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 - Page 2

post #41 of 186
If they do put in such a high-resolution screen, I hope it doesn't come at the expense of increasing the DRAM and flash memory. Last summer when the iPhone went to a retina display is the was the first update that didn't include a doubling of flash memory capacity.

Also, hopefully it will be an iPhone quality display and not an iPod touch quality display, which I understand is inferior. Although I've never compared them side-by-side.
post #42 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Pointless, silly speculation. Not going to happen.

QFT... Enough Said.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #43 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrangeThingInTheLand View Post

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>

No way. If Apple were to call it a Retina Display then everyone would start yelling that the definition is the size of the pixels, and the eyes inability to see them individually. Apple set that standard and I doubt they would step on it.
post #44 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

If they do put in such a high-resolution screen, I hope it doesn't come at the expense of increasing the DRAM and flash memory. Last summer when the iPhone went to a retina display is the was the first update that didn't include a doubling of flash memory capacity.

I think at the expense is a questionable comment. I havent heard any rumour that Apple opted for a better display instead of adding more NAND. As for RAM, they did up it to 512MB.

We cant expect a NAND doubling every year. The tech doesnt increase at that rate that the same price point. I think 18 months is more typical, and for the NAND Apple gets it may even take longer. Regardless, its not under 12 months.

Quote:
Also, hopefully it will be an iPhone quality display and not an iPod touch quality display, which I understand is inferior. Although I've never compared them side-by-side.

The iPhone 4 and iPad use IPS panel, while the iPod Touch probably uses a TN panel. While IPS isnt a requirement for a tablet a panel with a 178º viewing angle is.

This is one important reason why the iPad was such a success; they werent using cheap TN panels which forced the viewer to look at it a certain way. Other vendors have caught on. Most notably Asus whose entire tablet line will be IPS.

I say IPS isnt a requirement because there are competing technologies that produce a great viewing angle. That said, I think Apple will continue to use LGs IPS technology.
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 #45 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.

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.

They wouldn't need a cpu that's four times as powerful. The cpu needs to be fast enough to deliver the info to the gpu to process, and a dual core Cortex 9, assuming Apple will be using their modded version of that, will be more than powerful enough to handle it. This cpu could be anywhere from 2 to 3 times as powerful, as it's going to a better architecture.
post #46 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radjin View Post

No way. If Apple were to call it a Retina Display then everyone would start yelling that the definition is the size of the pixels, and the eyes inability to see them individually. Apple set that standard and I doubt they would step on it.

Im not sure what youre saying here. Are you saying that Apple made a clear definition that 326ppi is what is defined as Retina 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 #47 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post

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.
.

Not sure how much of the cited improvements are likely to appear but I think that Apple could possibly try to effectively deliver a KO punch that really takes the competition out of contention for the next year.

The only thing is that they would be bleeding margin which is very unlike Apple.
post #48 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Not sure how much of the cited improvements are likely to appear but I think that Apple could possibly try to effectively deliver a KO punch that really takes the competition out of contention for the next year.

The only thing is that they would be bleeding margin which is very unlike Apple.

Or maybe it’ll be a premium option for the higher-capacity device.

Besides the still unshipped Asus Eee Slate running Windows 7 ranking at #1, the #2 device is the 16GB WiFi iPad and the #3 device is the 64Gb WiFi+3G. This is not typical of models within a product category. Usually the most expensive and least expensive aren’t competing as the top seller. If this is true for the iPad market as a whole then it’s possible Apple could see the need for some $999 iPad with 128GB, 2048x1536 display, 1GB RAM, WiFi-3G model.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers...rsr_e_1_3_last BTW, That Eee Slate has a ppi lower than the current iPad.
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 #49 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

Certainly it would not be as big a difference as on a larger monitor. But iOS does do some rather large screen movements, such as sliding the whole screen to the left when selecting a list item (UINavigationController) or the way apps zoom out of the centre of the screen when launched (or the opposite when quit), or the way the whole screen slides up to show the "task manager" (not sure what the real name is).

In fact the whole CoreAnimation framework seems to have been designed with iOS in mind (though it made it's debut on OS X) so I think anything that can make animations smoother would be a suitable upgrade for the device.
post #50 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

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

When you double both the horizontal and vertical resolution, you quadruple the pixel count; e.g. A 5x5 grid would be 25 pixels. A 10x10 grid would be 100 pixels (25x4=100)
post #51 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

And 4x less battery life. hehe

Not really.

The backlight is 90% of the power sucked by the display.

The new dual core cpu's are supposed to use the same, or even less power than the current Cortex single core 8.

RAM could be one of the new Samsung higher density modules, and that means about the same power draw.

The gpu(s) could draw more, but maybe not by much.

Newer chips in other areas could use less power as well.

It could be about a wash. and it's always possible that Apple has slightly better batteries. Maybe they are finally going to the new Sony batteries, which are much better than anything else out there. Earlier iterations of these batteries are pretty good. I have a Bosch power tool that uses them. It's possible that Apple uses them in their 1,000 recycle batteries for their notebooks. Maybe even for the current iPad. But newer versions should be even better.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-p...er-electronics
post #52 of 186
IMHO, one thing Apple needs to do wrt the iPhone/iPad screen is remove the ability to customize the wallpaper. I was in the city today, in several shops that sell iDevices, and the sales staff always seem to change the wallpaper to something that makes the screen look crowded and intimidating to non-technical people who might otherwise have bought it.

By making the wallpaper configurable, Apple are allowing people with no taste to make all their magnificent, painstaking design irrelevant (ok, that is hyperbole, but they are allowing people to ruin the overall effect).
post #53 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think at the expense is a questionable comment. I havent heard any rumour that Apple opted for a better display instead of adding more NAND. As for RAM, they did up it to 512MB.

We cant expect a NAND doubling every year. The tech doesnt increase at that rate that the same price point. I think 18 months is more typical, and for the NAND Apple gets it may even take longer. Regardless, its not under 12 months.


The iPhone 4 and iPad use IPS panel, while the iPod Touch probably uses a TN panel. While IPS isnt a requirement for a tablet a panel with a 178º viewing angle is.

This is one important reason why the iPad was such a success; they werent using cheap TN panels which forced the viewer to look at it a certain way. Other vendors have caught on. Most notably Asus whose entire tablet line will be IPS.

I say IPS isnt a requirement because there are competing technologies that produce a great viewing angle. That said, I think Apple will continue to use LGs IPS technology.

Apple's displays are s-ips. This is a newer, and higher quality display than the older ips models that most other manufacturers are using when they're not going the TN route. It's not just viewing angle. It's color gamut, saturation, color accuracy, contrast, fast response, etc. H-ips offer slightly better IQ straight on, but slightly worse IQ as the viewing angle changes.

http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides...anel-types.php
post #54 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.

18"-20" is not far from full arm's length for a lot of people, that's a hard claim to sell. When I see people using iPads, it's very often at elbow length, cradled in their forearm if they're standing. Hopefully they'll use another trademarked phrase to avoid this problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeTheRock View Post

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?

I don't think Apple would offer denser on a Mac until they have resolution independence ready to roll out. It's been in development since OSX 10.4, hopefully when 10.7 ships, who knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

By making the wallpaper configurable, Apple are allowing people with no taste to make all their magnificent, painstaking design irrelevant (ok, that is hyperbole, but they are allowing people to ruin the overall effect).

Backgrounds probably should be locked down on display models. I left it to its default on my iPad, but my iPhone only has a black background. I think because of the tight array, a picture just makes it look messy. On the iPad, the array is more sparse.
post #55 of 186
You know, iPhone-specific apps run on iPads at 480 x 320 pixels. You have the option of running them native size or 2x enlarged, which makes images and fonts look awful. If those apps could run at 960 x 640 (2x option would not be necessary), the quality of images and fonts would be greatly improved. What benefit could it be if we get a new 2048 x 1536 pixels display, but still have apps that show images and fonts at 480 x 320 quality?

OK... universal apps solve this issue but they aren't the most common case. And I certainly don't appreciate having to buy two versions of the same app, one for iPhone and another for iPad.
post #56 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple's displays are s-ips. This is a newer, and higher quality display than the older ips models that most other manufacturers are using when they're not going the TN route. It's not just viewing angle. It's color gamut, saturation, color accuracy, contrast, fast response, etc. H-ips offer slightly better IQ straight on, but slightly worse IQ as the viewing angle changes.

http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides...anel-types.php

Are you sure they are S-IPS? Dont forget Apple invested a half-billion in LG and they have a 2009 tech called E-IPS. Wikipedia succinctly states Enhanced IPS has a "Wider aperture for light transmission, enabling the use of lower-power, cheaper backlights. Improves diagonal viewing angle and further reduce response time to 5ms."
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 #57 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Not sure how much of the cited improvements are likely to appear but I think that Apple could possibly try to effectively deliver a KO punch that really takes the competition out of contention for the next year.

The only thing is that they would be bleeding margin which is very unlike Apple.

I don't know how many of the rumors we're reading will come true. But if Apple with it's tremendous buying power, can deliver pretty much everything we're seeing, then other manufacturers will have to do one or more of 4 things.

