PDA

View Full Version : iPad 3 Coming This Year With 2560x1920 Resolution Display?




MacRumors
Jun 14, 2011, 12:02 AM
http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/ipad-3-coming-this-year-with-2560x1920-resolution-display/)


Buried in an Reuters report (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/13/new-macbook-air-to-launch-at-end-of-june/) this evening about the imminent launch of the MacBook Air, there was a single sentence nonchalantly stating that the iPad 3 would launch in the fourth quarter of this year with a screen resolution "5-6 times" higher than the iPad 2.

The numbers seemed absurd so we tracked down the original Economic Daily News (http://udn.com/NEWS/FINANCE/FIN3/6397093.shtml) report which only made it sound slightly less unbelievable. Thanks to translation assistance from @wayyuen (http://twitter.com/wayyuen), @wongwil (http://twitter.com/wongwil), @agleung (http://twitter.com/agleung) and Micah Fisher-Kirshner (http://www.micahfk.com/), here's the relevant portion in English:
Apple dominates the tablet computer market in the year of 2010; In 2011, a huge number of tablet computers have been introduced and given a general threat to Apple's leading status, Apple is thinking to give an aggressive counteroffensive.
....
Apple, in order to maintain a leading position, plans to launch iPad 3 in the fourth quarter by shortening the iPad Product life cycle. And also, try to push the screen resolution of iPad 3 to 2560x1920 , which is the ultimate resolution a 9.7 Inch Panel can achieve and doubles "Full HD"¯. The reasoning behind a second iPad update in 2011 is that Apple's competitors have been purely reacting to the launch of the iPad 2, and while they are ramping up their launches for later this year, Apple plans to trump them again by launching the iPad 3 quickly.


http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2010/11/23/123254-ipad_4_2_profile.jpg


While we might have just dismissed the report in its entirety, this actually isn't the first time we've heard this line of reasoning. In February (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/09/ipad-3-to-arrive-this-september/) before the launch of the iPad 2, both DaringFireball and TechCrunch seemed to believe that Apple would make such a move. DaringFireball wrote at that time:Thus, my gut feeling is that Apple will move the iPad to a September release schedule, alongside the iPods. But they wouldn't want to wait over a year and a half from the announcement of the original iPad to announce the second one -- not with these stakes, and not with so many serious competitors trying their best to catch up.Perhaps the most unbelievable part of the story, however, is that Apple might try to reach a resolution of 2560x1920 in the new device. That resolution would be over 6x the number of pixels of the current iPad, and 2.5x the linear resolution in each dimension. The closest display we've heard of is Samsung's announcement (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/12/samsung-2560x1600-tablet-lcd-paves-way-for-ipad-retina-display/) of a 2560x1600 10.1" LCD display in May. Apple has been rumored to be bringing a "Retina" display to the iPad 3, though there has been little talk of it recently. To further add to the doubts, component manufacturers (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/apple-begins-certifying-components-for-2012-ipad-3-oled-unlikely/) seem to be expecting the iPad 3 to arrive in 2012.

Economic Daily Times has been a spotty source of Apple rumors, so we don't have much confidence in this report, but felt it an interesting discussion piece given the previous "iPad 3 in 2011" rumors.


Article Link: iPad 3 Coming This Year With 2560x1920 Resolution Display? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/ipad-3-coming-this-year-with-2560x1920-resolution-display/)



arn
Jun 14, 2011, 12:08 AM
full translation


iPad3 is going to create ultimate screen resolutions

The Apple iPad3 will come out in the fourth quarter. Its panel resolution requirements are five to six times than iPad 2. However, it will require 8 times effort to enhance the production yield. At that time, it will lead other tablet computers into struggle hard in the fourth quarter, Apple will further widen the gap with its competitors.

Apple dominates the tablet computer market in the year of 2010; In 2011, a huge number of tablet computers have been introduced and given a general threat to Apple's leading status, Apple is thinking to give an aggressive counteroffensive.

In the first quarter before the introduction of iPad 2 , the global tablets makers wait until introduction of iPad 2 in March, they then modify its specifications to match with iPad 2, and delay their own tablet announcement to the second quarter, to hope for a large number of shipments in the second half of the year.

Apple, in order to maintain a leading position, plans to launch iPad 3 in the fourth quarter by shortening the iPad Product life cycle. And also, try to push the screen resolution of iPad 3 to 2560x1920 , which is the ultimate resolution a 9.7 Inch Panel can achieve and doubles “Full HD”.
Apple would like to kill the others by surprise of introducing a more advanced iPad 3 when other brands are trying to release iPad2 like products in the second half of 2011. As a result, other factories would never catch up, and Apple will wins again by widening the distance between the competitors.

The production of iPad 2 Panel is difficult, the Taiwan production partners only have 60% yield, which is far from the general requirements - 90%. It results that the iPad2 panel production being monopolized by Korean company - LG monitor (LGD) and Samsung.

Peteman100
Jun 14, 2011, 12:08 AM
Please be true! This is the tablet I've been waiting for.

Atothendrew24
Jun 14, 2011, 12:09 AM
If this is true than Apple is going to make a lot of people angry.

Megagator
Jun 14, 2011, 12:12 AM
If it's too good to be true...

This would leave a couple jaws on the floor though:rolleyes:

levitynyc
Jun 14, 2011, 12:13 AM
Not going to happen....nothing to see here.

IndianaiPhone
Jun 14, 2011, 12:15 AM
http://usingapple.com/img/iPad_2_-_2011_Year_of_iPad_2-20110303-230348.jpg

mmhmmm.....

macduke
Jun 14, 2011, 12:29 AM
I just picked up an iPad 2 the other day, sold the old one to my mom for cheap since her Dell is dead. The deal made with the wife is that I get the iPad 3 when I graduate and she gets this one, so we won't have to share any more. So I'm looking forward to this. But I have to wonder: Won't the iPad 3 feel slower than an iPad 2 at such a huge resolution? I know, Apple won't release crap, blah blah, but really? Many PCs have a hard time with that. For instance, my iPhone 4, especially when scrolling, feels slower than my 3GS and they share the same graphics chip. I'm just wondering, since this iPad feels so much snappier than the old one, would it be smarter to wait for the iPad 4 after they've got a better graphics chip and more ram in there? (obviously newer hardware is better, but if not upgrading for awhile after initial purchase it might be a smart choice in the long run) Or will it use a newer graphics chip than this model? Can the current Imagination Graphics chipset, which is 9X faster, really push out that resolution? Or will they scale up to the same model with more cores? Would that further fragment iOS development at a point where devs are just starting to optimize better games for an iPad 2 and then have to switch to something even more complex?

