Another report claims Apple's iPad 2 will sport a high-res display - Page 2

OK, sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I have heard many assume higher res means smaller icons (as with monitors). BTW me neither!

K, you're really not interesting enough to size 5 your font.

Your number one request is pretty pointless considering you know full well that iPad 2 has 512 mb of RAM. It's not a request, it's just going to be there.

It's going to take much more than the A5 and the bare minimum RAM to make for a worthwhile upgrade.

Either hi res display, or yawn for iPad 1 owners.

I think this is one of those things we will have to wait till the official announcement to know for sure, no matter what information comes out in the meantime.

I wish no one had mentioned it in the first place. Once it was talked about, I noticed how horribly jaggy the text was on the iPad and now I can't help but see it every single time I use the device.

Ignorance was truly bliss in the sense that the iPads low resolution screen wasn't even on anyone's mind until people started talking about the super double-pixel screen.

There are a lot of CSS styles on websites that do use pixels for font size as well as other size related design elements. In those cases you do have to pinch zoom. Am I the only one who dislikes the trend on the web to make iPhone formatted sites that you can't break out of? I appreciate that they went to the trouble but many times I would just prefer the actual website and scroll around.

Yes 100% agree on last point ... I hate 'mobile' web sites you cannot avoid with a passion. Some simply refuse to let you get around it. There should always be an option (and a savable one) to select the real site if you wish. Now having said that an option to access a true iPad / iPhone style version (as opposed to something designed for a BB user) is nice at times as an option (like when on slow connections) but only as an option. I think I said option too many times here

The CCS styles issue .... I wonder if Apple could not also compensate for that in iOS rendering? I would not have thought that was impossible. Resolution independent rendering has to overcome all such issues surely?

I agree... if you consider the market to be what the iPad currently is addressing...


I disagree... if you consider the potential: a) what markets an enhanced iPad could address; b) the capability for the iPad to set the standard and dominate the marketplace for the next several years


The production line and supply chain for iPad2 is, likely, separate from iPad1.

The specs, supply-chain agreements, manufacturing setups for iPad2 have been in process for at least 6 months.

I do not believe the iPad1 supply constraint is related to the release of iPad2.

I do believe the contracts and forecasts [assumed to be large] for iPad2 are because Apple sees 2011 as the critical year for the iPad.

Even if the 2x iPad2 is supply-constrained -- it would be such a compelling product that buyers would wait for delivery -- rather than buy any of the announced alternatives that arent even in the same ballpark!


I was working for IBM when they introduced the Selectric typewriter -- that revolutionized the typewriter industry and was the beginning of desktop publishing!


The iPad2 has greater potential to revolutionize how people interact with content!


iPad == You n' your stuff!

Neither can I. Neither i'm guessing can the typical average user. And that is who they design for, not the uber geeks that hang out on sites like this.

The average user will benefit from a front facing camera for FaceTime, dual GSM/CDMA connection options, more storage, more ram and/or faster processor for stability, longer battery life, anti glare glass etc. So these are things I expect fir the next couple of years. They are happen to be the same things needed to support a higher res screen of this type. Once they are in place and we have a realistic format for blu-ray quality digital video, then I will believe rumors that they are going with some super screen. Until then I still have it under the geek wet dream column

Pixels?... now where is that iPad... Oh here it is -- in my hand

A number of commenters have said they don't see the value because they "can't see the pixels" on the current display.

I predict:

When a higher-res display comes out (perhaps not this year) and you hold the new and old displays side-by-side, you will be shocked at the difference.

Even with old eyes like mine.

DigiTimes=National Enquirer. on acid.

Not really a good comparison. The reason is this: the standard for magazine publishing photos is 300dpi. Photographers are instructed to supply art at this size and no smaller than the size the photo will be eventually laid out at. In other words, if the photo takes up a full page, the supplied photo must be 8x10 at 300dpi. But usually photos are downsized by the art director to fit the layout.

Going way back the reason for the 300 standard is that this was approximately double the resolution of the final printed product.

But printing and displays are so very different: for one thing ink spreads -- which is actually a good thing when you are trying to avoid the reader seeing individual drops of ink.

