There is a difference between something being lower quality and lower resolution. Quality refers to the build of the product. The other is just the functionality of the device.
Further, I think you guys are nuts. You buy something because you have a need for it or it would enhance the quality of your life. To wait another year for something that achieves those things now doesn't make a lot of sense.
My step brother has a current version iPad. It is much easier to read on then his current version iPhone (I'm on a 3GS unlocked on T-Mobile). The overall size of the screen makes up for the lower pixel density.
The effect by the way on the iPhone of the pixels touching the glass doesn't have to do with the resolution or pixel count. It has to do with Apple doing away with the layer of plastic that traditionally separates the LCD and touch screen. Instead, Apple fuses the LCD directly to the touchscreen so the pixels appear much closer then with a traditional screen. It is possible for Apple to improve the screen on the iPad by implementing this process, but not increase the pixel count. The result would still be a better viewing experience. Like always though Apple's challenge is to bring a great product to market at a reasonable price. Sometimes compromises have to made to achieve those results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb
Same here. I'm primarily interested in it for reading material and a place to do some basic writing or not taking, but I don't think I could use a tablet with a screen of significantly lower quality than my phone. iPhone 4's printed page quality with the pixels seemingly on the surface of the glass has spoilt me.
It's not really the non-glare I'm looking for, but a screen you can see with sunglasses on. I have polarized lenses and the iPad screen is nearly black at full bright. I have no trouble seeing the iPhone 4 under same conditions. Frustrating in the car and on the road, where the iPad should be at its best.
That's why I wondered if there might be an optional and expensive high end iPad2. You know, the 'Limited Edition'. You never know.
That's been my guess too - an iPad HR. Next year the whole iPad line would be HR. But most seem to think it very unlikely that Apple would bifurcate the line. I am not so sure - adding a high-end high-resolution device could be most beneficial. It would bring in a premium revenue and would allow the display manufacturers the time to improve their yield while scaling their production.
There is a difference between something being lower quality and lower resolution. Quality refers to the build of the product. The other is just the functionality of the device.
Yes, thank you, but I'm not an idiot. I'm aware of the difference. But the resolution of the screen contributes to its quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Further, I think you guys are nuts. You buy something because you have a need for it or it would enhance the quality of your life. To wait another year for something that achieves those things now doesn't make a lot of sense.
Except for the fact that I'm a Student, and therefore not rich, and I only want to buy one ultraportable in the next 3 years. Hence, I am only going to do so when the experience meets my - full - requirements. I don't want to buy an iPad 2, then find that the 2012 model has the screen I wanted. Especially since I will be buying it subsidised with a Wireless Service Agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
My step brother has a current version iPad. It is much easier to read on then his current version iPhone (I'm on a 3GS unlocked on T-Mobile). The overall size of the screen makes up for the lower pixel density.
I'm a video snob. I've used the iPad, and the screen, whilst nice, does not have the amazing, beautiful appearance and quality of the iPhone 4 screen. It's not just about readability - bigger letters are inherently easier to read - it's about the visual quality. My iPhone 4 wows me. iPad does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
The effect by the way on the iPhone of the pixels touching the glass doesn't have to do with the resolution or pixel count. It has to do with Apple doing away with the layer of plastic that traditionally separates the LCD and touch screen. Instead, Apple fuses the LCD directly to the touchscreen so the pixels appear much closer then with a traditional screen.
I'm aware of that. I never said anything about it relating to the resolution, I was simply listing more of the ways in which the iPhone 4 screen is amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
It is possible for Apple to improve the screen on the iPad by implementing this process, but not increase the pixel count. The result would still be a better viewing experience.
Sure, but it would still be markedly inferior to the iPhone 4. It is not any one of the ways in which iPhone 4's screen is superior to the iPad's that I want to see on iPad, it's everything that makes the iPhone 4's screen superior that I want to see on the iPad's.
I will wait for next year. I'm just warming up to my current iPad. It took awhile. I feel like it is still brand new. I don't need anything better right now. I just need to find the time or reasons to use it more. I do feel that it it is under utilized at the moment. I like it but definitely can't justify replacing it at this point. I barely use it 5 hours a week. Between my iMacs, Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Apple TV, and iPhone, I'm already over my quota with Apple hardware.
