or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple iBooks app indicates iPad 2 will quadruple resolution to 2048x1536
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple iBooks app indicates iPad 2 will quadruple resolution to 2048x1536

post #1 of 186
Thread Starter 
Recent rumors have suggested Apple will give the second generation iPad a much higher resolution screen, although short of the ppi density of the Retina Display of iPhone 4. New graphics discovered within Apple's iBook app suggest this is true.

Last summer, iPhone 4 doubled its screen resolution in both directions (from 320x480 to 640x960), resulting in four times the pixels and an industry-leading pixel per inch density of 326. Apple called the new screen the "Retina Display," because it exceeded the typical resolution of the human eye, making individual dots all but impossible to discern.

The original iPad offered a 1024x768 resolution (at 132 ppi), leading many to guess that the next version might also get a similar Retina Display. However, a 300+ ppi display covering a 9.7 inch screen would require a fantastically high resolution.

Instead of aiming for a specific pixel density, it appears Apple will instead simply quadruple the iPad's native resolution as it did when it introduced iPhone 4, resulting in a very high resolution display with a pixel density of around 260 ppi, short of "Retina" status but still higher than most high end smartphones.

Evenly quadrupling the resolution makes it easy for developers to ship apps that take full advantage of both existing and new screen resolutions by simply including two versions of graphic assets, one labeled (by Apple convention) file.png and and a higher resolution version named file@2x.png.

Apple has reportedly slipped multiple examples of "@2" graphics in versions of its iBooks app, one targeted at iPhone 4 and another at a high resolution future iPad, according to tweets and a separate developer report. This includes "bookmark-ribbon-iPad@2x.png" and a "Wood Tile@2x.png" background image that covers 1536x800, rather than the standard 768x400 image used on iPad.

In order to handle that massive jump in resolution, iPad 2 would likely need a big boost in processing power, particularly its GPU. Recent rumors have suggested that Apple will address that need with a new version of its custom A4 ARM application processor, possibly named either the A5 as suggested by Engadget or A8, as postulated by a source in Hong Kong.
post #2 of 186
I think this is great. I love beautiful text and that is helped a lot by extra pixels. However, has anyone seen the new 120Hz LCD monitors that are coming out in the PC world now? These just look fantastic and are getting rave reviews. In some ways a higher refresh rate can blow your socks off just as much as more pixels.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/a...-look-at-120hz
post #3 of 186
Maybe I don't fully understand the meaning of quadruple...!?!?
post #4 of 186
sure... and then quadruple the current price.
post #5 of 186
Awesome if true!
Next, quadruple Macs and Mac OSX
post #6 of 186
Really??? If true, this is going to be big. I want one.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #7 of 186
Typo: When making an app with both low- and high-res images, the naming convention is file.png and file@2x.png, respectively. Devices with Retina displays will automatically pick the @2x version to display.
post #8 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Recent rumors have suggested Apple will give the second generation iPad a much higher resolution screen, although short of the ppi density of the Retina Display of iPhone 4. New graphics discovered within Apple's iBook app suggest this is true.

. . . resulting in a very high resolution display with a pixel density of around 260 ppi, short of "Retina" status but still higher than most high end smartphones.

Just a minor point: Apple may also (justifiably) brand this as a retina display.

The technical starting point for retina display branding is that any higher resolution is not worth it because of the eye's inability to distinguish individual pixels. <geek>That means the *angle* subtended by a pixel when held at a certain distance is less than a certain threshold, not a specific pixels per inch threshold. Hence, If the typical viewing distance for the ipad is greater than the typical viewing distance of the ipod or iphone by > 326ppi/260ppi (which certainly seems to be the case) then it is also a retina (limited) display. </geek>
post #9 of 186
"Retina" does not mean >300ppi, it means when holding the device at a normal viewing distance (12' on the iphone) the eye can not discern individual pixels.

Since the iPad is held at a greater distance, like 18-20", I'm sure this resolution could be considered retina.

Insanely high res if true, in any case.
post #10 of 186
Pointless, silly speculation. Not going to happen.
post #11 of 186
I’m still not sold on this, then again I wasn’t on the iPhone 4 display until we had some proof coming out of China.

1) The biggest issue with sourcing components came from the display.

