Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Double the resolution, but when?

I read the whole thread and still see the 2048x1536 as the most likely when it does change, but I'm still not 100% sure about that change coming right away with the iPad 2. Mind you, Apple was happy to kill the iPod Mini to introduce the Nano - even though the Mini was wildly successful at the time -, so I can see Apple taking a hit on its margin and going retina with the iPad 2.

Lots of folks said that Apple gets high revenues from the App Store(s). While true, high revenues do not equate high profits. Apple's content selling (i.e. iTunes and the App Stores) is conducted slightly above break-even. It is NOT a major source of PROFIT for Apple. The margins are low. Apple sells content because the availability of content makes the hardware more valuable. The hardware is where Apple earns most of its money (and by that I mean PROFITS, not revenues). The margins on hardware are much higher than the margins on digital content. (Mind you, Apple, as a developer, is doing well selling its software on its own Mac App Store, but it's still fairly minor relative to profits from hardware.)

I remember reading somewhere that Jobs, talking about Apple in the... 90s? said something like... Apple went for profit (with high margins) when it should have gone for market share. Now don't get me wrong. Apple doesn't sell at a loss. Ever. But if you look at iTunes or the App Stores, it's obvious that Apple can deal with low margins when it's strategically important to have a certain piece of the puzzle in place. I believe they might try to do that with the iPad 2 (as many have suggested in this thread). Take a hit on the margin, but crush all competition very convincingly. The people who buy an iPad now are likely to buy an iPad again when they get a new tablet... and an iPhone when they get a new phone... and a MacBook Air or something when they get a new laptop... and an iMac when they get a new desktop... So I think it's fairly reasonable to think that Apple might be willing to take a short-term margin hit on the iPad 2 to really stick its foot in the door and position itself as THE name in mobile computing (and, hell, maybe even computing in general 10 years from now).

I'm just speculating here. I don't have any kind of special insider knowledge. But I'm starting to think that a 2048x1536 resolution for the iPad 2 could make a lot of sense.

Still... Wow! Kinda mind-blowing, isn't it?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; 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)

If this happens, Apple has a right to call this thing magical... Yes?

IMO they can call it a magical, revolutionary, law-defying, physics-defying, coffee-making, house-cleaning, life-changing device and I wouldn't doubt them. iPad 2...YOU'RE MINE. Now where's the pre-order form? GIVE ME!
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; 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)

If this happens, Apple has a right to call this thing magical... Yes?

Only if it can turn back time and bring me back to the 1600's
joanstilkestake.jpg
 
No. The usual suspects will explain what a piece of crap it is because it has one fewer core, or runs a hundred megahertz slower, or has no USB, or doesn't support USB3, or doesn't run Flash, or doesn't use S-AMOLED, or...

Yea, because I constantly think about all of those things whenever I use an iPad or an iPhone.

Oh wait, tech snobs dwell on those things and not most users, thats right.
 
I'm glad there are so many engineers here to fill me in on the screen production costs and power consumption. And as far as the power to drive the screen, apparently you don't remember when the original iPhone came out.
 
so apple (rumored) is willing to have a high res screen for the iPad and while their 13 inch MBP still suffers from 1280x800 resolution...great
 
I read the whole thread and still see the 2048x1536 as the most likely when it does change, but I'm still not 100% sure about that change coming right away with the iPad 2. Mind you, Apple was happy to kill the iPod Mini to introduce the Nano - even though the Mini was wildly successful at the time -, so I can see Apple taking a hit on its margin and going retina with the iPad 2.

Lots of folks said that Apple gets high revenues from the App Store(s). While true, high revenues do not equate high profits. Apple's content selling (i.e. iTunes and the App Stores) is conducted slightly above break-even. It is NOT a major source of PROFIT for Apple. The margins are low. Apple sells content because the availability of content makes the hardware more valuable. The hardware is where Apple earns most of its money (and by that I mean PROFITS, not revenues). The margins on hardware are much higher than the margins on digital content. (Mind you, Apple, as a developer, is doing well selling its software on its own Mac App Store, but it's still fairly minor relative to profits from hardware.)

I remember reading somewhere that Jobs, talking about Apple in the... 90s? said something like... Apple went for profit (with high margins) when it should have gone for market share. Now don't get me wrong. Apple doesn't sell at a loss. Ever. But if you look at iTunes or the App Stores, it's obvious that Apple can deal with low margins when it's strategically important to have a certain piece of the puzzle in place. I believe they might try to do that with the iPad 2 (as many have suggested in this thread). Take a hit on the margin, but crush all competition very convincingly. The people who buy an iPad now are likely to buy an iPad again when they get a new tablet... and an iPhone when they get a new phone... and a MacBook Air or something when they get a new laptop... and an iMac when they get a new desktop... So I think it's fairly reasonable to think that Apple might be willing to take a short-term margin hit on the iPad 2 to really stick its foot in the door and position itself as THE name in mobile computing (and, hell, maybe even computing in general 10 years from now).

