Why high resolution screens matter for Apple's iPad 2 - Page 2

Resolution independence isn't about bit maps rather it is about elements drawn to the screen. By elements I mean the fonts, lines, circles and other things that render a user interface.

The idea here is that if you draw a circle that is one inch in diameter it will be seen the same way no matter what the resolution of the screen. That is one inch in diameter in the same relative location on the screen. For the user this would be very noticeable when viewing fonts as a 14 point font will be the same size on both screens. What the user Willard on the higher resolution screen however is a much better looking font.

If this screen comes to pass the results should be stunning.

I use both my iPad and my iPhone4 on a daily basis, and again... the APPS are what are optimized, the UI is essentially the same in both look/function, even down to the (rather wasteful) icon spacing utilized on the iPad.

Excellent points! Why dramatically increase resolution? a) To stand out in the market. b) To provide a new high end of benefit to anyone but particularly useful to the pros, and c) Increase the value of the low-end device (basically last year's model, sold cheaper) by keeping the OS and marketplace robust. Resolution independence means the low end (including last year's models) get the same apps and images, just not quite as crisp.

I can take the battery out which is incredibly important to me....

I wasn't aware of that either!??!?!?!

You can live with your desktop looking like a dorm room full of crap, but I'll take the minimalist look any day of the week.

Personally, I don't care what you can/cannot 'take'.

Have A Nice Day.

That is if the battery life in iPad 2 lose only few minutes compared to the current model, but we're talking about major improvement in screen resolution. There's no other way for Apple to work around it than to add bigger battery, which then means putting more weight to the device itself. Not to mention we'll have to deal with longer time to recharge it..

Evidently we have a differing opinion on what constitutes "UI."

Apps usually use UI elements provided by the OS. The fact that iBooks (and many other apps) use multi-column views is an example of a difference in the UI provided by the OS.

Certainly much of the UI is similar, sometimes (e.g., the icon spacing etc) with unfortunate consequences. But why should the two be "drastically" different?

At this point... I'll remain optimistic.

The programmer simply presents the controls that best suit the app.

Not all the time, but there are a lot of universal apps out there. However every iPad app is a iOS app. Every single one, unless it is written in Chipmunk BASIC or something.

it is the SDK that is the same and that is what I'm focused on. There certainly are a number of iPad only apps that use parts of the framework exclusive to that platform but they are still iOS apps.

I'm not sure where you are going with this last statement. However I will bite, all PS3 games use the same SDK right? Now that doesn't make them the same and infact there is a wide variety. So what happens if one game completely ignores part of the SDK another game uses - does that make it less of a PS3 game?

Because there's so much more that the iPad's additional screen real-estate could used for... Oh Well, there's always Honeycomb, which is designed from the ground up for tablet/slate use.

So are you the troll sitting on right or on the left on this video?

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...-iphone-4.html

You mean a better use of the "home screen" real estate? Yes, I agree. Just like the MacOS Finder, that paradigm should be revisited. WebOS has some neat ideas.

I use linux exclusively at work, but am not at all sure about an Android tablet.

The problem with Honeycomb, as the article points out, is that it's only for tablets. It looks nothing like Android phones (which themselves don't look consistent). Without the little cartoon indicating to consumers that "Android" is involved, there would be no association for them that a Samsung Continuum runs some of the same apps as an HTC Droid Incredible (if they can navigate the Android Market long enough to find any).

Honeycomb will expect developers to start from scratch on a platform with zero users and zero apps for users from day one, just like WP7 or Palm. When it launched iPad, Apple leveraged the existing iOS platform to at least provide apps you could use on it, meaning developers were pretty comfortable investing time into building custom apps. There's now lots of compelling iPad apps.

There's no reason to think there will be lots of decent Honeycomb apps, and if there are, what resolution will they cover, the Xooms or the Galaxy Tab? Or will developers create an infinite array of tablet apps customized for each variation of Android tablet and netbook?

Android phones are already a mess, and would not be flying at all were the lack of an iPhone in 2010 not creating a vacuum for Verizon. Without carrier subsidies, without apps, without any OS familiarity between Android phones, why are people going to buy Android tablets? Pity?

Another masterpiece article from DED!

Your strawman is Universal apps? You got me its one app download so I guess we can ignore that the UIs are tailored for the display size, resolution and aspect ratio.

I expect this from DaHarder, but not from you. I seriously dont know how you can look at apps designed for the iPad and say its just a giant iPhone. Does Apple using the sake development tools somehow cloud your vision into thinking that makes them the same UIs?

You're obviously unfamiliar with various Android devices, and how they actually function.

