Oh man if that turns out to be true I'll remember for the rest of my life where I heard that!
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 to Announce Second-Generation iPad Within 3-4 Weeks?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh man if that turns out to be true I'll remember for the rest of my life where I heard that!
Yeah, why ever upgrade the processor. Lets keep the same processor for ever!!
I sure hope apple doesnt think like that, better hardware = better product.
If anything i wished they skip the dual-core and leep jump everyone with a qual-core, that'll be sick
I sure hope apple doesnt think like that, better hardware = better product.
If anything i wished they skip the dual-core and leep jump everyone with a qual-core, that'll be sick
Yeah, why ever upgrade the processor. Lets keep the same processor for ever!!
I sure hope apple doesnt think like that, better hardware = better product.
If anything i wished they skip the dual-core and leep jump everyone with a qual-core, that'll be sick
There are many ways to upgrade a processor without upgrading the number of cores. In fact, for most purposes, there are many BETTER ways to upgrade a processor than to increase the number of cores.
What ever they do, I just hope its a head of the curve.
Apple should be a hardware leader not follower if there going to have so much supporters. Mobile devices are advancing rapidly, i just feel apple can be moving faster. Im always underwhelmed by all there announcements.
The A4 chip in iPhone 4 and iPad is still quite competitive on a performance per watt basis, and I'm sure they have newer and better stuff lined up at the fab. "Feature" checklists ("give me two cores!") absent an intelligent holistic approach to battery life and performance are a dumb idea. Given iOS's approach to multitasking, a single high speed node may be a better idea than two lower speed cores. On the other hand, power consumption increases linearly with frequency or with the number of switching wires, but is a squared function of voltage. Perhaps dedicating die area to out-of-order issue and retirement has a bigger effect on real world performance than adding a core. Perhaps better branch prediction, a trace cache, or improved memory bandwidth are the best way to increase performance without ruining battery life.
The constant demand for marketing features like a second core is about as intelligent as demanding a second carburetor in your new car.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you remember the iPhone 4 introduction, the justification for Retina Display was defined as 20/20 vision when held 10-12” from the eyes. To feasibly maintain this marketing term Apple only needs to justify that same 20/20 vision and a minimum distance you are expected to hold a tablet from your eyes.
They can make this up as they see fit, but they do have to be able to justify it or risk irrevocably weakening said marketing term. I’d say about 18-22” seems about right for a tablet. Based on that criteria the PPI would need to be 156 to 191. Very doable since even 7” tablets are exceeding that lower measure.
- 3438 * (1/18) = 191 ppi
- 3438 * (1/20) = 172 ppi
- 3438 * (1/22) = 156 ppi
Now that we have that squared away we can easily use a PPI calculator to see what difference displays would be. Here’s a simple site I like to use: http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/computer/hardware/ppicalc.html
- XGA: 1024 x 768 = 786,432 pixels = 132 ppi*
- SXGA: 1280 x 960 = 1,228,800 pixels = 165 ppi*
- SXGA+: 1400 × 1050 = 1,470,000 pixels = 180 ppi*
- UXGA: 1600 × 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels = 206 ppi*
PS: For comparison, the iPhone 4’s GPU is only pushing a 614,400 pixels.
* Assuming a 9.7” display.
Last edited:
Thanks for clearing that up. I nearly fell out of my chair..lol.
Yeah, why ever upgrade the processor. Lets keep the same processor for ever!!
I sure hope apple doesnt think like that, better hardware = better product.
If anything i wished they skip the dual-core and leep jump everyone with a qual-core, that'll be sick
Yeah, let's do this!
A-15 based quad-core 2.5Ghz....yes!
2GB RAM....woooo!!!
128GB storage....RIGHT ON!!!!!!
2560x1920 display....OMG YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
$3000!!!....YE...wh....WTF???
There is more at play than slapping together the biggest and the best. The $500 is proving very difficult for the competition to hit. They could likely leave the iPad untouched for a year based on the price and development community alone. Dropping the price $50-$100 in it's 2nd year run would see another rush from consumers that were had been on the fence. (Not that I think that would happen.)
So simple predictions for me:
More processing, either bump in freq or dual core (whatever is best on battery life)
Bump on memory
Cameras
Gyroscope
iOS updates that are enterprise focused to take on RIM.
The tablet space is going to be intensely competitive for the next few years. If the iPad falls victim to the same Apple complacency that the Mac and iPod faithful (rightfully) complain about, then it won't be a market leader for very long at all. Apple is not in a position to dictate technology.
Android developers have already shown in the mobile space that they are charging forward with the latest and greatest tech. If Apple sits on its laurels, the field will quickly lap the iPad.
Not really, we knew that there was hardware (because of the iOS iPad) that could drive that pixel count without needing fans.
