Just a minor point: Apple may also (justifiably) brand this as a retina display.
The technical starting point for retina display branding is that any higher resolution is not worth it because of the eye's inability to distinguish individual pixels. <geek>That means the *angle* subtended by a pixel when held at a certain distance is less than a certain threshold, not a specific pixels per inch threshold. Hence, If the typical viewing distance for the ipad is greater than the typical viewing distance of the ipod or iphone by > 326ppi/260ppi (which certainly seems to be the case) then it is also a retina (limited) display. </geek>
No way. If Apple were to call it a Retina Display then everyone would start yelling that the definition is the size of the pixels, and the eyes inability to see them individually. Apple set that standard and I doubt they would step on it.
If they do put in such a high-resolution screen, I hope it doesn't come at the expense of increasing the DRAM and flash memory. Last summer when the iPhone went to a retina display is the was the first update that didn't include a doubling of flash memory capacity.
I think ?at the expense? is a questionable comment. I haven?t heard any rumour that Apple opted for a better display instead of adding more NAND. As for RAM, they did up it to 512MB.
We can?t expect a NAND doubling every year. The tech doesn?t increase at that rate that the same price point. I think 18 months is more typical, and for the NAND Apple gets it may even take longer. Regardless, it?s not under 12 months.
Quote:
Also, hopefully it will be an iPhone quality display and not an iPod touch quality display, which I understand is inferior. Although I've never compared them side-by-side.
The iPhone 4 and iPad use IPS panel, while the iPod Touch probably uses a TN panel. While IPS isn?t a requirement for a tablet a panel with a 178º viewing angle is.
This is one important reason why the iPad was such a success; they weren?t using cheap TN panels which forced the viewer to look at it a certain way. Other vendors have caught on. Most notably Asus whose entire tablet line will be IPS.
I say IPS isn?t a requirement because there are competing technologies that produce a great viewing angle. That said, I think Apple will continue to use LG?s IPS technology.
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.
So then you round that out with a laundry list of new or improved features. Dual cameras and Facetime. SD card slot. Improved audio/speaker system. Updated OS with a few new key features. Refined case design. Possibly lighter, possibly longer battery life, most probably thinner.
It will make the iPad1 look primitive by comparison, and I would argue that the iPad as it stands today is a pretty remarkable little PC.
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
It would be beyond remarkable, and I honestly don't think any of us would have seen anything even remotely comparable to it before.
They wouldn't need a cpu that's four times as powerful. The cpu needs to be fast enough to deliver the info to the gpu to process, and a dual core Cortex 9, assuming Apple will be using their modded version of that, will be more than powerful enough to handle it. This cpu could be anywhere from 2 to 3 times as powerful, as it's going to a better architecture.
No way. If Apple were to call it a Retina Display then everyone would start yelling that the definition is the size of the pixels, and the eyes inability to see them individually. Apple set that standard and I doubt they would step on it.
I?m not sure what you?re saying here. Are you saying that Apple made a clear definition that 326ppi is what is defined as Retina Display?
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
.
Not sure how much of the cited improvements are likely to appear but I think that Apple could possibly try to effectively deliver a KO punch that really takes the competition out of contention for the next year.
The only thing is that they would be bleeding margin which is very unlike Apple.
Not sure how much of the cited improvements are likely to appear but I think that Apple could possibly try to effectively deliver a KO punch that really takes the competition out of contention for the next year.
The only thing is that they would be bleeding margin which is very unlike Apple.
Or maybe it’ll be a premium option for the higher-capacity device.
Besides the still unshipped Asus Eee Slate running Windows 7 ranking at #1, the #2 device is the 16GB WiFi iPad and the #3 device is the 64Gb WiFi+3G. This is not typical of models within a product category. Usually the most expensive and least expensive aren’t competing as the top seller. If this is true for the iPad market as a whole then it’s possible Apple could see the need for some $999 iPad with 128GB, 2048x1536 display, 1GB RAM, WiFi-3G model.
I agree that on a monitor for a desktop or laptop, because of the way they're used, 120 Hz monitors are better looking when moving things around, though, I don't see a difference with a static image. But, for tablets, unles we're doing stereo,it won't matter much, because we don't manipulate the desktop of apps in general, the same way. We might see a slight improvement when dragging something, but I don't think it will be nearly as dramatic.
Certainly it would not be as big a difference as on a larger monitor. But iOS does do some rather large screen movements, such as sliding the whole screen to the left when selecting a list item (UINavigationController) or the way apps zoom out of the centre of the screen when launched (or the opposite when quit), or the way the whole screen slides up to show the "task manager" (not sure what the real name is).
In fact the whole CoreAnimation framework seems to have been designed with iOS in mind (though it made it's debut on OS X) so I think anything that can make animations smoother would be a suitable upgrade for the device.
Maybe I don't fully understand the meaning of quadruple...!?!?
When you double both the horizontal and vertical resolution, you quadruple the pixel count; e.g. A 5x5 grid would be 25 pixels. A 10x10 grid would be 100 pixels (25x4=100)
The backlight is 90% of the power sucked by the display.
The new dual core cpu's are supposed to use the same, or even less power than the current Cortex single core 8.
RAM could be one of the new Samsung higher density modules, and that means about the same power draw.
The gpu(s) could draw more, but maybe not by much.
Newer chips in other areas could use less power as well.
It could be about a wash. and it's always possible that Apple has slightly better batteries. Maybe they are finally going to the new Sony batteries, which are much better than anything else out there. Earlier iterations of these batteries are pretty good. I have a Bosch power tool that uses them. It's possible that Apple uses them in their 1,000 recycle batteries for their notebooks. Maybe even for the current iPad. But newer versions should be even better.
IMHO, one thing Apple needs to do wrt the iPhone/iPad screen is remove the ability to customize the wallpaper. I was in the city today, in several shops that sell iDevices, and the sales staff always seem to change the wallpaper to something that makes the screen look crowded and intimidating to non-technical people who might otherwise have bought it.
By making the wallpaper configurable, Apple are allowing people with no taste to make all their magnificent, painstaking design irrelevant (ok, that is hyperbole, but they are allowing people to ruin the overall effect).
I think ?at the expense? is a questionable comment. I haven?t heard any rumour that Apple opted for a better display instead of adding more NAND. As for RAM, they did up it to 512MB.
We can?t expect a NAND doubling every year. The tech doesn?t increase at that rate that the same price point. I think 18 months is more typical, and for the NAND Apple gets it may even take longer. Regardless, it?s not under 12 months.
The iPhone 4 and iPad use IPS panel, while the iPod Touch probably uses a TN panel. While IPS isn?t a requirement for a tablet a panel with a 178º viewing angle is.
This is one important reason why the iPad was such a success; they weren?t using cheap TN panels which forced the viewer to look at it a certain way. Other vendors have caught on. Most notably Asus whose entire tablet line will be IPS.
I say IPS isn?t a requirement because there are competing technologies that produce a great viewing angle. That said, I think Apple will continue to use LG?s IPS technology.
Apple's displays are s-ips. This is a newer, and higher quality display than the older ips models that most other manufacturers are using when they're not going the TN route. It's not just viewing angle. It's color gamut, saturation, color accuracy, contrast, fast response, etc. H-ips offer slightly better IQ straight on, but slightly worse IQ as the viewing angle changes.
"Retina" does not mean >300ppi, it means when holding the device at a normal viewing distance (12' on the iphone) the eye can not discern individual pixels.
Since the iPad is held at a greater distance, like 18-20", I'm sure this resolution could be considered retina.
18"-20" is not far from full arm's length for a lot of people, that's a hard claim to sell. When I see people using iPads, it's very often at elbow length, cradled in their forearm if they're standing. Hopefully they'll use another trademarked phrase to avoid this problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeTheRock
Just pointing out, the 17" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 1920x1200, so the new iPad would have about 150% of the pixels of my screen. Does this mean the next gen of the 17" MacBook Pro will have a 2560x1600 resolution?
I don't think Apple would offer denser on a Mac until they have resolution independence ready to roll out. It's been in development since OSX 10.4, hopefully when 10.7 ships, who knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
By making the wallpaper configurable, Apple are allowing people with no taste to make all their magnificent, painstaking design irrelevant (ok, that is hyperbole, but they are allowing people to ruin the overall effect).
Backgrounds probably should be locked down on display models. I left it to its default on my iPad, but my iPhone only has a black background. I think because of the tight array, a picture just makes it look messy. On the iPad, the array is more sparse.
You know, iPhone-specific apps run on iPads at 480 x 320 pixels. You have the option of running them native size or 2x enlarged, which makes images and fonts look awful. If those apps could run at 960 x 640 (2x option would not be necessary), the quality of images and fonts would be greatly improved. What benefit could it be if we get a new 2048 x 1536 pixels display, but still have apps that show images and fonts at 480 x 320 quality?
OK... universal apps solve this issue but they aren't the most common case. And I certainly don't appreciate having to buy two versions of the same app, one for iPhone and another for iPad.
Apple's displays are s-ips. This is a newer, and higher quality display than the older ips models that most other manufacturers are using when they're not going the TN route. It's not just viewing angle. It's color gamut, saturation, color accuracy, contrast, fast response, etc. H-ips offer slightly better IQ straight on, but slightly worse IQ as the viewing angle changes.
Are you sure they are S-IPS? Don?t forget Apple invested a half-billion in LG and they have a 2009 tech called E-IPS. Wikipedia succinctly states Enhanced IPS 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."
Not sure how much of the cited improvements are likely to appear but I think that Apple could possibly try to effectively deliver a KO punch that really takes the competition out of contention for the next year.
The only thing is that they would be bleeding margin which is very unlike Apple.
I don't know how many of the rumors we're reading will come true. But if Apple with it's tremendous buying power, can deliver pretty much everything we're seeing, then other manufacturers will have to do one or more of 4 things.
1. Sell the tablets they've just announced for the spring and early summer at the same prices they've announced, for those who have announced pricing, and risk poor sales.
2. Drop prices in the hope that that will be sufficient to turn consumers heads, while substantially cutting or eliminating their profits.
3. withdraw their products as they did last year after Apple announced the iPad and its pricing, and rework them and introduce them 6 months down the road, risking loss of sales as it may be too late to catch up.
I don't know how many of the rumors we're reading will come true. But if Apple with it's tremendous buying power, can deliver pretty much everything we're seeing, then other manufacturers will have to do one or more of 4 things.
1. Sell the tablets they've just announced for the spring and early summer at the same prices they've announced, for those who have announced pricing, and risk poor sales.
2. Drop prices in the hope that that will be sufficient to turn consumers heads, while substantially cutting or eliminating their profits.
3. withdraw their products as they did last year after Apple announced the iPad and its pricing, and rework them and introduce them 6 months down the road, risking loss of sales as it may be too late to catch up.
4. Drop out of the tablet market at this time.
That is certainly one area in which Apple’s position can be devastating to others.
I think I’ve seen one vendor use the 960x640 display of the iPhone. I’m not sure if it was IPS or if it ever shipped. I think it was for Japan only. I don’t think I’ve seen any vendor match or exceed the iPhone’s pixel density or total pixels. The max for Android phones still seems to be 854x480.
edit: It was a Sharp IS03 for KDDI au in Japan. It isn’t IPS but it is Sharp’s equivalent, ASV.
I was thinking for several months now, there will be two classes of display - Retina will be the smartphone standard, OK.
Now for iPad, 1024x768 would have to be beefed up in the easiest way to 2048 x 1536. This won't be Retina, but Apple could always come up with a new term for it. It's just marketing, as you allude to somewhat... Here's some of my brainstorming:
Cornea Display
Eyeball Display
Eyesight
Eyetangent
Eyes
BlackGradient
RainDisplay
RainGuard
NerveDisplay
EyeNerve
Optic Display
Optical Display
Haptical Display
Heads In Display
Heads Down Display
Precision Screen
Precision Display
Immersive Display
Real Time Screen
Big Screen
Dense Screen
Tight Screen
Big Tights
Dense Tight
Density Display
Reticule Display
Lens Display
Lens Tight
Iris Display
Of all the above Iris Display makes the most sense, but there'll be licensing fees I'm sure. Unless they call it EyeRis Display heh.
