Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Malaysia Airlines 'loses contact with plane'||
|[I.E. 10] Internet Explorer 10 problem.||
|[UK]Homecheck Report, Anyone?||
|March 2014 Desktops||
|Network computers not showing up.||
Posted 29 October 2012 - 22:22
Well, they're certainly not pulling the punches. To be fair I was very surprised that Apple went with such a low quality screen on the iPad mini, especially when it's noticeably lower quality than the competition (except for the Surface RT, which is even lower still).
Posted 29 October 2012 - 23:14
Posted 29 October 2012 - 23:21
It's unfortunate that Apple promoted the idea that the only thing that matters in a good display is the pixel count. There's a lot more to a good display than just the resolution but nobody seems to remember that any more.
Posted 29 October 2012 - 23:35
Posted 29 October 2012 - 23:57
Spoke like someone that has never used a Surface. I sat next to my friend today who had an iPad 3. Compared to my surface the screen looked dull and washed out, and as far as sharpness is concerned, the difference is not discernible unless you put your face 6 inches from the screen.
If I were competing with Apple on the small tablet, I would certainly be touting the poor quality of the screen especially when compared to others. Amazon is quite correct in their statement. If you want an even worse screen than the iPad Mini, go with an MS Surface.
Posted 30 October 2012 - 00:04
Not so much an attack as stating some basic facts.
With that screen at that price, the iPad mini is a joke.
Posted 30 October 2012 - 00:04
Posted 30 October 2012 - 00:09
Posted 30 October 2012 - 00:11
i'm not really surprised, that seems to be apple's thing. remember they didn't put the retina display in the iPad 1 right away either.
To be fair I was very surprised that Apple went with such a low quality screen on the iPad mini, especially when it's noticeably lower quality than the competition (except for the Surface RT, which is even lower still).
Posted 30 October 2012 - 03:01
No doubt, there is more to a good display than the PPI. But it is STILL important when we are talking about reading devices. If I had a choice between reading on a low PPI device versus a high PPI device, it really doesn't matter how much better color contrast or viewing angles the lower PPI device has because the higher PPI device will have better rending. No amount of screen trickery is going to make up for less pixels.
Now, if we are just talking about watching movies and playing games then 200+ ppi devices are going to be about the same as the 120-160ppi devices. Most people buy kindles for reading so Amazon is bringing up a really good point.
Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:09
Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:44
Posted 30 October 2012 - 14:35
Study? Reference? I'd say its just as likely that most people spend their time reading web sites on these small tablets. Going further, I would say that everyone does a little of everything on their tablets. Dismissing reading as an activity that goes on with tablets is pure silliness.
They're not just reading devices though and I'm willing to bet that most people only use them for reading a small amount of the time.
The Kindle Fire wasn't designed as an e-reader, it was designed so Amazon could sell videos and games and that's what most people buy it for. If they want a reading device then people buy the e-Ink Kindle. Besides, you make it sound as if it's impossible to read anything on a screen with a lower PPI when the reality is that the majority of people quite happily spend most of their days in front of low PPI PC monitors.
Screen trickery may not make up for fewer pixels but more pixels won't make up for slow refresh rates, poor contrast, too much reflection, poor colour reproduction, poor viewing angles, etc. The reality is that the focus on PPI is just a p*ssing contest that uses numbers that are easy for foolish customers to understand. It only tells one small part of the story.