2) The resolution isn’t bad and it already pushes more pixels than those other 7” tablets. Sure, they have a higher ppi, but in regards to the GPU you need more RAM and a more powerful system to push it. Is the PowerVR SGX453 rumoured to be coming up to that task?

Before you say yes, note these simple stats.
  • iPhone 3GS: 480x320 = 153,600 pixels
  • iPhone 4: 960x640 = 614,400 pixels
  • iPad 1: 1024x768 = 786,432 pixels
  • iPad 2: 2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels

That’s a huge jump. How will game play be affected? How with UI performance be affected? How will battery life be affected? Personally, I don’t want to lose a second of battery life for a higher resolution display.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

Maybe I don't fully understand the meaning of quadruple...!?!?

Yeah, they got it wrong. It’s quadruple the number of pixels, but it’s only double the resolution, since resolution is resolved by perpendicular axes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kre62 View Post

"Retina" does not mean >300ppi, it means when holding the device at a normal viewing distance (12' on the iphone) the eye can not discern individual pixels.

Since the iPad is held at a greater distance, like 18-20", I'm sure this resolution could be considered retina.

Insanely high res if true, in any case.

The equation is: 3438 * (1/n ppi) = number of inches you’ll need to hold it from your face.

or: 3438 * (1/n”) = the pixels per inch along one axis the display much have.

These are based on 20/20 vision.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #12 of 186
If this is true, it's going to blow the top off my skull. I seriously don't think they could put a display of that quality in such a low cost product. Especially when you look at what the competition are offering for the same price. It'd need a beefier CPU/GPU and more RAM. They'd still have to get a 10 hour battery life. It'd still need something like IPS for view angle. Can they do this? It sure looks like they plan to.
post #13 of 186
More fragmentation. 480x320, 960x640, 1024x768, and possibly 2048x1536. Everything will look horrible upscaled.
post #14 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Thats a huge jump. How will game play be affected? How with UI performance be affected? How will battery life be affected? Personally, I dont want to lose a second of battery life for a higher resolution display.

My guess is that most of the cost of the screen comes from the backlight rather than actually the pixels themselves, so maybe 4x the pixels won't affect the battery life _that_ much...

That said, I'd still expect iPad 2 to have as good battery life as iPad 1...
post #15 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Before you say yes, not these simple stats.
  • iPhone 3GS: 480x320 = 153,600 pixels
  • iPhone 4: 960x640 = 614,400 pixels
  • iPad 1: 1024x768 = 786,432 pixels
  • iPad 2: 2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels

Yeah, that's insane. That's why I'm sceptical. On the other hand, there are images of the x2 assets they've found in the beta. Maybe it's just something Apple is testing but it'd be unusual for something like that to wind up in a public beta.
post #16 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisTheXIV View Post

sure... and then quadruple the current price.

You need to brush up on your Accounting skills.
post #17 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

More fragmentation. 480x320, 960x640, 1024x768, and possibly 2048x1536. Everything will look horrible upscaled.

:sigh:


Quote:
Originally Posted by eAi View Post

My guess is that most of the cost of the screen comes from the backlight rather than actually the pixels themselves, so maybe 4x the pixels won't affect the battery life _that_ much...

That said, I'd still expect iPad 2 to have as good battery life as iPad 1...

This is where I trust Apple. I dont expect the battery to be worse than before and actually expect it to be better.

Add to that Jobs statement during the October MBA event that they have altered their battery tests to be even more stringent. Since they already had the more realistic and stringent testing in CE its possible they made some breakthroughs that make this move a viable marketing option.


Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

Yeah, that's insane. That's why I'm sceptical. On the other hand, there are images of the x2 assets they've found in the beta. Maybe it's just something Apple is testing but it'd be unusual for something like that to wind up in a public beta.

There are also images from iOS 4.3b1 that show 1024x768 images for a camera shutter and video, something that the current iPad doesnt have.

Could Apple continue this current display size for iPad 2 for the cheaper models and have the premium models be fitted with this double resolution display, better GPU and more RAM? They havent done this in the past, but the iPad may also be a unique device that sells a lot more in high end than other CE product Ive seen (following Amazon.coms best seller lists), thus warranting the extra cost. Id likely buy the expensive model just to get this display.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #18 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

Yeah, that's insane. That's why I'm sceptical. On the other hand, there are images of the x2 assets they've found in the beta. Maybe it's just something Apple is testing but it'd be unusual for something like that to wind up in a public beta.

