This basically means that Apple gives up on miniaturization - a battle that has been going on since - at least - the 19-eightties
Or, rather, they are realizing the trade-off between device size on the one hand, and "things to put into the device" on the other. The iPhone was huge at its launch. Was that because Apple went against "miniaturization" or that they figured it needed to be that size to "do the trick"?
If they make a thicker ipad it'll be for sake of a bigger battery. Simple as that.
That is an incorrect assessment. The so-called "retina display" isn't defined by iPhone 4's PPI. It also isn't defined as a display of 300+ PPI. It is defined by normal viewing distance vs. PPI and it differs between device types (i.e. the PPI that is indistinguishable to the human eye when the device is viewed at "normal" distance). Viewing distance differs greatly between a TV set, a laptop, a tablet and a smartphone. Most TVs have pixel densities lower than 80PPI, but that doesn't matter because the viewing distance more than makes up for that. Most laptops look stunning with only 120-140 PPI (2011 Macbook Airs that are widely praised for their hi-res screens are around 128PPI). The "normal" viewing distance for a tablet (e.g. iPad) would be nearly twice that of a smartphone, thus the corresponding "retina" PPI would be lower, around 250PPI. A 2048x1536 9.7" (264PPI) display would be more than adequate to qualify as a "retina" display.If Apple builds a "retina display" iPad - meaning one with the same pixel density as the iPhone4 (326PPI)... ... ...
Seems to have worked pretty well for us so far.
That is an incorrect assessment. The so-called "retina display" isn't defined by iPhone 4's PPI. It also isn't defined as a display of 300+ PPI. It is defined by normal viewing distance vs. PPI and it differs between device types (i.e. the PPI that is indistinguishable to the human eye when the device is viewed at "normal" distance). Viewing distance differs greatly between a TV set, a laptop, a tablet and a smartphone. Most TVs have pixel densities lower than 80PPI, but that doesn't matter because the viewing distance more than makes up for that. Most laptops look stunning with only 120-140 PPI (2011 Macbook Airs that are widely praised for their hi-res screens are around 128PPI). The "normal" viewing distance for a tablet (e.g. iPad) would be nearly twice that of a smartphone, thus the corresponding "retina" PPI would be lower, around 250PPI. A 2048x1536 9.7" (264PPI) display would be more than adequate to qualify as a "retina" display.
There's a Sony Ericsson phone that will exceed the iPhone 4 in terms of PPI. It has a 1280x720 4.3" screen. The new Nexus has the same resolution but with a larger screen.
So it seems I will be giving Apple lots of money in 2012.
"Dual light bar system"? - Samsung Super AMOLED does not use this old tech, so it can be thinner and better.[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]
The source indicates that the iPad 3 is planned to launch in March and that it will be approximately 0.7 mm thicker than the iPad 2 due to the need to incorporate a dual light bar system for the higher-resolution display.
4" is still too small. They need at least two iPhone models: 3.5" and 4.5". And perhaps the third 5.5" model to compete with 5.3" Galaxy Note. After all they do sell four MacBook screen sizes and no one complains about "fragmentation".The next iPhone is, however, said to carry a 4-inch display (up from 3.5 inches in the current iPhone)
Most of this money is actually overseasApple keeps their $80 billion in gold bars under the Cupertino headquarters.
1. Was the iPhone 3GS pixelated? MacBooks look stunning with only 120-140 ppiSo let me get this straight...
1. You want the dpi lower so the text and graphics look more pixelated/stretched?
2. You don't want your phone to fit in a normal pocket comfortably.
3. You want your palm and fingers on you holding-hand to constantly be touching the screen and messing with the accuracy?
There's a Sony Ericsson phone that will exceed the iPhone 4 in terms of PPI. It has a 1280x720 4.3" screen. The new Nexus has the same resolution but with a larger screen.
1. Was the iPhone 3GS pixelated? MacBooks look stunning with only 120-140 ppi
2. I don't keep my phone in a pocket. It's in holster on my belt.
3. I want bigger screen so I have bigger keyboard buttons and less "messing with the accuracy".
1. Was the iPhone 3GS pixelated? MacBooks look stunning with only 120-140 ppi
2. I don't keep my phone in a pocket. It's in holster on my belt.
3. I want bigger screen so I have bigger keyboard buttons and less "messing with the accuracy".
all physical media will drop to the status of vinyl records today
Or, rather, they are realizing the trade-off between device size on the one hand, and "things to put into the device" on the other. The iPhone was huge at its launch. Was that because Apple went against "miniaturization" or that they figured it needed to be that size to "do the trick"?
If they make a thicker ipad it'll be for sake of a bigger battery. Simple as that.