Retina Display for iPad 2?

[kntgsp]

That's rude, I'm not a moron, and nor is anyone just because they want a retina iPad.

Apple brought this upon themselves, they introduced the retina display and now they are expected to do the same on the iPad. I don't know how others feel, but I'm not going to buy another iPad just because it has a front and rear facing camera and a few upgrades. I'm probably going to wait for a retina display, I may be waiting a while, but I have a feeling I won't.

Remember the iPad is magical, Steve Job's said it himself, retina is required!

Out of curiosity could the Tegra 2 power a 2048x1536 res? Or, a 1920x1280 res?

I'm sorry, but my patience with the "next update around the holidays will have a Retina display" stuff posted in every damn iPad thread or news thread on the main page has slowly turned me into a sarcastic, snarky ass. But for good reason. It's one thing to speculate on possible or even probable hardware upgrades. It's entirely something else to speculate on something that is essentially impossible with the current state of technology. It'd be like me saying the next Macbook update will see a 24-core processor.

The only thing Apple did was fail to explain what "Retina" means. It is logical to introduce that technology on smaller screens (as it is cheaper) and gradually introduce it to your larger screens. Granted, the ppi required to make a display appear "Retina" goes down as screen size goes up, because (generally) the distance from the user also increases as screen size goes up. But it's likely still cheaper to do 326ppi at 3.5" diagonally than 263ppi at 9.7" diagonally. The reasons for introducing it on the iPhone first becomes even more apparent when you realize that most iPhone purchasers have the price subsidized by their carrier, whereas the iPad has to exist on its own in terms of pricing.


The biggest problem with the whole "RetinaRetinaRetinaRetina" hollering is that so many people seem to be thoroughly convinced that a minor refresh (which in my opinion would just have a webcam and perhaps a RAM doubling to facilitate better multitasking) would bring along with it a screen with 2048x1536 resolution. That simply cannot happen if the internals of the iPad remain the same.

With the Tegra 2, you have better graphics but also a substantially upgraded CPU as it's based on the dual-core Cortex A9, meaning you leave the old iPad in the dust in terms of application capabilities. It would be like the iPhone3G to iPhone4 jump. But even still, I do not think that leap in processing power is enough to drive a 2048x1536 display fluidly in 3D environments as well as the SGX535 does at 1024x768. Apple seems to thoroughly enjoy NVidia graphics in their desktop/laptops, but with them acquiring PA Semi and producing their own silicon for the mobile devices, I can't see them completely abandoning their internal mobile chip design.

Going from approx. 153,000 pixels on the iPhone3 to 614,000 pixels on the iPhone4 is much easier than going from approx. 786,000 pixels on the current iPad to 3,145,728 pixels on a "Retina" iPad. The iPad and iPhone4 are really not all that far apart in terms of total pixel count, making the hardware required to drive them both fluidly about the same. Advances in mobile hardware also made a leap of 450,000 pixels possible without seeing a reduction in performance of apps and 3D done in the native resolution. And it allows a 960x640 and 1024x768 display to be driven by the same chip with similar performance.

To accomplish the same, seeing no reduction in app or 3D performance at native resolution, with a bump of approx. 2,350,000 pixels is much, much harder and arguably impossible with anything currently available or anything available within the next year. If anything, you'll see a divergence of paths for the iPad/iPhone if they want to boost the display to that resolution as the hardware required for the 2048x1536 display in a "Retina" iPad would be overkill in an iPhone (if it would even fit).

 

[kntgsp]

EDIT: pointless rant not directly related to topic

 

[oli356]

Don't feel like reading all the replies here..

But i don't see why anyone would think this.. For one it would cost thousands.. for two it would be silly... for three apple wouldn't do it on a 2g

 

[SidBala]

It could work with a dual-resolution mode if they do want to 4x the screen.

3D Games and videos can render at the current res and scale while text apps and webpages could use the native 4x'd res.

That way, the hardware need not be substantially advanced than the current one.

Besides, the only time when I notice the pixels is when I am surfing webpages and the small text becomes pixels. My eyes are much more tolerant about the pixels when it comes to games and videos.

 

[WilliamG]

kntgsp, thank you for your rude, holier-than-though attitude. I'm sure you know exactly what hardware Apple has around the corner for their next iPad, and are obviously fully qualified to comment on what display the next iPad will have.

And whoever said "current hardware?" The iPad of 2010 can't even run itself even now with its lowly amount of RAM.

Anyway, let's see what Apple has planned over the next few years, shall we?

 

[kntgsp]

kntgsp, thank you for your rude, holier-than-though attitude. I'm sure you know exactly what hardware Apple has around the corner for their next iPad, and are obviously fully qualified to comment on what display the next iPad will have.

And whoever said "current hardware?" The iPad of 2010 can't even run itself even now with its lowly amount of RAM.

Anyway, let's see what Apple has planned over the next few years, shall we?

I never claimed to know what the next iPad will look like. I simply claimed that it can easily be deduced what is NOT possible or highly unlikely with a current or imminent iPad refresh (A "Retina" screen for example...the whole reason for this thread). The only place I said what a subsequent iPad might have (and thus labeled it as "simply my opinion") is that if it received a minor refresh before the holidays that it might get a webcam and RAM doubling.


You:

More nonsense. 220dpi? Where did you pull that number from?

To which you are given an explanation of why 326ppi is not needed for a "Retina" iPad and why 220ppi is approximately what's needed to give the iPad that quality.


You again:

And you have NO idea what the graphics chips are capable of.

It is public information what the raw theoretical power of those chips is. This not privileged information in the slightest.

You come stumbling in claiming things like the current theoretical performance capabilities of the 535 and 540 are unknowable, as if Apple hardware exists in some sort of alternate reality where its specifications and abilities are hidden from prying eyes. You then feel content to sit there and loudly proclaim that it is simply Apple who does not wish to "give us" a "Retina" display in the iPad yet, blatantly ignoring both the manufacturing and economic impossibility of them being able to offer us such a device this year to begin with.

Claiming that "eventually the iPad will get a 'Retina' display" sometime in the future is like claiming that tomorrow water will be wet. It's an obvious and yet pointless assertion that serves no purpose. So as no one claimed, ever as far as I can tell, that the iPad would never ever get a higher resolution display, the only remaining thing that you must clearly be taking rather vague offense to is that it cannot be currently done. Which it cannot. For clearly defined reasons.

Your rebuttal to any clearly defined answer is to vaguely assert "no one knows that the next iPad will hold". Clearly. However that does not mean that possibilities and/or time frames cannot be ruled out, like the prospect of a 2048x1536 resolution screen being driven by current hardware under the guise of a holiday refresh. To every somewhat specific post that you are given an explanation to, you in turn make your subsequent argument more and more vague until it becomes "eventually it'll get one". Yes, lovely. That clears things up.

The OP is directed to the countless other threads on the topic. Others ignore it and decide to fuel yet another thread. Clear and concise information is given defining the issue and why this won't happen at present. You then decide to give the thread life support by claiming to refute the information simply on the grounds of that information being unknowable. We should all be thoroughly shocked and appalled that you are subsequently greeted with condescension.

 

[WilliamG]

Yes, yes, you are a genius and we're all idiots. We know, we know. Of course you have access to what technology Apple has. Hey, I guess we all knew the iPhone 4 would have an IPS LED-lit display before it came out, right? Because lots of cellphone-producing companies before Apple had IPS cellphone disp.... oh wait!

You can keep believing that progress has to be based on what you see. After all, we all know Apple divulges exactly what hardware their products will have, right?

Truly, what with knowing EXACTLY what tech exists, it should be no surprise to you when Apple releases its next iPad revision. IN FACT, why do we even need Macrumors.com when we have geniuses like you to come to for 100% accurate information?

