Apple iPad mini with Retina Display: Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 16, 2013 8:00 AM ESTFinal Words
When I concluded our iPad Air review I assumed the iPad mini with Retina Display was a true no-compromise, smaller alternative to the iPad Air. In many senses that’s true. Wireless connectivity is identical between the models, battery life is pretty much the same as well. Peak performance is close and you no longer have to accept a lower resolution display. Last year’s iPad mini was easy to recommend, and this year’s is even easier. To my surprise however, the iPad Air continues to hold some advantages that may resonate well with some users.
The biggest in my eyes is the iPad Air’s wider gamut display with full sRGB coverage. The mini’s Retina Display is good, the Air’s is just better. There’s also more thermal headroom on the iPad Air, which can come in handy if you’re doing compute intensive work on it. If neither of those things matters to you, then the decision becomes one of usage model and portability. I believe the iPad Air does a better job of approximating a primary computing device, particularly in its ability to give you a reasonable sized virtual keyboard to work on. The iPad mini on the other hand is substantially more portable. Although the iPad Air is light enough to come along with me more than any prior iPad, the mini’s form factor makes it even more likely that’ll I’ll bring it with me (the best tablet is the one you have with you?).
As much as I prefer the iPad Air’s display and as much as I love having more performance, I’d probably lean towards the mini personally. The lower weight and smaller form factor are just tough to give up. Apple could’ve made the decision a lot easier by giving the mini true display parity with the Air though.
The mini with Retina Display sits at an interesting point in Apple's iPad lineup. Priced at $399, the higher-end mini is priced identically to the iPad 2 - which Apple continues to sell. I honestly can't see a situation outside of having poor vision where I'd recommend the iPad 2 over the iPad mini with Retina Display.
If you're on the fence about upgrading from an older iPad (or even the first gen mini), the iPad mini with Retina Display is a tempting target. Compared to virtually all previous iPads you're going to notice a substantial increase in performance thanks to Apple's A7 SoC. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the performance improvement over the previous generation mini (featuring Apple's A5) can be just as noticeable of an uprade as the display. The new mini is a leap forward in performance compared to its predecessor.
While Apple has the 10-inch tablet market more or less locked up with the iPad Air, the mini faces stiff competition. The biggest comes from Google with the $229 2013 Nexus 7. You get an incredibly affordable device and a display with full sRGB gamut. What the mini offers is a faster SoC, a wider display (a Nexus 8 would be nice) and of course, iOS. I’ve heard varying opinions on iOS vs. Android when talking about tablet or smartphone use. Some users prefer Android on one and iOS on the other, vice versa or find themselves exclusively in one camp. This one is best left up to personal preference. At $229 the Nexus 7 is a great option. If you prefer iOS however, the iPad mini with Retina Display is quite nice. The price hike vs. the standard mini can be a tough pill to swallow, but the A7 and display are definitely worth it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
345 Comments
View All Comments
michal1980 - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
you must not have been here long enough. I'm still waiting for anand to change his name to appletigmd99 - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
Prove his bias.tigmd99 - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
What has he said about either OS that is not true?Puberticus - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
Seriously: if you don't like Apple gear and you weren't interested in a detailed review, why are you even commenting?pgari - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
I found Anand reviews a lot more unbiased (if any) than most of the people criticizing him: as a minimum he recognizes the weakness on Apple products as well the competitors' strengths, no as some people here who demonize Apple and reject all its products blindly.Disclaimer: My smartphone is a Nexus 5, my tablet a Venue 8 Pro and my laptop a MBA
tipoo - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
Shame about the inferior display gamut and slower soc. Makes the choice between it and Air a bit muddier. Funny how when the first display comparisons went around the apple faithful thought it was a hoax, lol.solipsism - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
For me it's not a deal breaker as I never use my iPad much. It's mostly for reading so I'm hoping the iPad Mini will be a better fit than the 10" variant.Overall that display is very impressive, but those displays on Amazon Kindle HGX and Nexus 7 are even more impressive when you consider their cost. Sure, they aren't profiting and use them to sell there other services unlike Apple who's model is to sell HW, but's still impressive. The only reason I haven't chosen them since I can read just fine on them is the awful 16:10 and 16:9, respectively, aspect ratio. 4:3 is considerably more ideal and I wish others would follow.
teiglin - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
Both of the Kindle Fire HDXs and the Nexus 7 are 16:10 (1920x1200 on the 7"-ers, and 2560x1600 on the HDX 8.9). Also the phrase "considerably more ideal" makes my brain hurt. As Brian once said, the battle for 4:3 is over and lost outside the iPad space (and LG phablets -_-)--even the iPhone gave up that ghost. I do miss 4:3 on the desktop though.solipsism - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
1) The iPhone was never 4:3.2) "More ideal" is not the same as "ideal".
3) There is obsolescing of aspect ratios as much you want to believe there is such a thing. There is only aspect ratios that are utilized for specific purposes and on a tablet 16:9 or 16:10 is not good for reading text, but 4:3 is. 16:9 is *more ideal* than 4:3 for video since it's closer to the common widescreen formats but most users don't spend the majority of their time watching videos.
teiglin - Sunday, November 17, 2013 - link
1) You're right, old iPhones were 3:2, but the point is that it gave up the fight against widescreen, just like other market segments.2) And I still take semantic issue with the idea of comparative ideal-ness--something is ideal, or it isn't. Something can be better or worse for a particular purpose, or closer to the ideal, but not more or less ideal.
3) Either you're missing a "no" in your first sentence, or I'm very confused. Either way, aside from my semantic quibbles, I don't generally disagree with what you're saying--4:3 is generally better for interacting with text than 16:9/10. Nevertheless, the fact remains that 16:9 is the standard for the vast majority of displays sold today, no matter how much I miss my first desktop LCD with its 5:4 aspect ratio.
What I find interesting in the discussion of aspect ratio is the lack of actual measurements. I mean, people mostly compare 7" tablets to the iPad mini, but the iPad mini's display is actually the same width as the 8.9" Kindle Fire's display (give or take a few hundredths of an inch). So maybe that should be the point of comparison for how much text you can display?