It just makes sense to have the vibrating motor in all the devices, so that they offer a consistent experience for users. It doesn't matter if the vibration is used for phone call announcement or game feedback.
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.
iPad 2 LCD for Sale Already? iPad 2 to Include Vibrating Motor?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It just makes sense to have the vibrating motor in all the devices, so that they offer a consistent experience for users. It doesn't matter if the vibration is used for phone call announcement or game feedback.
Still not ideal. But since downloaded HD is not anywere near the standart of BRD HD there issent realy a point in fighting about this. Esp. if you consider that even the 720p iTunes downloads (with a movie being around 4gig + 2gig for the SD Version) are a hefty amount of data for an iPad.
1080p would prittymuch use all of the space left on most 16gb iPad.
I hope they kill the 16 gig iPad anyway. A starting model with 32 gig at 499 would crush the competition, even if that entery level model had the old display.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Here's the thing that keeps bouncing around in my head...
If this new one is going to update the resolution to that (2048x1536) level- which is better than the laptops- does it turn the iPad view of "mostly for content consumers vs. content creators" into a view that iPad2 can be BOTH. For example, pair it with an optional (bluetooth) keyboard & mouse (for those interested) and would it do double duty (a high resolution "big" iPod touch AND a bona-fide option for a laptop alternative)?
The 17" Macbook Pro offers 1920 x 1200. So this "detached" screen at 2048 x 1536 would give the user substantially more pixels (3.1M vs. 2.3M) on which to get work done. Yes, the interested "producer" would have to put the other pieces together in a satisfactory way, and yes, apps for content production would have to step up a bit more than "as is" now. But, if we are going to get even an iPad2 "pro" with better screen resolution than a Macbook Pro, it would seem to be an easy leap to thinking of the applications of an iPad2 as a content creation tool is much bigger way.
I'm with the camp thinking the existing price points and this super resolution screen rumor seem to be unlikely (so I'll bet on a "pro" model too). But, if there is an iPad 2 at 2048x1536, then I suspect it will be a real competitor for many shopping for laptops for medium to light duty content creation.
All that said, I'd love to see it just for the hope that the next-gen
TV3 might get the same playback hardware so that the last link in the iMovie to iTunes to _______ to 1080p HDTV could be filled in with an (iTunes-friendly) device that could push the 1080p camcorder movies edited & rendered in iMovie, stored in iTunes (where they play back just fine at 1080p) and push them to the 1080p HDTVs increasingly prevalent in our homes. The 720p cap in the new (and old) TV is so 2006.
If this new one is going to update the resolution to that (2048x1536) level- which is better than the laptops- does it turn the iPad view of "mostly for content consumers vs. content creators" into a view that iPad2 can be BOTH. For example, pair it with an optional (bluetooth) keyboard & mouse (for those interested) and would it do double duty (a high resolution "big" iPod touch AND a bona-fide option for a laptop alternative)?
The 17" Macbook Pro offers 1920 x 1200. So this "detached" screen at 2048 x 1536 would give the user substantially more pixels (3.1M vs. 2.3M) on which to get work done. Yes, the interested "producer" would have to put the other pieces together in a satisfactory way, and yes, apps for content production would have to step up a bit more than "as is" now. But, if we are going to get even an iPad2 "pro" with better screen resolution than a Macbook Pro, it would seem to be an easy leap to thinking of the applications of an iPad2 as a content creation tool is much bigger way.
I'm with the camp thinking the existing price points and this super resolution screen rumor seem to be unlikely (so I'll bet on a "pro" model too). But, if there is an iPad 2 at 2048x1536, then I suspect it will be a real competitor for many shopping for laptops for medium to light duty content creation.
All that said, I'd love to see it just for the hope that the next-gen
TV3 might get the same playback hardware so that the last link in the iMovie to iTunes to _______ to 1080p HDTV could be filled in with an (iTunes-friendly) device that could push the 1080p camcorder movies edited & rendered in iMovie, stored in iTunes (where they play back just fine at 1080p) and push them to the 1080p HDTVs increasingly prevalent in our homes. The 720p cap in the new (and old) TV is so 2006.
