do to bring it. It's much thicker and heavier. Now a device with a much smaller footprint but the same resolution means that using the same tech will need to be even thicker but will be slightly lighter than the current iPad. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't. I think weight is a key component to how Apple views the iPad mini. Note that all this so far has ignored price which require a more expensive display if you want to put a 2058x1536 panel in about half the size. So how is Apple is going to achieve this miracle of keeping the product lightweight and inexpensive? I hope you are right and i am wrong but so far not a single person has given a single detailed rebuttal as to how Apple could do it except to say "if anyone can do it, it's Apple."
And? There were 2 generations of the iPad before it was Retina and 3 years of the iPhone and Touch before they were Retina but for their cheapest tablet with the most expensive and complex display you expect to offer it for the 2nd gen simply because you don't like it not being Retina and can't think of additional upgrades? That's not a valid argument!
And it can't get an A6 if you want it to be Retina. It has to be at least an A6X, but that likely won't do because the A6X is shown to use too require too much power which is why I've been saying that it needs to be Rogue 6, which doesn't look to be available until the 2nd half of 2013. Perfect timing? Not if you note if you notice that the iPad mini is using the A5 right now (i.e.: a year behind) and that the iPod Touch is too and has yet to jump ahead 2 years just because.
How can the Nook HD weigh only 7 grams more than the mini, have a 243 ppi screen that is beautiful and battery still last 9.5 hours to the minis 10 hrs but Apple can't pull that off in the next 9 months?
The mini is extremely nice, came very close to buying one for my daughter for Xmas and even through the display is better than 3GS it still is the weak link. Apple brought retina to market so that has to be priority even if it is the end of next year.
I have thought that since 4th gen iPad that 5th gen would be out in March. 4th gen was mainly about lightning connector but the processor bump and camera were added to make it worthwhile. Still the iPad design will be three years old in March. That was the time we saw the redesign of the iPhone. The new iPad needs to be lighter through thinner glass and slimming of battery somehow (not sure but that is for apple to figure out).
When you are in the apple store and hold a mini or 5 the first thing people notice when they hold it is how light it is. Then the opposite when you hold the iPad. It looks bulky and feels heavy in comparison.
March also keeps the iPad in March and the new iPhone 6 months later which could possibly include the mini at that time. March should be all about the new iPad only. If not we all wait 9 months for the next apple upgrade cycle?
I think the lighter weight also helps as part of the total package. The big iPad isn't necessarily heavy, but it seems so in comparison. People do care about price, but those people generally aren't Apple customers, I don't see the price difference being enough on its own.
I think a lot of people are choosing the iPad mini over the iPad solely on the basis of price. They want an iPad, but they just don't want to spend as much as the full size costs (even the $399 iPad 2), so the lower price of the mini gives them the psychological leeway to spend the money without feeling guilty about it.
How can the Nook HD weigh only 7 grams more than the mini, have a 243 ppi screen that is beautiful and battery still last 9.5 hours to the minis 10 hrs but Apple can't pull that off in the next 9 months?
The mini is extremely nice, came very close to buying one for my daughter for Xmas and even through the display is better than 3GS it still is the weak link. Apple brought retina to market so that has to be priority even if it is the end of next year.
I have thought that since 4th gen iPad that 5th gen would be out in March. 4th gen was mainly about lightning connector but the processor bump and camera were added to make it worthwhile. Still the iPad design will be three years old in March. That was the time we saw the redesign of the iPhone. The new iPad needs to be lighter through thinner glass and slimming of battery somehow (not sure but that is for apple to figure out).
When you are in the apple store and hold a mini or 5 the first thing people notice when they hold it is how light it is. Then the opposite when you hold the iPad. It looks bulky and feels heavy in comparison.
March also keeps the iPad in March and the new iPhone 6 months later which could possibly include the mini at that time. March should be all about the new iPad only. If not we all wait 9 months for the next apple upgrade cycle?
WHy are you only measuring the PPI? The resolution of the Nook HD isn't that much more than the iPad mini. The Nook HD PPI is so much higher because the display is considerably smaller, and yet the device doesn't last as long and is still heavier than the iPad mini. If you adjust for the volume differences that Nook HD is considerably heavier.
WHy are you only measuring the PPI? The resolution of the Nook HD isn't that much more than the iPad mini. The Nook HD PPI is so much higher because the display is considerably smaller, and yet the device doesn't last as long and is still heavier than the iPad mini. If you adjust for the volume differences that Nook HD is considerably heavier.
Why have you become a zealot when a few years ago you were a much more level headed fan?
The reason the comparison is made is because these are current devices with higher PPI and Apple has another 6-9 months to get the Retina. The panel itself is a non-issue given that the iPhone 5 has thinner panel technology that is lighter as well. Or they can use the iPhone 4/4S panel.
GPU is a non-issue even if Rogue isn't available because the iPhone 5 about as fast as the iPad 3 was. It'll work about as well as the iPad 3 did using a little bit more power than the iPhone 5 does...they'll probably up the clock speeds a little...but the benchmarks are very close when you look at the performance for the same resolution (the offscreen 1080p tests). AND the SGX554 (iPad 4) is around twice as fast as the SGX543. Indicating that a SGX554MP2 is ALSO likely sufficient to drive an iPad Mini at SGX543MP4 speeds with lower power requirements than the iPad 3 or 4.
Unless you have benchmarks that indicates that the SGX543MP3 or SGX554MP2 is insufficient to drive a retina iPad then your assertion that the regular A6 is insufficient for the job has no supporting evidence. That it is not used in today's iPad Mini is more likely due to a combination of cost and availability of the A6 which are rightly prioritized for the iPhone 5.
Will it be as teh snappy as the iPad 4/5? No...but it's still also the most inexpensive model and will be on par with the iPad 3 experience.
That leaves just the backlight which is not insurmountable given the device IS smaller than the regular iPad and there's no hard evidence yet that a 2nd backlight is required for an iPad Mini retina to achieve the brightness and evenness they desire.
Why have you become a zealot when a few years ago you were a much more level headed fan?
If you say so, but that doesn't address any of the zealoty things you are implying I've stated.
The reason the comparison is made is because these are current devices with higher PPI and Apple has another 6-9 months to get the Retina. The panel itself is a non-issue given that the iPhone 5 has thinner panel technology that is lighter as well. Or they can use the iPhone 4/4S panel.
I have no idea what you mean by this. The displays in the iPhone 4/4S and 5 are all the same PPI.
GPU is a non-issue even if Rogue isn't available because the iPhone 5 about as fast as the iPad 3 was.
Again, no idea what your point is. What does the GPU being fine for the iPhone 5 have to do with the iPad 3 or a Retina iPad mini? Are you under the assumption that PPI determines how powerful the GPU needs to be? Are you suggesting that the iPhone 5 needs a more powerful GPU than the iPad mini because the PPI is double? No, it's about the total number of pixels that need to be pushed.
480x360 is less than 1136x640 is less than 1024x768 is less than 2048x1536. You can't put a 2048x1536 display in the iPad mini then claim it will perform as well as the iPhone 5 simply because they now have the same PPI.
t'll work about as well as the iPad 3 did using a little bit more power than the iPhone 5 does...they'll probably up the clock speeds a little...but the benchmarks are very close when you look at the performance for the same resolution (the offscreen 1080p tests). AND the SGX554 (iPad 4) is around twice as fast as the SGX543. Indicating that a SGX554MP2 is ALSO likely sufficient to drive an iPad Mini at SGX543MP4 speeds with lower power requirements than the iPad 3 or 4.
Again, this isn't accurate. The iPad 3/4 requires a lot more power than the iPhone to function. It's still the only the iPad with a quad-core CPU and the A#X chip. YOU CAN'T nearly 4.5x as many pixels and not expect this require a lot more GPU power, hence why Rogue 6 (or some other advanced GPU) will need to be hear before we can possibly get the GPU power usage to a point that makes it feasible for the iPad mini with a Retina (2048x1536) dispaly.
Unless you have benchmarks that indicates that the SGX543MP3 or SGX554MP2 is insufficient to drive a retina iPad then your assertion that the regular A6 is insufficient for the job has no supporting evidence. That it is not used in today's iPad Mini is more likely due to a combination of cost and availability of the A6 which are rightly prioritized for the iPhone 5.
