The display of the Apple iPad mini is tested against its main two 7 inch Android competitors
0. phoneArena 05 Nov 2012, 23:40 posted on
DisplayMate did a rather explicit analysis of the display on the Apple iPad mini and found that Apple made some poor decisions which led to a "less than perfect" product; one of the major problems with the iPad mini is the low pixel count of the tablet...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. Savage (Posts: 431; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)
I don't get it. The writer made Nexus 7's screen look better in the article but it came last. Either this is another pathetic attempt to promote the Mini's obsolete screen or the article's summary is wrong and more details needed to be specified.
3. Lift_Off (Posts: 150; Member since: 04 Apr 2012)
Maybe because of the "washed out color and contrast" or the "dithered coloring and false contouring". Thats really all I see up there that the nexus 7 got marked down for. Sometimes the display will look nicer with true colors even though the pixels per inch might be lower. Just my guess as to why it got a "B-"
4. Savage (Posts: 431; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)
Nexus 7's screen took a major beating in areas where it mattered most although iPad Mini often came last in most comparisons. They should have declared it a tie and named Kindle Fire a winner.
19. Nadr1212 (Posts: 741; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)
Amazon Should have put a bigger battery on the Amazon Kindle fire HD, and better specs
5. Dr.Phil (Posts: 813; Member since: 14 Feb 2011)
It also looks to be a possible software issue according to DisplayMate.
"The Factory Display Calibration problem mentioned above for the Nexus 7 display qualifies as a bug because it is a software or firmware problem rather than an inherent hardware display issue. Depending on the display firmware this may or may not be correctable with a software update."
It was also running Android 4.1.1 when they were doing there tests, so it may or may not have been fixed with Android 4.2. Who knows?
10. Savage (Posts: 431; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)
Sure, now we need to compare them again when 4.2 is installed in N7.
13. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
The author of the report used a color-coded scheme: Green shaded cells means the best while yellow-shaded cells means less than the best. However, the author did not provide the grading scheme meaning you can't replicate the score.
It is an objective analysis given the author's technical background. You have to keep in mind the iPad Mini's display is about 35% larger than either the Kindle or Nexus 7 and that does play a HUGE role in web surfing, etc.
Apple has a policy of not bring out the best features until it is commercially feasible. It took three tries for Apple to bring retina display to the iPad something that is lost to many people. Google, Amazon, et al are practically sh*tting in their pants because Apple products get better over time meaning the next generation Mini is just going to that much harder to compete. Right now Amazon and Google is playing the pricing game, and that can't last. People who are educated know the real cost of a product is it's depreciation cost. Since Apple products have high resale value, that more than offset the high initial price.
15. Savage (Posts: 431; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)
Why would Google and Amazon be afraid of a device that will come out next? The next year's Mini will compete with next year's Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire. You are making it sound as if only Apple updates their tablets.
20. bensch (Posts: 7; Member since: 06 Nov 2012)
ardent1, I do not agree with your depreciation cost argument. Tablets are not houses, or cars for that matter. Their depreciation costs are completely irrelevant as they are not designed to be sold as second hand products. Instead, their initial cost-quality ratio is what is important when purchasing a tablet. The cost-quality ratio of the iPad mini is completely ridiculous. Its design is not innovative, its screen is not special at all, its features are limited and quite universally found in hundreds of devices today, its OS is expensive to update and very basic, bluetooth is virtually useless unless you are going to use an earpiece to skype or face time. So what does that leave us with? A very high price . A price which is not explainable considering the iPad mini's features. Gizmodo had an interesting article on the iPad mini's price, go read it:http://gizmodo.com/5956252/the-ipad-mini-costs-141-more-than-its-components-add-up-to
Finally, the iPad's 35% screen size "advantage" over the competition would certainly help if the resolution was appropriate. Unfortunately it is not even HD, while lacking a decent ppi densitiy... Which means your browsing experience on the mini will be average if not worse because a high res display paired with a high ppi makes reading and viewing web pages a lot better. More space without a good res and ppi will not help apple's case.
14. PhenomFaz (Posts: 1057; Member since: 26 Sep 2012)
And here we were wondering why Apple's stock has been plumetting!
This is just more proof that Apple uses underrated stuff and charges through the roof for iCrap!
2. ElektronicGeek91 (Posts: 105; Member since: 26 Sep 2012)
Everybody already know this is not going to stop people from buying the mini. Even though it clearly states everything it DONT have.
6. phil2n (Posts: 466; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
kindle FTW.. Comparison between the three tablets is biased specially in iPad mini and Nexus 7. Kindle Fire HD no doubt it has the best display among the 3
7. mydi.maus (unregistered)
poor mini pull mini off the shelves apple and dig its grave..
8. Evil.Bunny (Posts: 41; Member since: 29 Feb 2012)
What about the 1440x900 screen of the nook tablet ???
9. Evil.Bunny (Posts: 41; Member since: 29 Feb 2012)
So let me get this straight
N7 has better ppi;
Best viewing angle;
almost 50% more battery than competitors at max brightness;
40% better colour reproduction than iPad mini
and better bightness and contrast than iPad mini but comparable to kinde
and yet, Kindle gets "A-", Ipad mini gets "B" and N7 gets B-"
11. pikapowerize (banned) (Posts: 1869; Member since: 03 May 2012)
and still people will buy this...
im not against apple, im actually loving iDevices..but this iPad mini makes me sick.. too pricey for its total cost! 43% profit margin is huge!
the basic iPad mini,16GB, should just cost $250 (coz its apple and i understand this) but putting a pricetag for $330 for 16GB?! that is ridiculous! even though it looks very premium and and got the huge screen, but its not HD screen or even retina! not even running a6 chips..running the old iPad 2's specs... but if you ask me, maybe the reason why apple didnt make siri available to iPad 2 because of iPad mini! same specs (but smaller) and iPad 2 can be update to iOS 6 but no siri! and its current price is $399 which is only $60 higher than iPad min! apple really makes everything with margins...
but still people will buy this! the sad truth!
12. bloodline (Posts: 685; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
also a key fact to remember is that the N7 was first, other products are newer.
IMO the nexus 7 is the best device out of these
16. Aeires (unregistered)
I'm just surprised they are claiming a retina display would have been too costly when they are estimated to be making 43% profit on the Mini. We all know the retina display will come later, just to get people to upgrade.
17. downphoenix (Posts: 2134; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
amazing how the Ipad 2 was praised a year and a half ago for its screen, the ipad mini not so much now despite being pretty much the size but smaller and with a higher PPI. Things sure do change fast.
21. TritonForceX (Posts: 52; Member since: 27 Sep 2012)
Here's an obvious example of a "Tim Cook" decision. Apple has made several comments about not wanting to make a compact version of a tablet. But with an area of competition coming about that didn't include Apple, oh sh*t, we've gotta put something there.
So rather than take a more "Steve Jobs" approach and not let it out until it was at least equal, it looks even more like a "slap something together, put an exorbitant price on it, and claim it's the best thing since humans learned to wipe their ass, it'll sell."
I'm no Steve Jobs fan by any means, but this argument of only putting an Apple product out till it's perfect, even if it uses older technology, is wearing thin more and more. Steve did that for one or two generations, enough to give Apple its name, but it is becoming more apparent with each product iteration that Apple literally is scrambling to keep up because competition is moving faster than they want to, and they're seeing their empire slip more and more.
Hmm, what would be the best way to slow technology progression down among competitors? How about suing the crap out of them with a flawed patent system! Only that's not working too well for them now, either.
22. TritonForceX (Posts: 52; Member since: 27 Sep 2012)
Oh, and it is nice to see an article that doesn't kiss Apple's ass throughout!