The iPad air feels lighter than the Retina Mini

[PatNY]

a

Originally Posted by jocampo

Again, for the regular "John Doe", the differences are minimum. And I can tell you for sure that if someone get a Retina Mini without buying an iPad air, that person probably will be satisfied in terms of screen quality.

Most people won't care or notice. And for those using the Mini primarily for reading, it's a non-issue. But for anyone serious about photography or the graphic arts, then this could matter a lot.

Here's the funny thing about gamut: Just the report that it has limited gamut might be enough to turn a lot of people away. They don't even need to see the screen. Because even if the colors look crisp and vibrant on a Mini, there will always be doubt in the mind as to whether it is close to reality or not. For example, if a very dark red car is shown on the screen, one might not know if the car in real life is a different shade of red or much lighter or even darker. If the screen only covers 60% of the sRGB gamut, which is a web and photographic standard, then the likelihood of the color being off is much higher than if the screen covers 100% of the range.

Again, most won't notice. But it's bad for Apple's rep to have this issue in such a high-priced product.

Edit: This image illustrates perfectly what the limited gamut issue is. On top is the Air. On the bottom is the Mini. Notice the colors on the left? They are very different between the two devices.

Source

--Pat

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by afv011

You don't know that, there's zero transparency on what an app can do on ios.

What makes you think that? It's perfectly straightforward on iOS to see and control which apps can access things like cellular data, your contacts, location services etc. etc.

/JB

[Faterson]

"Etc. etc."? I don't think so. You couldn't prolong that list much longer.

The point is this: Android is fully transparent at the moment of installation. It lets you know the minutest permission an app might need during its "life" on the device. Based on that, you can either go on and install the app, or not install the app. Such transparency on Android's part is great, and praiseworthy.

In contrast, in iOS, you are told nothing: you can only install an app, and deal with the consequences later on -- which are never presented to you in a straightforward way, in an easy-to-overlook list. As mentioned, it is comical to suppose that, for example, a Facebook app on iOS would "respect your privacy" (as the mantra goes), while the same app on Android would not. The Facebook app does pretty much the same thing everywhere -- it's just that Android is being upfront about it.

Also, the above screenshot is quite brutal. A 75-year-old Grandma with bad eyesight would notice the difference. The "gamut-gate" is not geeky nitpicking. I heard a joke about renaming iPad mini Retina to "iPad Water", due to the washed-out colours.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Faterson

"Etc. etc."? I don't think so. You couldn't prolong that list much longer.

How much longer a list do you need? Calendars, Reminders, Photos, Bluetooth, Microphone? All covered. What permission do you feel is lacking?

Whether or not you think the list is comprehensive, the claim (not made by you!) that iOS has "zero transparency" on these permissions is clearly wrong.

/JB

[Faterson]

"Zero transparency" at the moment of installation would be correct, as opposed to 100% transparency at the moment of installation on Android. Like I said, this is very much a point in favour of Android. If you take a look at the 2 screenshots posted by Jack on the previous page, you will see that one can be very precise and detailed about all the kinds of permissions an app might need on a device. iOS does not wish to be detailed in this regard -- that's a fact.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Faterson

"Zero transparency" at the moment of installation would be correct

"Zero transparency at the moment of installation" isn't, however, the assertion that was being made - the "at the moment of installation" qualification wasn't present. That's all I'm trying to correct.

Do note that, even if the requirement isn't made clear at the moment of installation, iOS explicitly asks users for permission before allowing an app to access things like location data, contacts, calendars etc., so it's not as bad as some are portraying.

"At the moment of installation" doesn't seem key to me - "before first use" is clearly important, and the ability to view and edit the permissions at a later date when I've forgotten or changed my mind about those permissions, is much more important to me.

/JB

[cadele]

Originally Posted by jocampo

I said, I see the differences and I acknowledge the "gamut thing", but the true of the matter is that in general terms, the screen resolution and the overall quality of the tablet is not poor, like the previous user said.

Sorry. I don't wish to start an argument, but I actually said in my post that I found the colours poor, not that "the overall quality of the tablet is poor".

I said that I was quite disappointed with the mini and this is due to, in my opinion, the less than stellar display of colour in what is a premium device.

I ordered the mini from Apple upon release prior to it being available to see in stores. I don't recall there being any indication from Apple that the mini's display was going to be in any way inferior to that of the air. I had already purchased the air and was very happy with it and had an expectation that the screen, including the colours, would be the same.

I am happy with other aspects of the mini, but in comparison to the air I still wouldn't recommend it for those people who are keen to use it for photography. I did wish to use it for photographs (it is a perfect size for travelling) so that is the basis of my disappointment.

It could be that my mini's colours aren't as good as in other units. It is not just that the colours are a bit washed out, but the tones are off. The blues have quite a greenish cast on my unit. Very noticeable to me when viewing sea/sky etc.

