It may sound daft, but I think even if the next iPad kept the same crappy cameras and A5 chip and just had retina as the improvement many would bite the bullet. Personally, retina would do it all for me. It's indispensable for something like the iPad, moreso than the other iDevices.
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.
Would having retina display on the iPad 3 be worth the upgrade alone?
- Thread starter rovex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wouldn't care. I didn't buy AppleCare just to upgrade after one year. It will be iPhone 6 and iPad 4 before I upgrade anything.
Unless I use my wife's phone upgrade for an iPhone 5, and give her my 4, but I cannot think of a rational reason to do that.
We are planning to get a better camera, as my digital camera is a 3.2 mp, and the iPhone I have is 5 mp, but even then I don't take alot of pictures.
Unless I use my wife's phone upgrade for an iPhone 5, and give her my 4, but I cannot think of a rational reason to do that.
We are planning to get a better camera, as my digital camera is a 3.2 mp, and the iPhone I have is 5 mp, but even then I don't take alot of pictures.
I think there's little chance we'll see a resolution change before iPad 4 at the earliest. But I suspect there's a decent chance I'll upgrade next year regardless.
Almost impossible not to have some sort of resolution bump next year, even if its not retina an improvement nonetheless is inevitable.
The iPad currently cannot output even full 720p, would be bewildering if that stayed the same much longer
The increased graphics processing power necessary to power a retina display that large would have other tangible benefits as well. Possibly dual core graphics processing?
in the unlikely case the iPad3 gets a higher resolution display (and only 2048x1536 seems reasonable to me) i would upgrade no matter what. that means I would be willing to pay $999 for a 64GB G3, i don't care about camera quality and I would accept a 2hr battery hit. the iPad is good as it is and the only improvement I can see is higher res screen. all other things are more "nice to have" things for me.
Probably the retina display would be the main upgrade. A slightly faster processor (maybe dual core 1.5Ghz, or quad core like the NGP), more graphics performance to handle the higher resolution, and maybe some camera bumps. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 720p front camera on the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 now that they've started introducing them on Macs.
I heard the iPad 3 will have a Super Nova 3D display with a Projector built into the 50 megapixel camera.
Man I can't wait till September! Steve doin the damn thing this year. Go
Man I can't wait till September! Steve doin the damn thing this year. Go
I'd upgrade to get a better display. I'm a photographer and use it to review photos in the field and some limited review of photos by clients. A better display would really be very helpful.
I would imagine that it would have to be something which scales easily and well from the current res for the sake of existing apps. Ironically, a small bump next year may well see to it that it's several years before the true 'retina' display that so many are baying for.
Although a retina screen would be nice, It would be a big deal for Apple to implement. Not only would the battery take a hit, but also it would negate considerably any benefits from a better GPU, would push the price up and make manufacture & QC much more of a headache.
The screen on the iPad is already good enough for me. The biggest improvements needed to the iPad are software based and I'm not sure I'd buy another until it has things like a file system and well thought out multi user support.
The screen on the iPad is already good enough for me. The biggest improvements needed to the iPad are software based and I'm not sure I'd buy another until it has things like a file system and well thought out multi user support.
If anything, QC will be LESS of an issue as you will not notice dead or stuck pixels due to the high ppi. manufacturing neither, if you can do it on a tiny screen like the iPhone, it should be equally possible on a much larger screen such as on the iPad. It's simply cost that is the glaring issue here.
I didn't upgrade my 1st gen iPad this time rundown, but I will be camping outside the apple store, on next iPad launch date! 
If you sold your original iPad before iPad 2 came out, it should have evened out pretty well with iPad 2...
I only lost 50 dollars and I used that iPad for over 9 months. That's about 5-6 dollars a month. I will stop going to starbucks and continue to use the latest and greatest iPad.
But, I bought iPad 2 because it was lighter and thinner.
I only lost 50 dollars and I used that iPad for over 9 months. That's about 5-6 dollars a month. I will stop going to starbucks and continue to use the latest and greatest iPad.
But, I bought iPad 2 because it was lighter and thinner.
I don't see the logic in the your second point. Larger screen = more pixels....I don't understand how this would be LESS of an issue.
Equally, you seem to be assuming that a retina screen on the ipad would have the same ppi as an iPhone 4. If that's the case then you're talking about a huge resolution bump. Making the assumption that this would not pose any challenges in manufacture seems naive.
Conversely, if the resolution were not as high as the iPhone 4 (far more likely IMHO) then stuck pixels would be more visible and you're back to QC issues again.
You misread my post completely. Did I not say a higher PPI would make stuck or dead pixels less to maybe even not visible? The larger screen has no bearing as long as it has a certain number of pixels per inch. In what way is that not rational?
The foundations are there to make higher resolution screens for larger panels, costing is the fundamental reason as to why we've yet to see them on tablets. Although I used the example of the iPhone 4 I don't believe the iPad will necessarily have the same PPI, but more likely close to it.