1. Sell the tablets they've just announced for the spring and early summer at the same prices they've announced, for those who have announced pricing, and risk poor sales.

2. Drop prices in the hope that that will be sufficient to turn consumers heads, while substantially cutting or eliminating their profits.

3. withdraw their products as they did last year after Apple announced the iPad and its pricing, and rework them and introduce them 6 months down the road, risking loss of sales as it may be too late to catch up.

4. Drop out of the tablet market at this time.
post #58 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't know how many of the rumors we're reading will come true. But if Apple with it's tremendous buying power, can deliver pretty much everything we're seeing, then other manufacturers will have to do one or more of 4 things.

1. Sell the tablets they've just announced for the spring and early summer at the same prices they've announced, for those who have announced pricing, and risk poor sales.

2. Drop prices in the hope that that will be sufficient to turn consumers heads, while substantially cutting or eliminating their profits.

3. withdraw their products as they did last year after Apple announced the iPad and its pricing, and rework them and introduce them 6 months down the road, risking loss of sales as it may be too late to catch up.

4. Drop out of the tablet market at this time.

That is certainly one area in which Apple’s position can be devastating to others.

I think I’ve seen one vendor use the 960x640 display of the iPhone. I’m not sure if it was IPS or if it ever shipped. I think it was for Japan only. I don’t think I’ve seen any vendor match or exceed the iPhone’s pixel density or total pixels. The max for Android phones still seems to be 854x480.


edit: It was a Sharp IS03 for KDDI au in Japan. It isn’t IPS but it is Sharp’s equivalent, ASV.

http://www.personal.kent.edu/%7Emgu/LCD/asv.htm
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 #59 of 186
Four words. O M F G

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

Here are the images in question.



post #60 of 186
Here's a repost for reference I made in http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=115814

I was thinking for several months now, there will be two classes of display - Retina will be the smartphone standard, OK.

Now for iPad, 1024x768 would have to be beefed up in the easiest way to 2048 x 1536. This won't be Retina, but Apple could always come up with a new term for it. It's just marketing, as you allude to somewhat... Here's some of my brainstorming:

Cornea Display
Eyeball Display
Eyesight
Eyetangent
Eyes
BlackGradient
RainDisplay
RainGuard
NerveDisplay
EyeNerve
Optic Display
Optical Display
Haptical Display
Heads In Display
Heads Down Display
Precision Screen
Precision Display
Immersive Display
Real Time Screen
Big Screen
Dense Screen
Tight Screen
Big Tights
Dense Tight
Density Display
Reticule Display
Lens Display
Lens Tight
Iris Display

Of all the above Iris Display makes the most sense, but there'll be licensing fees I'm sure. Unless they call it EyeRis Display heh.
post #61 of 186
They could have games still limited to 1024x768 and everything else higher res.

What's a 1.5x resolution? 1536x1152 ie. closest to 1600x1200

This would be very doable and scale really well and could still run games, etc.
post #62 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPlaid View Post

The iPad2 resolution is 1920 x 1440.

Possible too. 1.875 times the current res. However I am leaning towards 1600x1200 as the next iPad2 resolution and it will simply be called iPad2 with high-definition display.

iPad2. Now in HD.

Or,

iPad2 @ 1920x1440. Now in TrueHD. FullHD. ExtremeHD. UltraHD...?

They could push games at that resolution with a solid GPU and A5 processor.

Which leads to..... AppleTV GAMING CONSOLE YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH JUST REUSE THE IPAD TECH
post #63 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Certainly it would not be as big a difference as on a larger monitor. But iOS does do some rather large screen movements, such as sliding the whole screen to the left when selecting a list item (UINavigationController) or the way apps zoom out of the centre of the screen when launched (or the opposite when quit), or the way the whole screen slides up to show the "task manager" (not sure what the real name is).

In fact the whole CoreAnimation framework seems to have been designed with iOS in mind (though it made it's debut on OS X) so I think anything that can make animations smoother would be a suitable upgrade for the device.

When Apple does that slide and replace effect, it's fairly fast, and it's automatic. When you move a window yourself, it takes time, and you tend to notice the jerkiness more. As you say, the screen is also larger. I don't see the refresh rate of an iPad's screen causing a problem. I see the gpu as not being to handle it well enough. As the Imagination gpu can be used in parallel, or even four of them in quad, gpu power wouldn't be an issue if Apple decides to use the best gpu, and even doubles up. They only cost a few bucks apiece.