See AnandTech for the benchmarks. See how that 42W battery use power to drive that display. See how the iPad 3 was considerably thicker and heavier than the iPad 2 something Apple typically doesn't do. 4x as many pixels requires a lot more power for a comparable performance.
Will it be as teh snappy as the iPad 4/5? No...but it's still also the most inexpensive model and will be on par with the iPad 3 experience.
Miniaturizing the 2048x1536 display from only being 262 PPI to 326 PPI will make it cheaper? Possibly, but only comparing to the original iPad Retina display. Any advancements that lead to cost savings will still keep the lower PPI iPad display as being less inexpensive for a given resolution.
That leaves just the backlight which is not insurmountable given the device IS smaller than the regular iPad and there's no hard evidence yet that a 2nd backlight is required for an iPad Mini retina to achieve the brightness and evenness they desire.
IGZO could resolve that issue. You should note that a smaller display uses less power than a larger display if you assume all other aspects are the same, but you haven't considered that a 326 PPI display is denser than a 262 PPI display which may mean a brighter backlight to achieve the same total brightness. Overall I'd say this is nomial compared to the reduction in display area, but you need to consider every aspect.
Bottom line: Retina in the iPad mini will need the exact amount of power for the GPU as Retina on the iPad for a given performance using the same tech. This is science. You can't around it by interchanging the word Retina when it suits you. We're talking about 2048x1536 displays on each.
I have no idea what you mean by this. The displays in the iPhone 4/4S and 5 are all the same PPI.
The physical panel is thinner in the 5 vs 4. If you use the new panel with 1 less layer you save space but it may cost more. Either way the panel is a nonissue since the iPad mini can use either to get retina vs the 3GS screen in the current mini.
Again, no idea what your point is. What does the GPU being fine for the iPhone 5 have to do with the iPad 3 or a Retina iPad mini? Are you under the assumption that PPI determines how powerful the GPU needs to be?
No. Just that the benchmarks suggest that the A6 with the 3 GPU cores is sufficent vice the A5X based on the GPU 1080p benchmarks.
To quote Anand:
"Take resolution into account and the iPhone 5 is actually faster than the new iPad, but normalize for resolution using GLBenchmark's offscreen mode and the A5X and A6 look identical"
Are you suggesting that the iPhone 5 needs a more powerful GPU than the iPad mini because the PPI is double?
No. Just that the a6 performs as well as the a5x on gpu benchmarks.
You can't put a 2048x1536 display in the iPad mini then claim it will perform as well as the iPhone 5 simply because they now have the same PPI.
I can claim that the two perform comparably on benchmarks and the new 554 performs faster and the 554MP2 is equivalent to the 543MP4.
Again, this isn't accurate. The iPad 3/4 requires a lot more power than the iPhone to function. It's still the only the iPad with a quad-core CPU and the A#X chip. YOU CAN'T nearly 4.5x as many pixels and not expect this require a lot more GPU power, hence why Rogue 6 (or some other advanced GPU) will need to be hear before we can possibly get the GPU power usage to a point that makes it feasible for the iPad mini with a Retina (2048x1536) dispaly.
As can be seen the 554MP2 has the same number of SMIDs and GFLOPs as the 543MP4 and should use around half the power of the 554MP4 since it has half the number of cores.
The A6's 543MP3 is short a core but can be clocked higher for less power since it has a process shrink advantage over the older A5X.
Again, the benchmarks indicate that the A6 GPU is on par with the A5X GPU.
One tweak that Apple might want to perform is to move to 128 bit wide memory for the A6. Whether that's worth the effort vs just dropping two 554 cores from the A6X design is debatable.
See AnandTech for the benchmarks. See how that 42W battery use power to drive that display. See how the iPad 3 was considerably thicker and heavier than the iPad 2 something Apple typically doesn't do. 4x as many pixels requires a lot more power for a comparable performance.
Again the 554MP2 is equivalent to the 543MP4 according to specs and the 543MP3 very similar to the 543MP4 in benchmarks.
Miniaturizing the 2048x1536 display from only being 262 PPI to 326 PPI will make it cheaper? Possibly, but only comparing to the original iPad Retina display.
What makes it cheaper is 6-9 months and the use of either the stock A6 clocked higher or a new A6 variant with the 554MP2...possibly A6X culls with 1-2 bad GPUs.
Any advancements that lead to cost savings will still keep the lower PPI iPad display as being less inexpensive for a given resolution.
Which isn't important. What is important is maintaining the current price point and margins.
This is science. You can't around it by interchanging the word Retina when it suits you. We're talking about 2048x1536 displays on each.
Get over yourself with the "this is science" BS. Of course were talking 2048x1536 aka retina for the iPad and we always have been.
Your problem is you refuse to accept that the 554MP2 is rated as fast as the 543MP4 and that the 32nm 543MP3 @ 266mhz can be further bumped up in speed in comparison to the 45nm 543MP4 @ 250mhz to further make up any performance difference. Especially since iPads traditionally are clocked a little higher than their iPhone equivalent anyway.
Yes the screen is much larger. So what? So is the battery. The A6 is presumed more power efficient than the A5 overall.
It is more than reasonable to state that a retina iPad mini is possible, even probable, in SIX to NINE months in the FUTURE based entirely on what is shipping today. The only question is whether the price point can be achieved, not whether it is technically feasible to build it at the same thickness and weight as the current iPad mini.
nht brings up completely perfect and real points. Why can't that just be admitted? Why must everything still be an argument even when proven otherwise?
nht brings up completely perfect and real points. Why can't that just be admitted? Why must everything still be an argument even when proven otherwise?
No, his points are not valid. You can not put a 326 PPI display cut to 7.85" and get the same performance and duration of use from that device simply by using the A6 chip. It's physically impossible. You need to consider all parts of the device. Changing out one component will not resolve all the issues with making the iPad mini Retina while keeping it as fast (or faster), keeping it as thin, as light, and last 10 hours or more.
It is more than reasonable to state that a retina iPad mini is possible, even probable, in SIX to NINE months in the FUTURE based entirely on what is shipping today. The only question is whether the price point can be achieved, not whether it is technically feasible to build it at the same thickness and weight as the current iPad mini.
That is what I've stated many times. A point you've disagreed with but now are concluding your comment with? :???:
That is what I've stated many times. A point you've disagreed with but now are concluding your comment with? :???:
No, you keep saying it is physically impossible. It has been shown that the A6 GPU is as fast as the A5X and the iPhone 5 despite a much smaller battery lasts 10 hours.
So the delta between the iPhone 5 and a retina iPad Mini power usage wise is a larger panel and perhaps a speed bump. It should run as fast as the iPad 3 and maintain the same dimensions and weight.
How do I know this? Because the iPhone 5 is powerful, thin, light and has good battery life.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Fact: the iPhone 5 lasts 10 hours.
Fact: the iPhone 5 is thin and light.
Fact: the iPhone 5 CPU is faster than the one in the iPad 3
Fact: the iPhone 5 GPU is as fast as the one in the iPad 3 according to Anand
Conclusion: an A6 based mini will be as fast as the iPad 3 with the same power requirements as the iPhone 5 scaled to the larger 7.85" display. The increase in display size is offset by the larger space for the battery resulting in a similar 10 hour run time and size and weight as the current mini.
Comments
Only if you are an arrogant ass that buys product once a year right after it launches and has to update every time something new comes out.
For everyone else a mid year spec bump is a nice improvement for when they choose to buy a new device for themselves or as a gift for others.
If Apple chooses to start doing this great. If not, no big deal given a fall release cycle to cover XMas.
Originally Posted by nht
Only if you are an arrogant ass that buys product once a year right after it launches and has to update every time something new comes out.
There's a fairly large "update every time and sell the old model" crowd. Pretty certain that doesn't make them arrogant, of all things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
There's a fairly large "update every time and sell the old model" crowd. Pretty certain that doesn't make them arrogant, of all things.
They are if they assert that a mid-year update that helps consumers who don't use their model is "less desirable" because it does not help them. But if you believe the term "selfish" to be more accurate than "arrogant" that works for me but it's probably more than a bit of both.
Originally Posted by nht
They are if they assert that a mid-year update that helps consumers who don't use their model is "less desirable" because it does not help them.
