More nonsense. 220dpi? Where did you pull that number from?
It's been beaten to death, I am not your forum search/Google. Based on the average distance from the user, 220 is the approximate ppi value required to make an iPad appear "Retina" to the user. However to maintain current application compatibility, as they did with the iPhone4, you would have to double the width/length resolution (quadrupling the pixels). Doing so would put you at around 265ppi (263ppi exactly if I remember correctly) and 2048x1536 resolution, which puts you well beyond what is required to make the device's display "Retina".
And you have NO idea what the graphics chips are capable of. And the iPhone 4 did not double the resolution. It quadrupled it.
You are conflating the two. The number of pixels are quadrupled, as is the resolution when referred to in megapixels. As is common with many such things in marketing, most consumers see resolution measurements in terms of width/length, ergo to them the resolution was doubled. Yes it is stupid, but that's the hole that tech marketing dug for itself over the years by referring to a length/width and area measurement with the same term. I apologize for trying to remain bound by the simplistic consumer measurements. If you wish we can refer to the screens simply in terms of megapixels and/or ppi.
Amazingly enough I do realize that when you double two numbers, the result of their multiplication is four times the original value. Such a stunning revelation in mathematics.
And with regards to the graphics, take a netbook with a GMA500 in it (Intel's co-opted SGX535), hook it up to a display with 2560x1600 resolution and let me know how smoothly that runs even a basic 3D environment at native resolution for you. Go ahead, I'll wait.
And with the SGX535/540, it is readily available information what their (theoretical) raw power is. The SGX540 doubles the MPoly/s from the 535 from 14 to 28, which is not enough to maintain the same performance level at 2048x1536 as the 535 manages at 1024x768. Doubling the MPoly/s raw performance (which is the claimed theoretical) while quadrupling the number of pixels will clearly not net you the same performance even on paper, let alone real world. The SGX545 has, as of current announcements, not been made available to manufacturers on a large scale yet.
And anyone who says the iPad isn't capable of a "retina" display is talking hogwash. Whether Apple wants to let us have it is another thing, but before the iPad came out, I suppose tablets weren't capable of 10+ hours of battery life, either?
Give it time. It WILL happen. Mark my words.
No, they are most certainly not "talking hogwash". The iPad's hardware,
in its current form (bolded and underlined for your emphasis), is not capable of smoothly powering a 9.7" display at 2048x1536. Even the successor to the 535, the 540, is not capable of doing that.
You do not seem to understand that. The rebuttal to morons clamoring for a "Retina" display in the iPad
is not one of "it will never happen". It is that it will never happen with the current hardware powering the iPad. That is not up for debate. The iPad would require a substantial hardware bump to accommodate that type of display. So if Apple updates the iPad's display, all the internals will have to be updated substantially along with it. You will not see a simple refresh of the current iPad with a 2048x1536 resolution display.
And that battery life would take an absolute nosedive if you beefed the hardware up enough to drive a display with 2048x1536 resolution. Not to mention the sheer cost of the hardware and display that small with that great of a resolution would,
at this time, bite so hard into the profit margin of the $499 iPad that Apple would possibly have to sell it at a loss or break even if it remained at the current pricing structure. These are basic fundamentals of hardware and cost. They simply have to wait until the cost of the components required to power such a display (and the cost of the display itself) drop down to where Apple can either maintain the current pricing structure or justify a slight bump. Otherwise the entry level devices will most certainly break even when you factor in development costs.
Somehow, and call me crazy, I don't think Apple wants to turn their massively popular and profitable iPad into a loss leader. That's what iTunes is for.
