or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Report: Claims of high-res screen in iPad 2 are 'too good to be true'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Report: Claims of high-res screen in iPad 2 are 'too good to be true'

post #1 of 98
Thread Starter 
While evidence grows that Apple could place a high-resolution screen in its forthcoming second-generation iPad, a new report aims to pour "cold water" on those expectations.

John Gruber of Daring Fireball responded to claims of a potential "Retina Display" on the next iPad, as reports have suggested the device could have a 2048-by-1536-pixel resolution, quadruple that of the current iPad. But, he said, sources have told him those rumors are "too good to be true."

He said it's likely that the next iPad will retain a 1024-by-768-pixel resolution, though the display may be improved in other ways, such as brighter with less power consumption.

"Maybe it uses the new manufacturing technique Apple introduced with the iPhone 4 display, which brings the LCD closer to the surface of the touchscreen glass -- making it look more like pixels on glass rather than pixels under glass," he wrote. "But my sources are pretty sure that it's not 2048 x 1536 or any other 'super high resolution.'"

Evidence of that high resolution came through the iPad's official iBooks application, which includes images designed for a higher resolution screen. Gruber speculated that those files could be the work of a user interface designer who is "thinking ahead," as sooner or later the iPad will get a higher resolution display.

"From what I've gathered about the iPad 2, it's more analogous to the iPhone 3GS than the 3G," he said. "Spec-wise, the iPhone 3G differed from the original iPhone in one significant way: the 3G networking support. The iPad 2 is more like the 3GS: faster support, more RAM, better graphics performance -- but, like the 3GS, still the same display resolution as the original model."

As first reported by AppleInsider, the iPad 2 is expected to have improved graphics in the form of a dual-core SGX543 processor included on a new, custom processor from Apple. Regardless of whether the iPad 2 has a Retina Display, the successor to the A4 chip found in the iPad and iPhone 4 will likely be powerful enough to display at that resolution.

The SGX543 can push 35 million polygons per second at 200 Mhz and 1 billion pixels per second, and is capable of handling Apple's OpenCL standard. And the GPU supports multi-core configurations, which will allegedly allow Apple to utilize two cores in its next-generation mobile processor.
post #2 of 98
Of course too good. Apple priority is to make iPad available (as in cost and good production numbers). High res not hapening in 2011.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #3 of 98
A couple of months ago we all thought any type of near-Retina display was impossible because of cost.

Yesterday we all allowed for the possibility that it might actually be true.

Now we're all going to be disappointed if it's not.

We spend too much time guessing, don't you think?
post #4 of 98
Wouldn't doubling the dimensions in each dimension mean 4 times the pixels on screen - and with the same screen size mean that each pixel is one fourth the size? meaning anything that is not scaled vectors would appear to be one-quarter the size on screen - meaning that almost everything on the device would have to be updated to accommodate the change. Unless there is something in the OS that scales everything automatically unless it specifically calls the higher rez. And the iPhone app emulator thing would have to get a 4x option.

Seems to me that as suggested just about everything else about the device could be improved and result in a much greater impact before the screen needs more pixels.
post #5 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

Wouldn't doubling the dimensions in each dimension mean 4 times the pixels on screen - and with the same screen size mean that each pixel is one fourth the size? meaning anything that is not scaled vectors would appear to be one-quarter the size on screen - meaning that almost everything on the device would have to be updated to accommodate the change. Unless there is something in the OS that scales everything automatically unless it specifically calls the higher rez. And the iPhone app emulator thing would have to get a 4x option.

Seems to me that as suggested just about everything else about the device could be improved and result in a much greater impact before the screen needs more pixels.

You're presumably not an iPhone developer - that is exactly what happened with the transition from iPhone 3GS to 4 - the pixels on the iPhone 4 are 1/4 the size of the ones on the 3GS and the same apps run just fine. The OS automatically scales the bitmaps from old apps so that each pixel in the bitmap uses 4 pixels on the screen. The OS automatically upscales any image in an app unless it's named with @2x in the filename - it's pretty clever.

Basically iOS4 supports resolution independence, but because the dimensions on the iPhone 4 are exactly 2x those of the previous models, it can scale bitmaps just as gracefully as it scales vectors, with no blurry edges where the bitmap pixels span two physical pixels.

