iPad 2 resolution will stay the same

[MacVault]

Major bummer if it does not get the retina display
When I go from using my iPhone 4 to my friend's iPad I feel like I am looking at a display from 1982. The retina display is SO NICE!

 

[ZilogZ80]

I wish the media would quit referring to this as resolution doubling, it's not. "Resolution" is a product of the linear dimensions and refers to the total number of pixels. Doubling the dimensions quadruples the resolution.

Actually, if you want to be completely correct, "resolution" refers to the density of the pixels; linear dimensions and total number of pixels are irrelevant.

 

[Bytor65]

If you're talking about the pixel density then you're right.

Just to jump on the pedantic bandwagon, but pixel density is also a linear measure DPI or PPI (that is per linear inch) so it would also be doubled in the double resolution scenario.

What is quadrupled is pixel count.

So if/when a 2048x1536 display shows up some day it will be double the resolution, double the pixel density (DPI/PPI) and quadruple the pixel count.

But that will be iPad 3 or iPad 4.

 

[nagromme]

It was a fun rumor while it lasted Someday (2012?) it will happen.

When these rumors started, I doubted them until the 2x images popped up (though they could well relate to far-future plans). But even when I believed them, I assumed that low-cost non-retina iPads would remain in the lineup (which is exactly how the iPhone lineup is now).

That leaves a very SLIM possibility that the higher-re sources are right about SOME iPad models (one or more models at the highest prices), and that Gruber’s sources are right about OTHER iPads (which keep the $499 entry point). If those new low-end iPads get cameras, then that would explain finding the 1024x768 camera UI art.

But that’s really wishful thinking. Gruber’s sources are most likely correct, and there are probably no other models they don’t know about.

I’ll console myself with those new gestures that make me want an iPad! I’m springing for the iPad 2, retina or not.

 

[Piggie]

I know specs are not everything.

However, it's not going to be great, if Apple launch the iPad2 with 1024x768 res and 512MB Ram.

Then a few weeks later Motorola Launch the Xoom with 1280x800 res and 1GB Ram. And just possibly a better rear camera, but that's guess.

Yes, I know they are different products, but they are both tablets, people and magazines, which non tech people read, will compare the two side by side.

I agree Apple does of course have a lot of momentum behind it, but still, you don't want to look the weaker one in reviews.

 

[Stetrain]

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)

For those suggesting an intermediate resolution, this is a good read: http://www.tipb.com/2011/01/19/problem-2x-ipad-2-retina-display/

 

[J400uk]

I think its very unlikely myself. The hi-res screen would have extreme cost implications and make the iPad which is already expensive cost even more. There is also the fact that the current model has barely been out a year, do they really expect developers to rewrite all their Apps to support the new screen?

 

[Bytor65]

I know specs are not everything.

However, it's not going to be great, if Apple launch the iPad2 with 1024x768 res and 512MB Ram.

Then a few weeks later Motorola Launch the Xoom with 1280x800 res and 1GB Ram. And just possibly a better rear camera, but that's guess.

Yes, I know they are different products, but they are both tablets, people and magazines, which non tech people read, will compare the two side by side.

I agree Apple does of course have a lot of momentum behind it, but still, you don't want to look the weaker one in reviews.

Apple has never chased specs. Apple sells an experience. I was at a dinner get together a couple of weeks ago. Two of my friends have older low resolution iPod touches, they didn't find there was anything wrong with the resolution of the old iPod and neither knew that the new one changed in resolution. Normal people simply don't care about spec sheets.

iPad will still be the number one tablet in 2011.

 

[Piggie]

Apple has never chased specs. Apple sells an experience. I was at a dinner get together a couple of weeks ago. Two of my friends have older low resolution iPod touches, they didn't find there was anything wrong with the resolution of the old iPod and neither knew that the new one changed in resolution. Normal people simply don't care about spec sheets.

iPad will still be the number one tablet in 2011.

I know they don't.

I just feel, now, just for once is the moment for them to take a leap and do more than the minimum they feel they can get away with.

Apple never generally create a new market with a new device. Normally they improve what's out there.

For once in their lives, they have the chance to lead the field for the longer term.

 

[ZilogZ80]

Apple has never chased specs. Apple sells an experience. I was at a dinner get together a couple of weeks ago. Two of my friends have older low resolution iPod touches, they didn't find there was anything wrong with the resolution of the old iPod and neither knew that the new one changed in resolution. Normal people simply don't care about spec sheets.

