iPad 2 Screen Likely to Have 2048x1536 resolution

[fpnc]

I accept your challenge. They wont have to compensate. If Apple sticks in the better display and dual core ARM9 ect. they will still make a little (probably much less) money off of it, but still get a little. This is a price cut they may be willing to take if it means keeping them on top of the tablet market for years to come.

Now that's a real statement! However, it seems that I've heard variations on that before, like just before the introduction of every new product that Apple makes. It's a hope expressed by many but it seems never to be fully realized. The thing is, Apple's profit margins are remarkable consistent year-by-year and product-by-product (with a few, low volume exceptions, like the original Apple TV). So, you seem to be proposing that Apple is finally going to turn another leaf and undercut their profits to keep market share. I doubt it.

I'd say that the most likely scenario is that the base price on the iPad will go up if Apple adds both a Retina display and a dual-core ARM9 with improved graphics and more memory. Maybe they will keep the current 16GB, WiFi-only iPad as their low-cost alternative. That wouldn't be a bad option since I suspect that the current iPad could still sell in good numbers for some months to come (i.e. well into 2011).

 

[dwarnecke11]

It's a good point that only Apple could pull this off. Why? Volume. With the sheer number of iPads sold, they'll be able to get a good deal on an otherwise expensive display.

 

[jealousguy86]

i hope this coming week brings news of an announcement or something definitive about the release date. i'm sick of rumors already.

 

[DrFrankTM]

Exactly..

Remember there is going to be a tidal wave of competition this year.

If Apple can maintain iPad momentum with new hardware even if it's margins are reduced substantially, a big lead and continued growth of iPads would allow/mean it can at least recoup margins via continued growth and extra sales of Apps in the store (30% of App sales)....

There is more to the IOS money wagon than hardware alone...

Well, as I explained in an earlier post, software sales really aren't that big a deal. The iTunes Store and the App Stores are run at slightly above break-even. Big revenues but little in terms of profits.

It might well be the chance for Apple to stick its foot in the door and become a much more important name in computing though, and that for years to come. I don't know whether it's realistic manufacturing-wise because it would be a huge challenge, but if Apple does it, it can take a margin hit on the iPad 2, but more or less lock the market for itself for the next 10 years or so. As many pointed out, the screen res will NOT need to increase again for quite a while (because we just couldn't really see much of a difference if it did), so Apple could very well make up the short dip in profit through higher volumes of high-margins iPad 3's, iPad 4's, iPad 5's, and so on.

I'm not saying it will happen. I'm not saying it's feasible manufacturing-wise for the iPad 2 (considering that Apple will sell tens of millions of those). All I'm saying is that, if it is possible, there is a strong business case for it, despite lower margins in the short run.

The iPad 2 is likely to come out late in the next quarter, so I don't know how much of an impact it would have on Apple's overall margins either way, but the financial results for 2011 Q1 (if I am not mistaken) are coming out tomorrow (Tuesday the 18th), so I will be keeping an eye on what kind of margins Apple forecasts going forward. It could give us a clue - but not much of a clue, to be honest - as to whether or not the next iPad will be a costly one.

 

[Northgrove]

I wonder how they can even pull that off, battery-wise. :S

That's a 24" desktop resolution, haha. Stationary-level stuff.

 

[Jamo12]

Now that's a real statement! However, it seems that I've heard variations on that before, like just before the introduction of every new product that Apple makes. It's a hope expressed by many but it seems never to be fully realized. The thing is, Apple's profit margins are remarkable consistent year-by-year and product-by-product (with a few, low volume exceptions, like the original Apple TV). So, you seem to be proposing that Apple is finally going to turn another leaf and undercut their profits to keep market share. I doubt it.

That pretty much is what I am saying. I don't remember Apple doing this with anything, except the iPod. Right before the nano came out other companies were catching up to them with similar music players but then, Apple took a profit hit to keep the market share by bringing out the nano at a low price.