To be clear, 'model' in this sentence refers to the method of purchasing rather than a physical product model, right? If so, my reply is the same: quicker turnover of product drastically reduces its value at all points in its lifespan. One month after launch, you won't be able to sell a 6-month iPad for anywhere near what you could a 1-year model. You've seen the value of Android phones that aren't even a year old (next to nothing). That's where this is headed if the updates aren't the best they can possibly be every time.
If not, and either way, my reply is that I don't at all use this schema myself, so your poorly-veiled insults need to be directed elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterAlt
Besides taking a gigantic leap forward in processing technology and power, I am completely clueless as to what other major new features and improvements the iPhone 6 will have. As I said, I would live to see those patents Apple has been hoarding finally make it into the design, but I can't expect that to happen so soon. In absence of those patents, I am at a lose as to what else (besides the CPU and camera improvements) it's going to have! Anyone want to venture a guess?
Bigger screen
/s
I think the lighter weight also helps as part of the total package. The big iPad isn't necessarily heavy, but it seems so in comparison. People do care about price, but those people generally aren't Apple customers, I don't see the price difference being enough on its own.
I don't see development happening faster, hardware improvements given don't seem to justify an accelerated release schedule. If ARM isn't moving fast enough now, I don't see why the future will bring about faster ARM developments. The software development doesn't seem to be accelerating. I really don't see what's in it for Apple to double the number of updates. If we're not happy with the pace of improvements now, releasing half the improvements twice as often isn't really changing the pace.
http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/12/24/analyst-predicts-samsung-galaxy-s4-apple-ipad-mini-release/
The Galaxy S4 has most likely been moved up as well in an effort to have longer before the iPhone 7gen or 5S etc.
How can the Nook HD weigh only 7 grams more than the mini, have a 243 ppi screen that is beautiful and battery still last 9.5 hours to the minis 10 hrs but Apple can't pull that off in the next 9 months?
The mini is extremely nice, came very close to buying one for my daughter for Xmas and even through the display is better than 3GS it still is the weak link. Apple brought retina to market so that has to be priority even if it is the end of next year.
I have thought that since 4th gen iPad that 5th gen would be out in March. 4th gen was mainly about lightning connector but the processor bump and camera were added to make it worthwhile. Still the iPad design will be three years old in March. That was the time we saw the redesign of the iPhone. The new iPad needs to be lighter through thinner glass and slimming of battery somehow (not sure but that is for apple to figure out).
When you are in the apple store and hold a mini or 5 the first thing people notice when they hold it is how light it is. Then the opposite when you hold the iPad. It looks bulky and feels heavy in comparison.
March also keeps the iPad in March and the new iPhone 6 months later which could possibly include the mini at that time. March should be all about the new iPad only. If not we all wait 9 months for the next apple upgrade cycle?
How can the Nook HD weigh only 7 grams more than the mini, have a 243 ppi screen that is beautiful and battery still last 9.5 hours to the minis 10 hrs but Apple can't pull that off in the next 9 months?
The mini is extremely nice, came very close to buying one for my daughter for Xmas and even through the display is better than 3GS it still is the weak link. Apple brought retina to market so that has to be priority even if it is the end of next year.
I have thought that since 4th gen iPad that 5th gen would be out in March. 4th gen was mainly about lightning connector but the processor bump and camera were added to make it worthwhile. Still the iPad design will be three years old in March. That was the time we saw the redesign of the iPhone. The new iPad needs to be lighter through thinner glass and slimming of battery somehow (not sure but that is for apple to figure out).
When you are in the apple store and hold a mini or 5 the first thing people notice when they hold it is how light it is. Then the opposite when you hold the iPad. It looks bulky and feels heavy in comparison.
March also keeps the iPad in March and the new iPhone 6 months later which could possibly include the mini at that time. March should be all about the new iPad only. If not we all wait 9 months for the next apple upgrade cycle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I think the lighter weight also helps as part of the total package. The big iPad isn't necessarily heavy, but it seems so in comparison. People do care about price, but those people generally aren't Apple customers, I don't see the price difference being enough on its own.
I think a lot of people are choosing the iPad mini over the iPad solely on the basis of price. They want an iPad, but they just don't want to spend as much as the full size costs (even the $399 iPad 2), so the lower price of the mini gives them the psychological leeway to spend the money without feeling guilty about it.
WHy are you only measuring the PPI? The resolution of the Nook HD isn't that much more than the iPad mini. The Nook HD PPI is so much higher because the display is considerably smaller, and yet the device doesn't last as long and is still heavier than the iPad mini. If you adjust for the volume differences that Nook HD is considerably heavier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
WHy are you only measuring the PPI? The resolution of the Nook HD isn't that much more than the iPad mini. The Nook HD PPI is so much higher because the display is considerably smaller, and yet the device doesn't last as long and is still heavier than the iPad mini. If you adjust for the volume differences that Nook HD is considerably heavier.
Why have you become a zealot when a few years ago you were a much more level headed fan?
The reason the comparison is made is because these are current devices with higher PPI and Apple has another 6-9 months to get the Retina. The panel itself is a non-issue given that the iPhone 5 has thinner panel technology that is lighter as well. Or they can use the iPhone 4/4S panel.
GPU is a non-issue even if Rogue isn't available because the iPhone 5 about as fast as the iPad 3 was. It'll work about as well as the iPad 3 did using a little bit more power than the iPhone 5 does...they'll probably up the clock speeds a little...but the benchmarks are very close when you look at the performance for the same resolution (the offscreen 1080p tests). AND the SGX554 (iPad 4) is around twice as fast as the SGX543. Indicating that a SGX554MP2 is ALSO likely sufficient to drive an iPad Mini at SGX543MP4 speeds with lower power requirements than the iPad 3 or 4.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6426/ipad-4-gpu-performance-analyzed-powervr-sgx-554mp4-under-the-hood
Unless you have benchmarks that indicates that the SGX543MP3 or SGX554MP2 is insufficient to drive a retina iPad then your assertion that the regular A6 is insufficient for the job has no supporting evidence. That it is not used in today's iPad Mini is more likely due to a combination of cost and availability of the A6 which are rightly prioritized for the iPhone 5.
Will it be as teh snappy as the iPad 4/5? No...but it's still also the most inexpensive model and will be on par with the iPad 3 experience.
That leaves just the backlight which is not insurmountable given the device IS smaller than the regular iPad and there's no hard evidence yet that a 2nd backlight is required for an iPad Mini retina to achieve the brightness and evenness they desire.
If you say so, but that doesn't address any of the zealoty things you are implying I've stated.
I have no idea what you mean by this. The displays in the iPhone 4/4S and 5 are all the same PPI.
Again, no idea what your point is. What does the GPU being fine for the iPhone 5 have to do with the iPad 3 or a Retina iPad mini? Are you under the assumption that PPI determines how powerful the GPU needs to be? Are you suggesting that the iPhone 5 needs a more powerful GPU than the iPad mini because the PPI is double? No, it's about the total number of pixels that need to be pushed.
480x360 is less than 1136x640 is less than 1024x768 is less than 2048x1536. You can't put a 2048x1536 display in the iPad mini then claim it will perform as well as the iPhone 5 simply because they now have the same PPI.
Again, this isn't accurate. The iPad 3/4 requires a lot more power than the iPhone to function. It's still the only the iPad with a quad-core CPU and the A#X chip. YOU CAN'T nearly 4.5x as many pixels and not expect this require a lot more GPU power, hence why Rogue 6 (or some other advanced GPU) will need to be hear before we can possibly get the GPU power usage to a point that makes it feasible for the iPad mini with a Retina (2048x1536) dispaly.
See AnandTech for the benchmarks. See how that 42W battery use power to drive that display. See how the iPad 3 was considerably thicker and heavier than the iPad 2 something Apple typically doesn't do. 4x as many pixels requires a lot more power for a comparable performance.
Miniaturizing the 2048x1536 display from only being 262 PPI to 326 PPI will make it cheaper? Possibly, but only comparing to the original iPad Retina display. Any advancements that lead to cost savings will still keep the lower PPI iPad display as being less inexpensive for a given resolution.
IGZO could resolve that issue. You should note that a smaller display uses less power than a larger display if you assume all other aspects are the same, but you haven't considered that a 326 PPI display is denser than a 262 PPI display which may mean a brighter backlight to achieve the same total brightness. Overall I'd say this is nomial compared to the reduction in display area, but you need to consider every aspect.
