back to article That Retina display iPad mini delay scuttlebutt? Fuggedaboutit

The Taiwanese market-watchers and rumor-mongers at DigiTimes have done a one-eighty on a recent report about Apple's upcoming "Retina display" iPad mini, and now say that it will be released in October of this year. Just this Monday, as Apple-watching Reg readers will remember, DigiTimes reported that the high-res iPad mini …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Happy

The main question, I think, is:

Will it come with a wristband?

Apart from that, we know what it'll be. It'll be beautiful, innovative, a breakthrough in usability and bla waffle bla bla grurmstipth bla squibnocket. It will send hundreds of people at the presentation into a near orgasmic frenzy. People will cue up for it in front of the temples of Jobs.

As they would for a slate with a piece of chalk on a string, if only it had an Apple on it.

The good news (my guess) is, that the number of these people is dropping. It will never be zero (after all, there's also still druids and worshippers of Ra around), but this release will not revive the old times of malic madness.

10
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: The main question, I think, is:

Sigh... Haters gotta hate, I presume, but doesn't it get crushingly boring to squirt the same bilious screed over and over and over again?

Must admit, however, that I did enjoy the phrase "grurmstipth bla squibnocket"...

11
6
Facepalm

@ AC 2241h GMT - Re: The main question, I think, is:

I'd rather call it "sarcasts gonna sarc" myself, but then: you're just as entitled to your opinion as I am.

I don't even dislike Apple products. I think Apple Inc. produce some nice kit.

I just see a lot of people not even remotely aware of what they could do with it because they bought it for the fashion value, not the technical merit. Apple sells its IT equipment by quoting completely unrelated values to customers who have no need for the performance and thereby don't actually get what they need or want.

And Mr. Jobs used to have some pretty near unpleasant views, policies and manners.

So, all in all, if I was you, I'd reserve the term "bilious screed" for the commentards that can't post without having at least one "CrApple" in their sentence. And Anonymous Cowards.

'K?

7
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

Yeah and how many people buy sports cars but would not get near to using them to their full capabilities or how about a 4 bedroom house but usually just 2 are occupied etc.

1
4
Thumb Up

Re: @ AC 0543h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

Those are likewise very sorry personas. Specially when they cannot really afford it.

It's totally OK to have a 26 bedroom house for yourself if you're a multi-millionaire. If you're on income support, it's not.

I know first hand* that a large proportion of the whatever-illion Apple, and for that matter other overpowered fashionable status phones, customers are neither in means nor in need of the product.

So yeah, You're right, there's loads of them. And they're all doing it wrong, I think.

*I can tell how. Just not here.

7
3
Happy

Re: grurmstipth bla squibnocket

I have an iPad Mini, but just had to give an upvote to the curmudgeonly kock.

1
3
Anonymous Coward

And what is wrong with buying for the fashion/status value?

Do you also think that Ferrari/Lamborghini/whatever owners buy their cars, because they use their full potential, that they can't realize with other marques' products, and that they do real technological comparison of, for instance, engine tech and boot space? And if not, does that make these people daft, when they were intelligent enough to earn the money required (i.e. probably more than both of us)?

We, as a species, are social creatures, so status (and fashion as a means of identification with a group) are inherently important, like it or not. One group identifies with "fruity products" and some other openly scoffs them (and identifies itself with the scoffing and both Android and Windows users forget their differences while slinging mud at Apple, after which they resume the bickering between themselves, joined intermittently by Apple fashionistas on both sides :)

Majority in all such groups consists of followers and the actual objective merit of any argument is immaterial to them, they don't think about it, they follow and repeat roted arguments over and over again irrespective of counterarguments. And this is true even for people ridiculing Apple fanboys, in other words - your group.

Your high horse has in fact dachshund's legs. Enjoy the yapping. Of your high horse :)

1
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

@AK - you are kidding aren't you ? Let's get this straight. You dislike people because they buy things for their looks and not utilitarian function ?

