Originally Posted by solipsism
Yeah, I saw those but Im not yet convinced of their legitimacy. One reason is they dont state what kind of IPS technology is used. For instance, LGs 2009 E-IPS tech reportedly 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. This seems to be exactly what Apple would want. Add to that Apples patents to reduce to the power used in backlights and this could be pretty amazing.
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.
As for performance, its not enough that the GPU can push 3 millions pixels instead of just 700k, its how this affects the battery and Im not convinced that 4x as many pixels can result in about the same power usage in a YoY upgrade of the GPU.
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.
That said, I cant express enough how much I want this to be feasible.
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.
Im also aware that the success of the iPad could easily allow Apple to add more expensive HW to maintain their lead in the tablet market, and even push so far ahead at the beginning of this market that it could create another natural monopoly like it did with the iPod by making the iPad the only reasonable choice for the average consumer.
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.
PS: iSuppli listed the iPads 1024x768 display as costing just over $28.
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.