People often forget that sometimes displays with smaller resolutions can actually look better. For instance, watch the same old TV program broadcast in standard definition on an older tube TV and an HDTV. The tube TV, with its lower resolution will look better than the HDTV where you will see lots of pixels. Of course, HD content looks better on an HDTV. The content has to match the medium.

I don't understand what you are talking about jaggy text!

Below is a zoomed screen shot from my iPad -- the only jaggies are in the raster images containing text (at the bottom).

Apologies in advance for the large image -- necessary to illustrate point.

I don't think they will segment the market with two different display types in the iPad 2. When they introduced the retina display on the iPhone, they extended this display all the way down to the cheapest iPod Touch model (at a lower quality, but still 960x640). They could have just used a higher quality low-res display, but they chose to use the new resolution for a simple reason - apps.

With the iPad 2, the incentive is the same - making all new iPad models at the higher resolution ensures that iPad developers will jump on the retina band-wagon. It's possible they might have last years model with the A5 (or maybe still the A4) at $399 or something, but I think odds are we'll see the iPad 2 with the hi-res display at ~$500.

As I commented on another board, the unveiling presentation practically writes itself:

4 times the CPU (dual core A9)
4 times the graphics (dual core SGX 543)
4 times the RAM (1GB)
4 times the screen (2048x1536)

Still just $499.

Without a higher-res display, I would have expected the iPad pricing to come down - now that they know the product will be in demand they can manufacture in much higher volume and get much better deals. Coupled with all the reports of "strategic" investments of several billion dollars (compared against flash, RAM, and CPU - leaving only battery, screen, or camera as possible components)... I think I've just convinced myself this is true.

Convinced... or deluded.

Usually 300 dpi or better.

i highly doubt the high res screen will NOT come. come on, its Apple

While I am starting to believe that the retina display won't arrive this year, I definitely don't see Apple waiting a few years. If they can deliver it in iPhone in 2010, then they should be able to deliver in the iPad at the latest by April 2012 (if not 2011). If they waited any longer I think they lose their competitive edge. At some point all manufacturers will be using this technology, or something better, so waiting makes zero sense. I think this all depends on only one thing. Does Apple want to take a financial hit hit now to be head and shoulders above the competition for the foreseeable future, or take a smaller hit later and only be on par with the competition? They can pick and choose their moment to do this, no question about it, but it will give them the most bang for their buck if they announce asap. We'll just have to see which way they go. If they wait til 2013 or later like you speculate, this would be a very bad decision.

2400 dpi for line work such as black text. 175 line screen for images. The CYMK each have a possible dot size of 1 to 256 scale (256 being solid 100% overlap). It isn't exactly the same relationship to a monitor. The reason people say 300 dpi is because that used to be twice the line screen. Now we use 350 because we print at 175 line screen. The reason you want to be twice is because of antialiasing. In a worst case scenario the placement of your image would be exactly half way between the dot grid. That way you have enough resolution to accurately average the color values. You can kind of think of 175 dpi as the viewing resolution on a printed page although it is not entirely accurate since it is a completely different imaging science.

The jaggies don't acale when you zoom, it actually looks worse when you zoom out. Pull up the same size text on an iPhone 4 and an iPad and look at them side by side. If you can not see the difference, visit an optomotrist.

This is true. It will be shocking, and such an iPad will be the most lusted-after photographic device since the Hasselblad, only much more attainable.

The worst sites are the ones that ignore the user agent string from the browser and use some other identifier to force you to get their mobile shit version. ESPN feeds you crap even if you jailbreak an iPhone or use an Androif phone feeding a user agent string of a desktop broswer like firefox or IE. It really pisses me off, because the mobile sites never have all of the content or usability of the main site. WTF? Most of us have a decent browser on Apple and Android phones, we dont need the mobile crap a windows mobile phone or old BB needed.