 

[kntgsp]

Yes, yes, you are a genius and we're all idiots. We know, we know. Of course you have access to what technology Apple has. Hey, I guess we all knew the iPhone 4 would have an IPS LED-lit display before it came out, right? Because lots of cellphone-producing companies before Apple had IPS cellphone disp.... oh wait!

You can keep believing that progress has to be based on what you see. After all, we all know Apple divulges exactly what hardware their products will have, right?

Truly, what with knowing EXACTLY what tech exists, it should be no surprise to you when Apple releases its next iPad revision. IN FACT, why do we even need Macrumors.com when we have geniuses like you to come to for 100% accurate information?

Because I clearly claimed I am all knowing, right?

As expected, you are given a reasoned answer and respond with "derp". Lovely.

Just for sh*ts and giggles I'll take the time to respond to this one as well. A large portion of cellphone manufacturers began moving to AMOLED as a developing technology. Apple felt it best to stick with an established technology and wait to see how AMOLED developed. As someone who has purchased both an iPhone4 and a Galaxy S, I find the SuperAMOLED display to be superior in terms of everyday usage. The resolution difference is really a non-issue, and the contrast performance on the SuperAMOLED blows the iPhone display out of the water.

Standard AMOLED is more difficult to read in direct sunlight compared to the iPhone display, however SuperAMOLED bascially bridges that gap. The only issue where the IPS panels have a real discernible advantage in everyday usage, in my experience, is color saturation. Sometimes colors can appear over-saturated on the SuperAMOLED panels.

You don't seem to understand how exactly MacRumors helps facilitate what we know about pre-released products. There exist certain boundries within which we can clearly say what is and is not feasible for a current product. MacRumors exists to narrow that range considerably by receiving or republishing direct information on those topics.

Saying that I claim to know exactly all technology that currently exists in any state is asinine. I made my statements based on the hardware that is currently available to companies and what costs that hardware likely incurs to give a well reasoned answer to why a "Retina" display is not currently possible. The A4 was not some stunning revelation of never-before-seen technology. It's a rehashed Cortex A8. The SGX535 was not some never-before-heard-of GPU, and more advanced versions were already known to be in existence and in production.

 

[WilliamG]

Because I clearly claimed I am all knowing, right?

As expected, you are given a reasoned answer and respond with "derp". Lovely.

I dunno what "derp" is (once again, you showing your intellectual prowess over idiots like me). Sorry.

In any case, let's move on, shall we? Clearly we're not going to agree (except that we likely won't see a resolution increase in the next refresh).

 

[kntgsp]

I dunno what "derp" is (once again, you showing your intellectual prowess over idiots like me). Sorry.

In any case, let's move on, shall we? Clearly we're not going to agree (except that we likely won't see a resolution increase in the next refresh).

I'll agree simply because I want this thread to die already instead of us continually necro-ing it.

 

[sapporobaby]

To every somewhat specific post that you are given an explanation to, you in turn make your subsequent argument more and more vague until it becomes "eventually it'll get one".

You really want to be confused. Go look up his rambling rants regarding the wireless issues that his iPad had. He said he could speak for everyone because his iPad was having issues. Be both amazed and amused.

Dude, you presented a great argument back by logic, facts and common sense. Don't waste your time.

 

[WilliamG]

You really want to be confused. Go look up his rambling rants regarding the wireless issues that his iPad had. He said he could speak for everyone because his iPad was having issues. Be both amazed and amused.

Dude, you presented a great argument back by logic, facts and common sense. Don't waste your time.

Actually, all iPads did have wireless issues (whether or not it affected YOU), that was fixed in 3.2.1. It was, in fact, the very FIRST thing listed as fixed in 3.2.1. But thanks for your contribution.

No, no wait. You're right. Apple didn't address wifi issues in 3.2.1. I'm just making that up.

Next you'll be telling me that the iPhone 4 doesn't have proximity sensor issues or Bluetooth headset connectivity issues prior to 4.1.

