iPad 6 with 30-40% Higher Pixel Density Expected in 2014

[doelcm82]

If Apple did this, they would essentially be admitting the whole "retina" sales pitch was a big fat lie. I don't buy this rumor at all, it makes no sense. 2048x1536 is already an excellent resolution for the screen size, I don't see the point to it.

I don't know whether this rumor is true or not. But technology will not stand still for what you think is sufficient. Like it or not, the iPad 10 will be leaps and bounds ahead of the iPad 5 in display, interface, and raw power. For that to happen, the iPad 6 has to be incrementally better than the iPad 5 and the iPad 7 has to be incrementally better than that.

That cool parallax effect when you tilt your iPad back and forth will one day happen when you move your head from side to side over the holographic display. But the filter over the screen that allows the illusion of 3D to work is going to have to have a lot more pixels to work with than the paltry "retina" display can provide.

 

[IscariotJ]

A 12inch iPad makes no sense. The screen would be much to big for something you're supposed to hold with one hand.

What is it with people and the fascination of using a device with one hand?

I could see Apple pushing towards screens capable of displaying 4K 1:1 in preparation of 4K movies appearing in iTMS and the release of a 4K ATV.

 

[Abazigal]

This is good news as, to me, a 12 inch pad, almost defeats the purpose of a pad. Of course samsung will make a 14 inch pad that doubles as a phone. Cant wait to see some dweeb with that up to his head talking! Or better yet, at some concert taking photos with it!

13" ipad with 64-bit A9X chip, 4gb RAM and desktop-class apps + keyboard dock = Apple's answer to all the laptop / tablet hybrids in the market today.

 

[Matricon]

It's obvious what they are doing. The new iPhone is going to have a bigger screen but not at a convenient ratio with old apple products. So they're going to update the whole line again for convenient scaling between iPhones and iPads.

 

[doelcm82]

Better image is never a bad thing however it will get to a point where no one will be able to see pixels even at an inch away. Once they hit that they will likely focus on other things. If we got to the point of 1000ppi vs 5000ppi, it would work with a huge display yet be kind of lost an iPad.

But what if each of your eyes only saw every fourth pixel, both horizontally and vertically? You could move your head side to side to see around something on the display or crane your neck a bit to look over something or under it.

If they tried to do something like that with "retina" screens, the apparent resolution would be a quarter the pixels in the iPad 1.

 

[Alith]

Imperceptible difference for huge performance hit, needing faster chips and heavier batteries? I don't see it happening.

Going from iPad2 to iPad3 got you an even slower and heavier device. It took them six months to correct that mistake with an emergency refresh.

 

[TrollToddington]

OMG Macrumors, thanks for warning me you expect an even higher resolution iPad next year. I was all but ready to buy the yet-not-released-iPad 5 but I have always had second thoughts about it as iPad4's pixels were rather too discernible for my eyesight. 30-40% more pixels will make it just perfect!

Now I must hibernate for another year or two.

Cant wait to see some dweeb with that up to his head talking! Or better yet, at some concert taking photos with it!

Yesterday I was walking in the park and there was that big dude talking on his 14" samsung galaxy tablet and taking pictures of birds. A lot of chicks were asking him to show them his pictures.

 

[Jensend]

At an average normal viewing distance (12-18 inches). Pixels are still quite visible if you are using your iOS device while in bed when its much closer to your face.

When I take out my contacts at night, my maximum focus distance is about 10", so I tend to read books on my iPad(3) at 6-8 inches.
A 4K iPad would look much nicer at that distance. Not that I expect Apple to upgrade to a specification only useful to those with uncorrected myopia

 

[wikiverse]

I'd like to see Apple using the extra pixel density to finally add camera pixels in to the display. It makes sense on so many levels:

1. You can make eye contact while video-calling people
2. It could be used to support non-capacitive input devices like pens or paintbrushes
3. It gets rid of the front-facing camera hole, allowing for sleeker devices and less bezel

This sounds like a great idea in theory and terrible in practice for these reasons:

1. Cameras need lenses to focus the light onto the censor. You couldn't build a lens over disparate sensor pixels and it would always be affected by the light from the intermixed screen pixels.

2. Even if you could, the camera would be shooting through screen protectors.

3. Fingerprints and scratches.

4. You couldn't operate your iPad without the camera (and the person on the other end of your video call) seeing the tip of your finger constantly.

That said, stylus and air gesture options would be useful.

