I did read this article last night, but thought the application of Moore's Law was maybe a bit of a reach, but then what do I know about LCD screen making, so I took the easy route back to wishful thinking. But thanks for the link. Grist for the old mill. Otherwise the stones get worn, grinding on themselves . . .
Edit: Just re-read your post above. You argue it better than the article.
I am not aware of lcds following Moores law. If so, extrapolating backwards, not that long ago they would have had one or two dpi. Clearly the number if transistors on a screen is lower than a normal wafer of that same size.
Assuming an 18 month "generation" Moores law applied retrospectically would imply about 128 times less per inch a decade ago (2^7).
The "generation" therefore can be jumped, since the LCD generations are tardy. Just buy better equipment and more if it. If it works for one machine, then $3.9B will buy you lots of machines.
The reason for 300 dpi is because of the substrate and dot gain. 300 dpi is what a coated stock can handle without killing the Rosetta.
Newsprint is 150 lpi or up to 220 dpi depending on the quality of the paper.
Actually the term is rosette. I believe you will find that 300 dpi is only in reference to the digital image resolution and has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of the plate/press/ink on paper. That resolution is normally 2400 dpi. Also newsprint (uncoated web press) traditionally is 85 lpi not 150, although some print at 65.
My reasoning tells me no -- but my intuition tells me yes!
I am feeling the same. It just seems like the cost would be prohibitive but my gut tells me "Yeah, they're gonna do it somehow".
I think putting it only in a premium iPad HD makes the most sense. This would help with the supply issue and give LG(?) another year to improve yields. And, of course, they could charge a higher price so that Apple does not take a big hit on margins. I've been rethinking the margin issue and in the conference call Oppenheimer guided to 38.5% for the current quarter and said that they hoped to improve margins to the 39-40% range going forward. Even with generally favorable component pricing and improved margins across all the other products, I think it might be impossible to hit these margins if the hi-res display was used in every iPad.
It would help if there were a smaller device that used the same resolution so that they might possibly salvage panels that would not make the 10" cut.
IPad2 and iPad Pro, BOTH coming your way this April...
I think this is possible except I think it will be called the iPad HD. Next year when display yields are better, they could then call all their offerings iPad HD.
I am not aware of lcds following Moores law. If so, extrapolating backwards, not that long ago they would have had one or two dpi. Clearly the number if transistors on a screen is lower than a normal wafer of that same size.
Assuming an 18 month "generation" Moores law applied retrospectically would imply about 128 times less per inch a decade ago (2^7).
The "generation" therefore can be jumped, since the LCD generations are tardy. Just buy better equipment and more if it. If it works for one machine, then $3.9B will buy you lots of machines.
Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I couldn't have said it at all.
My own fuzzy logic says that if it's possible to economically produce 3.5" screens of much higher density, then it should be possible to produce 9.7" screens at somewhat lower density. And then, as you say, use a lot of money to build a plant and buy machines.
If you have to throw a lot of them in the recycle bin, then just charge us more. We'll pay, I guarantee it!
While maybe a nice to have on many wish lists, it is not at the top. Seems like this is a good one to save for later.
Not critical upgrade.
Production of Pad1 was constrained by display supplies early on. Can they really get 40 million advanced displays like this? Why risk another shortage when they have just spun up production of the current displays?
This is why they would bifurcate the line and create a single premium model called iPad HD.
This approach would also mean that Gruber is technically right that we won't see the double-resolution bump on the iPad 2.
I am not aware of lcds following Moores law. If so, extrapolating backwards, not that long ago they would have had one or two dpi. Clearly the number if transistors on a screen is lower than a normal wafer of that same size.
Assuming an 18 month "generation" Moores law applied retrospectically would imply about 128 times less per inch a decade ago (2^7).
The "generation" therefore can be jumped, since the LCD generations are tardy. Just buy better equipment and more if it. If it works for one machine, then $3.9B will buy you lots of machines.
Good point, perhaps the article should have made less of Moore's Law and stuck to silicon processes in general. The history of LCD display resolutions (like CPU perfromance) isn't marked by abrupt jumps beyond what anyone had generally imagined plausible; even the iPhone 4 was had just somewhat higher resolution than the incremental improvements that had reached the market since its release.
A 2048x1536 9.7" panel would be such an abrupt jump, certainly for a relatively inexpensive mass market product. I think the best argument against it being plausible is that it has never happened. Again, Apple's not the only CE company in the history of the world with some money to throw around; if skipping a generation of anything were economically feasible but for some upfront money it would happen more often.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's something genuinely unique in Apple's position as a cash rich company that controls its entire product and seeks competitive advantage through pushing key technologies. It may be that a ton of money up front is actually all you need to leap ahead, but no one was really positioned, till now, to make that a sound investment. Until the iPad there wasn't really any good reason to even want super high res 9.7" screen, unless it was for extremely expensive specialized applications. For all I know you can pay someone to fire up the foundry, work out the kinks, and go into full production at a price point that's sustainable for mass market. But then you'd still have to wonder at how you make a jillion of them, since Apple appears to have had a hard time just getting enough of their plain jane iPad 1 panels, and that's with several sources.
$6.3 Billion could buy a lot of research into screens. I'm thinking it'll happen.
I don't think its even research, its just cold hard getting it done. You can make these things right now, for sure. The trick is in making enough of them, consistently, so that you can get the price down.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's something genuinely unique in Apple's position as a cash rich company that controls its entire product and seeks competitive advantage through pushing key technologies. It may be that a ton of money up front is actually all you need to leap ahead, but no one was really positioned, till now, to make that a sound investment. Until the iPad there wasn't really any good reason to even want super high res 9.7" screen, unless it was for extremely expensive specialized applications. For all I know you can pay someone to fire up the foundry, work out the kinks, and go into full production at a price point that's sustainable for mass market. But then you'd still have to wonder at how you make a jillion of them, since Apple appears to have had a hard time just getting enough of their plain jane iPad 1 panels, and that's with several sources.
I like this last paragraph. Even more if you add "the creative will" to the enabling cash and the seeking of competitive advantage. C'mon LG, do it for Steve! [getting too emotional, going back to work]
My guess is the team that Steve normally brings on during his, Phil, Scot and Bertrand will do it between them and Phil will probably host and give the Keynote. I wonder of Tim Cook will make a small appearance perhaps on sales data?
My guess is that Phil emcees. He brings Cook out to talk the numbers. The new iPad is revealed by Phil then Mansfield comes on to talk about the hardware changes. Forstall then finishes up with any software developments. Finally, they roll a short clip with Steve extolling the virtues of the new iPad.
I think this provides the perfect opportunity to showcase the talent that Apple has in the executive suite.
Out of this excellent reasoning, only this question: Don't they have to mention this expense in the earnings call?
They did mention that they made payments in the December quarter and anticipated payments in the March quarter of more than $1B relative to the $3.9B in prepaid expenses.
iPad 2 is going to be great fir everyone who has been patiently waiting for it to land. That much is certain based on the obvious new features (A5, RAM, Cameras).
Whether or not the iPad 2 compells iPad 1 owners to trade up (like the iPhone) immediately upon launch, or at least within 6 months, depends entirely on other factors. With iPad prices in the $500-800 range, its not the easy upgrade you have with iPhone, which is nearly free if you pay $200, and sell your last gen for the same. No, I think (and hope) this means there are some very strong features of iPad 2 that are irresistible to current owners.
Actually the term is rosette. I believe you will find that 300 dpi is only in reference to the digital image resolution and has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of the plate/press/ink on paper. That resolution is normally 2400 dpi. Also newsprint (uncoated web press) traditionally is 85 lpi not 150, although some print at 65.
Actually, the 2400 dpi resolution for plates that you speak of is the resolution for vectors. Raster images are 300 dpi. Because magazines consist of both vectors and raster images, rips determine which line screen to apply to each element. Text, for example will be rendered at the rips highest capability, while a 300dpi Photo will be processed at the same dpi.
Newsprint is much higher now then it was 15 years ago. More bleached paper and smoother finish. I worked on a paper a few years ago and we ran 220 through web press. Take a look at some of the junk mail you get. It's some nice paper they are using.
A 2048x1536 9.7" panel would be such an abrupt jump, certainly for a relatively inexpensive mass market product. I think the best argument against it being plausible is that it has never happened. Again, Apple's not the only CE company in the history of the world with some money to throw around; if skipping a generation of anything were economically feasible but for some upfront money it would happen more often. .
Possibly the reason why this has not been done is that it has never been essential. DPI does not really drive the sales of anything much, it is never a major buying point like processor speed ( in software terms it needs resolution independence to make the screen seem clearer and brighter not smaller)
When Apple came out with retina that, too, hadnt been done at the size. They did it and right across the new iPhone line, and increased their demand from 8M to 14M in the next Q ( the Oct Q). Of course some of those sales were 3GS, but many were iPhone 4.
I dont think it would be too hard to do this across some of the line for iPads which dont sell as much as iPhones now anyway - there are always supply constraints in Apple products just after launch, and people will put up with it.
A 2048x1536 9.7" panel would be such an abrupt jump, certainly for a relatively inexpensive mass market product. I think the best argument against it being plausible is that it has never happened. Again, Apple's not the only CE company in the history of the world with some money to throw around; if skipping a generation of anything were economically feasible but for some upfront money it would happen more often.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's something genuinely unique in Apple's position as a cash rich company that controls its entire product and seeks competitive advantage through pushing key technologies. It may be that a ton of money up front is actually all you need to leap ahead, but no one was really positioned, till now, to make that a sound investment. Until the iPad there wasn't really any good reason to even want super high res 9.7" screen, unless it was for extremely expensive specialized applications. For all I know you can pay someone to fire up the foundry, work out the kinks, and go into full production at a price point that's sustainable for mass market. But then you'd still have to wonder at how you make a jillion of them, since Apple appears to have had a hard time just getting enough of their plain jane iPad 1 panels, and that's with several sources.
Yes, but what are we basing the idea that this is an "abrupt jump" on? As you say, nobody is using ultra-high-resolution 9.7" displays, but does that mean we can't make them? Do we really know when the iPhone 4's retina display became cost effective?
The article on Moore's Law and the retina display makes the following assumptions:
"We can assume that the biggest screens at "retina" density as of the iPhone 4's release - 960x640 in June 2010 - was the state of the art at the time. We can also assume that the iPad was the biggest you could go with the best process for that size at the time, 1024x768 in March 2010."
I think both of these assumptions are false. Firstly, June 2010 is, at best, an upper-bound on when the iPhone 4's retina display became cost effective. Surely it became cost effective many months before June 2010. Production would have ramped up long before then and Apple would have done its cost analysis earlier still. It's also possible that Apple could have used an even higher resolution display at the time but didn't because it wouldn't be exactly 2x resolution. Secondly, if Apple is planning to deliver a "retina display" for the iPad 2, it would have likely been aware of its plans when it chose to use a 1024x764 display in the current iPad. That display could have been explicitly chosen because Apple intended to use a 2048x1528 display in the second generation model. The iPad, I believe, was intentionally very conservative hardware-wise because it was an entirely new product category.
The figure he comes up with based on these two assumptions is 2012 for a 2x resolution update. If you believe the logic of the article but disagree with the assumptions, 2011 becomes a reasonable estimate.
I don't think even these revised assumptions are correct because I don't see any evidence at all that the computer and phone industry has been particularly interested in pursuing DPI. Android handset manufacturers, like PC vendors, choose displays based primarily on cost. Apple has been pursuing higher resolution displays and other manufacturers have responded by either offering higher resolution displays as an option or, eventually, moving to them as standard. But I've never thought of the PC industry, or the phone industry, as anything but extremely conservative on display resolution. So I don't think you can do this kind of analysis based on shipping products.
Personally I've yet to see any convincing evidence that a 9.7" 2x resolution display isn't cost effective right now. This kind of thing wouldn't be available to a start-up or small manufacturer, because they use off-the-shelf components, but to a cash-rich company that's heavily invested in the manufacturing plant and is looking to ship 20 million devices could do it if it's possible. And, like I say, I don't see any convincing evidence it's not possible. All that's been shown so far is that nobody else has done it yet.
Comments
Going way back the reason for the 300 standard is that this was approximately double the resolution of the final printed product.
The reason for 300 dpi is because of the substrate and dot gain. 300 dpi is what a coated stock can handle without killing the Rosetta.
Newsprint is 150 lpi or up to 220 dpi depending on the quality of the paper.
Flexo printing on a burlap sack can be as low as 14 dpi.
Coated inkjet paper has special (expensive) chemicals on it to sustain a smaller dot... But doesn't use the same method as commercial offset printing.
Imagine a mag printed on an inkjet or dye-sub... The thing would cost $200.
I could get into 'art' printing, like for expensive books, but that again is a different process.
I've already linked to this, but it didn't seem to make any impression, so I'm going to link to it again.
You can lead a horse to water ... but you can't make it drink ........ no matter how many times you link it. lol
You can lead a horse to water ... but you can't make it drink ........ no matter how many times you link it. lol
DRINK. DRINK YOU BASTARDS. DRINK.
I did read this article last night, but thought the application of Moore's Law was maybe a bit of a reach, but then what do I know about LCD screen making, so I took the easy route back to wishful thinking. But thanks for the link. Grist for the old mill. Otherwise the stones get worn, grinding on themselves . . .
Edit: Just re-read your post above. You argue it better than the article.
I am not aware of lcds following Moores law. If so, extrapolating backwards, not that long ago they would have had one or two dpi. Clearly the number if transistors on a screen is lower than a normal wafer of that same size.
Assuming an 18 month "generation" Moores law applied retrospectically would imply about 128 times less per inch a decade ago (2^7).
The "generation" therefore can be jumped, since the LCD generations are tardy. Just buy better equipment and more if it. If it works for one machine, then $3.9B will buy you lots of machines.
The reason for 300 dpi is because of the substrate and dot gain. 300 dpi is what a coated stock can handle without killing the Rosetta.
Newsprint is 150 lpi or up to 220 dpi depending on the quality of the paper.
Actually the term is rosette. I believe you will find that 300 dpi is only in reference to the digital image resolution and has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of the plate/press/ink on paper. That resolution is normally 2400 dpi. Also newsprint (uncoated web press) traditionally is 85 lpi not 150, although some print at 65.
My reasoning tells me no -- but my intuition tells me yes!
I am feeling the same. It just seems like the cost would be prohibitive but my gut tells me "Yeah, they're gonna do it somehow".
I think putting it only in a premium iPad HD makes the most sense. This would help with the supply issue and give LG(?) another year to improve yields. And, of course, they could charge a higher price so that Apple does not take a big hit on margins. I've been rethinking the margin issue and in the conference call Oppenheimer guided to 38.5% for the current quarter and said that they hoped to improve margins to the 39-40% range going forward. Even with generally favorable component pricing and improved margins across all the other products, I think it might be impossible to hit these margins if the hi-res display was used in every iPad.
It would help if there were a smaller device that used the same resolution so that they might possibly salvage panels that would not make the 10" cut.
IPad2 and iPad Pro, BOTH coming your way this April...
I think this is possible except I think it will be called the iPad HD. Next year when display yields are better, they could then call all their offerings iPad HD.
I am not aware of lcds following Moores law. If so, extrapolating backwards, not that long ago they would have had one or two dpi. Clearly the number if transistors on a screen is lower than a normal wafer of that same size.
Assuming an 18 month "generation" Moores law applied retrospectically would imply about 128 times less per inch a decade ago (2^7).
The "generation" therefore can be jumped, since the LCD generations are tardy. Just buy better equipment and more if it. If it works for one machine, then $3.9B will buy you lots of machines.
Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I couldn't have said it at all.
My own fuzzy logic says that if it's possible to economically produce 3.5" screens of much higher density, then it should be possible to produce 9.7" screens at somewhat lower density. And then, as you say, use a lot of money to build a plant and buy machines.
If you have to throw a lot of them in the recycle bin, then just charge us more. We'll pay, I guarantee it!
I'm with Gruber on this one.
While maybe a nice to have on many wish lists, it is not at the top. Seems like this is a good one to save for later.
Not critical upgrade.
Production of Pad1 was constrained by display supplies early on. Can they really get 40 million advanced displays like this? Why risk another shortage when they have just spun up production of the current displays?
This is why they would bifurcate the line and create a single premium model called iPad HD.
This approach would also mean that Gruber is technically right that we won't see the double-resolution bump on the iPad 2.
I am not aware of lcds following Moores law. If so, extrapolating backwards, not that long ago they would have had one or two dpi. Clearly the number if transistors on a screen is lower than a normal wafer of that same size.
Assuming an 18 month "generation" Moores law applied retrospectically would imply about 128 times less per inch a decade ago (2^7).
The "generation" therefore can be jumped, since the LCD generations are tardy. Just buy better equipment and more if it. If it works for one machine, then $3.9B will buy you lots of machines.