Anyway, as I said, I don't wish to create an argument so I will bow out now. I just wished to clarify what I had said.

[Faterson]

jbjb -- no problem, I was simply taking issue with Jack's slamming an Android feature that is, in fact, a very praiseworthy feature. I am, myself, fine with how these things are treated by both Android and iOS; I'm not a "privacy control" fanatic.

[JTravers]

Originally Posted by Faterson

jbjb -- no problem, I was simply taking issue with Jack's slamming an Android feature that is, in fact, a very praiseworthy feature. I am, myself, fine with how these things are treated by both Android and iOS; I'm not a "privacy control" fanatic.

Actually, Android's "feature" is pretty useless in practice. What if you want to use an app, but don't want to give it access to your contacts or your location? You have no real choice with Android to restrict an app; it's all or nothing. That's incredibly lame, in my opinion. With iOS, when an app wants to access something "sensitive," it requests permission. You can then choose to grant or deny permission. As long as that "sensitive" data isn't crucial to the app's functions, the app will still work. That granular control over an app's access to your "sensitive" data is far more useful than simply listing at the time of installation all the permissions an app requires and then only having a binary choice of install or cancel if you want or don't want to give the app access to everything.

I fail to see how this Android feature is praiseworthy. Most people probably don't even pay attention to the list of permissions shown at the time of installation. At least in iOS you are forced into making an active decision for each and every permission requested, putting power back into the hands of the user.

[JTravers]

Originally Posted by jbjb

"At the moment of installation" doesn't seem key to me - "before first use" is clearly important, and the ability to view and edit the permissions at a later date when I've forgotten or changed my mind about those permissions, is much more important to me.

/JB

You are exactly correct. People are making a losing argument when trying to denigrate iOS's privacy controls compared to Android. The amount of granular control in iOS at the time of first use and anytime there after is really powerful and important. Android's "take it or leave it" attitude is far less praiseworthy to me.

And we haven't even addressed iOS vs. Android when it comes to ad tracking, cookies, DNT, etc.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by JTravers

Actually, Android's "feature" is pretty useless in practice. What if you want to use an app, but don't want to give it access to your contacts or your location? You have no real choice with Android to restrict an app; it's all or nothing. That's incredibly lame, in my opinion. With iOS, when an app wants to access something "sensitive," it requests permission. You can then choose to grant or deny permission. As long as that "sensitive" data isn't crucial to the app's functions, the app will still work. That granular control over an app's access to your "sensitive" data is far more useful than simply listing at the time of installation all the permissions an app requires and then only having a binary choice of install or cancel if you want or don't want to give the app access to everything.

I fail to see how this Android feature is praiseworthy. Most people probably don't even pay attention to the list of permissions shown at the time of installation. At least in iOS you are forced into making an active decision for each and every permission requested, putting power back into the hands of the user.

Agreed.

/JB

[Faterson]

Whichever method of handling privacy issues you might personally prefer, Android popping up a nice overview of all the permissions the app will need, is definitely not something to criticise about Android. It is doubly ridiculous to criticise Android because of what a 3rd-party app may or may not be requesting. Criticise the app -- not Android for simply reporting what the app intends to do. Don't shoot the messenger; if you distrust the app, don't install it.

[JTravers]

Originally Posted by Faterson

Whichever method of handling privacy issues you might personally prefer, Android popping up a nice overview of all the permissions the app will need, is definitely not something to criticise about Android. It is doubly ridiculous to criticise Android because of what a 3rd-party app may or may not be requesting. Criticise the app -- not Android for simply reporting what the app intends to do. Don't shoot the messenger; if you distrust the app, don't install it.

So as long as I tell you I'm going to break into your house and steal everything you own before I do it, you're okay with it

[Faterson]

OK with what? With your telling me your intention? Absolutely, I'd love that! Because I could report you to the police right away, and no break-in would occur. That's what Android does: it transparently informs the user about the app he/she is about to install, and that's always a good thing.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Faterson

That's what Android does: it transparently informs the user about the app he/she is about to install, and that's always a good thing.

That's certainly a good thing as far as it goes, and is no doubt fine in many cases.

The point being made, however, is that Android then only gives you the opportunity to refuse to install the app if you don't like the permissions it requests. iOS goes a step further, and allows you to run the app with restricted permissions if that's what you want. It also allows you to change your mind and edit the permissions at a later date.

It's certainly possible to argue that visibility at time of installation is an advantage in favour of Android, but it's also possible to argue that the explicit separate request for each individual permission before first use, the ability to pick and choose which individual permissions an app is allowed and run it with that restricted set if desired, and the ability easily to view and edit those permissions afterwards are advantages in favour of iOS.

Reasonable people can differ about which approach is preferable to them - as I say, each has its advantages - but to label iOS as having "zero transparency" with regard to app permissions, as afv011 did, is clearly wrong. (I know you never made that claim, so please don't take this as arguing against you!)

/JB