Bottom line: Retina in the iPad mini will need the exact amount of power for the GPU as Retina on the iPad for a given performance using the same tech. This is science. You can't around it by interchanging the word Retina when it suits you. We're talking about 2048x1536 displays on each.
The physical panel is thinner in the 5 vs 4. If you use the new panel with 1 less layer you save space but it may cost more. Either way the panel is a nonissue since the iPad mini can use either to get retina vs the 3GS screen in the current mini.
No. Just that the benchmarks suggest that the A6 with the 3 GPU cores is sufficent vice the A5X based on the GPU 1080p benchmarks.
To quote Anand:
"Take resolution into account and the iPhone 5 is actually faster than the new iPad, but normalize for resolution using GLBenchmark's offscreen mode and the A5X and A6 look identical"
http://www.anandtech.com/print/6324
No. Just that the a6 performs as well as the a5x on gpu benchmarks.
I can claim that the two perform comparably on benchmarks and the new 554 performs faster and the 554MP2 is equivalent to the 543MP4.
As can be seen the 554MP2 has the same number of SMIDs and GFLOPs as the 543MP4 and should use around half the power of the 554MP4 since it has half the number of cores.
The A6's 543MP3 is short a core but can be clocked higher for less power since it has a process shrink advantage over the older A5X.
Again, the benchmarks indicate that the A6 GPU is on par with the A5X GPU.
One tweak that Apple might want to perform is to move to 128 bit wide memory for the A6. Whether that's worth the effort vs just dropping two 554 cores from the A6X design is debatable.
Again the 554MP2 is equivalent to the 543MP4 according to specs and the 543MP3 very similar to the 543MP4 in benchmarks.
What makes it cheaper is 6-9 months and the use of either the stock A6 clocked higher or a new A6 variant with the 554MP2...possibly A6X culls with 1-2 bad GPUs.
Which isn't important. What is important is maintaining the current price point and margins.
Get over yourself with the "this is science" BS. Of course were talking 2048x1536 aka retina for the iPad and we always have been.
Your problem is you refuse to accept that the 554MP2 is rated as fast as the 543MP4 and that the 32nm 543MP3 @ 266mhz can be further bumped up in speed in comparison to the 45nm 543MP4 @ 250mhz to further make up any performance difference. Especially since iPads traditionally are clocked a little higher than their iPhone equivalent anyway.
Yes the screen is much larger. So what? So is the battery. The A6 is presumed more power efficient than the A5 overall.
It is more than reasonable to state that a retina iPad mini is possible, even probable, in SIX to NINE months in the FUTURE based entirely on what is shipping today. The only question is whether the price point can be achieved, not whether it is technically feasible to build it at the same thickness and weight as the current iPad mini.
No, his points are not valid. You can not put a 326 PPI display cut to 7.85" and get the same performance and duration of use from that device simply by using the A6 chip. It's physically impossible. You need to consider all parts of the device. Changing out one component will not resolve all the issues with making the iPad mini Retina while keeping it as fast (or faster), keeping it as thin, as light, and last 10 hours or more.
That is what I've stated many times. A point you've disagreed with but now are concluding your comment with? :???:
No, you keep saying it is physically impossible. It has been shown that the A6 GPU is as fast as the A5X and the iPhone 5 despite a much smaller battery lasts 10 hours.
So the delta between the iPhone 5 and a retina iPad Mini power usage wise is a larger panel and perhaps a speed bump. It should run as fast as the iPad 3 and maintain the same dimensions and weight.
How do I know this? Because the iPhone 5 is powerful, thin, light and has good battery life.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Fact: the iPhone 5 lasts 10 hours.
Fact: the iPhone 5 is thin and light.
Fact: the iPhone 5 CPU is faster than the one in the iPad 3
Fact: the iPhone 5 GPU is as fast as the one in the iPad 3 according to Anand
Conclusion: an A6 based mini will be as fast as the iPad 3 with the same power requirements as the iPhone 5 scaled to the larger 7.85" display. The increase in display size is offset by the larger space for the battery resulting in a similar 10 hour run time and size and weight as the current mini.
Originally Posted by nht
Conclusion: an A6 based mini will be as fast as the iPad 3 with the same power requirements as the iPhone 5 scaled to the larger 7.85" display.
A6 can't handle 2048x1536. It would need to be A6X, which tears through any facts here.