 

[sapporobaby]

kntgsp, thank you for your rude, holier-than-though attitude. I'm sure you know exactly what hardware Apple has around the corner for their next iPad, and are obviously fully qualified to comment on what display the next iPad will have.

And whoever said "current hardware?" The iPad of 2010 can't even run itself even now with its lowly amount of RAM.

Anyway, let's see what Apple has planned over the next few years, shall we?

If your iPad is soooo bad and can't run itself, why not sell it and then find somewhere to set up your serial whining and complaining show. Almost from day one you have complained about this or that regarding the iPad. It was not some mystery device foisted on the market but an unscrupulous team of hucksters. Apple announced it, said what it will and will not do and left it to people to decide if it performed as advertised. Some people had issues and some didn't. This is true of ANY device. ANY. But yours is special, and you are the spokes man for all. Are you just bored, lonely, angry, unhappy? What? Something has to be driving these mindless rants about nothing. You're among friends (sort). Tell us what's wrong.

 

[sapporobaby]

Actually, all iPads did have wireless issues (whether or not it affected YOU), that was fixed in 3.2.1. It was, in fact, the very FIRST thing listed as fixed in 3.2.1. But thanks for your contribution.

No, no wait. You're right. Apple didn't address wifi issues in 3.2.1. I'm just making that up.

Next you'll be telling me that the iPhone 4 doesn't have proximity sensor issues or Bluetooth headset connectivity issues prior to 4.1.

I say again, you can only speak for you. If Apple sells 1000 iPads and mine does not have an issue, we can safely say that 999 iPads do have issues. However, you are the iPad police and have personally inspected every iPad and can verify 100% that all iPads are affected by some wifi anomaly. The sad thing is you don't get how utter ridiculous that sounds. You had a problem. I agree with that, but many more didn't. I can't recall the last thread I read where someone started it just to say that they didn't have problems. But I guess in bizarro world, and your world, silence is actually agreement.

kntgsp elegantly schooled you but you refuse to learn, so like him, I will take this opportunity to exit and let you plan the next conspiracy.

 

[WilliamG]

If your iPad is soooo bad and can't run itself, why not sell it and then find somewhere to set up your serial whining and complaining show. Almost from day one you have complained about this or that regarding the iPad. It was not some mystery device foisted on the market but an unscrupulous team of hucksters. Apple announced it, said what it will and will not do and left it to people to decide if it performed as advertised. Some people had issues and some didn't. This is true of ANY device. ANY. But yours is special, and you are the spokes man for all. Are you just bored, lonely, angry, unhappy? What? Something has to be driving these mindless rants about nothing. You're among friends (sort). Tell us what's wrong.

You're missing the point, completely. I don't hate my iPad. I just recognize its shortcomings. I'm not going to pretend that the wifi on it worked when it didn't (and yes, I DO speak for everyone using an iPad over 5Ghz wireless N with a Time Capsule on pre 3.2.1, and I even proved this to several Apple Geniuses in several Apple Stores, AND over the phone with Applecare with their OWN hardware, AND I consider myself one of the reasons (if only in bit part) this problem got fixed.

I'm not the kind of person who buys something and then defends it 100% because I OWN it. It seems to me there are mostly two kinds of people on these boards: The blind fanboys who think the iPad is amazing, flawless, perfect etc, and then the other people who either had one and returned it, or who never bought it because it "sucks."

The fact is we don't know what processing power will be available in the next iPad. If Apple's "A" line of processors go dual-core etc, that will change things greatly, as well as any UN-documented improvements in GPU tech. It's really THAT simple.

For ANYONE on these boards to come out and say the next iPad "won't do x" is simply idiocy.

Much in the same way that anyone coming out and saying the next iPad "WILL do x" is madness, too.

But whatever. This is obviously a waste of all of our time.

