Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Next iPad to Add Five New Features including USB Port?

PBF said:
How hard is it to understand that Apple will never ever release a new product in January, February or March!! Wanna take a guess as to why? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The iPad was released in April, the common sense tells me that the new iPad will be released in April again.

In March there will be a keynote.

And this is what matters.
 
This is where disappointment is born!

Let's all convince each other that iPad 2 will have features 2-generations ahead if itself.
 
Spanky Deluxe said:
I completely agree. I don't think they'll change the resolution of the iPad until they can source panels with 4x the number of pixels. I'm sure the next iPad won't have anything different display wise. When they do change display technology it will likely either be for a 2048x1536 panel which they'll market as a 'retina display' or they'll switch to a panel with the same resolution that can also function without the backlight on for easier ebook reading which is even more unlikely because then it'd lose the glossy, bright, high contrast style they like.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine that they will make any changes to the display resolution at this point. It will screw up all of the existing apps. The iPad is so new, I don't see them doing that so early on in it's life cycle.
 
I want to know if the iPad 2 will have just a 7 inch display or will it have a 10 inch display?
 
...

Many people understood that USB port would be an actual USB female port to plug in thumbdrives.

No, Apple won't do that.

What Apple would do however, to get rid of dock connector and put a micro-USB port for syncing and charging. Even if they don't get rid of the dock connector, they have to supply a dock-to-microUSB adapter to work with the new Universal Charger that has been agreed on by GSMA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#Mobile_device_charger_standards
 
How many more times....?

When will you people get it into your heads that the Euro standard on USB charger connections will NOT repeat NOT mean that Apple has to put a USB port on ANY of their iOS devices. There is a provision in the standard which states that the company can supply an adaptor to USB for charging - which is the current cable. The current cable goes from a Dock connector to USB. The standard also says that any new charger has to have a USB connector on it - guess what, all of the Apple ones ALREADY have one and have had for a few years since they moved away from Firewire. Also note the standard says nothing about mini USB or micro USB either.

That said - they could still put a USB connector on the next iPad for another reason. However, I can't see why you'd need one as everything can be transferred to/from the iPad by Bluetooth, WiFi or through the internet. I notice that the newer cameras are starting to come with Wifi or Bluetooth now too. My guess is that corporate buyers want it - they are always the last to change to the latest methods - and if Apple wants to sell more iPads to business then why not stick a USB port on them if that's what it takes.

As for the screen resolution - 300ppi is the resolution required for viewing images at arms length, which is why all magazines are printed at 300dpi - this was why they picked that figure for the iPhone display too. People that say you don't need 300ppi on the iPad for a print perfect display are idiots. You hold the iPad at arms length right! However, this does not mean that Apple will put a 300ppi screen in the next iPad either, if they could double the resolution that would help and it would mean all of the older apps would still work.
 
Come on, have common sense. Apple is not going to drastically change the hardware in the iPad after only a year. This would totally screw over the owners of the first gen. Most developers would shift their focus to the more powerful device, thus limiting the amount of apps compatible with the original iPad. This would cause an uproar.
 
And why not a radio fm?

it should be very good... reading, heraring radio in a nice beach...:)
 
Fraaaa said:
Hold on, you guys are going to have an argument for a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

No, me and mdriftmeyer are saying the same thing.

Fraaaa said:
'Retina effect' argument on the resolution to the distance ratio is one thing.

Pixel density is another one.
Click to expand...

Nope, they are intimately linked. Higher pixel densities can be viewed from closer, lower pixel densities require more distance to achieve the same "retina" effect.

Fraaaa said:
As noted by others, an iPad "Retina" would be a 2048x1536 @ 9.7" (263ppi).
Click to expand...

Based on what ? What viewing distance ? Have you run tests to confirm that at the viewing distance you hold an iPad, 263 ppi is sufficient to attain the "retina" effect ?

All you and others have done is quadruple the resolution and claimed it was "good enough". :rolleyes:

It's high time Apple made UIKit better at resolution scaling so that app developers can finally write scalable apps, like Mac devs, Windows dev, X11 devs, heck every GUI dev have done for decades. Then the resolution won't matter and you won't need "perfect scaling" of the screen resolution.
 
KnightWRX said:
No, me and mdriftmeyer are saying the same thing.



Nope, they are intimately linked. Higher pixel densities can be viewed from closer, lower pixel densities require more distance to achieve the same "retina" effect.



Based on what ? What viewing distance ? Have you run tests to confirm that at the viewing distance you hold an iPad, 263 ppi is sufficient to attain the "retina" effect ?
All you and others have done is quadruple the resolution and claimed it was "good enough". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And you are saying the same thing too.

Based on the pixel density that having such resolution in that display format you have 263 Pixel Per Inch, no matter how far or close you are the ppi stay the same.

When people talk about retina expect the resolution either to be doubled or to achieve 300ppi.

I do agree that the ratio of resolution to the viewing distance makes the retina effect, but some people didn't get that.

PS: I was agreeing with you.
 
macazoid said:
I want to know if the iPad 2 will have just a 7 inch display or will it have a 10 inch display?
Click to expand...

Considering that Steve Jobs said "nobody will buy a tablet with a seven inch screen", my guess is it will be 7 inch and they make only one for Steve Jobs :D
 
Fraaaa said:
And you are saying the same thing too.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm simply saying that the iPad is held farther away and thus could achieve the retina effect with a lower pixel density. I have not made any claims as to a specific ppi. 263 might be it, it might be even lower, it might still be higher.

Some testing is required.

Fraaaa said:
Based on the pixel density that having such resolution in that display format you have 263 Pixel Per Inch, no matter how far or close you are the ppi stay the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, no matter the distance you view at, the ppi remains the same, however, the relative pixel size doesn't. The farther away you are, the smaller the pixels appear even though they are the same size on the screen.

