Apple won't use 2048x1536, because it's considerably less than 300 dpi "retina" resolution. And even 300 dpi is "retina display" only for average human eye and for viewing distance of about 30 cm, and for example I often bring my iPad much closer to my eyes, and there are still 10-15% of users with good vision for whom 300 dpi is not enough, so ideally even much higher resolutions are still useful and make difference.The resolution is wrong. Apple will NEVER use any resolution other than 2048x1536, not only is there no need for higher resolutions, but there are cons to using 2560x1920.
I just picked up an iPad 2 the other day, sold the old one to my mom for cheap since her Dell is dead.
So it is just the timing that is odd - it's still quite soon after the iPad 2 came out. Possibly the iPad 3 would be the top-end product, with iPad 2s filling out the $499 - $699 price points.
Bingo! Why wouldn't Apple keep the iPad 2 around when the iPad 3 is introduced? Price is going to become the next area where competitors are going to press against Apple. So let Apple preemptively strike on price by keeping the iPad 2, but dropping its price while the iPad 3 keeps the iPad 2 price level. Now you can get a low-end WiFi iPad for $399 (or maybe $349 to really put the pressure on).
I don't get why people still spread rumors like thisthere won't be an iPad with a resolution that isn't exactly doubled (or quadrupled, or some other even multiple) in each direction. It's not about some arbitrary high resolution or dpi, it's about allowing for a high-res display while preserving backwards compatibility with existing apps.
1024x768 x 2 = 2048x1536 (right!)
2560x1920 x 2.5 = 2560x1920 (wrong!)
I don't get why people still spread rumors like thisthere won't be an iPad with a resolution that isn't exactly doubled (or quadrupled, or some other even multiple) in each direction. It's not about some arbitrary high resolution or dpi, it's about allowing for a high-res display while preserving backwards compatibility with existing apps.
1024x768 x 2 = 2048x1536 (right!)
2560x1920 x 2.5 = 2560x1920 (wrong!)
You can buy a "low-end" iPad for $349 right now i.e. a refurbished iPad 1st generation. When Apple can make as many as the market demands (still not happening), then they might start thinking about expanding the product line or price competition. Or not, this is Apple after all.Bingo! Why wouldn't Apple keep the iPad 2 around when the iPad 3 is introduced? Price is going to become the next area where competitors are going to press against Apple. So let Apple preemptively strike on price by keeping the iPad 2, but dropping its price while the iPad 3 keeps the iPad 2 price level. Now you can get a low-end WiFi iPad for $399 (or maybe $349 to really put the pressure on).
That would still make 2011 the year of the iPad 2 since that would be the biggest seller model all year, but the iPad 3 could still come out this fall. Not impossible no matter how many MacRumor posters jump up and down stamping their feet yelling how impossible this is. Apple specializes in the impossible.
Didn't believe this rumor the first time around and don't believe it now either. Makes zero sense from Apple's perspective on so many levels. Most notably, it would create buyer burnout (Apple is highly reliant on customers that buy new idevice models with each annual update -- it's what fed iPod growth and fuels iPad growth). The annual space allows buyers to digest the price and also justify buying a new model. It's much harder justifying taking a hit selling a 6 month old product.
I just picked up an iPad 2 the other day, sold the old one to my mom for cheap since her Dell is dead. The deal made with the wife is that I get the iPad 3 when I graduate and she gets this one, so we won't have to share any more. So I'm looking forward to this. But I have to wonder: Won't the iPad 3 feel slower than an iPad 2 at such a huge resolution? \