So many questions, so few answers. Wait and see I guess. But that's just what is on my mind at the moment.

Now, the only thing I do know? Retina iPad = game over Apple wins. Can you imagine how beautiful that would be? Though web page graphics will still look like pixelated crap. As a web designer, I'd like to know how can you get around that?

acslater017
Jun 14, 2011, 12:30 AM
Doubt it.

1) The 5th-generation iPhone is much more likely to be released in September. Why would they stack them so closely? It makes more sense to have iPad in April, WWDC in June, iPhone in September, Mac updates throughout the year (and holiday sales of course).

2) It really wouldn't make sense for Steve Jobs to call 2011 "The Year of iPad 2".

3) Competitors have not really stepped up. If the Xoom, Galaxy, etc. had been smash hits, then I could maybe see why Apple would want to "counterattack". But the iPad's sold 25 million units in 14 months. The rest have moved an order of magnitude less. Why rush something at this point?

Capt Underpants
Jun 14, 2011, 12:37 AM
Apple only 3 months away from launching iPad 3?

I don't buy it. Like the picture above says -- 2011 is the year of iPad 2.

torbjoern
Jun 14, 2011, 12:44 AM
If this is true than Apple is going to make a lot of people angry.
Not me - on the contrary, even. It's almost like SJ has read my previous rants against the iPad. However, I think 2560x1920 is overkill for a display that size. 2560x1920 pixels on a 7-inch-screen is 457 ppi, while 300 ppi should be enough for the so-called retina effect.

Sbrocket
Jun 14, 2011, 12:47 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8F190)

Won't happen. Way too many pixels for current hardware to push. The iPad 1 had significant troubles keeping up with its screen in terms of RAM usage, and this would be the same problem on an even larger scale.

beebler
Jun 14, 2011, 12:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

I've posted this before.

My good friend in Apple R&D said they're shooting to release the iPad 3 with Retina screen alongside the next iPhone in September.

I still question it but they said that's what they're gunning for. Not sure if it's changed since. Last info was a month or two ago.

In case people actually are reading my post, the next redesigned MacBook Pro is aimed at the first quarter of 2012 with a big selling point being the screen. It'll also be all SSD.

bananasquiddly
Jun 14, 2011, 12:55 AM
I don't get why people still spread rumors like this—there won't be an iPad with a resolution that isn't exactly doubled (or quadrupled, or some other even multiple) in each direction. It's not about some arbitrary high resolution or dpi, it's about allowing for a high-res display while preserving backwards compatibility with existing apps.

1024x768 x 2 = 2048x1536 (right!)
2560x1920 x 2.5 = 2560x1920 (wrong!)

OverSpun
Jun 14, 2011, 01:02 AM
Eh... I really doubt seeing the ipad 3 in the 4th quarter since the ipad2 just came out recently. If they have a little bump on the ipad2 including maybe 4G from AT&T if the iphone(4S)(5), then maybe they could do that. I'm still assuming to see the ipad 3 ~march april again.

The DRis
Jun 14, 2011, 01:10 AM
Same crap, different year.

2020digging
Jun 14, 2011, 01:12 AM
Great! My "light bleeding" iPad2 will be ready to hand back in under warranty and they can upgrade it to the latest version. Apple, should start ensuring that their incumbent products work 100% before they bring out a newer version of the product. Churn is an important issue in this industry and it wont take much for previously devoted Apple customers to jump ship, such is the competition. Bringing out a newer, better version of the iPad when they haven't fixed the millions of faulty iPad 2's out there is certain to piss off a lot of people.

ImperialX
Jun 14, 2011, 01:15 AM
Not happening in 2011.

caspersoong
Jun 14, 2011, 01:16 AM
I wonder whether how the GPU must be improved to avoid lag on that.

GoHack
Jun 14, 2011, 01:23 AM
I would imagine that more system memory would be needed to address the higher resolution, would it not?

My IPAD 1 has 256 mb memory, the iPAD 2 has 512 mb. So what would an iPAD 3 need for that much resolution, 1+ gb?

I'm hoping that the iPAD 3 comes w/a least 128+ gb flash storage. I have my iPAD 1, w/its 64 gb, full, w/movies, music, and applications.


.

Bonte
Jun 14, 2011, 01:25 AM
The only way for Apple to reduce the price of the iPad is bring a new model, then it can dump the iPad 1 and 2 to compete with Android. Apple is dominating this market and it will do everything necessary to keep that lead.

sciwizam
Jun 14, 2011, 01:45 AM
There are no SoCs announced yet that can drive that resolution.

jmpnop
Jun 14, 2011, 02:24 AM
Image (http://usingapple.com/img/iPad_2_-_2011_Year_of_iPad_2-20110303-230348.jpg)

mmhmmm.....

+1

iPad 3 in 2011 is highly unlikely.

colmaclean
Jun 14, 2011, 02:44 AM
This thing would cost upwards of $1000.

lfc
Jun 14, 2011, 02:53 AM
Great! My "light bleeding" iPad2 will be ready to hand back in under warranty and they can upgrade it to the latest version. Apple, should start ensuring that their incumbent products work 100% before they bring out a newer version of the product. Churn is an important issue in this industry and it wont take much for previously devoted Apple customers to jump ship, such is the competition. Bringing out a newer, better version of the iPad when they haven't fixed the millions of faulty iPad 2's out there is certain to piss off a lot of people.

Take it to the genius bar or your service provider. They'll replace it then and there or fix it free of charge. You have a warranty for a reason.

wackymacky
Jun 14, 2011, 03:04 AM
It would be cool, but not realistic.

Anyhow I want to get a iPhone5 this year, so i'd rather wait for the iP3 until next year!

ratzzo
Jun 14, 2011, 03:22 AM
While the resolution 'rumor' is likely to be true, I don't think we're set for a 2011 iPad 3 just yet.

Skika
Jun 14, 2011, 03:33 AM
I predict...