Why does the iPad's ppi have to beat the Xoom's? That doesn't make any sense.
Also, I seriously doubt the Xoom will sell in the same volumes that the iPad is expected to. Apple has to stick with technologies that can be manufactured in massive quantities, they don't have the luxury of being able to adopt any thing else.
Finally, the resolution of the iPad is fine for it's intended use, which is from your lap, not directly in front of your face like an iPod or iPhone. On my lap I can barely see any pixelation.
obviously you are speaking from a stockholder point of view. however, as a consumer, i want the best features available on the market. if the xoom offers better features, then the xoom is the better choice; it's that simple.
obviously you are speaking from a stockholder point of view. however, as a consumer, i want the best features available on the market. if the xoom offers better features, then the xoom is the better choice; it's that simple.
Consumers don't think that way at all. Geeks think that way. Geeks are feature whores. Consumers just want their device to work and be easy to use.
Does a "thinner" form factor imply that the iPad v2 will take its cues from the iPhone 4 (i.e., front and back glass panels wreathed in aluminum)?
Also, wasn't there an article recently here at AI arguing that increasing the screen resolution on future iPads was not merely an aesthetic goal, but practically a necessity dictated by resolution independence in iOS?
Does a "thinner" form factor imply that the iPad v2 will take its cues from the iPhone 4 (i.e., front and back glass panels wreathed in aluminum)?
Also, wasn't there an article recently here at AI arguing that increasing the screen resolution on future iPads was not merely an aesthetic goal, but practically a necessity dictated by resolution independence in iOS?
I don't think that they would add another panel of glass to it. Not at all. Carbon-fiber, Liquid-Metal, aluminum, plastic, whatever, but I can assure you it wont be glass-backed. What a nightmare that would be!
I don't think I need the "retina display" but the iPhone 4 has spoiled me a little. Doubling the iPad's resolution (instead of quadrupling) would be awesome because I don't hold my iPad as close to my face as I hold the iPhone.
Lighter, absolutely. Thiner... fine. The faster processor is a given. They have to. More storage is also something fairly obvious I think. Front facing camera for FaceTime, please. No rear one is needed. I honestly think the rear camera would be a waste of space. They might put it in to keep up with the Joneses, but it's certainly not necessary.
I really don't know what else is needed on the iPad. EXCEPT FOR FLASH. I'll keep on asking for it as long as just about every restaurant website and many other vanity websites are written in Flash. Give me a disclaimer saying that turning this switch will cause more crashing... anything... I just want to be able to see every website. I mostly read blogs, but the not-so-rare time I go to a site with Flash, I'd like to be able to see it.
The day Apple puts Flash on any of their iDevices is the day I stop buying them.
Flash is evil on my MBP, if it wasn't for click to flash, I would be constantly bombarded with ads that overheat my battery and slow down my computer.
I HATE Flash, and if this bothers you that you can't get Flash, go elsewhere, you can try Android or windoze crap.
That's Apple's MO. Faster, lighter, thinner. I just hope the back is not going to be plastic like the 3G and 3Gs iPhones were. I really like my iPhone 4 over the 3Gs I had.
I was an early adopter for the iPhone and it was worth the price of admission just for visual voicemail, contact management and email.
I would have bought the first gen. iPad, but the recession kind of kicked me in the nuts. Hope to get version 2.
As far as resolution, I have the iPhone 4 and it is fantastic. I've used the iPad in the stores and it looks fine, too. I think the lack of Retina display is a non-issue at this point.
Best
I think Apple has learned their lesson about using cheap materials. I will admit that my 3Gs feels very sturdy and well put together compared to most plastic phones out there, but it is still plastic. And plastic will never feel as well designed or as good in the hand as glass, metal, or other stronger materials. I am VERY ready for iPhone 5 to come out. The wife-approved upgrade cycle for me is every other phone, so I had to skip the 4.
Comments
No higher resolution. No sale.
My wife and I really wanted to buy one. We'll reconsider with v3.
Higher resolution is a ridiculous notion. I am definitely getting the second gen.
Further, I think you guys are nuts. You buy something because you have a need for it or it would enhance the quality of your life. To wait another year for something that achieves those things now doesn't make a lot of sense.
