Gruber knows his stuff. Disappointing if not somewhat expected even a week ago. The rumours just got too many and "well-sourced" to ignore what was thought unfeasible before. No SD card slot either, I (and Gruber) think. That one never made sense.
The only way a "retina display" iPad made sense for this year is if it is a high-end BTO option. They can barely get enough of the current screens made to keep up with exploding demand--how anyone could expect them to turn out 10s of millions of a screen far beyond any seen before in a consumer device... Well, a lot of people were only too happy to deceive themselves!
The revenue generated by the iPad is now built into expectations--if new screen production problems caused Apple to loose momentum in the tablet market and forced people to experiment with competitors products it would be a disaster!
I do believe the high-end option is there, but I doubt they could be available in substantial numbers by the time iPad2 gets here...
The only way a "retina display" iPad made sense for this year is if it is a high-end BTO option. They can barely get enough of the current screens made to keep up with exploding demand--how anyone could expect them to turn out 10s of millions of a screen far beyond any seen before in a consumer device... Well, a lot of people were only too happy to deceive themselves!
Well, I'm not saying a retina screen for the iPad is definitely coming, but the exact problem you mentioned, supply issues, would actually be less of a problem if Apple switched to a screen with an insane resolution. No one else uses them, no one else has products on their roadmap using them, and basically every 10" retina screen would be produced for Apple exclusively. This could be the LG exclusivity rumor that was floating around a while ago. Just think about it: suppose that making a retina iPad screen is about as difficult as making a retina iPad 2 screen, and suppose that Apple decided to put this retina screen in the iPad 2 at the time the iPhone 4 started production, LG would have had a full year running production to already build up an inventory of screens ready for assembly when the rest of the components became available. They could easily have a few million ready by now.
Again, I'd be surprised if it turns out the iPad 2 will have screen like that, but only because of the cost, not because of technical limitations, not because of supply constraints, just because it would be cost-prohibitive to do it without adding significantly to the retail price of the thing.
Then again... Apple can take the hit, they have enough money in the bank to sell iPads at a loss for centuries, so maybe if Steve was in a bold mood and decided he wanted to put all other tablet screens to shame, he could probably make it happen.
Pretty far-fetched statements. Read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb, you may benefit from it immensely.
I'm not talking about the prediction of the stock market here or literal prediction of the future like "black swan" events.
But what evolutionary survival pressures would force us to develop an organ capable of memorizing 30,000 digits of number Pi (like some people are capable of)? What survival advantage does abstract math give to a person (some would argue none because most math/computer geeks are depicted as parent's basement dwellers, who can't quite score a date )?
It is hard to argue against the hypothesis that in fact no environmental survival pressure lead to the development of highly sophisticated brains that we have, but that it was more social pressure and the need to deal with our ever more complex interactions with other human beings. This correlates well with what we see with animals today. The more developed social structures the animals exhibit, the more advanced their mental abilities.
This is what I was talking about. My statement that intelligence in essence is prediction of immediate future (i.e. our expectation of future, not unfolding of actual events) and that is how it's tested as well still stands. I have spent some time working in AI a few years back and this is one of the first striking realizations you make. Take any online IQ test and see what kinds of questions you are asked. You are shown a series of images and you are asked to guess what image should come next. This is the kind of expected future prediction I'm talking about.
The following ted.com talk given by Jeff Hawkins (inventor of Palm Pilot):
I don't know if super high res screen is really a selling point. Using the logic that if they were to increase it they would double it for the sake of the existing apps, does that make more sense than increasing it a little bit and work out a transition for the developers to easily migrate their apps to the new res?
What do you think the most important improved or new features of the iPad should be?
The trouble is with all the recent focus on the screen, it's really made people realise how totally crappy the current screen really is. The iPad screen is probably the worst (to the eye) screen Apple makes on any product at the moment.
I use Pages on it every day all day and the characters are so jaggy on the screen it's pretty much a joke. You don't even have to look close, the side of an "O" in 18 point type looks like a staircase, even from two feet away.
I use Pages on the iPad as well. Can't replicate your issue even up to 148 points.
You're presumably not an iPhone developer - that is exactly what happened with the transition from iPhone 3GS to 4 - the pixels on the iPhone 4 are 1/4 the size of the ones on the 3GS and the same apps run just fine. The OS automatically scales the bitmaps from old apps so that each pixel in the bitmap uses 4 pixels on the screen. The OS automatically upscales any image in an app unless it's named with @2x in the filename - it's pretty clever.
Basically iOS4 supports resolution independence, but because the dimensions on the iPhone 4 are exactly 2x those of the previous models, it can scale bitmaps just as gracefully as it scales vectors, with no blurry edges where the bitmap pixels span two physical pixels.
And yeah, the iOS simulator does have a setting to simulate the iPhone 4 screen. It's in the Hardware menu under Device/iPhone (retina), and it makes the iPhone appear at twice the size on screen so you can see all the pixels.
This is the reason why the retina display for the iPad, when it arrives will have to be exactly double the resolution in both axes that the current model is - they can't go for an intermediate resolution, or everyone will have to update their apps with new graphics immediately to prevent them looking blurry on the new device.
And because a screen with that many pixels in such a small space is beyond anything currently on the market, it's very unlikely that Apple have managed to do it for iPad 2 whilst retaining the same price point. So in all probability the new iPad will have exactly the same res as the current gen, and iPad version 3 or 4 will add the double-res feature once the component costs make it feasible.
Excellent post.. Twice the resolution means significant more processor, RAM, battery and more expensive screens. Apart from obvious supply channel nightmares, I can't see how Apple can do all this and preserve margins without a significant increase in price.
I don't know if super high res screen is really a selling point. Using the logic that if they were to increase it they would double it for the sake of the existing apps, does that make more sense than increasing it a little bit and work out a transition for the developers to easily migrate their apps to the new res?
What do you think the most important improved or new features of the iPad should be?
More RAM
SD card slot
Lighter weight
Cameras
Software improvments
Faster Processor and RAM. IMO - Loading webpages with all these freaking ad's is starting to show(AppleInsider home page included).
Software - IMO - ipad Ad Blocker!
And although hate to say it; 1- because it would be nice to have, 2- because its fightn words on an Apple fan site- flash support. D'oh!
is this super dense 4x resolution iPad screen any more far fetched than the 960x640 resolution of the iPhone was a year ago?
i'm still guessing there will be a low-end iPad with "old" screen [and 32GB] for $499, two more models with "retina" displays at $599 and $699. add more $$$ for GSM/CDMA.
all of the comments i've read agree that it's not only possible, but probable that an A5 and more ram will handle it. my only concern is battery life. [ohh, and the WEIGHT of the thing]
i will pay as much as $800 for a retina display and 128GB in a Wi-Fi only iPad.
Excellent post.. Twice the resolution means significant more processor, RAM, battery and more expensive screens. Apart from obvious supply channel nightmares, I can't see how Apple can do all this and preserve margins without a significant increase in price.
I just can't see this happening.
Yup, it makes logical sense, but boy... if they could pull it off, Wow. I think it would truely plow the competitors this year.
I'm curious is the partial upgrade 1.25 increase in pixal is difficult or bad or ??? Would like to read more discussion on that.
HP's is suppose to be showing off there wares(vapor or not) in Feb. Although I have never used webOS, it does 'look' nice and intuitive. Along with Android... they can get a toe-hold. Porting apps is not inpossible. Top sellers in iOS will(and have) probably give these others a try.
... But what evolutionary survival pressures would force us to develop an organ capable of memorizing 30,000 digits of number Pi (like some people are capable of)? What survival advantage does abstract math give to a person (some would argue none because most math/computer geeks are depicted as parent's basement dwellers, who can't quite score a date )?
It is hard to argue against the hypothesis that in fact no environmental survival pressure lead to the development of highly sophisticated brains that we have, but that it was more social pressure and the need to deal with our ever more complex interactions with other human beings. This correlates well with what we see with animals today. The more developed social structures the animals exhibit, the more advanced their mental abilities.
This is what I was talking about. My statement that intelligence in essence is prediction of immediate future (i.e. our expectation of future, not unfolding of actual events) and that is how it's tested as well still stands. ...
A couple of points related to your post.
First, memorizing large strings of data, in and of itself, apparently offers no particular selective advantage or we'd all have that skill. Although variation is necessary as the fodder of natural selection, variations don't define the species, and a particular variation, no matter how impressive we may find it, isn't necessarily beneficial. Also, I would note that "social pressure" is in fact an environmental factor that would act as a selection force just as solar radiation or scarcity of game would.
Secondly, natural selection works on what is already there -- i.e., the traits and variations present in individuals of a species. Abstract reasoning and predictive capacity are, obviously, advantageous traits for humans and other species. But, it's not like the ability to do calculus is encoded on some specific gene or is the result of some specific mutation. It's an ability that comes from a brain structure that is a) beneficial in related tasks and b) generalized in that it can learn new ones. So, yes, some people, due to variation, and focus on specific types of reasoning, have and develop extraordinary mathematical abilities. But these abilities are all built on a foundation of abstract reasoning that we inherited from our ancestors, not something we developed entirely de novo, and certainly not based on any "desire" of our species.
Additionally, the "predictive" tests that are often part of an IQ test are not really about predicting the future. They are actually much more about pattern recognition and, often, spacial analysis -- for example, the next logical progression is a rotation of a 3-dimensional object, or recognizing the pattern in a progression of numbers. This is obviously an important skill for any predator, as well as any tree dweller, not just humans. Clearly, the ability to "predict" the outcome of actions is also an important skill for any but the most instinct driven creature. But non of these things are solely useful to humans, nor, I expect are any of them abilities that are wholly unique to humans, except perhaps in degree.
Oh, and BTW, Gruber's history with these sort of "predictions" is pretty good, indicating that his sources are very good. I think it's also likely that his sources, when they do "leak" this sort of information to him do it with authorization. He does not have a history, as many other blogs do, of going out on a limb with hardware predictions that turn out to be bogus -- he's almost always correct when he discusses something hardware related with this much specificity. I'm guessing the iPad Retina Screen rumors were getting out of hand and Apple wanted to put an end to them -- managing expectations.
Well I'm not interested in it until it's either significantly more affordable, or the screen is significantly better. So if this is true, I'm gonna want to see a price cut, Apple.
This seems likely. I bet they'll improve the screen in some way without increasing resolution. Apple seems to prefer doing things when they feel the time is right instead of doing things as fast as they can. Plenty of people thought Apple would be behind not having OLED screens on the 3GS, but the iPhone 4 pretty much blew anything else on the market away at that point, and the extra ram and increased processor speed still had everyone buying the 3GS.
I suspect the screen in iPad2 will unfortunately be the same res as the current model. I could see the possibility of them throwing a bone and providing a slight increase to 1280x960. There is no reason that a straight 1/4 increase couldn't be done. It should be just as easy for iOS to render 25% more pixels as it would be to render double.
Not really. Lets say you have a black pixel and a white pixel next to each other on a screen and then you scale them up by 25%. How many pixels will that cover?
The answer is 2.5, with each image pixel covering 1.25 screen pixels. You can't render half a pixel.
So instead you have to use anti-aliasing and select pixel colours at averages between the original colours. iOS's quartz drawing can do this of course, but the end result is that your one black and one white pixel becomes 3 pixels at varying shades of grey, and your nice crisp one-pixel black line becomes a blurry grey mess.
The result would be that until they were updated with new graphics, many apps on the iPad 2 would actually look worse than they do on the iPad 1. Not a very good advert for your shiny new hardware.
And even barring the quality of non-updated apps, it doesn't exactly make it easy for app developers to update either; Currently to upgrade an iPhone app for retina display you just need to save out all your images again at 2x size with no code changes. Okay it may be a headache if the original graphics were bitmaps and not vectors, or if you can't find the original designer, but broadly it's not a big deal.
But if you had to support a screen 1.25x the size of your original, what are you supposed to do with all your images that aren't in multiple-of-four dimensions? Lets say you have an image that's 33 pixels wide - what size do you need to upscale that to? 41.25 pixels. Oops. Now I have to change my original image to 32 or 36 pixels and re-lay out all my interface files and change my code constants to compensate. Now I do the same for all the other images in the app.
Do you see now why this isn't going to happen?
Maybe Apple will use a 2048x1536 display on the new iPad and maybe they'll stick with 1024x768, but what they definitely won't do is use a screen size somewhere in between.
Simply increasing the pixel count does not automatically make for a better screen. There are other factors involved in what makes a good screen.
Others were earlier in releasing 1920x1200 notebook screens. At the time those screens were based on older LCD technology. While that was going on Apple was making the transition to LED backlit LCD screens which are brighter, energy efficient, and turn on instantly, but were not yet as high in resolution.
Also LED backlit screens are more expensive than the older fluorescent backlit screens that most everyone else was using at the time. Profit maximization was not the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave
Finally some sanity. I'd be amazed, no, bewildered and amazed if the iPad2 gets a 2048x1536 screen. With the exception of a handful of items over 30 years, Apple has a history of releasing high-res screens last among competitors. Competitors had 1920x1200 screens in laptops a good 3-4 years before Apple finally got around to doing it. They like to maximize profit margins.
Not really. Lets say you have a black pixel and a white pixel next to each other on a screen and then you scale them up by 25%. How many pixels will that cover?
The answer is 2.5, with each image pixel covering 1.25 screen pixels. You can't render half a pixel.
I think you need to count all the surrounding pixels not just the adjacent on a single axis. I think it is a minimum of 9, but that is what happens all the time anyway when you pinch to zoom. So no big deal.
While evidence grows that Apple could place a high-resolution screen in its forthcoming second-generation iPad, a new report aims to pour "cold water" on those expectations.
I hear a loud sigh of relief coming from Motorola and Rim
But I am spoiled now, Facetime is not enough to make me jump into iPad hype, so back to the fence till iPad 3 comes out.
Comments
Gruber knows his stuff. Disappointing if not somewhat expected even a week ago. The rumours just got too many and "well-sourced" to ignore what was thought unfeasible before. No SD card slot either, I (and Gruber) think. That one never made sense.
The only way a "retina display" iPad made sense for this year is if it is a high-end BTO option. They can barely get enough of the current screens made to keep up with exploding demand--how anyone could expect them to turn out 10s of millions of a screen far beyond any seen before in a consumer device... Well, a lot of people were only too happy to deceive themselves!
The revenue generated by the iPad is now built into expectations--if new screen production problems caused Apple to loose momentum in the tablet market and forced people to experiment with competitors products it would be a disaster!
I do believe the high-end option is there, but I doubt they could be available in substantial numbers by the time iPad2 gets here...
The only way a "retina display" iPad made sense for this year is if it is a high-end BTO option. They can barely get enough of the current screens made to keep up with exploding demand--how anyone could expect them to turn out 10s of millions of a screen far beyond any seen before in a consumer device... Well, a lot of people were only too happy to deceive themselves!
Well, I'm not saying a retina screen for the iPad is definitely coming, but the exact problem you mentioned, supply issues, would actually be less of a problem if Apple switched to a screen with an insane resolution. No one else uses them, no one else has products on their roadmap using them, and basically every 10" retina screen would be produced for Apple exclusively. This could be the LG exclusivity rumor that was floating around a while ago. Just think about it: suppose that making a retina iPad screen is about as difficult as making a retina iPad 2 screen, and suppose that Apple decided to put this retina screen in the iPad 2 at the time the iPhone 4 started production, LG would have had a full year running production to already build up an inventory of screens ready for assembly when the rest of the components became available. They could easily have a few million ready by now.
Again, I'd be surprised if it turns out the iPad 2 will have screen like that, but only because of the cost, not because of technical limitations, not because of supply constraints, just because it would be cost-prohibitive to do it without adding significantly to the retail price of the thing.
Then again... Apple can take the hit, they have enough money in the bank to sell iPads at a loss for centuries, so maybe if Steve was in a bold mood and decided he wanted to put all other tablet screens to shame, he could probably make it happen.
Pretty far-fetched statements. Read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb, you may benefit from it immensely.
I'm not talking about the prediction of the stock market here or literal prediction of the future like "black swan" events.
But what evolutionary survival pressures would force us to develop an organ capable of memorizing 30,000 digits of number Pi (like some people are capable of)? What survival advantage does abstract math give to a person (some would argue none because most math/computer geeks are depicted as parent's basement dwellers, who can't quite score a date
It is hard to argue against the hypothesis that in fact no environmental survival pressure lead to the development of highly sophisticated brains that we have, but that it was more social pressure and the need to deal with our ever more complex interactions with other human beings. This correlates well with what we see with animals today. The more developed social structures the animals exhibit, the more advanced their mental abilities.
This is what I was talking about. My statement that intelligence in essence is prediction of immediate future (i.e. our expectation of future, not unfolding of actual events) and that is how it's tested as well still stands. I have spent some time working in AI a few years back and this is one of the first striking realizations you make. Take any online IQ test and see what kinds of questions you are asked. You are shown a series of images and you are asked to guess what image should come next. This is the kind of expected future prediction I'm talking about.
The following ted.com talk given by Jeff Hawkins (inventor of Palm Pilot):
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/je...computing.html
is perhaps going to explain better than I can what I mean
What do you think the most important improved or new features of the iPad should be?
More RAM
SD card slot
Lighter weight
Cameras
Software improvments
Well, let's hope he's wrong. He's been so before.
The trouble is with all the recent focus on the screen, it's really made people realise how totally crappy the current screen really is. The iPad screen is probably the worst (to the eye) screen Apple makes on any product at the moment.
I use Pages on it every day all day and the characters are so jaggy on the screen it's pretty much a joke. You don't even have to look close, the side of an "O" in 18 point type looks like a staircase, even from two feet away.
I use Pages on the iPad as well. Can't replicate your issue even up to 148 points.
You're presumably not an iPhone developer - that is exactly what happened with the transition from iPhone 3GS to 4 - the pixels on the iPhone 4 are 1/4 the size of the ones on the 3GS and the same apps run just fine. The OS automatically scales the bitmaps from old apps so that each pixel in the bitmap uses 4 pixels on the screen. The OS automatically upscales any image in an app unless it's named with @2x in the filename - it's pretty clever.
Basically iOS4 supports resolution independence, but because the dimensions on the iPhone 4 are exactly 2x those of the previous models, it can scale bitmaps just as gracefully as it scales vectors, with no blurry edges where the bitmap pixels span two physical pixels.
And yeah, the iOS simulator does have a setting to simulate the iPhone 4 screen. It's in the Hardware menu under Device/iPhone (retina), and it makes the iPhone appear at twice the size on screen so you can see all the pixels.
This is the reason why the retina display for the iPad, when it arrives will have to be exactly double the resolution in both axes that the current model is - they can't go for an intermediate resolution, or everyone will have to update their apps with new graphics immediately to prevent them looking blurry on the new device.
And because a screen with that many pixels in such a small space is beyond anything currently on the market, it's very unlikely that Apple have managed to do it for iPad 2 whilst retaining the same price point. So in all probability the new iPad will have exactly the same res as the current gen, and iPad version 3 or 4 will add the double-res feature once the component costs make it feasible.
Excellent post.. Twice the resolution means significant more processor, RAM, battery and more expensive screens. Apart from obvious supply channel nightmares, I can't see how Apple can do all this and preserve margins without a significant increase in price.
I just can't see this happening.
I don't know if super high res screen is really a selling point. Using the logic that if they were to increase it they would double it for the sake of the existing apps, does that make more sense than increasing it a little bit and work out a transition for the developers to easily migrate their apps to the new res?
What do you think the most important improved or new features of the iPad should be?
More RAM
SD card slot
Lighter weight
Cameras
Software improvments
Faster Processor and RAM. IMO - Loading webpages with all these freaking ad's is starting to show(AppleInsider home page included).
Software - IMO - ipad Ad Blocker!
And although hate to say it; 1- because it would be nice to have, 2- because its fightn words on an Apple fan site- flash support. D'oh!
i'm still guessing there will be a low-end iPad with "old" screen [and 32GB] for $499, two more models with "retina" displays at $599 and $699. add more $$$ for GSM/CDMA.
all of the comments i've read agree that it's not only possible, but probable that an A5 and more ram will handle it. my only concern is battery life. [ohh, and the WEIGHT of the thing]
i will pay as much as $800 for a retina display and 128GB in a Wi-Fi only iPad.
Of course too good. Apple priority is to make iPad available (as in cost and good production numbers). High res not hapening in 2011.
Yes it is. This is to kill the PlayBook, HP webOS tablet, and Xoom the second they arrive.
Why have the same display as those wanna-bes?
Yes it is. This is to kill the PlayBook, HP webOS tablet, and Xoom the second they arrive.
Why have the same display as those wanna-bes?
Be...cause Apple already trusts that their software is better.
Excellent post.. Twice the resolution means significant more processor, RAM, battery and more expensive screens. Apart from obvious supply channel nightmares, I can't see how Apple can do all this and preserve margins without a significant increase in price.
I just can't see this happening.
Yup, it makes logical sense, but boy... if they could pull it off, Wow. I think it would truely plow the competitors this year.
I'm curious is the partial upgrade 1.25 increase in pixal is difficult or bad or ??? Would like to read more discussion on that.
HP's is suppose to be showing off there wares(vapor or not) in Feb. Although I have never used webOS, it does 'look' nice and intuitive. Along with Android... they can get a toe-hold. Porting apps is not inpossible. Top sellers in iOS will(and have) probably give these others a try.
... But what evolutionary survival pressures would force us to develop an organ capable of memorizing 30,000 digits of number Pi (like some people are capable of)? What survival advantage does abstract math give to a person (some would argue none because most math/computer geeks are depicted as parent's basement dwellers, who can't quite score a date
It is hard to argue against the hypothesis that in fact no environmental survival pressure lead to the development of highly sophisticated brains that we have, but that it was more social pressure and the need to deal with our ever more complex interactions with other human beings. This correlates well with what we see with animals today. The more developed social structures the animals exhibit, the more advanced their mental abilities.
This is what I was talking about. My statement that intelligence in essence is prediction of immediate future (i.e. our expectation of future, not unfolding of actual events) and that is how it's tested as well still stands. ...
A couple of points related to your post.
First, memorizing large strings of data, in and of itself, apparently offers no particular selective advantage or we'd all have that skill. Although variation is necessary as the fodder of natural selection, variations don't define the species, and a particular variation, no matter how impressive we may find it, isn't necessarily beneficial. Also, I would note that "social pressure" is in fact an environmental factor that would act as a selection force just as solar radiation or scarcity of game would.
Secondly, natural selection works on what is already there -- i.e., the traits and variations present in individuals of a species. Abstract reasoning and predictive capacity are, obviously, advantageous traits for humans and other species. But, it's not like the ability to do calculus is encoded on some specific gene or is the result of some specific mutation. It's an ability that comes from a brain structure that is a) beneficial in related tasks and b) generalized in that it can learn new ones. So, yes, some people, due to variation, and focus on specific types of reasoning, have and develop extraordinary mathematical abilities. But these abilities are all built on a foundation of abstract reasoning that we inherited from our ancestors, not something we developed entirely de novo, and certainly not based on any "desire" of our species.
Additionally, the "predictive" tests that are often part of an IQ test are not really about predicting the future. They are actually much more about pattern recognition and, often, spacial analysis -- for example, the next logical progression is a rotation of a 3-dimensional object, or recognizing the pattern in a progression of numbers. This is obviously an important skill for any predator, as well as any tree dweller, not just humans. Clearly, the ability to "predict" the outcome of actions is also an important skill for any but the most instinct driven creature. But non of these things are solely useful to humans, nor, I expect are any of them abilities that are wholly unique to humans, except perhaps in degree.
Oh, and BTW, Gruber's history with these sort of "predictions" is pretty good, indicating that his sources are very good. I think it's also likely that his sources, when they do "leak" this sort of information to him do it with authorization. He does not have a history, as many other blogs do, of going out on a limb with hardware predictions that turn out to be bogus -- he's almost always correct when he discusses something hardware related with this much specificity. I'm guessing the iPad Retina Screen rumors were getting out of hand and Apple wanted to put an end to them -- managing expectations.
I suspect the screen in iPad2 will unfortunately be the same res as the current model. I could see the possibility of them throwing a bone and providing a slight increase to 1280x960. There is no reason that a straight 1/4 increase couldn't be done. It should be just as easy for iOS to render 25% more pixels as it would be to render double.
Not really. Lets say you have a black pixel and a white pixel next to each other on a screen and then you scale them up by 25%. How many pixels will that cover?
The answer is 2.5, with each image pixel covering 1.25 screen pixels. You can't render half a pixel.
So instead you have to use anti-aliasing and select pixel colours at averages between the original colours. iOS's quartz drawing can do this of course, but the end result is that your one black and one white pixel becomes 3 pixels at varying shades of grey, and your nice crisp one-pixel black line becomes a blurry grey mess.
The result would be that until they were updated with new graphics, many apps on the iPad 2 would actually look worse than they do on the iPad 1. Not a very good advert for your shiny new hardware.
And even barring the quality of non-updated apps, it doesn't exactly make it easy for app developers to update either; Currently to upgrade an iPhone app for retina display you just need to save out all your images again at 2x size with no code changes. Okay it may be a headache if the original graphics were bitmaps and not vectors, or if you can't find the original designer, but broadly it's not a big deal.
But if you had to support a screen 1.25x the size of your original, what are you supposed to do with all your images that aren't in multiple-of-four dimensions? Lets say you have an image that's 33 pixels wide - what size do you need to upscale that to? 41.25 pixels. Oops. Now I have to change my original image to 32 or 36 pixels and re-lay out all my interface files and change my code constants to compensate. Now I do the same for all the other images in the app.
Do you see now why this isn't going to happen?
Maybe Apple will use a 2048x1536 display on the new iPad and maybe they'll stick with 1024x768, but what they definitely won't do is use a screen size somewhere in between.
Others were earlier in releasing 1920x1200 notebook screens. At the time those screens were based on older LCD technology. While that was going on Apple was making the transition to LED backlit LCD screens which are brighter, energy efficient, and turn on instantly, but were not yet as high in resolution.
Also LED backlit screens are more expensive than the older fluorescent backlit screens that most everyone else was using at the time. Profit maximization was not the point.
Finally some sanity. I'd be amazed, no, bewildered and amazed if the iPad2 gets a 2048x1536 screen. With the exception of a handful of items over 30 years, Apple has a history of releasing high-res screens last among competitors. Competitors had 1920x1200 screens in laptops a good 3-4 years before Apple finally got around to doing it. They like to maximize profit margins.
Not really. Lets say you have a black pixel and a white pixel next to each other on a screen and then you scale them up by 25%. How many pixels will that cover?
The answer is 2.5, with each image pixel covering 1.25 screen pixels. You can't render half a pixel.
I think you need to count all the surrounding pixels not just the adjacent on a single axis. I think it is a minimum of 9, but that is what happens all the time anyway when you pinch to zoom. So no big deal.
While evidence grows that Apple could place a high-resolution screen in its forthcoming second-generation iPad, a new report aims to pour "cold water" on those expectations.
I hear a loud sigh of relief coming from Motorola and Rim
But I am spoiled now, Facetime is not enough to make me jump into iPad hype, so back to the fence till iPad 3 comes out.