Good point, perhaps the article should have made less of Moore's Law and stuck to silicon processes in general. The history of LCD display resolutions (like CPU perfromance) isn't marked by abrupt jumps beyond what anyone had generally imagined plausible; even the iPhone 4 was had just somewhat higher resolution than the incremental improvements that had reached the market since its release.
A 2048x1536 9.7" panel would be such an abrupt jump, certainly for a relatively inexpensive mass market product. I think the best argument against it being plausible is that it has never happened. Again, Apple's not the only CE company in the history of the world with some money to throw around; if skipping a generation of anything were economically feasible but for some upfront money it would happen more often.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's something genuinely unique in Apple's position as a cash rich company that controls its entire product and seeks competitive advantage through pushing key technologies. It may be that a ton of money up front is actually all you need to leap ahead, but no one was really positioned, till now, to make that a sound investment. Until the iPad there wasn't really any good reason to even want super high res 9.7" screen, unless it was for extremely expensive specialized applications. For all I know you can pay someone to fire up the foundry, work out the kinks, and go into full production at a price point that's sustainable for mass market. But then you'd still have to wonder at how you make a jillion of them, since Apple appears to have had a hard time just getting enough of their plain jane iPad 1 panels, and that's with several sources.
$6.3 Billion could buy a lot of research into screens. I'm thinking it'll happen.
I don't think its even research, its just cold hard getting it done. You can make these things right now, for sure. The trick is in making enough of them, consistently, so that you can get the price down.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's something genuinely unique in Apple's position as a cash rich company that controls its entire product and seeks competitive advantage through pushing key technologies. It may be that a ton of money up front is actually all you need to leap ahead, but no one was really positioned, till now, to make that a sound investment. Until the iPad there wasn't really any good reason to even want super high res 9.7" screen, unless it was for extremely expensive specialized applications. For all I know you can pay someone to fire up the foundry, work out the kinks, and go into full production at a price point that's sustainable for mass market. But then you'd still have to wonder at how you make a jillion of them, since Apple appears to have had a hard time just getting enough of their plain jane iPad 1 panels, and that's with several sources.
I like this last paragraph. Even more if you add "the creative will" to the enabling cash and the seeking of competitive advantage. C'mon LG, do it for Steve! [getting too emotional, going back to work]
My guess is the team that Steve normally brings on during his, Phil, Scot and Bertrand will do it between them and Phil will probably host and give the Keynote. I wonder of Tim Cook will make a small appearance perhaps on sales data?
My guess is that Phil emcees. He brings Cook out to talk the numbers. The new iPad is revealed by Phil then Mansfield comes on to talk about the hardware changes. Forstall then finishes up with any software developments. Finally, they roll a short clip with Steve extolling the virtues of the new iPad.
I think this provides the perfect opportunity to showcase the talent that Apple has in the executive suite.
Out of this excellent reasoning, only this question: Don't they have to mention this expense in the earnings call?
They did mention that they made payments in the December quarter and anticipated payments in the March quarter of more than $1B relative to the $3.9B in prepaid expenses.
Whether or not the iPad 2 compells iPad 1 owners to trade up (like the iPhone) immediately upon launch, or at least within 6 months, depends entirely on other factors. With iPad prices in the $500-800 range, its not the easy upgrade you have with iPhone, which is nearly free if you pay $200, and sell your last gen for the same. No, I think (and hope) this means there are some very strong features of iPad 2 that are irresistible to current owners.
And I'm thinking it's this display.
Actually the term is rosette. I believe you will find that 300 dpi is only in reference to the digital image resolution and has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of the plate/press/ink on paper. That resolution is normally 2400 dpi. Also newsprint (uncoated web press) traditionally is 85 lpi not 150, although some print at 65.
Actually, the 2400 dpi resolution for plates that you speak of is the resolution for vectors. Raster images are 300 dpi. Because magazines consist of both vectors and raster images, rips determine which line screen to apply to each element. Text, for example will be rendered at the rips highest capability, while a 300dpi Photo will be processed at the same dpi.
Newsprint is much higher now then it was 15 years ago. More bleached paper and smoother finish. I worked on a paper a few years ago and we ran 220 through web press. Take a look at some of the junk mail you get. It's some nice paper they are using.