But again, you and others stating as fact that 2048x1536 is required for the iPad to have "Retina" effect don't really know this as a matter of fact. It's safe to say it's less than the 300 required by the iPhone since we do hold it farther away, but how much less remains a question. That is the part of your post I disagree with.
 
Didn't Apple only bump up the screen on the iPhone when other phones (Android) were putting better than iPhone screens into their devices.

So Apple was looking poor in comparison, and had to do something to catch up.

Seeing as no other tablets out there seem to have a higher res screen than the current 1024x768 iPads screen. I don't see why Apple are going to be under any pressure to change their's yet.

They will want to bleed every penny out of the current product as they can, and won't see any need to put more expensive (for them as a company) parts into the next model than they really have to.

As long as they feel they are not lagging behind other companies offerings I don't see why they would push forward very much.
 
Piggie said:
Didn't Apple only bump up the screen on the iPhone when other phones (Android) were putting better than iPhone screens into their devices.
Click to expand...

I remember everyone hoping the 3GS would have a higher res screen as all the high-res Android offerings were already announced back in June 2009. It was really a bummer than Apple had stuck with a low-res offering until June 2010. Yes, they were indeed late to that party.
 
Full of Win said:
No, it should not. What business does the UN have telling any company what computer interface they have to put on their devices? Other than fire/safety issues, the only thing that should have a say is the marketplace. If Apple wanted to make an interface out of Jelly Beans, so long as they did not cause a fire or other safety issue, they should be allowed to. If consumers don't like the Jelly Bean interface, Apple will fail in the market. If the marketplace like the idea of Jelly Bean based interfaces, then Apple wins in the market. Its as simple as that, and no UN dictating is required.
Click to expand...

sarcasm?
 
Retina Display

As others have posted, "new display technology" doesn't necessarily mean Retina Display. But even so, Retina Display doesn't mean 326 ppi for any device at any viewing distance.

Retina Display, as defined by The Steve, means a display resolution at or above the limit of the human eye to differentiate individual pixels. Eye resolution is expressed in angular separation, accepted as 1.0 arcmin for the average human eye.

Eye resolution becomes ppi when a viewing distance is applied. The conversion is (for 1.0 arcmin) viewing_distance / 3438 = effective_ppi.

Using iPhone4's 326 ppi and solving this equation for viewing distance yields 10.5", a reasonable phone viewing distance.

Doubling the viewing distance to 21", which is probably the limit of what's reasonable, yields an iPad ppi of 163. The current iPad's pixel resolution is 132 ppi. To achieve 163 ppi would require an iPad resolution of at least 1264 x 948. I don't imply any of this means anything, but that's magically close to 1280 x 960.
 
Im not hoping for a display resolution increase. I mean no one can say that the display aint great looking.

I think its more important to have more RAM, a faster processor. From my experience web surfing isnt as fast as it could be. Cosmetically the iPad is already a great form factor and I dont think making it square like the iPhone will do anyone any favours.

Dont know about anyone else but Ive always thought the iPad could have been more complete looking if it had a second speaker. Having the one speaker makes it look slightly cheap and less uniform. The inclusion of a USB would be welcoming and indeed a SD card reader. It would give the iPAd 2 more capability. Those camera connection kits are nothing but cheap and nasty looking when plugged into the iPad. The whole white Apple accessory thing needs an overhaul. Its outdated and cheap amongst all that aluminium, black and glass.

As for the FT camera. Its a thing that maybe should be left out. I have used FT once. Its a feature that I thought I would use all the time but surprisingly its a non entity for me and a lot of users. It will no doubt make an appearance though as apple will convince everyone that its needed but when they get it wont use it as much.
 
alhal said:
Using iPhone4's 326 ppi and solving this equation for viewing distance yields 10.5", a reasonable phone viewing distance.

Doubling the viewing distance to 21", which is probably the limit of what's reasonable, yields an iPad ppi of 163. The current iPad's pixel resolution is 132 ppi. To achieve 163 ppi would require an iPad resolution of at least 1264 x 948. I don't imply any of this means anything, but that's magically close to 1280 x 960.
Click to expand...


You sit 21" away from your iPad? I'd imagine the difference in viewing distance between the iPad and the iPhone is probably no more than 6-8 inches.
 
Jon the Heretic said:
You sit 21" away from your iPad? I'd imagine the difference in viewing distance between the iPad and the iPhone is probably no more than 6-8 inches.
Click to expand...

21" is probably the limit. I think the 16" - 18" you stated is more reasonable, and would require a higher ppi to achieve eye resolution.

My points were to address Resolution Display vs. ppi, and to put some sort of lower bounds on what iPad would need to achieve eye resolution. That's all.
 
EU Regulations

cRuNcHiE said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Eu legislation states it has to have USB. It's coming
Click to expand...

It's not a phone, why would they be forced to include USB?
 
Things I'd like to see for the iPad 2:

Screen size. I quite like the aspect ratio, especially after trying the Galaxy Tab, which I do not like. But a higher res would be nice, say something in the 1280px range.

Cameras. Couldn't care less about a camera for taking pictures, because I already have a great P&S for that, and again after using the Tab, taking a picture on a tablet is positively awkward. I would, however, occasionally make use of a user-facing camera. Not a dealbreaker though, since I rarely use it on my iPT.

Battery. Nope, pretty good here. I regularly get 10+ hours out of mine.

USB. Not quite sure I understand the gripe over this. I don't mind the 30-pin to USB for syncing, it works fine. Any accessory I'd care to use goes in through the dock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back