iPad Air is the iPad 5

The only problem with the iPad Air is Apple's philosophy !

But for the closed software system I would buy it like a shot.

As it is I am going to have to go for the next model Asus or Samsung.
 
Last edited:
Jola said:
The only problem with the iPad Air is Apple's philosophy !

But for the closed software system I would buy it like a shot.

As it is I am going to have to go for the next model Asus or Samsung.
Click to expand...

Closed system is indicative of every platform other than Android though...
 
sand_man said:
Closed system is indicative of every platform other than Android though...
Click to expand...

To be fair, Android is closed too.
The base OS is open but vital software is closed (Play Store, Gmail, Maps, Talk, and YouTube, etc). It is also built using the traditional close source approach, then opened after release, instead of the open development philosophy which underpins OSS.
On iOS, the lower level of the OS is open, but most of the layers above it are closed.

While Android is more open than iOS, neither are open.
If you want an open platform, you want Ubuntu or Firefox OS
 
cerebus said:
They never claimed that 2048 was the perfect resolution. They chose a number that worked mathematically at a retina level, and unless there's really a noticeable difference from the competition it's pointless to change. - all the reviews I can see say that the 2560 tablets aren't really a big difference from 2048. The main factor is optimising the apps to work at a certain resolution takes a lot of developer effort. They have to rescale all their assets. So they wouldn't go through that kind of overhead if it wasn't necessary.
Click to expand...

Now the main difference (AFAIK) of IPAD Air vs Mini 2 is the scale (and the price.) The cheaper Mini Retina will look better and is also more hand friendly. They had to bump up the processing to match. There is less reason to go for the IPAD air. The inflexibility of the ecosystem means that they had to add a Retina 2048*1536 and now this superior device has caused pricing headaches for Apple. They can't price the Mini 2 to high, I expect this to cannibalize sales of the Air.
 
Vis1/0N said:
Now the main difference (AFAIK) of IPAD Air vs Mini 2 is the scale (and the price.)
Click to expand...
The Air will have A7X and Mini will have A7. There should be a difference in speed. It's unclear, but seems like the A7 will be a modified 5S SoC whereas the A7X will be a full fledged tablet one.

The cheaper Mini Retina will look better and is also more hand friendly. They had to bump up the processing to match. There is less reason to go for the IPAD air. The inflexibility of the ecosystem means that they had to add a Retina 2048*1536 and now this superior device has caused pricing headaches for Apple. They can't price the Mini 2 to high, I expect this to cannibalize sales of the Air.
Click to expand...
It will definitely cannibalise it yes. Arguably the Mini is the more desirable of the two.
 
cerebus said:
The Air will have A7X and Mini will have A7. There should be a difference in speed. It's unclear, but seems like the A7 will be a modified 5S SoC whereas the A7X will be a full fledged tablet one.
Click to expand...

lol what? The Air and the mini both have the A7 processor.
 
whatwhat said:
lol what? The Air and the mini both have the A7 processor.
Click to expand...

Wait where did I see A7X? Was I imagining that? Well.. hm... I would imagine it will still bench faster. They put up a big deal about the speed improvement on the Air but not on the Mini.
 
Vis1/0N said:
Now the main difference (AFAIK) of IPAD Air vs Mini 2 is the scale (and the price.) The cheaper Mini Retina will look better and is also more hand friendly. They had to bump up the processing to match. There is less reason to go for the IPAD air. The inflexibility of the ecosystem means that they had to add a Retina 2048*1536 and now this superior device has caused pricing headaches for Apple. They can't price the Mini 2 to high, I expect this to cannibalize sales of the Air.
Click to expand...