Just like the iPod, Apple created the market for the iPad. I think they will do something out of the ordinary just to keep market share, like they did the iPod.

 

[DrFrankTM]

What I meant is that, if people buy an iPad, and then buy apps, then when the time comes to buy a new tablet, they are likely to go with another iPad to avoid having to re-buy all of their apps on another platform. And some of their apps work on the iPhone too, so why not buy an iPhone as their next smartphone? And iOS devices work so much better with Macs than with PCs, so why not buy Mac desktops and laptops too? It's the good old "halo" effect. People like the product. They then buy more from the same company. The iPad is more of a computer than the old iPods were, so it's a better tool for Apple to try and establish itself as a strong brand in computing (in general) than the iPod was. (The touch is blurring the boundary. I am trying to compare the "halo effect" of the pre-touch iPods with the possible "halo effect" of the iPad.)

As for the cost of the screen. Apple can order not 50 millions but, say, 300 millions over the next 5 years. Apple could get a sort of mean price for them all that would enable the company to keep its price points low for the iPad 2 (and still pretty decent prices on the following ones too).

 

[DotCom2]

Well, as I explained in an earlier post, software sales really aren't that big a deal. The iTunes Store and the App Stores are run at slightly above break-even. Big revenues but little in terms of profits.

It might well be the chance for Apple to stick its foot in the door and become a much more important name in computing though, and that for years to come. I don't know whether it's realistic manufacturing-wise because it would be a huge challenge, but if Apple does it, it can take a margin hit on the iPad 2, but more or less lock the market for itself for the next 10 years or so. As many pointed out, the screen res will NOT need to increase again for quite a while (because we just couldn't really see much of a difference if it did), so Apple could very well make up the short dip in profit through higher volumes of high-margins iPad 3's, iPad 4's, iPad 5's, and so on.

I'm not saying it will happen. I'm not saying it's feasible manufacturing-wise for the iPad 2 (considering that Apple will sell tens of millions of those). All I'm saying is that, if it is possible, there is a strong business case for it, despite lower margins in the short run.

The iPad 2 is likely to come out late in the next quarter, so I don't know how much of an impact it would have on Apple's overall margins either way, but the financial results for 2011 Q1 (if I am not mistaken) are coming out tomorrow (Tuesday the 18th), so I will be keeping an eye on what kind of margins Apple forecasts going forward. It could give us a clue - but not much of a clue, to be honest - as to whether or not the next iPad will be a costly one.

I don't think they are going to give any clues. Besides that, they are always very conservative in their forecasts.
I do hope at least one of the analysts during the Q&A asks about the Data Center and when it's coming online.
I'M DYING TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY PLAN FOR THAT CENTER!

EDIT:
also, I think you are wrong about your timeline.
I think iPad2 will be out EARLY next quarter, not late. JMHO

 

[MrCrowbar]

Wow, the Mac computers will look pretty outdated (which they already do in terms of display resolution, not color though) when the retina iPad comes out.

200+ PPI on a 13" Macbook (Pro) would be cool. 1440 x 900 like on the 13" Macbook Air is a good start but why not go for 2560 x 1600 at this point? I could actually imagine that Apple has the technology to drive those displays with that chip manufacturer they bought a while ago. The display panels are something else though. Don't even want to imagine the pixels densities for the 15" and 17" models. Maybe that's the reason they discontinued the 30" Cinema display: "We just can't make a 30 inch screen with 200 PPI, so here's a 27 inch one with 200 PPI. We at Apple believe that 5120 x 3200 pixels is enough for everyone". You could finally edit 4K movies (4096 x 3112 in full aperture) and still have some space for tiny toolbars.

