I can't stand the 16:10 screen format which is terrible for everything except watching movies. That's the main reason our Nexus 7 is rarely used (and our kids are completely confused by the Android UX; although they're having a much harder time with iOS 7 than iOS 6, too).
I bought and prefer the Nexus 7 to the iPad Mini simply because it fits in my jacket and coat pockets. I've had and enjoyed iPhones and iPads in the past, so this was not a step I took lightly.
The most used application on any of my hand-held devices is the Kindle.app. I quite like reading on the Nexus 7 in portrait orientation. It doesn't feel too skinny.
All this talk about fitting in pockets reminds me of Jeff Hawkins, the inventor of the Pilot, who was said to carry a block of wood in his shirt pocket while developing the device.
I know the "pocket test" is one of the reasons why the original iPod was better than the Rio Nomad and other 1st gen hard drive based MP3 players.
I find the long layout of the n7 is great for typing - you can two-thumb-type comfortably in portrait orientation because it's narrow and you can see a lot above. That's more awkward in the wider Mini. In the 10" scale I agree that the 4:3 is superior, but at 7" phablet/small-tab scale I prefer the 16:10.
I'm not sure of your children's ages, but my daughter, who's 12 took about 75 nanoseconds to adjust to ios7. She loves it, the flashlight app from the control center screen gets a lot of use and of course 90% of ios7 is the same as ios6.
2 and 3.5. The 3.5yo was a wizz with iOS6 at 10 months but struggles with iOS7 (and still can't really use Android at all; I'm sure partly because so familiar with iOS but also I believe because Android UX is much worse for toddlers).
I'm not sure why the over use of capitals makes it hard to read, it seems very trivial to me to parse the over abundance of proper nouns. I suspect it was written this way to help NNP detection, possibly the author uses a service like AlchemyAPI and unknown runs of init-capitalized text causes NN to be parsed as NNP.
The Air's screen is outstanding in this regard. Usually you can trust Apple to not cut corners with this sort of stuff, so this is unfortunate. It's also strange because the larger screen uses IGZO tech as well.
Is it really that unfortunate? I've never noticed any color issues on my iPad 2.
I don't use it for any color-intensive content creation, but in several years of use it never even occurred to me that there might be a problem with its color accuracy.
At some point screens have to hit the 'good enough for most people' point just as processors did.
Apple has apparently concluded that the 'good enough' point is x2... if that's true, it makes sense that they're not building devices above retina density if there is little quantifiable benefit to 99.9% of end-users. Atleast until the tech becomes much cheaper.
It's really lucky for Apple that the "good enough" point happened to exactly coincide with double their old pixel densities (plural, since they had two different densities on the iPad and iPhone), almost unbelievably so in fact.
That's... uh pretty disingenuous as an argument. The "good enough" point didn't have to be exactly the current densities, it just had to be less than the current densities... If the "good enough" point wasn't achieved with a doubling of the pixel resolution, Apple would still have doubled the pixel resolution, because exactly doubling brings a whole load of advantages from a technical or graphical design point of view. It's just that a few years later there would be another doubling until "good enough" had been surpassed.
Is it unfortunate that something is not as good as it could be? Of course it is, that is the exact correct word to use.
Now like you, I don't care, I don't use my iPad mini for color intensive work either, but it still remains that it is unfortunate that it isn't better. It is clearly not a deal stopper.
I wonder if Apple went this way because of the supply chain more than anything. All indications are that Apple will be moving 2-3x more iPad minis than these competitors. I'm curious if they went with the safer IGZO panel because those other technologies just don't ramp up as well.
I find it curious and funny that it's always Apple that gets such benefits of doubt. When they have the best hardware, it's because they're years ahead of everyone else in their supply chain strategies. When they have the worst, it's because they must be hobbled by the same supply chain.
Would you have expressed the same comment for Google/Amazon if the Nexus or Kindle had the worst screen?
I think giving them the benefit of doubt is wrong here, but expecting Apple to sell the best hardware is also misguided.
Apple has never been about selling the latest and greatest hardware, they have always been about selling the hardware that works well enough to satisfy their standards.
They have always had high standards for colour accuracy, the rest of the industry has caught up and moved past them, but they will continue to ship what they think is "good enough". People like Apple because their "good enough" is usually of a very high standard.
Same thing for retina displays, Apple introduced them and did a lot of work to allow for their existence (especially in pushing Intel to develop stronger integrated GPUs, developing drivers). Now the industry has caught up and surpassed Apple in pixel density — but Apple doesn't care because they are not competing on pixel density — it's at the point where it's good enough for their products.
No, because Google & Amazon don't ship nearly as many tablets. You're pretty much asking "Would you feel the same if the situation was completely different?" and I can safely say no to that.
Apple gets those benefits of the doubt because they're one of very few companies that ships tens of millions of a single product. Your comment is also filled with intentionally obnoxious absolutes. I never said that this is the case, or surely it must be, I'm just speculating.
I'm more than willing to entertain the idea that they did it simply to keep fab costs low and margins high. Maybe if Google or Amazon delivered consistently or shipped similar numbers, people would give them the benefit of the doubt. One good generation each isn't exactly enough to build confidence.
I wouldn't have - because they won't be selling anywhere near as many. What do you do if you have a choice to sell a few of a great product, or heaps of a slightly inferior one? I know which I'd choose, but Apple took the money and ran. I don't know what the figures will be, but I'd bet an order of magnitude more iPads are sold. Can the manufacturers of the better screen produce that many? I'm guessing no, but someone out there knows the answer.
So you're saying Apple's decision to put an older generation screen on the iPad Mini is justifiable because they still manage to sell many more than competitors who have gone out of their way to put in better hardware into their own products?
Yes. People don't purchase the iPad alone, but for the ecosystem. I moved to Android but just bought an iPad as it has an App I need for work that isnt available on any Tablet OS. Thats why theyre able to do it and still win over the others.
may be the only technology they could get for the price/quantity. At the end of the day most people dont care if they screen is 20% better, they want the functionality
I find it interesting that this is the only tablet that hits the 300dpi threshold, and the next Kindle White is supposed to meet this as well. 300dpi is of course the resolution of most print magazines. The implication is obvious, but what isn't is why Apple declined to participate in this race.
Print magazines are actually closer to 600 dpi for black text while only 200 dpi or less for color (due to Moiré patterns and CMYK printing).
In any case, Apple have indicated that they're more interested in limiting screen resolution fragmentation than chasing a specific resolution number (both iPads have the same number of pixels and that number is exactly 2 times the original iPad).
Right, it's diminishing returns. My Retina iPad 4 looks great. Maybe an extra 100 dpi would make it look better, but it would require more hardware, redesigned programs, etc. Frankly I'm not sure I'd even be able to notice it.
Of course, if you're not using the standard RGB style screen, it may make a difference. Having an extra 100 DPI on a pentile screen may be noticeable. I don't know.
> Of course, if you're not using the standard RGB style screen, it may make a difference. Having an extra 100 DPI on a pentile screen may be noticeable. I don't know.
Pentile screens are only on certain Samsung AMOLED screens. No LCD on the market is using Pentile, so it's a moot point.
What do you mean by Apple declining to participate in this race? To quote the article, "These Mini Tablets all have almost exactly 326 Pixels Per Inch PPI (the same as the Retina Display iPhones)." That includes the iPad mini.
Was the title of this article changed? There seem to be a bunch of comments as if the iPad Mini were singled out somehow in the title, but now it's just a generic tablet shootout.
This is why the HN policy of editing titles is really frustrating. People start discussing it based on the original title, and none of the discussion makes sense after it's been edited. I don't see why they don't simply implement a technical requirement that the title is the title of the page or some heading element on the page; that's what it ends up being edited to anyhow, just changing the title out from under everyone just leads to more confusion.
I haven't been impressed with mine unfortunately. Issues:
1 - the display doesn't get dim enough; it's too bright to read in bed next to a partner
1a - this is INCREDIBLY annoying: at the lowest brightness, the display flickers. Noticeably.
1b - I repeat 1a
2 - slow charging times
3 - it's not quite wide enough to read technical pdfs comfortably. Also, the software available to read pdfs generally is not particularly good. Ebookdroid is the best of a bad bunch. On the bright side, it can invert colors for reading in bed. However, it still isn't particularly good at finding the content in pdfs formatted for other screens, boxing it to exclude eg page numbers or headers, then filling the screen with just content.
Anyway, I found the slightly wider screen on an ipad mini better for reading pdfs. ymmv; if I where just reading kindle books and not reading in bed I'd probably like it better. Also, I'm over 6 feet tall and have big hands, so I find the mini comfortable. Again, ymmv.
The iPad is great, but it's not easy to carry around. The Nexus 7 however is pocketable. The Mini is too wide, and the Nexus lets me carry around something larger than my iPhone but more portable than my iPad.
Basically, it serves the same purpose as my iPad without the bulk. That being said, my I use my iPad more when I'm at my desk, or sitting and reading at home. Oh, and the Nexus has better speakers. I hate having to bounce the sounds off something for my iPad.
The Minis are great (my children each have one, it's easier to carry with their smaller hands). Basically, the Nexus is that happy medium, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.
