Amazon Kindle Fire HDX 8.9" Wins Display Shoot-Out.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Displaymate tested the iPad mini vs the new 7in Kindle and Nexus:

http://t.nbcnews.com/technology/ipad...sts-2D11617668



Between this and the lower clock rate, it sounds like those weighing the Mini vs the Air will likely be better off with the Air. Which will suit Apple just fine.

I don't think I would even notice the lower color gamut, but the higher reflectancy would bother me, as even in a fairly well lit room I can see my reflection while using my kindle fire hd. The new ipad mini has a more mirror like screen than the original kindle fire hd and nexus 7.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Displaymate tested the iPad mini vs the new 7in Kindle and Nexus:

http://t.nbcnews.com/technology/ipad...sts-2D11617668



Between this and the lower clock rate, it sounds like those weighing the Mini vs the Air will likely be better off with the Air. Which will suit Apple just fine.

Someone published a piece the other day which reported that bad choices at Apple led them to embrace screen tech that didn't perform nearly as well as Amazon's this round. I'll find it (unless someone else does) later, when I'm in front of my laptop as opposed to riding in a cab.

Edit:

Here's the one of the two articles.

"Apple fans might want to skip this analysis of seven-inch tablet displays because it ranks the Retina iPad mini at the bottom of the heap. Apple went with IGZO when it should have chosen Quantum Dots."

Now to find the piece which lays out a timeline that includes not only the choice of IGZO but Apple's purported sudden inability to rely on Samsung for panels due to their protracted legal battles. It would be interesting to know whether the latter bit's based on fact or is a case of what people used to call journalistic button-pushing.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Someone published a piece the other day on bad choices at Apple led them to bank on screen tech that wasn't as good as Amazon's this round. I'll find it (unless someone else does) later, when I'm in front of my laptop as opposed to riding in a cab.

They bought in big-time on Sharp' s promises of significantly better battery life on the IGZO backplane tech. I haven't seen much made of the battery size on the new models but they seem to have ended up with a slight gain in power consumption... at the cost at a slight image quality loss.
It's not the end of the world but screen quality has been Apple's calling card for a while so the blogosphere is making an issue of it.
As is, buyers likely won't care and those that do are more likely to spring for the Air, so it'll be a net gain anyway.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

They bought in big-time on Sharp' s promises of significantly better battery life on the IGZO backplane tech. I haven't seen much made of the battery size on the new models but they seem to have ended up with a slight gain in power consumption... at the cost at a slight image quality loss. As is, buyers likely won't care and those that do are more likely to spring for the Air, so it'll be a net gain anyway.

One reason it matters is because screen quality has been one of Apple's main excuses for their price differential. I anticipated that Samsung would pull ahead, but the technical superiority of Asus and Amazon surprised me this time. Asus has never been known for having gorgeous screens and Amazon hasn't been in the tablet game for very long. So much for seniority.

The saddest player at the moment is Microsoft, because the Surface line was amazing to use in-store. Unfortunately, M's tablet pricing makes Apple's look tempting. The Surface Pro line is too expensive to lead with. They should have started at a loss and brought up the price when their tablets had a solid following.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The Surface Pro line is too expensive to lead with. They should have started at a loss and brought up the price when their tablets had a solid following.

The problem with going low on Surface pricing is that it wouldn't have left room for OEMs to slot their products in. Microsoft isn't quite ready to give up on OEMs in the tablet space so they went premium features/premium price which is no obstacle for the corporate world and left room for Dell, Asus, Lenovo, etc.
Biggest disappointment so far is HP' s inability to deliver anything vaguely competitive. Then again, their android products shine by their mediocrity.

We'll have to see what the upcoming baby mini looks like; if they see no low-end traction by the OEMs by spring they may go after that market themselves.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The problem with going low on Surface pricing is that it wouldn't have left room for OEMs to slot their products in. Microsoft isn't quite ready to give up on OEMs in the tablet space so they went premium features/premium price which is no obstacle for the corporate world and left room for Dell, Asus, Lenovo, etc.

Yes, that was the plan, but I'm not seeing evidence that the Surface Pro 2 is doing terribly well.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/24/microsoft-surface-unit-volume-doubled-in-most-recent-quarter/

http://betanews.com/2013/10/25/sorry...t-good-enough/