My step brother has a current version iPad. It is much easier to read on then his current version iPhone (I'm on a 3GS unlocked on T-Mobile). The overall size of the screen makes up for the lower pixel density.
The effect by the way on the iPhone of the pixels touching the glass doesn't have to do with the resolution or pixel count. It has to do with Apple doing away with the layer of plastic that traditionally separates the LCD and touch screen. Instead, Apple fuses the LCD directly to the touchscreen so the pixels appear much closer then with a traditional screen. It is possible for Apple to improve the screen on the iPad by implementing this process, but not increase the pixel count. The result would still be a better viewing experience. Like always though Apple's challenge is to bring a great product to market at a reasonable price. Sometimes compromises have to made to achieve those results.
Same here. I'm primarily interested in it for reading material and a place to do some basic writing or not taking, but I don't think I could use a tablet with a screen of significantly lower quality than my phone. iPhone 4's printed page quality with the pixels seemingly on the surface of the glass has spoilt me.
I'm convinced investors saw the Motorola Xoom Superbowl ad and thought it was the iPad 2. That's why it jumped up suddenly.
I saw the Xoom ad and laughed. More "me too" products from a company that just can't develop an original idea.
OMG I just hit 4000 posts ... I need to get a life.
Not gonna happen! Believe me.... LOL.
Maybe the new screen design will remedy this-
OMG I just hit 4000 posts ... I need to get a life.
Don't. You are needed here.
That's why I wondered if there might be an optional and expensive high end iPad2. You know, the 'Limited Edition'. You never know.
That's been my guess too - an iPad HR. Next year the whole iPad line would be HR. But most seem to think it very unlikely that Apple would bifurcate the line. I am not so sure - adding a high-end high-resolution device could be most beneficial. It would bring in a premium revenue and would allow the display manufacturers the time to improve their yield while scaling their production.
How about Apple stops cheaping out and puts in 1 gig like everyone else in the world?
See, you just lost all credibility right there.
Care to name who else is there as iPad's competitor today?
There is a difference between something being lower quality and lower resolution. Quality refers to the build of the product. The other is just the functionality of the device.
Yes, thank you, but I'm not an idiot. I'm aware of the difference. But the resolution of the screen contributes to its quality.
Further, I think you guys are nuts. You buy something because you have a need for it or it would enhance the quality of your life. To wait another year for something that achieves those things now doesn't make a lot of sense.
Except for the fact that I'm a Student, and therefore not rich, and I only want to buy one ultraportable in the next 3 years. Hence, I am only going to do so when the experience meets my - full - requirements. I don't want to buy an iPad 2, then find that the 2012 model has the screen I wanted. Especially since I will be buying it subsidised with a Wireless Service Agreement.
My step brother has a current version iPad. It is much easier to read on then his current version iPhone (I'm on a 3GS unlocked on T-Mobile). The overall size of the screen makes up for the lower pixel density.
I'm a video snob. I've used the iPad, and the screen, whilst nice, does not have the amazing, beautiful appearance and quality of the iPhone 4 screen. It's not just about readability - bigger letters are inherently easier to read - it's about the visual quality. My iPhone 4 wows me. iPad does not.
The effect by the way on the iPhone of the pixels touching the glass doesn't have to do with the resolution or pixel count. It has to do with Apple doing away with the layer of plastic that traditionally separates the LCD and touch screen. Instead, Apple fuses the LCD directly to the touchscreen so the pixels appear much closer then with a traditional screen.
I'm aware of that. I never said anything about it relating to the resolution, I was simply listing more of the ways in which the iPhone 4 screen is amazing.
It is possible for Apple to improve the screen on the iPad by implementing this process, but not increase the pixel count. The result would still be a better viewing experience.
Sure, but it would still be markedly inferior to the iPhone 4. It is not any one of the ways in which iPhone 4's screen is superior to the iPad's that I want to see on iPad, it's everything that makes the iPhone 4's screen superior that I want to see on the iPad's.
Why does the iPad's ppi have to beat the Xoom's? That doesn't make any sense.
Also, I seriously doubt the Xoom will sell in the same volumes that the iPad is expected to. Apple has to stick with technologies that can be manufactured in massive quantities, they don't have the luxury of being able to adopt any thing else.
Finally, the resolution of the iPad is fine for it's intended use, which is from your lap, not directly in front of your face like an iPod or iPhone. On my lap I can barely see any pixelation.
obviously you are speaking from a stockholder point of view. however, as a consumer, i want the best features available on the market. if the xoom offers better features, then the xoom is the better choice; it's that simple.
obviously you are speaking from a stockholder point of view. however, as a consumer, i want the best features available on the market. if the xoom offers better features, then the xoom is the better choice; it's that simple.
Consumers don't think that way at all. Geeks think that way. Geeks are feature whores. Consumers just want their device to work and be easy to use.
I'm convinced investors saw the Motorola Xoom Superbowl ad and thought it was the iPad 2. That's why it jumped up suddenly.
I'm convinced that they saw the presales of the Verizon iPhone and decided Steve Jobs health didn't matter that much.
I'm convinced that they saw the presales of the Verizon iPhone and decided Steve Jobs health didn't matter that much.
So true. If Verizon sells just 2 million iPhones it adds 1.2 billion in revenues to Apples top line. Yowzers!
Also, wasn't there an article recently here at AI arguing that increasing the screen resolution on future iPads was not merely an aesthetic goal, but practically a necessity dictated by resolution independence in iOS?
Does a "thinner" form factor imply that the iPad v2 will take its cues from the iPhone 4 (i.e., front and back glass panels wreathed in aluminum)?
Also, wasn't there an article recently here at AI arguing that increasing the screen resolution on future iPads was not merely an aesthetic goal, but practically a necessity dictated by resolution independence in iOS?
I don't think that they would add another panel of glass to it. Not at all. Carbon-fiber, Liquid-Metal, aluminum, plastic, whatever, but I can assure you it wont be glass-backed. What a nightmare that would be!
No higher resolution. No sale.
My wife and I really wanted to buy one. We'll reconsider with v3.
I've heard it rumoured that iPad V3 will have the same resolution as the current model so you may want to hold out for iPad V4 ... or V5
I don't think I need the "retina display" but the iPhone 4 has spoiled me a little. Doubling the iPad's resolution (instead of quadrupling) would be awesome because I don't hold my iPad as close to my face as I hold the iPhone.
Lighter, absolutely. Thiner... fine. The faster processor is a given. They have to. More storage is also something fairly obvious I think. Front facing camera for FaceTime, please. No rear one is needed. I honestly think the rear camera would be a waste of space. They might put it in to keep up with the Joneses, but it's certainly not necessary.
I really don't know what else is needed on the iPad. EXCEPT FOR FLASH. I'll keep on asking for it as long as just about every restaurant website and many other vanity websites are written in Flash. Give me a disclaimer saying that turning this switch will cause more crashing... anything... I just want to be able to see every website. I mostly read blogs, but the not-so-rare time I go to a site with Flash, I'd like to be able to see it.
The day Apple puts Flash on any of their iDevices is the day I stop buying them.
Flash is evil on my MBP, if it wasn't for click to flash, I would be constantly bombarded with ads that overheat my battery and slow down my computer.
I HATE Flash, and if this bothers you that you can't get Flash, go elsewhere, you can try Android or windoze crap.
That's Apple's MO. Faster, lighter, thinner. I just hope the back is not going to be plastic like the 3G and 3Gs iPhones were. I really like my iPhone 4 over the 3Gs I had.
I was an early adopter for the iPhone and it was worth the price of admission just for visual voicemail, contact management and email.
I would have bought the first gen. iPad, but the recession kind of kicked me in the nuts. Hope to get version 2.
As far as resolution, I have the iPhone 4 and it is fantastic. I've used the iPad in the stores and it looks fine, too. I think the lack of Retina display is a non-issue at this point.
Best
I think Apple has learned their lesson about using cheap materials. I will admit that my 3Gs feels very sturdy and well put together compared to most plastic phones out there, but it is still plastic. And plastic will never feel as well designed or as good in the hand as glass, metal, or other stronger materials. I am VERY ready for iPhone 5 to come out. The wife-approved upgrade cycle for me is every other phone, so I had to skip the 4.