 

[fpnc]

Those who are touting Honeycomb and Android as proof that Apple must offer something better probably need to check the most recent market numbers from Verizon. It's been pretty much documented that Android phone sales at Verizon haven't help them against AT&T's iPhone. Android has just been displacing sales that would have gone to RIM and Windows mobile. In fact, some analysis are starting to say that Android has probably peaked (at least here in the U.S.) and that the iPhone 4 on Verizon is going to reverse the previous market trends. I've also read one report that was attributed to a large phone manufacturer that they were getting tired of "more" Android and that future growth of that platform might be limited to cost-sensitive markets in less developed countries. No doubt, Android and Google are making waves, but that doesn't mean that Apple will have to suffer or make radical changes in their product plans. Nevertheless, competition is good, so I see no problems in letting Google and Apple share the market.

 

[DrFrankTM]

That pretty much is what I am saying. I don't remember Apple doing this with anything, except the iPod. Right before the nano came out other companies were catching up to them with similar music players but then, Apple took a profit hit to keep the market share by bringing out the nano at a low price.

Just like the iPod, Apple created the market for the iPad. I think they will do something out of the ordinary just to keep market share, like they did the iPod.

Yes. I have no clue whether it will happen this way, but I can see Apple moving aggressively here because securing the tablet market now is going to have a huge impact on their market share in computing (in general) for the next 10 years or so. It's a big deal. I could see Apple giving up a little now to get more later.

Apple can wait 15 minutes to eat its marshmallow. It's a smart kid. It's done pretty well for itself so far.

 

[blackcrayon]

It's also possible that although the iPad 2 won't have a 2048 x 1536 screen, Apple is going to "standardize" on bitmap images that are twice the iPad 1 resolution for simplicity purposes. Then, from now to the foreseeable future, developers can include a standard bitmap (for the iPad 1) and a bitmap@2x (for beyond the iPad 1) for apps. Perhaps the hardware will automatically scale the 2x image to the appropriate resolution... And if the iPad 3 has an even greater resolution , developers won't have to yet again update all their images as they've already been allowing for it since the iPad 2. There wouldn't need to be a change in bitmap resolution until they finally *do* release an iOS device with > 2048 x 1536 resolution. Of course, I'd love it if it turns out they're already there with the 2

I guess the question is how good is the quality of hardware scaling the images down. Since it's a reduction, i'd imagine it would look pretty good, especially with the tiny pixels of the iPad 2 screen (even if it turns out to be only half way between 1024 x 768 and 2048 x 1536).

 

[AldoRay]

I accept your challenge. They wont have to compensate. If Apple sticks in the better display and dual core ARM9 ect. they will still make a little (probably much less) money off of it, but still get a little. This is a price cut they may be willing to take if it means keeping them on top of the tablet market for years to come.

You may be right While I can't remember the exact words, Apple has pretty much indicated during a quarterly earnings call that they would be willing to accept lower margins to keep the iPad as a market leader.

 

[TeeJayEm]

Who's to say it isn't an image for the Mac version of iBooks?

EDIT: nvm.

 

[Mattsasa]

ipad

 

[css1323]

If you don't know what you're talking about keep your keyboard silent.

 

[Mattsasa]

wtf?

 

[fpnc]

That pretty much is what I am saying. I don't remember Apple doing this with anything, except the iPod. Right before the nano came out other companies were catching up to them with similar music players but then, Apple took a profit hit to keep the market share by bringing out the nano at a low price.

Just like the iPod, Apple created the market for the iPad. I think they will do something out of the ordinary just to keep market share, like they did the iPod.

I'm not certain that that is entirely true (that Apple has taken significantly reduced profit margins -- a "hit" as you say -- on the iPods to stimulate sales). Frankly, with the exception of the current iPod touch, Apple has always offered less than the competition's MP3/media players in terms of features and hardware. It's just that they have used good marketing, key features, and the power of the iTunes Store to keep the iPod slightly ahead of or abreast of the pack. You can still buy cheaper players today and you can buy players that have better hardware than the iPod, but I'm pretty certain that Apple is still making above average profits or at least industry-standard profits on their entire iPod line.