Dude I really hate to spoil your party but if you take that attitude through life you'll not enjoy it. I recommend a trip to a (good) art gallery for a fresh perspective.

3
3

Re: The main question, I think, is:

>As they would for a slate with a piece of chalk on a string, if only it had an Apple on it.

Trying to picture this designed by Jonathan Ive. Rounded corners, of course. String definitely not the hairy sort. Chalk colour carefully selected from tasteful palette, doesn't squeak or break. Surface skeuomorphic rendering of slate. Machined from a single piece of aluminium. Beautifully weighted in the hand. Reassuringly expensive.

Damn! You know I think I might just buy one?

3
0

@ Nicho - Re: @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

and @ AC 1918h GMT.

>

You dislike people because they buy things for their looks and not utilitarian function ?

<

The tl/dr: I apparently didn't make myself clear.

The infuriatingly long version:

I dislike people who got goaded into (actually, it goes further back: those are victims, I can't really dislike them. Maybe it's perfect advertising that I dislike.) doing that without being able to afford it. People who actively cut money from essentials to own a piece of tech-fash tat.

I have worked in retail. There is a not inconsiderable part of customers who ask for accessories for "status IT" who clearly could not afford it: "I need two chargers for my kids New iPads and one for my iPhone 5. They play on them all day and then they rip the cords off. But they must be cheap because I'm already 3 months behind on the rent and the jobseekers allowance won't come in until the end of the week."

What are these people doing with 2 grand of because-the-Jones's-have-that-stuff?

This is where your analogy with the Ferrari and the 4-bed-house fails. Even if you don't pay the rent or send your kids to school in charity-shop-undies, you can't buy one. Mobiles and tablets are, on the other hand perfectly priced. They can be bought for the price of your usual living costs. Which quite a lot of people, and not an inconsiderable amount of those who get their living costs paid by someone else, do.

As I wrote before, I couldn't care less if Bill Gates buys a McLaren F1 to drive to the garden shed or Mark Shuttleworth blows 20 million Dollars on a space trip. I get irate when 20-year-old Deidre*, who's on income support because she and her 4 little kids from 3 different dads got chucked out of her mums flat when her mums new boyfriend moved in with his 2 dogs, buys a new Galaxy S4 because it is so much cooler Friday night down the pub with her mates. And then sits in Social services on Monday, asking for an advance because the little ones are sucking the soup stains out of the carpet.

These people, and they are a big part of the market, are the victims of a brilliant advertising and pricing strategy tailored to be affordable by everyone (if they drop some essentials) and marketed in a way that cloaks the unimportant, confusing technical merits in sensual waffle and fashionista facts.

So, Nicho and AC, we don't really disagree in all points. If you can afford the gimmick, go for it. Blitterbug has an iPad, and the chances are good that he didn't have to skimp on the raspberry jam this morning to pay it.

But if you have to reuse your teabags 3 times, what the flying duck are you doing with a retina MBA?

<fnord>I actually write all this stuff just to entertain. Think of it as getting Clarkson's column with an ICT angle. Thanks for reading; turn on, tune in again and drop out. ;-)</fnord>

*My apologies to all decent Deidres; merely coincidental naming.

6
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: @ Nicho - @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

The sheer cynicism of it all it what shocks me. People who are not (to say the least) terribly bright being persuaded by saturation advertising that expensive gadgets are more important than food, or than bringing the kids up so that they won't be in the same situation. Meanwhile, people who actually work in IT (and can afford them) manage to get them at a fraction of the price paid by the dimwits.

There was a report this weekend that teenagers in one of London's poorest boroughs are now paying hundreds of pounds to be taken to their school leaving do by Lamborghini or Ferrari. The next week they will be unemployable.

At least I've always worked in B2B, so I've never had to feel ashamed of making a living by taking money from people who can't afford it. But I support AK in not having to like it.

2
1
Pint

@ AC 2241 GMT - Confession

Thanks for liking the phrase, unfortunately I can't claim authorship of either and have to confess to blatant plagiarism here.

