Sidebar Sidebar
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?

Gomff said:
Gosh, I wish I had access to your ability to look with such certainty into the future.:rolleyes:

Your claim that the cost of the iphone 4 didn't go up is erroneous at best.....Didn't go up in comparison to which iphone model, on which tariff in which country?

The phone market is significantly different to the tablet market, especially when it comes to wifi only models where there is no option open to Apple and the consumer for carrier subsidies. Unless Apple make the retina display unavailable for wifi only models, they will have to incorporate the development and manufacturing costs into the retail price.....Which comes back to my original post, where I said it would be a big deal because of price, QC, battery and GPU performance.
Click to expand...

Really???

You don't need a crystal ball to look at how Apple has historically priced subsidized and unsubsidized iPhones.

So over the past four years unsubsidized pricing hasn't really changed and neither has subsidized pricing. Even when one of the most expensive components, the screen, got a massive increase in resolution the prices had remained the same.

You can extrapolate these trends to the iPad and see that Apple is going wait with implementing RD until it can maintain its pricing. Especially as the market is settling on $500 as the sweet spot for their low-end models.

Why would they not do RD in the wifi model, that makes no sense. All of them will have it and the 3G models will have the additional cost just as they do now.

Even iPod Touch pricing hasn't really changed despite the higher res screen.
 
Last edited:
rovex said:
In fact, I was the one who said this thread and discussion is all speculation, yet you pontificating that analysts know Soo much more than us that it can portrayed as fact is absurd and delusional. Takes one to know one, ey?
Click to expand...

You only started hiding behind the speculation terminology once you were called out on providing sources for statements such as:

"some sort of resolution bump next year, even if its not retina an improvement nonetheless is inevitable."

The use of terms such as inevitable denotes a factual tone which you were unable to back up with actual facts.

You then went on to say:

"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."

ignoring your incorrect statement about dead pixels being unnoticed, I took issue with the end of this statement about it being "simply cost" that was the glaring issue. When asked to provide proof on this apparent statement of fact, you go scurrying into the conjecture hiding hole. If it's just conjecture, how can it be a "glaring issue"??

My argument for why the Retina display poses more challenges for the iPad is based on the simple FACT that currently, there is no iPad with a retina display. This was then coupled with logical deduction surrounding well known information on battery drain & GPU capability. The only "pontification" at all is the suggestion that a very high resolution screen, currently unavailable on any commercial tablet whatsoever poses significant challenges which render it currently non viable.

Not only is such a theory about the manufacturing process logical, it does also seem to be agreed upon by numerous sources.

You are yet to provide even one source which is in agreement with any of your statements. Instead you seem to be aiming for the somewhat lower intellectual level of personal attacks, no doubt in the hope it will distract from the fact that pretty much everything you have said thus far is unsubstantiated hot air.
 
I'd definitely upgrade (from original iPad) for a higher res display. Often doesn't matter too much, but in certain apps (such as some mapping stuff I do) it would make a huge difference - much nicer to be able to see a large area of a map and just move your head closer to check some minor detail than having to zoom in and out all of the time.

That said, in another year i'll probably appreciate the speed bump of a new iPad anyway - iPad 2 didn't offer anything worth upgrading for me.

David
 
I do not get peoples obsession with resolution!! I mean on the tiny iPhone screen a super crisp resolution helps A LOT, but on the larger iPad screen "Retina" resolution is really not necessary.

Add to that, its still and probably will be a technological nightmare to manufacture screens of that size and that resolution, let alone provide the processing power to run it, you folks should not be holding your breath.
 
darngooddesign said:
Really???

You don't need a crystal ball to look at how Apple has historically priced subsidized and unsubsidized iPhones.

So over the past four years unsubsidized pricing hasn't really changed and neither has subsidized pricing. Even when one of the most expensive components, the screen, got a massive increase in resolution the prices had remained the same.

You can extrapolate these trends to the iPad and see that Apple is going wait with implementing RD until it can maintain its pricing. Especially as the market is settling on $500 as the sweet spot for their low-end models.

Why would they not do RD in the wifi model, that makes no sense. All of them will have it and the 3G models will have the additional cost just as they do now.

Even iPod Touch pricing hasn't really changed despite the higher res screen.
Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that pricing of the iPhone in both subsidized and unsubsidized models is consistent globally, which it clearly isn't. The cost in the UK for an iPhone 3GS 8 GB is £412, which even without looking it up on a currency converter is clearly more than $500.

I agree that Apple will probably wait until they can keep the cost of adding a retina display to the iPad steady, either by refining the manufacturing process or trimming costs somewhere else. But this doesn't detract from my initial point that adding a retina display costs more than a non retina display which seems somewhat obvious. At no point did I infer that this cost would be passed on to the consumer. My point was that this cost would be an inhibiting factor in bringing the retina display to the iPad.

My comment about subsidized models refers to the fact that it gives Apple more leeway on their profit margins, since initial cost of the device is somewhat shared by the carrier at point of sale. Wifi models however do not have a data plan for carriers to tie customers into.
 