And yeah, the iOS simulator does have a setting to simulate the iPhone 4 screen. It's in the Hardware menu under Device/iPhone (retina), and it makes the iPhone appear at twice the size on screen so you can see all the pixels.

This is the reason why the retina display for the iPad, when it arrives will have to be exactly double the resolution in both axes that the current model is - they can't go for an intermediate resolution, or everyone will have to update their apps with new graphics immediately to prevent them looking blurry on the new device.

And because a screen with that many pixels in such a small space is beyond anything currently on the market, it's very unlikely that Apple have managed to do it for iPad 2 whilst retaining the same price point. So in all probability the new iPad will have exactly the same res as the current gen, and iPad version 3 or 4 will add the double-res feature once the component costs make it feasible.
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
post #6 of 98
Damn - that guy usually knows what he's talking about. Or perhaps they will double it in one dimension only.
post #7 of 98
Bummer. I love the Retina display on the iP4. The thought of something similar on an iPad made me a little giddy for a while. *sigh*
People believe what they want to believe I guess.
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
post #8 of 98
Sam Oliver should sit down and talk this through with Daniel Eran Dilger.
post #9 of 98
Proves the point that the iPhone is Apples #1 baby.

Hell, they gave it more ram than the iPad also and its clear that if anything, the iPad needs it more.
post #10 of 98
Gruber knows his stuff. Disappointing if not somewhat expected even a week ago. The rumours just got too many and "well-sourced" to ignore what was thought unfeasible before. No SD card slot either, I (and Gruber) think. That one never made sense.
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
post #11 of 98
One point Gruber made is that quadrupling the number of pixels would require more RAM. This is true, but is it really a binding constraint? I'm not an expert on these things by any means, but it seems to me that a 32 bit color display uses 4 bytes of RAM for every pixel, meaning that 4*pixels of the current iPad means you need about 16 MB of RAM for the video (actually a little less than that). That doesn't seem insurmountable to me at all (doubling the RAM from 256 to 512 obviously more than covers it, and is probably in the cards anyway). Sure, there's more to video RAM than just that -- you need to store textures and other graphics data, but I'm guessing (please correct me if wrong) that those don't necessarily scale much with resolution. It's true that modern graphics cards have a whole bunch of RAM, but that RAM is really a cache for the massively parallel vector processor that is a modern GPU -- it has little to do with the resolution of the display (again -- please correct me if I'm wrong).

So it seems to me that RAM size and GPU power are not really constraints on the ability to ship a retina display iPad. The major constraint would most likely be the cost of the screen, and I have no idea what those costs are. But if there's any company in the world that could make that economical through volume and pre-purchases, it's Apple.

Also -- John Gruber is awesome -- I love his site. But it would be kind of nice to see him end up being wrong about something for a change. You know, just to mix things up a bit. But again, i do think he's totally awesome.
post #12 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by anwerman View Post

A couple of months ago we all thought any type of near-Retina display was impossible because of cost.

Yesterday we all allowed for the possibility that it might actually be true.

Now we're all going to be disappointed if it's not.

We spend too much time guessing, don't you think?

And that's a good thing. The whole human brain evolved precisely because of our desire to predict the future and in particular to predict the behaviors of our fellow humans.

Intelligence in essence is predicting the future, and that's how we measure it as well (what's the next number in the sequence, or word or shape etc type of questions on typical IQ test). Our brains are so good at this that we are taken aback when our expectation (prediction of the future) turns out to be incorrect.

So guess away everyone .

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #13 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

You're presumably not an iPhone developer - that is exactly what happened with the transition from iPhone 3GS to 4 - the pixels on the iPhone 4 are 1/4 the size of the ones on the 3GS and the same apps run just fine. The OS automatically scales the bitmaps from old apps so that each pixel in the bitmap uses 4 pixels on the screen. The OS automatically upscales any image in an app unless it's named with @2x in the filename - it's pretty clever.

Basically iOS4 supports resolution independence, but because the dimensions on the iPhone 4 are exactly 2x those of the previous models, it can scale bitmaps just as gracefully as it scales vectors, with no blurry edges where the bitmap pixels span two physical pixels.