The advantage is that those apps already 'scale' very easily to all manner of (higher) resolutions, so virtually all existing apps will run perfectly on the newer OS, without becoming an unsightly mess.

Apps written specifically for the newer OS stand to benefit that much more from the larger displays/higher resolutions, just as those written specifically for the iPad do on iOS.

So would say, if the tables were turned, that they must exactly the same because theyre both Android OS¡

Always with the childish insults when you're losing an argument (which is often)... How Sad.

Suggestion: Leave me out of your posts, unless specifically addressed otherwise.

I appreciate your explanation but if there were true resolution independence then there would only be a need to supply one set of assets for a project. The ui could take the higher resolution image and scale it for the lower resolution display. Clearly that is not the case here

An honest question: so Android does not use any bitmapped resources? Because that is the issue with resolution independence -- you really need everything to be vector. That, deal with scaling, or require multiple bitmap resolutions (which will eventually be too small).

sometimes the differences suck on the iPad. I really hate how they moved most of the useful buttons in Safari (i.e., forward, back, bookmarks and send to) to the top of the screen...the opposite edge where my hands are. Thanks Apple for placing all the one-hand buttons in such a way that i can't just thumb my way around the internet.

Also, why doesn't the calendar/contacts and notes apps flip pages like ibooks? Why can't we do the three-finger forward/back in Safari like we do on the track pads? Let's get a little consistency in UIs here. And for goodness sakes, please let me free-hand sketch in the NATIVE notes app...with the ability to switch the paper to white or graph paper.

Yea, that one bugs me as well.

I could easily see this new device unveil NOT as the iPad 2 but the iPad-Pro...you heard it here first.

Well, look at the same mail app on the iPad in portrait mode. It is noticeably different -- a content (detail) view with a list (popover) view.

When you have developed an app for the iPhone you must rethink the app for the iPad or it just looks dorky.

Say, you drill-down several levels of lists (single-column tables) on the iPhone to get to a detail view, e.g. Artist--->Album---Song.

On the iPad you can/should replace it with a split view (combined list or popover with a content view).

This makes it much faster, easier and more intuitive for the user. You drill-down the list/popover view only.

But you must reprogram it -- it is a different UI construct. and not supported on an iPhone size display.

I suspect a future API for the iPad would support multi-column tables -- similar to an iTunes list display on the Mac -- where you can rearrange, resize, hide and sort any column. This would not be possible on an iPhone-size screen.

Yep sounds exactly like what Apple would want. People seem to get bent out of shape over the mention of a screen with that resolution but I really don't see a problem. As to the cost of that spare part, anything that isn't in mass production is going to be expensive. What the screens will cost Apple is another thing. More expensive possibly but grossly so I think not. Most likely LG and Apple have been working on this screen well before iPad was even announced with the goal of making it cost effective.

It is reasonable for people to be concerned about power usage with these rumors, however it looks like many things will come together at the same time to give us an iPad with similar battery lifetimes.

The first thing that we need to have happen is to build the new SoC on a smalker process node. It looks like Samsung will be ready to go on 32nm just in time and their Process is very low power. (it would be even nicer to see a bleeding edge SoC at 22nm but that seems to be a stretch).

The second issue is that lots of pixels require lots of bandwidth and bandwidth to memory is expensive power wise. That could be addressed in a couple of ways. One would be a large cache the other is a frame buffer right on the SoC. Either approach would reduce trips off die which eats power.

Third the new screens might actually lower power requirements.

With other enhancements iPad 2 should stay in the same ballpark run time wise. I'm optimistic at this point that Apple can give us all of this in the next update.

Yes you are alone, I'd buy one as soon as I could. Given that they deliver everything to properly run more complex apps this should be one nice machine. My biggest worry is that Apple will skimp on RAM.

Apple does have the lead at the moment but they have to be real agressive to keep it. Personally I don't want them to have s monopoly as that leads to stagnation in many cases. However I really don't know what the competition will be. Android seems lost innthe mess that is Goggle, Playbook has potential if they ever get past the Adobe software and then you gave the rest.

The price to third parties does drop significantly over time. Again though I wouldn't trust iSupply to much. In any event people look at the price on an unreleased screen that a third party is selling and think OMG iPad is going to be so expensive. That price has no relation to what Apple will be paying. Besides the E variant is supposedly a bit cheaper to make.

As I see it many in this thread (and other threads) dismis this jump in performance as impossible. The evidence though is a bit different. For example dual core A9 chips are already available with quad cores soon this year. Manufacturing a 9" screen at 260ppi is not a big deal anymore. Honestly I don't think Apple has much of a choice.