$6.3 Billion could buy a lot of research into screens. I'm thinking it'll happen.
Another vote.
We is potent to obtain a Mardi Gras apportion . . .
A 2048x1536 9.7" panel would be such an abrupt jump, certainly for a relatively inexpensive mass market product. I think the best argument against it being plausible is that it has never happened. Again, Apple's not the only CE company in the history of the world with some money to throw around; if skipping a generation of anything were economically feasible but for some upfront money it would happen more often. .
Possibly the reason why this has not been done is that it has never been essential. DPI does not really drive the sales of anything much, it is never a major buying point like processor speed ( in software terms it needs resolution independence to make the screen seem clearer and brighter not smaller)
When Apple came out with retina that, too, hadnt been done at the size. They did it and right across the new iPhone line, and increased their demand from 8M to 14M in the next Q ( the Oct Q). Of course some of those sales were 3GS, but many were iPhone 4.
I dont think it would be too hard to do this across some of the line for iPads which dont sell as much as iPhones now anyway - there are always supply constraints in Apple products just after launch, and people will put up with it.
I cant see them doing it across the line.
A 2048x1536 9.7" panel would be such an abrupt jump, certainly for a relatively inexpensive mass market product. I think the best argument against it being plausible is that it has never happened. Again, Apple's not the only CE company in the history of the world with some money to throw around; if skipping a generation of anything were economically feasible but for some upfront money it would happen more often.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's something genuinely unique in Apple's position as a cash rich company that controls its entire product and seeks competitive advantage through pushing key technologies. It may be that a ton of money up front is actually all you need to leap ahead, but no one was really positioned, till now, to make that a sound investment. Until the iPad there wasn't really any good reason to even want super high res 9.7" screen, unless it was for extremely expensive specialized applications. For all I know you can pay someone to fire up the foundry, work out the kinks, and go into full production at a price point that's sustainable for mass market. But then you'd still have to wonder at how you make a jillion of them, since Apple appears to have had a hard time just getting enough of their plain jane iPad 1 panels, and that's with several sources.
Yes, but what are we basing the idea that this is an "abrupt jump" on? As you say, nobody is using ultra-high-resolution 9.7" displays, but does that mean we can't make them? Do we really know when the iPhone 4's retina display became cost effective?
The article on Moore's Law and the retina display makes the following assumptions:
"We can assume that the biggest screens at "retina" density as of the iPhone 4's release - 960x640 in June 2010 - was the state of the art at the time. We can also assume that the iPad was the biggest you could go with the best process for that size at the time, 1024x768 in March 2010."
I think both of these assumptions are false. Firstly, June 2010 is, at best, an upper-bound on when the iPhone 4's retina display became cost effective. Surely it became cost effective many months before June 2010. Production would have ramped up long before then and Apple would have done its cost analysis earlier still. It's also possible that Apple could have used an even higher resolution display at the time but didn't because it wouldn't be exactly 2x resolution. Secondly, if Apple is planning to deliver a "retina display" for the iPad 2, it would have likely been aware of its plans when it chose to use a 1024x764 display in the current iPad. That display could have been explicitly chosen because Apple intended to use a 2048x1528 display in the second generation model. The iPad, I believe, was intentionally very conservative hardware-wise because it was an entirely new product category.
The figure he comes up with based on these two assumptions is 2012 for a 2x resolution update. If you believe the logic of the article but disagree with the assumptions, 2011 becomes a reasonable estimate.
I don't think even these revised assumptions are correct because I don't see any evidence at all that the computer and phone industry has been particularly interested in pursuing DPI. Android handset manufacturers, like PC vendors, choose displays based primarily on cost. Apple has been pursuing higher resolution displays and other manufacturers have responded by either offering higher resolution displays as an option or, eventually, moving to them as standard. But I've never thought of the PC industry, or the phone industry, as anything but extremely conservative on display resolution. So I don't think you can do this kind of analysis based on shipping products.
Personally I've yet to see any convincing evidence that a 9.7" 2x resolution display isn't cost effective right now. This kind of thing wouldn't be available to a start-up or small manufacturer, because they use off-the-shelf components, but to a cash-rich company that's heavily invested in the manufacturing plant and is looking to ship 20 million devices could do it if it's possible. And, like I say, I don't see any convincing evidence it's not possible. All that's been shown so far is that nobody else has done it yet.