And yeah, the iOS simulator does have a setting to simulate the iPhone 4 screen. It's in the Hardware menu under Device/iPhone (retina), and it makes the iPhone appear at twice the size on screen so you can see all the pixels.

This is the reason why the retina display for the iPad, when it arrives will have to be exactly double the resolution in both axes that the current model is - they can't go for an intermediate resolution, or everyone will have to update their apps with new graphics immediately to prevent them looking blurry on the new device.

And because a screen with that many pixels in such a small space is beyond anything currently on the market, it's very unlikely that Apple have managed to do it for iPad 2 whilst retaining the same price point. So in all probability the new iPad will have exactly the same res as the current gen, and iPad version 3 or 4 will add the double-res feature once the component costs make it feasible.

Very well stated and thus worth repeating. Unfortunately, evidence is abound that many here will not fully appreciate your efforts and continue to raise the issue.

Note: Although I agree with your last sentence, i.e., "So in all probability the new iPad will have exactly the same res as the current gen, and iPad version 3 or 4 will add the double-res feature once the component costs make it feasible," it wouldn't surprise me to see Jobs and Company forsake the additional cost.

After all, they are in a position to do so. Doing so would raise the bar significantly higher. And, it may be wishful thinking on my part, but, I do have a few friends and colleagues that I would like to continually enjoy to see their dismay when I overtly confront them with the next greatest.
post #14 of 98
Thats too bad. But I suspected that would be the case... but you really never know with Apple... they certainly have demonstrated an ability to leap way ahead of the pack without warning.

As it stands, I'll most likely be picking up one of the Honeycomb tablets when they become available... the Xoom looks the most promising, but I am curious to see what Samsung announces in early February...
post #15 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


Also -- John Gruber is awesome

Some might disagree.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #16 of 98
Finally some sanity. I'd be amazed, no, bewildered and amazed if the iPad2 gets a 2048x1536 screen. With the exception of a handful of items over 30 years, Apple has a history of releasing high-res screens last among competitors. Competitors had 1920x1200 screens in laptops a good 3-4 years before Apple finally got around to doing it. They like to maximize profit margins.

I suspect the screen in iPad2 will unfortunately be the same res as the current model. I could see the possibility of them throwing a bone and providing a slight increase to 1280x960. There is no reason that a straight 1/4 increase couldn't be done. It should be just as easy for iOS to render 25% more pixels as it would be to render double.
post #17 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

While evidence grows that Apple could place a high-resolution screen in its forthcoming second-generation iPad, a new report aims to pour "cold water" on those expectations....

Well, let's hope he's wrong. He's been so before.

The trouble is with all the recent focus on the screen, it's really made people realise how totally crappy the current screen really is. The iPad screen is probably the worst (to the eye) screen Apple makes on any product at the moment.

I use Pages on it every day all day and the characters are so jaggy on the screen it's pretty much a joke. You don't even have to look close, the side of an "O" in 18 point type looks like a staircase, even from two feet away.
post #18 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

I'm not an expert on these things by any means, but it seems to me that a 32 bit color display uses 4 bytes of RAM for every pixel, meaning that 4*pixels of the current iPad means you need about 16 MB of RAM for the video (actually a little less than that). That doesn't seem insurmountable to me at all (doubling the RAM from 256 to 512 obviously more than covers it, and is probably in the cards anyway). Sure, there's more to video RAM than just that -- you need to store textures and other graphics data, but I'm guessing (please correct me if wrong) that those don't necessarily scale much with resolution

I don't think you need much RAM for the video. 12MB for the 4x res and 24MB if iOS flips between two buffers.

Any pre-cached bitmap assets would be 4x larger with 4x the resolution though.

How much this would affect the overall system requirements kind of depends on the app. Most games would have lots of images, some games only have a few and some productivity apps have hardly any at all.

I do agree that it wouldn't need 4x the RAM just because of 4x the resolution.

However, even with the current resolution the iPad2 will probably need more than 512MB simply because of the better CPU/GPU will allow developers to create much larger and more detailed game worlds.
post #19 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

Proves the point that the iPhone is Apples #1 baby.