The excessive weight probably comes from buying 3 for each member of your family. Use one at a time and you'll find the weight much more manageable.

For now I dont see the purpose of running higher than 1920x1080 as a resolution, as this is the highest for movies.
It's also sufficient for things like work, iphoto, and editing imovie shorts.

It is a 10inch screen only.

No because you mis the point resolution independence is about what is drawn to the screen. Bit maps, pictures and the like are not drawn to the screen. It is certainly possible to resize them but resizing bit maps is not reliable so Apple offers an easy solution.

No it is not because techology is going in the other direction. That is our ability to put more pixels on screen is increasing. So old programs need higher resolution art work to manage well on newer devices. Even if we had started in the opposite direction even downsizing images is not exceptionally reliable so delivering an image that is exactly what you want is smart. On top of all of this is the issue of performance and the horse power required to resize all of these bit maps.

In the end what you want to have happen with bit maps is possible but I just don't think it is wise. Especially when Apple can drive developers to very very easy updates.

Here's a link:

http://developer.apple.com/library/i...6556-CH13-SW30

Scroll down and start reading at "Content Views".

Apple thinks the UI is different, especially since it recommends a different UI on the iPad that is not available on the iPhone.

1) You meant *not* alone, right? I cant imagine anyone but competitors to not want this to happen.

2) If the quadruple the pixels I dont think 512MB will suffice. I think 1GB would be a certainty.


Just to be clear, Ive stated that I dont think its likely at this point, but never said its impossible. I never use absolutes unless I can have some proof to back it up or Im making a bad joke.

Current movies yes but they can be up scaled.

Let's take a look at these:

First I assume you mean iWork. The first benefit to the user is crisper text and graphics. Presentations and other documents can have a far more beautiful rendering of the compositions.

Second is iPhoto which should be vastly improved on such a screen. Mainly because most cameras still outstrip the abilities of the screen to display the images generated. IPhoto and this screen would go together like peanut butter and jelly. In fact such a screen would justify an Aperture like program for iPad 2 if it comes with enough RAM.

Third for movie editing again we have a win. 1080p can be displayed while maintaining area for controls and editing tools.

Yes it is! However that doesn't mean it can't be crisper or display more of an imported JPEG in a more pleasing manner. In any event the convincing will come when you look at the screen. We only need to figure out when this new product will hit store shelves.

How many people who bought an iPad, copied over their iPhone or Touch apps and found instantly either at 1x or 2x that they were absolutely horrific to use. I deleted them immediately. For apps like FaceBook I found the app was great on the iPhone but for the iPad using Safari with a Home Screen link icon was best.

For those that haven’t seen how these iPhone/Touch apps look on the iPad, they don’t mirror the size of the device on the 1x size, they mirror the pixels. Since the iPad’s pixels are larger. Apple cares so much about the UI that even the icon sizes between the iPhone and iPad are different, and they even created a new font for iPhone that I assume made the text look better.

• Image of all iOS icon sizes:

http://panic.com/~neven/pub/iOS%20icons.png
PS: Remember when people said that the AppleTV using ARM architecture couldn’t possibly be iOS-based because to be iOS you also must use CocoaTouch?

Go get a life! Google is the new evil and you my friend are....never mind.

So is this a bad joke or do you have proof to back this up?

Just kidding -

Exactly! I spend so much time correcting the iPhone auto correct that I often mis simple omissions like this.

I would agree but does Apple? The current iPad is pathetically short on RAM so I see this as a big issue.

I was going to figure out how many bytes would be needed for a frame buffer for 4x pixels but it is getting late. I still think the biggest technical hurdle is getting the GPU to do it's job without a lot if energy wasted driving the screen which in reality is moving a lot of data quickly and constantly. It would be huge if a cache or memory array could be implemented to avoid those of chip data accesses.

Let's put it this way I'm very hopeful that all the rumors come true. If so iPad 2 would be one impressive machine. More so it might remain useful to the user for much longer than iPad 1. I suspect that many titles will become iPad 2 very quickly. In large part that will be due to the expected extra RAM, with CPU performance a quick second.

I've mentioned this in a number of threads but Apple's prepaid component deals have no doubt lowered the component cost substantially. That $500M deal with LG probably included R&D and dedicated production lines for Apple.

I think Apple may get more aggressive with these prepaid deals. The only question is will the component makers eschew the deals feeling like they are limiting their customer base.

DaHarder - you are truly a tiresome troll - there is no one in the tech news / analysis space more knowledgeable and articulate than Daniel. And who are you again?

And then we have sprockkets, another boorish toll trying to suck the air out of the room. Keep on sucking sprock...