Point taken, but iPods are primarily about music and secondarily about apps. iPad is all about the display and what is on it. If they do go with a hi-res display, the difference will be stunningly obvious to all but the visually impaired. A "spec sheet" is irrelevant. You will literally be able to see how much better the iPad is, just by looking at it.

 

[pmz]

Quite simply, if iPad 2 has the exact same 1024 x 768 resolution as iPad 1, every single iPad 1 owner will shrug and say, "I'll wait for iPad 3."

Apple would Hate this. They want at least 80% of those 14.8 million drooling at iPad 2, not shrugging it off as an intermediate bump.

The following given additions will have no impact on iPad 1 owners, at all:

Faster.
Thinner.
Longer. (battery)
Cameras.

Big deal. Thats what you'd expect if you're going to upgrade your $500-800 tablet after only one year or less.

 

[SBeardsl]

If they do retina display on iPad, they will ask something to trade off. Apple might keep base iPad 16 g model as 499 dollars and slide in 2nd gen iPad to start at 599 and higher. They already do this with ipod touch.

I won't be surprised to see the current iPAD (classic?) 16GB wi-fi model drop all the way to $399. With the iPad twos fitting in at the current price points (with the 3G surcharge dropping to $99 from $129).

If the 2x screen does ship (magic 8-ball says, not likely), perhaps add $100 to the iPad 2's price points and keep a iPad class of some kind (32GB, 3G?) in the $499 slot.

 

[derek1984]

Quite simply, if iPad 2 has the exact same 1024 x 768 resolution as iPad 1, every single iPad 1 owner will shrug and say, "I'll wait for iPad 3."

Apple would Hate this. They want at least 80% of those 14.8 million drooling at iPad 2, not shrugging it off as an intermediate bump.

The following given additions will have no impact on iPad 1 owners, at all:

Faster.
Thinner.
Longer. (battery)
Cameras.

Big deal. Thats what you'd expect if you're going to upgrade your $500-800 tablet after only one year or less.

I didn't buy iPad 1 and I won't buy iPad 2 if it doesn't have better resolution. I don't mind waiting until iPad 3. Simple as that.

 

[cschmelz]

Duh! I mean, come on people. When has Apple ever given us this many upgrades at once? The next iPad will be slightly faster and have cameras. That is all. I'd be willing to wager heavily on that.

Have so many competitors SO had Apple in their sights as right now with the iPad?

CES was a testament to just how many people are gunning for the iPad and it's absolute DOMINATION of the market place. I can see Apple being VERY aggressive with this update to maintain a large margin ahead of the competition. I certainly hope so and would love to see a double res screen (true 'retina' density just doesn't seem necessary on the larger format screen vs the tiny iphone IMHO)

 

[qtx43]

...But even when I believed them...

You and me both

I keep on thinking, no way, the display will be too expensive, not to mention the other parts that would be upgraded to drive the display (mostly GPU and battery). But then everyone seemed to be taking it seriously, and my wishful thinking kicks in, temporarily. I suppose it's possible if Apple really wants to be aggressive, but it would cut way down on profit margins. The real bottleneck is RAM, the original should have had 512MB, but I doubt we'll see 1GB in iPad2.

 

[Bytor65]

Have so many competitors SO had Apple in their sights as right now with the iPad?

CES was a testament to just how many people are gunning for the iPad and it's absolute DOMINATION of the market place. I can see Apple being VERY aggressive with this update to maintain a large margin ahead of the competition. I certainly hope so and would love to see a double res screen (true 'retina' density just doesn't seem necessary on the larger format screen vs the tiny iphone IMHO)

A little reality check on some of those competitors:
Playbook: 1024x600
HP WebOs tablet: 1024x768

If super high resolution was the be all, end all, why aren't these guys facing the toughest uphill battle coming in with 1600x900 screens or some other very high resolution. They are facing the iPad juggernaut and a sea of Android tablets and they have no legacy at all, so why not go super high res???

Because they realize, just like Apple does, that other than uber nerds, no one cares and the cost is too high for the benefit.

 

[absynth]

I think the choice for a 3:4 screen on the original iPad was unfortunate. They should standardize on the iPhone 2:3 on all of their products, including laptop and desktop screens.

A 1920 x 1280 resolution would be exactly double the resolution of the iPhone, making rescaling of apps perfect, would play 1080p in full res and would have to push almost 25% less pixels than the rumored 2048x1536 display.