As a developer of iheadache, I can speak to this issue.

Since the number of pixel density is doubled in each direction, the current apps will simply use 4 identical pixels, instead of 1, and the app (whether iphone or ipad) will appear the same. Once developers load 2x graphics, then the 2x graphics will automatically be substituted. Apps will be larger but that is the only significant difference for most apps out there.

There could be issues related to speed of game play if the graphics processor cannot keep up with the work of the extra pixels but I don't Apple would release a display with 4 x the number of pixels if the processors could not handle it.
post #19 of 186
The iPad2 resolution is 1920 x 1440.
post #20 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

More fragmentation. 480x320, 960x640, 1024x768, and possibly 2048x1536. Everything will look horrible upscaled.

No it won't. You missed the whole @2x.png part of the post. Since they're going to 2048x1536, but retaining the same size, an original .png file will look the same as it does on the first iPad, just like .png images on the iPhone 4 look the same as they do on the iPhones <4. They look *better* when there's a @2x.png resource that's used.

The confusion is when an iPhone image is scaled up to an iPad. It either needs to only use the same size on the screen of the iPad and look good, but small or be scaled up with the "2X", which makes it look big, but doesn't look good.

This is why people are speculating that Apple won't increase the resolution of the iPad unless it can go all the way to 2048x1536. However, this is just an insane number of pixels. I would be shocked to see this in the iPad 2...but very happy.
post #21 of 186
If you remember the iPhone 4 introduction, the justification for Retina Display was defined as 20/20 vision when held 10-12” from the eyes. To feasibly maintain this marketing term Apple only needs to justify that same 20/20 vision and a minimum distance you are expected to hold a tablet from your eyes.

They can make this up as they see fit, but they do have to be able to justify it or risk irrevocably weakening said marketing term. I’d say about 16-22” seems about right for a tablet. Based on that criteria the PPI would need to be 156 to 215. Very doable since even 7” tablets are exceeding that lower measure.
  • 3438 * (1/16") = 215 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/18") = 191 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/20") = 172 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/22") = 156 ppi
(Where 3438 is the scaling factor derived from a 1 arc minute visual acuity for 20/20 vision.)


Now that we have that squared away we can easily use a PPI calculator to see what difference displays would be. Here’s a simple site I like to use: http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/c...e/ppicalc.html
  • XGA: 1024 x 768 = 786,432 pixels = 132 ppi*
  • SXGA: 1280 x 960 = 1,228,800 pixels = 165 ppi*
  • SXGA+: 1400 × 1050 = 1,470,000 pixels = 180 ppi*
  • UXGA: 1600 × 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels = 206 ppi*
  • QXGA: 2048 x 1536 = 3,145,728 pixels = 264 ppi*
That’s a lot more pixels to render even going the minimum Retina Disaply classification outlined above based on about 22” away from eyes. Still, I think the SXGA+ is actually doable on the newer Imagination Tech GPUs. It’s almost 2x as many pixels of the current iPad, but Apple isn’t close to using the most powerful GPU they offer. Whether that is viable for power efficiency reasons, if they can even source these displays when the current IPS displays seem to be holding the iPad production up already, or if they need to wait a year (or more) for other reasons is obviously unknown.


PS: For comparison, the iPhone 4’s GPU is only pushing a 614,400 pixels.


* Assuming a 9.7” display.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #22 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPlaid View Post

The iPad2 resolution is 1920 x 1440.

Based on?
post #23 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

More fragmentation. 480x320, 960x640, 1024x768, and possibly 2048x1536. Everything will look horrible upscaled.

Not that bad really.

These new resolutions will hold them for quite a while if the iPad 2 resolution does indeed happen.

Much worse with Android.
post #24 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

Not that bad really.

These new resolutions will hold them for quite a while if the iPad 2 resolution does indeed happen.

Much worse with Android.

That's for sure.
post #25 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeGroupApps View Post

Typo: When making an app with both low- and high-res images, the naming convention is file.png and file@2x.png, respectively. Devices with Retina displays will automatically pick the @2x version to display.

Well, this blows their theory into pieces. LOL.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #26 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPlaid View Post

The iPad2 resolution is 1920 x 1440.

