The story sounds cute, but the truth of the matter is that flash is on its way out and becoming less and less relevant whether you like flash or not.
I was browsing with my iPad the other day and not one single time i had missed flash.
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 you pay more for iPad retina screen ?
- Thread starter sebastian...
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The story sounds cute, but the truth of the matter is that flash is on its way out and becoming less and less relevant whether you like flash or not.
I was browsing with my iPad the other day and not one single time i had missed flash.
It should be noted that even with the plug-in, as Android users have noticed, flash still isn't all that practical on these sorts of devices. Many flash apps are just too demanding to work on the juice sipping ARM processors, the controls are often too well optimized for a mouse and keyboard, and some sites just block mobile devices altogether (using the plug-in's identifier, so even changing your browser agent won't get around this).
Last edited:
The story sounds cute, but the truth of the matter is that flash is on its way out and becoming less and less relevant whether you like flash or not.
I was browsing with my iPad the other day and not one single time i had missed flash.
you're completely missing the point. i'm not commenting on whether flash is on the way out.
the fact is that there are still sites that use flash as part of their content and the fact that the websites you visit don't use flash doesn't mean you can make a blanket statement and say that it's 2006.
it's clearly 2011 even if you want to stick your head in the sand.
like it or not, flash is still being used and it will take time before websites change their code to not use flash. you can spout all the cute rhetoric you want, but that's the reality. if you don't miss it, fine...good for you.
flash is still relevant though i imagine it will get replaced...eventually.
again, i never said that the ipad can't run flash. i'm commenting on the fact that there are websites still use flash to show certain types of content.
espn and homedepot are not mom-n-pop outfits the last time i checked.
just sayin that flash is a relevant part of the internet experience and it's 2011. i'm more than happy to bid goodbye to flash, but it's still used for now...depending of course on what sites you visit.
Apple said it depends on the viewing distance from the very beginning when they introduced the marketing term. I don't think you can consider that a "back pedal."
I really want retina. allthough I would not pay extra for it. For how much the ipad costs...
For 720$ you can get a 64gb iPad 2
or
for 750$ you can get a MBA with 4x the ram...
For 720$ you can get a 64gb iPad 2
or
for 750$ you can get a MBA with 4x the ram...
Yes but the MBA doesn't have retina now does it ?
Wouldn't you rather pay 750$ for an ipad 3 with sweet retina screen ?
Wouldn't you rather pay 750$ for an ipad 3 with sweet retina screen ?
I don't thinkcharged more for retina on the iPhone and Touch, so I don't expect them to do so with the iPad.
Correct. So why would they for the next refresh of the iPad?
I voted no, because I really don't think they would do this. Plus, as much as I love the retina display on my iPhone 4, I also don't mind the iPad resolution either.
2048×1536... really?
It seems pretty ridiculous to expect a 2048×1536 IPS display in a $499 device. The 17" Macbook Pro doesn't even offer this kind of display and it retails for $2500. I do expect them to bump the resolution, but I wouldn't expect anything more than 1400x1050 in a 4:3 display. They have to keep the IPS display quality. To me, viewing angle and color accuracy is more important than raw resolution. As far as a "iPad Pro" model, I think that there's a small market for it but not enough for Apple to set aside a separate product division for.
It seems pretty ridiculous to expect a 2048×1536 IPS display in a $499 device. The 17" Macbook Pro doesn't even offer this kind of display and it retails for $2500. I do expect them to bump the resolution, but I wouldn't expect anything more than 1400x1050 in a 4:3 display. They have to keep the IPS display quality. To me, viewing angle and color accuracy is more important than raw resolution. As far as a "iPad Pro" model, I think that there's a small market for it but not enough for Apple to set aside a separate product division for.
Well with the iPhone 4 they went with 4 times the resolution because it's apparently easy enough to program for. I expect that they would do the same to the iPad screen for the same reason. And a few months ago, Toshiba I believe it was demoed screens with this resolution at iPad size. I don't think it makes sense for them to go 1.5*1.5 times the resolution on the next iPad. And the Macbook Pro resolution is irrelevant, we all know they can't do extremely high resolution computers yet.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. How is a display on a "computer" any different from one on an iPad? They both use forms of LCD technology.
I think he's talking about operating system limitations. Elements in Mac OS are a fixed number of pixels. So increasing the resolution means making everything smaller. Lion seems to improve matters a bit by supporting 2x scaling, similar to iOS. But with this you would need an even greater pixel resolution (2880x1600px for the 15.4", 3840x2400px for the 17") to maintain the current scaling on the MBP.
LCD technology also doesn't scale all that easily. Smaller screens have greater yields, and so tend to be proportionally cheaper to manufacture.
Last edited:
I doubt that Apple cares that much about what they're customers want. They've got legions of followers convinced that they know best. So it's a moot point really.
Apple will do whatever they feel like, and the faithful will fawn over it.
Me? I'll take a wait & see approach.
Apple will do whatever they feel like, and the faithful will fawn over it.
Me? I'll take a wait & see approach.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
TBH I have the iPad ATM and it serves my needs absolutely fine!
I would only upgrade to a ipad3 if there where reasonable incentives to do so:
Retina display. - pr 300dpi would be a Hellas reason to do so IMHO!
I would only upgrade to a ipad3 if there where reasonable incentives to do so:
Retina display. - pr 300dpi would be a Hellas reason to do so IMHO!
I want Retina, but the other devices has shown us that implementing it will cost the same to the consumer. So your poll doesn't work for me.
Mac OS isn't designed to scale for high PPI monitors yet. And applications aren't going to play nice with high PPI screens either (they'll be really tiny). Though next year that may change with the new Macs but I've yet to hear of any screens in the 13-17 inch range with anywhere near 200+ PPI.
Yes they're both LCDs technically, though the iPad is IPS while Macbooks are TN screens. As far as I can tell, the resolution of the Macbook Pro is irrelevant to what resolution the next iPad will have.
You mean to say, Mac OS X Lion hasn't caught up with Windows Vista (or .NET 3.0 applications running on Windows XP) yet?
</flamebait>
I thought this feature was already advertised for OS X. It seems to me it was called "resolution independence".
Whatever name you give it, in Windows, application developers using the WPF API are expected to specify the size of their visual interfaces in inches (or the metric equivalents). OEMs are expected to specify their displays' resolutions in terms of number of pixels, aspect ratio, and diagonal dimension.
Then, Windows does the math in the background to automatically scale all visual interfaces on the fly from the abstract dimensions (eg. inches) to true renderings (ie pixels).
If the OEM fails to specify their screen's true resolution correctly, or if a user wants to override the OEM's setting to make everything appear larger (so it's easier to read) or smaller (to squeeze more information on the screen), they can use the Control Panel to do so.
Legacy applications, and generally all applications that weren't written to take advantage of the WPF API, are assumed to have been designed to target a "typical" screen resolution of 96 dpi. Therefore, Windows computes what the physical dimensions of the application would have been on a "virtual" 96 dpi screen. Then, it dynamically scales the application up or down to match the true screen's dpi, such that it takes up the same amount of physical space.
Last edited:
^^ Well the recent versions of OS X do have limited resolution independence. But no, it's not quite as comprehensive as Windows.
