iPad mini Is 5 to 6 really an upgrade? Feels mostly like a form factor change.

[KPOM]

Diagonal inches mean very little, the iPhone Max has 1.2in less and it is basically half the screen area of the old mini due to the aspect ratio. Aspect ratio being 4:3, the mini 6 would have the same screen area at 8.1in, so it's a 0.2in increase

There are about 7% more pixels in the iPad mini 6th generation vs. the 5th generation.

 

[Digitalguy]

There are about 7% more pixels in the iPad mini 6th generation vs. the 5th generation.

around 5% more screen area

 

[Mac Tyson]

upgrade? sounds like it's more of a question if it's an innovation. If that's what the OP means by 'upgrade' then it's by no means an 'upgrade'.

 

[darngooddesign]

I consider it a big upgrade.

 

[MrGimper]

I guess Pencil 2 support if you're into that?

USB-C if you care for that.

Literally describes any upgrade or new product

The M1 iPad Pro is the same as the 9th Gen iPad

Bigger screen, if you care for that
Mini LED screen, if you care for that
M1 Chip, if you care for that
Pro-motion, if you care for that
Better rear cameras, if you care for that
etc etc

All subjective

 

[darngooddesign]

I guess Pencil 2 support if you're into that?

USB-C if you care for that.

Literally describes any upgrade or new product

The M1 iPad Pro is the same as the 9th Gen iPad

Bigger screen, if you care for that
Mini LED screen, if you care for that
M1 Chip, if you care for that
Pro-motion, if you care for that
Better rear cameras, if you care for that
etc etc

All subjective

Heck, the iPad Mini is just a larger iPhone…. if you care about that.

 

[playtech1]

I do wonder if Apple is in a bit of a rut in terms of the iPad - for all of the great incremental changes each year sees, a large part of the user base still uses the iPad for a bit of light web browsing, media consumption and gaming. Quite hard to know what Apple needs to do to sell the latest and greatest models to that crowd.

 

[klasma]

Diagonal inches mean very little, the iPhone Max has 1.2in less and it is basically half the screen area of the old mini due to the aspect ratio. Aspect ratio being 4:3, the mini 6 would have the same screen area at 8.1in, so it's a 0.2in increase

I thought the same, but the change in screen area is actually rather significant (see the graphics below, old mini blue, mini 6 green). Of course, depending on the app you have to subtract some dead space at the top and bottom due to the rounded-corners layout.

 

[klasma]

It’s also interesting that the mini 6 introduces an aspect ratio and logical screen dimensions that previously didn’t exist in any iPad model (cf. https://www.reddit.com/r/Xcode/comments/poe7i8 ). Apps may need some adjustments to display properly on that new size.

 

[KPOM]

It’s also interesting that the mini 6 introduces an aspect ratio and logical screen dimensions that previously didn’t exist in any iPad model (cf. https://www.reddit.com/r/Xcode/comments/poe7i8 ). Apps may need some adjustments to display properly on that new size.

Yes, I’m a bit surprised they didn’t keep the height at 1536.

 

[klasma]

Yes, I’m a bit surprised they didn’t keep the height at 1536.

I guess they didn’t want to increase the DPI (cost, and size of touch targets), didn’t want to increase the physical outer width, and couldn’t reduce the bezels, so had to drop some pixels.

 

[Digitalguy]

I thought the same, but the change in screen area is actually rather significant (see the graphics below, old mini blue, mini 6 green). Of course, depending on the app you have to subtract some dead space at the top and bottom due to the rounded-corners layout.

View attachment 1837309

Your picture is a bit off, here is the actual difference
Again it's 5%. Just for comparison, moving from the 9.7 to the 10.5 was 17% more screen area... so those 0.8in were over 3 times these 0.4in

 

[UltimateSyn]

Your picture is a bit off, here is the actual difference
Again it's 5%. Just for comparison, moving from the 9.7 to the 10.5 was 17% more screen area... so those 0.8in were over 3 times these 0.4in

It's a 7.2% increase in pixels, no? And in most apps the rounded edges won't eat into any usable screen real estate, so all the extra new pixels should be usable.

 

[Digitalguy]

It's a 7.2% increase in pixels, no? And in most apps the rounded edges won't eat into any usable screen real estate, so all the extra new pixels should be usable.

it's a 5.31% increase in screen area without taking into account the rounded edges of the display, so less than that actually.

 

[darngooddesign]

I wonder if Apple chose the wider screen because it means that apps are less likely to use the mobile view during landscape split-screen multitasking.