I've seen this twice now, once on another site. Where is this coming from?
post #27 of 186
Instant purchase.
post #28 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I think this is great. I love beautiful text and that is helped a lot by extra pixels. However, has anyone seen the new 120Hz LCD monitors that are coming out in the PC world now? These just look fantastic and are getting rave reviews. In some ways a higher refresh rate can blow your socks off just as much as more pixels.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/a...-look-at-120hz

I agree that on a monitor for a desktop or laptop, because of the way they're used, 120 Hz monitors are better looking when moving things around, though, I don't see a difference with a static image. But, for tablets, unles we're doing stereo,it won't matter much, because we don't manipulate the desktop of apps in general, the same way. We might see a slight improvement when dragging something, but I don't think it will be nearly as dramatic.
post #29 of 186
Here are the images in question.



post #30 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by kre62 View Post

"Retina" does not mean >300ppi, it means when holding the device at a normal viewing distance (12' on the iphone) the eye can not discern individual pixels.

Since the iPad is held at a greater distance, like 18-20", I'm sure this resolution could be considered retina.

Insanely high res if true, in any case.

I don't think we hold them much further away than a phone. Maybe a few inches. Two or three.

I don't think it really matters. It will be more than sharp enough.
post #31 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Im still sold on this, then again I wasnt on the iPhone 4 display until we had some proof coming out of China.

Ha! So now you do think it's possible?

Anyway, I'm all for it, if it does happen.

Quote:
1) The biggest issue with sourcing components came from the display.

2) The resolution isnt bad and it already pushes more pixels than those other 7 tablets. Sure, they have a higher ppi, but in regards to the GPU you need more RAM and a more powerful system to push it. Is the PowerVR SGX453 rumoured to be coming up to that task?

Before you say yes, note these simple stats.
  • iPhone 3GS: 480x320 = 153,600 pixels
  • iPhone 4: 960x640 = 614,400 pixels
  • iPad 1: 1024x768 = 786,432 pixels
  • iPad 2: 2048x1536 = 3,145,728 pixels

Thats a huge jump. How will game play be affected? How with UI performance be affected? How will battery life be affected? Personally, I dont want to lose a second of battery life for a higher resolution display.

The gpu can be run in parallel, and possibly even in quad mode, if Apple should choose to do that, so the amount of graphics power isn't a problem.

Quote:
Yeah, they got it wrong. Its quadruple the number of pixles, but its only double the resolution, since resolution is resolved by perpendicular axes.

Pixles? With wings and dust too? Ahem. Yes, people confuse what resolution really means. It's linear measurement.
post #32 of 186
It's clear that they will be doubling the screen resolution (quadrupling the total number of pixels). Scaling graphics by multiples of two, either up or down is extremely efficient from the hardware standpoint as it doesn't have to fiddle with fractional pixels when it comes to rescaling images from older software.

That will still use a whopping lot of memory, so I trust they will at least double the RAM, but more likely quadruple it as well to 1 Meg.

Being just a little below "retina" resolution won't matter unless someone holds their iPad 4 inches from their face.

We'll probably get the full details before March, so developers can have time to modify their software for release date.
post #33 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciaran00 View Post

I've seen this twice now, once on another site. Where is this coming from?

I’ve seen some odd resolution sizes mentioned. At least 1920x1440 is a 4:3 aspect ratio.


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ha! So now you do think it's possible?

Anyway, I'm all for it, if it does happen.

Still not sold… I mistakenly left out that word not. It’s been corrected.

As for this happening, I’m all for it even though I think it’s still unlikely without further evidence, especially because I know Apple won’t foolishly risk other areas of the device to achieve it as their focus is the user experience not what geeks can rattle off about a spec sheet.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #34 of 186
Just pointing out, the 17" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 1920x1200, so the new iPad would have about 150% of the pixels of my screen. Does this mean the next gen of the 17" MacBook Pro will have a 2560x1600 resolution?
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
post #35 of 186
Why is this even here? The technology to produce an LCD with a resolution such as this at a size such as the iPads doesn't even exist. If it did Apple definitely wouldn't be able to put it in a device as entry level and cheap as the iPad. Wouldn't you think they would of had a higher resolution in there Macbook Pro if they had the tech to just produce any resolution on any screen size?
post #36 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

More fragmentation. 480x320, 960x640, 1024x768, and possibly 2048x1536. Everything will look horrible upscaled.