This new gpu does core functions. The present one Apple uses does not. A big difference there.
post #64 of 186
I've seen a few iPad 2 suggestions and they have me thinking a couple of interesting things. I think I have a bit of a unique perspective for these forums because I currently have an android 2.2 phone that I LOVE, and the videos from CES of the android honeycomb tablets have been really steering me away from apple. After seeing the videos of honeycomb and the playbook at CES I knew 100% in my mind the the iPad 2 would probably not compete, and that unless apple stepped up with great hardware AND a major iOS revision, I was going with honeycomb. Now after reading through the speculation in this thread it has me a bit excited, but let me explain. Right now i'm not in the position of an apple fanboy that will buy anything apple releases for the iPad 2 and is just hoping for the best specs possible, i'm in the position of an android user that sees honeycomb competing and wanting to get the best value for my dollar.

Now seeing these specs posted in this thread makes me excited, and makes me think "hell ya, if apple did that I think they would win me over from honeycomb and i'd buy the iPad 2 instead no question".

2048x1536 s-IPS screen
1 gig of ram
dual core A9 processor
fast GPU (possibly dual core gpu to keep up with the big screen)
32 gig base size

Now my 'old school' mentality for these kinds of crazy upgraded specs from apple would be "never going to happen". With apple the give you the LEAST that they can, while charging the most that they can. These specs not only MATCH what the other android tablets are providing, but they are actually beating it by a good margin (well the CPU, Ram, and possibly GPU are just matching the new android tablets, but the screen would be destroying them). Usually what happens is you think of what you would really WANT apple to provide, and think of the competition and what apple would need to provide to MATCH them, and then drop that down quite a bit and that is what you'll get.

So my old school thinking goes "hell no apple doesn't compete like that, they use the app store and iOS as selling points and keep the specs lower than competition in order to keep margins high". So then we might expect...

Dual core A9 processor
512 megs of ram
Same resolution screen as iPad 1, maybe better colour or something
better GPU, single core
16 gig base size


BUT, then I start thinking about those first specs I posted, the crazy ones people are speculating in this thread based on the image leaks in 4.3. I think about how they made me feel about the iPad in comparison to the awesome stuff we saw at CES from honeycomb and the playbook. Even most apple fanboys were watching those videos and saying "ok apple, check mate" cause for the first time google and RIM not only matched the iPad, but totally blew it away on the hardware and software side. So maybe apple will take things seriously and really blow us away in turn with the specs, which it doesn't normally do. Like people in this thread are saying if they can come out with the high end specs listed above, but sell 40 million units (lets say maybe if they come out with the lower end specs I listed above, they might sell 30 million units because people like me and many other might go over to honeycomb or RIM) they are still turning huge profit in numbers AND getting tons more users for the app store and iAds.

Coming from partial outsider view with my android phone replacing my ipod touch and my desire to get an iphone, completely, I was thinking about the lower specs shown above and thinking "without a major iOS overhaul, and I mean MAJOR update, I will probably go with a tegra 2 honeycomb tablet", but with the specs above I was thinking "holy shit that looks awesome, even though honeycomb looks great I'm going to get the iPad 2 even if the iOS update doesn't quite match honeycomb". Those specs look so good I would be swayed over and I think a lot of other sceptical people would too.




This is probably juts wishful thinking and we'll probably see something more like the lower end specs I posted above, but man wouldn't that be cool to see apple step up and squash the competition? I mean really, with iOS, the app store, iAds, etc... this isn't a hardware pushing game anymore, this is a battle of online ecosystems where you want to be able to tell developers/advertisers that you have XXX million people on your system. If the iPad 2 is so spectacular that people have to turn away the already impressive looking playbook and honeycomb tablets, then apple can say "hey we sold 40 million this year and honeycomb/playbook sold only a couple million" and guess where developers/advertisers will go?

It could be a case of the earlier iphones where apple had a lot better hardware ready to go, but put in the minimum they needed based on the competition. For a few years there was no smartphone competition and apple could reign with minimal updates, and then all of a sudden android starts taking over and so apple releases the iphone 4 (probably one of the most drastic hardware upgrades we've seen from apple) with new case, retina display, more ram, better CPU, better camera, front facing camera, etc...

I could see the same thing happening now going to the iPad 2, only earlier now because the competition was more ready to jump at apple and fight back.
post #65 of 186
Apple can call it whatever they want, including Retina Display. There's people (well, one guy) calling Apple out for the iPhone 4, saying that it's not really retina like.

But in the mobile industry, every US carrier is now calling their 3.5+ transitional networks 4G, even though that term has a very real definition by the 3GPP that non of those networks reach by even 10% of what really means (100Mpbs downloads).

So everyone can define marketing terms but Apple? That's hogwash. The iPad 2 doesn't need to be >300ppi to be called a Retina Display.