 

[UltimateSyn]

it's a 5.31% increase in screen area without taking into account the rounded edges of the display, so less than that actually.

How did you make that calculation? The ppi is the same and the number of the pixels have increased by 7.18%.

mini 6: 2266 x 1488 (3,371,808 pixels) @ 326 ppi
mini 5: 2048 x 1536 (3,145,728 pixels) @ 326 ppi

3,371,808 / 3,145,728 = 1.071868896484375

 

[Digitalguy]

How did you make that calculation? The ppi is the same and the number of the pixels have increased by 7.18%.

mini 6: 2266 x 1488 (3,371,808 pixels) @ 326 ppi
mini 5: 2048 x 1536 (3,145,728 pixels) @ 326 ppi

3,371,808 / 3,145,728 = 1.071868896484375

I don't calculate pixel, I use screen area. It's actually less, it's 4.60% I read the wrong number.
Here: http://www.displaywars.com/7,9-inch-4x3-vs-8,3-inch-d{14x9}

 

[UltimateSyn]

I don't calculate pixel, I use screen area. It's actually less, it's 4.60% I read the wrong number.
Here: http://www.displaywars.com/7,9-inch-4x3-vs-8,3-inch-d{14x9}

Well, this is inaccurate. The new mini’s screen is not exactly 14:9.

 

[klasma]

Your picture is a bit off, here is the actual difference
Again it's 5%. Just for comparison, moving from the 9.7 to the 10.5 was 17% more screen area... so those 0.8in were over 3 times these 0.4in

My picture isn’t off, because I calculated the actual diagonals in pixels using pythagoras and entered those on displaywars. It’s Apple’s specs in inches that are inaccurate. Based on the 326 DPI number, the actual diagonals are 7.85276…" and 8.315599…". If you instead use 7.9 and 8.3, you get inaccurate results.

 

[Digitalguy]

Well, this is inaccurate. The new mini’s screen is not exactly 14:9.

there are several ratios for the mini 6 online, using a 4.6:3 ratio the difference 5.22%

Visual TV Size Comparison : 7.9 inch 4x3 display vs 8.3 inch 4.6x3 display

Visual size comparison of a 7.9 inch 4x3 display vs 8.3 inch 4.6x3 display

www.displaywars.com

 

[Digitalguy]

My picture isn’t off, because I calculated the actual diagonals in pixels using pythagoras and entered those on displaywars. It’s Apple’s specs in inches that are inaccurate. Based on the 326 DPI number, the actual diagonals are 7.85276…" and 8.315599…". If you instead use 7.9 and 8.3, you get inaccurate results.

I didn't, I took aspect ratio into account. See above

 

[klasma]

I didn't, I took aspect ratio into account. See above

You’re still using less accurate base numbers than the pixel count, hence the discrepancy.

 

[klasma]

there are several ratios for the mini 6 online, using a 4.6:3 ratio the difference 5.22%

Visual TV Size Comparison : 7.9 inch 4x3 display vs 8.3 inch 4.6x3 display

Visual size comparison of a 7.9 inch 4x3 display vs 8.3 inch 4.6x3 display

www.displaywars.com

The exact ratio is 1.522849… (2266/1488), whereas 4.6:3 is 1.53333… and therefore just an approximation.

 

[UltimateSyn]

I don't calculate pixel, I use screen area. It's actually less, it's 4.60% I read the wrong number.
Here: http://www.displaywars.com/7,9-inch-4x3-vs-8,3-inch-d{14x9}

Since we have the resolutions and know that the two screens have equivalent PPI, we already know that the rectangular-equivalent screen area increased by 7.18%. Another thing that your calculator doesn't take into account, beyond non-perfect integer aspect ratios, is that Apple is only providing us the diagonal screen size down to the nearest tenth of an inch. Based on inferences from the other data I would claim that this is a more accurate portrayal in that calculator (just to see the deltas in area) http://www.displaywars.com/7,87-inch-d{2048x1536}-vs-8,33-inch-d{2266x1488}

A percentage increase in pixel count, given equivalent pixel-per-inch density, is the increase in screen area.

 

[ofarlig]

My picture isn’t off, because I calculated the actual diagonals in pixels using pythagoras and entered those on displaywars. It’s Apple’s specs in inches that are inaccurate. Based on the 326 DPI number, the actual diagonals are 7.85276…" and 8.315599…". If you instead use 7.9 and 8.3, you get inaccurate results.

And your calculation for the mini 5 can also be checked by just measuring it, just did that and your 7.85276 inches seems quite spot on with what I am getting (not surprisingly).