I think there's an obvious explanation for the 2x art in iBooks even if the iPad 2 doesn't have a retina display. Obviously there are prototypes of an iPad with a retina display at Apple. (If I recall, it was John Gruber who said iPhones are on a 2 year development cycle, so right now the iPhone 5 and iPhone 6 are in development. I think the same is probably true for iPads. Right now the iPad 2 is nearing completion and the iPad 3 is in the early development stage.) Now, if this is the case, then the iPad prototype would be running an isolated branch of iOS (either 4.x or whatever branch is planned to become 5) and all the 2x assets would be separated from the 4.3 branch (that looks like it's intended for iPad 2). iBooks, however, is a separate app and likely has a separate development team. But iBooks is obviously an app of great importance for retina displays, so the iPad prototype team would have asked the iBooks team for a version with 2x art, and some of this 2x art accidentally wound up in the release version. So the iBooks 2x art is, at best, proof that a retina display iPad is in development and is part of Apple's current roadmap. But it's not proof that the iPad 2 has a retina display.
That said, I think there's still a chance we'll see a retina display on iPad 2. As to the cost issue, I think the original iPad was intentionally conservative in design, because Apple obviously didn't know how well it would sell. I think Apple has been as surprised at its success as everyone else. Estimating component costs for Apple is difficult because they sell in such bulk and use the same components across multiple product lines; savings in one place and ameliorate costs in another. (As an example, the iPhone 5 could be a conservative update but sell to carriers at the same price, whereas the iPad 2 could be a major update at its current price point. Their overall margins would stay the same.) Apple also said it has invested close to $4 billion in a new component opportunity. I think that's very likely to be displays and I don't think they would have mentioned it if it wasn't relevant to a product on the 2011 release cycle. It could be that the iPad 1 is to the iPad 2 as the original Apple TV is to the current Apple TV. iPad 1 was just testing the water and now we're going to see the real deal. I don't think anyone had any idea that the first iPad would sell 16.4 million. Even without a major update they're likely to sell 30 million in 2011. With a really compelling update they could be looking at 40+ million, as long as they're not supply constrained, but that's what that $4 billion was about.
The worst sites are the ones that ignore the user agent string from the browser and use some other identifier to force you to get their mobile shit version. ESPN feeds you crap even if you jailbreak an iPhone or use an Androif phone feeding a user agent string of a desktop broswer like firefox or IE. It really pisses me off, because the mobile sites never have all of the content or usability of the main site. WTF? Most of us have a decent browser on Apple and Android phones, we dont need the mobile crap a windows mobile phone or old BB needed.
They are doing a CSS media query and can see your screen res.]
I think there's an obvious explanation for the 2x art in iBooks even if the iPad 2 doesn't have a retina display. Obviously there are prototypes of an iPad with a retina display at Apple. (If I recall, it was John Gruber who said iPhones are on a 2 year development cycle, so right now the iPhone 5 and iPhone 6 are in development. I think the same is probably true for iPads. Right now the iPad 2 is nearing completion and the iPad 3 is in the early development stage.) ...
Excellent post. Didn't quote the whole thing but I like all of your points very much.
Despite looking at MacRumors and AppleInsider archives, I never once saw a story about 2x images being found in any of the iOS 4.0 betas, despite the fact that we know they made them. I would not take their absence in the 4.3 beta to be a reason to confirm that the iPad 2 isn't getting a high res screen.
I think Apple developers left the images out until the last build of iOS 4 to keep the secret. There's no real secret now. We know that someday there will be a retina iPad screen - it's not a new concept anymore. This is just developers preparing for the inevitable. Remember Apple's employees are likely assigned to different projects. The devs who made those textures now may be reassigned to another project so they want everything done now so they don't have to come back to it next year.
There are a lot of CSS styles on websites that do use pixels for font size as well as other size related design elements. In those cases you do have to pinch zoom. Am I the only one who dislikes the trend on the web to make iPhone formatted sites that you can't break out of? I appreciate that they went to the trouble but many times I would just prefer the actual website and scroll around.