 

[WilliamG]

As someone who has purchased both an iPhone4 and a Galaxy S, I find the SuperAMOLED display to be superior in terms of everyday usage. The resolution difference is really a non-issue, and the contrast performance on the SuperAMOLED blows the iPhone display out of the water.

Standard AMOLED is more difficult to read in direct sunlight compared to the iPhone display, however SuperAMOLED bascially bridges that gap.

I have to respond to this since you edited your post:

1.) The Galaxy S screen is not in the same league as the iPhone 4, resolution-wise. The iPhone 4 has a sharpness to it that no other current-gen cellphone has. The Galaxy S looks just "low res."

2.) The contrast is not night and day better on the Galaxy S. Not even remotely. And color-wise, as you say, the iPhone 4 is much more natural.

3.) You say the SuperAMOLED is better in terms of everyday, except in direct sunlight? How does that make it better, then? I use my phone outside a LOT.

In any case, I've used both extensively and there's no question to me that the iPhone 4 display is the best mobile display I've ever used.

But now this is just opinion, and very much off topic.

 

[tastychicken]

I have to respond to this since you edited your post:

1.) The Galaxy S screen is not in the same league as the iPhone 4, resolution-wise. The iPhone 4 has a sharpness to it that no other current-gen cellphone has. The Galaxy S looks just "low res."

2.) The contrast is not night and day better on the Galaxy S. Not even remotely. And color-wise, as you say, the iPhone 4 is much more natural.

3.) You say the SuperAMOLED is better in terms of everyday, except in direct sunlight? How does that make it better, then? I use my phone outside a LOT.

In any case, I've used both extensively and there's no question to me that the iPhone 4 display is the best mobile display I've ever used.

But now this is just opinion, and very much off topic.

For the record, the Galaxy S has a 480x800 screen which makes out to be 260ppi vs the iphone at 960x640 at 326ppi. Looking at pure numbers the iphone has a better resolution but not by much. The Galaxy S however has a contrast ratio of 100,000:1 vs the iphone 800:1 on the iphone 4. Going by the numbers again the Galaxy S screen has very deep blacks and the difference is pretty dramatic.

 

[WilliamG]

For the record, the Galaxy S has a 480x800 screen which makes out to be 260ppi vs the iphone at 960x640 at 360ppi. Looking at pure numbers the iphone has a better resolution but not by much. The Galaxy S however has a contrast ratio of 100,000:1 vs the iphone 800:1 on the iphone 4. Going by the numbers again the Galaxy S screen has very deep blacks and the difference is pretty dramatic.

The dpi difference is huge. 326dpi on the iPhone 4, actually,- not 360, but still, the difference from 260dpi on the Galaxy S to 326dpi on the Phone 4 is very noticeable. Very.

 

[tastychicken]

The dpi difference is huge. 326dpi on the iPhone 4, actually,- not 360, but still, the difference from 260dpi on the Galaxy S to 326dpi on the Phone 4 is very noticeable. Very.

Thanks, little typo there i fixed it. I own both phones and I agree with you on the clarity of the iphone 4. I just wanted to throw the numbers out there so people are aware.

 

[pedrocasilva]

I think its almost a sure thing that the next iPad will have a retina display and a front facing camera.

It won't, it's GPU is limited to outputting 1024x768. outputting a resolution akin to the iphone 4 retina display on a bigger screen will be such a huge leap that it's simply not possible now.

Front facing camera I agree.

 

[JulianL]

Does anyone know the manufacturing yield on the iPhone 4 display, or the yield on any somewhat-comparable displays? That would be a very interesting data point that might help add some facts into these endless <will next version have a retina display?> threads.

I somehow doubt that anyone not under NDA has the figure for the Apple display because they're so secretive but just maybe there is data out there from some other device. I tried Googling but couldn't find anything.

- Julian

 

[kntgsp]

I have to respond to this since you edited your post:

I was content to let this die, but it seems to be on permanent life support. So unless the mods want to delete/lock this thread, I'll take the time to continue responding to your bizarre claims.

