That's me in a nutshell. Really hoping Gruber is wrong, as unlikely as it would be. Want it so that Apple shifts the goalposts almost completely beyond the reach of their competitors, but most of all want it for myself!
Me as well, but maybe the way to put it is "hoping Gruber's sources are wrong."
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke
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.
Out of this excellent reasoning, only this question: Don't they have to mention this expense in the earnings call?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
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.
I also got a glif, even though I'm still waiting for the Verizon iPhone! I was imagining the glif-like thing we'll need for the iPad just yesterday. I hope those guys are on it right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
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.
Those pixels, or lack of them, get into your neurons. Steve said it would be impossible to go back to earlier displays.
I think they're going to do it. But I won't be disappointed if they don't. Honest.
The final decision on whether to go with the high-res display in the next generation is pending, but close. Final decision makers include final confirmation from supply chain, final confirmation from mass assembly, and performance testing (similar to the last minute missing camera in one of the iPod generations)
The high-res displays (with touch components) are the big supply investment and very strategic given what it affords in differentiation and with Apple's approach (i.e., Why High Resolution Screens Matter For Apple's iPad 2). The volume commitment allows Apple to achieve "reasonable" wholesale pricing to make it a reality in 2011
Apple wants it to be in this upcoming generation with the *potential* increase in competition and to lessen the attraction of the latest Kindle in terms of display differences for reading books (I am in no way implying that Apple has any competitive concern regarding the Kindle)
If confirmations pass and the high-res will be part of this generation, the previous generation will continued to be offered as the lower cost entry option (instead of new internals with old display; the iPhone approach sets this precedent)
I think Apple is attempting to make this dramatic change in the second gen (which breaks precedent if it holds true) as they have become more comfortable making big bets based on their supply chain mastery and as Steve said "out to win this one"
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.
I am 71 and have been looking at computer screens/terminals since 1967.
I like the iPad -- but usually the text is too small for these 71-year-old eyes.
I usually zoom -- but that means I have to pan back and forth to read long lines of text in a paragraph.
For example, the text in these forums.
I wish the iPad (or AI) had an option to zoom text, but reflow it within the horizontal width of the screen (or within the boundaries of a frame or field).
I don't care if it will waste a potential performance upgrade by eating up the additional resources of the iPad 2, and I don't care if you think it is not worth.
I want it because such a beautiful IPS hi-res display would B L O W my mind
I mean, the iPad screen isn't so awesome, but compare it side-by-side with a MBP or something... It IS amazing already!
I understand completely that scaling images up to anything but an even multiple will usually require anti-aliasing, which slightly blurs edges. But maybe the 2048x1536 images in iBooks are intended to be shrunk down to 1024x768 or, say, 1280x960.
Scaling down and emoving pixels might be easier and better-looking than scaling up and adding pixels. And that could mean sharp images on screens smaller than 2048x1536. Not sure if this is actually true or not. Just a thought.
If confirmations pass and the high-res will be part of this generation, the previous generation will continued to be offered as the lower cost entry option (instead of new internals with old display; the iPhone approach sets this precedent)
...
I've long suspected Apple would do this. It would help convince people who have held out for a lower price to buy. And it will put even more pressure on competitors whose only advantage would be low price.
Combine Apple's cost advantage and high margins with consumer mindshare, and it will be extremely tough for anyone else to make money in the pad computing market. Just ask Ballmer.
I'm convinced. Apple is always ahead of the game and knew about this prior to the original launch. They need a compelling reason to buy a 2nd gen not only nor newbees but repeaters and this is it.
There are literally days of prep with many hours of rehearsal that go into a keynote...
It is, likely, the most stressful thing that Steve does!
Sadly, I don't think Steve will give the iPad2 keynote. I do expect we'll see a short, 2-4 minute film clip from Steve, though.
