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

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 94
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    1) You made a false and seemingly pejorative comment that made the PPI look worse than it was hence my query.


     


    Sorry, you've lost me.   What was "false"?


     


    If you mean the distance, I used a chart using a formula derived from eye research that a lot of us used long before Apple later posted a formula.   Is that what you're freaking out over?


     


    Fine.  What distance do you come up with for 324 PPI  to make it "retina"?  Is it so different from my rounded off 11" ?


     


    Good grief.  image

  • Reply 22 of 94
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member


    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 ;)  

  • Reply 23 of 94
    Larger form size, more weight, more heat and less battery life (obviously battery life and weight/size are gonna be related). No thanks.
  • Reply 24 of 94


    Originally Posted by Captain J View Post

    Larger form size


     


    Gonna be exactly the same size…

  • Reply 25 of 94
    macslutmacslut Posts: 514member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post



    Oh great. Having said that - the iPad sans retina is totally usable. Retina is nice and I like nice, but I never catch myself thinking "damn, I wish this was just 'that' much sharper".


     


    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.

  • Reply 26 of 94
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    I don't envision this as replacement for iPad Mini but a Retina Mini model that sells for a $50-$75 price premium to $329 entry level. Apple may even forgo a 16 GB Retina entry model.
  • Reply 27 of 94
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macslut View Post


     


    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.



     


    As someone who uses the mini a lot, day in and day out, I think 4 is far more worrying to me.  


     


    I never even notice that it's not retina and haven't lost a seconds thought about it since I first picked it up, but what I do notice is the underpowered nature of the device itself.  It's slow.  Quite noticeably in some situations.  It really needs a more powerful processor and more RAM.  


     


    My main worry is that in making it "Retina" (apparently only to please John Gruber and a few other weenies that care about such things), they are upping the power and processing requirements significantly.  


     


    I'd hate to see a Retina iPad mini with a bigger processor and more RAM that effectively is still "slow" simply because of Retina.  

  • Reply 28 of 94
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    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 ;)  





    Can you explain why production capacity for 326 ppi panels will be 1/2 the capacity of 163 ppi panels?

  • Reply 29 of 94
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Gonna be exactly the same size…





    Can we be sure? IPad 3 was thicker and heavier than iPad 2.

  • Reply 30 of 94
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post




    Can you explain why production capacity for 326 ppi panels will be 1/2 the capacity of 163 ppi panels?



    Can you explain why it wouldn't?

  • Reply 31 of 94


    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

    Can we be sure? IPad 3 was thicker…


     


    .34" vs. .37".


     


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

  • Reply 32 of 94
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Can you explain why it wouldn't?



     




    In other words, you don't know what you are talking about ... again.

  • Reply 33 of 94
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    .34" vs. .37".


     


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





    "Gonna be exactly the same size…"


     


    :)

  • Reply 34 of 94
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


     




    In other words, you don't know what you are talking about ... again.



    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

  • Reply 35 of 94


    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?

  • Reply 36 of 94
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Captain J View Post



    Larger form size, more weight, more heat and less battery life (obviously battery life and weight/size are gonna be related). No thanks.


    Yeah because Apple would actually release something like that. image

  • Reply 37 of 94
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    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



     




    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?

  • Reply 38 of 94
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


    Yeah because Apple would actually release something like that. image





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

  • Reply 39 of 94
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    rogifan wrote: »

    I would probably follow suit only if they finally release iBooks for OS X (or there is some other way to view, navigate and save EPUBs nicely) on a Mac otherwise my tech books will likely keep pushing me toward the 10" variety.
  • Reply 40 of 94
    Steve ordained that tablets be 9.7" diagonal with a 10 hour battery life. Can I get an 'amen'?
Sign In or Register to comment.