Me too, but at any rate we're talking about at least 4x more pixels, a 2 generation bump in the SoC (which Apple has never done except for the iPod Touch which had also skipped a year between an update so it averaged out), and a nearly 50% higher Whr battery.
And none of that includes the new MIMO WiFi which is making it's 802.11n faster than many vendors attempt at power guzzling 802.11ac. I'm pleasantly surprised this is on the new iPad Mini.
No, Apple does not need to provide anything, there are off the shelf hardware that can read color. For example, X-Rite has a device called i1Display Pro, which can also read color from your screen for $270
But if people used these devices to analyze the iPad screens, they would be accused of trying to look for issues instead of taking Apple's word.
If apple decided to put a crappier display in the mini it's only because they knew what we wanted before we wanted it, and I for one welcome the smaller range of colors.
This statement can not be serious. You would truly want a smaller range of colors? Are you serial stupid or just uninformed?
But if people used these devices to analyze the iPad screens, they would be accused of trying to look for issues instead of taking Apple's word.
The actually analyze both devices using the exact same set of color swatches on each screen. Each color swatch will then be compared to a chart, the screen that matches the chart the closest "wins" the.
I actually prefer the mini over the Air, the mini is much more portable, the screen issue is a non-issue for me.
He too is way out of line, calling incompetence without the slightest reference to production realities among LTPS, IGZO and Amazon's treacherous pricing on its quantum dot foray.
He needs an editor in the worst way, as I've said before. Among other things, someone needs to tell him he sounds like he's in Amazon's pocket, which is of course unthinkable.
The iPad mini cost $399 for the 16GB version. I should hope they mention that it has a sub-sRGB display. After all it's by far the most important component of the iPad. By far!
Of course. The rule is: whatever deficiency the iPad has becomes the the "most important component by far." Not battery life, software, OS security, aspect ratio, CPU, memory, user experience, size or build quality. Just one thing: gamut. The only reason to spend $399 is for gamut, not a great tablet.
Next time you may want to take a moment to do a quick search of the topic in question before you claim we didn't what we you clearly something you clearly didn't notice.
"I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
Next time you may want to take a moment to do a quick search of the topic in question before you claim we didn't what we you clearly something you clearly didn't notice.
"I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
That was what caught my eye. Thanks for jogging my memory.
But I'm surprised so little has been said about it, if it's true. I'm also surprised hardly anyone has looked into the IGZO question besides Soneira. I suspect that Apple was hoping IGZO would be more available, enough for the mini this year, but that didn't happen, so they had to compromise on backlighting. Anything but make the device thicker and heavier, of course, which is the main feature of the mini.
That was what caught my eye. Thanks for jogging my memory.
But I'm surprised so little has been said about it, if it's true. I'm also surprised hardly anyone has looked into the IGZO question besides Soneira. I suspect that Apple was hoping IGZO would be more available, enough for the mini this year, but that didn't happen, so they had to compromise on backlighting. Anything but make the device thicker and heavier, of course, which is the main feature of the mini.
He may mean it's a larger battery in an overall case that isn't much larger or heavier. He certainly didn't show the new and old battery's mass and volume, and then figure out the Whr for a given mass or volume for comparison. Perhaps iFixit weighed them.
This is unacceptable. I hope someone at Apple is pounding the table and yelling that this should not have gone out like this. The Aandtech.com review goes into depth on the issue
How is it that companies with a fraction of the resources can ship much better displays at volume?
I agree, Apple used to be the clear leader in screen quality on such devices. Now both Google but especially Amazon are putting out tablets with far superior displays, not just better than the Retina Mini, but better than the iPad Air too, add to that the far more accurate touchscreen electronics found in competitors smartphones as compared to the iPhone 5S and Apple seem to be losing or neglecting to a certain extent their engineering prowess of late. I wish they would put as much engineering excellence into such things as they do into their superior SoC designs.
Difference? None of course. The iPad mini retina has shipped. As long as the failing gamut is not due to any manufacturing defect, there's nothing to be done. You either buy it or buy something else with your money. The forum thread seems to be about that magical word: "should." What Apple should have done, or what should have been. Contained in that one magical word is an entire imaginary alternate universe that people use to compare reality to, and ding Apple for. Bigger screens, smaller screens, cheaper this, DVD drive that, more memory, SD card slots, too thick, too thin, new icons, sRGB gamut. Whatever Apple don't got becomes a crisis, the most important thing by far, a sign of doom. How dare they charge $399 for a tablet if it can't beat the Nexus on one benchmark? Pitchforks for everyone!