I think the level of announcement all depends on how much of an upgrade iPad 2 is. If they are just bumping the memory and processor, and adding a camera, they may just put it up on the Apple store and have a press release. If they go with the retina screen and other cooler features (SD card slot, gyroscopes, etc.), then they will need to have a small event to show off all the new tech. Either way, I don't see Steve being a part of this while on medical leave, unless they facetime him while he's at home on the couch with his new iPad. He will put on a black turtleneck just for the 2 minute chat though
Out of this excellent reasoning, only this question: Don't they have to mention this expense in the earnings call?
I think they do have to disclose their expenses but I don't think they had to give the level of detail they did. It was mentioned as an example of what they're doing with their cash reserves. I think it was Cook who said it was an investment in a particular type of component and likened it to their investments in CPUs and flash memory (but clearly suggested it didn't belong to either category). I don't think he had to say any of that.
... I wish the iPad (or AI) had an option to zoom text, but reflow it within the horizontal width of the screen (or within the boundaries of a frame or field).
Well, it depends on the app -- iBooks reflows the text when you "zoom" (change the font size) -- but I assume you mean in Safari. I agree that there are definitely times when I would prefer to be able to change the viewport width myself, or change the default font size, rather than zooming and panning.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the resolution of a high-quality magazine? I'd imagine that this would roughly be a resolution end-point.
300 dpi is what most offset printing uses. It's pretty much the max as the substrate (paper) becomes the determining factor. Even with a coated stock there is going to be a bit of 'dot gain' - ink will spread out about 5 to 20% depending.
A "high quality magazine" isn't using a higher resolution then a normal one - they just use better paper. Tighter rosetta's with less dot gain.
I've already linked to this, but it didn't seem to make any impression, so I'm going to link to it again.
Again, it's a look at the likly time frame of an iPad sized "Retina" display within the context of Moore's Law.
People seem to be figuring that Apple could get this done is they're willing to invest heavily, or take a hit on margins, or buy up supply, or something. But the semiconductor industry doesn't really work that way. If all it took was money to leapfrog everyone and release 2013's technology today, don't you think some deep pocket folks would do it more often?
The main point of the linked article is that advances in silicon process mean some pretty predictable advances in LCD resolution. It all comes down to rejection rate. It's not that it's entirely impossible to fabricate 10" screens at 4X current iPad pixel density, it's that until such processes have been up and running for a while there are high rejection rates-- the fabs have to iron out the wrinkles in cramming that many more transistors onto the wafers while keeping the density of imperfections within manageable levels.
So no doubt there are 2048x1536 prototype iPads in Cupertino. The problem is, if the manufacturing process is running at a 50% rejection rate, those panels are astronomically expensive. And there's really no way to get those rejection rates down besides actually making a shitload of panels and sweating the details. Which means you can't just show up at your suppliers door with a wad of cash and say "Jump ahead a generation." It takes what it takes, and what it takes is time and experience.
And yes, I know the iPhone screen was a jump, but there actually had been incremental increases in that size screen happening all along. Smaller screen mean more of the wafer can be used even is some number of them are rejected. There hasn't been any movement at all to higher resolution screens in an iPad size that I've seen, much less a huge leap like what is being discussed.
Anyway, read the article, it makes a pretty good case.
300 dpi is max for raster images. You can supply a higher res file, but when the file goes through a rip, it's going to knock it down to 300. Vector images are different. However, on a magazine even vector images are converted because of the 4 plate system for cmyk.
It is possible to have vector image printing on top of raster images- requiring extra plates to be made. You see this from time to time. Usually with solid shapes and a special ink.
I also agree with the general consensus here. The thing that keep me thinking that this might happen is that it would be a very typical Apple move. It is just the kind of surprise they love to spring. And it makes a lot of sense in terms of stepping ahead of the competition. It also makes sense in terms of Apple's alleged investment.
I'm with this. But the information we are hearing does seem like too much to upgrade at once. Perhaps apple views honeycomb as a marketshare threat and wants to hit this one hard. Regardless, I am expecting apple to find a way to underspec some critical feature so people generally love the device but are more or less forced to upgrade next year.