NOPE

;)

reactions
Jun 14, 2011, 03:35 AM
It would be cool but it would suck if we need to sell the iPad 2 asap before prices tank

Hattig
Jun 14, 2011, 03:54 AM
Interesting rumour. Firstly because the resolution is 2.5x the current one in each dimension, when the obvious guess would be 2x (2048x1536) for scaling of assets. The end effect is true retina display on the tablet, whereas maybe 2048x1536 might still have had perceptible pixels. I can see why Apple would decide to go for true retina even if it meant a non-perfect scaling of resolution, and oddly enough it adds a bit of credence to the rumour.

Secondly Apple could move to Samsung's 32nm process (or TSMC's 28nm process) from the current 45nm process, and in the process upgrade to an MP4 graphics chip from an MP2 - a doubling of graphical power that would be required for such a display, and keeping games rendering smoothly. There is also the possibility of getting a quad-core CPU too, like NVIDIA's Kal-El Tegra 3.

So it is just the timing that is odd - it's still quite soon after the iPad 2 came out. Possibly the iPad 3 would be the top-end product, with iPad 2s filling out the $499 - $699 price points.

rochford
Jun 14, 2011, 03:59 AM
? Buried in the Reuters report…it was only 4 paragraphs and 14 lines long. Someone's a slow reader.

amirsamadian
Jun 14, 2011, 04:02 AM
if its really true i would wait for it while i was planing to buy an ipad 2 within next couple weeks!! but how can i be sure ?!! its only a rumour!!!

Please someone help me :D

ratzzo
Jun 14, 2011, 04:05 AM
if its really true i would wait for it while i was planing to buy an ipad 2 within next couple weeks!! but how can i be sure ?!! its only a rumour!!!

Please someone help me :D

iPad 3 isn't coming this year.

amirsamadian
Jun 14, 2011, 04:11 AM
iPad 3 isn't coming this year.

Do you consider me to buy ipad2 ?! :confused:

bjerge
Jun 14, 2011, 04:13 AM
well... you would lose half that display resolution watching 3D *wink*

ratzzo
Jun 14, 2011, 04:13 AM
Do you consider me to buy ipad2 ?! :confused:

If you need/want it, it's a great time to purchase one, since the it's a relatively recent refresh. I recommend you take a look at the Buyer's Guide (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/).

Zaqfalcon
Jun 14, 2011, 04:16 AM
iPad 2S?

Don Kosak
Jun 14, 2011, 04:36 AM
Wow, it seems iPad 2 just got finished launching in some countries a little while ago.

The 2560x1920 is a bit baffling, not what I would have expected.

The iOS graphics calls are based on "points" not pixels (where points are a resolution independent unit of measure.) Such a resolution is possible, but seems very high for a 9.7" screen.

Perhaps the native resolution on the built-in LCD screen might be lower - but when hooked to an external display you can achieve 2560x1920... Might be a step in making a "mac-mini"-like computing environment. Add a monitor and keyboard to your iPad to have a full "desktop" experience? I don't know, seems a little weird. So does a September launch date.

It's unlikely Apple would announce the iPad 3 in September, then wait until November/December to launch it. They'd kill iPad 2 sales that way. Apple would have to be ready to start shipping iPad 3's in September -- that means suppliers would be ramping up right now. I don't think September is going to happen.

If Apple does do an iPad 3 this year, I'm betting on a late November announcement with pre-orders starting the day after Thanksgiving. That would nail the holiday shopping season in the USA and make life miserable for the other Tablet companies.

ChristianJapan
Jun 14, 2011, 04:44 AM
I don't get why people still spread rumors like this—there won't be an iPad with a resolution that isn't exactly doubled (or quadrupled, or some other even multiple) in each direction. It's not about some arbitrary high resolution or dpi, it's about allowing for a high-res display while preserving backwards compatibility with existing apps.

1024x768 x 2 = 2048x1536 (right!)
2560x1920 x 2.5 = 2560x1920 (wrong!)

Why not ? don't need to be full screen; still possible to display "legacy" apps within black frame filling the gap. It's finally more a software issue then a hardware one...
Don't want to know the price tag though ...

agojes
Jun 14, 2011, 05:13 AM
I highly doubt Apple will launch iPad 3 this year. If it does, Mr. Jobs will lose his credential for making a bold statement in early March. Doubt it's gonna happen.
I believe, however, there's a chance for the introduction of iPad 3 this year with the device being available 1st Q next year.
Holiday season or no holiday season is not really gonna hurt Apple's sales. We can see that Apple has been struggling to keep supplies of iPad 2 now in several countries.

Just my .02 though..

Northgrove
Jun 14, 2011, 05:17 AM
I don't believe that. Even iMac 27's with far more powerful CPU's and GPU's than those in the iPads struggle with pushing nice graphics at decent framerates in 2560x1440, and that's a lower resolution than this. This resolution would be devastating for iPad 3 gaming. 2560x1920 on a mobile CPU+GPU sounds like a bad joke to me. Unless they run in a lower resolution, but that means the games will look either blurry or have borders - no way around that.

Edit: Yeah, it'll probably be 2048x1536 if anything, not x1920. 1920 would break backwards compatibility for no good reason. At least 1536 would be a slightly lower resolution, which also makes more sense. But it's still ridiculously high for mobile gaming.

Megakazbek
Jun 14, 2011, 05:42 AM
It can be easily 2560x1920. Old apps can just scale 2x, not 2.5x leaving small black border around. It cannot be 2048x1536 because that is not enough for "retina" resolution.
Graphics performance is not that big of a problem. iPad 2 boosted GPU speed by 9 times, that is already enough to run 2560x1920 resolution at iPad 1 speed (which was not slow at all) And surely iPad 3 chip will be even faster.
About "2011: Year of iPad 2". A new device that is available for just a couple last months of a year does not in any way invalidate the whole year as being "year of iPad 2". So what that for a tiny part of the year there was a newer device available? The year overall would be year of iPad 2 anyway.
And surely there is nothing wrong with launching two devices at the same time (iPhone 5 and iPad 3). It's basically the same as launching one device, but with all the fun doubled.

puercaeli
Jun 14, 2011, 07:02 AM
I know it sounds stupid. But what if this new device is a spiritual successor of iPod Classic + iPod Touch? Or may be it is more like tabletised version of MacBook?

Scarpad
Jun 14, 2011, 07:14 AM
I think we'll see it in the normal refresh time around Feb-Apr of Next Year, no reason to come sooner the Ipad 2 is still selling like Hotcakes, it will do well again this holiday season. If the came out with a smaller device on a mid refresh like a 7" Ipad for a bit lower money that could be a huge market grabber too.

