or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by 11thIndian

The point I'd disagree with you on is that you believe that once an iPad gets to a certain price they're just going to buy a notebook. The success of the iPad isn't entirely predicated on price. At the lower end, the iPad has proven to be a great device for people who never wanted or needed the complexity of a laptop in the first place, but merely an email/browsing device. it eschews the abstraction of modern computer operating systems for something that people who were...
I think you're underestimating the market split. There are lots of people who will plunk down the extra money for the higher resolution screen. I'd wager a 20-25% of the install base. That's millions of units a quarter. If they sold a cheaper iPad, they're growing that install base, not selling to the one they have now. And developers will write for the double resolution depending on the audience of their app. Right now developers have to write for 2 display sizes. ...
I think the critical question of whether or not there will be a separate iPad HD line is one of costs, and to some extent, how aggressively Apple wants to continue to build out the user base. The move to a double-resolution display in an iPad should certainly not be considered to be a lateral move. If I had to guess, I'd bet that because the screens were so much smaller, Apple was able to justify not raising the price of the iPhone4 when they introduced the Retina...
My only contradition would be that if the Air, Mini, and MacPro see revs shortly after Lion, I doubt we'll see any more Mac updates until next year. They'll have run the whole product line in 2011, and I don't think there's another chipset to move to yet.
I'm not saying that it isn't compressed, and I'm often surprised at what still frames of shows that I've bought in HD look like on my computer, but on a TV- actually watching the shows in motion, to say there isn't a clear difference between the SD and HD material is misleading. You can pick apart still images, but as an experience, it's clearly sharper, way better than broadcast HD, and I'll take that option every time it's available. And if you can't say that, then I'd...
Get your eyes checked or your TV fixed.
A current HD movie is about 4GB. I believe the current generation AppleTV has 8GB of storage to buffer streaming material. So technically you could stream some 1080 movies depending on length, but for safety they'd probably have to bump the internal storage to 16GB.
If I had to guess, I'd bet that it's a point negotiated with the studios, who are worried about people being able to do screen grabs or rips of rental content on a Mac, where doing that is impossible on an iPad, iPhone, or AppleTV. You can BUY HD content on a Mac from the iTunes store, but if you've done that, there's not much point in ripping it, is there...?
Monitor size is only one half of the equation. The other is viewing distance. If you're watching a large screen closer, then you will get the benefit of higher resolutions, but smaller screens at greater distances- the human eye can't discern the greater detail. Once again, use this chart as a guide-http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
There isn't anything anywhere that predates 480. And ANY feature film or TV show originally shot on film benefits from 1080p presentation, film is higher resolution than HD [Excluding formats like 8mm]. HD as a home presentation technology is a new thing, but high resolution film images go all the way back to the beginning. So saying there would be no benefit is incorrect.
New Posts  All Forums: