LG and Samsung Still Struggling with 'Retina' iPad 3 Display?

[coolbreeze]

Welcome to Samsung and LG. They are the ones who will perfect it, not Apple.

This.

Sure, Apple strives for the absolute best, and will continue to do so in a post-Steve word. But let's not overlook the obvious...Apple simply makes corporate boardroom demands from OEM manufacturers about it's component requirements.

So, the real stars are the 3rd party manufacturers who produce the tech for Apple.

Beauty is in the eye of the shareholder, and AAPL is quite the contract to win here.

 

[blue5ft3]

Samsung slow?

I'm not wondering why Samsung production would be slow with how things are going, how can they sue each other yet still be making products for them? LG I'm not sure about, who are they affiliated with other than putting out a new tablet etc

 

[jmpnop]

Apple should wait rather than going with 1600x1200 screen. Hope they'll be able to sort things out and bring retina display to the iPad in the next revision.

 

[Yr Blues]

this plus the 7.85" development is getting exciting

 

[Judas1]

I can't really see the usefulness a 2048x1536 resolution on an ipad. Don't movies run at max 1080p only? And what games would the ipad be able to play at that resolution? The 1600x1200 fallback seems more than adequate.

 

[blue5ft3]

128 gb

Whoever post that I would like that more than higher screen resolution, these apps take up a lot of room plus I have waaay too many photos and documents, in the cloud? I guess, but then delete something to view them?! Is there a better way? I take in special needs kids for working moms of low income since I've been disabled. So my iTunes has apps that the kids love but are not for me, so I go back and forth with what is installed, what a pain LOL
ps and it's not cheap I am recently new to Mac and I just found out about promo codes the past few sees, duh me, yes that's me

 

[-LikesMac-]

Resolution is high

Well, this is unique because the doubled resolution would exceed the resolution of any single display I have in my entire house (I have many displays)!

Something like the Cortex A15 would be needed to power something insane like this (especially for games), and over 1GB of RAM would be needed. Apple A6.

That would cost a good ARM.

 

[Constable Odo]

Don't settle Apple, take your time and perfect the 2048 x 1536 screens.

And the blogging jackasses will start complaining about iPad 3 delays after they've pumped rumors that the iPad 3 will be ready at a certain time. I'm not sure why these people think that high-quality, high-production manufacturing is so easy to do. It's not, by a long shot. Dense-pixel displays have always caused problems along with low yields in early runs.

 

[Henk Poley]

*Sigh*, a "quantum leap" is a seemingly impossible microscopic step, when looking at from a naive standpoint, that nonetheless happens easily. Here they have a problem that appeared relatively trivial to them, but proved to be more of a problem. The way it is used is in the sentence a bit like 'measuring' time in lightyears.

 

[Don Kosak]

I really hope they go with double (x4) the resolution. Not only would it be a huge boost to the screen, it would make App development much easier. (And therefore more Apps would probably be upgraded to support the new standard.)

1600 x 1200 would be a bit of a disappointment. I'd rather them have them hold out a bit longer than release an "interim" resolution.

 

[dampfnudel]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Well, with the A6 not going into mass production until next summer and Samsung/LG having issues with the higher resolution display, it looks like a iPad 3 release in March is becoming less likely. It looks like the summer of 2012 will be an interesting one as far as new Apple products are concerned.

 

[Renzatic]

1600 x 1200 would be a bit of a disappointment. I'd rather them have them hold out a bit longer than release an "interim" resolution.

Only in comparison to a true Retina Display. 1600x1200 is plenty for a 10" screen, and probably more feasible in consideration to the hardware.

I mean can you imagine how much raw GPU power it'd take to run some of the heavier iOS games, like Infinity Blade, at 2048 x 1536? A resolution that high would almost be a limiting factor for what could be done in regards to nicer, current gen 3D on the iPad. They'd have to stick to 1024x768 to keep a steady, playable framerate. Even 1600 x 1200 would be a bit of a tight fit.

It kinda makes me wonder what kind of hardware they're gonna have in the iPad 3. Whatever it is, it's gonna have to be pretty stout.

 

[efktd]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Well, with the A6 not going into mass production until next summer and Samsung/LG having issues with the higher resolution display, it looks like a iPad 3 release in March is becoming less likely. It looks like the summer of 2012 will be an interesting one as far as new Apple products are concerned.

Apple now knows that they can push a product back a few months and people are still gonna buy it. And a summer release schedule for iPad is perfect for Back to School.

 

[haruhiko]

With Cook in charge, there may be an iPad 2S next year without the legendary Retina display at 1536p crazy resolution on a 9.7 inch screen.

 

[SteveW928]

Text will benefit much more than viewing pictures. For people who want to make extensive use of their iPad as a reading device, the "retina" pixel density is a huge benefit and makes a very noticable difference in text clairty and sharpness.

That just seems like quite a trade-off just to achieve that. (Battery, GPU, CPU, Storage, etc.) I understand the higher rez on the phone, as the screen is really small and people *try* to browse real sites and such and the extra rez helps when you hold the phone closer to accomplish that. But, I think most people use the iPad a similar distance away that they would a normal LCD display on their desktop or their laptop. While my eyes aren't what they once were, I can read text just fine at typical pixel densities today around 100-150 dpi. The iPad already has a higher pixel density than any of the Apple laptops but a few of the most recent models.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather keep the current rez and make gains in other areas (cost, weight, speed, battery life, etc.) as the technologies advance. I wouldn't mind a bit more rez, but anything but double causes other nightmares. Double, though, it seems would take some kind of crazy hardware requirements... and mostly waste them.