Hell, they gave it more ram than the iPad also and its clear that if anything, the iPad needs it more.

I want to agree with you, and definitely wish my ipad had more ram, though I wonder if the argument could be made that the iphone actually needs it more. The ipad is not, at its core, a productivity tool (though I have used it that way on a few rare occasions), whereas the iphone is, by nature, designed as a productivity tool: calls, text, email, quick map look-up, quick google searches/browsing. While I think most people will revert to a desktop/laptop or ipad for consumer browsing (shopping), most people I know who have an iphone surf more on the phone than they do on a computer proper. I know I do. While I'd love to have just as much RAM for my ipad, if I had to choose between the two devices, I'd definitely skimp on the entertainment device and put the RAM in the work horse, despite it being just a phone.

Don't get me wrong...I'd prefer an equal amount of RAM in the ipad, and it would certainly be more useful to me if it had more.
post #20 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

And that's a good thing. The whole human brain evolved precisely because of our desire to predict the future and in particular to predict the behaviors of our fellow humans...

Pretty far-fetched statements. Read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb, you may benefit from it immensely.
post #21 of 98
its elegant....pushes the envelope....supports developers
elegant=apple
3+billion for "component preorders, support"
true


remember the oled rumor, not enough to supply ios devices, SJ stayed with what he can do for his customers. then samsung screams how wonderful those are then can't get them
remember back in the day we were all pissed off that apple couldn't get their supply chain in order to get product out and LOST sales

well, not happening
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #22 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post

Gruber knows his stuff. Disappointing if not somewhat expected even a week ago. The rumours just got too many and "well-sourced" to ignore what was thought unfeasible before. No SD card slot either, I (and Gruber) think. That one never made sense.

The only way a "retina display" iPad made sense for this year is if it is a high-end BTO option. They can barely get enough of the current screens made to keep up with exploding demand--how anyone could expect them to turn out 10s of millions of a screen far beyond any seen before in a consumer device... Well, a lot of people were only too happy to deceive themselves!

The revenue generated by the iPad is now built into expectations--if new screen production problems caused Apple to loose momentum in the tablet market and forced people to experiment with competitors products it would be a disaster!

I do believe the high-end option is there, but I doubt they could be available in substantial numbers by the time iPad2 gets here...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #23 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

The only way a "retina display" iPad made sense for this year is if it is a high-end BTO option. They can barely get enough of the current screens made to keep up with exploding demand--how anyone could expect them to turn out 10s of millions of a screen far beyond any seen before in a consumer device... Well, a lot of people were only too happy to deceive themselves!

Well, I'm not saying a retina screen for the iPad is definitely coming, but the exact problem you mentioned, supply issues, would actually be less of a problem if Apple switched to a screen with an insane resolution. No one else uses them, no one else has products on their roadmap using them, and basically every 10" retina screen would be produced for Apple exclusively. This could be the LG exclusivity rumor that was floating around a while ago. Just think about it: suppose that making a retina iPad screen is about as difficult as making a retina iPad 2 screen, and suppose that Apple decided to put this retina screen in the iPad 2 at the time the iPhone 4 started production, LG would have had a full year running production to already build up an inventory of screens ready for assembly when the rest of the components became available. They could easily have a few million ready by now.

Again, I'd be surprised if it turns out the iPad 2 will have screen like that, but only because of the cost, not because of technical limitations, not because of supply constraints, just because it would be cost-prohibitive to do it without adding significantly to the retail price of the thing.

Then again... Apple can take the hit, they have enough money in the bank to sell iPads at a loss for centuries, so maybe if Steve was in a bold mood and decided he wanted to put all other tablet screens to shame, he could probably make it happen.
post #24 of 98
The screen most definitely needs an upgrade of some sort when you compare it to other Apple products.
post #25 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Pretty far-fetched statements. Read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb, you may benefit from it immensely.

I'm not talking about the prediction of the stock market here or literal prediction of the future like "black swan" events.

But what evolutionary survival pressures would force us to develop an organ capable of memorizing 30,000 digits of number Pi (like some people are capable of)? What survival advantage does abstract math give to a person (some would argue none because most math/computer geeks are depicted as parent's basement dwellers, who can't quite score a date )?