In any case, why would companies sit idly while Apple cuts profits to maintain market share? Seems like it would make more sense for those other companies to be very aggressive in both hardware and price in order to "buy" market share from Apple. After all, those other companies have the more difficult task, since they need to break into a market that Apple already dominates.

I can understand your logic about Apple reducing their profit margins, but that would kind of represent a shift in Apple's general philosophy of simply making the best product that their transitionally high profits margins would allow. Now you're saying that Apple is going to make the absolutely best product possible while also cutting their profit margins? That would, I think, be truly unique in the history of the company. Like I said before, I don't think Apple can offer an iPad that will match or exceed every possible hardware spec that the competition will have. If they can do dual-core ARM9 with better graphics and at least 512MB of DRAM and add in a Retina display for today's prices then they've just done a reset on the tablet market. Of course, I would like the Retina display and overall battery life to be just as "good" in other characteristics as today's iPad so it's going to be a tall order to improve nearly everything in just one iteration.

 

[dethmaShine]

"Display Resolution" is what you are referring to, not resolution.

"The term resolution is often used for a pixel count in digital imaging, even though American, Japanese, and international standards specify that it should not be so used, at least in the digital camera field."

In this case, for every 'old' pixel, there are 4 'new' pixels implying that the resolution is 4x. It's a pretty simple definition and there's not much to contemplate.

 

[blueraja]

I really hope this isnt true...it just seems like a good way to kill any possible performance bump a new ipad would provide.

 

[LoganT]

I really hope this isnt true...it just seems like a good way to kill any possible performance bump a new ipad would provide.

Why on earth would you hope this isn't true?

 

[neutrino23]

... (snip)...
I'd say that the most likely scenario is that the base price on the iPad will go up if Apple adds both a Retina display and a dual-core ARM9 with improved graphics and more memory. Maybe they will keep the current 16GB, WiFi-only iPad as their low-cost alternative. That wouldn't be a bad option since I suspect that the current iPad could still sell in good numbers for some months to come (i.e. well into 2011).

This is an interesting idea. I could see the current iPad going down in price by $50 or $100 and the iPad2 going up $100 in price. That way they price protect the low end while attracting buyers interested in better specs. Pretty standard idea of a product line. It is pretty unlikely that any competitor is going to come out with a comparable screen at discount prices in the short term so why not charge for it?

 

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

ipad

Remember when people used to joke about the name?

 

[wonderspark]

Remember when people used to joke about the name?

Now we can joke about "used iPads." Ewww.

 

[GnillGnoll]

a non retina optimized app on an iphone 4 would look the same as an app on a previous iphone

Actually they do not look exactly the same, for two reasons:
1. Some iPhone apps get scaled using a bilinear filter, not pixel doubling. I'm not 100% sure what determines which scaling gets used, but I suspect it's related to whether an app uses the standard UI elements and/or hides the status bar.
Examples: Game Dev Story, Bookworm, Dungeon Scroll, Critter Crunch, Angry Birds before the Retina update. In fact, if you look closely you can sometimes even see the switch between the two modes during the app splash screen.

2. The subpixel structure is different. When pixel doubling, you basically get pixels with 12 subpixels instead of 3. Their shape and spatial arrangement is different, not to mention the gaps between them. On the 3GS display our eyes are actually able to "see" the red, green, and blue subpixels, but they see each color as a dot. With four subpixels of each color distributed over a larger area, however, our eyes actually perceive the (upscaled) pixel as having an area. This is due to the way our eyes/brain filter the signal they receive from the millions of rods and cones on your retina.

On the one hand, this makes the iPhone 4 display look much more uniform and "paper-like" than the 3GS display, especially when showing large areas of flat color. On the other hand, it gives upscaled pixels a much more square-ish look where the 3GS pixels appear more like a rounded dot.

The microscopic structure of a pixel can make quite a difference on how we perceive an image on the screen. See this for a somewhat related example: http://www.tested.com/news/up-close-and-personal-with-the-kindle-and-ipad-displays/717/