 

[DanteMann]

And this is what happens when your not a true OEM. Your not in control of your future as much as you think you are.
I just find it hilarious that the blind followers still try to give Apple the credit for the innovation of such display technology. What do you not understand about this article? It is Samsung and LG that are innovating and creating such amazing displays. NOT APPLE. Helloooo?
Just wondering, have any of you sheep ever ordered a nice juicy steak at a restaurant. Told the server how you wanted it cooked. The steak turns out delicious, then you pat yourself on the back for such a perfectly cooked meal, all because you ordered it and said how you wanted it done? Really?

 

[haruhiko]

And this is what happens when your not a true OEM. Your not in control of your future as much as you think you are.
I just find it hilarious that the blind followers still try to give Apple the credit for the innovation of such display technology. What do you not understand about this article? It is Samsung and LG that are innovating and creating such amazing displays. NOT APPLE. Helloooo?
Just wondering, have any of you sheep ever ordered a nice juicy steak at a restaurant. Told the server how you wanted it cooked. The steak turns out delicious, then you pat yourself on the back for such a perfectly cooked meal, all because you ordered it and said how you wanted it done? Really?

Your analogy is wrong. It's more like you order a delicious steak in a restaurant and claim that it has nothing to do with the cook's skills and his choice of sauces, the way he cooks it, etc. (~iOS software) and every restaurant on earth can give you this delicious steak if they bought the cattle (hardware) from that particular farm.

Your friend: "Oh, the steak from this restaurant is really delicious"
You: "You're talking ****. It's just the steak itself is good, you sheep of the restaurant, it has nothing to do with this restaurant"

 

[lukarak]

And this is what happens when your not a true OEM. Your not in control of your future as much as you think you are.
I just find it hilarious that the blind followers still try to give Apple the credit for the innovation of such display technology. What do you not understand about this article? It is Samsung and LG that are innovating and creating such amazing displays. NOT APPLE. Helloooo?
Just wondering, have any of you sheep ever ordered a nice juicy steak at a restaurant. Told the server how you wanted it cooked. The steak turns out delicious, then you pat yourself on the back for such a perfectly cooked meal, all because you ordered it and said how you wanted it done? Really?

Well, it's not at all like that. Ordering a well done or rare steak is just choosing one of the 'models' of the shelf. Apple rarely does that. These things are made only for them.

To put it in your example, if i ate a steak from the cow that i was in 'oversight' of how it was fed, exercised, massaged, played music to and whatever those crazy japanese do to them, which was then slaughtered and made into steaks, then yes, i would pat myself on the back on how good the steak was.

 

[hspace]

I consider it pretty weak that iOS devices need to be limited to only doubling the resolution in each axis.

iOS and apps should be written to be much more resolution independent. It really isn't rocket science!

Many UI API's support a wide variety of resolutions. Newer Android OS's do. Others as well. All web browsers, for crying out loud, are written to render content in a wide variety of resolutions.

And yes, I am a developer, I know what I am talking about. I'm not an iOS developer, but have done my share of UI work in native windows apps, Java apps, and web development.

Also - If apps MUST be scaled, the higher resolution you have to work with, the less artifacts you see. If you have an HDTV you would notice that it can be very hard at times to see if you are watching 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. Modern TVs do a great job at scaling. So having a 1024x768 app scaled up to 1600x1200 would not look as bad as most people think.

 

[Menneisyys2]

And yes, I am a developer, I know what I am talking about. I'm not an iOS developer, but have done my share of UI work in native windows apps, Java apps, and web development.

Java has always been based on res-idependent layout managers (unless you used the null manager and direct coordinates). Silverlight's Grid / Stacks etc. (but not Canvas) are pretty much res-idependent too. iOS, on the other hand, doesn't have such freedom in dynamically reorientating, resizing etc. components when resolution changes - all you have are "pinning" your components to the corners and the halfpoints of the sides (position) and letting them dinamically resize by setting how they keep the distance from the sides of the screen (size). Not much else, unless you do all the math from code (the exact thing Java's / Silbverlight's advanced layout managers help at). For example, there's no GridBagLayout (or the likes) in iOS API. This is why it's considerably hardert to write a truly res-independent app in iOS than in Java or Silverlight (WP7).

Modern TVs do a great job at scaling. So having a 1024x768 app scaled up to 1600x1200 would not look as bad as most people think.

Those are "natural" pictures and videos, not computer-generated text or windows. The latter scale very bad, no wonder even today's LCD / notebook manufacturers, even those running Windows 7, tell the users not to drive their hardware in non-native resolutions (unless they're exactly the half of the original one - e.g., SVGA (800*600) for a UXGA (1600*1200) screen.)

It's like PenTile Samsung OLED screens' ability to render images/videos (they do it great) and synthetic, most of the time, back-and-white, contrasty text (they do it very bad).

 

[W1MRK]

Can not wait till I can see the finished product on one

 

[MacFly123]

Don't settle Apple, take your time and perfect the 2048 x 1536 screens.

If they don't get the doubled Retina Display in the iPad 3 I am sorry but I will be IMMENSELY disappointed!!! I am sooooo looking forward to it! Have been since before the iPad 2 lol.

Second biggest request... Surround audio!

 

[W1MRK]

If they don't get the doubled Retina Display in the iPad 3 I am sorry but I will be IMMENSELY disappointed!!! I am sooooo looking forward to it! Have been since before the iPad 2 lol.

Second biggest request... Surround audio!

Surround audio would be neat but I am doubting it

 

[hayden1250]

A higher resolution screen is the number 1 feature I want on the next iPad. If that comes true ill be throwing Apple my credit card.

 

[MacFly123]

Surround audio would be neat but I am doubting it

I'm not. Apple has hired a few people that would apply directly to that feature including the guy who invented THX surround audio!