Retina Display Already Planned for iPad Mini 2

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Congratulations sheep, your new device is already obsolete.
They were perfectly capable of doing the first iPad mini with a retina display, but then sheep wouldn't feel a need to purchase the next "revolutionary device" by Apple.
 
and by then the nexus 7 2 will probably have a 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 screen
 
This fails the reasonableness test.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/apple_screen_maker_eying_retina_ipad_mini_pants_site/
 
Lol...iHaters always first to respond to Apple articles like true haters...woot woot. Anyways Apple should have released iPad mini with retina though to make strong push for next iPad mini you need a solid upgrade so retina it is. All companies release products by keeping in mind about how to sell future versions of the product.
 
fAndroid: "Congratulations sheep, your new device is already obsolete."
Tom's: "The iPad mini 2 is expected to arrive in 4Q13 with a Retina display."

So, a year from now, Apple expects to refresh it's new product. Prior to the new new iPad, wasn't that the status quo...?
 
And what is the purpose of 497 ppi? Sure it gives some level of "ours is bigger" claim, but people have enough of an issue seeing pixels at 300 ppi. So you end up with an ultra-dense screen, where all the icons and graphics have to be scaled to ridiculous degrees just to be functional parts of the UI.
 
[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]The whole point of the iPad Mini NOT having a retina display is so they could release another one WITH a retina display. It's normal Apple BS.[/citation]

Ok so this PURELY apple that does this correct?

[citation][nom]wozza365[/nom]and by then the nexus 7 2 will probably have a 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 screen[/citation]

And you're saying that GOOGLE ALSO incrementally increases their resolution on their tablets?

So by that logic GOOGLE AND APPLE(and other companies) both introduce a product then release a successor that has BETTER specs? But, it's only Apple that does this "BS" correct?
 
This is why I said "No more" to Apple. They release a product which should have had their already old technology, but decide to "wait" and add that to the successor. Then tell everyone this a week after they release the first ipad mini. All about money with this company, who gives a shit about the customer, right?

Up your Apple. Really. Just up yours.
 
"All about money with this company, who gives a shit about the customer, right?"

All companies are about the money. Period.
 
Sacre: "Then tell everyone this a week after they release the first ipad mini."
Tom's: "Unnamed sources in China report that AU Optronics, which is one of the many suppliers providing 1024 x 768 panels for Apple's slick new iPad mini"

If there was no leak [I'm assuming the leak wasn't intentional by Apple, but who knows], how long of a time frame would you think Apple is going to target for a successor? The article says it is a year out, so what is the problem?

With the leak, it sounds like next version in a year; without the leak, next version in about a year.
 
[citation][nom]saltorio[/nom]And what is the purpose of 497 ppi? Sure it gives some level of "ours is bigger" claim, but people have enough of an issue seeing pixels at 300 ppi. So you end up with an ultra-dense screen, where all the icons and graphics have to be scaled to ridiculous degrees just to be functional parts of the UI.[/citation]
Higher PPI = more detailed text, icons, etc.

Also if you keep the PPI constant, then to get a larger resolution you would have to increase the physical screen size. Eventually that could cease becoming practical and you would need a higher PPI.
 
[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]The whole point of the iPad Mini NOT having a retina display is so they could release another one WITH a retina display. It's normal Apple BS.[/citation]
Agreed dude!!!!!! why dont companies just make a 100ghz 9 billion core processor already??????

why dont they just instantly go to 9000000000x120000000000 resolution????? wtf

"no""?
 
"And what is the purpose of 497 ppi? Sure it gives some level of "ours is bigger" claim, but people have enough of an issue seeing pixels at 300 ppi. So you end up with an ultra-dense screen, where all the icons and graphics have to be scaled to ridiculous degrees just to be functional parts of the UI."

The biggest reason is that exactly doubling the resolution [or quadrupling if you are looking at pixel counts, I guess] makes for easy scaling. The 497 appears to be a typo or math error anyways as the real number for a 7.9" screen at 2048x1536 is 324.
 
[citation][nom]christarp[/nom]Agreed dude!!!!!! why dont companies just make a 100ghz 9 billion core processor already??????why dont they just instantly go to 9000000000x120000000000 resolution????? wtf"no""?[/citation]


LOL best response in the past month on TH!
 
great... so now we have a confirmed year of Tom's posting "leaked" pictures and stats of the iPad mini 2. I'm so looking forward to this -_-
 
"Seriously, Apple? How hard would it have been to tell your app developers to make their apps resolution independent?"

The current Mini shares it's resolution with the iPad and iPad2... the rumored next one will share with the current 9.7" iPad. If developers are already writing code to work with current versions of the iPad, then they are still all set going forward...
 
[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Where is my Retina LCD for my desktop?[/citation]

You can buy one now..its called a "decent monitor".
Just because apple slaps a loose buzzword term they made up onto a display doesn't mean they are the only one that make things at that PPI.
Retina display literally means "to have a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance."

They have no 'minimum DPI or PPI it must meet, or pixel size or gapping..its all based on a "vague assumption of 'I think its good enough to call it that'

I fail to see how they can classify anything as 'retina' display using such an arbitrary definition, or at least boast about it as if its a 'technically definable and measurable standard'. Its like trying to say a CPU cooler is 'silent' because it doesn't put out enough sound for the human ear to hear in an average noise filled room. Its not silent, its quiet. Only way its any form of silent is someone goes "I cant hear it its silent' when someone else can go "no no, I can hear the hiss of it a bit on mine at home". So the seconds guys HOUSE isnt quiet enough for it to be labeled silent? 😛

So with retina display, its the same. Maybe my viewing distance is different, and my eyes better..does that mean if I can see a pixel, MY eyes are faulty, and not the label they put on it? :heink:
Why retina is nothing more than a buzzword that means squat for technical specs.
 
[citation][nom]christarp[/nom]Agreed dude!!!!!! why dont companies just make a 100ghz 9 billion core processor already??????why dont they just instantly go to 9000000000x120000000000 resolution????? wtf"no""?[/citation]

Exactly. Companies are in the business to keep selling products!!! Though iHaters think Apple is the only one that does this because they are a goofy lot. Not like the iPad Mini 2 is coming out next month...lol.
 
[citation][nom]dxwarlock[/nom]You can buy one now..its called a "decent monitor". Just because apple slaps a loose buzzword term they made up onto a display doesn't mean they are the only one that make things at that PPI.Retina display literally means "to have a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance."They have no 'minimum DPI or PPI it must meet, or pixel size or gapping..its all based on a "vague assumption of 'I think its good enough to call it that'I fail to see how they can classify anything as 'retina' display using such an arbitrary definition, or at least boast about it as if its a 'technically definable and measurable standard'. Its like trying to say a CPU cooler is 'silent' because it doesn't put out enough sound for the human ear to hear in an average noise filled room. Its not silent, its quiet. Only way its any form of silent is someone goes "I cant hear it its silent' when someone else can go "no no, I can hear the hiss of it a bit on mine at home". So the seconds guys HOUSE isnt quiet enough for it to be labeled silent? So with retina display, its the same. Maybe my viewing distance is different, and my eyes better..does that mean if I can see a pixel, MY eyes are faulty, and not the label they put on it? Why retina is nothing more than a buzzword that means squat for technical specs.[/citation]

Average cost of a monitor that is 2560×1440 and 27" is still around $800.00
That is very expensive when you consider 1080p are dirt cheap for 23-24 inches. Just crossing the 1080p line to get to "retina" for a desktop is a huge price increase.

Considering the average consumer is spending less than $800 for their laptop or desktop + monitor, at $800 for a monitor you've priced the vast majority of consumers out.
 
[citation][nom]dxwarlock[/nom]You can buy one now..its called a "decent monitor".[/citation]
Would you mind sharing a link to the so called "decent monitor"? I don't think there's any displays that have such a high PPI. Heres some examples from Newegg:

27" monitor, 2560 x 1440, PPI approx. 109.
21.5" monitor, 1920 x 1080, PPI approx. 102.
8.9" monitor, 1024 x 600, PPI approx. 133.

None of them even reach half the PPI of the display on Apple's iPad mini.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom