Rumor: Apple's next iPad mini to pack 324ppi Retina display

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    cameronj wrote: »
    Perfect.  Of course, production capacity for such displays will be 1/2 of the capacity for the older panel so production will suffer, delays will occur and fanboys will claim that demand must just be super duper ;)  
    cameronj wrote: »
    Yeah I get it - anyone who questions Apple's decisions, even RUMORED ones, gets shouted down or proof is demanded.  Those on the other side... well of course, you can assume that Apple will have no trouble producing these panels, despite recent evidence of production problems with high PPI panels.  Why would any member of the public KNOW about their production capabilities?  Why would you?  Why would I?  But I sure know that they have had a LOT of trouble with these displays in the past year on various products.

    Real solid strategy you fanboys have there.  That way, you'll never know what hit you (er, Apple) until it's too late.  Great strategy!  Duhhhh


    You can get upset and say that you are being pounded for questioning Apple but you aren't. In this and the previous thread you excused yourself from you were presenting statements as factual without anything to back them up. If you're being asked about how you came to your results it's because others are curious. Why should anyone accept blindly something you or anyone says that you aren't willing to verify or back up? That doesn't mean you need proof to state a hypothesis but it does mean you need to articulate yourself so others can understand where you are coming from.

    In the previous thread you made a closed statement that didn't allow for any other possibility and in this one you are stating that production would be halved. You didn't say that the double density displays would be harder to produce and state various reasons why this makes sense; you stated they could only produce half as many.
  • Reply 42 of 94


    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

    "Gonna be exactly the same size…"


     


    I mentioned that it likely isn't a problem anymore, so yeah, it would be.

  • Reply 43 of 94
    cameronj wrote: »
    Yeah I get it - anyone who questions Apple's decisions, even RUMORED ones, gets shouted down or proof is demanded.  Those on the other side... well of course, you can assume that Apple will have no trouble producing these panels, despite recent evidence of production problems with high PPI panels.  Why would any member of the public KNOW about their production capabilities?  Why would you?  Why would I?  But I sure know that they have had a LOT of trouble with these displays in the past year on various products.

    Real solid strategy you fanboys have there.  That way, you'll never know what hit you (er, Apple) until it's too late.  Great strategy!  Duhhhh

    Fanboy tactics??? You were asked to back up an assertion that you made. That's not a fanboy tactic, it's common debate practice. It's courtesy.

    It isn't your opponents' job to disprove your assertions; it is your job to back up your assertions...with relevant facts. And you have not. The best answer you could muster was "I dunno, but they seem to be having a lot of problems with these displays...on various products." This is so wide and vague a criticism, it can't be used as a predictor for production capacity of a future iPad mini.
  • Reply 44 of 94
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,521member
    .34" vs. .37".

    Ooo~ so thick. And that was before the laminated screen whoozits, so I don't imagine it being a problem anymore.

    I believe they lose 2mm when they get rid of the glass-to-glass touchscreen and go to glass-to-film, which is G/F2 when the Indium Tin Oxide film is two-sided, which is Dual ITO, or DITO.

    Apparently that part of the screen production has been ironed out on the present mini, so cameronj's warnings may be obviated on that score. But there's still the IGZO side of the story, which has yet to be tested in high volume as far as I know.
  • Reply 45 of 94
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


     




    Simple question, and I will ask nicely: Why would capacity for producing 326 ppi panels be half that of 163 ppi panels?


     


    This is not about Apple, being a fanboy or strategy. It's a simple question based on something you wrote. Perhaps you can teach me something?



    Because higher resolution screens are harder to make.  How much harder cannot be quantified by either of us, particularly because we're talking about the future.


     


    Simple question: Why WON'T capacity be drastically lower?  Let's see how you can do.  I'm guessing you'll continue to equivocate, while demanding proof of others.

  • Reply 46 of 94
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post







    You can get upset and say that you are being pounded for questioning Apple but you aren't. In this and the previous thread you excused yourself from you were presenting statements as factual without anything to back them up. If you're being asked about how you came to your results it's because others are curious. Why should anyone accept blindly something you or anyone says that you aren't willing to verify or back up? That doesn't mean you need proof to state a hypothesis but it does mean you need to articulate yourself so others can understand where you are coming from.



    In the previous thread you made a closed statement that didn't allow for any other possibility and in this one you are stating that production would be halved. You didn't say that the double density displays would be harder to produce and state various reasons why this makes sense; you stated they could only produce half as many.


    That's ridiculous.  If you think that when someone talks about a) the future and b) a secretive company like Apple as an outsider, they can be precise, you're dumber than I would have guessed.  


     


    Sorry, would you like me to say "maybe" every time I'm talking about what MIGHT happen in the future so you can figure it out?  You aren't really that thick are you?  You do understand that every one of us doesn't know exact (or even close) numbers about any of this stuff.  Funny that it's the guy who thinks maybe Apple is making a bad decision that gets asked for hard numbers.  Not the ones who believe, despite the debacle of the past year, that Apple can make anything it wants in any number it wants.

  • Reply 47 of 94
    ahmlcoahmlco Posts: 432member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macslut View Post


    It's #5 that gets me the most.  The extra resolution means much larger file sizes for images and other content.  If you're fine with a lower capacity iPad, that's cool, but for me 64GB isn't enough even without the Retina.



     


    Wait? What? iPad apps are iPad apps, and we already have Retina iPads... with existing apps... that already use larger images and graphics. Thus a app for a "retina" iPad mini won't take up any more space that the same app downloaded to a non-retina mini.


     


    You're not making any sense.

  • Reply 48 of 94

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    No way, man. That's crazy. What, that's like… a display with the quality of a… a retina or something. Crazy talk.



     


    Not so crazy. I, myself, have two retinas.

  • Reply 49 of 94
    ahmlcoahmlco Posts: 432member


    Personally, I'm getting tired of this. So, yes, we're going to have a mini, and yes, it's going to be "retina", and yes, Apple is going to do the same copout move by simply doubling pixels.


     


    Hey, I've got a crazy idea. How about teaching your developers how to do resolution independence?

  • Reply 50 of 94
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,521member
    jmgregory1 wrote: »
    I'm really surprised all the focus is still on producing higher res screens and so little is being focused on reducing screen glare.  Apple did a pretty good job with the iMac, but the iPad (4 for me) is just too reflective under too many situations.  They've (Corning) figured out how to make the glass thin, strong, scratch resistant and (relatively speaking) light - why no focus on glare resistance or reduction?

    Have you compared the mini to the bigger iPad side-by-side? The LCD panel is closer to the glass, and in fact there is one layer of glass missing on the mini. I'd be somewhat interested to hear from a reflection phobic person if they think the mini's DITO screen is better. Myself I'm not bothered by the reflections, because it's easy to tilt away from them.
  • Reply 51 of 94
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,223member
    flaneur wrote: »
    Have you compared the mini to the bigger iPad side-by-side? The LCD panel is closer to the glass, and in fact there is one layer of glass missing on the mini. I'd be somewhat interested to hear from a reflection phobic person if they think the mini's DITO screen is better. Myself I'm not bothered by the reflections, because it's easy to tilt away from them.

    There is less reflection on the mini but its nothing compare to the new imac improvements. They really did a great job on the imacs.

    On the retina ipad mini, i dont think its doable unless they go with IGZO. If they dont the new mini will be heavier and more thick.
  • Reply 52 of 94
    larryalarrya Posts: 552member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I'm not sure why AI is finally picking up on this so long after it's been worked out and why they are reporting an incorrect PPI.

    Let's look at how Apple decided on the 7.85" iPad display size.

    1. They wanted to use the iPad's resolution and by its intrinsic property its aspect ratio
    2. They wanted to reuse known display tech they already have to reduce cost.

    That's why we have a 7.85" iPad mini display that is 1024x768 at 132 PPI. When you double the iPad mini resolution you double the PPI to 326. 324 is the result of sloppy math by using sloppy and imprecise math by using a 7.9" size and without any consideration for how the display was chosen.

    Shameful that this was reported at all, much less re-report by AI. Bottom line: It'll use the iPhone's display when the iPad mini goes Retina.


    edit: clarified potential ambiguous text.

    I hate to be a jerk, but by what "precise" math is 132 x 2 = 324 or 326?
  • Reply 53 of 94
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Because higher resolution screens are harder to make.  How much harder cannot be quantified by either of us, particularly because we're talking about the future.