It is hard to argue against the hypothesis that in fact no environmental survival pressure lead to the development of highly sophisticated brains that we have, but that it was more social pressure and the need to deal with our ever more complex interactions with other human beings. This correlates well with what we see with animals today. The more developed social structures the animals exhibit, the more advanced their mental abilities.

This is what I was talking about. My statement that intelligence in essence is prediction of immediate future (i.e. our expectation of future, not unfolding of actual events) and that is how it's tested as well still stands. I have spent some time working in AI a few years back and this is one of the first striking realizations you make. Take any online IQ test and see what kinds of questions you are asked. You are shown a series of images and you are asked to guess what image should come next. This is the kind of expected future prediction I'm talking about.

The following ted.com talk given by Jeff Hawkins (inventor of Palm Pilot):

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/je...computing.html

is perhaps going to explain better than I can what I mean .

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #26 of 98
I don't know if super high res screen is really a selling point. Using the logic that if they were to increase it they would double it for the sake of the existing apps, does that make more sense than increasing it a little bit and work out a transition for the developers to easily migrate their apps to the new res?

What do you think the most important improved or new features of the iPad should be?

More RAM
SD card slot
Lighter weight
Cameras
Software improvments

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #27 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Well, let's hope he's wrong. He's been so before.

The trouble is with all the recent focus on the screen, it's really made people realise how totally crappy the current screen really is. The iPad screen is probably the worst (to the eye) screen Apple makes on any product at the moment.

I use Pages on it every day all day and the characters are so jaggy on the screen it's pretty much a joke. You don't even have to look close, the side of an "O" in 18 point type looks like a staircase, even from two feet away.

I use Pages on the iPad as well. Can't replicate your issue even up to 148 points.
post #28 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

You're presumably not an iPhone developer - that is exactly what happened with the transition from iPhone 3GS to 4 - the pixels on the iPhone 4 are 1/4 the size of the ones on the 3GS and the same apps run just fine. The OS automatically scales the bitmaps from old apps so that each pixel in the bitmap uses 4 pixels on the screen. The OS automatically upscales any image in an app unless it's named with @2x in the filename - it's pretty clever.

Basically iOS4 supports resolution independence, but because the dimensions on the iPhone 4 are exactly 2x those of the previous models, it can scale bitmaps just as gracefully as it scales vectors, with no blurry edges where the bitmap pixels span two physical pixels.

And yeah, the iOS simulator does have a setting to simulate the iPhone 4 screen. It's in the Hardware menu under Device/iPhone (retina), and it makes the iPhone appear at twice the size on screen so you can see all the pixels.

This is the reason why the retina display for the iPad, when it arrives will have to be exactly double the resolution in both axes that the current model is - they can't go for an intermediate resolution, or everyone will have to update their apps with new graphics immediately to prevent them looking blurry on the new device.

And because a screen with that many pixels in such a small space is beyond anything currently on the market, it's very unlikely that Apple have managed to do it for iPad 2 whilst retaining the same price point. So in all probability the new iPad will have exactly the same res as the current gen, and iPad version 3 or 4 will add the double-res feature once the component costs make it feasible.


Excellent post.. Twice the resolution means significant more processor, RAM, battery and more expensive screens. Apart from obvious supply channel nightmares, I can't see how Apple can do all this and preserve margins without a significant increase in price.

I just can't see this happening.
post #29 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I don't know if super high res screen is really a selling point. Using the logic that if they were to increase it they would double it for the sake of the existing apps, does that make more sense than increasing it a little bit and work out a transition for the developers to easily migrate their apps to the new res?

What do you think the most important improved or new features of the iPad should be?

More RAM
SD card slot
Lighter weight
Cameras
Software improvments

Faster Processor and RAM. IMO - Loading webpages with all these freaking ad's is starting to show(AppleInsider home page included).