That is one bad issue but I'm also very displeased with the iPhone sites that don't let you zoom content. These are very frustrating as I'm in the +50 eyes class now. Why anybody out there would disable a feature that gives many users better access to your content is beyond me.
Sadly these are often Mac or iPhone sites. Since the content on these sites is often sourced from the same place you often find one site to be very useful and another not so useful. This is especially frustrating in the case of pics and PowerPoint slides. It is like why bother posting if you are going to make it unreadable to your user base. Stupidity!
My guess is the team that Steve normally brings on during his, Phil, Scot and Bertrand will do it between them and Phil will probably host and give the Keynote. I wonder of Tim Cook will make a small appearance perhaps on sales data?
Remember, Steve is still acting CEO. Until he passes the reigns to Cook or other I see no reason for him not to spend a single day in SF at Moscone MCing a couple special events.
Besides, for all we know this is nothing but a marketing ploy. Jobs will limp onto the stage with cane in hand, stop, wobble a few times and fall forward tucking himself into a roll, then stand up with arms extended. The crowd cheers. The cane, made of liquidmetal, still standing upright due to the magnetic core at the bottom resting upon the feris metal plate on the stage floor. The event concludes, not with the typical famous artist, but with a dozen of Foxconn's child labor force signing a variation of an Umpa-Loompa song.
The jaggies don't acale when you zoom, it actually looks worse when you zoom out. Pull up the same size text on an iPhone 4 and an iPad and look at them side by side. If you can not see the difference, visit an optomotrist.
He said in another thread that text on the iPad looked terrible. AIR, the example he gave was the letter "O" in Pages.
Below is a pages doc:
Sure text looks better on an iP4 -- but it looks good on an iPad also.
Despite looking at MacRumors and AppleInsider archives, I never once saw a story about 2x images being found in any of the iOS 4.0 betas, despite the fact that we know they made them. I would not take their absence in the 4.3 beta to be a reason to confirm that the iPad 2 isn't getting a high res screen.
I was arguing the opposite case. Their inclusion means that a hi res screen exists some where in Apple.
Not having them in the iOS betas was good practice. This was a mistake.
all future applications will be able to run under any of Apple's machines including the 27-inch iMac,
Sadly, I think we can reject this source as more noise than signal. I fear those 2x images just mean what we could have guessed anyway: they’re internally starting to work with future retina iPad plans. But to make this absurd quote all the more absurd (iOS apps running on Mac?) even a 27” iMac cannot fit a 2048x1536 image! It only has 1440 vertical.
The old 30” Cinema Display is the only Apple device capable of fitting 2048x1536. (But developers can just preview at 1024x768—or load to their iPads for full-res testing—anyway.)
Here's a thought. What if the iPad 2 has both resolutions. (1024x768 and 2048x1536).
If Apple does come out with an iPad with RetinaDisplay this year (which I'm not sure of), I can't believe it will be $499.
Maybe Engadget and John Gruber are both right! Maybe one model of the iPad 2 will have the same resolution, and a more expensive iPad 2 will have a new RetinaDisplay.
So, the new iPad lineup is:
iPad 2 Wifi - $499 (has a 1024x768 screen)
iPad 2 3G - $629 (has a 2048x1536 RetinaDisplay)
And then of course the different memory size options.
iPad v1 - $399
The iPad has been such a successful product, I could see Apple making a Pro (or HD) version with souped up specs. Maybe they just make the 3G versions the Pro line. Right now you have to pay an extra $130 to get the 3G version. The only difference is the 3G chip (with built in GPS), antenna, and slightly different case. I bet these parts cost Apple less than $30. There's definitely enough profit in the 3G iPads if Apple wanted to offer more than just 3G connectivity.
A number of commenters have said they don't see the value because they "can't see the pixels" on the current display.
I predict:
When a higher-res display comes out (perhaps not this year) and you hold the new and old displays side-by-side, you will be shocked at the difference.
Even with old eyes like mine.
I never thought the previous iPhone displays were bad. Even compared to over-saturated AMOLED displays with higher pixel counta (using questionable sub-pixel counting) it always looked fine. In fact, I can't reall ever consciously noticing the pixels.
But then I got an iPhone 4 that not only doubled the resolution, but increase the backlight brightness, made the blacks blacker, used IPS in stead of a TN TFT LCD, and used a different production process that moved the display closer to the glass that it looks likes it's painted on.
I notice the pixels on everything now. Other cell phones, the iPad, even my MBP. It's the psychology of technological progress. I won't ever go back to an inferior phone display.
Remember, Steve is stillacting CEO. Until he passes the reigns to Cook or other I see no reason for him not to spend a single day in SF at Moscone MCing a couple special events.
Besides, for all we know this is nothing but a marketing ploy. Jobs will limp onto the stage with cane in hand, stop, wobble a few times and fall forward tucking himself into a roll, then stand up with arms extended. The crowd cheers. The cane, made of liquidmetal, still standing upright due to the magnetic core at the bottom resting upon the feris metal plate on the stage floor. The event concludes, not with the typical famous artist, but with a dozen of Foxconn's child labor force signing a variation of an Umpa-Loompa song.
My... what an amazing mind (real or imagined)
There are literally days of prep with many hours of rehearsal that go into a keynote...
It is, likely, the most stressful thing that Steve does!
Sadly, I don't think Steve will give the iPad2 keynote. I do expect we'll see a short, 2-4 minute film clip from Steve, though.
There are literally days of prep with many hours of rehearsal that go into a keynote...
It is, likely, the most stressful thing that Steve does!
Sadly, I don't think Steve will give the iPad2 keynote. I do expect we'll see a short, 2-4 minute film clip from Steve, though.
Oh, sure, but all the technical setup can be done without his local presence. The Keynote setup can be made at Cupertino or at his house by an employee (I'm sure he has an in-home office). That leaves him practicing, perhaps even via conference/video call, at home until the day of.
That's just one scenario. I don't see why he couldn't spend a couple days in SF preparing for this. It may be the hardest part but 1) it may be the part he enjoys most, and 2) it helps the image of the company if he MCs the event.
I'm not saying this will happen, only that he is still acting CEO so we shouldn't rule it out. It certainly seems more likely than pushing over 3,000,000 pixels on a ARM-based mobile device that needs to get 10+ hours of usage per charge.
If he shows and looks like hes on deaths door, that would have the opposite effect.
I wondering if that counter-argument would be made.
Also, for the long term, not being at a special event helps to psychologically prepare everyone for the inevitable, and that Apple can bot only service, but thrive, without Job's running the show.
I wondering if that counter-argument would be made.
Also, for the long term, not being at a special event helps to psychologically prepare everyone for the inevitable, and that Apple can bot only service, but thrive, without Job's running the show.
That might have been part of the plan anyway. They announce the medical leave even though he is not really that sick. Take the hit on the stock price which was not that bad being just ahead of great earnings. Now Steve leaving soon is baked into the stock and the public consciousness which makes it a lot easier going forward regardless if he is still involved or not. At least now everyone is onboard with the reality that Steve will retire soon.
He said in another thread that text on the iPad looked terrible. AIR, the example he gave was the letter "O" in Pages.
Below is a pages doc:
Sure text looks better on an iP4 -- but it looks good on an iPad also.
I'm not sure that blowing text up to giant sizes properly demonstrates the issue. With a font that large, it's easy to focus on the big black areas and ignore the relatively tiny jaggies on its edges. I think it's actually more potentially problematic at smaller sizes. However, I read quite a bit on my iPad (using relatively smallish fonts) and the resolution is not at all a problem for me. Not that I wouldn't welcome an iPad "Retina Display", but I don't think we'll be seeing one this year.
Comments
That said, I think there's still a chance we'll see a retina display on iPad 2. As to the cost issue, I think the original iPad was intentionally conservative in design, because Apple obviously didn't know how well it would sell. I think Apple has been as surprised at its success as everyone else. Estimating component costs for Apple is difficult because they sell in such bulk and use the same components across multiple product lines; savings in one place and ameliorate costs in another. (As an example, the iPhone 5 could be a conservative update but sell to carriers at the same price, whereas the iPad 2 could be a major update at its current price point. Their overall margins would stay the same.) Apple also said it has invested close to $4 billion in a new component opportunity. I think that's very likely to be displays and I don't think they would have mentioned it if it wasn't relevant to a product on the 2011 release cycle. It could be that the iPad 1 is to the iPad 2 as the original Apple TV is to the current Apple TV. iPad 1 was just testing the water and now we're going to see the real deal. I don't think anyone had any idea that the first iPad would sell 16.4 million. Even without a major update they're likely to sell 30 million in 2011. With a really compelling update they could be looking at 40+ million, as long as they're not supply constrained, but that's what that $4 billion was about.
The worst sites are the ones that ignore the user agent string from the browser and use some other identifier to force you to get their mobile shit version. ESPN feeds you crap even if you jailbreak an iPhone or use an Androif phone feeding a user agent string of a desktop broswer like firefox or IE. It really pisses me off, because the mobile sites never have all of the content or usability of the main site. WTF? Most of us have a decent browser on Apple and Android phones, we dont need the mobile crap a windows mobile phone or old BB needed.
They are doing a CSS media query and can see your screen res.]
Why would software decisions about iPad 3 be made now? Using this logic, we should have found Mac App Store references in Leopard.
I thus believe that we will see a retina-level display in the next iPad.
I think there's an obvious explanation for the 2x art in iBooks even if the iPad 2 doesn't have a retina display. Obviously there are prototypes of an iPad with a retina display at Apple. (If I recall, it was John Gruber who said iPhones are on a 2 year development cycle, so right now the iPhone 5 and iPhone 6 are in development. I think the same is probably true for iPads. Right now the iPad 2 is nearing completion and the iPad 3 is in the early development stage.) ...
Excellent post. Didn't quote the whole thing but I like all of your points very much.
Despite looking at MacRumors and AppleInsider archives, I never once saw a story about 2x images being found in any of the iOS 4.0 betas, despite the fact that we know they made them. I would not take their absence in the 4.3 beta to be a reason to confirm that the iPad 2 isn't getting a high res screen.
I think Apple developers left the images out until the last build of iOS 4 to keep the secret. There's no real secret now. We know that someday there will be a retina iPad screen - it's not a new concept anymore. This is just developers preparing for the inevitable. Remember Apple's employees are likely assigned to different projects. The devs who made those textures now may be reassigned to another project so they want everything done now so they don't have to come back to it next year.
There are a lot of CSS styles on websites that do use pixels for font size as well as other size related design elements. In those cases you do have to pinch zoom. Am I the only one who dislikes the trend on the web to make iPhone formatted sites that you can't break out of? I appreciate that they went to the trouble but many times I would just prefer the actual website and scroll around.
That is one bad issue but I'm also very displeased with the iPhone sites that don't let you zoom content. These are very frustrating as I'm in the +50 eyes class now. Why anybody out there would disable a feature that gives many users better access to your content is beyond me.
Sadly these are often Mac or iPhone sites. Since the content on these sites is often sourced from the same place you often find one site to be very useful and another not so useful. This is especially frustrating in the case of pics and PowerPoint slides. It is like why bother posting if you are going to make it unreadable to your user base. Stupidity!
My guess is the team that Steve normally brings on during his, Phil, Scot and Bertrand will do it between them and Phil will probably host and give the Keynote. I wonder of Tim Cook will make a small appearance perhaps on sales data?
Remember, Steve is still acting CEO. Until he passes the reigns to Cook or other I see no reason for him not to spend a single day in SF at Moscone MCing a couple special events.
Besides, for all we know this is nothing but a marketing ploy. Jobs will limp onto the stage with cane in hand, stop, wobble a few times and fall forward tucking himself into a roll, then stand up with arms extended. The crowd cheers. The cane, made of liquidmetal, still standing upright due to the magnetic core at the bottom resting upon the feris metal plate on the stage floor. The event concludes, not with the typical famous artist, but with a dozen of Foxconn's child labor force signing a variation of an Umpa-Loompa song.
The jaggies don't acale when you zoom, it actually looks worse when you zoom out. Pull up the same size text on an iPhone 4 and an iPad and look at them side by side. If you can not see the difference, visit an optomotrist.
He said in another thread that text on the iPad looked terrible. AIR, the example he gave was the letter "O" in Pages.
Below is a pages doc:
Sure text looks better on an iP4 -- but it looks good on an iPad also.
Despite looking at MacRumors and AppleInsider archives, I never once saw a story about 2x images being found in any of the iOS 4.0 betas, despite the fact that we know they made them. I would not take their absence in the 4.3 beta to be a reason to confirm that the iPad 2 isn't getting a high res screen.
I was arguing the opposite case. Their inclusion means that a hi res screen exists some where in Apple.
Not having them in the iOS betas was good practice. This was a mistake.
This is true. It will be shocking, and such an iPad will be the most lusted-after photographic device since the Hasselblad, only much more attainable.
I can see that if they get some means to attach lenses.
It could also be a great videoCam.
If some of the rumors about iOS add-ons are true, a 2x iPad2 would be great for on-the-spot video processing.
iPhoto with the front camera is a natural for the kids,
I bought a glif for my iPhone 4 -- so I can attach it to a tripod -- great product and really makes a difference.
all future applications will be able to run under any of Apple's machines including the 27-inch iMac,
Sadly, I think we can reject this source as more noise than signal. I fear those 2x images just mean what we could have guessed anyway: they’re internally starting to work with future retina iPad plans. But to make this absurd quote all the more absurd (iOS apps running on Mac?) even a 27” iMac cannot fit a 2048x1536 image! It only has 1440 vertical.
The old 30” Cinema Display is the only Apple device capable of fitting 2048x1536. (But developers can just preview at 1024x768—or load to their iPads for full-res testing—anyway.)
If Apple does come out with an iPad with RetinaDisplay this year (which I'm not sure of), I can't believe it will be $499.
Maybe Engadget and John Gruber are both right! Maybe one model of the iPad 2 will have the same resolution, and a more expensive iPad 2 will have a new RetinaDisplay.
So, the new iPad lineup is:
iPad 2 Wifi - $499 (has a 1024x768 screen)
iPad 2 3G - $629 (has a 2048x1536 RetinaDisplay)
And then of course the different memory size options.
iPad v1 - $399
The iPad has been such a successful product, I could see Apple making a Pro (or HD) version with souped up specs. Maybe they just make the 3G versions the Pro line. Right now you have to pay an extra $130 to get the 3G version. The only difference is the 3G chip (with built in GPS), antenna, and slightly different case. I bet these parts cost Apple less than $30. There's definitely enough profit in the 3G iPads if Apple wanted to offer more than just 3G connectivity.
A number of commenters have said they don't see the value because they "can't see the pixels" on the current display.
I predict:
When a higher-res display comes out (perhaps not this year) and you hold the new and old displays side-by-side, you will be shocked at the difference.
Even with old eyes like mine.
I never thought the previous iPhone displays were bad. Even compared to over-saturated AMOLED displays with higher pixel counta (using questionable sub-pixel counting) it always looked fine. In fact, I can't reall ever consciously noticing the pixels.
But then I got an iPhone 4 that not only doubled the resolution, but increase the backlight brightness, made the blacks blacker, used IPS in stead of a TN TFT LCD, and used a different production process that moved the display closer to the glass that it looks likes it's painted on.
I notice the pixels on everything now. Other cell phones, the iPad, even my MBP. It's the psychology of technological progress. I won't ever go back to an inferior phone display.
Remember, Steve is stillacting CEO. Until he passes the reigns to Cook or other I see no reason for him not to spend a single day in SF at Moscone MCing a couple special events.
Besides, for all we know this is nothing but a marketing ploy. Jobs will limp onto the stage with cane in hand, stop, wobble a few times and fall forward tucking himself into a roll, then stand up with arms extended. The crowd cheers. The cane, made of liquidmetal, still standing upright due to the magnetic core at the bottom resting upon the feris metal plate on the stage floor. The event concludes, not with the typical famous artist, but with a dozen of Foxconn's child labor force signing a variation of an Umpa-Loompa song.
My... what an amazing mind (real or imagined)
There are literally days of prep with many hours of rehearsal that go into a keynote...
It is, likely, the most stressful thing that Steve does!
Sadly, I don't think Steve will give the iPad2 keynote. I do expect we'll see a short, 2-4 minute film clip from Steve, though.
My... what an amazing mind (real or imagined)
I feel I'm at my best when being a dumbass.
There are literally days of prep with many hours of rehearsal that go into a keynote...
It is, likely, the most stressful thing that Steve does!
Sadly, I don't think Steve will give the iPad2 keynote. I do expect we'll see a short, 2-4 minute film clip from Steve, though.
Oh, sure, but all the technical setup can be done without his local presence. The Keynote setup can be made at Cupertino or at his house by an employee (I'm sure he has an in-home office). That leaves him practicing, perhaps even via conference/video call, at home until the day of.
That's just one scenario. I don't see why he couldn't spend a couple days in SF preparing for this. It may be the hardest part but 1) it may be the part he enjoys most, and 2) it helps the image of the company if he MCs the event.
I'm not saying this will happen, only that he is still acting CEO so we shouldn't rule it out. It certainly seems more likely than pushing over 3,000,000 pixels on a ARM-based mobile device that needs to get 10+ hours of usage per charge.
2) it helps the image of the company if he MCs the event.
That depends entirely on how he looks doing it.
If he shows and looks like hes on deaths door, that would have the opposite effect.
That depends entirely on how he looks doing it.
If he shows and looks like hes on deaths door, that would have the opposite effect.
I wondering if that counter-argument would be made.
Also, for the long term, not being at a special event helps to psychologically prepare everyone for the inevitable, and that Apple can bot only service, but thrive, without Job's running the show.
I wondering if that counter-argument would be made.
Also, for the long term, not being at a special event helps to psychologically prepare everyone for the inevitable, and that Apple can bot only service, but thrive, without Job's running the show.
That might have been part of the plan anyway. They announce the medical leave even though he is not really that sick. Take the hit on the stock price which was not that bad being just ahead of great earnings. Now Steve leaving soon is baked into the stock and the public consciousness which makes it a lot easier going forward regardless if he is still involved or not. At least now everyone is onboard with the reality that Steve will retire soon.
This guy is looking at his large flat-screen HDTV mounted on the wall.
He gets up and rips the HDTV off the wall, folds it in half, then again several times while leaving the house.
He sits down at a coffee shop and the folded TV has become a laptop or a tablet.
He grabs the laptop and folds it in half several times and it becomes a smart phone.
He is out and about and does whatever...
Later, he enters a house, unfolds the whole business and slaps the HDTV on the wall.
I want to be able to do that metaphorically, virtually or or in reality.
He said in another thread that text on the iPad looked terrible. AIR, the example he gave was the letter "O" in Pages.
Below is a pages doc:
Sure text looks better on an iP4 -- but it looks good on an iPad also.
I'm not sure that blowing text up to giant sizes properly demonstrates the issue. With a font that large, it's easy to focus on the big black areas and ignore the relatively tiny jaggies on its edges. I think it's actually more potentially problematic at smaller sizes. However, I read quite a bit on my iPad (using relatively smallish fonts) and the resolution is not at all a problem for me. Not that I wouldn't welcome an iPad "Retina Display", but I don't think we'll be seeing one this year.