You misread/misunderstood my post. I said "high res enough for the screen size", meaning enough pixels per inch ("res" for "size").
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 3 with LTE, Quad-Core Processor and Retina Display Set for March Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You misread/misunderstood my post. I said "high res enough for the screen size", meaning enough pixels per inch ("res" for "size").
They won't notch up the screen resolution like that. There's no gain from it, and it introduces some unnecessary problems.
I don't know, I happen to think a Retina display is far more likely than a quad core.
Lol, even the spec-squeezed Windows Phone is getting LTE...
Most of it has to do with rendering architecture. Despite what nVidia says, their single channel memory interface is bottlenecking their CPU and GPU, while their GPU still relies on z-culling for bandwidth savings. Their competitors, Adreno (Qualcomm) and SXG (Imagination) use a much more advanced tile based rendering systems to use much less memory bandwidth (not to mention, many of nVidia's competitors have wider memory interfaces [though Qualcomm's second channel is rarely used due to it's placement, the next gen will solve that by making both PoP]). So... yeah. nVidia has a lot to learn, still. But... look at it this way. Assuming it takes about 2-3 years to develop a SoC, Tegra 2 was a trial, and Tegra 3 was still being designed while Tegra 1 was a failure, and Tegra 2 was not even a real product, yet.
Either way, nVidia should be a bigger player in a few years, especially once they work in their Icera baseband from their aquisition. Apple, actually, needs to find someone to get baseband IP from (right now, they are forced to use an external Qualcomm modem, while Qualcomm can get some power savings from having the modem on their SoC dies).
I agree. Quad core on A9 would be nearly pointless, given the target speeds and performance of A15. A15 quad core would be a power hog (one A15 core on 28/32nm will draw more power instantaneously vs equiv. clocked A9 core on 40/45nm), so not likely to be quad core there, either.
Just IMO, of course.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Really, retina is something like "to good to be true". But again.. Apple didn't dissappoint me with 4s (i've expected a lot less).. They could really nail it
Really, retina is something like "to good to be true". But again.. Apple didn't dissappoint me with 4s (i've expected a lot less).. They could really nail it
Well, no matter what the iPad 3 brings to the table, I will get one. My iPad 1 is showing its age with both lag and crashes. Can't wait to see what is released. 
While the above statement is definitely true, I am also a bit worried about the iPad 3 being thicker.
It's less the problem of thickness per se, since the iPad is a pretty thin device already and a millimeter more or less just isn't a big deal.
It's more the problem that now that Steve is gone, compromises seem to appear that would never have been approved, when Steve was still around.
Steve's decisions may not always have been right, but he had a clear concept and he would never let that concept be watered by what he thought would be an inferior approach. He would rather have pushed back the shipping date until a solution has been found to make the iPad thinner or just as thin with a new screen than opting for the better screen at the expense of making the iPad thicker again - even if it's just one millimeter. The iPad 2 is still a cool device, it's working and selling really well. And even if sales had been dwindling, I don't think Steve would have gone for the thicker design just to push sales and make more money.
My point is that I am worried that Apple products, which have been without compromises for 14 years now, slowly start to evolve into the same crap that other companies are selling, that backsteps are taken and that unfinished stuff is released only to get things out to consumers to make them buy it right away, instead of holding things back until the product is really great - which has been one of Steve's greatest achievements.
Do I make sense?
Your logic doesn't quite follow for me. First, every product released by every company, Apple included, involves compromises. Read through the threads of any product released by Apple, and you'll see complaints from people about features the product could and should have had, but didn't. Bringing in a product at a certain price point requires compromises. So does releasing it by a certain date. Not compromising on thickness requires compromises regarding what will fit into the device, and therefore what capabilities it has. And so on. It comes down what compromises you choose to make -- and Apple has long been good at making the right compromises. Yes, making products thinner was a "Steve thing," but I don't see how deviating from a specifc "Steve thing" is a danger signal. Where Apple needs to remain true to Steve's vision is at the higher level: creating well designed, innovative, useful products that are intuitvely easy for people to use. Device thinness was one expression of that larger vision, but common sense tells you that thinness past a certain point, even if it becomes technologically possible, eventually would detract from a product's usability; after all, you wouldn't want an iPad that's so thin you'd cut your fingers on it, to take things to a ridiculous extreme. So if compromising the "thinner and thinner" design approach makes the iPad 3 better in other ways, and the extra 1 mm doesn't detract from the usability in any way, then I don't see how it's a step backward. It's just a different compromise than Steve might have made. And given when the development cycle of the iPad 3 likely began, Steve might even have approved it.
I have to disagree: 2048x1536 resolution is pretty expensive to accomplish, especially if you have to add in touchscreen functionality. At 1280x960 resolution, the cost of the display is probably almost the same as a 1024x768 display, and 1280x960 resolution is enough make text fonts a lot more readable. That is unless Apple wants to charge (my guess) US$599 for the 16 GB Wi-Fi only iPad with the 2048x1536 display.
720p commonly refers to 1280x720 or higher, so.... 1024x768 is not higher than 720p. Merely has more pixels along one side, but much less along the other.
I know this. It was the guy above me who didn't.
Though 1280x720 on a 10" 16:9 screen would have roughly the same pixel density as 1024x768 on a 10" 4:3 screen. The difference in picture quality between the two would be so slight, it's not even worth comparing, let alone bragging about.
Though 1280x720 on a 10" 16:9 screen would have roughly the same pixel density as 1024x768 on a 10" 4:3 screen. The difference in picture quality between the two would be so slight, it's not even worth comparing, let alone bragging about.
Not to mention that 4:3 is a much more pleasant aspect for everything but movies. And movies are still not the primary focus. The only reason that others use 16:9 screens (awful) or 16:10 (slightly less awful) is that apple takes all the 4:3 screens from the market.
I could think of a number of pluses and minuses for all the aspect ratios. I got to spend a good bit of quality time with an iPad2 and Transformer Prime this last week. Really truthfully honestly, I didn't find myself preferring one over the other. The iPad does make for a slightly better reading experience, and the Transformer was better suited for movies. But the interface, playing around on the internet? Eh, wasn't a huge amount of difference between the two.
Sounds like you just have extremely low expectations. I don't think anyone expected the 4S to be less than it was, just the opposite actually.
It's a minor increase in PPI and will result in complications. For example, existing apps will have black borders around them, and developers will now actually have to support two different user interfaces, for one 1024x768 and the other for whatever other resolution. There's no benefit to it and it brings about plenty of problems.
On the other hand, 2048x1536 is a significant increase in PPI and will put the iPad ahead of other slates, and it works right out of the box just like the iPhone 4.
Nice LTE..now will they offer unlimited data or expensive data plans that only allowes you to watch like 10 YouTube clips then they start charging you for over data usage ### let's wait and see..