 

[hogo]

If they do not release a larger ipad along side this very incremental upgrade, the ipad 6 is gonna fall kinda flat.

 

[foobarbaz]

This is good news as, to me, a 12 inch pad, almost defeats the purpose of a pad.

A 12inch iPad makes no sense. The screen would be much to big for something you're supposed to hold with one hand.

Come on, be creative. Of course an 12 inch iPad wouldn't replace the current iPad, and there's plenty of use cases. It's more a couch/table device than something you'd hold in mid air.

 

[ScottishCaptain]

Better image is never a bad thing however it will get to a point where no one will be able to see pixels even at an inch away. Once they hit that they will likely focus on other things. If we got to the point of 1000ppi vs 5000ppi, it would work with a huge display yet be kind of lost an iPad.

According to their recent marketing, the @2x displays (Retina) have already hit that mark.

Frankly, 2048x1536 is an absurd resolution for developers to handle already (do you have any idea how much detail has to go into something to make it look good at that size? Oh wait, iOS 7 doesn't care about that- nevermind). I cannot imagine going to @4x (4096x3072). That amount of pixels is crazy. You would need a 256 or 512GB iPad just to handle the increase in app size due to the increased asset resolution.

-SC

 

[Lesser Evets]

It doesn't get BSier than the analyst in the article heading this thread.

The question is "why?" The answer is "because we can," which isn't a good reason to innovate in a nearly useless direction. Apple knows the PC market is deflating and vanishing while the portables market is growing. Apple did that almost singlehandedly. The iPad has to become the new desktop, but be portable, not pocketable. A higher res. makes sense, but not without a larger screen to allow better viewing and data manipulation. A larger screen also means a larger back, meaning more space for battery and computer components--a larger screen would be wisely obvious.

 

[Ballis]

Imperceptible difference for huge performance hit, needing faster chips and heavier batteries? I don't see it happening.

This.

Add to that it would require devs to redo their apps. This isnt gonna happen

 

[Pyrrhic Victory]

This is a perfect example of how Tim Cook is nothing but a number-crunching beancounter. All he cares about are higher numbers, empty specs that don't really matter to people but are really convenient for lazy marketing teams. Retina already has smaller pixels than a human can see, he's doing the same thing with the 12" Mac Air which is already as thin as anyone could ever hope to need out of a laptop computer. This transparent ploy is something I'd expect out of a cheap Japanese company like SamDung. No way in a million years would Jobs have stood for this.

 

[Xiroteus]

According to their recent marketing, the @2x displays (Retina) have already hit that mark.

Frankly, 2048x1536 is an absurd resolution for developers to handle already (do you have any idea how much detail has to go into something to make it look good at that size? Oh wait, iOS 7 doesn't care about that- nevermind). I cannot imagine going to @4x (4096x3072). That amount of pixels is crazy. You would need a 256 or 512GB iPad just to handle the increase in app size due to the increased asset resolution.

-SC

2048x1536 is far from bad, 30% increase would not be too crazy yet a 100% double increase would likely be a bit much for now and not really needed yet. Not saying more is bad, have to get rid of this 16GB joke first. One major factor is how much better would 30% really look? Is it even worth it or just wait until a much larger leap can be made.

This is a perfect example of how Tim Cook is nothing but a number-crunching beancounter. All he cares about are higher numbers, empty specs that don't really matter to people but are really convenient for lazy marketing teams. Retina already has smaller pixels than a human can see, he's doing the same thing with the 12" Mac Air which is already as thin as anyone could ever hope to need out of a laptop computer. This transparent ploy is something I'd expect out of a cheap Japanese company like SamDung. No way in a million years would Jobs have stood for this.

It's getting crazy, 1/100 of an inch thinner! Sure they can make the Air's thinner yet why not just leave it as is overall and use the newer tech to have better battery life, more power etc.. instead of worrying about making it a fraction of an inch thinner just because they can. I understand wanting to make the iPad thinner and lighter to a point as it needs to be comfortable to hold. Personally I would rather have more storage, battery, power etc... then a fraction thinner.

 

[NOV]

I think it is a misconception that an iPad 12" (or larger) should per se be a mobile device. I'd like a larger iPad to use as a virtual audio mixer.

 

[patent10021]

I still have the iPhone 4 and iPad 2. Not upgrading until 2014 iPhone 6 / iPad 6. Gonna be fun! Think I'm I'm going to be shocked at the performance of both devices and iPad Retina.

 

[minkeycat]

Seems nothing more than what competitors will deliver!

----------

This is good news as, to me, a 12 inch pad, almost defeats the purpose of a pad. Of course samsung will make a 14 inch pad that doubles as a phone. Cant wait to see some dweeb with that up to his head talking! Or better yet, at some concert taking photos with it!

Yeah, because having a 3G capable tablet (with the ability to make calls, video chat etc) that size would be silly wouldn't it!!!

 

[tann]

All the people saying how Apple doesn't need to increase the density are right, they don't, but the reason they have to I believe is because of rival companies.

Amazon and Google both have tablets with massive resolutions, and the difference between the smaller and larger versions are most definitely there (in terms of both screen size and resolution/density). With the iPad mini retina the PPI on the larger iPad is significantly lower (in terms of raw figures) and customers may see this and automatically think therefore the mini is better, and thus Apple's own large, more profitable iPad sales will be eaten into.

 

[MythicFrost]

A 24% increase in pixel density for a 9.7 inch screen means a resolution of 2560 x 1920, 4.9 megapixels.

A 30% increase assuming a 4:3 aspect ratio places it at about 2660 pixels x 1995 pixels. Which is an odd resolution.

While a 40% increase means a resolution of 2880 x 2160 pixels. Kind of like a Retina MacBook Pro. Also it's 371 ppi, 6.2 megapixels.

I won't be surprised if in the future we get 6 megapixel iPads, to watch 4K content.

The resolution will most likely be 3072x2304 as it's an exact multiple of the 1024x768 point size of iPad apps, and thus only @3x assets will be required.

 

[yegon]

Blimey, new better faster iPad's in 2014? WHO KNEW?!

 

[sirdir]

Those analyists really start annoying me.
So, they now predict cheaper products - as if Apple had ever done that...
Now, they are predicting higher resolution iPads. Why? So they need bigger batteries, need to be tighter and heavier with a faster and more expensive GPU without *any* benefit?
Apple isn't that stupid!
4K? On 9.7"? doesn't make any sense, but OK...

 

[MythicFrost]

Those analyists really start annoying me.
So, they now predict cheaper products - as if Apple had ever done that...
Now, they are predicting higher resolution iPads. Why? So they need bigger batteries, need to be tighter and heavier with a faster and more expensive GPU without *any* benefit?
Apple isn't that stupid!
4K? On 9.7"? doesn't make any sense, but OK...

Perhaps Apple see a market for people like me -- I have no need for portability and would love a larger screen. (But I also don't want or need a laptop.)

It would most definitely need a bigger battery, a faster GPU, faster memory bandwidth, and it would be heavier as well.

I'd jump at a 3072x2304 12.9 inch iPad!

 

[krewger]

Apple is beating itself to death. The tech industry and Wall Street want $200 plastic tablets so that Chinese peasants can afford them. Apple is already losing tablet market share faster than a stuck pig loses blood. Everyone is sure that Amazon is going to sell more new Kindle Fires for the holidays than Apple will sell iPads. Why? Because Kindle Fires cost almost half the price of iPads. Wall Street is betting against Apple every quarter to lose more sales to cheap Android tablets. Investors are dumping Apple stock and putting all their money on Amazon. Increased pixel count isn't going to help Apple sell more iPads. It'll probably just eat into profit margins a little more and Apple will get downgraded again just for that reason.

Analysts say consumers aren't looking for high-quality products anymore. They're much happier buying plastic Android smartphones and tablets and that's why Apple's revenue continues to drop. Apple really has some great goals for consumer products, but it no longer seems to matter to anyone. In fact, most of the industry hates Apple for chasing after high-quality instead of low prices. Mac computer sales have dropped and iPad sales have dropped so consumers seem to be giving up on Apple products. It looks like there's more sad days ahead in Cupertino.

So by that logic everyone would drive a economy car instead of a luxury car. Plenty of luxury vehicles on the road with makers having record sales. What do all those luxury cars have? Tons of electronic gadgets to differ themselves from lesser cars and quality fit and finish. Both economy cars and luxury cars can sit in city traffic doing 20mph. But the fact is there is a huge market for luxury products. Not as many items have to be sold to get the same profit. Apple has nothing to worry about. Apple has always aimed to be a premium luxury brand they will never sell quantity wise as many as all other economy brands but it doesn't mean they are doomed. Porsche doesn't sell nearly as many cars as Toyota but you don't see them failing due to low sales volume. Apple will be the same in tech for a long time to come.