I'm just speculating here. I don't have any kind of special insider knowledge. But I'm starting to think that a 2048x1536 resolution for the iPad 2 could make a lot of sense.

Still... Wow! Kinda mind-blowing, isn't it?
Great post. And yes, it's definitely mind-blowing in the least.

IMO they can call it a magical, revolutionary, law-defying, physics-defying, coffee-making, house-cleaning, life-changing device and I wouldn't doubt them. iPad 2...YOU'RE MINE. Now where's the pre-order form? GIVE ME!
:D

Yea, because I constantly think about all of those things whenever I use an iPad or an iPhone.

Oh wait, tech snobs dwell on those things and not most users, thats right.
Exactly. What average person really cares?
 
so apple is willing to have a high res screen for the iPad and while their 13 inch MBP still suffers from 1280x800 resolution...great

It's pretty much guaranteed at this point that the next 13" MBP and MB will have 1440x900 screens like the 13" MBA.
 
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/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

I called this like weeks ago. I guess the change of my astrological sign made me a psychic. Or something.
 
Not true. Windows has supported resolution independence since 3.1 I think it was, but I know for sure it existed in Windows 98... 13 years ago. It's just OS X that has never supported it. It was supposed to get resolution independence for Tiger (10.4) but it never happened, and seemingly Apple forgot about it.

OS X has it. It works. On some apps it works very well. On most it does not. You have to have the dev tools to enable the mode.
 
Call me a pedant, but 1024x768 to 2048x1536 isn't doubling the resolution, nor was the step up from iPhone 3GS (480x320 to 960x640).

Both of those are increasing the resolution by 4x not 2x.

1024x768 = 786,432 pixels
2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels

3,145,728 / 786,432 = 4.
 
It's pretty much guaranteed at this point that the next 13" MBP and MB will have 1440x900 screens like the 13" MBA.

yea, thats what im hoping for. although i could also see apple leaving it the 1280x800 forcing people who want higher res screens to spend more money for the 15"


thats apple marketing at its best
 
I'm just speculating here. I don't have any kind of special insider knowledge. But I'm starting to think that a 2048x1536 resolution for the iPad 2 could make a lot of sense.
Yes, but other people seem to forget that Apple can sell multiple versions of the same product. What's to prevent Apple from selling an iPad2 and an iPad2 Pro, with the Pro having the higher-res display?

That would soooo be in keeping with the Apple style (cool, expensive exclusivity).
 
"From a developer's perspective, the doubling of an existing resolution is much easier to support."

Only for developers who don't understand the meaning of "resolution independent".

Considering iOS, unlike Mac OS X, does not support vector images in most of its UI elements but requires PNG files...its not the dev. UIKit is very well designed for ResInd, except for this one requirement. If I could use an EPS or PDF for a tab image - then great! But even so, there are simply a lot of effects that don't look as good when drawn in vector. So you end up with multiple images for each element for different resolutions.

And I think that's why OS X no longer pushes ResInd. And its far more processor intensive to do it programmatically constantly than just blitting pre-drawn images.
 
Call me a pedant, but 1024x768 to 2048x1536 isn't doubling the resolution, nor was the step up from iPhone 3GS (480x320 to 960x640).

Both of those are increasing the resolution by 4x not 2x.

1024x768 = 786,432 pixels
2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels

3,145,728 / 786,432 = 4.

Did you really think that a thread would go on for longer than 200 replies without a mention of that?
If so you were wrong.
 
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) Mobile/8C148)

Great, another unlikely rumor that will cause investor disappointment (AAPL price drop) if it doesn't materialize. :(
 
yea, thats what im hoping for. although i could also see apple leaving it the 1280x800 forcing people who want higher res screens to spend more money for the 15"


thats apple marketing at its best

If the 13" MBP and MB get bumped to 1440x900 then the default 15" MBP resolution will be 1680x1050. There will still be incentive to go for the larger screen.
 
Only other resolution I could see them putting on there is 1600x900 if they go with 16:9 displays.
Fair enough.

In a sense, it's actually much easier to do super-high resolution on the iPad than on the MacBook--and that will remain true until OS X is resolution independent.
Is it possible we'll see this at WWDC this year in Mac OS X Lion?

Yes, but other people seem to forget that Apple can sell multiple versions of the same product. What's to prevent Apple from selling an iPad2 and an iPad2 Pro, with the Pro having the higher-res display?

That would soooo be in keeping with the Apple style (cool, expensive exclusivity).
I wouldn't bet on that.

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) Mobile/8C148)

Great, another unlikely rumor that will cause investor disappointment (AAPL price drop) if it doesn't materialize. :(
Well then. Let's hope it does. April just can't come any faster, can it? :D
 
Did you really think that a thread would go on for longer than 200 replies without a mention of that?
If so you were wrong.

I hadn't looked at the page numbers or post numbers, read it saw it was painfully wrong, pointed it out. For all I knew there were 3 posts.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.