 

[cloakedpegasus]

Actually, if you want to be completely correct, "resolution" refers to the density of the pixels; linear dimensions and total number of pixels are irrelevant.

i didnt wikipedia or google it, but off the top of my head it sounds like you are referring to dot pitch?

 

[pdc123]

I'm really not qualified to say what is possible or likely, but if the new iPad were at 2x resolution, I would buy it without a second thought.

If it is at the current resolution, I very likely would not. The iPhone 4's resolution has trained my eyes to just see an ugly pixelated mess when I look at an iPad or 3GS (especially for printed text), and I normally don't even care about this kind of thing usually.

 

[pdc123]

A little reality check on some of those competitors:
Playbook: 1024x600
HP WebOs tablet: 1024x768

If super high resolution was the be all, end all, why aren't these guys facing the toughest uphill battle coming in with 1600x900 screens or some other very high resolution. They are facing the iPad juggernaut and a sea of Android tablets and they have no legacy at all, so why not go super high res???

Because they realize, just like Apple does, that other than uber nerds, no one cares and the cost is too high for the benefit.

This same logic could have been said for the iPhone 4. It was quite unexpected. (Again, not claiming the iPad can or should support a similar upgrade, but I wouldn't undervalue it too much, clearly someone thought it was worth it)

 

[cloakedpegasus]

I just wanted to say that after I purchased my iphone 4,( man the screen is so nice it looks like i'm looking at a printed display) it's hard for me to not notice the pixelated text on the ipad, especially browsing the web on safari. I have to zoom in a bit to make the text clearer because when it's smaller there's not enough pixel density for the text characters to be clear.
That being said, it's either super high-res ipad or nogo for me this year. And this is coming from the guy who keeps upgrading his iphone every single year. And bought ipad at launch. High-res ipad2=buy. Low-res ipad2=nobuy. simple as that.

 

[Bytor65]

This same logic could have been said for the iPhone 4. It was quite unexpected. (Again, not claiming the iPad can or should support a similar upgrade, but I wouldn't undervalue it too much, clearly someone thought it was worth it)

Right so, you might expect a retina display on iPad 4.

 

[D-Love]

I remember the day I got my iPhone 4. After being blown away by the screen, I then got used to it. When I went back to my iPad, I was stunned by how bad the screen looked, at least to me, since I had gotten used to seeing a screen where I couldn't make out the individual pixels unless I looked REALLY close.

I since have sold my iPad in favor of the 11 MacBook Air, and while it is not a "retina" resolution, it is close enough that most of the time I get the same effect while it is on my lap.

If the iPad 2 does not at least come CLOSE to the retina display then it will be a major fail. We are, because of the recent display upgrades in current Apple products, used to these higher resolution screens by now. Apple must continue the trend in the iPad.

I debate back and forth whether to pick up the new iPad, as I still have quite a few apps, and do from time to time miss it in various situations. I almost hope they don't come out with a enhanced display, because that would likely save me about $600 lol.

 

[fertilized-egg]

But that’s really wishful thinking. Gruber’s sources are most likely correct, and there are probably no other models they don’t know about.

Gruber's sources didn't deny anything regarding a higher res display. They just denied that it being a "Retina" display. Thus Engadget's claim is that both sources can be all correct: it's a high resolution display but not a "Retina." The part about the iPad 2 having the same resolution as the first one is not confirmed by Gruber's source but merely Gruber's conjecture. I think his reasoning is sound, but I wouldn't put it past Apple doing something like that as they have surprised us before such as the switch to the Intel processor.

They are facing the iPad juggernaut and a sea of Android tablets and they have no legacy at all, so why not go super high res???

I think we all know why. Apple is really the only tablet maker who can order and afford exotic parts before they become available for others at a realistic price. As we've seen in the MP3 players, it's actually pretty hard to match Apple's price while keeping up with the quality because Apple can negotiate better prices from the suppliers.

 

[Bytor65]

Gruber's sources didn't deny anything regarding a higher res display. They just denied that it's a "Retina" display. .

Actually his sources said no super high resolution:

But my sources are pretty sure that it’s not 2048 × 1536 or any other “super high resolution”.

I think we all know why. Apple is really the only tablet maker who can order and afford exotic parts before they become available for others at a realistic price. As we've seen in the MP3 players, it's actually pretty hard to match Apple's price while keeping up with the quality because Apple can negotiate better prices from the suppliers.

No we haven't seen that. A Zune matched or exceeded Apple with lower prices. Anyone who plans to do volume can order a custom screen.