1.) The Galaxy S screen is not in the same league as the iPhone 4, resolution-wise. The iPhone 4 has a sharpness to it that no other current-gen cellphone has. The Galaxy S looks just "low res."

No. The resolution difference is not as massive as people make it out to be. 800x480 is nothing to sneeze at with 233ppi @ 4". You get a larger area which gives you the option for roomier virtual keyboards among other things, improving text input accuracy. It does not in the slightest sense look "low res". And however minute, a 4" display can be held further away from the user, making 233ppi @ 4" different than 233ppi @ 3.5".

Once again I will refer you back to how ppi vs. distance from the user affects how one sees a screen. For the.....I lost count how many times.

2.) The contrast is not night and day better on the Galaxy S. Not even remotely. And color-wise, as you say, the iPhone 4 is much more natural.

Again, no. I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. The iPhone4's IPS panel has a contrast ratio of 800:1. The contrast ratio of SuperAMOLED is, to an average user, essentially infinite due to the nature of how AMOLED functions. Depending on how you measure it if you want to assign it a value, the SuperAMOLED screen has a contrast ratio of anywhere from 50,000:1 to 100,000:1.

It is not simply double, or triple, but orders of magnitude better than the iPhone4's IPS panel in terms of contrast ratio.

The only area where the IPS panel has a significant advantage in this area is color saturation. As stated before, SuperAMOLED can make certain colors appear oversaturated (although generally they are images which border on oversaturated to begin with regardless of display, so the severity to which it oversaturates is rather debatable).

3.) You say the SuperAMOLED is better in terms of everyday, except in direct sunlight? How does that make it better, then? I use my phone outside a LOT.

Reading comprehension. It is your enemy. What I said verbatim:

"Standard AMOLED is more difficult to read in direct sunlight compared to the iPhone display, however SuperAMOLED bascially bridges that gap."

IPS panels, like the one used in the iPhone4, have superior viewing in daylight when compared to standard AMOLED. SuperAMOLED is something completely different, and among other improvements, essentially negates the sunlight viewability difference.

In any case, I've used both extensively and there's no question to me that the iPhone 4 display is the best mobile display I've ever used.

Yes I'm confident you've used both extensively despite you having no clue what I was talking about with regards to sunlight viewability, contrast ratio, color saturation, resolution, etc. It's one thing to after this claim "I don't know specifics, I just buy", it's something entirely different to not even mention the sunlight viewability, misread what I wrote, and then claim the sunlight viewability is better on IPS panels. And then follow that up with "I've used both extensively".

But now this is just opinion, and very much off topic.

No, the contrast ratio, ppi, screen size, sunlight viewability, color saturation, etc, etc, etc, are not matters of opinion. They are matters of observed and verified fact.

If you want to view things such as "water is wet" as an opinion, then by all means do so. But when you are openly derided for publicly expressing your doubt that it is fact, don't act surprised.

What one prefers, a 3.5" IPS screen with 960x640, or a 4" SAMOLED screen with 800x480....THAT is a matter of opinion. Arguing about the numerical values and the nature of what constitutes things like "contrast" is not a matter of opinion.

 

[kntgsp]

Does anyone know the manufacturing yield on the iPhone 4 display, or the yield on any somewhat-comparable displays? That would be a very interesting data point that might help add some facts into these endless <will next version have a retina display?> threads.

I somehow doubt that anyone not under NDA has the figure for the Apple display because they're so secretive but just maybe there is data out there from some other device. I tried Googling but couldn't find anything.

- Julian

Generally speaking, as your resolution goes up (within the same dimensions), your yield goes down when using the same manufacturing technologies.

If they've managed to perfect the process of cramming 4x as many pixels per area into IPS panels, and maintain the same yield, that would be very impressive. But yea, unless someone leaks that info somewhere, I doubt we'll hear about accurate yield numbers.

