Come now... you know it's not just going to be thinner, it's also going to be lighter. And, as many have remarked, the current iPad is just a bit too heavy to be comfortable for many uses.
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.
Thinner iPad 3 Coming with Low-Power Retina Display?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Come now... you know it's not just going to be thinner, it's also going to be lighter. And, as many have remarked, the current iPad is just a bit too heavy to be comfortable for many uses.
Looking at any new ipad a number of things come to mind.
This is a portable device
What makes it more portable would be a very important factor. In the ipad1 to ipad2 move it was thinner and lighter.
Longer battery life would also be of extra benefit for portability.
So the rumours around this screen from Sharp would tend to have a little more credibility than just a better quality screen, that adds weight/bulk to the device.
Although we have seen that Apple has a new strategy that people seemed to have missed here (sorry if I have misread anyone else's post).
That is the iphone4S 4 3GS strategy. Apple may well keep the iPad2 maybe even have the iPad2S and introduce an iPad3, so this different screen strategy may just see a greater range available.
Given that this is a natural way to get greater coverage to the price segment.
Likewise they will probably have even a iPhone 5, 4S, 4 and maybe even a "cheaper" plastic cased 3.
All make sense and give greater price point appeal and enable them to introduce new technologies into the line, without having to ramp up massive inventory before launch. And having had some historic awareness of electronics production, supply/yield is a BIG issue with any new product launch.
This also would be one explanation for the multiple prototypes being seen.
This is a portable device
What makes it more portable would be a very important factor. In the ipad1 to ipad2 move it was thinner and lighter.
Longer battery life would also be of extra benefit for portability.
So the rumours around this screen from Sharp would tend to have a little more credibility than just a better quality screen, that adds weight/bulk to the device.
Although we have seen that Apple has a new strategy that people seemed to have missed here (sorry if I have misread anyone else's post).
That is the iphone4S 4 3GS strategy. Apple may well keep the iPad2 maybe even have the iPad2S and introduce an iPad3, so this different screen strategy may just see a greater range available.
Given that this is a natural way to get greater coverage to the price segment.
Likewise they will probably have even a iPhone 5, 4S, 4 and maybe even a "cheaper" plastic cased 3.
All make sense and give greater price point appeal and enable them to introduce new technologies into the line, without having to ramp up massive inventory before launch. And having had some historic awareness of electronics production, supply/yield is a BIG issue with any new product launch.
This also would be one explanation for the multiple prototypes being seen.
Possible screen technology....
Reading this article reminded me of an interview I saw a few months back. Could Nanosys technology be used for the iPad3?
http://scobleizer.com/2011/06/23/is...-technology-gonna-be-in-ipad-3-i-hope-so-wow/
Reading this article reminded me of an interview I saw a few months back. Could Nanosys technology be used for the iPad3?
http://scobleizer.com/2011/06/23/is...-technology-gonna-be-in-ipad-3-i-hope-so-wow/
Just like there are no second tier components today.
What would you rather have on your MBA, the Toshiba ssd or the Samsung? How about the backlight bleeding on the iPad 2?Well that is a good question. Try this on. In Countries like China, the government subsidizes the cost of the labor force, sometimes raw materials, and often the building of a factory. The result is a product being produced in a Country like China costs less because of government subsidies. American manufacturing can't compete because we have to unfairly compete with a Country that artificially deflates the actual manufacturing cost. Add to the mix that the US government actually gave companies tax incentives to relocate over seas. On top of that, companies overseas do not have to worry about a whole bunch of employee related lawsuits. Add to that, all the people who know how to build factories left our Country.
Moreover, Apple used to own all its own factories, including ones in the United States. On top of the other factors I mentioned, owning your own factories often times hurt a publicly traded company. The reason is Apple would have to account for inventory on hand. Inventory sitting in a factory you own negatively effects your earnings. If Apple orders products from third parties the inventory doesn't count against Apple's earnings until Apple takes delivery. Further, Apple can pit different manufacturers against one another to reduce its manufacturing cost.
The United States has an abundance of Engineers. Many of the Engineers might not be from America, as we love to give foreigners preferential treatment when seeking an education in the United States. This isn't because there aren't plenty of qualified potential american engineering students it is because the Universities charge foreign students a lot more money to attend the Universities in the Us then Americans. If could make triple the money selling an education to a foreigner, wouldn't you? Once again, Americans are at a disadvantage here because these foreigner's education is usually paid for by foreign government resources.
Once graduated, the foreigners often stay in the United States and take jobs where American educated Engineers could have taken had they been let into the Universities.
If you want manufacturing to come back to the US along with the associate wealth, you instead get rid of the BS Free trade Agreements, which are not free. It used to be the case when a Country had an unfair trade advantage or engaged in policies we didn't like, we would hit their products with a tariff when it was shipped into the Country. It worked this way since the birth of our Country until about twenty years ago. This gave American companies the ability to compete with companies in foreign countries that had an unfair advantage. This in turn produced americans jobs, which generated profit spend in other businesses, and taxes used to pay for government services. IN the height of the greatest economic boom every (the eighties), greedy american companies decided they wanted even more profit. So they used their new found wealth to buy off Congress. Congress passed NAFTA, with allowed manufactured goods from Countries like China to freely enter our Country through Canada and Mexico. With NAFTA all the jobs along with the local wages, taxes, and pride said good bye.
Moreover, Apple used to own all its own factories, including ones in the United States. On top of the other factors I mentioned, owning your own factories often times hurt a publicly traded company. The reason is Apple would have to account for inventory on hand. Inventory sitting in a factory you own negatively effects your earnings. If Apple orders products from third parties the inventory doesn't count against Apple's earnings until Apple takes delivery. Further, Apple can pit different manufacturers against one another to reduce its manufacturing cost.
The United States has an abundance of Engineers. Many of the Engineers might not be from America, as we love to give foreigners preferential treatment when seeking an education in the United States. This isn't because there aren't plenty of qualified potential american engineering students it is because the Universities charge foreign students a lot more money to attend the Universities in the Us then Americans. If could make triple the money selling an education to a foreigner, wouldn't you? Once again, Americans are at a disadvantage here because these foreigner's education is usually paid for by foreign government resources.
Once graduated, the foreigners often stay in the United States and take jobs where American educated Engineers could have taken had they been let into the Universities.
If you want manufacturing to come back to the US along with the associate wealth, you instead get rid of the BS Free trade Agreements, which are not free. It used to be the case when a Country had an unfair trade advantage or engaged in policies we didn't like, we would hit their products with a tariff when it was shipped into the Country. It worked this way since the birth of our Country until about twenty years ago. This gave American companies the ability to compete with companies in foreign countries that had an unfair advantage. This in turn produced americans jobs, which generated profit spend in other businesses, and taxes used to pay for government services. IN the height of the greatest economic boom every (the eighties), greedy american companies decided they wanted even more profit. So they used their new found wealth to buy off Congress. Congress passed NAFTA, with allowed manufactured goods from Countries like China to freely enter our Country through Canada and Mexico. With NAFTA all the jobs along with the local wages, taxes, and pride said good bye.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
I don't want to be the one spoiling the party but I can't see the retina at that res happening early next year.. If it were to happen In that time frame with the definite high demand this thing will pull I'd say we will be waiting a while till we actually get it after ordering.
As a few of you have said before me, to try and help to defeat demand they should split the iPad into 'standard' and 'pro' categories.. That way they can also add the extra $$ that like myself will be willing to pay to get extra features like the retina display.
I do hope apple pull it off but can't see it ready for demand in 3-4months.
I don't want to be the one spoiling the party but I can't see the retina at that res happening early next year.. If it were to happen In that time frame with the definite high demand this thing will pull I'd say we will be waiting a while till we actually get it after ordering.
As a few of you have said before me, to try and help to defeat demand they should split the iPad into 'standard' and 'pro' categories.. That way they can also add the extra $$ that like myself will be willing to pay to get extra features like the retina display.
I do hope apple pull it off but can't see it ready for demand in 3-4months.
Appl motto
YE CAN NOT BE TOO THIN OR TOO RICH
right Steve?
----------
I want my MTV. With loss-less sound.
YE CAN NOT BE TOO THIN OR TOO RICH
right Steve?
----------
I want my beloved IPS
I want my MTV. With loss-less sound.
The "retina" display on the iPad seems like an attractive idea but Apple will also have to increase RAM, CPU/GPU power, and include more storage to make it work. Games like Infinity Blade 2 are already 1+GB in size and are going to take gigabytes more with "retina" textures.
The whole purpose of Siri, as far as Apple is concerned, is to sell more devices. So it makes just perfect business sense that any _new_ device would come with Siri, and that old devices don't have it.
That's misunderstanding what "retina display" means. A "retina display" is a display where you can't see individual pixels from normal viewing distance. Since the normal viewing distance of an iPad is further away than the normal viewing distance of an iPhone, an iPad display with slightly lower resolution _is_ indeed a retina display.
Last edited:
Is it just me or have I now read this, iPad 3 with retina display coming soon, rumour about 10 times on Mac Rumors now?
Viewing distance
330 DPI is required for "Retina" resolution at the typical 12" viewing distance that Apple mentions.
33 DPI for "Retina" resolution at 10 feet.
3300 DPI for "Retina" resolution at 1.2 inches.
264 DPI for "Retina" resolution at 15" viewing distance. Do the math.
330 DPI is required for "Retina" resolution at the typical 12" viewing distance that Apple mentions.
33 DPI for "Retina" resolution at 10 feet.
3300 DPI for "Retina" resolution at 1.2 inches.
264 DPI for "Retina" resolution at 15" viewing distance. Do the math.
This will only happen if the technology is better than IPS. Apple isn't about to degrade the viewing quality on their biggest "media consumption" device. There's no way it'll be 330 PPI since that will break app compatibility. It's 263 PPI, 2048x1536.
Too bad apple doesn't know the first thing about producing OLED themselves. Not a fan of patents for ideas when the specifics haven't been worked out.
I want my beloved IPS
It is not clear from the articles or from anything I can find out about Sharp what the structure of the LCD will be. IGZO refers to the technology for making the thin film transistors that produce the electric fields that drive the liquid crystal material. ips and its variants refers to the structure of the electrodes relative to the liquid crystal material, a different topic.
Compared to previous ways of making thin film transistors IGZO seems to allow faster operation, lower temperature processing, more flexibility in choosing a substrate and maybe some others. Overall it means a brighter, lower power display that is cheaper to make. My guess is that Sharp will provide a display with at least as good a quality as ips even if the name is different. Note that ips itself is a moving target with a number of variants having been developed over the years.
An Apple tv?!...
I have a Sharp (small) flatscreen tv... My first flatscreen, 24" 720 dpi resolution... Picture quality, colors, screen, overall build quality... Pretty satisfied...
/
/
/
I just thought of something. How awkward would SIRI be on an iPad ?
Holding that big thing up to your face.
Also, I hear it will be a bit thicker for more battery so who to believe
Holding that big thing up to your face.
Also, I hear it will be a bit thicker for more battery so who to believe
