There is no way that the iPad (at any cost) will outsell PCs within the next year or even in the next two years (or more). Apple might sell 40 million iPads next year but forecasts for PC sales in 2011 are nearing 400 million units worldwide. Even if Apple were giving iPads away for free they couldn't reach that number because they simply couldn't build that many units within the next year. In any case, I doubt that the next iPad will sell for below $500 (i.e. today's price), but I suspect that the original, low-end iPad will stick around at a somewhat lower price ($400 to $450, WiFi only).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Targeting Third-Generation iPad for Doubled Display Resolution?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. In his excitement, I think Bonte got way ahead of himself. While an iPhone may be the single best selling smart phone, Android phones as a whole I believe are doing a bit better. And while I can count everyone I personally know who has an iPad on two hands, I'd need a lot more hands to count the PC's. There's no way Apple are going to suddenly take over the world with the iPad2, much less in a year. If the iPad2 ends up being little more than an iPad with cameras and a USB port, then the Asus Eee Slate looks like a far more attractive option.
I would say for me as long as the 2nd gen has an improved screen then I will buy into it. My lass has the 1st iPad and I like it a lot. I think as long as the new gen has a faster processor and more RAM then it will be decent purchase for 1st time buyers. I have noticed that the iPad aint that quick on the net so it really needs a performance boost not a whole new feature set for me to buy it.
Should be interesting in the next few weeks to see what comes our way!
Should be interesting in the next few weeks to see what comes our way!
I don't think the current features we'll be seeing with the iPad 2 will be enough to make people who own the first one want to upgrade, unless they really need the camera. Resolution increase would make people want to upgrade i'd think, same with the iPhone 4, maybe not flooding to do so, but more than anything else I would think.
The most important thing: will it feature the common Pentalobe Screws or the more devious, the upcoming asymmetrical Octalobe Screws with the left threaded, hexagonal Arrester Hook-Pinholes
Clever, but I suspect it will be just like today's iPad -- no screws whatsoever (at least none externally). The only thing they could do further is to make it open only after the device detected a secret mantra voiced by Steve Jobs himself.The most important thing: will it feature the common Pentalobe Screws or the more devious, the upcoming asymmetrical Octalobe Screws with the left threaded, hexagonal Arrester Hook-Pinholes
Last edited:
resolution
This has probably already been said a number of times elsewhere, but I continue to see 2048x1536 referred to as a "doubling" of the resolution.
When discussing screen resolutions, pixel count=resolution for any given sized screen. When we refer to resolution, we refer to the power of the screen to resolve information. To that end, 4x the pixel count means 4x resolving power.
2048x1536 is a quadrupling of 1024x768.
1448x1086 is a doubling of 1024x768.
If you want to double the resolution, multiple each side by root 2, as above. An iPad with a 1448x1086 display would have twice the resolution of the current iPad.
This should be basic math. The argument that both dimensions get doubled, hence the term 'doubled' makes no sense. If two dimensions get doubled, the result is a quadruple. If instead the same two dimensions get multiplied by 1.41 (root 2), the result is a doubling of the resolution.
Arn, I'm surprised you haven't corrected this yet. Once and for all, let's fix this so that our PC brethren can stop laughing at us.
This has probably already been said a number of times elsewhere, but I continue to see 2048x1536 referred to as a "doubling" of the resolution.
When discussing screen resolutions, pixel count=resolution for any given sized screen. When we refer to resolution, we refer to the power of the screen to resolve information. To that end, 4x the pixel count means 4x resolving power.
2048x1536 is a quadrupling of 1024x768.
1448x1086 is a doubling of 1024x768.
If you want to double the resolution, multiple each side by root 2, as above. An iPad with a 1448x1086 display would have twice the resolution of the current iPad.
This should be basic math. The argument that both dimensions get doubled, hence the term 'doubled' makes no sense. If two dimensions get doubled, the result is a quadruple. If instead the same two dimensions get multiplied by 1.41 (root 2), the result is a doubling of the resolution.
Arn, I'm surprised you haven't corrected this yet. Once and for all, let's fix this so that our PC brethren can stop laughing at us.
well - that's how it works for EVERY tech company. Well almost, some products (like the Kin) die a couple of weeks after the initial release. But most have somewhat successful products that are getting improved over the years. It really happens that the perfect product is released with version 1 and never ever getting updated.
The most important thing: will it feature the common Pentalobe Screws or the more devious, the upcoming asymmetrical Octalobe Screws with the left threaded, hexagonal Arrester Hook-Pinholes
I never felt the urge to open my iPad ...
Neither had I, but by judging the amount of moaning which was going on in the Pentalobe iPhone thread, I was starting to get worried, if I missed out something by not opening my phone
Someone mentioned on another thread that this may be the most interesting product release for apple ever. Currently Apple is pretty much the only game in town as far as tablets go, but before April 2012, there will be some steep competition to the iPad1 (competitors will have had 2 years to catch up!). If Apple goes all out this year and upgrades the screen, processor, RAM and adds cameras, they will annihilate the competition again, and in my opinion secure the tablet market. If they instead release a Gen 2 product typical with their usual product releases (think ipod 2, ipod nano 2, iphone 3G, etc.) then we will essentially be getting a slightly tweaked first gen iPad, that competitors can compete with.
This release will be particularly interesting to see if Apple will go for the kill and depart from their typical ho hum Gen 2 track record and really blow the competition out of the water with a paradigm change product like the difference between the 3GS and the iPhone 4, or they could follow their normal release track and do small incremental upgrades to stay equal or slightly ahead of the competition.
It may not even be possible for Apple to Quadruple the iPad resolution, bump the processor, dual core the video processor, quadruple the RAM, and add cameras, given the cost of the components and the availability, but it will be very very interesting to see what they come out with this year.
Sadly, my prediction is that they stay with their current release track and release an iPad 1.5 that stays slightly ahead or equal to the competition that will be released later this year.
This release will be particularly interesting to see if Apple will go for the kill and depart from their typical ho hum Gen 2 track record and really blow the competition out of the water with a paradigm change product like the difference between the 3GS and the iPhone 4, or they could follow their normal release track and do small incremental upgrades to stay equal or slightly ahead of the competition.
It may not even be possible for Apple to Quadruple the iPad resolution, bump the processor, dual core the video processor, quadruple the RAM, and add cameras, given the cost of the components and the availability, but it will be very very interesting to see what they come out with this year.
Sadly, my prediction is that they stay with their current release track and release an iPad 1.5 that stays slightly ahead or equal to the competition that will be released later this year.
The "as a whole" is part of the problem though...I have 3 android phones in my house, I have one, my wife has one and my oldest kid has one...none of them run the same version of android, two have marketplace one doesn't, the screen sizes and resolutions are all different. It makes targeting android as an overall market impossible..and until Google gets that straightened out while the numbers of things out there with android is greater...the userbase that can be drawn from for an individual application is fragmented.
I think we as geeks tend to forget or dismiss that for the vast majority ease of use trumps features.
But there are over one billion cellphones sold each year and several hundred million of those are smart phones, so if you start to include all iOS devices and the Mac then the size of the competition suddenly gets much larger. Apple is doing very well, but they are still far from complete domination except perhaps in the mid to upper range of the so-called MP3 player market where the iPod still reigns supreme. But, the MP3 market now seems pretty saturated and iPod sales are actually falling which means that Apple needs to move on to the "next big thing" (to quote/paraphrase Steve Jobs before he returned to run Apple, when he was asked about what he would do with the Macintosh he said, "The computer OS wars are over and Microsoft has won, if I were running Apple I would milk the Macintosh for all it is worth and then move on to the next big thing."). Well...Apple and Steve haven't done exactly that (the Mac is still trudging along, and sales continue to go up), but I think it is Steve's philosophy not to dwell on past markets and successes, so now the "next big thing" is the iPhone and iPad for which we can all be happy.
It's not ever going to happen, actually. Apple's products, while very good are also more narrowly focused then the competition. How many phones use IOS? Just one, how many phones use Android? Many. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it DOES limit your audience. Apple then imposed another limitation by having ATT as the sole provider until just recently. Not to mention there are a LOT of people who simply don't like iPhones and the competition isn't wavering in the least. Even Microsoft has now thrown it's hat back into the mobile phone mix.
Macs? While they are more popular today then probably ever before, they still make up for a very small minority out of all "personal computers" out there. ESPECIALLY in business environments.
Yet here Android and iOS are virtually tied in market share, even though Android is on all 4 U.S. carriers while Apple has been on only one.
The main limitation to Apple's audience has been the AT&T exclusive. Now with Verizon on board, watch for iOS to open up the throttle on Android.
No QXGA (2048×1536)
They didnt want to use XGA (1024×768) in the first place, but 960×720 instead (4:3 HD; the i-phone 4 has 960×640, DVGA, 3:2). Alas, manufacturers couldnt provide (multitouch) displays with this resolution at reasonable prices. Apple will hopefully correct this compromise with the second generation, introducing 1920×1440 (103 µm/px at 9.7 in diagonal), but perhaps only 1440×1080 (137 µm/px) or 1280×1024 (154 µm/px), aligning it better with their palm-sized devices.
Whatever they will do, the i-pad screen will become at least as high resolution as previous i-phones and i-pods: they had 156 µm pixels, the i-pad 1 has 192 µm (and the i-phone/i-pod 4 have 78 µm). That means the next version of the ipad screen (be it in 2nd or 3rd generation models) will be at least 1280×1024 if the physical size (ca. 200×150 mm) is retained.
They may, however, use XGA resolution with a smaller display device. A 7 inch (ca. 142×107 mm) XGA display, for instance, would have 183 px/in, i.e. a pixel size of less than 140 µm.
If Apple was not a US company, of course, the i-pad would probably not have a 4:3 screen, but something uncommon that is taller than √2:1, e.g. 17:12 or 13:9, i.e. ISO paper ratio plus vertical GUI chrome. On the other hand, the i-pad isnt really optimized for (scaled) letter paper (in portrait orientation) either, which has a ratio of 22:19 = 1,29.
The i-pad itself, by the way, is currently closer to a 5:4 ratio. If the screen needs to stay 4:3, Id like a 280×210 mm or a 300×225 mm screen in the future, although that is larger than current tablets.
Apple will not release an i-pad with exactly 2048×1536 pixels (QXGA), ever!
They didnt want to use XGA (1024×768) in the first place, but 960×720 instead (4:3 HD; the i-phone 4 has 960×640, DVGA, 3:2). Alas, manufacturers couldnt provide (multitouch) displays with this resolution at reasonable prices. Apple will hopefully correct this compromise with the second generation, introducing 1920×1440 (103 µm/px at 9.7 in diagonal), but perhaps only 1440×1080 (137 µm/px) or 1280×1024 (154 µm/px), aligning it better with their palm-sized devices.
Whatever they will do, the i-pad screen will become at least as high resolution as previous i-phones and i-pods: they had 156 µm pixels, the i-pad 1 has 192 µm (and the i-phone/i-pod 4 have 78 µm). That means the next version of the ipad screen (be it in 2nd or 3rd generation models) will be at least 1280×1024 if the physical size (ca. 200×150 mm) is retained.
They may, however, use XGA resolution with a smaller display device. A 7 inch (ca. 142×107 mm) XGA display, for instance, would have 183 px/in, i.e. a pixel size of less than 140 µm.
If Apple was not a US company, of course, the i-pad would probably not have a 4:3 screen, but something uncommon that is taller than √2:1, e.g. 17:12 or 13:9, i.e. ISO paper ratio plus vertical GUI chrome. On the other hand, the i-pad isnt really optimized for (scaled) letter paper (in portrait orientation) either, which has a ratio of 22:19 = 1,29.
The i-pad itself, by the way, is currently closer to a 5:4 ratio. If the screen needs to stay 4:3, Id like a 280×210 mm or a 300×225 mm screen in the future, although that is larger than current tablets.
huh? what other tablets were they catching up to when they released the ipad1? explain please.
what other phones had retina-level rez when they released iphone4?
what other multitouch media players existed when they released ipod touch?
what other clean, stable, POSIX, commercial consumer OSes existed when they released OS X?
what other music stores existed when they released iTunes Store?
what other app stores existed when they released App Store?
...sounds like your relative doesnt know what the hell hes talking about.