Next time you may want to take a moment to do a quick search of the topic in question before you claim we didn't what we you clearly something you clearly didn't notice.
"I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
Really?
Here's the sequence, each one citing the previous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Apple is charging more for the new mini because of of the new higher density battery, the new processor, the tooling change for the case, the high density screen, and for who knows what else.
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
Higher density battery? Most definitely no.
Originally Posted by Flaneur
I think I read that in Anand's review.
What is there to misread? There is NOTHING in the Anand review talking about higher battery density. What is there to misread?
You know jack and don't want to admit it. That's cool.
Here's the sequence, each one citing the previous.
Flaneur wrote, "I think I read that in Anand's review."
I wrote, "Me too"
You wrote, "No, you didn't. Read more carefully."
Then I quoted the exact line that Anand wrote in his iPad mini review, "I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
How about we take all other companies out of the loops and simply set the standard that the color gamut should be as good as the iPad 4 which to date had the best color gamut followed by the Air. The Mini isn't even remotely close to either.
My question is partially rhetorical because I think whatever the answer is would (unless you surprised me with a good reason for it) be a completely arbitrary standard. And I want to hear a justification for arbitrary standards, otherwise, there's no hope of agreement. I mean why should I agree with that particular standard?
Here is my reason for the passionate responses I've been giving on this thread:
In the CRT era, anyone who needed seriously wide color gamut for professional use would buy a specially made monitors like the EIZO or something and always use a color calibration tool. People doing design or print work, or photographers. Are the people in this thread seriously demanding the iPad mini meet such a standard? If so, WHY? No one in this thread has argued that they want to replace their wide gamut, calibrated monitors with an iPad of any kind. And the rest of us non-pros use whatever Dell or Samsung or whitebox Chinese monitors is on sale at Newegg without ever giving gamut a single thought. Price, resolution and size (and maybe refresh rate) seems to be how we choose monitors.
But all of sudden, gamut matters! Gamut gamut gamut! When the hell did this happen? When Anandtech put a benchmark on their site making the iPad mini look bad? Where was outrage over the lack of gamut on the iPad 2? Or the gamut on the iPhone 3GS? Or the MacBook? Or the Cinema Display? Why does the iPad mini have to even have the same gamut as the iPad Air? You demand the same gamut as the iPad Air for $100 less? How about you demand the same sized screen for $100 less?
Comments
I think I read that in Anand's review.
Me too, but at any rate we're talking about at least 4x more pixels, a 2 generation bump in the SoC (which Apple has never done except for the iPod Touch which had also skipped a year between an update so it averaged out), and a nearly 50% higher Whr battery.
And none of that includes the new MIMO WiFi which is making it's 802.11n faster than many vendors attempt at power guzzling 802.11ac. I'm pleasantly surprised this is on the new iPad Mini.
No, Apple does not need to provide anything, there are off the shelf hardware that can read color. For example, X-Rite has a device called i1Display Pro, which can also read color from your screen for $270
But if people used these devices to analyze the iPad screens, they would be accused of trying to look for issues instead of taking Apple's word.
Who accused Anand Shimpi of any of this when he analyzed the iPad Mini (and nearly every other Apple product) in exceptional detail?
If apple decided to put a crappier display in the mini it's only because they knew what we wanted before we wanted it, and I for one welcome the smaller range of colors.
This statement can not be serious. You would truly want a smaller range of colors? Are you serial stupid or just uninformed?
But if people used these devices to analyze the iPad screens, they would be accused of trying to look for issues instead of taking Apple's word.
The actually analyze both devices using the exact same set of color swatches on each screen. Each color swatch will then be compared to a chart, the screen that matches the chart the closest "wins" the.
I actually prefer the mini over the Air, the mini is much more portable, the screen issue is a non-issue for me.
http://www.displaymate.com/Tablet_ShootOut_4.htm
He too is way out of line, calling incompetence without the slightest reference to production realities among LTPS, IGZO and Amazon's treacherous pricing on its quantum dot foray.
He needs an editor in the worst way, as I've said before. Among other things, someone needs to tell him he sounds like he's in Amazon's pocket, which is of course unthinkable.
So in summary, the more expensive device is somewhat better? (reprise of 5s vs. 5c anyone?)
Not totally stunned if true.
Of course. The rule is: whatever deficiency the iPad has becomes the the "most important component by far." Not battery life, software, OS security, aspect ratio, CPU, memory, user experience, size or build quality. Just one thing: gamut. The only reason to spend $399 is for gamut, not a great tablet.