Gomff said:
You seem to be suggesting that pricing of the iPhone in both subsidized and unsubsidized models is consistent globally, which it clearly isn't. The cost in the UK for an iPhone 3GS 8 GB is £412, which even without looking it up on a currency converter is clearly more than $500.
Click to expand...
I would have thought you knew that you can't just do a currency conversion. Can you just do a currency conversion for a car and get the same price in the US as the UK? And those don't even have Wifi, let alone 3G.

So how has the UK iPhone pricing done over the course of its time there? If the unlocked iPhone 4 costs the same as the unlocked 3GS, and the RD iPod Touch the same as the previous Touch, and the iPad2 the same as the ipad 1, then its safe to assume the RD iPad3 or 4 will cost the same as the iPad 2.

I agree that Apple will probably wait until they can keep the cost of adding a retina display to the iPad steady, either by refining the manufacturing process or trimming costs somewhere else. But this doesn't detract from my initial point that adding a retina display costs more than a non retina display which seems somewhat obvious. At no point did I infer that this cost would be passed on to the consumer. My point was that this cost would be an inhibiting factor in bringing the retina display to the iPad.
Click to expand...
My mistake then. I assume a discussion on pricing was applied to how it will affect the customer. Yes RD costs more than non-RD.

My comment about subsidized models refers to the fact that it gives Apple more leeway on their profit margins, since initial cost of the device is somewhat shared by the carrier at point of sale. Wifi models however do not have a data plan for carriers to tie customers into.
Click to expand...
So explain how the iPod Touch didn't become drastically more expensive for adding an expensive RD .
 
Gomff said:
You only started hiding behind the speculation terminology once you were called out on providing sources for statements such as:

"some sort of resolution bump next year, even if its not retina an improvement nonetheless is inevitable."

The use of terms such as inevitable denotes a factual tone which you were unable to back up with actual facts.

You then went on to say:

"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
ignoring your incorrect statement about dead pixels being unnoticed, I took issue with the end of this statement about it being "simply cost" that was the glaringi issue. When asked to provide proof on this apparent stament of fact, you go scurrying into the conjecture hiding hole. If it's just conjecture, how can it be a "glaring issue"??

Not only is such a theory about the manufacturing process logical, it does also seem to be agreed upon by numerous sources.

You are yet to provide even one source which is in agreement with any of your statements. Instead you seem to be aiming for the somewhat lower intellectual level of personal attacks, no doubt in the hope it will distract from the fact that pretty much everything you have said thus far is unsubstantiated hot air.
Click to expand...

Taking everything I've said out of context is quite comical and a desperate move. Perhaps I should have put "in my opinion" in all my posts since everything I have said is not fact, far from it. The issue here is you taking out of context everything, and making it fit your argument thinking I wouldn't realise. Portraying fiction as fact through sources which don't happen to have any specific inside knowledge at all on the manufacturing process is however wrong, and professing that they know tremendously more than us is again incorrect.

I personally think that a boost in the resolution of the display is foreseeable in the next year, but don't let that detour you in thinking that is fact what I'm asserting, as it's not. In regards to battery life, care to explain why the iPhone 4's battery life is greater than that of the non retina 3GS? And in addition to having greater processors? I believe the notion that having a retina-like display will strain the overall capabilities of the device is unfounded and vague.

I'm not prepared to post something which only hints at me grasping at straws, which Is precisely what you have been doing this entire thread. Needless for you to play the victim, your condescending first reply to me in this thread stimulated me in being cold towards you. You are indeed correct, Your argument is full of holes and far from convincing. Definitely needs to be polished if you want others to take you seriously.

Keep up.
 
Last edited:
iPad 4 is probably when we will see a retina style resolution..

The display is fine as it is in my opinion
 
Gomff said:
Sorry, who did you say was being condescending?
Click to expand...

What goes around comes around, my dear...

Slightly off topic but relevant to this quote, the second half of your sig could easily be interpreted as slightly condescending; attempting to educate others, wouldn't you agree?
 
Last edited:
rovex said:
What goes around comes around, my dear...

Slightly off topic but relevant to this quote, the second half of your sig could easily be interpreted as slightly condescending; attempting to educate others, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

"my dear"....how um, well camp, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
rovex said:
Disregard my question then, finally we have a concession from you. Along with severe irony that is...
Click to expand...

The only irony here is someone with such a poor grasp of grammar commenting on my signature on grammar.
 
Gomff said:
The only irony here is someone with such a poor grasp of grammar commenting on my signature on grammar.
Click to expand...

Still eluding my initial question, i know how embarrassed you must feel.
 
Gomff said:
Indeed it could be correct, provided that you could in fact care less than you do, which is often not the manner in which it is used.
Click to expand...
Then your signature makes you look uneducated, or worse partially educated while believing you are fully educated, as you are stating a grammatical fact, which is not actually a fact; however, the more than bit is correct. Also, "could" should not be capitalized as it would never be the first word in any sentence that contains that phrase.
 
Gomff said:
I can only imagine how embarrassed you must feel every day my little friend.
Click to expand...

I must confess, I do feel terribly bad when I put down someone who thinks they are bigger than they really are.
 
rovex said:
I must confess, I do feel terribly bad when I put down someone who thinks they are bigger than they really are.
Click to expand...

How exactly have you "put me down"?

Despite your best attempts, you have failed in all but self delusion.....But we both know that don't we little friend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back