     


    Simple question: Why WON'T capacity be drastically lower?  Let's see how you can do.  I'm guessing you'll continue to equivocate, while demanding proof of others.





    I will continue to equivocate? Let's see who is equivocating.


     


    Exhibit #1: You made an assertion, and I asked you to explain. Instead of explaining yourself, you flip the question back to me. I am no expert but I am willing to bet that does not make me the equivacator here.


     


    Exhibit #2: You are the one who wrote the their capacity will be halved, and now you say it cannot be quantified. Again, I am no expert. But this seems to corroborate exhibit #1.


     


     


    The sound you hear is the shattering of what remains of your credibility. Don't blame it. You did yourself in.

  • Reply 54 of 94
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LarryA View Post





    I hate to be a jerk, but by what "precise" math is 132 x 2 = 324 or 326?




    You're being a jerk because he clearly just made a typo. No victory too small?

  • Reply 55 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    larrya wrote: »
    I hate to be a jerk, but by what "precise" math is 132 x 2 = 324 or 326?

    163 x 2 is 326. Fixed typo in original statement.
  • Reply 56 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    cameronj wrote: »
    Because higher resolution screens are harder to make.  How much harder cannot be quantified by either of us, particularly because we're talking about the future.

    Simple question: Why WON'T capacity be drastically lower?  Let's see how you can do.  I'm guessing you'll continue to equivocate, while demanding proof of others.

    You say it can't be quantified by "us" but that is exactly what you did which is why you back peddling now.

    You made a statement and people were curious how you arrived that very precise and very certain conclusion.

    Only now you are using the argument that I gave you by implying it would be lower based on reasonable assumptions.

    I think yields will be lower per manufacturing line due to the increased difficultly and complexity in the manufacturing process. But by half, going on the 3rd year since the 326 PPI displays were introduced and Apple making more of those displays now than they ever made of the 163 PPI displays for production devices?
  • Reply 57 of 94
    doh123doh123 Posts: 323member


    just like ipad 2 vs ipad 3... will the performance go down?  probably... I hope they keep the choice, and not force a retina only model that will have lower graphics performance, even if it looks nicer when it works.  It would probably be just as fast as the iPad 3 if we are lucky... 

  • Reply 58 of 94
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post




    Well, they have before. It was called iPad 3.



    My iPad 3 gets the same battery life as my iPad 2 did.  And as far as being heavier, for me it's barely noticeable.  With the mini Apple's biggest selling point was how thin and light it is.  Sorry but I don't see them going retina until they can do it and keep the weight and thickness down.

  • Reply 59 of 94
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    macslut wrote: »
    I totally agree.  People also forget the downsides to Retina:
    1) Weight
    2) Size
    3) Battery life
    4) Potentially slower (unless better graphics are used, which results in problem #3)
    5) Consumption of storage capacity
    6) Heat

    It's #5 that gets me the most.  The extra resolution means much larger file sizes for images and other content.  If you're fine with a lower capacity iPad, that's cool, but for me 64GB isn't enough even without the Retina.
    Ya- most of that will occur. Especially #6- My iPad 4 starts cooking if I've been using it a while (I always do full brightness). The mini being that tiny pushing out more pixels is bound for heat (unless a different type of display is used).
    Either way- wife has a mini, and ill have one when retina comes out- be it this year or next.
  • Reply 60 of 94
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    You say it can't be quantified by "us" but that is exactly what you did which is why you back peddling now.



    You made a statement and people were curious how you arrived that very precise and very certain conclusion.



    Only now you are using the argument that I gave you by implying it would be lower based on reasonable assumptions.



    I think yields will be lower per manufacturing line due to the increased difficultly and complexity in the manufacturing process. But by half, going on the 3rd year since the 326 PPI displays were introduced and Apple making more of those displays now than they ever made of the 163 PPI displays for production devices?


    I only just realized before the last post that you were actually quibbling with my use of "half" as if I meant that as opposed to 40% or 60% less...  I really can't believe any of you actually think that I was claiming "half", I just threw out a number to make a point - if increasing resolution cuts production, then Apple loses sales.  Jesus, you people are pathetic!  Get a life. 

Sign In or Register to comment.