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' - Page 3

post #81 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

...That processing and RAM needs, the graphical performance and power usage needs going with 4x as many pixels on a 3.5 display or a 9.7 display are exactly the same because the scaling is exactly the same? ...

Since we don't have access to the part, we don't know the power requirements, now do we? Then there's the whole thing about dual-core processors and improved graphics chips.

Apple doubled the resolution on the iPhone 4, added a faster processor to handle it, and INCREASED the battery life while doing it. As such, I'm not unilaterally prepared to say that they can't do the same exact thing on the iPad.

Are you?
post #82 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post

Ummm... you mean the same way the user experience was intact when the iPhone went to a Retina display?

People seem to forget that Apple already did this. iPhone 4 went Retina. Existing apps looked just like existing apps, albeit with sharper text. Apps that updated their graphics were sharper all around.

Why would the iPad be any different? At worst, an existing all-graphical app would look no worse than an app on the current iPad. The majority would be improved. Updated apps would look best of all.

I could totally see this as a .99 or more update to an app. Your app looks the same no matter what, but if you pay .99 (or more) you will have a retina app on your iPad.

So now they're going to market upgrades....

I really believe, and really hope at the same time, that it will be an online purchase only device....
post #83 of 98
Via Gruber, interesting discussion of when we can reasonably expect Retina level displays at iPad sizes in the context of Moore's Law.

The nut:

Quote:
We want to achieve 1024x768 times two = 2048x1536 = (2.13*960)x(2.40*640) = about 5x the physical area of the iPhone 4.

Moore's law says we get 2x every 18 months. So 5x is 2**2.32, ie. 2.32 doubling periods, or 3.48 years.

By that calculation, we can expect to see a double-resolution iPad 3.48 years from its original release date in March 2010, ie. Christmas 2013. (We can expect that Apple will have secret test units long before that, as they would have with the iPhone 4, but that doesn't change anything since they do it consistently. We can also assume that if you're willing to pay zillions of dollars, you could have a large display like that - produced by lucky fluke in an error-prone process - much sooner. And of course you'll get almost-as-good-but-not-retina very-high-res Android tablets sooner than that.)

Note: all of the above assumes that Apple will choose to define "retina display" as the same DPI for the iPad as for the iPhone. They probably won't. Being masters of reality distortion, I would bet on them being able to deliver their newly-redefined "retina display" iPads at least a year sooner at a lower DPI. So let's say sometime in 2012 instead. But not 2011.

The 2012 date assumes Apple would be willing to accept some intermediate, scaling requiring res for a "Retina" iPad, but I'm not so sure. As the same guy points out earlier in his post, it was pretty smart for Apple to wait till they could double the original iPhone's resolution, even as the competition kept releasing incremental increases. Doing the same thing with the iPad would be smart, even though it would mean standing pat while Android tablets trumpet their "better screens."

OTOH, as I've posted elsewhere, the next year is a pretty critical time for the iPad, and Apple may be willing to change it up a bit just to keep Android from getting a foot in the door.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #84 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post

Since we don't have access to the part, we don't know the power requirements, now do we? Then there's the whole thing about dual-core processors and improved graphics chips.

Apple doubled the resolution on the iPhone 4, added a faster processor to handle it, and INCREASED the battery life while doing it. As such, I'm not unilaterally prepared to say that they can't do the same exact thing on the iPad.

Are you?

Kudos for missing the point and acting like an ass at the same time.
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 #85 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

This is a very good thread with lots of opinions, pro and con, about whether Apple can/should increase the resolution of the iPad 2 -- the reasons given are technical, practical, competitive, strategic and financial.

Well it should be increased, that is for certain. As to technical issues I don't believe the panel is really a big problem, driving it in a power efficient manner is. A 2x resolution increse requires a whole new generation of chips.
Quote:
I am enjoying this thread and learning quite a bit -- while trying to contribute as best I can.


What is noticeable, is that this thread is not being sidetracked and monopolized by the resident trolls and Apple haters.

They will come when there is real product to be had. Right now trolling against speculation is very hard work.
Quote:

We know they are out there -- I [almost] wonder why they have substituted silence for their normal MO of hijacking the thread.