It really isn't that much of a problem. Several reasons why.

Number one is that as 480x320 devices are replaced, they become of less importance. I'd be willing to bet that by the end of this year, the low Rez iPhones and Touches will be no more than 25% of the total out there. Moving through 2012, those numbers will be much less. People will be upgrading their phones most every two years, and some even earlier as a matter of course. Most apps will continue to be upgraded so they will work and look fine at the higher Rez.

As far as the iPad goes, there are now almost 62,000 apps out for it, and because of that fewer people need iPhone apps. I'm pretty sure that shortly we'll be able to view hi Rez iPhone apps on our iPads as such. That means two things. The first is that on a low Rez iPad, they will fill most of the screen and look pretty good without magnification. Two is that even on the higher Rez screen they won't look any worse than do low Rez iPhone apps on the current iPad.

I've found, as I'm sure everyone else who has moved to the iPhone 4, that low Rez apps look the same, or better than they did on the older phones, mine being the 3G. The same thing will be true for low Rez iPad apps on the high Rez screen.

Apple is very smart here. Unlike Android and other systems, by going all the way to double Rez, they eliminate all of the problems associated with odd mathematical fractions.

This is not really much of a fragmentation problem at all as it is with Android, where slightly differing resolutions and even different ratios make if a problem for developers to keep up with all of the phones out there. apple also doesn't have the problem of devices coming out at the same time with different versions of the OS, which the manufacturers or carriers then decide to not update, as we're seeing with Samsung and one other whose name escapes me at the moment.

If people owning an iOS device decide to not update their OS if they can, that's up to them, they aren't being prevented from doing so unless the device is two years old, or older. We,re seeing this happen to other devices that are less than 6 months old. Different problem entirely.
post #37 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by distantsuns View Post

It's clear that they will be doubling the screen resolution (quadrupling the total number of pixels). Scaling graphics by multiples of two, either up or down is extremely efficient from the hardware standpoint as it doesn't have to fiddle with fractional pixels when it comes to rescaling images from older software.

That will still use a whopping lot of memory, so I trust they will at least double the RAM, but more likely quadruple it as well to 1 Meg.

Being just a little below "retina" resolution won't matter unless someone holds their iPad 4 inches from their face.

We'll probably get the full details before March, so developers can have time to modify their software for release date.

If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
  • 4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
  • 4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
  • 4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.

So then you round that out with a laundry list of new or improved features. Dual cameras and Facetime. SD card slot. Improved audio/speaker system. Updated OS with a few new key features. Refined case design. Possibly lighter, possibly longer battery life, most probably thinner.

It will make the iPad1 look primitive by comparison, and I would argue that the iPad as it stands today is a pretty remarkable little PC.

And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.

It would be beyond remarkable, and I honestly don't think any of us would have seen anything even remotely comparable to it before.
post #38 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciaran00 View Post

I've seen this twice now, once on another site. Where is this coming from?

From Apple - current iPad - 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)
post #39 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post

If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
  • 4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
  • 4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
  • 4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.

And 4x less battery life. hehe
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #40 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatal28 View Post

Why is this even here? The technology to produce an LCD with a resolution such as this at a size such as the iPads doesn't even exist. If it did Apple definitely wouldn't be able to put it in a device as entry level and cheap as the iPad. Wouldn't you think they would of had a higher resolution in there Macbook Pro if they had the tech to just produce any resolution on any screen size?

The technology does exist. The question you bring up about cost is valid though. However, Apple will sell between 20 and 40 million iPads this year. Most will be the iPad2. That's a lot of screens. Apple can get them much cheaper than anyone else can because of volume.

This is one of two reasons why most other manufacturers are going to 7" screens. Cost and battery life are too expensive for them at iPad size. In the world of electronics, volume is everything. Remember how shocked everyone was at the pricing when it first came out? Notice how the 7" Galaxy Tab costs the same as Apple's 10" model, and has much worse battery life?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple iBooks app indicates iPad 2 will quadruple resolution to 2048x1536
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple iBooks app indicates iPad 2 will quadruple resolution to 2048x1536