The mini will have a smaller display with the same number of pixels. It’s the GPU hit for those pixels that’s sucking the batter life far more than anything else.

“I might push my estimate back to a year max…”

That’s just it. You, and everyone else “estimating” early arrivals are guessing without any knowledge on the matter whatsoever. Nobody who is giving these early estimates can point to a display that could be used. Nobody making displays is saying they could do so that soon.

At best, there are no displays on the visible horizon that could be used. When displays are available, they’re expected to be significantly more expensive than what the current mini uses, and use an unreasonable amount of power.

What’s so absurd about talking to display manufacturers and getting their delivery estimates and using that as a basis combined with applying a Moore’s-Law-like model to the efficiency of Apple’s SOC and projecting that out to be around the same time period… 2 years (+ or – a few months, maybe as early as WWDC 2014, but certainly not the next model of iPad mini, nor anytime 2013).

If you want to iCal, I’m totally up for a bet on this… donation to charity of choice or just bragging rights.

PS: You said “iPad mini retina will be the same power sucking monster as the iPad 4, but with a battery *much* smaller”

A: The iPad Mini Retina will have a smaller display compensating for the smaller battery. Conclusion is same battery life as the fill size iPad Retina.

Yes, very much so. More so than those claiming a retina display is 4-6 months away. It’s not.

iCal me if you want. Make a bet if you want. Mark my words, the next iPad mini will not be retina. Going on a yearly cycle, that would mean the 2013 iPad mini won’t be retina, and one would need to wait until 2014 for the iPad mini retina… roughly 2 years. It’s possible that it could be a few months earlier at WWDC, but it’s definitely closer to 2 years than 4-6 months.

Those predicting the 4-6 months are foolishly thinking this is just about Apple choosing a different display off the shelf, and either “made a mistake” by not doing this in the first place, or “wanted to dupe customers into buying something they’ll make obsolete in a few months”.

What those foolish analysts don’t realize is how hard the retina was pushed on the iPad 3, and even the iPad 4. Remember, the iPad mini retina will be the same power sucking monster as the iPad 4, but with a battery *much* smaller.

And beyond the power and the cost… there are no displays in the pipeline that are 324ppi 7.9″. In other words, before predicting when Apple will use such a display, how about predicting when such a display will even be developed. The best estimates I’ve heard are still about a year away.

“wait till early next year and get the retina version like I will be doing.”

That’s bad advice. You won’t have a retina display at all next year, and in the meantime, if you do decide to buy one, you’ll end up paying the same price, but won’t have the use of it for the whole time.

You’re commenting as if Apple had two displays on the shelf that both used the same power and cost the same, and foolishly the designing engineer grabbed the non-retina version.

You’re also commenting as if the iPad mini had a screen with a quality lower than what customers have been willing to accept, when in fact it’s a higher ppi than the iPad 2.

The thing is, a retina display for the iPad mini is probably about 2 years away. I have had every iPad model to date including the iPad 4 and the iPad mini, and the iPad mini is my favorite so far. Had they waiting for the iPad mini retina to be a practical option, customers like me would’ve just gone without, despite being perfectly happy with the non-retina version.

I don’t see Apple being “hurt” by people continuing to buy the iPad 2, nor anyone being disappointed who hasn’t already own a retina iPad. And those of us who have had retina iPads, either will stick with them, or appreciated the advantages of not having a retina display in the mini (longer battery life, thinner, faster charging, and potentially a lot more available storage for content).

http://macdailynews.com/2012/11/06/ars-technica-reviews-apples-ipad-mini-youll-find-yourself-reaching-for-it-over-a-full-sized-ipad-with-retina-display/#comment-1100017

With this process in mind, I’m excited about what the next iPhone update will have. Can’t just be speed or sales will plummet.

The technology needs to evolve and I don’t even expect the next iPad mini to be Retina, but rather the one after that.

So far, Apple’s only deviation from the pixel doubling approach has been on the iPhone 5 and iPod touch. In the latest display evolution, Apple added height and pixels, but did not change the resolution (ppi) or the lateral number of pixels (960×640 grown to 1136×640, but still at 326 ppi). Older apps display normally, they just don’t use the extra 176 pixels. So the fragmentation issue is partially, although not entirely, avoided because there is no change in pixel density or number of lateral pixels. Forward app compatibility is maintained.

Ideally, Apple would make iOS resolution independent. Right now, it isn’t, although modest display resolution and/or dimension changes are likely possible without significantly degrading the UI or app experience.

There are 3 resolution *layouts* in the history of iOS devices. This would be the iPhone 1->4S, the iPhone 5, and the iPad.

The iPhone 5 layout resolution is a transition, and a modest one at that as many (not all) apps can scale vertically or worst case black bar the app to fit.

Moving forward, Apple will have 2 resolution layouts. This avoids fragmentation (See Android).

So for the iPad mini, Apple needed to decide whether it was going to be a super large iPod, or a mini iPad. The latter was chosen, so it had to either introduce a new resolution layout, or go with a resolution layout that matched the iPad.

This meant that the iPad mini had to either have the resolution of the iPad 1,2; or the resolution of the iPad 3,4. Any resolution in between would not have been evenly divisible and would have resulted in fragmentation.

Remember when the iPad 3 came out, people were astonished that Apple was able to do this. It’s a hell of a lot of pixels and Apple really pushed the envelop (a little too much if you ask me).

You’d be looking at huge power requirements with a much smaller battery. You’d also have a huge problem with sourcing the screens. The screens would be much more expensive (if available), and the much more expensive A6+ would be needed.

You’d end up with an iPad mini that was more expensive than the iPad 3,4 and had less battery life.

The iPhone and iPods have *far* fewer pixels than the iPad 3,4; which is why they’re able to be retina.

It consumes a lot of power. The bigger the screen, the more power it will consume.

and I fixed it for you…

-and now the usual wingers and winers are bitching about the tablet that Apple made.

That’s the only reason, development was in force even before Steve Jobs died.
Only a fool would think that apple has a 6 month R&D for a new products.

The iPhone 5 was already in testing when the iPhone 4S was released.
You can bet that the iPad mini with retina display with a LG or sharp screen is already being tested now … And release in March if sales of the current stock of samsubg iPad mini displays are too low …