IPS with 163ppi has been around for a while so I imagine they've had quite a bit of time to boost yield. I can't imagine the newer displays have the same yield, but it's impossible to know reliably without leaked info.

 

[kntgsp]

Apologize for the triple post, but I had to clarify.

I'm not making any argument that the Galaxy S is a better device overall. That is something left to personal needs and taste. What I am taking the time to describe in those posts is that certain, measurable differences make one device superior to the other in particular areas. It's a two way street, as both have their advantages and drawbacks. I simply don't want people to be poorly informed with generic or downright false claims by someone who doesn't understand the fundamental measurements behind each technology.

 

[MythicFrost]

I'm sorry, but my patience with the "next update around the holidays will have a Retina display" stuff posted in every damn iPad thread or news thread on the main page has slowly turned me into a sarcastic, snarky ass. But for good reason. It's one thing to speculate on possible or even probable hardware upgrades. It's entirely something else to speculate on something that is essentially impossible with the current state of technology. It'd be like me saying the next Macbook update will see a 24-core processor.

The only thing Apple did was fail to explain what "Retina" means. It is logical to introduce that technology on smaller screens (as it is cheaper) and gradually introduce it to your larger screens. Granted, the ppi required to make a display appear "Retina" goes down as screen size goes up, because (generally) the distance from the user also increases as screen size goes up. But it's likely still cheaper to do 326ppi at 3.5" diagonally than 263ppi at 9.7" diagonally. The reasons for introducing it on the iPhone first becomes even more apparent when you realize that most iPhone purchasers have the price subsidized by their carrier, whereas the iPad has to exist on its own in terms of pricing.


The biggest problem with the whole "RetinaRetinaRetinaRetina" hollering is that so many people seem to be thoroughly convinced that a minor refresh (which in my opinion would just have a webcam and perhaps a RAM doubling to facilitate better multitasking) would bring along with it a screen with 2048x1536 resolution. That simply cannot happen if the internals of the iPad remain the same.

With the Tegra 2, you have better graphics but also a substantially upgraded CPU as it's based on the dual-core Cortex A9, meaning you leave the old iPad in the dust in terms of application capabilities. It would be like the iPhone3G to iPhone4 jump. But even still, I do not think that leap in processing power is enough to drive a 2048x1536 display fluidly in 3D environments as well as the SGX535 does at 1024x768. Apple seems to thoroughly enjoy NVidia graphics in their desktop/laptops, but with them acquiring PA Semi and producing their own silicon for the mobile devices, I can't see them completely abandoning their internal mobile chip design.

Going from approx. 153,000 pixels on the iPhone3 to 614,000 pixels on the iPhone4 is much easier than going from approx. 786,000 pixels on the current iPad to 3,145,728 pixels on a "Retina" iPad. The iPad and iPhone4 are really not all that far apart in terms of total pixel count, making the hardware required to drive them both fluidly about the same. Advances in mobile hardware also made a leap of 450,000 pixels possible without seeing a reduction in performance of apps and 3D done in the native resolution. And it allows a 960x640 and 1024x768 display to be driven by the same chip with similar performance.

To accomplish the same, seeing no reduction in app or 3D performance at native resolution, with a bump of approx. 2,350,000 pixels is much, much harder and arguably impossible with anything currently available or anything available within the next year. If anything, you'll see a divergence of paths for the iPad/iPhone if they want to boost the display to that resolution as the hardware required for the 2048x1536 display in a "Retina" iPad would be overkill in an iPhone (if it would even fit).

I do understand where you're coming from. But, I'm convinced that they'll bring out more than just a spec bump and FaceTime -- I hope, anyway.

I believe the current generation iPad's resolution will remain as it is, although, I don't want to believe that. However, I'm thinking a 7" iPad will come out with a 326 PPI display (1920x1280) in the near future (alongside the next refresh). That's a pretty huge resolution, coming it at 4x the pixels... but it'd take awesomeness to a whole new level.