Wouldn't it be Apple's job to announce the next Apple product?
The iPhone 5 will most likely be an incremental upgrade like the 3GS from the 3G, don't expect anything more than a different antenna concept (see rumors), processor and maybe (would be cool) Gorilla Glass.
Agree that this could be the case, but any increase in resolution would have to be a linear scalable version of the iPhone and iPad resolution, as it otherwise would require different app versions or rewrites of existing apps.
Last edited:
In my opinion you are looking at this the wrong way. I want my gadgets to do things and I don't care if it does it on a 386 processor from the nineties or on an i7, as long as it does that what I want optimally.
With all the horsepower in all those other tablets and smartphones that are introduced now during CES, it is and will be the Apple ecosystem that produces the most successful and impressive apps and games: Infinite Blade, Angry Birds etc. Of course this only applies to the mobile part, and not the desktop part.
Last edited:
Ya I don't think Apple will detract from the Verizon iPhone so I think we are looking at late Feb or early March. The sooner the better though, I have been waiting over a year!
I don't know about dual core, but I have wondered when we will see the A5 chip! I figured it would be in iPad 2. Guess we will see.
2560x1920
there is no way in hell that there is anything that can drive that!
AMEN! I say these things to everyone who has no idea what they are talking about. We don't even have the tech to do a screen of that density and size in mass production right now! My guess is also iPad 3.
It is a little disappointing though to see the difference when looking at an iPhone 4 Retina Display then see all the pixels on an iPad display.
Getting technical, how EXACTLY would a Retina Display on iPad 3 work with HD video content? Wouldn't that blow up the video to fit the screen and degrade the quality? How do OS X and QuickTime handle that? Is there pixel doubling or anything fancy like that to make up for it, or is it just blown up? Might not be good!
P.S. I pretty much know what the hardware for iPad 2 will be like. My question is will there be an iOS update with new features on the new one??? I have my doubts since they have been so deep in development os iOS 4.2 but would Apple really release a new product with no new software features??? Just that alone makes me think it might not be announced till March so they have a little time to develop features on the software side.
Last edited:
Apple is not going to raise the resolution of the iPad unless they double it. If they just raise it a little, all current apps will be blurry as hell and it'll be much harder for developers to update to the new resolution.
Unless you're saying that "Retina Display" means nothing and Apple is just going to start using that name for all of their displays, which would be ridiculous.
cmaier said:
What's your point? If the new iPad's resolution is doubled, the dot pitch still wouldn't be as small as the iPhone's.
"Retina" != 2x current.
Jobs made a specific point of stating that what makes the iPhone 4's display "Retina" is the fact that the resolution at the distance you hold it is greater than the average human eye can detect.
The iPad is generally used a little further away from your face than an iPhone. As such, it doesn't have to have as high a pixel density to achieve "Retina" status. The iPad could probably (sorry, I'm too lazy to do the math right now,) get away with a resolution of a perfectly doable 1920x1080 (or its 4:3 ratio equivalent,) at the same screen size, and be "Retina".
Jobs made a specific point of stating that what makes the iPhone 4's display "Retina" is the fact that the resolution at the distance you hold it is greater than the average human eye can detect.
The iPad is generally used a little further away from your face than an iPhone. As such, it doesn't have to have as high a pixel density to achieve "Retina" status. The iPad could probably (sorry, I'm too lazy to do the math right now,) get away with a resolution of a perfectly doable 1920x1080 (or its 4:3 ratio equivalent,) at the same screen size, and be "Retina".
The only way the content is hurt is when the displays resolution is less than the contents resolution. Scaling up the video from lower resolution content to a higher resolution display will not adversely affect it, providing were talking about the same size display and therefore more pixels per inch.
An example would be iPhone apps that didnt take advantage of the iPhone 4s new display. They didnt look any worse than on the previous iPhones, but they sure looked a lot better once the bitmap graphics were updated.
Not sure I follow your logic there!
Apps on the Retina Display that were not updated DID look a lot worse than on the iPhone before it! The controls were automatically rendered at the new higher resolution, but for example if you looked at images or video it looked a LOT worse, even icons that weren't updated were an eye sore on the home screen. Video is a series of images and if the resolution is 1080 pixels and is displayed pixel for pixel, either it will not fill up the whole Retina Display of an iPad 3, or it would be stretched to fill the screen and in the process be degraded to 4 times worse quality as each pixel would be stretched across 4 pixels. So actually your point proves my theory as the same thing was happening on non-updated apps on the iPhone 4. They were being scaled to cover 4 times the amount of pixels on a screen which happened to be the same size.
Care to elaborate?
Show me this images that looked a lot worse.
The math is simple. If you had a 1px x px image on the previous iPhones they would be 2px x 2px on the iPhone 4. The image size would be the same but it would use 4x as many pixels to render it, but those pixels are still taking up the same physical area, hence no change to the user’s perception.