I checked.. there is zero difference between the two besides size & extra +/-130g weight. Guess i have to check if the smaller size is better, I thought them changing name was due to them rolling out a tocuh pad cover but no such cover came out
 
Last edited:
bwana said:
What is the point of a screen with a resolution greater than the current retina screen? You do realise that retina means that the human eye is unable to see the pixels at a normal viewing distance, right? :confused:
Click to expand...
Well 8k ultra definition which is said to be the actually resolution is our eyes actually see the world has a PPI of around 440ppi so any resolution above that will make no sense as our eyes cannot tell the difference
 
krycor said:
I checked.. there is zero difference between the two besides size & extra +/-130g weight. Guess i have to check if the smaller size is better, I thought them changing name was due to them rolling out a tocuh pad cover but no such cover came out
Click to expand...
Will need to see when benchmarks come out but I'm willing to bet there's a speed difference there.
 
mmmig said:
Well 8k ultra definition which is said to be the actually resolution is our eyes actually see the world has a PPI of around 440ppi so any resolution above that will make no sense as our eyes cannot tell the difference
Click to expand...

[citation needed]

:erm: Really?

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

These tests indicate that our eyes can discern around 576M pixels. 8K is about 33M pixels. Obviously field of view, viewing distance etc. come into play, but the same test also showed people could discern 600ppi.

To claim 8K "is said to be the actually resolution our eyes actually see the world" is very far fetched.
 
Last edited:
mmmig said:
Well 8k ultra definition which is said to be the actually resolution is our eyes actually see the world has a PPI of around 440ppi so any resolution above that will make no sense as our eyes cannot tell the difference
Click to expand...

Remember that Retina (Lets call Retina the point at which you can't distinguish pixels anymore) are not just a factor of PPI, but PPI and Distance.
This can easily be understood by thinking of it like this. To achieve Retina from 3 meters away (say your TV), you can actually have quite a low pixel density. For something closer like 60cm-80cm (iPad), the density needs to be higher. For even closer still like 20cm-30cm (phone), then density needs to be even higher.
Any pixels higher than the needed are completely wasted. An 8K TV needs to be really big or you need to sit really close to get any benefit from it
 
genetic said:
[citation needed]
Click to expand...

There's actually a huge amount of variance in what retina means.

On a monitor it's different to a phone, and different to a tablet, and different in a HUD. The Oculus Rift guys have said that for them 4k would make a huge difference because your eyes can sense a sharpness improvement in AA and such things, even if they cant see individual pixels. Whereas they said on a phone it doesn't matter as much.

There's room for growth but the problem is that adding pixels places an exponential strain on the GPU, which is the most draining, hottest, and biggest component in your chipset. 1024 -> 2048 sounds like 2x but in pixel count it's 4x, meaning 4x the GPU resources needed to maintain the same level of performance. You don't make that kind of decision lightly if you're trying to conserve battery, and unless it really added a lot of value, as the jump from ~150ppi to ~320ppi clearly did.
 
cerebus said:
There's actually a huge amount of variance in what retina means.

On a monitor it's different to a phone, and different to a tablet, and different in a HUD. The Oculus Rift guys have said that for them 4k would make a huge difference because your eyes can sense a sharpness improvement in AA and such things, even if they cant see individual pixels. Whereas they said on a phone it doesn't matter as much.

There's room for growth but the problem is that adding pixels places an exponential strain on the GPU, which is the most draining, hottest, and biggest component in your chipset. 1024 -> 2048 sounds like 2x but in pixel count it's 4x, meaning 4x the GPU resources needed to maintain the same level of performance. You don't make that kind of decision lightly if you're trying to conserve battery, and unless it really added a lot of value, as the jump from ~150ppi to ~320ppi clearly did.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you are saying - I was merely asking where Mmmig got his claims from.
 
cerebus said:
Will need to see when benchmarks come out but I'm willing to bet there's a speed difference there.
Click to expand...

They can't have a major difference between the two as you need to have the same experience across the devices.
 
whatwhat said:
They can't have a major difference between the two as you need to have the same experience across the devices.
Click to expand...

There was a major difference between the iPad Mini and the iPad3/4. Mini was A5. 4 was A6X.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X