I think I read that in Anand's review.
Me too
No, you didn't. Read more carefully.
Next time you may want to take a moment to do a quick search of the topic in question before you claim we didn't what we you clearly something you clearly didn't notice.
"I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
That was what caught my eye. Thanks for jogging my memory.
But I'm surprised so little has been said about it, if it's true. I'm also surprised hardly anyone has looked into the IGZO question besides Soneira. I suspect that Apple was hoping IGZO would be more available, enough for the mini this year, but that didn't happen, so they had to compromise on backlighting. Anything but make the device thicker and heavier, of course, which is the main feature of the mini.
He may mean it's a larger battery in an overall case that isn't much larger or heavier. He certainly didn't show the new and old battery's mass and volume, and then figure out the Whr for a given mass or volume for comparison. Perhaps iFixit weighed them.
This is unacceptable. I hope someone at Apple is pounding the table and yelling that this should not have gone out like this. The Aandtech.com review goes into depth on the issue
How is it that companies with a fraction of the resources can ship much better displays at volume?
I agree, Apple used to be the clear leader in screen quality on such devices. Now both Google but especially Amazon are putting out tablets with far superior displays, not just better than the Retina Mini, but better than the iPad Air too, add to that the far more accurate touchscreen electronics found in competitors smartphones as compared to the iPhone 5S and Apple seem to be losing or neglecting to a certain extent their engineering prowess of late. I wish they would put as much engineering excellence into such things as they do into their superior SoC designs.
Difference? None of course. The iPad mini retina has shipped. As long as the failing gamut is not due to any manufacturing defect, there's nothing to be done. You either buy it or buy something else with your money. The forum thread seems to be about that magical word: "should." What Apple should have done, or what should have been. Contained in that one magical word is an entire imaginary alternate universe that people use to compare reality to, and ding Apple for. Bigger screens, smaller screens, cheaper this, DVD drive that, more memory, SD card slots, too thick, too thin, new icons, sRGB gamut. Whatever Apple don't got becomes a crisis, the most important thing by far, a sign of doom. How dare they charge $399 for a tablet if it can't beat the Nexus on one benchmark? Pitchforks for everyone!
Next time you may want to take a moment to do a quick search of the topic in question before you claim we didn't what we you clearly something you clearly didn't notice.
"I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
Really?
Here's the sequence, each one citing the previous.
Apple is charging more for the new mini because of of the new higher density battery, the new processor, the tooling change for the case, the high density screen, and for who knows what else.
Higher density battery? Most definitely no.
I think I read that in Anand's review.
Flaneur wrote, "I think I read that in Anand's review."
I wrote, "Me too"
You wrote, "No, you didn't. Read more carefully."
Then I quoted the exact line that Anand wrote in his iPad mini review, "I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
My question is partially rhetorical because I think whatever the answer is would (unless you surprised me with a good reason for it) be a completely arbitrary standard. And I want to hear a justification for arbitrary standards, otherwise, there's no hope of agreement. I mean why should I agree with that particular standard?
Here is my reason for the passionate responses I've been giving on this thread:
In the CRT era, anyone who needed seriously wide color gamut for professional use would buy a specially made monitors like the EIZO or something and always use a color calibration tool. People doing design or print work, or photographers. Are the people in this thread seriously demanding the iPad mini meet such a standard? If so, WHY? No one in this thread has argued that they want to replace their wide gamut, calibrated monitors with an iPad of any kind. And the rest of us non-pros use whatever Dell or Samsung or whitebox Chinese monitors is on sale at Newegg without ever giving gamut a single thought. Price, resolution and size (and maybe refresh rate) seems to be how we choose monitors.
But all of sudden, gamut matters! Gamut gamut gamut! When the hell did this happen? When Anandtech put a benchmark on their site making the iPad mini look bad? Where was outrage over the lack of gamut on the iPad 2? Or the gamut on the iPhone 3GS? Or the MacBook? Or the Cinema Display? Why does the iPad mini have to even have the same gamut as the iPad Air? You demand the same gamut as the iPad Air for $100 less? How about you demand the same sized screen for $100 less?
Flaneur wrote, "I think I read that in Anand's review."
I wrote, "Me too"
You wrote, "No, you didn't. Read more carefully."
Then I quoted the exact line that Anand wrote in his iPad mini review, "I didn’t think battery density would improve as much as it did."
That's rhetoric. Read the review *carefully*. Check the specs CAREFULLY! Power density DID NOT IMPROVE. IT IS A LARGER BATTERY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?