The "grurmstipth" is mentioned in one of the mathematical riddles in Lewis Carroll's book "A Tangled Tale". It's a kind of bus.

A "squibnocket", apart from being a place on a little island west of Newport, Massachusetts, was defined as "That part of a car, the unexpected need for the replacement of which causes garage bills to be four times larger than the estimate" by Douglas Adams in his wonderful dictionary of words that don't yet exist "The Deeper Meaning of Liff".

Both used without ill intend just for the sheer beauty of seeing them written down again.

Many thanks to the original authors.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: @ Nicho - @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

@ribosome. sez "There was a report this weekend that teenagers in one of London's poorest boroughs are now paying hundreds of pounds to be taken to their school leaving do by Lamborghini or Ferrari. The next week they will be unemployable."

The argument you appear (and I use appear because I'm not sure this was your intent) to be making is 'only rich/comfortable people should indulge themselves'.

You find fault with people who, knowing they are going to be enduring a life likely full of hardship, go big for one night and enjoy it. Why does this trouble you ? I would personally consider a decision like that to be completely rational. A few hundred quid will not make a difference to someone's life. It can however give someone an unforgettable experience.

In a life where good experiences are likely to be few and far between, I would not begrudge someone the few that they can get.

2
0
Silver badge
Coat

Re: @ Nicho - @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

Quote

But if you have to reuse your teabags 3 times, what the flying duck are you doing with a retina MBA?

Perhaps it is that 'scrouge' like attitude that has allowed the person to, you know SAVE the pennies and thus be able to buy an MBA? I know that the word SAVE is a four letter word but there are some of us who live their live without getting into debt. Sure I use credit cards but they are paid off in full every month. If I can't balance the books at the end of the month, it simply does not get bought. Yeah, being prudent is a dying art.

Mines the one with extra deep pockets so that all the pennies I pick up on the street can fit

1
1
WTF?

Re: @ Nicho - @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

You got it all wrong, pal.

It's the "Social services" to blame, after all. The same who make sure lots of people believe they live happy lives on social support and do not need to get to hard work to earn some money. Just as those "bad capitalists" do.

As for that girl of yours, don't you think, she does the right investment, buying herself a shiny Galaxy IV in order to sell (herself) better? Or hang on with better friends? Because, after all, this is all she can afford to do. Isn't it so?

Or you would prefer her stay out of the way, buy a cheap junk phone and weep alone in misery?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @ Nicho - @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

Just to be clear could you iterate more concisely what you don't like in particular about poor people.

0
1
Mushroom

@ Steve Davies 3 & various others - Re: @ Nicho - @ AC ...->

You appear to contradict yourself there. If you skimp on things to be able to afford an item that you want then you are doing it of your own free will. There is no "have to" involved, this is pure "want to". And hats off to that!

If you h a v e to go begging for your essentials because you w a n t to buy a non-essential pretty bit of kit, that's, I think, wrong.

Likewise the guys and girls that had the Lamborghini for their prom run. They're totally entitled to them, as far as I'm concerned they can have themselves airlifted with an Airbus A380 to their once-in-a-lifetime night out. If they saved for it. Which, I would bet, if I could afford it, which I can't, a grand on, they didn't. They probably niggled it out of dad, who had to get the money, which he hadn't assigned to it, from somewhere else. If that was for essentials, like rent and food, and supplied by social services, then I think it was not rightfully spent. Just my personal opinion.

Am I jealous of Mr. Brin and Mr. Page? You bet. Do I think that entitles me to have an Alpha Jet? Even just for one night to take my wife out for dinner at the Ritz Carlton for our wedding anniversary? No, it freaking doesn't, because afterwards I'd have to ask my mother-in-law to pay my bills.

