iPad Mini obsolete already?

[ipadder474]

I'm a fan of slots and USB support, too, but don't expect them from Apple.

Apple has huge profit margins, so it's not a matter of it commanding high prices because of the materials it uses. It sets those prices because the market will bear it for Apple's combination of hardware and ecosystem.

Apple does generally make solid devices, but so do other makers, and plastic isn't a prob if used appropriately.

Let's face it, with tech gadgets, the hardware is outliving the firmware and we're all dumping gadgets and trading up because we want better features, not because the hardware has given out, in most cases.

I have a boxful of obsolete tech gadgets, including ones made out of plastic (like my old Palm Pilot), and they're in perfect physical condition all these years later. I don't need tech gadgets that will maintain physical integrity for decades, because I don't expect to use them that long. None of us do.

Oh yes just yesterday I again packed up a box of old Computer stuff and my six year old HP desktop computer "less the hard drive I never let any of my H.D.s go" and dropped them off at a local small home town computer store. Not the first time I have given them plenty of what I paid hundreds of dollars for just a few short years before. I have a bunch of digital cameras in my safe. A Kodak 280 Canon G5 G7 G10 G11 now a new G15. Also a Canon 50D 60D and a 7D hope these will be useful for a few more years.
On the subject of Best Buy I have been in their silver rewards program for about four years. I just noticed a message in the rewards section addressed to me, it said "unless you buy $1,500 dollars more from Best Buy before the end of this calendar year I will lose my silver rewards status. "Oh!! My!!..My little World just came crashing down.
I wanted to see the new Canon G15 a week ago at my local Best Buy, was told it would not be sold or seen until Oct.20 or 21 well I noticed it was being offered on Amazon.com with free shipping included,since I read the threat message and I feel Best Buy was threatening me I thought lets just buy the G15 from Amazon ordered it on a Friday was holding it on Monday and with the free shipping. In the past all my cameras and new T.V.s were bought at Best Buy. I also asked a while back about a Galaxy 10.1 note with 32gb memory, was told they only had the 16gb one. So back then I checked Amazon found a 32gb Galaxy 10.1 note with free shipping placed my order.
My Apple guy told me it would be in November before I could even think of ordering the new iPad's. It just seems like a lot of people are shooting themselves in both foot and head.
I forgot I had a Apple II sold it many years ago.

 

[Appleipaduser]

Hi everyone,

I am sure it is obsolete technology since most of major components are over a year old but iPad mini has a very splendor design and it very hard to not go out and buy it! What is holding me back is the fact that it only has 1024 x 768 screen resolution and an A5 inside(2011). I'm set to buy it in the near future when Apple finally decides to make a model with a retina screen with a A6x inside it! Maybe it will be in March; June or even back to October. It depends on how Apple views the marketplace. But I think they could continue strong it they bring out the retina version ASAP to continue the momentum - hoping it will be in March - the traditional upgrade period for the iPad!

Of course; if Apple delays this top end retina version; Microsoft/Google/Samsung, etc... will just step in and take over the momentum by producing a model with that specificiation in another OS!

 

[Beryl]

In fact, on Monday Google is set to announce the Google Nexus 10, with a resolution higher than that of iPad.

I'm an Amazon Prime customer who has lots of iDevices and looking forward to these announcements. I will be purchasing a smaller tablet and it will be either a Kindle, Nexus, or Mini.

 

[AQ_OC]

The A5 is not obsolete technology. The chip is still be used on devices that are sold.

If Apple has put an A6 or A6X and a retina screen on the iPad mini, there is no way it would have the battery life it will have. It would need more battery and would be heavier.

If you don't want the mini, don't get the mini. That why there is an iPad 4 device. The reason to buy a Mini is because you want a more portable device.

 

[Appleipaduser]

The A5 is not obsolete technology. The chip is still be used on devices that are sold.

If Apple has put an A6 or A6X and a retina screen on the iPad mini, there is no way it would have the battery life it will have. It would need more battery and would be heavier.

If you don't want the mini, don't get the mini. That why there is an iPad 4 device. The reason to buy a Mini is because you want a more portable device.

It maybe a bit heavier but you have to remember Apple already ported the iPad2 ->iPad mini so doing the same with the iPad4 -> iPad mini with retina should be the same technique as when Apple made the iPad3 a little bit thicker then the iPad2. The iPad mini with retina will be just a hair thicker. Plus, the size of the iPad mini with retina is only 60% size wise of the iPad full size. In add; the iPad mini has incorporated in it new screen technology called GF Dito reduces the thickness of the mini.

The fact that the A5 is used; is not a good argument for this. Many devices still use obsolete chips which are ported to third world devices to get the device at affordable prices. For example; the 486 Intel CPU is still being used and it is almost 17 years old!

The iPad4 is not what I want since it is too heavy and not portable enough for my use. I want to take my tablet everywhere and use it one handed if I desire. At .68 pound; it is perfect. iPad4 weighs in around 1.7?? lbs. I was first going to upgrade but the realize that I woudl be making the same error in judgement since I already have a full size tablet.

 

[Seadog]

I am very interested in the iPad mini. It is almost the exact size of a 2 DIN radio and I can see kits that would allow it to be used instead of $2000 navigation systems. I don't have a problem with the A5 being used, other than that will mean it will not support Siri. However, I would imagine the next model will be able to do so. I doubt that they are going to be too anxious for a retina screen, with all of the issues they have had with them. Apple, and other manufacturers, will have to start looking at new assembly technology. Success in the past has been due to cheap labor and young hands. They are seeing problems with the amount of parts being crammed into the new units. It could be that future assembly will require more machine assembly and result in production being relocated to other nations.

 

[AQ_OC]

It maybe a bit heavier but you have to remember Apple already ported the iPad2 ->iPad mini so doing the same with the iPad4 -> iPad mini with retina should be the same technique as when Apple made the iPad3 a little bit thicker then the iPad2. The iPad mini with retina will be just a hair thicker. Plus, the size of the iPad mini with retina is only 60% size wise of the iPad full size. In add; the iPad mini has incorporated in it new screen technology called GF Dito reduces the thickness of the mini.

The fact that the A5 is used; is not a good argument for this. Many devices still use obsolete chips which are ported to third world devices to get the device at affordable prices. For example; the 486 Intel CPU is still being used and it is almost 17 years old!

The iPad4 is not what I want since it is too heavy and not portable enough for my use. I want to take my tablet everywhere and use it one handed if I desire. At .68 pound; it is perfect. iPad4 weighs in around 1.7?? lbs. I was first going to upgrade but the realize that I woudl be making the same error in judgement since I already have a full size tablet.

The iPad mini weighs less than half the iPad 3/4. Most of that weight reduction is using less battery. Also, the small size of the mini means less surface to dissipate heat, so if you run a retina screen on that if will likely get even warmer than the iPad 3 does when run hard. Also, the retina screen presents another problem. If you use the same pixel density as in the iPad 3/4, then you have an odd resolution, which Apple would rather not do that because developers would have to support that. If you keep 2048 x 1536, then you have to source a screen with that many pixels in a smaller area. That will drive the price through into the stratosphere. These are not simple engineering tasks.

Apple is a master and knowing what they can deliver and when. I trust them to do what they think they can do and will not attempt to "backseat engineer" their designs. There are many choices for tablets these days.

 

[AQ_OC]

I am very interested in the iPad mini. It is almost the exact size of a 2 DIN radio and I can see kits that would allow it to be used instead of $2000 navigation systems. I don't have a problem with the A5 being used, other than that will mean it will not support Siri. However, I would imagine the next model will be able to do so. I doubt that they are going to be too anxious for a retina screen, with all of the issues they have had with them. Apple, and other manufacturers, will have to start looking at new assembly technology. Success in the past has been due to cheap labor and young hands. They are seeing problems with the amount of parts being crammed into the new units. It could be that future assembly will require more machine assembly and result in production being relocated to other nations.

Actually, the iPad mini does support Siri. The theory now is that the reason iPad 2 doesn't is because it only has 512 MB ram....the guess is that the Mini will have 1 GB ram. We shall find out soon!

 

[lecycliste]

Apple's iPhone 4 has double the screen resolution of the iPhone 3GS in the same size screen, and the 4's price was the same as the as-released price of the 3GS. It was no problem for Apple to do the engineering, and maintain acceptable battery life and heat dissipation.

As a semiconductor design engineer and design manager for 25 years, I know the effects of smaller linewidth technology - you decrease all the parasitic capacitances, and it takes less current to run your logic at the same speed. The challenge comes when people expect faster circuits at lower power. I also fully expect more efficient LED backlighting to reduce screen power consumption. The A6 may actually be more power-efficient than the A5 or A5X processors.

Also, you may see even more SoC (system on a chip) integration of everything in an iPad or iPhone. This reduces board space and cuts power, since you have fewer chip pins with power-hungry output buffers. With Apple's in-house chip design expertise, it's a matter of finding a foundry process with sufficiently-small linewidths / feature sizes.

So I don't think Apple has too many engineering challenges in making a high-resolution iPad Mini. It would certainly make sense to build a 7.9-inch retina screen with the same resolution as the iPad 3 and 4, to use all those existing apps.

No, I think this is a way to prolong the life of the product through an upgrade path to future higher-resolution, faster iPad Minis. Apple can certainly position it as a tablet computing tool, unlike the Kindle Fire HD and Nook HD dedicated media viewers with their substandard app selections. Apple may also be thinking ahead to a time when almost everyone who's going to buy a tablet has one, and most sales are upgrades. Then the longer the upgrade path, the better.

 

[Appleipaduser]

The iPad mini weighs less than half the iPad 3/4. Most of that weight reduction is using less battery. Also, the small size of the mini means less surface to dissipate heat, so if you run a retina screen on that if will likely get even warmer than the iPad 3 does when run hard. Also, the retina screen presents another problem. If you use the same pixel density as in the iPad 3/4, then you have an odd resolution, which Apple would rather not do that because developers would have to support that. If you keep 2048 x 1536, then you have to source a screen with that many pixels in a smaller area. That will drive the price through into the stratosphere. These are not simple engineering tasks.

Apple is a master and knowing what they can deliver and when. I trust them to do what they think they can do and will not attempt to "backseat engineer" their designs. There are many choices for tablets these days.

Well, it been said already but I will repeat it for you if you did not read all the posts here. An earlier post stated that that technique of doing a WUXGA in a smaller screen has been done in even a much smaller device by Apple called the iPhone4S and iPhone5. Heat should not be a problem since Apple is using two chips one for the processing input/output and a separate chip devote towards graphics which I believied is sandwich one on top of another! The high retina resolution is due to the rate of scanning; which Apple does a double scan to produce the retina type resolution.

The weight and reduction in thickness is due mostly to using the GF Dito technology; not reducing the size of the battery!

 

[scifan57]

The high retina resolution is due to the rate of scanning; which Apple does a double scan to produce the retina type resolution.

The resolution of a retina display is a result of the high pixel count and pixel density of the display, not the scanning rate.
Could you please quote your source for the information in your post?

 

[Appleipaduser]

The scanning I refer to is discussed below in a USAToday article:

"With so many pixels comes the opportunity for interference,
when "signals get crossed and image quality suffers." Apple says that in order
to make sure that the iPad screen remained crystal clear, its engineers
"elevated the pixels onto a different plane — separating them from the signals.
It's technology that's breakthrough. Just like the new iPad itself."

That's Apple's marketing department telling us the magical
things the company had to do to incorporate a Retina Display.
"

How Apple got a Retina display on new iPad

 

[scifan57]

The scanning I refer to is discussed below in a USAToday article:

"With so many pixels comes the opportunity for interference,
when "signals get crossed and image quality suffers." Apple says that in order
to make sure that the iPad screen remained crystal clear, its engineers
"elevated the pixels onto a different plane — separating them from the signals.
It's technology that's breakthrough. Just like the new iPad itself."

That's Apple's marketing department telling us the magical
things the company had to do to incorporate a Retina Display.
"

How Apple got a Retina display on new iPad

There's nothing in that article about double scanning anything to get the Retina type resolution.

 

[lecycliste]

Resolution comes from pixel density, not the scan rate. However, scan rate does have to be faster for more pixels in the same frame. That's because you need to display a full screen or video frame in the same amount of time, regardless of how many pixels there are. Some examples:

720p HD TV has 720 lines of 1280 pixels in each frame, displaying 59.94 frames per second. That becomes a pixel rate of 720 * 1280 * 59.94 = 55.24 Mp/s.

At higher 1080P resolution, each frame has 1080 lines of 1920 pixels, and again 59.94 frames display every second. This is a pixel rate of 1080 * 1920 * 59.94 = 124.29 Mp/s.

So 1080p requires 2.25 times the pixel scan rate of 720p.

Similarly, the iPhone 4S with 860 x 640 pixels per frame requires 4 times the pixel scan rate of the iPhone 3GS, which has 480 x 320 pixels per frame.

So no, screen resolution has nothing to do with pixel scan rate. However, high-resolution screens with higher pixel counts require faster scan rates.

SOURCES:

Resolution and scan rate data for HDTV comes from Wikipedia, via NTSC and ATSC standards. Apple screen resolution is from Zooming in on Apple's high-density Retina displays | Digital Trends.

The calculations and comparisons are from my understanding of analog and digital displays. I designed analog and mixed signal chips for 25 years for National Semiconductor, AMD, PMI / Analog Devices, Micro Linear, and Linear Technology. I hold three patents in analog design, two of them in analog signal synthesis and one in op amp design.

So I know a little bit about this stuff. ;>]

 

[Appleipaduser]

Resolution comes from pixel density, not the scan rate. However, scan rate does have to be faster for more pixels in the same frame. That's because you need to display a full screen or video frame in the same amount of time, regardless of how many pixels there are. Some examples:

720p HD TV has 720 lines of 1280 pixels in each frame, displaying 59.94 frames per second. That becomes a pixel rate of 720 * 1280 * 59.94 = 55.24 Mp/s.

At higher 1080P resolution, each frame has 1080 lines of 1920 pixels, and again 59.94 frames display every second. This is a pixel rate of 1080 * 1920 * 59.94 = 124.29 Mp/s.

So 1080p requires 2.25 times the pixel scan rate of 720p.

Similarly, the iPhone 4S with 860 x 640 pixels per frame requires 4 times the pixel scan rate of the iPhone 3GS, which has 480 x 320 pixels per frame.

So no, screen resolution has nothing to do with pixel scan rate. However, high-resolution screens with higher pixel counts require faster scan rates.

SOURCES:

Resolution and scan rate data for HDTV comes from Wikipedia, via NTSC and ATSC standards. Apple screen resolution is from Zooming in on Apple's high-density Retina displays | Digital Trends.

The calculations and comparisons are from my understanding of analog and digital displays. I designed analog and mixed signal chips for 25 years for National Semiconductor, AMD, PMI / Analog Devices, Micro Linear, and Linear Technology. I hold three patents in analog design, two of them in analog signal synthesis and one in op amp design.

So I know a little bit about this stuff. ;>]

Agree! Thanks for the info!