I think there's an obvious explanation for the 2x art in iBooks even if the iPad 2 doesn't have a retina display. Obviously there are prototypes of an iPad with a retina display at Apple. (If I recall, it was John Gruber who said iPhones are on a 2 year development cycle, so right now the iPhone 5 and iPhone 6 are in development. I think the same is probably true for iPads. Right now the iPad 2 is nearing completion and the iPad 3 is in the early development stage.) Now, if this is the case, then the iPad prototype would be running an isolated branch of iOS (either 4.x or whatever branch is planned to become 5) and all the 2x assets would be separated from the 4.3 branch (that looks like it's intended for iPad 2). iBooks, however, is a separate app and likely has a separate development team. But iBooks is obviously an app of great importance for retina displays, so the iPad prototype team would have asked the iBooks team for a version with 2x art, and some of this 2x art accidentally wound up in the release version. So the iBooks 2x art is, at best, proof that a retina display iPad is in development and is part of Apple's current roadmap. But it's not proof that the iPad 2 has a retina display.

That said, I think there's still a chance we'll see a retina display on iPad 2. As to the cost issue, I think the original iPad was intentionally conservative in design, because Apple obviously didn't know how well it would sell. I think Apple has been as surprised at its success as everyone else. Estimating component costs for Apple is difficult because they sell in such bulk and use the same components across multiple product lines; savings in one place and ameliorate costs in another. (As an example, the iPhone 5 could be a conservative update but sell to carriers at the same price, whereas the iPad 2 could be a major update at its current price point. Their overall margins would stay the same.) Apple also said it has invested close to $4 billion in a new component opportunity. I think that's very likely to be displays and I don't think they would have mentioned it if it wasn't relevant to a product on the 2011 release cycle. It could be that the iPad 1 is to the iPad 2 as the original Apple TV is to the current Apple TV. iPad 1 was just testing the water and now we're going to see the real deal. I don't think anyone had any idea that the first iPad would sell 16.4 million. Even without a major update they're likely to sell 30 million in 2011. With a really compelling update they could be looking at 40+ million, as long as they're not supply constrained, but that's what that $4 billion was about.

They are doing a CSS media query and can see your screen res.]

One of the anti-high-res-display arguments is that the 2x-res icons are being placed there in anticipation of an eventual "Retina Display" iPad 3.

Why would software decisions about iPad 3 be made now? Using this logic, we should have found Mac App Store references in Leopard.

I thus believe that we will see a retina-level display in the next iPad.

Excellent post. Didn't quote the whole thing but I like all of your points very much.

I think Apple developers left the images out until the last build of iOS 4 to keep the secret. There's no real secret now. We know that someday there will be a retina iPad screen - it's not a new concept anymore. This is just developers preparing for the inevitable. Remember Apple's employees are likely assigned to different projects. The devs who made those textures now may be reassigned to another project so they want everything done now so they don't have to come back to it next year.

That is one bad issue but I'm also very displeased with the iPhone sites that don't let you zoom content. These are very frustrating as I'm in the +50 eyes class now. Why anybody out there would disable a feature that gives many users better access to your content is beyond me.

Sadly these are often Mac or iPhone sites. Since the content on these sites is often sourced from the same place you often find one site to be very useful and another not so useful. This is especially frustrating in the case of pics and PowerPoint slides. It is like why bother posting if you are going to make it unreadable to your user base. Stupidity!

Remember, Steve is still acting CEO. Until he passes the reigns to Cook or other I see no reason for him not to spend a single day in SF at Moscone MCing a couple special events.

Besides, for all we know this is nothing but a marketing ploy. Jobs will limp onto the stage with cane in hand, stop, wobble a few times and fall forward tucking himself into a roll, then stand up with arms extended. The crowd cheers. The cane, made of liquidmetal, still standing upright due to the magnetic core at the bottom resting upon the feris metal plate on the stage floor. The event concludes, not with the typical famous artist, but with a dozen of Foxconn's child labor force signing a variation of an Umpa-Loompa song.

He said in another thread that text on the iPad looked terrible. AIR, the example he gave was the letter "O" in Pages.

Below is a pages doc:



Sure text looks better on an iP4 -- but it looks good on an iPad also.

I was arguing the opposite case. Their inclusion means that a hi res screen exists some where in Apple.

Not having them in the iOS betas was good practice. This was a mistake.

I can see that if they get some means to attach lenses.

It could also be a great videoCam.

If some of the rumors about iOS add-ons are true, a 2x iPad2 would be great for on-the-spot video processing.

iPhoto with the front camera is a natural for the kids,


I bought a glif for my iPhone 4 -- so I can attach it to a tripod -- great product and really makes a difference.