Also, the iPad 2 is probably not going to stop sales of the original iPad. Apple kept selling (and still sells) iPhone 3GS alongside iPhone 4 to fill the low end price point.

It wouldn't be extraordinary for Apple to sell iPad 2 for $700-$900 as a halo effect on the original iPad model, which it could sell for $450 - $650. OF course, there may also be economies of scale with moving to one model, particularly if it drives down the price of the new (Ax) processor, the Retina Display, and takes advantage of the RAM glut the iPad created in the first place.

It would be hard to continue selling 7" 1080p screens if Apple were selling a Retina Display iPad for the same amount. It would also be hard to continue selling a lot of PCs.

It looks like Apple is going to clean up AGAIN in 2011. And nobody can say Apple didn't warn its competitors not to build 7" tablets!
post #66 of 186
The more I think about it there is no way the iPad2 will have a 1024x768 screen. However because the new high-res iPad2 screen will also face production constraints I think we will see iPad2 and select iPad(1) models side by side. This way Apple reaps the most benefits - production scale, quantity, market leadership, and general all-round dominance.

I'm really feeling if Apple could push games at 1920x1440 on iPad2 they are a smidgen away from an AppleTV gaming console. Sure it will start as somewhere in-between Wii and PS3 but the next generation after that would take on even the Xbox360 which isn't due for a new generation until 2012?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archos View Post

Apple can call it whatever they want, including Retina Display. There's people (well, one guy) calling Apple out for the iPhone 4, saying that it's not really retina like.

But in the mobile industry, every US carrier is now calling their 3.5+ transitional networks 4G, even though that term has a very real definition by the 3GPP that non of those networks reach by even 10% of what really means (100Mpbs downloads).

So everyone can define marketing terms but Apple? That's hogwash. The iPad 2 doesn't need to be >300ppi to be called a Retina Display.

Also, the iPad 2 is probably not going to stop sales of the original iPad. Apple kept selling (and still sells) iPhone 3GS alongside iPhone 4 to fill the low end price point.

It wouldn't be extraordinary for Apple to sell iPad 2 for $700-$900 as a halo effect on the original iPad model, which it could sell for $450 - $650. OF course, there may also be economies of scale with moving to one model, particularly if it drives down the price of the new (Ax) processor, the Retina Display, and takes advantage of the RAM glut the iPad created in the first place.

It would be hard to continue selling 7" 1080p screens if Apple were selling a Retina Display iPad for the same amount. It would also be hard to continue selling a lot of PCs.

It looks like Apple is going to clean up AGAIN in 2011. And nobody can say Apple didn't warn its competitors not to build 7" tablets!
post #67 of 186
20 inch iPad FTW!

post #68 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

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

If the worst kind of "fragmentation" Apple has in moving forward lies in the need to include additional files named "file@2x", it'd be pretty mealy-mouthed to complain... but that's the Internet for ya.

As far as looking upscaled. The only reason that pixel-doubling on the iPad looks bad is you doubled the physical size of an image meant to have an okay look at a given size. Doubling the size of the pixels created issues you could notice. But why exactly do you think it'll be a problem to look at a 1024x768 image meant for a 9.7" screen on a 2048x1536 screen of the same size? The screen is capable of more, yes, but the pixels in the lower-rez picture are exactly the same as they'd have been in the lower-rez screen. Or am I just feeding a troll?
post #69 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archos View Post

But in the mobile industry, every US carrier is now calling their 3.5+ transitional networks 4G, even though that term has a very real definition by the 3GPP that non of those networks reach by even 10% of what really means (100Mpbs downloads).

To be clear, it’s the ITU’s definition and 100Mbps isn’t the definition, but a feature. There is a very long and complex list of what is required for it to be ‘4G’ per the ITU-R.

http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb...2008-PDF-E.pdf
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 #70 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Are you sure they are S-IPS? Dont forget Apple invested a half-billion in LG and they have a 2009 tech called E-IPS. Wikipedia succinctly states Enhanced IPS has a "Wider aperture for light transmission, enabling the use of lower-power, cheaper backlights. Improves diagonal viewing angle and further reduce response time to 5ms."

Before I answer, I just want to say that I'm having one heck of an internet response problem all night. It's taking minutes for a page request to finish. Up to ten minutes at times. I'm having a similar problem with my iPad set to 3G. It can't be my ISP, as AT&T is giving about the same response. My ISP is Covad running their D-Slams in Verizon's switching center. Covad's ping time is fine. It's not just this site. I'm waiting for a request to Apple to finish. So far, its been 8 minutes. Never had a problem like this before.