Comments
Pointless, silly speculation. Not going to happen.
QFT... Enough Said.
Just a minor point: Apple may also (justifiably) brand this as a retina display.
The technical starting point for retina display branding is that any higher resolution is not worth it because of the eye's inability to distinguish individual pixels. <geek>That means the *angle* subtended by a pixel when held at a certain distance is less than a certain threshold, not a specific pixels per inch threshold. Hence, If the typical viewing distance for the ipad is greater than the typical viewing distance of the ipod or iphone by > 326ppi/260ppi (which certainly seems to be the case) then it is also a retina (limited) display. </geek>
No way. If Apple were to call it a Retina Display then everyone would start yelling that the definition is the size of the pixels, and the eyes inability to see them individually. Apple set that standard and I doubt they would step on it.
If they do put in such a high-resolution screen, I hope it doesn't come at the expense of increasing the DRAM and flash memory. Last summer when the iPhone went to a retina display is the was the first update that didn't include a doubling of flash memory capacity.
I think ?at the expense? is a questionable comment. I haven?t heard any rumour that Apple opted for a better display instead of adding more NAND. As for RAM, they did up it to 512MB.
We can?t expect a NAND doubling every year. The tech doesn?t increase at that rate that the same price point. I think 18 months is more typical, and for the NAND Apple gets it may even take longer. Regardless, it?s not under 12 months.
Also, hopefully it will be an iPhone quality display and not an iPod touch quality display, which I understand is inferior. Although I've never compared them side-by-side.
The iPhone 4 and iPad use IPS panel, while the iPod Touch probably uses a TN panel. While IPS isn?t a requirement for a tablet a panel with a 178º viewing angle is.
This is one important reason why the iPad was such a success; they weren?t using cheap TN panels which forced the viewer to look at it a certain way. Other vendors have caught on. Most notably Asus whose entire tablet line will be IPS.
I say IPS isn?t a requirement because there are competing technologies that produce a great viewing angle. That said, I think Apple will continue to use LG?s IPS technology.
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
- 4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
- 4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
- 4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.
So then you round that out with a laundry list of new or improved features. Dual cameras and Facetime. SD card slot. Improved audio/speaker system. Updated OS with a few new key features. Refined case design. Possibly lighter, possibly longer battery life, most probably thinner.It will make the iPad1 look primitive by comparison, and I would argue that the iPad as it stands today is a pretty remarkable little PC.
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
It would be beyond remarkable, and I honestly don't think any of us would have seen anything even remotely comparable to it before.
They wouldn't need a cpu that's four times as powerful. The cpu needs to be fast enough to deliver the info to the gpu to process, and a dual core Cortex 9, assuming Apple will be using their modded version of that, will be more than powerful enough to handle it. This cpu could be anywhere from 2 to 3 times as powerful, as it's going to a better architecture.
No way. If Apple were to call it a Retina Display then everyone would start yelling that the definition is the size of the pixels, and the eyes inability to see them individually. Apple set that standard and I doubt they would step on it.
I?m not sure what you?re saying here. Are you saying that Apple made a clear definition that 326ppi is what is defined as Retina Display?
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
.
Not sure how much of the cited improvements are likely to appear but I think that Apple could possibly try to effectively deliver a KO punch that really takes the competition out of contention for the next year.
The only thing is that they would be bleeding margin which is very unlike Apple.
Not sure how much of the cited improvements are likely to appear but I think that Apple could possibly try to effectively deliver a KO punch that really takes the competition out of contention for the next year.
The only thing is that they would be bleeding margin which is very unlike Apple.
Or maybe it’ll be a premium option for the higher-capacity device.
Besides the still unshipped Asus Eee Slate running Windows 7 ranking at #1, the #2 device is the 16GB WiFi iPad and the #3 device is the 64Gb WiFi+3G. This is not typical of models within a product category. Usually the most expensive and least expensive aren’t competing as the top seller. If this is true for the iPad market as a whole then it’s possible Apple could see the need for some $999 iPad with 128GB, 2048x1536 display, 1GB RAM, WiFi-3G model.BTW, That Eee Slate has a ppi lower than the current iPad.
I agree that on a monitor for a desktop or laptop, because of the way they're used, 120 Hz monitors are better looking when moving things around, though, I don't see a difference with a static image. But, for tablets, unles we're doing stereo,it won't matter much, because we don't manipulate the desktop of apps in general, the same way. We might see a slight improvement when dragging something, but I don't think it will be nearly as dramatic.
Certainly it would not be as big a difference as on a larger monitor. But iOS does do some rather large screen movements, such as sliding the whole screen to the left when selecting a list item (UINavigationController) or the way apps zoom out of the centre of the screen when launched (or the opposite when quit), or the way the whole screen slides up to show the "task manager" (not sure what the real name is).
In fact the whole CoreAnimation framework seems to have been designed with iOS in mind (though it made it's debut on OS X) so I think anything that can make animations smoother would be a suitable upgrade for the device.
Maybe I don't fully understand the meaning of quadruple...!?!?
When you double both the horizontal and vertical resolution, you quadruple the pixel count; e.g. A 5x5 grid would be 25 pixels. A 10x10 grid would be 100 pixels (25x4=100)
And 4x less battery life. hehe
Not really.
The backlight is 90% of the power sucked by the display.
The new dual core cpu's are supposed to use the same, or even less power than the current Cortex single core 8.
RAM could be one of the new Samsung higher density modules, and that means about the same power draw.
The gpu(s) could draw more, but maybe not by much.
Newer chips in other areas could use less power as well.
It could be about a wash. and it's always possible that Apple has slightly better batteries. Maybe they are finally going to the new Sony batteries, which are much better than anything else out there. Earlier iterations of these batteries are pretty good. I have a Bosch power tool that uses them. It's possible that Apple uses them in their 1,000 recycle batteries for their notebooks. Maybe even for the current iPad. But newer versions should be even better.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-p...er-electronics
By making the wallpaper configurable, Apple are allowing people with no taste to make all their magnificent, painstaking design irrelevant (ok, that is hyperbole, but they are allowing people to ruin the overall effect).
I think ?at the expense? is a questionable comment. I haven?t heard any rumour that Apple opted for a better display instead of adding more NAND. As for RAM, they did up it to 512MB.
We can?t expect a NAND doubling every year. The tech doesn?t increase at that rate that the same price point. I think 18 months is more typical, and for the NAND Apple gets it may even take longer. Regardless, it?s not under 12 months.
The iPhone 4 and iPad use IPS panel, while the iPod Touch probably uses a TN panel. While IPS isn?t a requirement for a tablet a panel with a 178º viewing angle is.
This is one important reason why the iPad was such a success; they weren?t using cheap TN panels which forced the viewer to look at it a certain way. Other vendors have caught on. Most notably Asus whose entire tablet line will be IPS.
I say IPS isn?t a requirement because there are competing technologies that produce a great viewing angle. That said, I think Apple will continue to use LG?s IPS technology.
Apple's displays are s-ips. This is a newer, and higher quality display than the older ips models that most other manufacturers are using when they're not going the TN route. It's not just viewing angle. It's color gamut, saturation, color accuracy, contrast, fast response, etc. H-ips offer slightly better IQ straight on, but slightly worse IQ as the viewing angle changes.
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides...anel-types.php
"Retina" does not mean >300ppi, it means when holding the device at a normal viewing distance (12' on the iphone) the eye can not discern individual pixels.
Since the iPad is held at a greater distance, like 18-20", I'm sure this resolution could be considered retina.
18"-20" is not far from full arm's length for a lot of people, that's a hard claim to sell. When I see people using iPads, it's very often at elbow length, cradled in their forearm if they're standing. Hopefully they'll use another trademarked phrase to avoid this problem.
Just pointing out, the 17" MacBook Pro has a resolution of 1920x1200, so the new iPad would have about 150% of the pixels of my screen. Does this mean the next gen of the 17" MacBook Pro will have a 2560x1600 resolution?
I don't think Apple would offer denser on a Mac until they have resolution independence ready to roll out. It's been in development since OSX 10.4, hopefully when 10.7 ships, who knows.
By making the wallpaper configurable, Apple are allowing people with no taste to make all their magnificent, painstaking design irrelevant (ok, that is hyperbole, but they are allowing people to ruin the overall effect).
Backgrounds probably should be locked down on display models. I left it to its default on my iPad, but my iPhone only has a black background. I think because of the tight array, a picture just makes it look messy. On the iPad, the array is more sparse.
OK... universal apps solve this issue but they aren't the most common case. And I certainly don't appreciate having to buy two versions of the same app, one for iPhone and another for iPad.
Apple's displays are s-ips. This is a newer, and higher quality display than the older ips models that most other manufacturers are using when they're not going the TN route. It's not just viewing angle. It's color gamut, saturation, color accuracy, contrast, fast response, etc. H-ips offer slightly better IQ straight on, but slightly worse IQ as the viewing angle changes.
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides...anel-types.php
Are you sure they are S-IPS? Don?t forget Apple invested a half-billion in LG and they have a 2009 tech called E-IPS. Wikipedia succinctly states Enhanced IPS 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."
Not sure how much of the cited improvements are likely to appear but I think that Apple could possibly try to effectively deliver a KO punch that really takes the competition out of contention for the next year.
The only thing is that they would be bleeding margin which is very unlike Apple.
I don't know how many of the rumors we're reading will come true. But if Apple with it's tremendous buying power, can deliver pretty much everything we're seeing, then other manufacturers will have to do one or more of 4 things.
1. Sell the tablets they've just announced for the spring and early summer at the same prices they've announced, for those who have announced pricing, and risk poor sales.
2. Drop prices in the hope that that will be sufficient to turn consumers heads, while substantially cutting or eliminating their profits.
3. withdraw their products as they did last year after Apple announced the iPad and its pricing, and rework them and introduce them 6 months down the road, risking loss of sales as it may be too late to catch up.
4. Drop out of the tablet market at this time.
I don't know how many of the rumors we're reading will come true. But if Apple with it's tremendous buying power, can deliver pretty much everything we're seeing, then other manufacturers will have to do one or more of 4 things.
1. Sell the tablets they've just announced for the spring and early summer at the same prices they've announced, for those who have announced pricing, and risk poor sales.
2. Drop prices in the hope that that will be sufficient to turn consumers heads, while substantially cutting or eliminating their profits.
3. withdraw their products as they did last year after Apple announced the iPad and its pricing, and rework them and introduce them 6 months down the road, risking loss of sales as it may be too late to catch up.
4. Drop out of the tablet market at this time.
That is certainly one area in which Apple’s position can be devastating to others.
I think I’ve seen one vendor use the 960x640 display of the iPhone. I’m not sure if it was IPS or if it ever shipped. I think it was for Japan only. I don’t think I’ve seen any vendor match or exceed the iPhone’s pixel density or total pixels. The max for Android phones still seems to be 854x480.
edit: It was a Sharp IS03 for KDDI au in Japan. It isn’t IPS but it is Sharp’s equivalent, ASV.
Here are the images in question.
I was thinking for several months now, there will be two classes of display - Retina will be the smartphone standard, OK.
Now for iPad, 1024x768 would have to be beefed up in the easiest way to 2048 x 1536. This won't be Retina, but Apple could always come up with a new term for it. It's just marketing, as you allude to somewhat... Here's some of my brainstorming:
Cornea Display
Eyeball Display
Eyesight
Eyetangent
Eyes
BlackGradient
RainDisplay
RainGuard
NerveDisplay
EyeNerve
Optic Display
Optical Display
Haptical Display
Heads In Display
Heads Down Display
Precision Screen
Precision Display
Immersive Display
Real Time Screen
Big Screen
Dense Screen
Tight Screen
Big Tights
Dense Tight
Density Display
Reticule Display
Lens Display
Lens Tight
Iris Display
Of all the above Iris Display makes the most sense, but there'll be licensing fees I'm sure. Unless they call it EyeRis Display heh.
What's a 1.5x resolution? 1536x1152 ie. closest to 1600x1200
This would be very doable and scale really well and could still run games, etc.