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 Screen Likely to Have 2048x1536 resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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)
Hmm. There's not much else you could add then besides a few photos, etc.
How much storage is currently being used?
cxny said:
Hmm. There's not much else you could add then besides a few photos, etc.
How much storage is currently being used?
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)
April was the last I heard.
celo48 said:
April was the last I heard.
In Windows, please show me the 250 DPI option. I can't seem to find it. Or any real world apps that actually adjust their UI-based on screen resolution. I can't think of any. That's the major reason for no super high DPI screens on desktops.
If you are to increase the resolution, I think it makes most sense to double up. Take the margin hit now, keep the app resolution conformity nice and strict - and then use this display for the next several years whilst benefiting from bulk orders/reduced component prices over time.
External monitor support with the above evidence (i.e. excluding vector systems with resolution independence) would follow one of 2 scenarios.
a) Only one super high res copy of an image which is scaled to different resolutions.
or
b) Several copies of an image at a range of resolutions for common monitor resolutions.
option a) cannot be, we have exactly 2 copies of the same image - if scaling was their plan then the lower res image is superfluous.
option b) also cannot be since we only have 2 copies of the image, what about one for 800x600, 1024x768, etc etc? If you're about to suggest the super large image is simply scaled down for the lower resolutions then see above for the counterargument for option a).
The idea that they might be developing universal Mac and iOS apps is also very unlikely because they run on vastly different architectures (x86_64 vs ARM). Also what is the advantage in porting a whole bunch of apps to the Mac when you have to then further redesign the entire control paradigm? (Think mouse & keyboard Vs touch interface). All in all it's so much extra work that the cost outweighs the advantage. People buy an iPad or iPhone if they want iOS apps ..
It's certainly doable with the new CPUs. The question is: how much will it cost? Will it be a practical choice to mass produce it for a $499 device?
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec
SGX543 (Ipad2?) - 35 Million Triangles/sec
Apple could be designing some sort of rosetta for ARM and Intel. Also, with an app like iBooks, you don't need to redesign the paradigm much. 3 finger swipes to turn the page.
This is where logic hits reality.
I think most of us can't imagine the leap, because it is pants-blowing incredible if Apple can double the res. and still keep the weight and battery life equal. Personally, I doubt it will just this far on iPad2. On the other hand, I have NO IDEA what Apple is doing in their engineering department. Almost no one does.
If Apple truly releases a 2048x1536 screen iPad without sacrificing other details, and if they still increase processor function to allow more software run easier... this computer is going to be an unstoppable wave of the next five years.
My prediction was that iPad 3 or 4 would be what iPad 2 is now rumored to be.
Don't forget that Apple is also making money from the AppStore, so the more of them in people's hands, the more of a loss they can take on them.
I'm not as sure as you are that it's doable.
Definitely doable. Apple need features that stand out like these to keep the focus on the iPad, and not the truck load of new tablets coming on sale this year.
Apples close relationship with Intel could mean adoption of the Sandy Bridge architecture in the apple chips? Hugely improving battery life and efficiency.
Plus Intel and NVIDIA settled their dispute which will allow better graphics on macs in the future. (not really iPad related).
Resolution is usually a linear measurement. Lenses for example are rated in line pairs per mm. To be perfectly clear they should say doubling "the linear resolution" so that no one is confused.
Greg
....of the 2048 X 1536 screen could be a differentiator like 3G is now. (e.g. 499$/16 GB low res / 699$/32GB high res).
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)
Till April at least (according to the latest rumor)...
lPHONE said:This is awesome news because i just sold my iPad. Hope I don't have to wait long for iPad 2.
Till April at least (according to the latest rumor)...
Why are you all being so pessimistic? Don't we all as followers of this rumors site believe that Apple can make something amazing again with the next iPad? We should!
As for the cost comments...with the amount of iPads sold last year, Apple could easily keep the costs similar to the current models. Even with a new doubled up pixel display and an A5 chip (that chip in itself should be even more power friendly than the current model and offset the new displays power draw) and a bigger battery, and the promise of large orders to manufacturers and part suppliers based on the first iPad sales! Need I go on? My point is I am sure all the complainers will eat their words when the new iPad with a new display is revealed and it will be within the current pricing zone. Ohhh ahhhh.. Its January, be happy!
As for the cost comments...with the amount of iPads sold last year, Apple could easily keep the costs similar to the current models. Even with a new doubled up pixel display and an A5 chip (that chip in itself should be even more power friendly than the current model and offset the new displays power draw) and a bigger battery, and the promise of large orders to manufacturers and part suppliers based on the first iPad sales! Need I go on? My point is I am sure all the complainers will eat their words when the new iPad with a new display is revealed and it will be within the current pricing zone. Ohhh ahhhh.. Its January, be happy!
And that's just what Apple would like to do...stall out any inertia the competitors were planning on creating to upset the iPad.
It would be just like last year when everyone brought their prototypes to the CED show and had to redesign them to compete with the 2010 iPad. Now, everyone was showing off their 7" dinky-a**ed iPad killers at this year's CES and Apple stomps on their marketing plan again.
I suspect we will see a pack of cheap and crappy tablets hoovering a couple hundred dollars under the iPad line with a bunch of second-rate apps, and then there will be Apple's iPad alone at the top with one possible wannabe hanging around but never catching fire.
Apple may have deliberately left the 7" gap open for the commodity tablets to fight over and see who could make the cheapest piece of crapo.
Apple designed rosetta to maintain compatibility with PPC when Intel was the way to go with processors .. they had to do that or risk marrying the fate of the Mac to the fate of PPC. In other words the PPC architecture was heading down a dead end and if Apple continued using them they were also looking down the barrel of a gun .. they *had* to switch ..
They situation with Intel and ARM is not the same.
As further evidence it took them 5 years to plan and implement the switch to Intel. That's a lot of work and if it's not absolutely necessary then the cost of doing it outweighs the advantage.
Not every Mac has a touch interface - iMacs, Mac Pro's, All the pre-Unibody notebooks ...
Sounds like an Apple approach to improve a product but keep it simple for developers.
One thing I would point out is that it could still be considered a Retina display as Steve said that 300dpi is the magic number for something held 10~12 inches away. The iPad is usually held 15~18 inches away.
One thing I would point out is that it could still be considered a Retina display as Steve said that 300dpi is the magic number for something held 10~12 inches away. The iPad is usually held 15~18 inches away.
Hmmm, made me think again about the possibilities of the AppleTV if it gets this rumored chipset. With a bluetooth controller, it could rival the consoles...especially if it stays at $99.
"retina" involves dpi and distance from eye
The ability for the eye to discern individual pixels on a screen depends on 1) how big the pixels are and 2) how far away the screen is.
With the iPhone 4, Jobs made a big deal about how the iPhone, when held at an average distance that phones are held at, outresolves the human retina. And he is basically right. 330dpi@~15in beats out 20/20 angular resolution.
The iPad is a device that is held father away, so it can have a lower dpi. 260dpi@~20in would actually give better angular resolution than the above. Of course the distances people actually hold these devices at are variable...
The ability for the eye to discern individual pixels on a screen depends on 1) how big the pixels are and 2) how far away the screen is.
With the iPhone 4, Jobs made a big deal about how the iPhone, when held at an average distance that phones are held at, outresolves the human retina. And he is basically right. 330dpi@~15in beats out 20/20 angular resolution.
The iPad is a device that is held father away, so it can have a lower dpi. 260dpi@~20in would actually give better angular resolution than the above. Of course the distances people actually hold these devices at are variable...