12 minutes, and Apple's home page still isn't finished.
post #71 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Are you sure they are S-IPS? Dont forget Apple invested a half-billion in LG and they have a 2009 tech called E-IPS. Wikipedia succinctly states Enhanced IPS has a "Wider aperture for light transmission, enabling the use of lower-power, cheaper backlights. Improves diagonal viewing angle and further reduce response time to 5ms."

Wow! I finally got to their site. No help. They just say ips. But I listened to Jobs himself say s-ips in an interview about the iPad. I've read it in other places as well.
post #72 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is certainly one area in which Apples position can be devastating to others.

I think Ive seen one vendor use the 960x640 display of the iPhone. Im not sure if it was IPS or if it ever shipped. I think it was for Japan only. I dont think Ive seen any vendor match or exceed the iPhones pixel density or total. Most seem to still be using 854x480.


edit: It was a Sharp IS03 for KDDI au in Japan. It isnt IPS but it is Sharps equivalent, ASV.
http://www.personal.kent.edu/%7Emgu/LCD/asv.htm

Interesting article. I read about that phone when it was first introduced, but I'm not sure if it's actually out yet.
post #73 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

If the worst kind of "fragmentation" Apple has in moving forward lies in the need to include additional files named "file@2x", it'd be pretty mealy-mouthed to complain... but that's the Internet for ya.

As far as looking upscaled. The only reason that pixel-doubling on the iPad looks bad is you doubled the physical size of an image meant to have an okay look at a given size. Doubling the size of the pixels created issues you could notice. But why exactly do you think it'll be a problem to look at a 1024x768 image meant for a 9.7" screen on a 2048x1536 screen of the same size? The screen is capable of more, yes, but the pixels in the lower-rez picture are exactly the same as they'd have been in the lower-rez screen. Or am I just feeding a troll?

Ha ha actually that is a great point. The pixel doubling on iPad for iPhone apps made things look crap because it was upscaled. But 1024x768 on a 10" iPad would not look so bad because it would just look like a normal iPad. In this case it is theoretically upscaled 2x on a 2048x1536 screen but it will just look normal, not crap.


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Before I answer, I just want to say that I'm having one heck of an internet response problem all night. It's taking minutes for a page request to finish. Up to ten minutes at times. I'm having a similar problem with my iPad set to 3G. It can't be my ISP, as AT&T is giving about the same response. My ISP is Covad running their D-Slams in Verizon's switching center. Covad's ping time is fine. It's not just this site. I'm waiting for a request to Apple to finish. So far, its been 8 minutes. Never had a problem like this before.

12 minutes, and Apple's home page still isn't finished.

Are you using Google DNS? Open DNS or my local ISP DNS works best for me. Do you like OpenDNS?
post #74 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Possible too. 1.875 times the current res. However I am leaning towards 1600x1200 as the next iPad2 resolution and it will simply be called iPad2 with high-definition display.

iPad2. Now in HD.

Or,

iPad2 @ 1920x1440. Now in TrueHD. FullHD. ExtremeHD. UltraHD...?

They could push games at that resolution with a solid GPU and A5 processor.

Which leads to..... AppleTV GAMING CONSOLE YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH JUST REUSE THE IPAD TECH

It's not a good idea to have those resolutions. They will cause more problems than they solve.
post #75 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesmoth View Post

I've seen a few iPad 2 suggestions and they have me thinking a couple of interesting things. I think I have a bit of a unique perspective for these forums because I currently have an android 2.2 phone that I LOVE, and the videos from CES of the android honeycomb tablets have been really steering me away from apple. After seeing the videos of honeycomb and the playbook at CES I knew 100% in my mind the the iPad 2 would probably not compete, and that unless apple stepped up with great hardware AND a major iOS revision, I was going with honeycomb. Now after reading through the speculation in this thread it has me a bit excited, but let me explain. Right now i'm not in the position of an apple fanboy that will buy anything apple releases for the iPad 2 and is just hoping for the best specs possible, i'm in the position of an android user that sees honeycomb competing and wanting to get the best value for my dollar.

Now seeing these specs posted in this thread makes me excited, and makes me think "hell ya, if apple did that I think they would win me over from honeycomb and i'd buy the iPad 2 instead no question".

2048x1536 s-IPS screen
1 gig of ram
dual core A9 processor
fast GPU (possibly dual core gpu to keep up with the big screen)
32 gig base size

Now my 'old school' mentality for these kinds of crazy upgraded specs from apple would be "never going to happen". With apple the give you the LEAST that they can, while charging the most that they can. These specs not only MATCH what the other android tablets are providing, but they are actually beating it by a good margin (well the CPU, Ram, and possibly GPU are just matching the new android tablets, but the screen would be destroying them). Usually what happens is you think of what you would really WANT apple to provide, and think of the competition and what apple would need to provide to MATCH them, and then drop that down quite a bit and that is what you'll get.