MythicFrost
Jun 14, 2011, 07:24 AM
The resolution is wrong. Apple will NEVER use any resolution other than 2048x1536, not only is there no need for higher resolutions, but there are cons to using 2560x1920.

Sodner
Jun 14, 2011, 07:26 AM
Simply........ not happening. :rolleyes:

thelonelylimo
Jun 14, 2011, 07:27 AM
same battery life?

ghostlyorb
Jun 14, 2011, 07:42 AM
Here we go again.. I don't think it'll happen. Yes, I stood in line for 4 hours to get my iPad 2. If I could've waited like 8 months for iPad 3.. then I would.

gnasher729
Jun 14, 2011, 07:44 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

I've posted this before.

My good friend in Apple R&D said they're shooting to release the iPad 3 with Retina screen alongside the next iPhone in September.

Give it up already. Making up stories about "good friends in Apple R&D" just makes you look desperate for attention.

fkhan3
Jun 14, 2011, 07:44 AM
Do you consider me to buy ipad2 ?! :confused:

Don't bet on rumors, you'll keep on waiting forever. Buy now and enjoy it :D

jon1987
Jun 14, 2011, 07:49 AM
2011: year of the iPad 2. Fair enough...

Maybe the iPad 3 could be launched late November time. Apple could Market it as " get ready for the the year of the iPad 3"

Especially as most would then buy for christmas and have the new model just in time for the new year.

goombamd
Jun 14, 2011, 08:13 AM
I heard Apple tells selected employees slightly ridiculous rumors, shows fake prototypes to selected insiders, etc as a method to witch hunt the leak sources.

i.e. they spread their own rumors internally as "possibilities" but track who they tell what to.

Since the resolution is a bit absurd and not an even multiple of the current resolution, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case...

Megakazbek
Jun 14, 2011, 08:13 AM
The resolution is wrong. Apple will NEVER use any resolution other than 2048x1536, not only is there no need for higher resolutions, but there are cons to using 2560x1920.
Apple won't use 2048x1536, because it's considerably less than 300 dpi "retina" resolution. And even 300 dpi is "retina display" only for average human eye and for viewing distance of about 30 cm, and for example I often bring my iPad much closer to my eyes, and there are still 10-15% of users with good vision for whom 300 dpi is not enough, so ideally even much higher resolutions are still useful and make difference.

msb3079
Jun 14, 2011, 08:30 AM
I just picked up an iPad 2 the other day, sold the old one to my mom for cheap since her Dell is dead.

You SOLD your old iPad to your mom? She gave birth to you. You couldn't just give it to her? I could never accept money from my mom for an electronic.

Chupa Chupa
Jun 14, 2011, 08:32 AM
Didn't believe this rumor the first time around and don't believe it now either. Makes zero sense from Apple's perspective on so many levels. Most notably, it would create buyer burnout (Apple is highly reliant on customers that buy new idevice models with each annual update -- it's what fed iPod growth and fuels iPad growth). The annual space allows buyers to digest the price and also justify buying a new model. It's much harder justifying taking a hit selling a 6 month old product.

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 08:35 AM
So it is just the timing that is odd - it's still quite soon after the iPad 2 came out. Possibly the iPad 3 would be the top-end product, with iPad 2s filling out the $499 - $699 price points.

Bingo! Why wouldn't Apple keep the iPad 2 around when the iPad 3 is introduced? Price is going to become the next area where competitors are going to press against Apple. So let Apple preemptively strike on price by keeping the iPad 2, but dropping its price while the iPad 3 keeps the iPad 2 price level. Now you can get a low-end WiFi iPad for $399 (or maybe $349 to really put the pressure on).

That would still make 2011 the year of the iPad 2 since that would be the biggest seller model all year, but the iPad 3 could still come out this fall. Not impossible no matter how many MacRumor posters jump up and down stamping their feet yelling how impossible this is. Apple specializes in the impossible.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 08:45 AM
Great. I'll just put mine back in the box and return it. No way I purchase something released in March, bought in April, only to see it replaced a few months later and *not* get a free upgrade.

I'll find a way.

By the way, I don't believe a word of this rumour. ;)

lord patton
Jun 14, 2011, 08:51 AM
Bingo! Why wouldn't Apple keep the iPad 2 around when the iPad 3 is introduced? Price is going to become the next area where competitors are going to press against Apple. So let Apple preemptively strike on price by keeping the iPad 2, but dropping its price while the iPad 3 keeps the iPad 2 price level. Now you can get a low-end WiFi iPad for $399 (or maybe $349 to really put the pressure on).



Definitely. If a new iPad comes out, it will be an addition to the lineup, not a replacement. One only has to consider the difficulties ramping up production of iPad 2. Supply and demand *still* aren't in equilibrium. No way apple disrupts their supply at the dawn of the holiday season.

It might happen, it might not. But I continue to think it makes sense for some kind of holiday season refresh, while lowering the price of the existing product. I think Apple sees the iPad as a paradigm shift that will dictate the next 10-15 years of "personal computing". All bets are off as apple tries to lock in their dominant position.

Amazing Iceman
Jun 14, 2011, 08:51 AM
I don't get why people still spread rumors like this—there won't be an iPad with a resolution that isn't exactly doubled (or quadrupled, or some other even multiple) in each direction. It's not about some arbitrary high resolution or dpi, it's about allowing for a high-res display while preserving backwards compatibility with existing apps.

1024x768 x 2 = 2048x1536 (right!)
2560x1920 x 2.5 = 2560x1920 (wrong!)

It's to be expected that the aspect ratio for the display resolution remain the same (4:3), regardless of how many times higher it goes.
Both resolutions of 1024x768 and 2560x1920 have a 4:3 Ratio.

Legacy App scaling will be handled by iOS, transparent to the developer and user. Changing to a different aspect ratio would have caused a slight issue with scaling, but nothing that can't be resolved.

Considering the rumor came from Reuters, there's a great chance it must be true.

onetoescape
Jun 14, 2011, 08:55 AM
Is the 4 quarter is not next year for businesses? Ie normal refresh time.

DeuxIt
Jun 14, 2011, 09:29 AM
I don't get why people still spread rumors like this—there won't be an iPad with a resolution that isn't exactly doubled (or quadrupled, or some other even multiple) in each direction. It's not about some arbitrary high resolution or dpi, it's about allowing for a high-res display while preserving backwards compatibility with existing apps.

1024x768 x 2 = 2048x1536 (right!)
2560x1920 x 2.5 = 2560x1920 (wrong!)

well, they are all 1.33:1 screen ratio. do ipad aps scale more fluidly than iphone apps did, other than doubling everything, perhaps could scale intelligently for lack of the right terms.

Whab
Jun 14, 2011, 09:30 AM
Those interested by a thorough analysis on the subject can have a look at my blog series on the ""Retina Display" in the next iPad?" published before the release of the iPad 2:

http://www.kybervision.com/Blog/files/iPadRetinaDisplay_Part1.html

qtx43
Jun 14, 2011, 09:36 AM
Bingo! Why wouldn't Apple keep the iPad 2 around when the iPad 3 is introduced? Price is going to become the next area where competitors are going to press against Apple. So let Apple preemptively strike on price by keeping the iPad 2, but dropping its price while the iPad 3 keeps the iPad 2 price level. Now you can get a low-end WiFi iPad for $399 (or maybe $349 to really put the pressure on).

That would still make 2011 the year of the iPad 2 since that would be the biggest seller model all year, but the iPad 3 could still come out this fall. Not impossible no matter how many MacRumor posters jump up and down stamping their feet yelling how impossible this is. Apple specializes in the impossible.You can buy a "low-end" iPad for $349 right now i.e. a refurbished iPad 1st generation. When Apple can make as many as the market demands (still not happening), then they might start thinking about expanding the product line or price competition. Or not, this is Apple after all.

Illusion986
Jun 14, 2011, 09:40 AM
2011? iPad3? ahhh why would anyone believe that?

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 09:42 AM
Good point, so maybe drop the low-end iPad to $299.

I expect Apple to do with the iPad what they did with the iPod: Create a pricing tier that starts at the low end and moves up to the top of the line, leaving no place for competitors to compete on price. With the iPod it starts at $49. Eventually I expect the iPad to start at $199.

qtx43
Jun 14, 2011, 09:48 AM
@NebulaClash...sure, but that's a strategy that might develop over 5-10 years. iPad 3 this fall is just wishful thinking.

jonnysods
Jun 14, 2011, 10:18 AM
This is the iPad I have been waiting for. Love my iPad 1, but the 2 wasn't quite 'it' for me. I wanted that updated display. Can't wait to see what the next one will be like!

toddybody
Jun 14, 2011, 10:26 AM
Id love to submit a more realistic rumor: "iPad 3 comes in 2012"

Gemütlichkeit
Jun 14, 2011, 10:33 AM
Rumors like these are why I cringe when someone says "i heard they're releasing the new ipad this year!"

No they won't. This retina display will be for 2012 release.

ChristianJapan
Jun 14, 2011, 11:16 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

If the retina for iPad comes in 2011 it will become iPad 2 Pro.
There would need to be a split of the devices (and merge CDMA with GSM via world mode chip; maby 4G too). If not how to keep the low entry price ?
This way the slogan can still stay true

DriveByPoster
Jun 14, 2011, 11:30 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)

Maybe it's not an iPad, maybe it's the tablet that everyone has been wanting that can run OS X.

When they were showing off gestures at WWDC of Lion with the trackpad, I got the feeling that a tablet based version was probably being developed side by side with the desktop version.

Defender2010
Jun 14, 2011, 11:32 AM
Didn't believe this rumor the first time around and don't believe it now either. Makes zero sense from Apple's perspective on so many levels. Most notably, it would create buyer burnout (Apple is highly reliant on customers that buy new idevice models with each annual update -- it's what fed iPod growth and fuels iPad growth). The annual space allows buyers to digest the price and also justify buying a new model. It's much harder justifying taking a hit selling a 6 month old product.

Agree exactly! I can't believe people are still peddling this rumour, especially now stating Sept as the release date of the new model. The keynote stated that 2011 was the year of the iPad 2...what more do you want? For Steve to come round and tell you face to face over a cup of tea? Buy an iPad now and stop fretting over a rumour which has no credibility. An analyst? Pah!
Q1 2012 A6 Chip, Retina display. It's only June 2011 now...

nagromme
Jun 14, 2011, 11:35 AM
I’d hate to see a new iPad within just half a year of my new iPad 2. And I really doubt it will happen (early-to-mid 2012 sounds like the earliest for a retina display).

But if it does (and someday it will) my iPad 2 will still be awesome; I won’t be harmed in the least! Whether an iPad 3 is out this year or not, I won’t have one :) I love it for what it does, not for bragging rights.

kiljoy616
Jun 14, 2011, 11:45 AM
Right and exactly what kind of video card built in or not would run this much resolution, oh please do tell me I want to put it in my Gaming machine because right now 1900x1200 is using 2 Radeon 5870 overclocked.

So I would love to see the heat displacement of that little chip so that it could be moved over to my antiquated video cards. :rolleyes:

kiljoy616
Jun 14, 2011, 11:48 AM
I just picked up an iPad 2 the other day, sold the old one to my mom for cheap since her Dell is dead. The deal made with the wife is that I get the iPad 3 when I graduate and she gets this one, so we won't have to share any more. So I'm looking forward to this. But I have to wonder: Won't the iPad 3 feel slower than an iPad 2 at such a huge resolution? \

A resounding YES! What makes the iPad 2 so hot and fun to use is that the video capacity is so high for its resolution so some games now are using it to add features to the game. Drop that much resolution and it all goes down hill fast. I can't see Apple doing that, if they did then I wait for iPad 4.

Plus what would games have x4 button?:D

kiljoy616
Jun 14, 2011, 11:51 AM
You SOLD your old iPad to your mom? She gave birth to you. You couldn't just give it to her? I could never accept money from my mom for an electronic.

Really, but I could see me selling it to my wife ;) its not like she is that important, oh crap she is in the room!:p

I was just kidding, really why are you picking up the crowbar, dam should never have gotten her to play half life 2. :D

Yamcha
Jun 14, 2011, 11:51 AM
Not going to happen, I don't know why we constantly see rumours regarding high resolution, you would need an amazing GPU to run at that resolution, not to mention I don't know of any company even apart from Apple that can put something equivalent to a HD 5870 or GTX580 into something as thin as the iPad :P..

Imagine running games at a native resolution of 2560X1920 using an A4 chip & Integrated graphics :P

RafaelT
Jun 14, 2011, 12:03 PM
If this is true than Apple is going to make a lot of people angry.

I am not going to debate the legitimacy of this article, it is way to early to tell at this point.

That statement however is ridiculous. Apple is always releasing new products. The more updates the better, it keeps the latest generation using great technology. Why should this make anyone angry? Why should they only be allowed to release once a year? Yeah it might make your iPad not the latest and greatest, but you still have an awesome product.

gnasher729
Jun 14, 2011, 12:08 PM
Not going to happen, I don't know why we constantly see rumours regarding high resolution, you would need an amazing GPU to run at that resolution, not to mention I don't know of any company even apart from Apple that can put something equivalent to a HD 5870 or GTX580 into something as thin as the iPad :P..

Imagine running games at a native resolution of 2560X1920 using an A4 chip & Integrated graphics :P

It's not quite that bad, because there is no point in running games at that resolution. You would run all pixel shaders at 1280 x 960 and the geometry at 2560 x 1920, so you would effectively get something that looks slightly better than 1280 x 960 antialiased with slightly less performance requirements. Where you really want the high resolution is for text, and that has low requirements otherwise. So it's borderline doable.

3goldens
Jun 14, 2011, 12:41 PM
Could happen, with Christmas sales in mind.
It's close enough to 2012, and they would certainly reap the benefits of something like this in huge sales during the holiday. Course sales will suffer leading up to that launch but, its so just a rumor at this point.

I don't believe any of the specs though. It's just too early for an of this nonsense.

Probably just more people trying to get their 15 seconds of fame compliments of MacRumors and the BS of the internet.

natey1
Jun 14, 2011, 01:37 PM
Seems more likely if something like this happens it would not be a straight replacement (iPad 2 -> iPad 3) it would be a second tablet line adding more consumer choice, like a laptop line. They could call this "iPad3" the MacPad, or iPad pro or something and have it be a full laptop replacement running OSX (as they have been integrating iOS features into OSX). Adding this second higher line starting at $699 or $799 would still net many buyers and they could push the 16G iPad price down to $399 getting the lion share of the holiday tablet sales.

With the internals of the Macbook Air and tablets looking so similar, and adding Core i5 into macbook air's they could do something really crazy if they wanted to .... although that wouldn't hit the $699 price point :)

-Just my made up ideas

slicecom
Jun 14, 2011, 01:52 PM
I don't get why people still spread rumors like this—there won't be an iPad with a resolution that isn't exactly doubled (or quadrupled, or some other even multiple) in each direction. It's not about some arbitrary high resolution or dpi, it's about allowing for a high-res display while preserving backwards compatibility with existing apps.

1024x768 x 2 = 2048x1536 (right!)
2560x1920 x 2.5 = 2560x1920 (wrong!)

Exactly.

AZREOSpecialist
Jun 14, 2011, 02:24 PM
There is always the possibility of Apple pre-announcing an iPad 3 in Q4 2011 to start shipping in Q1 2012. This way SJ is technically correct in saying 2011 is the year of iPad 2. However, it makes very little business sense because it would kill sales of iPad 2 during the holidays. The only way this rumor can be true is if Apple is prepared to ship a ton of iPad 3s for the holidays. I just don't see that happening considering the trouble they are having with supplies for the current model.

ratsg
Jun 14, 2011, 02:25 PM
I don't get why people still spread rumors like this—there won't be an iPad with a resolution that isn't exactly doubled (or quadrupled, or some other even multiple) in each direction. It's not about some arbitrary high resolution or dpi, it's about allowing for a high-res display while preserving backwards compatibility with existing apps.

1024x768 x 2 = 2048x1536 (right!)
2560x1920 x 2.5 = 2560x1920 (wrong!)

When has Apple ever been concerned with backwards compatibility? Especially in recent years. Reference the loss of Rosetta, Classic environment, UFS filesystems, NFS & FTP server on OS X server, etc.

If there was any technical incompatibility, this would be an opportunity for developers to sell updates to existing applications.

cube
Jun 14, 2011, 02:26 PM
Sold.

BMcCoy
Jun 14, 2011, 02:56 PM
2011 is indeed going to remain the "year of iPad 2"..

But in September, we are going to see Ipad 2 HD.

..at a suitably premium price point, of course.

:apple:

slicecom
Jun 14, 2011, 03:02 PM
2011 is indeed going to remain the "year of iPad 2"..

But in September, we are going to see Ipad 2 HD.

..at a suitably premium price point, of course.

:apple:

That would be a terrible idea. The App Store is loaded with apps called "HD" for the iPad versions. I foresee millions of angry customers yelling "Why is your "HD" app not HD!?"

ChristianJapan
Jun 14, 2011, 04:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

2011 is indeed going to remain the "year of iPad 2"..

But in September, we are going to see Ipad 2 HD.

..at a suitably premium price point, of course.

:apple:

That would be a terrible idea. The App Store is loaded with apps called "HD" for the iPad versions. I foresee millions of angry customers yelling "Why is your "HD" app not HD!?"

That why it will be "iPad Pro"; implying and justifying a more pro pricetag.

slicecom
Jun 14, 2011, 04:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



That why it will be "iPad Pro"; implying and justifying a more pro pricetag.

That works for the MacBook and Mac Pros because they're targeted at pros. iPad is a consumer level device through and through. They'd have to add some pro features besides the high res display. I don't think Apple will fragment the iPad like that, I think if there's a new iPad before Christmas, it will be the iPad 3.

akaralias
Jun 14, 2011, 05:12 PM
... if I was a competitor way left behind, should I pay to spread rumors like that to confuse iPad's future buyers, hmmmmm?

I think I would....

akaralias
Jun 14, 2011, 05:19 PM
When has Apple ever been concerned with backwards compatibility? Especially in recent years. Reference the loss of Rosetta, Classic environment, UFS filesystems, NFS & FTP server on OS X server, etc.

If there was any technical incompatibility, this would be an opportunity for developers to sell updates to existing applications.

A 10 year backward compatibility? Why? Why a company should drag their customers and programs down to the speed of evolution of someone who would like to work with the first version of Quark Xpress p.e.

Technology is obliged to move further and be flexible, to be the future not the past...