I've already linked to this, but it didn't seem to make any impression, so I'm going to link to it again.
I did read this article last night, but thought the application of Moore's Law was maybe a bit of a reach, but then what do I know about LCD screen making, so I took the easy route back to wishful thinking. But thanks for the link. Grist for the old mill. Otherwise the stones get worn, grinding on themselves . . .
Edit: Just re-read your post above. You argue it better than the article.
Comments
That's me in a nutshell. Really hoping Gruber is wrong, as unlikely as it would be. Want it so that Apple shifts the goalposts almost completely beyond the reach of their competitors, but most of all want it for myself!
Me as well, but maybe the way to put it is "hoping Gruber's sources are wrong."
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.
Out of this excellent reasoning, only this question: Don't they have to mention this expense in the earnings call?
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.
I also got a glif, even though I'm still waiting for the Verizon iPhone! I was imagining the glif-like thing we'll need for the iPad just yesterday. I hope those guys are on it right now.
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.
Those pixels, or lack of them, get into your neurons. Steve said it would be impossible to go back to earlier displays.
I think they're going to do it. But I won't be disappointed if they don't. Honest.
K, you're really not interesting enough to size 5 your font.
You only say this 'cause you love me.
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.
I am 71 and have been looking at computer screens/terminals since 1967.
I like the iPad -- but usually the text is too small for these 71-year-old eyes.
I usually zoom -- but that means I have to pan back and forth to read long lines of text in a paragraph.
For example, the text in these forums.
I wish the iPad (or AI) had an option to zoom text, but reflow it within the horizontal width of the screen (or within the boundaries of a frame or field).
I don't care if it will waste a potential performance upgrade by eating up the additional resources of the iPad 2, and I don't care if you think it is not worth.
I want it because such a beautiful IPS hi-res display would B L O W my mind
I mean, the iPad screen isn't so awesome, but compare it side-by-side with a MBP or something... It IS amazing already!
Scaling down and emoving pixels might be easier and better-looking than scaling up and adding pixels. And that could mean sharp images on screens smaller than 2048x1536. Not sure if this is actually true or not. Just a thought.
...
I've long suspected Apple would do this. It would help convince people who have held out for a lower price to buy. And it will put even more pressure on competitors whose only advantage would be low price.
Combine Apple's cost advantage and high margins with consumer mindshare, and it will be extremely tough for anyone else to make money in the pad computing market. Just ask Ballmer.
My... what an amazing mind (real or imagined)
There are literally days of prep with many hours of rehearsal that go into a keynote...
It is, likely, the most stressful thing that Steve does!
Sadly, I don't think Steve will give the iPad2 keynote. I do expect we'll see a short, 2-4 minute film clip from Steve, though.
I think the level of announcement all depends on how much of an upgrade iPad 2 is. If they are just bumping the memory and processor, and adding a camera, they may just put it up on the Apple store and have a press release. If they go with the retina screen and other cooler features (SD card slot, gyroscopes, etc.), then they will need to have a small event to show off all the new tech. Either way, I don't see Steve being a part of this while on medical leave, unless they facetime him while he's at home on the couch with his new iPad. He will put on a black turtleneck just for the 2 minute chat though
Out of this excellent reasoning, only this question: Don't they have to mention this expense in the earnings call?
I think they do have to disclose their expenses but I don't think they had to give the level of detail they did. It was mentioned as an example of what they're doing with their cash reserves. I think it was Cook who said it was an investment in a particular type of component and likened it to their investments in CPUs and flash memory (but clearly suggested it didn't belong to either category). I don't think he had to say any of that.
... I wish the iPad (or AI) had an option to zoom text, but reflow it within the horizontal width of the screen (or within the boundaries of a frame or field).
Well, it depends on the app -- iBooks reflows the text when you "zoom" (change the font size) -- but I assume you mean in Safari. I agree that there are definitely times when I would prefer to be able to change the viewport width myself, or change the default font size, rather than zooming and panning.
If the iPad upgrades parallel what Apple does for Mac upgrades, then don't expect too much from iPad 2.
Logic tells me you are right...
But, my damn intuition tells me different ...
... The Bard of Avon said it best:
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the resolution of a high-quality magazine? I'd imagine that this would roughly be a resolution end-point.
300 dpi is what most offset printing uses. It's pretty much the max as the substrate (paper) becomes the determining factor. Even with a coated stock there is going to be a bit of 'dot gain' - ink will spread out about 5 to 20% depending.
A "high quality magazine" isn't using a higher resolution then a normal one - they just use better paper. Tighter rosetta's with less dot gain.
Again, it's a look at the likly time frame of an iPad sized "Retina" display within the context of Moore's Law.
People seem to be figuring that Apple could get this done is they're willing to invest heavily, or take a hit on margins, or buy up supply, or something. But the semiconductor industry doesn't really work that way. If all it took was money to leapfrog everyone and release 2013's technology today, don't you think some deep pocket folks would do it more often?
The main point of the linked article is that advances in silicon process mean some pretty predictable advances in LCD resolution. It all comes down to rejection rate. It's not that it's entirely impossible to fabricate 10" screens at 4X current iPad pixel density, it's that until such processes have been up and running for a while there are high rejection rates-- the fabs have to iron out the wrinkles in cramming that many more transistors onto the wafers while keeping the density of imperfections within manageable levels.
So no doubt there are 2048x1536 prototype iPads in Cupertino. The problem is, if the manufacturing process is running at a 50% rejection rate, those panels are astronomically expensive. And there's really no way to get those rejection rates down besides actually making a shitload of panels and sweating the details. Which means you can't just show up at your suppliers door with a wad of cash and say "Jump ahead a generation." It takes what it takes, and what it takes is time and experience.
And yes, I know the iPhone screen was a jump, but there actually had been incremental increases in that size screen happening all along. Smaller screen mean more of the wafer can be used even is some number of them are rejected. There hasn't been any movement at all to higher resolution screens in an iPad size that I've seen, much less a huge leap like what is being discussed.
Anyway, read the article, it makes a pretty good case.
Usually 300 dpi or better.
300 dpi is max for raster images. You can supply a higher res file, but when the file goes through a rip, it's going to knock it down to 300. Vector images are different. However, on a magazine even vector images are converted because of the 4 plate system for cmyk.
It is possible to have vector image printing on top of raster images- requiring extra plates to be made. You see this from time to time. Usually with solid shapes and a special ink.
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Et tu, Brute?
Nice to run across this here. I hope Eric Schmidt doesn't read AI, else his resolve be steeled and h.264 more doomed. [trying for iambic pentameter]
I also agree with the general consensus here. The thing that keep me thinking that this might happen is that it would be a very typical Apple move. It is just the kind of surprise they love to spring. And it makes a lot of sense in terms of stepping ahead of the competition. It also makes sense in terms of Apple's alleged investment.
I'm with this. But the information we are hearing does seem like too much to upgrade at once. Perhaps apple views honeycomb as a marketshare threat and wants to hit this one hard. Regardless, I am expecting apple to find a way to underspec some critical feature so people generally love the device but are more or less forced to upgrade next year.
Like I say: if we do get more RAM and better processor and graphics - if the display doesn't change - we will notice the performance improvements.
Take it easy .... you're going to "bust a lung"....
I've already linked to this, but it didn't seem to make any impression, so I'm going to link to it again.
I did read this article last night, but thought the application of Moore's Law was maybe a bit of a reach, but then what do I know about LCD screen making, so I took the easy route back to wishful thinking. But thanks for the link. Grist for the old mill. Otherwise the stones get worn, grinding on themselves . . .
Edit: Just re-read your post above. You argue it better than the article.