Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The fact that this got so many upvotes because it has a large amount of text in it shows how stupid many users there are at macrumors. iPad 1 can EASILY run iPhone retina apps in their native resolution. People with jailbroken iPad 1s have been doing it for ages with Retinapad.

Ergo the rest of your argument continues in the same nonsensical vein.

Please read what I said, not jump to conclusions. I didn't say the iPad couldn't do it - I said that there are compromises in doing so that Apple probably didn't want to make.

You are so confident that an iPad 1 can easily do it because somebody wrote some code that hacks it in. That's not tested code - that's a proof of concept, a demo, a hack. And there is nothing wrong with any of that - I appreciate a good hack as much as anyone else. But let's not kid ourselves into believing that it's necessarily good enough for Apple to ship it out on millions of devices as the default way of doings running iPhone apps.

Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone else. If you've written any significant amount of code, especially code that runs on a wide variety of setups, you'll understand exactly what I mean by that. If not, take this as a learning opportunity.

And the idea that Apple would keep back iPhone apps artificially to sell newer hardware is laughable. When the iPad came out, the 3GS was the flagship phone. We hadn't even heard of a Retina display yet. When the iPhone 4 came out, the 1st gen iPad was still being sold. If Apple thought that using the Retina graphics was a viable possibility, they would've updated the iPad to do so.

The fact that the Retina display iPad uses the Retina versions of iPhone apps doesn't prove that Apple was holding back the older iPads. The jailbreak app doesn't prove it either. All it says is that Apple felt for one reason or another that using Retina iPhone apps on non Retina devices wasn't a good idea.
 
Apple could have easily done this with older gen ipad but

a) they don't want to break the existing model
b) don't want to piss off too much the ipad devs as this could take away sales since iphone apps with retina support are usually cheaper than dedicated ipad only apps.

However, doing this on the ipad 3 provides a proper "nudge" to the current ipad developers to seriously "consider" upgrading their ipad apps to ipad 3rd gen retina resolution, if they want to stay ahead of this new feature.

Wow I'm famous, that's my thread this article refers too. Anyone want my autograph? ;)
 
Such are the ways of Apple. Tho I agree, it sounds stupid they don't do it.

Anyways, I never use iPhone apps in my iPad. They feel just wrong.

Funny that, my parents don't mind using iPhone apps because their sight is bad, and the iPhone apps have much bigger UI elements that are easier to hit - pixelation be damned.
 
This has turned into an interesting debate thread on why apple doesn't just enable "retinapad" type of support in older generation devices.

My take, obviously I would love it, I used to run retinapad. However, from a business standpoint, it is totally unrealistic to expect Apple to do this for the following reasons:

A) Apple provides the tools, the devs provide the software
B) The tools to facilitate this resides in the possibility of devs to use "universal" resolution support
C) The masses have the option to not buy apps, this is about choice
D) Enabling this option would contravene the devs intentions
E) if Apple did this, I'm sure many would accuse them of interference, communistic thinking, etc. :)

Yes, it would be a cool thing, but it's not apple's business to force something like this, not worth the flack. At least with a new device and the ability to use their marketing term Retina for something other than just a name, they may have done just that, for future devices anyway.

IMHO, this is a bold move, like I said earlier, it will motive those devs that are lazy towards supporting the new resolution to do just that.

If anyone is pissed at anyone over a lack of retinapad style support, blame the devs, it is their choice not to support Apple's retinapad, sorry "UNIVERSAL" solution, not apple.
 
Apple could have easily done this with older gen ipad but

a) they don't want to break the existing model
b) don't want to piss off too much the ipad devs as this could take away sales since iphone apps with retina support are usually cheaper than dedicated ipad only apps.

However, doing this on the ipad 3 provides a proper "nudge" to the current ipad developers to seriously "consider" upgrading their ipad apps to ipad 3rd gen retina resolution, if they want to stay ahead of this new feature.

Wow I'm famous, that's my thread this article refers too. Anyone want my autograph? ;)

break what? And how is it ok for you to my the $.99 iphone game and I have to pay $6 for the "HD" version of the same game and have it look the same?

Just because you have the latest? LOL
 
business model. Breaking the business model isn't good for business. When a company sets ground rules, they usually need to stick through them. As you know, Apple has put forth a tool known as "universal" resolution which resolves this, but its the devs choice to select the resolution they want for their apps. Democratic society and all :)
 
true, though does anyone actually use iPhone apps in 1x mode on their iPad? They should just have a "force 2x" mode and use Retina graphics.

arn

I know I don't. For most games the controls just wouldn't work and for apps it is impossible to use the keyboard with two thumbs in 1x mode.
 
There are a few reasons why the new iPad would do this and the old one doesn't. The most basic reason is that on Retina displays, apps run with Retina assets if available. Non-Retina displays never use Retina assets. In this regard, the new iPad is behaving exactly the same way as the old ones.

Second, if Apple did decide to use the Retina graphics for 2x mode on older iPads, it would introduce a few problems. One is that the original iPad is memory starved as it is. It came with 256MB and it wasn't until the iPhone 4 with it's Retina display did Apple bump up the RAM to 512MB. Second, should Apple use the Retina graphics for both the 1x and 2x modes? If they do, they are wasting CPU and battery to produce pixels that will only be scaled down. If they don't, they would need to come up with a way for apps to switch between 1x and 2x mode at runtime (they currently can't -- there is nothing in the API to even allow for that possibility). Also there is the issue of how the graphics would look when you take Retina graphics and scale them back down to 1x -- it's not nearly as nice as simply using the 1x graphics already.

One more thing to consider -- when the original iPad came out, there were no Retina display devices. All iPhone apps were 1x apps. The pixel doubling mode of the original iPad was just a way to allow iPhone apps to take up more of the screen than they would otherwise. Clearly Apple's goal was to have more iPad native/Universal apps. Spending engineering resources to make "legacy" apps run better is typically not a good use of time. Turning on Retina support on the new iPad for iPhone apps didn't require a large amount of engineering time. In fact, due to how the iOS APIs work, it may have not even required any time to get it up and running. Just the time required to verify that it did work okay.

All valid points (though some, like memory and legacy apps are far less relevant to the iPad 2 than to the original iPad) but undermined by the fact that Apple could include a "hi-res mode" button next to the 1x/2x button and let the user decide whether to use high-res graphics or not. Really not that hard to do and wouldn't require a lot of engineering resources on their part.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.