Yea, well I have trouble spelling retnia. (Is that close?). And I laugh at all the people that get on here and say that compared to the iPhone 4, the iPads resolution is lacking.
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 iPad Pro 3
- Thread starter SaltSlasher
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea, well I have trouble spelling retnia. (Is that close?). And I laugh at all the people that get on here and say that compared to the iPhone 4, the iPads resolution is lacking.
If by great you mean a blip on the radar then yes, I agree with you.
A great competitor would have given Ipad an run for its money.
I can't find any data on how many Xooms sold to date, (they've cut the price so that should tell you something), but IMO I reckon the majority of people who bought Xooms were people who were never going to buy an ipad anyway.
I probably would have bought an iPad2, but after using the iPhone 4's retina display for so long, the iPad2's display looks ancient and blocky to me. It's a real issue and I don't see what you think is funny about it.
You must have amazing eyesight.
That, or you hold your iPhone/iPad four inches from your face.
Where I see the benefits of having a higher resolution, I'd rather not sacrifice the graphics performance and battery drain. I'll keep my 1024x768 and be happy with it.
Apple could sell the iPad 2 through the 2012 holiday season and this would still not happen. I'm glad there's competition at least trying to keep Apple honest though, we all win that way.
I believe what's 'funny' is that people want greater pixel density on the iPad, yet ask for greater resolution which (strictly speaking) is almost equivalent on the iPhone and iPad.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Increased pixel density IS increased resolution.
Well maybe I misunderstand the terms, but only if you keep the screen dimensions the same.
As I wrote, I was using 'resolution' to mean the number of pixels in height and width in absolute terms. This is how MrWillie's post makes sense to me.
The iPad's resolution, in this sense, is 1024x768.
The iPhone 4's resolution is 960x640.
They aren't that different.
Thus, if someone says "I wish the iPad had the iPhone's resolution", with the same size screen implied, this would be 'funny'.
If someone says "I wish the iPad had greater resolution", with the same size screen implied, this would mean greater pixel density and thus be like the iPhone's Retina feature, which is what people are really asking for.
So? There are plenty of tablets cheaper than iPad. None have made a dent.
The current iPad 2 is feature-competitive with any and all Android tablets out or scheduled for release in the short term. When you add apps and iTunes into the mix, the iPad is a no-brainer. A retina display (and the higher price point that such a display would necessitate) doesn't do anything against a competitor that is trying to come in at a lower price point.
You're over thinking it.
Whether or not they are phrasing it correctly, people are asking for the iPhone 4's PPI (or close to it) with the iPad's screen size.
Aside from the ipad3; Apple understood very well that it's not the hardware but the software which makes or breaks a technology product nowadays.
I don't expect Apple to follow competitors who try to differentiate themselves based on hardware specifications.
I don't expect Apple to follow competitors who try to differentiate themselves based on hardware specifications.
Exactly. Reading this forum it's almost like people have no idea how secure Apple's market position is in tablets. If Apple doesn't come out with a high resolution screen this year, most (if not all) the people carping about ipad 2's screen will wait for the 3 next year. The logic people are offering for why an HD/Pro model will come out in 2011 doesn't conform to Apple's MO nor has any particularly significant evidence been brought forth to suggest that Apple is in danger of losing its market position in tablets. If anything, the less-than-enthusiastic reception several competing tablets (Transformer, Xoom, Playbook, Touchpad) really seems to limit the possibility of such an imperative.
Aside from that, I doubt Apple is going to want to sacrifice on speed, battery life, or thermal envelope (to keep weight/thickness down), and that means they really need at a die shrink and most likely Cortex-A15 (and probably PVR6), which isn't coming out before 2012. Even if, for some reason, Apple decided to break from this general MO and release an HD anyway on current-gen hardware, who would really want it? Why buy a compromised product when you can wait for iPad 3 with next gen hardware driving it? I suspect what a lot of people are really asking for is a resolution bump with consistency in overall user experience holistically (and hopefully improvements, if possible), and that isn't going to be available this year. I imagine the same thing would occur to Apple.
This. +1. Like.
Sick of these iPad Pro/2.5/3/HD rumors. It ain't happening this year. There is very little reason to switch to a six-month product release cycle when your current model is still selling like hotcakes and you own the lion's share of the market.
Some of you are acting as though iPad2 is some new tablet in comparison to iPad1. We all know that the two are essentially the same, minus the camera, shape, and speed. Other than that, they are the same product. iPad2 was not some complete overhaul. In fact, it is basically a giant iPod Touch - of which that technology has been around for a few years.
So to think that Apple hasnt been working on a real revision for the last year isn't really an undeniable fact.
This being the latest concept of the future iPad3, you can see is a complete overhaul.
So to think that Apple hasnt been working on a real revision for the last year isn't really an undeniable fact.
This being the latest concept of the future iPad3, you can see is a complete overhaul.
How much more simply could you explain to ActionableMango why MrWillie "laugh
I wonder if already stated exactly that, when I wrote "If someone says 'I wish the iPad had greater resolution', with the same size screen implied, this would mean greater pixel density and thus be like the iPhone's Retina feature, which is what people are really asking for."
So the iPad 2 is exactly the same, except for the physical size, the standard featureset, and the underlying processor architecture. You know, most of the things that make up the product! You're basically mistaking your value judgments about what constitutes an important feature for a neutral statement about product differentiation. The iPad 3 will undoubtedly include some new, interesting features (maybe ones you care about!) and make a splash, but it will still be a tablet and share the same main features and form factor (albeit, much like the iPad 2, improved over the previous generation). To act like a new processor architecture, additional standard features, and shrink in physical size are not substantial points of differentiation seems a little over the top.
Last edited:
essentially the same?? Have you used both generations?? Plus, that concept you've shown is completely unfeasible...it's some pipe-dream a tech nerd came up with to make people like you start drooling over the next-gen, and start bashing the current-gen...
...oh yea, the "giant iPod touch" meme has been done away with...so please edit your post for compliance. Thanks.
I just noticed that's a first Gen iPad that your concept image is based on!! Seriously?!
Last edited: