I don't know if i can agree with this. It would fragment the iPad market. not a good idea. It's exactly what we've been saying about Android. It's one thing to have an older model with differing features, but not current ones. Yes, I know Apple offers the 3GS for less, but I'm not thrilled about that either. But it's a bigger case with the iPad. There, apps are even more important in the sophistication of what they can do. I can see developers making their apps do more with the extra screen rez on this big screen.
I agree this is not ideal but it might be what's doable in the near-term. Ideally, they could put a double-res screen in all the new models - even if it means eating some margin on the device. That might not be an unattractive option for Apple but could they get yields in the quantity needed? The displays would consolidate around the higher screen resolution next year.
I just get the feeling that Apple might want to make a big statement about who's top dog in tablet computing.
I don't know if i can agree with this. It would fragment the iPad market. not a good idea. It's exactly what we've been saying about Android. It's one thing to have an older model with differing features, but not current ones. Yes, I know Apple offers the 3GS for less, but I'm not thrilled about that either. But it's a bigger case with the iPad. There, apps are even more important in the sophistication of what they can do. I can see developers making their apps do more with the extra screen rez on this big screen.
Technically fragment by the stark definition? Yes, but only because there are two distinct displays.
Fragment to a point that development gets difficult? Not at all if the resolution simply doubles. With a true doubling any original resolution bitmaps/screen layouts are still valid and true to form with a simple display library scaling. Totally transparent to developers and existing apps. Those that want to take advantage of higher res can at their own pace knowing ALL previous work is still perfectly serviceable.
Anything other than doubling and then developers need to put in GUI redesign work and that would result in multiple versions - fragmenting the programming effort a bit.
Technically fragment by the stark definition? Yes, but only because there are two distinct displays.
Fragment to a point that development gets difficult? Not at all if the resolution simply doubles. With a true doubling any original resolution bitmaps/screen layouts are still valid and true to form with a simple display library scaling. Totally transparent to developers and existing apps. Those that want to take advantage of higher res can at their own pace knowing ALL previous work is still perfectly serviceable.
Anything other than doubling and then developers need to put in GUI redesign work and that would result in multiple versions - fragmenting the programming effort a bit.
it's the point of being able to make a display with more resolution more information dense tht leads to fragmentation. What does a developer do, hold back on that because current devices don't support it, or do it and leave current buyers with a less informative app?
it's the point of being able to make a display with more resolution more information dense tht leads to fragmentation. What does a developer do, hold back on that because current devices don't support it, or do it and leave current buyers with a less informative app?
Neither. The information to the app user is the same unless there is a need to change it. If there is a need, then there is a means to do so. We can go back and forth all day long because technically something changed. But if it is a true doubling the answer is 'so what' as far as the effect on current apps. There is no effect other than OS supplied text gets smoother.
The means to do a "Universal App" is ridiculously simple in this instance too. Just duplicate the nib and substitute any higher res art with the appropriate naming conventions. Repackage. Done.
For buyers of iPad originals: that's the march of tech and being an early adopter, and always will be. Nothing bad about it, it just is, and the apps that don't require 2x will all still work, as well as any new apps that aren't 2x required.
I hope they improve it somehow, as its not quite good enough for what I would love to purchase it for.
Edit: my iphone4 screen is fantastic, and i do a good lot of reading on it, either ibooks or an alternative pdf reader. But I want a bigger screened device to read research PDFs. Most ereaders are too small to do it justice. I tried the current ipad in the shop (today even) and while they still had it running iOS3 rahter than the latest update, the actual pdf (as read in in safari) just didnt seem quite crisp enough. I could be spoiled, but that device with the same pixel density as the iphone4... . perfection.
Great article - truly well thought out and highly analytical. But it begs contemplating how existing iPad applications and content will render properly at this doubled resolution. A related issue is that many iPad developers simply don't develop iPad applications and content on Macs that support this resolution (mostly MacBook Pros). How will they test/view their work unless they have 2048x1536 or larger resolution displays? And possibly the biggest consideration, what about Facetime video chat? The iPad's front-facing camera video resolution won't be much better than VGA - possibly 720p. Facetime video will look very blocky if it's scaled up, no?
Personally I think, with all the extra pixels, they will have certain apps limited to pixel densities due to processor constraints. Just like your iPad of today will look the same on a Retina display, so too can Face Time or any other app., even games. I don't see why people keep thinking that everything has to change just because of the new screen density. They will look the same unless the developer unlocks the ability to use more pixels, (putting in higher resolution artwork). Even then, just because you're using more pixels does not mean everything 'shrinks'. If it's written for that pixel density, then it will still look the same... only sharper. I could see some new protocols for screen 'placement', but I don't think everything would be 'half-screened' or quarter, off the bat.
I'll just shamelessly quote myself from two months ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonk
I think it's pretty obvious that the iPad will get a resolution bump. Specifically, look at the iPhone resolution: 960x640
Now double that in each direction, for four times more pixels and you get: 1920x1280.
That would allow:
1. Perfect upscaling of iPhone apps.
2. Native 1080p.
I think Apple went with such a high res screen for iPhone specifically to take the iPad to 1920x1280. Otherwise they would have gone for a milder bump to WVGA, or something close to that.
I'll just shamelessly quote myself from two months ago.
Why are you pointing out a post you made that males no sense and supported by no argument that would shed light as to why you think Apple would drop the 4:3 aspect ratio of the iPad for the 3:2 aspect ratio of the iPhone, not to mention that Apple's douong of the iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 resolution makes sense, doubling the iPhone 4's resolution to make developer transition on the iPad easier in fact does the exact opposite.
Scaling is not a reason to discount a 1.25x or 1.5x display - the reason being is nothing needs to be scaled.
When the iPhone 4 came out, within weeks developers provided native artwork at 2x resolution. They didn't just scale up existing imaged. The rest is vector graphics so it doesn't matter. The developers should be making two sizes natively, not just one and scaling it to the other. And if we are talking about photos here, well, those are usually scaled down from a much higher resolution and scale well anyway. Anything else should be vector-drawn so it'll scale at any size.
So if Apple released a 1.25x display in the iPad 2, developers just have to make new images from their larger sources, or recreate them at the 1.25x size in their illustration software. Everything will look great, except for lazy developers that don't update their apps.
That said, I don't think Apple will do this. The change is not great enough a selling point to justify the cost. I predict 2x screens on the iPad 3, and 1x screen on the iPad 2.
Since Apple is dabbling now in multiple screen sizes, platforms and resolutions, they are now telling dev's do adjust their apps for these multiple platforms. Where, in the past, the dev's worked with a single platform but with multiple screen sizes. The the question is this: what is more efficient, developing apps for multiple platforms at differing screen sizes, or a single platform at multiple screen sizes? Or, does it even make a difference?
Since Apple is dabbling now in multiple screen sizes, platforms and resolutions, they are now telling dev's do adjust their apps for these multiple platforms. Where, in the past, the dev's worked with a single platform but with multiple screen sizes. The the question is this: what is more efficient, developing apps for multiple platforms at differing screen sizes, or a single platform at multiple screen sizes? Or, does it even make a difference?
First of all, we have to question whether there is one iOS platform, or two. I think it's one. How many resolutions should a developed have to support. All those talking about how easy it is are missing the point. Why make them do this at all?
Yes, we need to move forwards. But it should be done so as to make it easier on all. Apple will have four different resolutions developers will need to support in another year. For the phone, and Touch, the low (as we think of it now) Rez support will be fading by the end of 2011. but not for the iPad. Have a new Rez for the new generation, and do it in such a way for it to be easiest. X2. Let the old models fade out gracefully, and have ALL new ones support the new Rez. I'd be willing to bet that if Apple could have done it that way, both the iPhone/Touch and iPad Rez's would have been an even multiple, but the screens were't there for it.
There are two iOS iPhone resolutions, but to devs they look like one unless they want to deal with the higher res. There is no forcibly added burden on the devs with the Retina Display. Period.
The ONLY situation where a dev would even care is if they had something they wanted to do that the previous resolution didn't adequately support, but the Retina Display does. Then they have the ability to write to the crisper resolution. An option that wasn't there before, which equates to a income stream that wan't there before either. Not a lot of apps need that resolution except in the text fields, and there they get it for free from the OS, at absolutely zero dev effort.
If the iPad goes to a double resolution it will be the same. It will be a non-issue to devs unless they want it to be. No need for more coding. No need for new version of apps. No fragmentation. Period.
Can we stop with the Chicken Little routine now???
A higher resolution along with a faster processor and more memory would sell me an iPad 2. Any of those missing and I'll keep my iPad until a suitable tablet can replace it. Apple has another reason to sell a higher resolution screen; all apps can be brought out again as extra HD which would mean more revenue for Apple.
There are two iOS iPhone resolutions, but to devs they look like one unless they want to deal with the higher res. There is no forcibly added burden on the devs with the Retina Display. Period.
The ONLY situation where a dev would even care is if they had something they wanted to do that the previous resolution didn't adequately support, but the Retina Display does. Then they have the ability to write to the crisper resolution. An option that wasn't there before, which equates to a income stream that wan't there before either. Not a lot of apps need that resolution except in the text fields, and there they get it for free from the OS, at absolutely zero dev effort.
If the iPad goes to a double resolution it will be the same. It will be a non-issue to devs unless they want it to be. No need for more coding. No need for new version of apps. No fragmentation. Period.
Can we stop with the Chicken Little routine now???
I get it very well. I think you don't understand it as well as you think you do.
I get it very well. I think you don't understand it as well as you think you do.
I think Hiro's right - you don't seem to have gone through this procedure.
Here's how you support Retina display. You have two options:
1. Do nothing - app works great. Images are scaled up. Not ideal
2. For every image file in your app, supply one with double the resolution. Name it the same as the smaller one, but with @2x before the extension. i.e. if you have have MyImage.png in your project in XCode that is 480x320, add [email protected] to your project - it should be 960x640.
That's all you need to do. Apple's made it very easy here. The only time it would be more work is if you used your own code for loading an image. Not sure why you would want to do that, but even if you did, you can easily figure out if you are on a retina device or not and load the appropriate image.
Now, consider if the iPad 2 has a different resolution that is 1.25x the original iPad's screen. It doesn't matter. As a developer, you only have to supply [email protected] files. This is not difficult to do at all.
Now, personally I don't think the iPad 2 will have an 1.25x display because I don't see the big end user advantage. They can still see the pixels, will notice jaggies, etc. - they'll just be a little bit finer. Yes, it'll be a little bit better, but it won't be a lot better. Either go Retina where the jaggies disappear completely, or keep it the same.
I did plenty of coding. The grunts can code as much as they want to these days.
Cool, then you should already know to actually code & simulate a deploy before you get all half cocked on whether something is a problem or not.
Not sure what you are saying with regards to the grunts. If it's that you've gone on to something "higher" and let others do the "coding grunt-work" then maybe you just need to revisit your roots just enough to avoid saying something in front of them that won't make you look too good.
An oh, what Gustav said^^^. My apps run and look just fine with option 1. Option 1 works just like I have been saying for the last week and a half. Option 2 is even a little easier than I previously understood, but haven't been required to use.
Comments
I don't know if i can agree with this. It would fragment the iPad market. not a good idea. It's exactly what we've been saying about Android. It's one thing to have an older model with differing features, but not current ones. Yes, I know Apple offers the 3GS for less, but I'm not thrilled about that either. But it's a bigger case with the iPad. There, apps are even more important in the sophistication of what they can do. I can see developers making their apps do more with the extra screen rez on this big screen.
I agree this is not ideal but it might be what's doable in the near-term. Ideally, they could put a double-res screen in all the new models - even if it means eating some margin on the device. That might not be an unattractive option for Apple but could they get yields in the quantity needed? The displays would consolidate around the higher screen resolution next year.
I just get the feeling that Apple might want to make a big statement about who's top dog in tablet computing.
I don't know if i can agree with this. It would fragment the iPad market. not a good idea. It's exactly what we've been saying about Android. It's one thing to have an older model with differing features, but not current ones. Yes, I know Apple offers the 3GS for less, but I'm not thrilled about that either. But it's a bigger case with the iPad. There, apps are even more important in the sophistication of what they can do. I can see developers making their apps do more with the extra screen rez on this big screen.
Technically fragment by the stark definition? Yes, but only because there are two distinct displays.
Fragment to a point that development gets difficult? Not at all if the resolution simply doubles. With a true doubling any original resolution bitmaps/screen layouts are still valid and true to form with a simple display library scaling. Totally transparent to developers and existing apps. Those that want to take advantage of higher res can at their own pace knowing ALL previous work is still perfectly serviceable.
Anything other than doubling and then developers need to put in GUI redesign work and that would result in multiple versions - fragmenting the programming effort a bit.
Technically fragment by the stark definition? Yes, but only because there are two distinct displays.
Fragment to a point that development gets difficult? Not at all if the resolution simply doubles. With a true doubling any original resolution bitmaps/screen layouts are still valid and true to form with a simple display library scaling. Totally transparent to developers and existing apps. Those that want to take advantage of higher res can at their own pace knowing ALL previous work is still perfectly serviceable.
Anything other than doubling and then developers need to put in GUI redesign work and that would result in multiple versions - fragmenting the programming effort a bit.
it's the point of being able to make a display with more resolution more information dense tht leads to fragmentation. What does a developer do, hold back on that because current devices don't support it, or do it and leave current buyers with a less informative app?
it's the point of being able to make a display with more resolution more information dense tht leads to fragmentation. What does a developer do, hold back on that because current devices don't support it, or do it and leave current buyers with a less informative app?
Neither. The information to the app user is the same unless there is a need to change it. If there is a need, then there is a means to do so. We can go back and forth all day long because technically something changed. But if it is a true doubling the answer is 'so what' as far as the effect on current apps. There is no effect other than OS supplied text gets smoother.
The means to do a "Universal App" is ridiculously simple in this instance too. Just duplicate the nib and substitute any higher res art with the appropriate naming conventions. Repackage. Done.
For buyers of iPad originals: that's the march of tech and being an early adopter, and always will be. Nothing bad about it, it just is, and the apps that don't require 2x will all still work, as well as any new apps that aren't 2x required.
Gruber has spoken. No "retina" display for the iPad. According to his source(s).
Great while it lasted. Of course he or his source could be wrong or disinformed. He's taking bets.
http://daringfireball.net/
I hope they improve it somehow, as its not quite good enough for what I would love to purchase it for.
Edit: my iphone4 screen is fantastic, and i do a good lot of reading on it, either ibooks or an alternative pdf reader. But I want a bigger screened device to read research PDFs. Most ereaders are too small to do it justice. I tried the current ipad in the shop (today even) and while they still had it running iOS3 rahter than the latest update, the actual pdf (as read in in safari) just didnt seem quite crisp enough. I could be spoiled, but that device with the same pixel density as the iphone4... . perfection.
Great article - truly well thought out and highly analytical. But it begs contemplating how existing iPad applications and content will render properly at this doubled resolution. A related issue is that many iPad developers simply don't develop iPad applications and content on Macs that support this resolution (mostly MacBook Pros). How will they test/view their work unless they have 2048x1536 or larger resolution displays? And possibly the biggest consideration, what about Facetime video chat? The iPad's front-facing camera video resolution won't be much better than VGA - possibly 720p. Facetime video will look very blocky if it's scaled up, no?
Personally I think, with all the extra pixels, they will have certain apps limited to pixel densities due to processor constraints. Just like your iPad of today will look the same on a Retina display, so too can Face Time or any other app., even games. I don't see why people keep thinking that everything has to change just because of the new screen density. They will look the same unless the developer unlocks the ability to use more pixels, (putting in higher resolution artwork). Even then, just because you're using more pixels does not mean everything 'shrinks'. If it's written for that pixel density, then it will still look the same... only sharper. I could see some new protocols for screen 'placement', but I don't think everything would be 'half-screened' or quarter, off the bat.
I think it's pretty obvious that the iPad will get a resolution bump. Specifically, look at the iPhone resolution: 960x640
Now double that in each direction, for four times more pixels and you get: 1920x1280.
That would allow:
1. Perfect upscaling of iPhone apps.
2. Native 1080p.
I think Apple went with such a high res screen for iPhone specifically to take the iPad to 1920x1280. Otherwise they would have gone for a milder bump to WVGA, or something close to that.
I'll just shamelessly quote myself from two months ago.
Why are you pointing out a post you made that males no sense and supported by no argument that would shed light as to why you think Apple would drop the 4:3 aspect ratio of the iPad for the 3:2 aspect ratio of the iPhone, not to mention that Apple's douong of the iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 resolution makes sense, doubling the iPhone 4's resolution to make developer transition on the iPad easier in fact does the exact opposite.
When the iPhone 4 came out, within weeks developers provided native artwork at 2x resolution. They didn't just scale up existing imaged. The rest is vector graphics so it doesn't matter. The developers should be making two sizes natively, not just one and scaling it to the other. And if we are talking about photos here, well, those are usually scaled down from a much higher resolution and scale well anyway. Anything else should be vector-drawn so it'll scale at any size.
So if Apple released a 1.25x display in the iPad 2, developers just have to make new images from their larger sources, or recreate them at the 1.25x size in their illustration software. Everything will look great, except for lazy developers that don't update their apps.
That said, I don't think Apple will do this. The change is not great enough a selling point to justify the cost. I predict 2x screens on the iPad 3, and 1x screen on the iPad 2.
Since Apple is dabbling now in multiple screen sizes, platforms and resolutions, they are now telling dev's do adjust their apps for these multiple platforms. Where, in the past, the dev's worked with a single platform but with multiple screen sizes. The the question is this: what is more efficient, developing apps for multiple platforms at differing screen sizes, or a single platform at multiple screen sizes? Or, does it even make a difference?
First of all, we have to question whether there is one iOS platform, or two. I think it's one. How many resolutions should a developed have to support. All those talking about how easy it is are missing the point. Why make them do this at all?
Yes, we need to move forwards. But it should be done so as to make it easier on all. Apple will have four different resolutions developers will need to support in another year. For the phone, and Touch, the low (as we think of it now) Rez support will be fading by the end of 2011. but not for the iPad. Have a new Rez for the new generation, and do it in such a way for it to be easiest. X2. Let the old models fade out gracefully, and have ALL new ones support the new Rez. I'd be willing to bet that if Apple could have done it that way, both the iPhone/Touch and iPad Rez's would have been an even multiple, but the screens were't there for it.
There are two iOS iPhone resolutions, but to devs they look like one unless they want to deal with the higher res. There is no forcibly added burden on the devs with the Retina Display. Period.
The ONLY situation where a dev would even care is if they had something they wanted to do that the previous resolution didn't adequately support, but the Retina Display does. Then they have the ability to write to the crisper resolution. An option that wasn't there before, which equates to a income stream that wan't there before either. Not a lot of apps need that resolution except in the text fields, and there they get it for free from the OS, at absolutely zero dev effort.
If the iPad goes to a double resolution it will be the same. It will be a non-issue to devs unless they want it to be. No need for more coding. No need for new version of apps. No fragmentation. Period.
Can we stop with the Chicken Little routine now???
You just can't get is can you?
There are two iOS iPhone resolutions, but to devs they look like one unless they want to deal with the higher res. There is no forcibly added burden on the devs with the Retina Display. Period.
The ONLY situation where a dev would even care is if they had something they wanted to do that the previous resolution didn't adequately support, but the Retina Display does. Then they have the ability to write to the crisper resolution. An option that wasn't there before, which equates to a income stream that wan't there before either. Not a lot of apps need that resolution except in the text fields, and there they get it for free from the OS, at absolutely zero dev effort.
If the iPad goes to a double resolution it will be the same. It will be a non-issue to devs unless they want it to be. No need for more coding. No need for new version of apps. No fragmentation. Period.
Can we stop with the Chicken Little routine now???
I get it very well. I think you don't understand it as well as you think you do.
I get it very well. I think you don't understand it as well as you think you do.
I haven't had to change a line on either of my enterprise apps. They only look better.
Maybe you need to actually code and deploy before you doubt.
I haven't had to change a line on either of my enterprise apps. They only look better.
Maybe you need to actually code and deploy before you doubt.
I did plenty of coding. The grunts can code as much as they want to these days.
I get it very well. I think you don't understand it as well as you think you do.
I think Hiro's right - you don't seem to have gone through this procedure.
Here's how you support Retina display. You have two options:
1. Do nothing - app works great. Images are scaled up. Not ideal
2. For every image file in your app, supply one with double the resolution. Name it the same as the smaller one, but with @2x before the extension. i.e. if you have have MyImage.png in your project in XCode that is 480x320, add [email protected] to your project - it should be 960x640.
That's all you need to do. Apple's made it very easy here. The only time it would be more work is if you used your own code for loading an image. Not sure why you would want to do that, but even if you did, you can easily figure out if you are on a retina device or not and load the appropriate image.
Now, consider if the iPad 2 has a different resolution that is 1.25x the original iPad's screen. It doesn't matter. As a developer, you only have to supply [email protected] files. This is not difficult to do at all.
Now, personally I don't think the iPad 2 will have an 1.25x display because I don't see the big end user advantage. They can still see the pixels, will notice jaggies, etc. - they'll just be a little bit finer. Yes, it'll be a little bit better, but it won't be a lot better. Either go Retina where the jaggies disappear completely, or keep it the same.
I did plenty of coding. The grunts can code as much as they want to these days.
Cool, then you should already know to actually code & simulate a deploy before you get all half cocked on whether something is a problem or not.
Not sure what you are saying with regards to the grunts. If it's that you've gone on to something "higher" and let others do the "coding grunt-work" then maybe you just need to revisit your roots just enough to avoid saying something in front of them that won't make you look too good.
An oh, what Gustav said^^^. My apps run and look just fine with option 1. Option 1 works just like I have been saying for the last week and a half. Option 2 is even a little easier than I previously understood, but haven't been required to use.