Software - IMO - ipad Ad Blocker!
And although hate to say it; 1- because it would be nice to have, 2- because its fightn words on an Apple fan site- flash support. D'oh!
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #30 of 98
is this super dense 4x resolution iPad screen any more far fetched than the 960x640 resolution of the iPhone was a year ago?

i'm still guessing there will be a low-end iPad with "old" screen [and 32GB] for $499, two more models with "retina" displays at $599 and $699. add more $$$ for GSM/CDMA.

all of the comments i've read agree that it's not only possible, but probable that an A5 and more ram will handle it. my only concern is battery life. [ohh, and the WEIGHT of the thing]

i will pay as much as $800 for a retina display and 128GB in a Wi-Fi only iPad.
post #31 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

Of course too good. Apple priority is to make iPad available (as in cost and good production numbers). High res not hapening in 2011.

Yes it is. This is to kill the PlayBook, HP webOS tablet, and Xoom the second they arrive.

Why have the same display as those wanna-bes?
post #32 of 98
Removed. Duplicate
post #33 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

Yes it is. This is to kill the PlayBook, HP webOS tablet, and Xoom the second they arrive.

Why have the same display as those wanna-bes?

Be...cause Apple already trusts that their software is better.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #34 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogan View Post

Excellent post.. Twice the resolution means significant more processor, RAM, battery and more expensive screens. Apart from obvious supply channel nightmares, I can't see how Apple can do all this and preserve margins without a significant increase in price.

I just can't see this happening.

Yup, it makes logical sense, but boy... if they could pull it off, Wow. I think it would truely plow the competitors this year.

I'm curious is the partial upgrade 1.25 increase in pixal is difficult or bad or ??? Would like to read more discussion on that.

HP's is suppose to be showing off there wares(vapor or not) in Feb. Although I have never used webOS, it does 'look' nice and intuitive. Along with Android... they can get a toe-hold. Porting apps is not inpossible. Top sellers in iOS will(and have) probably give these others a try.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #35 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

... But what evolutionary survival pressures would force us to develop an organ capable of memorizing 30,000 digits of number Pi (like some people are capable of)? What survival advantage does abstract math give to a person (some would argue none because most math/computer geeks are depicted as parent's basement dwellers, who can't quite score a date )?

It is hard to argue against the hypothesis that in fact no environmental survival pressure lead to the development of highly sophisticated brains that we have, but that it was more social pressure and the need to deal with our ever more complex interactions with other human beings. This correlates well with what we see with animals today. The more developed social structures the animals exhibit, the more advanced their mental abilities.

This is what I was talking about. My statement that intelligence in essence is prediction of immediate future (i.e. our expectation of future, not unfolding of actual events) and that is how it's tested as well still stands. ...

A couple of points related to your post.

First, memorizing large strings of data, in and of itself, apparently offers no particular selective advantage or we'd all have that skill. Although variation is necessary as the fodder of natural selection, variations don't define the species, and a particular variation, no matter how impressive we may find it, isn't necessarily beneficial. Also, I would note that "social pressure" is in fact an environmental factor that would act as a selection force just as solar radiation or scarcity of game would.

Secondly, natural selection works on what is already there -- i.e., the traits and variations present in individuals of a species. Abstract reasoning and predictive capacity are, obviously, advantageous traits for humans and other species. But, it's not like the ability to do calculus is encoded on some specific gene or is the result of some specific mutation. It's an ability that comes from a brain structure that is a) beneficial in related tasks and b) generalized in that it can learn new ones. So, yes, some people, due to variation, and focus on specific types of reasoning, have and develop extraordinary mathematical abilities. But these abilities are all built on a foundation of abstract reasoning that we inherited from our ancestors, not something we developed entirely de novo, and certainly not based on any "desire" of our species.

Additionally, the "predictive" tests that are often part of an IQ test are not really about predicting the future. They are actually much more about pattern recognition and, often, spacial analysis -- for example, the next logical progression is a rotation of a 3-dimensional object, or recognizing the pattern in a progression of numbers. This is obviously an important skill for any predator, as well as any tree dweller, not just humans. Clearly, the ability to "predict" the outcome of actions is also an important skill for any but the most instinct driven creature. But non of these things are solely useful to humans, nor, I expect are any of them abilities that are wholly unique to humans, except perhaps in degree.


Oh, and BTW, Gruber's history with these sort of "predictions" is pretty good, indicating that his sources are very good. I think it's also likely that his sources, when they do "leak" this sort of information to him do it with authorization. He does not have a history, as many other blogs do, of going out on a limb with hardware predictions that turn out to be bogus -- he's almost always correct when he discusses something hardware related with this much specificity. I'm guessing the iPad Retina Screen rumors were getting out of hand and Apple wanted to put an end to them -- managing expectations.
post #36 of 98
Well I'm not interested in it until it's either significantly more affordable, or the screen is significantly better. So if this is true, I'm gonna want to see a price cut, Apple.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #37 of 98
This seems likely. I bet they'll improve the screen in some way without increasing resolution. Apple seems to prefer doing things when they feel the time is right instead of doing things as fast as they can. Plenty of people thought Apple would be behind not having OLED screens on the 3GS, but the iPhone 4 pretty much blew anything else on the market away at that point, and the extra ram and increased processor speed still had everyone buying the 3GS.
post #38 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

I suspect the screen in iPad2 will unfortunately be the same res as the current model. I could see the possibility of them throwing a bone and providing a slight increase to 1280x960. There is no reason that a straight 1/4 increase couldn't be done. It should be just as easy for iOS to render 25% more pixels as it would be to render double.

Not really. Lets say you have a black pixel and a white pixel next to each other on a screen and then you scale them up by 25%. How many pixels will that cover?

The answer is 2.5, with each image pixel covering 1.25 screen pixels. You can't render half a pixel.

So instead you have to use anti-aliasing and select pixel colours at averages between the original colours. iOS's quartz drawing can do this of course, but the end result is that your one black and one white pixel becomes 3 pixels at varying shades of grey, and your nice crisp one-pixel black line becomes a blurry grey mess.

The result would be that until they were updated with new graphics, many apps on the iPad 2 would actually look worse than they do on the iPad 1. Not a very good advert for your shiny new hardware.

And even barring the quality of non-updated apps, it doesn't exactly make it easy for app developers to update either; Currently to upgrade an iPhone app for retina display you just need to save out all your images again at 2x size with no code changes. Okay it may be a headache if the original graphics were bitmaps and not vectors, or if you can't find the original designer, but broadly it's not a big deal.

But if you had to support a screen 1.25x the size of your original, what are you supposed to do with all your images that aren't in multiple-of-four dimensions? Lets say you have an image that's 33 pixels wide - what size do you need to upscale that to? 41.25 pixels. Oops. Now I have to change my original image to 32 or 36 pixels and re-lay out all my interface files and change my code constants to compensate. Now I do the same for all the other images in the app.

Do you see now why this isn't going to happen?

Maybe Apple will use a 2048x1536 display on the new iPad and maybe they'll stick with 1024x768, but what they definitely won't do is use a screen size somewhere in between.
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
post #39 of 98
Simply increasing the pixel count does not automatically make for a better screen. There are other factors involved in what makes a good screen.

Others were earlier in releasing 1920x1200 notebook screens. At the time those screens were based on older LCD technology. While that was going on Apple was making the transition to LED backlit LCD screens which are brighter, energy efficient, and turn on instantly, but were not yet as high in resolution.

Also LED backlit screens are more expensive than the older fluorescent backlit screens that most everyone else was using at the time. Profit maximization was not the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Finally some sanity. I'd be amazed, no, bewildered and amazed if the iPad2 gets a 2048x1536 screen. With the exception of a handful of items over 30 years, Apple has a history of releasing high-res screens last among competitors. Competitors had 1920x1200 screens in laptops a good 3-4 years before Apple finally got around to doing it. They like to maximize profit margins.
post #40 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

Not really. Lets say you have a black pixel and a white pixel next to each other on a screen and then you scale them up by 25%. How many pixels will that cover?

The answer is 2.5, with each image pixel covering 1.25 screen pixels. You can't render half a pixel.

I think you need to count all the surrounding pixels not just the adjacent on a single axis. I think it is a minimum of 9, but that is what happens all the time anyway when you pinch to zoom. So no big deal.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Report: Claims of high-res screen in iPad 2 are 'too good to be true'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Report: Claims of high-res screen in iPad 2 are 'too good to be true'