I'm having trouble seeing how they can do a resolution of between the current 1024 X 768 and 2048 X 1536 given the bitmap nature of iOS.
Anything in between will require interpolation of existing apps or that existing apps run in some letterbox format, either of which are not palatable solutions. Sure they could do these types of solution, but it would not have the elegance of the iPhone 4 solution of quadrupling the pixels and running existing apps in a near transparent compatibility mode.
Anything in between will require interpolation of existing apps or that existing apps run in some letterbox format, either of which are not palatable solutions. Sure they could do these types of solution, but it would not have the elegance of the iPhone 4 solution of quadrupling the pixels and running existing apps in a near transparent compatibility mode.
Exactly...
I don't know what makes me more sick - news pages like MR who insist on feeding us with such rubbish or Apple who has completely lost the focus (and plot)
I am just keeping my fingers crossed for Mac and OS X to survive under all this iRubbish nonsense
The iPhone 4 jump to double the resolution was easy, since it has the same hardware as the iPad and the iPad has an even higher resolution. But you can't double the resolution so easily from the iPad, since that would result in a screen with more pixels then about 90% of all computers. And as you all know, you can't play many games smoothly at that resolution on any sort of average DESKTOP hardware.
At the current level, there are ALOT of compromises/shortcuts taken to make games look good on 4G devices. If you look carefully at the background scenery in Infinity Blade, you can see that it's very flat and the 3D effect is just a carefully drawn texture, thus drawing less polygons and better performance on the limited hardware. Barring some more minor software improvements (game engine and OpenGL), the current hardware, and even the current cutting edge hardware won't be able to handle the 2048x1536 @ 60fps using the same shortcuts. It's four times more pixels to handle, in a gap of less than a year to improve on the hardware.
Logically your statement is correct, and I held your view right until the moment I saw a 4G screen for myself (BTW a 1x1 image is a solid colour, and can be resized infinitely without loss of information). Since our eyes can resolve the pixels in a non-retina screen, we can see the pixels in the image on the screen. And since we can see those image pixels, that same image represented 1:1 on the non-retina screen is now blown up on the retina screen, and thus we can still see those pixels. We wouldn't be able to see the pixels if the same image were 1:1 on a retina display.
1:1 being 1 pixel in the image = 1 pixel on screen.
That's the best explanation I could come up with. If you want some instant proof, look at a non-retina homescreen screenshot on a retina screen.
At the current level, there are ALOT of compromises/shortcuts taken to make games look good on 4G devices. If you look carefully at the background scenery in Infinity Blade, you can see that it's very flat and the 3D effect is just a carefully drawn texture, thus drawing less polygons and better performance on the limited hardware. Barring some more minor software improvements (game engine and OpenGL), the current hardware, and even the current cutting edge hardware won't be able to handle the 2048x1536 @ 60fps using the same shortcuts. It's four times more pixels to handle, in a gap of less than a year to improve on the hardware.
Logically your statement is correct, and I held your view right until the moment I saw a 4G screen for myself (BTW a 1x1 image is a solid colour, and can be resized infinitely without loss of information). Since our eyes can resolve the pixels in a non-retina screen, we can see the pixels in the image on the screen. And since we can see those image pixels, that same image represented 1:1 on the non-retina screen is now blown up on the retina screen, and thus we can still see those pixels. We wouldn't be able to see the pixels if the same image were 1:1 on a retina display.
1:1 being 1 pixel in the image = 1 pixel on screen.
That's the best explanation I could come up with. If you want some instant proof, look at a non-retina homescreen screenshot on a retina screen.
Yes the math is simple, but you are making a fatal flaw in your reasoning! The content does NOT increase its resolution just because the screen has more pixels! Therefore what was 1px x 1px is STILL 1px x 1px but stretched accross 2px x 2px and therefore degraded in quality by a multiple of 4! Hence the reason devs had to update their apps with higher resolution images and content.
The same thing would happen with video and any content that is not drawn as UI by the OS.
I'm thrilled, I was hoping that the iPad would get a retina display and, did think Apple would want to do this -- hopefully this turns out to be true.
A "retina" 2048x1536 (264 PPI) resolution on the iPad would be just amazing, especially for games!
A "retina" 2048x1536 (264 PPI) resolution on the iPad would be just amazing, especially for games!
If you are implying that a 320x480 image on an iPhone 4 will look worse than on a 3GS, you are wrong. You are right that it will have to stretch on the iPhone 4, as you say above; but since the iPhone 4's screen is 4x denser, a 4 pixel area will be the same size as what one pixel was on the 3GS, and thus look identical -- the iPhone 4 however, can look even clearer with an image designed for its resolution.