No matter what iPad 2 is they will come out when iPad 2 arrives.
post #86 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

They will come when there is real product to be had. Right now trolling against speculation is very hard work.

You underestimate them.
post #87 of 98
Quote:
(some would argue none because most math/computer geeks are depicted as parent's basement dwellers, who can't quite score a date )?

Or, in a funny twist of fate, they become financial analyst or bank programmers and marry...
Reproduction has more to do with financial stability than dating, hasn't it?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #88 of 98
These iPad retina rumors are strong enough to get the competition in action. I hope Apple has secured enough of them even for 2012...

From this point of view, Samsung's 7" choice seems pretty clever actually. Or just born out of need...
post #89 of 98
Whew. I'm glad that the rumor of a quad-resolution iPad 2 has been quashed by another rumor! Nothing like a good rumor to set the record straight.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #90 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Whew. I'm glad that the rumor of a quad-resolution iPad 2 has been quashed by another rumor! Nothing like a good rumor to set the record straight.

Exactly. The counter-rumor, being closer to the Source, is the one to end with, so we can Get On with Our Lives. When The Day comes, then, we will a) not be so disappointed if the 4X pixel display isn't there, or b), be more surprised if it is. Win-win, end of story, as the Anglo-Saxons say.

So that's that. No more discussion on the psychology/PR front, if we're Pulling for the Home Team here. Seriously . . . But then, if Gruber's sources are themselves being misled . . . No, no, let it rest. It's private information.
post #91 of 98
It would be interesting to such this-res iPad priced out based upon current market prices (with appropriate volume discounts, I suppose).

I'm not sure these screens exist or are being manufactured anywhere but I'm speculating (with some basis) that their cost would render it prohibitive for Apple to price such an iPad2 at close to levels of the current iPad... i.e. it would be a lot higher. I'd argue that Apple has NEVER pursued a high sales volume/market share approach over that of profit/margin.

For me, the rumors just dont pass the sniff test of authenticity (specifically high res screen). While technically feasible, it just isn't consistent with Apple's financial or marketing discipline to date.
post #92 of 98
All the wannabe chatterati also said the unibody laptop was a cost and technological impossibility.
post #93 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by chano View Post

All the wannabe chatterati also said the unibody laptop was a cost and technological impossibility.

I dont think so.

Moreover, nobody has argued that a high res screen it technically impossible. The arguements against are purely on whether it makes sense financially, or from an operation risk standpoint.

It is widely accepted that better proccessing and graphics will be forthcoming.
post #94 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Via Gruber, interesting discussion of when we can reasonably expect Retina level displays at iPad sizes in the context of Moore's Law.

The nut:
We want to achieve 1024x768 times two = 2048x1536 = (2.13*960)x(2.40*640) = about 5x the physical area of the iPhone 4.

Moore's law says we get 2x every 18 months. So 5x is 2**2.32, ie. 2.32 doubling periods, or 3.48 years.

By that calculation, we can expect to see a double-resolution iPad 3.48 years from its original release date in March 2010, ie. Christmas 2013. (We can expect that Apple will have secret test units long before that, as they would have with the iPhone 4, but that doesn't change anything since they do it consistently. We can also assume that if you're willing to pay zillions of dollars, you could have a large display like that - produced by lucky fluke in an error-prone process - much sooner. And of course you'll get almost-as-good-but-not-retina very-high-res Android tablets sooner than that.)

Note: all of the above assumes that Apple will choose to define "retina display" as the same DPI for the iPad as for the iPhone. They probably won't. Being masters of reality distortion, I would bet on them being able to deliver their newly-redefined "retina display" iPads at least a year sooner at a lower DPI. So let's say sometime in 2012 instead. But not 2011.


The 2012 date assumes Apple would be willing to accept some intermediate, scaling requiring res for a "Retina" iPad, but I'm not so sure. As the same guy points out earlier in his post, it was pretty smart for Apple to wait till they could double the original iPhone's resolution, even as the competition kept releasing incremental increases. Doing the same thing with the iPad would be smart, even though it would mean standing pat while Android tablets trumpet their "better screens."

OTOH, as I've posted elsewhere, the next year is a pretty critical time for the iPad, and Apple may be willing to change it up a bit just to keep Android from getting a foot in the door.

Gruber bought into a fatally flawed analysis. His bad.

Moore's Law, if you extend it to display pixels, would work on the maximum densities available. Since there are already pixel densities in other displays available in excess of what an iPad 2x display would need, the Moore's Law argument is already satisfied. It makes zero sense to back up to 1998 laptop resolutions and use that as the technical state of the art starting one year ago. iPad used 1024x768 because it was economically advantageous to do so, not because it was technically impossible to do otherwise.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #95 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Gruber bought into a fatally flawed analysis. His bad.

Moore's Law, if you extend it to display pixels, would work on the maximum densities available. Since there are already pixel densities in other displays available in excess of what an iPad 2x display would need, the Moore's Law argument is already satisfied. It makes zero sense to back up to 1998 laptop resolutions and use that as the technical state of the art starting one year ago. iPad used 1024x768 because it was economically advantageous to do so, not because it was technically impossible to do otherwise.

it’s not satisfied, because you’re talking about smaller pixels, not just as many. You’re also talking about completely different types of GPUs to push those pixels. Sure, there are desktop monitors that have more than 3M pixels and desktop and notebook GPUs that can push that many. But can the Imagination Tech GPUs designed for handheld devices? If they can, can they do so without ruining the UX by making the performance too poor to be useful or need too much power to be useful.

The iPhone 4’s doubling resolution is only evidence that Apple wanted to have one pixel be exactly represented by 4 pixels. Nothing else. The iPad in its lowly resolution and low pixel density still has a couple hundred thousand more pixels being pushed by the GPU so we know that the A4 could push the iPhone 4’s display resolution since it can push the iPad.

Can we say that the Img Tech GPUs can push 6x the iPhone 4’s pixels and 4x the iPad’s pixels? I don’t think Moore’s Law would say that it could in 12 months time, and that’s without considering the ability to create 65 million(?) of these 2048x1536 panels over the next year for a cost that makes it feasible.
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 #96 of 98
We seemed to have moved on from Moores law stopping the building of the screen to Moores law prohibiting the GPU. This is flailing around looking for an argument.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #97 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Gruber bought into a fatally flawed analysis. His bad.

Moore's Law, if you extend it to display pixels, would work on the maximum densities available. Since there are already pixel densities in other displays available in excess of what an iPad 2x display would need, the Moore's Law argument is already satisfied. It makes zero sense to back up to 1998 laptop resolutions and use that as the technical state of the art starting one year ago. iPad used 1024x768 because it was economically advantageous to do so, not because it was technically impossible to do otherwise.

As I've posted in another of the 30 iPad 2 threads, I agree that "Moore's Law" probably wasn't the best framing device.

But "economically advantageous" is actually the whole point, in that while it may be possible to manufacture 2048x1536 9.7" panels, if the rejection rate is high they become completely untenable as an economic proposition.

So are there fabs with a demonstrated capacity for appropriate yields at these densities? I question even Apple's capacity to secretly build or retool enough manufacturing capacity to provide for the expected sales of the iPad 2 and no one has ever breathed a word.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #98 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

As I've posted in another of the 30 iPad 2 threads, I agree that "Moore's Law" probably wasn't the best framing device.

But "economically advantageous" is actually the whole point, in that while it may be possible to manufacture 2048x1536 9.7" panels, if the rejection rate is high they become completely untenable as an economic proposition.

So are there fabs with a demonstrated capacity for appropriate yields at these densities? I question even Apple's capacity to secretly build or retool enough manufacturing capacity to provide for the expected sales of the iPad 2 and no one has ever breathed a word.

Clearly people have breathed a word, and here we are talking about it. Apple will be testing yields before they make an decision to release. For that reason I agree with the idea that there will be an iPad HD, or iPad retina. Higher costs will slow demand, when contraints are removed they can add the higher level resolution to the cheaper builds.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
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'