Full HD is a marketing term. I believe the proper names are HD 1080 and HD 720, but if I were king, I'd decree that 720 be called Half HD. Or NotQuiteHD.
Clearly, I'm simply disappointed in the lack of 1080 content from Apple.
720p has always been considered HD by the entire industry. I believe 1080p is called "full-HD".
I don't see how anyone can get more work done on a higher resolution screen that is much smaller.
It is a marketing term, but it shows that 720p is still HD, and companies are just looking for a way to differentiate that isn't by claiming 720p isn't HD.
The reason they don't sell 1080p is simple. Too much bandwidth requirements on their side for little return. They've gotten away with it this long, so why not continue?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
720p is one of the formal definitions of HD video as determined by the group overseeing the standard. It is the MINIMUM standard to be considered HD.
1080p would be considered the MAXIMUM standard, though 1080i is actually the other HD standard as originally conceived.
Even though there are already higher (video resolution) standards in relatively advanced stages of development around the world, 1080p is likely to be the max U.S. standard for home video for a very long time to come (I would bet at least a decade).
Thus, while Apple can squeak by by claiming 720p as HD, and while Apple fans can justify it by various arguments/rationale because whatever Apple says is THE best way for everyone, it sure would be nice for Apple to deliver a relatively future proof hardware standard of (IMO) 1080p 60fps hardware. Then, let all the rest (national bandwidth issues, content for the iTunes store, blah, blah, blah) catch up to that capability over time. Apple can't fully crush the "bag of hurt" if their alternative is capped out at a limited incarnation of 720p. The quality-minded people won't accept the tradeoff.
What is your point? You're throwing out all of these technicalities at me, but saying what I said... that 720p IS considered HD. That's all I was saying.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
My 27" iMac screen is smaller than my old 4:3 CRT screen. But I do get a lot of work done on it. Apple is now selling a MacBook Air 11" screen as a bona-fide laptop. There's a lot of people who own tiny little netbooks and do a lot of light content creation on screens smaller than the iPad.
This iPad2- if it arrives as rumored- would be just a bit more compact than that MBA screen, yet have much higher pixel density (for very sharp on screen imagery). Yes, you would probably need good eyes for working with things on that small screen, but then again, we're not running OS X on it- all apps would be optimized for the screen (thus, we shouldn't imagine super tiny icons, or font sizes or menus).
Prop it on a stand. Bluetooth keyboard & maybe bluetooth mouse (or just touch the screen). Is it a good, super portable content creation tool (when content creation is needed), while being a new, improved content consumption tool the rest of the time?
Last edited:
Why does Apple have to wait until April to release an already ready-to-ship product???
it's ready to ship already? i thought they were still doing firmware testing on it this month and it was going to begin production late this month/early february. source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20101206PD224.html
either way, there were lots of rumors, i think a bunch from digitimes from foxconn, saying that the ipad 2 would ship in february. what exactly does this mean?
if it's shipping from the factory in china then coming to the u.s., then where/why would it sit around for a couple months?
if it's not shipping until february, does that mean that's when it's coming out? i really don't understand what people mean when they say that. because i ordered the ipod touch 4g the day it was announced and it shipped later that week from china, and i got it about a week or so later. it shipped straight from china to the u.s. to my house.
can someone please explain? i don't know much about this stuff obviously...
also, how long does it normally take from the time a new version of iOS is seeded to developers until that version launches to consumers?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, but a great deal of even mid-level camcorders can now shoot at 1080p. Apple gives us the tools- even iMovie- to process that video at 1080p. iTunes will store it just like SD video and play it back at 1080p too. If we have an HDTV in our living rooms, it is probably "full HD" (thus 1080p capable). All the links in the 1080p (max HD) chain are in place except the
TV, which is still capped at 720p (as it was in the 2006 version). So, yes, broadcasters tend to favor 1080i or 720p. But satt & cable already offer some 1080p VOD, camcorders are increasingly available to shoot at 1080p, digital cameras have long since shot at qualities well above 1280 x 720 (720p), and online streaming sources like VUDU offer some content at 1080p. Might as well catch up to the MAX standard, rather than buy it all at 720p for now, then be tempted to rebuy it again at 1080p later. Already been there with VHS to DVD. Do we really want to rationalize VHS to DVD to 720p to 1080p? Why not just leapfrog to the max standard that should be around for a good while into the future?
The business side of my brain doesn't blame them for taking the "good enough" route, but the quality side of my brain thinks that Apple has a touch of hypocrisy going on when they want to stand apart as the Rolls Royce of technology. It goes hand-in-hand with my dislike of streaming video, however.
I recognize that 720p can be streamed relatively quickly on today's infrastructure, and that many consumers are happy with that. Personally, I'm not satisfied with it, as every movie I've streamed has left me feeling like I saw the cheap version... certainly not the original quality version the director intended for the audience.
Steve made it clear he wants to see movies streamed and paid for each time content is viewed. I don't think it's worth paying for streaming content yet. 1080p on Blu-ray is, but that option is "greyed-out," so to speak, and gets to another subject. So we're left with all this effort to make smaller screens that are better than 1080p resolution, but only offer 720p content.
Time will work it out, and 720 will be the new VHS soon enough.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think 1080i is the worst variant of HD.
1080i < 720P < 1080P
Gladly have 720P anyday over 1080i.
But of course I love 1080P so my blu-ray player isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I think 1080i is the worst variant of HD.
1080i < 720P < 1080P
Gladly have 720P anyday over 1080i.
But of course I love 1080P so my blu-ray player isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
The jump from VHS to DVD has been far bigger.
I actualy belive that there are a ton of movies and tv shows that do just fine on dvd. For something like Computer Animation or BBCs Planet Earth the added deteil realy shines wen you get it in HD and on a HD TV. But dos it realy enhance that SitCome or Romantic Movie that much? Do you feel let down if you cannot pause the movie to count the actors hair in a movie like The Truman Show? At least i own that movie on DVD and unlike with a lot of my VHS tapes i feel no need at all to replace it with a BluRay Version (if there even is one).
In fact, i replaced exactly no Movie i own on DVD and i still watch my DVDs.
(obviusly there are expections were the mastering of the DVD is just crap or they tryed to put four houres on one disk, but thats not the DVDs fault... and after all the DVD itself holds as much Data as most of your iTunes downloads in HD are, the iTunes SD stuff is clother to VHS than DVD... it´s infact pritty terrible. My "UP" BluRay came with DVD and iTunes SD Download and the iTunes Version is just terrible ((seriusly, illigal DVD Rips are better qualety with smaler filesize)
I am not much of a states whore, i want a movie (or stuff in genneral) to work how it is/was intended. I´ll never get why some people comlain about film grain in BR Movies for example... the world issent just math and measurements, sometimes there are good reasons for something not being "perfect and cleaned up to the max".
Last edited:
The new ipad will be what the first one should of been, this screen coupled with a dual core GPU and a camera hopefully (I'll be happy with one front facing one, for me a dvice that big should have a really good camera or I won't care to much). Hopefully we will get some more details ( a Powell might loose one again LOL). Can't wait!
Apple doesn't call it that because it is only HD with a 16:9 aspect ratio (1280x720 or 1920x1080) by the industry standard (ATSC table 3 in America). The iPad is not HD, unless you're using the term loosely, e.g. better than an analog TV, or better than VGA. But that's not what you meant, since you qualify is as "industry standard".
Whats the point if having such high resolution screen on a 9inch device? I much rather have then knock off 100 dollars off the base model and keep the corrent screen (which is beautifully sharp) the put a more expencive marketing gimmick screen.
My imac doesnt support that resolution and it has a 21 inch screen. Wy would i need/want it on a tablet?
My imac doesnt support that resolution and it has a 21 inch screen. Wy would i need/want it on a tablet?
While I don't like Motorola specifically I think the Idea of the Atrix should have come from Apple. A casing with dock connector, keyboard and screen. You plug the iPhone in and voila you have your basic netbook. No need to transfer data. Needs some more power and software (and an accessible storage of data, maybe thats the NC datacenter's purpose, cloud storage) to be usable to create content. Why not do the same with the iPad...?
Well, still a good deal... I used the device for like 10 months. I think it's worth it just for the fun of having an iPad for that amount of time!