Apple did support for more than a logical period of time the older platforms.

skellener
Jun 14, 2011, 05:37 PM
Apple can't even keep up with demand for iPad 2. What possible incentive do they have to put out an iPad 3 this year? March/April 2012 earliest. Probably even pushed to May 2012.

kevingaffney
Jun 14, 2011, 06:11 PM
I held off upgrading because the differences between my original iPad and iPad two are minimal. Glad I did,I'll have gotten two years of great use out of it when I pass it on to one of my daughters and move on to what will be a real upgrade, ipad3. Best part is I'm not too bothered when it's released

mclaugaa
Jun 14, 2011, 06:36 PM
2011 is the year of the iPad 2, but what if Apple decided to shorten the refresh cycle and do iPad 3 in January, then they could line up the iPad 4 for a September release.

MythicFrost
Jun 14, 2011, 06:44 PM
Apple won't use 2048x1536, because it's considerably less than 300 dpi "retina" resolution. And even 300 dpi is "retina display" only for average human eye and for viewing distance of about 30 cm, and for example I often bring my iPad much closer to my eyes, and there are still 10-15% of users with good vision for whom 300 dpi is not enough, so ideally even much higher resolutions are still useful and make difference.
It's about 60 DPI less, and that isn't such a big deal and it is a huge improvement over what we have now. They certainly won't trade off quality and the rest of the problems with using an uneven resolution for an extra 60 or so PPI.

tdream
Jun 14, 2011, 06:46 PM
Do people know the difference between fiscal year and calendar year?

DaBlackMamba
Jun 14, 2011, 06:59 PM
This won't happen. 2011 is the year of the iPad 2. The iPad 2 is still a hot and new item. They won't be releasing an iPad 3 this year.

I can only say forsure there is going to be a iPod lineup refresh in September. I do believe that there will be some new iPhone upgrade but nothing worth ditching my iPhone 4 for. Lastly, lets see the new airs.

Devinm88
Jun 14, 2011, 07:36 PM
I also agree that it wont be released this september, but only because they simply dont need to being as how they dominate the industry right now, and they wont want to pull revenue from the next gen iphone. as far as saying they wont release it due to the ipad not being able to handle such resolutions i dont agree... i cant see apple releasing a new ipad with this rediculously high res screen and not changing the hardware to be able to handle it.

jdougal
Jun 15, 2011, 06:39 PM
This won't happen. 2011 is the year of the iPad 2. The iPad 2 is still a hot and new item. They won't be releasing an iPad 3 (http://www.ipad3-release.com) this year.

I can only say forsure there is going to be a iPod lineup refresh in September. I do believe that there will be some new iPhone upgrade but nothing worth ditching my iPhone 4 for. Lastly, lets see the new airs.

I really don't see them doing anything with the iPod lineup this year. I was hoping that the iPad 3 would come out at the end of the year for the holiday season. It looks like the iPhone 5 may be that holiday device though. I don't think they can get enough screens to get the iPad 3 out this year.

GoNGaXiNHuO
Jun 15, 2011, 08:35 PM
Shouldn't it be 2048*1536? If not, all the apps would have to be redone

daneoni
Jun 15, 2011, 09:09 PM
Why do i have a niggling feeling the next rev Retina Displays for the iPhone/iPad will be TN panels just like the iPod Touch.

glimp7
Jun 19, 2011, 08:06 PM
Has a 2560x1600 display been shown to the public yet?

Can you even imagine how much these would cost to manufacture? Maybe in 2 or 3 years, but not now. It's too early. They would have to create two versions of the iPad.

ratsg
Jun 19, 2011, 10:19 PM
A 10 year backward compatibility? Why?

are you speaking specifically to Rosetta, or all of the other technologies I have listed.

If you are speaking specifically to Rosetta (and I am assuming you are not as Rosetta has not been around any where close to 10 years), Rosetta preserves the end users investment into the platform. Its easy to say upgrade, or find something to replace $APPLICATION, but in many cases, that isn't possible. If you found replacement for your apps that worked perfectly fine, good for you. If you have been on the Apple platform for more that just a few years, this really isn't a black and white issue.

Another way of looking at this, is that if I can't take my applications forward till it makes sense for me or my business, it is just as easy to move to another platform as it is to stay with the Mac.

If you are talking about the other items, specifically things like FTP servers, NFS and the UFS file system, those are industry standards. Apple should provide compatibility with those items as long as they are relevant in the IT industry.


Why a company should drag their customers and programs down to the speed of evolution of someone who would like to work with the first version of Quark Xpress p.e.

This doesn't make any sense. How is anything getting dragged down? If Apple has created something and it works, what is wrong with just leaving it there? If Apple creates a technology, or imports an industry standard technology, then decides not to invest any clock cycles into inproving that technology during the life span of a particular OS, that is fine. Just because something hasn't been improved, doesn't mean it should be deleted.

Technology is obliged to move further and be flexible, to be the future not the past...

and your point here is?

Apple did support for more than a logical period of time the older platforms.

did support what?

Mr Rogers
Jun 20, 2011, 01:00 AM
No disrespect all, but why not release another iPad prior to the Thanksgiving holiday in the States and global Xmas sales period.

The fact is this, the iTouch G4 display and iPhone 'kick-ass' compared to iPad's limited display.

My daughter - nearly 4 - wants an iPad, she has the iTouch but want's the iPad.

Having checked out games on iPad II, not impressed, the iTouch wins hands down - so iPad is limited by not utilising a better display - Retina would be good, but probably not ready to mass produce yet - so, as others have stated, just up the resolution to cope with existing games software - I'd then certainly buy one new in November - or, wait for second hand iPad2 - no way will I buy a new one though until specs are increased.

CSCalciano
Jun 20, 2011, 01:58 AM
My daughter - nearly 4 - wants an iPad, she has the iTouch but want's the iPad.


Your nearly 4 year old daughter has an iPod Touch and wants an iPad? I am 15 and iProductless. I won my computer at a raffle. Can you say, "spoiled?"
And by the way, there shouldn't be an apostrophe on "wants". That is for possessive non-pronouns.

GERGreg427
Jun 28, 2011, 12:41 PM
Not me - on the contrary, even. It's almost like SJ has read my previous rants against the iPad. However, I think 2560x1920 is overkill for a display that size. 2560x1920 pixels on a 7-inch-screen is 457 ppi, while 300 ppi should be enough for the so-called retina effect.

probably won't even be that high. only needs to be 200ish because you don't have to look as close as you do on the iPhone. That would be an awesome screen. The screen from 2 feet already looks great. i see them going up 50% in ppi to make it 198 ppi.

