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 Pro NO Resolution Increase?
- Thread starter Peter K.
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mrklaw,
Sorry for the delay, but since yours was the only contradictory response that warranted a reply, I still wanted to answer you. I think it is unacceptable, because while a Retina display was big news when the iPhone 4 came out, "just barely" Retina-level pixel density is not impressive any more.
Even if one can't actually see pixels, a lower PPI display is still inferior (all other things equal) because higher PPI yields a sharpness that is easily perceptible, even if one's vision is/isn't at the level to perceive pixels.
Regarding developers, while I am not one, I do believe that today's development tools provide for adaptability, which was previously not possible. This is, I believe, how universal apps (iPhone and iPad) can exist (i.e., apps can shape AND size themselves.).
Let me answer that for you: A9X + Pencil + DCI P3 Color Space + Smart Connector + 4-speaker audio.
And, once again, increasing the resolution would decrease performance and battery life while not providing substantial benefits.
Also same resolution as the original ipad air:
- 2048-by-1536 resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)
The rest of the industry cought on, it's just a name. And a "retina" display brand is not just resolution, it's the quality of the display. And Apple keeps pushing here constantly.
Not really. I can't see the difference between an iPhone 6 and 6 Plus without putting the screen really close. Most people can't either. There is no easily perceptible sharpness at normal viewing distances, other than the fact that 4K sounds cool on a specs sheet. I'm not saying you can't notice it, just that it's not easily perceptible by most people.
You're right about the part of not being a developer - but you're wrong about the rest
You're talking about adaptive layout which alows apps to stretch across the larger and smaller screens while retaining the relative resolution of assets in points. However, increasing the pixel density would cause all rasterised graphics to change real-world size (in cm/inches). What you need is upscaling, which would require higher resolution assets, which requires new graphics. Not to mention that in order to allow that same graphics to downscale on older devices properly, Apple would need to do a 4X resolution increase (a 9.7" iPad would need a very large resolution of 4096x3072 which is larger in vertical resolution than even a 5K iMac and 2x larger than your typical 4K screen).TLDR: iOS9 adaptive layout wouldn't help with the resolution increase, the resolution would have to be really large and the performance/battery hit huge. One day, perhaps, when the trade-offs are minimal. Don't expect that day to come anytime soon though.
[doublepost=1458771032][/doublepost]
Why stop at 4K? Wouldn't 8K be even better? 4K is so last year!
No, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of 4x slower performance and lower battery life vs something you see when you squint your eyes.
Last edited:
aevan,
Your final point (BEFORE the edit/addition), if totally correct, is a good one. If so, my beef with Apple is multiplied: why continue on this ridiculous pursuit of thinness, instead of increasing battery size to enable higher resolution(s)?
[doublepost=1458771171][/doublepost]Also, I never said 4K. Just a bump to whatever would make PPI = 325 would have sufficed. Even the minis are there already. Maybe a jump to the 12.9" resolution would have worked out, plus that would have negated any fragmentation problems AND that could have been deemed the "Pro" resolution.
Your final point (BEFORE the edit/addition), if totally correct, is a good one. If so, my beef with Apple is multiplied: why continue on this ridiculous pursuit of thinness, instead of increasing battery size to enable higher resolution(s)?
[doublepost=1458771171][/doublepost]Also, I never said 4K. Just a bump to whatever would make PPI = 325 would have sufficed. Even the minis are there already. Maybe a jump to the 12.9" resolution would have worked out, plus that would have negated any fragmentation problems AND that could have been deemed the "Pro" resolution.
Last edited:
That is a totally different topic and it has to do with weight and market analysis (people prefer lighter tablets). Just remember, thinness is about weight.
However, it doesn't matter, even if they made the thing 1cm thick, for that type of resolutions you'd most likely need active cooling on the GPU to make the thing work at even close levels of performance.
Just think about it - a 12" MacBook with passive cooling only has 2304x1440 resolution which is close to current 9.7" iPad resolution.
There's a reason why there are no 4K tablets out there - and when they do arrive, the "4K" will most likely be some pentile-matrix type screen (in other words, not true 4K, just a marketing gimmick).
If 1080p TVs that are 40-50-60 inches are still ok (and mainstream at that), why is a 10 inch tablet not?
In fact you have a higher resolution than most laptops on the market on the iPad still as the iPad is over 1080 and nearly QHD.
Dont buy into the spec hype other manufacturers try to drag you into.
In fact you have a higher resolution than most laptops on the market on the iPad still as the iPad is over 1080 and nearly QHD.
Dont buy into the spec hype other manufacturers try to drag you into.
Last edited:
Of course but you have a lot more pixels in a tiny space on the iPad than your TV relative to the distance. So same difference really.
And again the iPad is well over 1080p.
And more resolution= more battery consumption and more RAM and the IPP shows.
That sounds like an iPad Air 3 to me
I'm fine with no resolution increase. I'm not fine with an artificially positioned product just to justify a significant price increase
What would constitute a Pro iPad for you? This one has everything the 12.9" one has. Just don't say "OS X", because that has been discussed ad nauseam.
It's Pro because of the speed and the Pencil. But mostly Pencil. It makes a world of difference.
They could do something similar to what they did with the iPhone Plus models.
http://www.paintcodeapp.com/news/iphone-6-screens-demystified
I'm perfectly happy with it having ios. For me a professional tool is simply one that lets professionals work.
Having said that, I think it barely scrapes by as a 'pro' by having keyboard and pencil support. I just strongly begrudge paying for the ability to then buy expensive accessories. Those enablers should not add to the cost. A9X should not add to the cost (always get a processor bump). 16->32GB shouldn't add to the cost, that update has been long overdue.
So what is there left that genuinely makes it worth $100 more?
I'm still buying one, but it has left a slightly bitter taste in my mouth.
The screen tech in order for the pencil to work is worth more. The R&D to make that screen tech work. There is a lot that went into making all this tech work. If it is something you don't want/need/ think is worth it then there are other options (i.e. Get the older model air2). I for one thought it was worth it last year when I bought the iPP 12.9". And after using it for a few months, still think so. It is great they figured out how to cram all of that into the 9.7, and keep it under 1lb. The keyboard not having to be charged also is a beautiful thing.
R&D costs money...Apple does have to pay those people, just like the company you work for has to pay you for your time.
I'm hoping that with the release of iOS 10/X, they will release a separate iPad OS, built from the ground up, making it more workspace friendly, maybe combining the elements of OS X with the touch optimisation of iOS, maybe with a bunch of the iOS elements integrated. Apple are all about optimising hardware and software for each other, so instead of having the same OS on a 4-inch phone and a 12.9-inch tablet, why not create a divide, without removing the integration of the devices.
And on top of that, give developers the ability to create Pro apps for the Pro iPads. They have the potential, but Apple isn't taking advantage of it.
These two things would definitely push tablets in the right direction. I've always believed that tablets are the future of computing. Apple, being the industry leaders in this area, could push this idea forward. Here's to hoping.
And on top of that, give developers the ability to create Pro apps for the Pro iPads. They have the potential, but Apple isn't taking advantage of it.
These two things would definitely push tablets in the right direction. I've always believed that tablets are the future of computing. Apple, being the industry leaders in this area, could push this idea forward. Here's to hoping.
There will always be people who are unsatisfied and who want more for less. Nothing wrong with that, but it's one thing to ask for more (which is, generally, a positive attitude) and the other to be 'disappointed'. To everyone who wants even a better iPad Pro, I say - sure! But to all those who are disappointed - I have to say, you must be very hard to please, and probably don't enjoy the things you have much.
What I find curious is not the desire for having better things, it's the complexity of that desire. The question that comest to mind is almost always "why don't you just wish it was half the price?". Just that. Why don't you wish the iPad Pro is just $299 instead of $599? "That's unrealistic" you say? Well, how do you know, when you just arbitrarily determined that spec X should be twice better or twice the size - why not do the same with a price reduction? Because I've heard everything from 8K iMacs and 4K iPads to iPads with OS X and trackpads here, so if these things seem plausible to you, why complicate things with technology, and just go for a straight price-cut by half? And it's easier - next time, instead of going into specs you're not really sure about - just ask that it's half the price!
What I find curious is not the desire for having better things, it's the complexity of that desire. The question that comest to mind is almost always "why don't you just wish it was half the price?". Just that. Why don't you wish the iPad Pro is just $299 instead of $599? "That's unrealistic" you say? Well, how do you know, when you just arbitrarily determined that spec X should be twice better or twice the size - why not do the same with a price reduction? Because I've heard everything from 8K iMacs and 4K iPads to iPads with OS X and trackpads here, so if these things seem plausible to you, why complicate things with technology, and just go for a straight price-cut by half? And it's easier - next time, instead of going into specs you're not really sure about - just ask that it's half the price!
Apple could make it a 3x device like the iPhone 6+: 3072 by 2304. Then you just need 3x assets as a developer and otherwise nothing else changes (like the jump to 2x). You avoid the "render larger canvas, downscale it" performance waste that the 6+ does too.
But yes, performance will not be nice. With 2.2x the pixel count compared to the Air 2 (more than the jump to the 12.9" Pro), you would find yourself looking at what amounts to a new iPad 3: GPU hardware that isn't built to keep up with the new screen. The GPU increases in the 12.9" just barely offset the bigger screen, and add a bit more buffer (look at the onscreen/offscreen benchmarks here to see what I mean). And the 9.7" would need a GPU even more powerful than that just to offset the denser screen, plus a bump to 4GB RAM to help with the bigger pixel buffers apps will need.
You could make a higher density screen today, and you could even build a product around it. But I wouldn't want to own it.