So my old school thinking goes "hell no apple doesn't compete like that, they use the app store and iOS as selling points and keep the specs lower than competition in order to keep margins high". So then we might expect...

Dual core A9 processor
512 megs of ram
Same resolution screen as iPad 1, maybe better colour or something
better GPU, single core
16 gig base size


BUT, then I start thinking about those first specs I posted, the crazy ones people are speculating in this thread based on the image leaks in 4.3. I think about how they made me feel about the iPad in comparison to the awesome stuff we saw at CES from honeycomb and the playbook. Even most apple fanboys were watching those videos and saying "ok apple, check mate" cause for the first time google and RIM not only matched the iPad, but totally blew it away on the hardware and software side. So maybe apple will take things seriously and really blow us away in turn with the specs, which it doesn't normally do. Like people in this thread are saying if they can come out with the high end specs listed above, but sell 40 million units (lets say maybe if they come out with the lower end specs I listed above, they might sell 30 million units because people like me and many other might go over to honeycomb or RIM) they are still turning huge profit in numbers AND getting tons more users for the app store and iAds.

Coming from partial outsider view with my android phone replacing my ipod touch and my desire to get an iphone, completely, I was thinking about the lower specs shown above and thinking "without a major iOS overhaul, and I mean MAJOR update, I will probably go with a tegra 2 honeycomb tablet", but with the specs above I was thinking "holy shit that looks awesome, even though honeycomb looks great I'm going to get the iPad 2 even if the iOS update doesn't quite match honeycomb". Those specs look so good I would be swayed over and I think a lot of other sceptical people would too.




This is probably juts wishful thinking and we'll probably see something more like the lower end specs I posted above, but man wouldn't that be cool to see apple step up and squash the competition? I mean really, with iOS, the app store, iAds, etc... this isn't a hardware pushing game anymore, this is a battle of online ecosystems where you want to be able to tell developers/advertisers that you have XXX million people on your system. If the iPad 2 is so spectacular that people have to turn away the already impressive looking playbook and honeycomb tablets, then apple can say "hey we sold 40 million this year and honeycomb/playbook sold only a couple million" and guess where developers/advertisers will go?

It could be a case of the earlier iphones where apple had a lot better hardware ready to go, but put in the minimum they needed based on the competition. For a few years there was no smartphone competition and apple could reign with minimal updates, and then all of a sudden android starts taking over and so apple releases the iphone 4 (probably one of the most drastic hardware upgrades we've seen from apple) with new case, retina display, more ram, better CPU, better camera, front facing camera, etc...

I could see the same thing happening now going to the iPad 2, only earlier now because the competition was more ready to jump at apple and fight back.

What was the point to that long post? It seems as though you are telling us that you're an Android fanboy who thinks little of Apple and who finds anything that Google releases as, well, just Wow! You also think that anything that Apple released is overpriced and underpowered.

You must not have heard the jaws dropping of all the other manufacturers last January when Apple introduced the iPad at those very LOW prices. you know, the ones that no one else could match?

You don't even know what Honeycomb will have, yet you're already slavering over it. So far, the only Honeycomb tablet we've seen was Motorola's, and that wasn't even working. All they had were videos of what they said it would be like running on the device, not the OS itself.

Whatever Apple comes out with will still beat the pants off every other tablet, be it Android, Windows 7 or WebOS. You just better hope that the specs we're looking at don't happen.
post #76 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

The more I think about it there is no way the iPad2 will have a 1024x768 screen. However because the new high-res iPad2 screen will also face production constraints I think we will see iPad2 and select iPad(1) models side by side. This way Apple reaps the most benefits - production scale, quantity, market leadership, and general all-round dominance.

I'm really feeling if Apple could push games at 1920x1440 on iPad2 they are a smidgen away from an AppleTV gaming console. Sure it will start as somewhere in-between Wii and PS3 but the next generation after that would take on even the Xbox360 which isn't due for a new generation until 2012?

I think games would have to be at 1920x1080. I'm not saying that they couldn't be higher if the device could handle it, but if we're going to get video out for games, which is a possibility, even if not at first, but in the summer with iOS 5, then they would have to match the big screen capabilities, which is 1080p. Doing a live convert would be too much at the same times a live display. But the CPU is supposed to be able to run 1080p like "running water".

Of course, we would like to use the entire display of the iPad, so there would have to some thinking there.

But with these specs we're talking about, the iPad2 would be more powerful than the PS3 and 360.

So, think of this. Apple finally intro's BT 3, and allows controllers. The iPad can be used as a standalone console with touch and/or controllers, say two, at first at least. You could do video out to a Tv at 1080p, and use that as the display. But you could take the iPad and controllers anywhere there's no power and have the most powerful console in the world, literally at your fingertips.

With tens of millions selling per year, all those people would have the iPad for everything it does, plus whatever new features Apple introduces, plus the most advanced console, with camera control too. This will beat the ---- out of anything Nintendo and Sony come up with in the portable space, and could kill the 360, the PS3 and the Wii in the long run. Notice that no info about new consoles has come out? Usually by this time we know almost everything about the new models, but so far, nothing.
post #77 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Ha ha actually that is a great point. The pixel doubling on iPad for iPhone apps made things look crap because it was upscaled. But 1024x768 on a 10" iPad would not look so bad because it would just look like a normal iPad. In this case it is theoretically upscaled 2x on a 2048x1536 screen but it will just look normal, not crap.




Are you using Google DNS? Open DNS or my local ISP DNS works best for me. Do you like OpenDNS?

I tried that once. I'm using Covad's. This is a sudden problem. Very strange. It'll likely be gone tomorrow. My iPad is actually somewhat faster using AT&T's 3G. That's what I'm using now. Go figure.
post #78 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I think games would have to be at 1920x1080. I'm not saying that they couldn't be higher if the device could handle it, but if we're going to get video out for games, which is a possibility, even if not at first, but in the summer with iOS 5, then they would have to match the big screen capabilities, which is 1080p. Doing a live convert would be too much at the same times a live display. But the CPU is supposed to be able to run 1080p like "running water.

Imagination Techs PowerVR VXD video decoders can handle even the best quality H.264 in Blu-ray without working the CPU or GPU. Of course, there is no need for Apple to enable the highest profile H.264 at 60 fps so the power drain should be fine.

If they do offer 1080p playback they might have to list both 720p and 1080p video playback duration, especially if it is double resolution. As you previously stated most of the power drain is from the backlight, but losing an hour may give rise to the need for separate categories for video playback.
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 #79 of 186
I'm not an android fanboy, i've just used a good android phone with 2.2 and find it to be better than iOS in many ways (although the market place is garbage compared to the app store, which obviously is a huge deal and makes iOS much better for multimedia). And I know that most people on these forums are apple fan boys.

I'm trying to give you guys an 'outside' opinion from what 99% of the posts on this forum are (i.e. apple fanboys who are so busy nut-hugging steve jobs that they would pie a big turd if it had an apple logo stamped on it). You can't deny that the CES videos of the playbook and honeycomb blows away the ipad in every single way.

My point is that apple fanboys (forum members here) will buy the iPad regardless of whether the specs are great or bad, or there is a big or small iOS update. Honeycomb tablets could come out that blow away the iPad in EVERY sense, and you guys would still look down on it and praise the pants off of apple.

I'm giving you a more realistic viewpoint from other people who are NOT apple fanboys, and who are interested in the best product for the money. Now I KNOW that there are tons of people who aren't fanboys, that will buy the iPad because it's trendy and who don't know the difference between ram, rom, gpu, cpu, etc... These would be most all people, so really what i'm talking about are the techies and nerds, and even people who are typically anti-apple.

These people may buy an iPad 2 regardless of their previous dislike, or preference for android, if apple really steps up their game and puts up some awesome stats. I will buy one without hesitation if apple does this. On these forums most of these discussions are pointless in the end, because all of these fanboys are going to buy it regardless. They are just having fun discussing rumours and specs, and hoping for the best. There ARE other people who aren't like this and will actually consider other options and not just buy apple because it's apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What was the point to that long post? It seems as though you are telling us that you're an Android fanboy who thinks little of Apple and who finds anything that Google releases as, well, just Wow! You also think that anything that Apple released is overpriced and underpowered.

You must not have heard the jaws dropping of all the other manufacturers last January when Apple introduced the iPad at those very LOW prices. you know, the ones that no one else could match?

You don't even know what Honeycomb will have, yet you're already slavering over it. So far, the only Honeycomb tablet we've seen was Motorola's, and that wasn't even working. All they had were videos of what they said it would be like running on the device, not the OS itself.

Whatever Apple comes out with will still beat the pants off every other tablet, be it Android, Windows 7 or WebOS. You just better hope that the specs we're looking at don't happen.
post #80 of 186
Unbelievable. The highest resolution display sold by Apple is 2560 by 1440 pixels on the 27" iMac and Cinema Display.
I can't see iPad 2 having nearly equal resolution on a 9.7" display. The hardware wont be able to handle it.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
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