Fapple67
Jun 30, 2011, 06:08 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)

That's stupid to bring out an iPad 3
**** apple if they do

Cnote188
Jul 1, 2011, 08:52 AM
The iPad 3 will definitely not be out in 2011. Due to the fact that the iPad 2 is still dominating the market, and there is no need for an upgrade by the end of the year. Also, the fifth generation iPhone is set to start assembly in mid to late August, and most likely set for a September launch. Apple would never release two mobile products at one time.. or even in the same quarter for that matter. Apple Inc. will most likely get back into the groove of things and release the iPad 3 on is annual time frame at the end of the first quarter (2012). The main reason Apple Inc. delayed the fifth generation iPhone was the tsunamis in Japan, which was a devastating blow to the main factories that created crucial supplies to Apple Inc. After this happened they planned on releasing the fifth generation iPhone in collaboration with iOS 5. Expect the fifth generation iPhone in September 2011. Expect iPad 3 at the end of the first quarter of 2012.

*All of this is just an education theory from reading articles, and watching videos. :apple:

__________________________________________________________
White iPhone 4 16GB;; 1st Generation iPad 16GB;; Early 2008 MacBook

henniman
Jul 1, 2011, 09:23 PM
No "iPad 3" in 2011 ! Apple will just extend the lineup for a premium version !
Hell, iPad is so successful, that the HAVE TO squeeze it with a true premium choice! Right now there is just one Apple tablet device and nobody really cares how much memory or if 3G is inside. There is no true differentiator.

As other have stated here before, no way to phase out iPad2 just with holiday shopping season just ahead. No no never! Further pls avoid frustration among iPad2 buyers! So "iPad3" makes no sense in any way.

But: 'iPad 2 HD' would be perfect! 11" diagonal, doubled resolution, 200ppi, +15% screen edge lengths on +9% device edge length, same weight and thickness, same A5 cpu, slightly better cameras, same battery life as iPad 2. In fact this IS an 'iPad 2', just with better screen and cameras == 'HD'. This is by no means an 'iPad 3' !

And the price will be en vogue: No 16G model, starting with 32GB at 799$, that's +200$ compared to same iPad2. By far not everybody will want this nor need this, which is fine: It's perfect product segmentation! While Apple will pay +100$ for the panel, the customer will pay +200$. This is what I call a super profit premium strategy! 64GB 'iPad2 HD' with 11" will come close to MacBook Air 11" pricing: around 900-1000$. Yes there IS a market! It will not offend ANY of the 2011 iPad2 buyers, it will still be the year of the iPad2, in fact it will be THE year of the iPad 2 ! And the current iPad 2 pricing will not be lowered this year, as these babies still sell great.

2012 will be iPad 3 : same housing, 2 lines: 'iPad' and 'iPad HD', A6 processor, better cameras, maybe thunderbolt first on the 'HD' line. If the HD turns out to be too exclusive, then they'll add a 16GB 'HD' for 699 at the lower end but we'll see the current iPad(2) resolution to stay for some years, as they're sufficient for many, if not most customers. In no way will Apple discontinue/replace the current iPad resolution! They'll have to diversify ...quick! This fall...

They'd catch all the demand for more sophisticated visualization, especially graphics, design, art stuff who might otherwise defect to another platform. And it would add strong reputation to the iOS platform as a whole, kind of a 'flagship device' which doesn't need to be affordable to everyone out there (which no one will really ask for during 'big demo time'). Steve can always say: "Hey, you can get one for 350! It runs the same apps!"

That's my prediction on Apple!
Regards from Berlin, Germany from a true Apple addict..

oban14
Jul 2, 2011, 12:28 AM
If this is true, maybe I'll finally have a reason to buy an iPad. I just don't like the resolution on the current ones.

Nostromo
Jul 2, 2011, 01:26 AM
Seems more likely if something like this happens it would not be a straight replacement (iPad 2 -> iPad 3) it would be a second tablet line adding more consumer choice, like a laptop line. They could call this "iPad3" the MacPad, or iPad pro or something and have it be a full laptop replacement running OSX (as they have been integrating iOS features into OSX). Adding this second higher line starting at $699 or $799 would still net many buyers and they could push the 16G iPad price down to $399 getting the lion share of the holiday tablet sales.

With the internals of the Macbook Air and tablets looking so similar, and adding Core i5 into macbook air's they could do something really crazy if they wanted to .... although that wouldn't hit the $699 price point :)

-Just my made up ideas

iPad PRO? ;)

orthorim
Jul 4, 2011, 05:38 AM
Good point above Jobs is not going to declare 2011 the year of the iPad 2 if the iPad 3 is coming in September. December - maybe...

That the iPad 3 is going to have a retina display is a given. It will kill all the other tablet makers (except Samsung) and Apple can just pull it off. Besides it would also make the iPad 3 the best eBook reader, bar none. At the moment it's only second place behind the dedicated readers...

The only question is the release date, and that will very much depend on how long it takes them to make it work, line up the supply chains, and so on. Many unknowns, pretty sure even inside Apple there is no definite date. There's going to be target dates but with the huge unknown that is the new display, it's going to be tough to predict...

Nicolas4ever
Jul 4, 2011, 09:02 PM
Noway there can't be screen with that resolution

Nicolas4ever
Jul 4, 2011, 09:26 PM
Noway there can't be screen with that resolution

joepattison
Jul 4, 2011, 10:16 PM
The current processor cannot support that high of a resolution. Apple will have to increase performance and battery capacity before they can implement any type of retina display.

orthorim
Jul 4, 2011, 11:10 PM
The current processor cannot support that high of a resolution. Apple will have to increase performance and battery capacity before they can implement any type of retina display.

Why would the next iPad use the current processor? Note that the only thing they need to up is the graphics processor and that's trivial, at least compared to making a faster general-use CPU. With the exception of games, the iPad doesn't know what to do with all its graphics power, same as on the desktop.

Battery life has nothing to do with it - proof is in the iPhone 4, the retina display seems to have no impact on battery life. Just an educated guess but maybe that's because the amount if backlighting required is the same, and backlighting is what makes up most of the power draw in a display.