I feel this is likely true. I don't see why people think this resolution is such a problem.
Sure it will require a better GPU. It won't really require all that much CPU though. It's not like more actual CPU-based processing is happening to achieve the higher resolution. It's all the GPU that's pushing the pixels.
I can imagine 3D games will probably just 'switch' the resolution of the 3D rendered component of the graphics down if it isn't powerful enough to render polygons at native res.
But for things like displaying photos, reading ebooks, and basic animations etc, I can't see the new GPU struggling too much.
Remember, resolution is more to do with the amount of frame buffer, not so much the actual 'power' of the GPU. Lots of GPU power is generally needed for 3D, particularly both high resolution and lots of effects. But 2D compositing of text and images could probably almost be done on the current iPad's GPU, if you added a bit more VRAM to the mix.
As for the production of the screens... again... they have the retina phone displays - surely they would just use the same manufacturer? Technically the ipad 2 screens are LOWER density than the iPhone 4 screens, so from a technical point of view, they may actually be easier to produce?
As for power requirements of the screen... they'd probably be about the same. Reduce the light output / power requirements of each pixel by 75%, shrink them, then quadruple the amount of them. Should equate to the same power output / light output? (I'm no expert in this area).
And an iPad having a higher resolution than a desktop or notebook isn't really that game changing. It makes sense for desktops and notebooks to have lower pixel density because notebooks and desktops are used for pixel-perfect content creation. While an ipad is almost completely for content consumption and enjoyment, where highere pixel density can make for a better viewing experience.
Scottie