So after all, I'm not even entitled to be jealous: There's no law that states that Sergey and Larry can have a valuable idea and Andy here can't. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. Do your best and live as it pays. Save up for your wants, but don't expect handouts for food and your mortgage because you blew months worth of crucial funds on a whim. If everybody should be entitled to a splendid, wonderful, sugar-coated prom ride in a Ferrari, where does that leave that poor child whose dad is only a brain surgeon and drives his daughter to the prom in his lame Audi TT that he studied, worked and actually paid for? Right idiot, him; and what a loser of a daughter?

No, I don't hate poor people. I feel sorry for them, because they can't afford shiny toys. And neither, for a certain value of shiny, can I. But if they "get", "acquire", "lift" or "liberate" themselves some shiny anyway, and that is regarded as OK, then I have a feeling that society is being made fun of.

Tanstaafl, as Heinlein wrote. No-one needs to die, but not everyone needs to bathe in asses milk, either.

And rich people usually serve a good purpose in spending their money on useless things. They keep people like me paid; they spread the wealth by spending it. One rich nitwit can keep 35 engineers paid for a year by letting them build his Bugatti Veyron. He could be stingy and only drive his 1985 Toyota Corolla until his death and keep the money under his pillow and be of no use.

So, you drive to your prom in a Rolls-Royce. A fortnight later you can't pay the food. Social services won't let you die and give you some extra out of their special reserve budget. Which was filled from national insurance contributions and taxes of the guy whom you rented the Roller from.

Did you ask him if it was OK to get a free ride from him? He might have felt in a good mood and have just done that. But no, you do it by proxy, without giving him the chance to say "no" or even have a good feeling saying "yes".

It just doesn't look right to me. But you are welcome to another opinion.

And now you made me write another three-pager. Damn.

0
0
Happy

@ danbi - Re: @ Nicho - @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:

I would prefer her to apply common sense; not getting knocked up before she even sat her GCSEs, to have a job, earn enough money to live comfortably, find a nice mate of her preferred gender and be happy.

If you found your partner only because they really, really liked your phone, then . . . I'm speechless.

0
0

Re: The main question, I think, is:

That's a bit too many downvotes to come from apple fans solely. Those damn druids!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I guess if they make enough random predictions then at least one might be right - then no doubt the launch will be followed by the media (Reg included) saying how rubbish Apple is at keeping a secret these days...

Far too predictable!

2
0
Silver badge

Idiot yells "Lookkit ME, I'm a iSwami!", gets mentioned all over internet.

Title says it all, It's not even about Apple products, its all about "What can I say that'll get the click throughs?"

Then all the other blog... er, excuse me, News sources perk up their ears and say "Hell, I want a piece of that action!" and pass it on in a frenzied virtual circle jerk.

Then idiots like me gripe about it in the comments section and it's 'Mission Accomplished!"

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Idiot yells "Lookkit ME, I'm a iSwami!", gets mentioned all over internet.

Yeah, then you got upvoted because... sorry, I got lost. What was the brouhaha about again?

0
0
Silver badge

This is what happens when the media rely on vapourware and rumour rather than focusing on actual news. Anyhow, for those of us who don't speak Apple, what resolution is "Retina"? Either in pixels, or standard sizes (e.g., Full HD, WXGA, etc)? When someone brags to me that their Apple phone has a "Retina" display, as far as I can tell, it turns out they mean it has a lower resolution than my 18 month old Nexus.

Even if it is October, it'll be behind other high resolution tablets likely to come out sooner (next Nexus 7, Kindle Fire etc), so nothing unusual or first here. But as I say, let's wait until the products are released to see which device is next to up the resolution.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

"their Apple phone has a "Retina" display"

Marketing genius. But "retina" is just a word derived from a Latin word that means "net".

Presumably they could justify it by claiming that the pattern of spaces between the subpixels looks like a net curtain.

0
0

You forgot the quotation marks...

... in the headline. It's "retina display", not retina display.

Take note that in order for the pixels on the display to be as close together as the cones in the center of one's field of vision, which we're told is the meaning of "retina display", the device must be viewed from a distance of about four feet.

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums