What's the point? The iPad, as it stands, already features a Retina Display. Resolution-wise, there's no noticeable difference. Besides, there's a reason Apple simply doubled the pixel count: it's easier for app developers. Increasing 30-40% would make it harder to adapt the apps.
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 6 with 30-40% Higher Pixel Density Expected in 2014
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm with you there, that's what I was thinking. These rumours on their own are simply unbelievable, but they could be part of the same device and that as you say makes more sense. But, Apple isn't going to keep around an 11" and two 13" laptops and then add a 12" to the lineup, some of those others will have to go, perhaps the entire MBA line, and this one will be their replacement. Interesting.
This. Apple would throw developers a huge curveball by doing this, the resolution improvement would be imperceptible, graphics performance would suffer, and battery life would suffer. Eventually processor and display tech would allow them to pixel double again, but, again, would the change be perceptible? It's best at this point to just to keep improving performance and battery life. And..Apple knows this which is why it's not happening.
----------
I remember an Apple patent listing for this years ago. I've been hoping for it for years. Eye contact really is the holy grail of video conferencing.
Analyst garbage.
1. There's no logical requirement for a higher PPI.
2. Apple stick to scalable power of two resolution upgrades, which rules out 40% and 60%. The only time they break that is when they change the aspect ratio as they did with iPhone 5 - and I can't see them doing that.
1. There's no logical requirement for a higher PPI.
2. Apple stick to scalable power of two resolution upgrades, which rules out 40% and 60%. The only time they break that is when they change the aspect ratio as they did with iPhone 5 - and I can't see them doing that.
I have my doubts.
A more likely possibility is a essentially a 5.5G full-sized iPad with thinner display panel plus even higher capacity battery so it weighs the same as the new 5G iPad due by the end of the October 2013 but with possibly as much as 30% more battery life per charge.
A more likely possibility is a essentially a 5.5G full-sized iPad with thinner display panel plus even higher capacity battery so it weighs the same as the new 5G iPad due by the end of the October 2013 but with possibly as much as 30% more battery life per charge.
The jump from SDTV to HDTV was 704×480:337,920 pixels to 1920×1080p: 2,073,600 pixels, or a 5 fold increase.
The jump from HDTV to 4KTV is 3840 × 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels, or around a 4 fold increase.
These examples do not support your conclusion that a 30% increase in pixels makes a visible difference.
Actually, that's not the case.
If Apple sticks with 2048x1536 and increases the display size to 12.9 inches, then you'll have only 200 PPI which is a very noticeable downgrade. The only possible resolution they can shift to without increasing fragmentation (giving developers more work to do) is 3072x2304 which would be a seamless transition, just like iPad 2 > 3.
The larger chassis could hold a larger battery and since the PowerVR rogue graphics are available now, sufficient graphics performance could be delivered.
Samsung is South Korean and the Japanese make the best electronics in the world.
Can't innovate no more, my ass. Apple just keeps pushing the boundaries of technology further and further to the point now where nobody else can possibly compete.
This is ridiculous. Trying to guess apples new product 2 cycles ahead? Why? So investors feel most confident? Apple stock is almost a sure thing anyway. These are just guesses of some analyst and is far from reportable news. This is MacRumors, Not SomeGuysGuessingWhatsComingNext.com
It's not like the current retina ipad has a problem with pixelization!
Maybe there will be a 12" iPad with the same PPI as the current one, and the new 9.7" version will be the same resolution... So smaller icons for everybody!
You did forget the transition to 720i, 720p, 1080i and then finally 1080p Televisions..
Yeah, but does it really bother you? I'd rather have a faster machine than one that just has some more pixels. A normal screen does me fine.
"retina display" only means that you cannot detect individual pixels. A higher resolution screen would still appear "clearer"
If you have seen a 4k TV with proper 4k source you have experienced this (You cannot see individual pixels on a 1080p TV, but the 4k is still more "lifelike" and "clear" than the 1080p display) making pixels "disappear" is not the only benefit of a higher resolution display.
----------
Not sure how a 30-40% resolution increase would affect the iPads specifically but increasing resolution is about more than making pixels "disappear."
Last edited:
30-40% increase in pixel density is a joke LOL! It doesn't just work like that! Someone tell them.
On a related news, cars will feature 10% more parts today.
Come on.
On a related news, cars will feature 10% more parts today.
Come on.
Yes, why should technology continue to go forward? We have reached the end of what a display can do. Humans can not benefit from better resolution.
Do you really want Apple to stop trying?
The only reason I can think of for the higher resolution on the 9" iPad - to avoid fragmentation. It could have the same resolution as the 12" iPad - so obviously a higher pixel density, but you'd probably hold the 12" iPad a little further away from your face.
A 12" iPad might not sell as many, so developers might not go to the effort of putting out app versions specifically for it. But if the new 9" is the same, it's an easy decision to do it.
A 12" iPad might not sell as many, so developers might not go to the effort of putting out app versions specifically for it. But if the new 9" is the same, it's an easy decision to do it.
It doesn't make any sense to increase the 9.7 inch iPad's resolution, but if a 12.9 inch iPad at 3072x2304 would work quite nicely -- and would require no effort, except for higher resolution assets, on the part of the developers.
OK, with a bigger screen, more pixels could make sende. But the articel says it will get more pixel but no bigger screens. But I'd say 12.9 is still too small ne need so many pixels.
why do you sound as if this is anything other than an unconfirmed rumor from an analyst? not a product.
----------
I agree -- camera pixels. video chat sucks because nobody can see each other's eyes.
I'm of the same opinion, namely that there doesn't seem to be much point in increasing pixel density on the iPad. But I can think of two reasons why Apple *may* want to do this.
1) 1080p content. Of course the existing iPad can play 1080p content just fine but look to the Retina MacBook Pro's for an example of how Apple have been utilising Retina displays for editing. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see iOS versions of Apple's pro software (Aperture, Final Cut etc) in the not too distant future and being able to display native 1080p content AND all the editing tools / interface at once might be a good reason to bump the screen resolution.
2) This one is really speculating and I'm not sure how much faith I'd put in it but what the hell. For the sake of argument let's say Apple introduce a 4.7" iPhone next year. I doubt they'd stay at the current resolution so if they're going to change... why not change the iPad as well? Get both devices roughly in line so that iPhone apps can pixel double up and still be useable. Yeah, don't think I believe this one myself but for what it's worth...
Y'know being an analyst seems like the easiest job in the world. Take some data from supply chain. Speculate wildly on what that could mean. If you're any good continually revise that 'analysis' as time passes to get more attention and to start zeroing in on the truth. If you hit it everyone remembers the original prediction date, if you miss completely then you're 'just an analyst' and you're not expected to know everything...