Sadly, I think we can reject this source as more noise than signal. I fear those 2x images just mean what we could have guessed anyway: they’re internally starting to work with future retina iPad plans. But to make this absurd quote all the more absurd (iOS apps running on Mac?) even a 27” iMac cannot fit a 2048x1536 image! It only has 1440 vertical.

The old 30” Cinema Display is the only Apple device capable of fitting 2048x1536. (But developers can just preview at 1024x768—or load to their iPads for full-res testing—anyway.)

Here's a thought. What if the iPad 2 has both resolutions. (1024x768 and 2048x1536).

If Apple does come out with an iPad with RetinaDisplay this year (which I'm not sure of), I can't believe it will be $499.

Maybe Engadget and John Gruber are both right! Maybe one model of the iPad 2 will have the same resolution, and a more expensive iPad 2 will have a new RetinaDisplay.

So, the new iPad lineup is:
iPad 2 Wifi - $499 (has a 1024x768 screen)
iPad 2 3G - $629 (has a 2048x1536 RetinaDisplay)
And then of course the different memory size options.

iPad v1 - $399

The iPad has been such a successful product, I could see Apple making a Pro (or HD) version with souped up specs. Maybe they just make the 3G versions the Pro line. Right now you have to pay an extra $130 to get the 3G version. The only difference is the 3G chip (with built in GPS), antenna, and slightly different case. I bet these parts cost Apple less than $30. There's definitely enough profit in the 3G iPads if Apple wanted to offer more than just 3G connectivity.

I never thought the previous iPhone displays were bad. Even compared to over-saturated AMOLED displays with higher pixel counta (using questionable sub-pixel counting) it always looked fine. In fact, I can't reall ever consciously noticing the pixels.

But then I got an iPhone 4 that not only doubled the resolution, but increase the backlight brightness, made the blacks blacker, used IPS in stead of a TN TFT LCD, and used a different production process that moved the display closer to the glass that it looks likes it's painted on.

I notice the pixels on everything now. Other cell phones, the iPad, even my MBP. It's the psychology of technological progress. I won't ever go back to an inferior phone display.

My... what an amazing mind (real or imagined)

There are literally days of prep with many hours of rehearsal that go into a keynote...

It is, likely, the most stressful thing that Steve does!

Sadly, I don't think Steve will give the iPad2 keynote. I do expect we'll see a short, 2-4 minute film clip from Steve, though.

I feel I'm at my best when being a dumbass.


Oh, sure, but all the technical setup can be done without his local presence. The Keynote setup can be made at Cupertino or at his house by an employee (I'm sure he has an in-home office). That leaves him practicing, perhaps even via conference/video call, at home until the day of.

That's just one scenario. I don't see why he couldn't spend a couple days in SF preparing for this. It may be the hardest part but 1) it may be the part he enjoys most, and 2) it helps the image of the company if he MCs the event.

I'm not saying this will happen, only that he is still acting CEO so we shouldn't rule it out. It certainly seems more likely than pushing over 3,000,000 pixels on a ARM-based mobile device that needs to get 10+ hours of usage per charge.

That depends entirely on how he looks doing it.

If he shows and looks like hes on deaths door, that would have the opposite effect.

I wondering if that counter-argument would be made.

Also, for the long term, not being at a special event helps to psychologically prepare everyone for the inevitable, and that Apple can bot only service, but thrive, without Job's running the show.

That might have been part of the plan anyway. They announce the medical leave even though he is not really that sick. Take the hit on the stock price which was not that bad being just ahead of great earnings. Now Steve leaving soon is baked into the stock and the public consciousness which makes it a lot easier going forward regardless if he is still involved or not. At least now everyone is onboard with the reality that Steve will retire soon.

There's this ad on TV -- could be by HP, VZ or some TV or phone maker:

This guy is looking at his large flat-screen HDTV mounted on the wall.

He gets up and rips the HDTV off the wall, folds it in half, then again several times while leaving the house.

He sits down at a coffee shop and the folded TV has become a laptop or a tablet.

He grabs the laptop and folds it in half several times and it becomes a smart phone.

He is out and about and does whatever...

Later, he enters a house, unfolds the whole business and slaps the HDTV on the wall.


I want to be able to do that metaphorically, virtually or or in reality.