There are many display characteristics. Brightness, color accuracy, viewing angle. PPI is just one thing, and he qualified his statement in that regard.
When it comes to all of those characteristics, then I agree, the iPad screen is very good. I was playing with one in the Apple store a few days ago.
Here's the iPad screen compared to the Xoom screen, taken from arstechnica.
I have my own selfish and wishful desires for a "2K" ipad display as well.
The addition of "1080 support" on ipad2 is promising for ipad3's possible native screen rez bump however. Who's voting for iPad Pro? Anyone?
I also have mysterious, selfish reasons for a 2K screen. I think it's going to happen, maybe in the Fall, maybe next year. But with both Gruber's and Siegler's speculating, I'm keeping fingers crossed for a September surprise. It's needed not only for text, but also for certain kinds of photo and cinema display.
There are many display characteristics. Brightness, color accuracy, viewing angle. PPI is just one thing, and he qualified his statement in that regard.
Something that the Anandtech and Ars reviews noted as far superior to the Xoom.
I also have mysterious, selfish reasons for a 2K screen. I think it's going to happen, maybe in the Fall, maybe next year. But with both Gruber's and Siegler's speculating, I'm keeping fingers crossed for a September surprise. It's needed not only for text, but also for certain kinds of photo and cinema display.
Given the BOM estimates of the iPad 2's touchscreen display from a couple of supply chain research firms and witnessing Apple's inability to keep up with demand, it is highly unlikely that all manufacturers combined on this planet can furnish Apple with an ample supply of Retina-caliber 9.7" displays at a price point that Apple would need to maintain gross margin on this product line. Not this year, probably not next year either.
... Let's be a bit more objective about the statement he made. He said 326 ppi was overkill, but that doesn't mean he said it wasn't better than 132. Could Apple have made it 250 ppi and achieved the same great display qualities. Would you notice the difference between 250 and 326? (I'm just using 250 as an example. Maybe we use 280 or 300.)
So he said 326 was "overkill" but used for "app compatibility". So Apple could have used 280 ppi or 300 ppi and achieved the same stunning results, but they went to 326 because it scales better to the iPad dimensions to make scaling iPhone apps to iPad screen easier. ...
Let's be totally objective about everything he's said. He clearly has some irrational chip on his shoulder in regard to Apple, so he chooses to word even positive things in negative terms in an attempt to cast everything in the worst light possible. Calling it 'overkill' is just his way of saying it's fantastic.
One thing I don't understand about the post. They state that the ambient light sensor locks the screen brightness and does not change said brightness until its put to sleep and then brought out of it again. I have an iPad original and an iPhone4 and the screen brightness changes all the time by itself depending on (wait for it) the ambient light!
So colour me confused...
On a side note, who manufactures the displays for iOS devices? LG?
More like "I can't afford the iPad 2 and my Mum won't buy me one either, so I'm going to find some picky reason to justify to myself why I don't really want it anyway."
See also: The Fox and the Grapes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Exactly. Because the person doesn't have the money to buy an iPad, he badmouths it. This is called "sour grapes".
You two should stop there. It is actually called being smart with your money. The iPad does not work for everyone. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you should spend it on every Apple product released. It kind of sounds like a dig on your parts to make you feel better about your purchase (if you bought one).
I have been spoiled by the iPhone 4. My use case is mostly for e-mail, pdf and ebook reading with web surfing thrown in. I am not a gamer so have no real use for the larger screen size in playing games but it would be nice for reading. Comparing font clarity on the iPad 2 in store to my iPhone 4 was underwhelming to say the least.
The iPhone 4 works "for me." There is no need for me to spend my money on an iPad just to have another Apple product. That is what I call making informed decisions. I decide what works and does not work for my needs.
Exactly. Because the person doesn't have the money to buy an iPad, he badmouths it. This is called "sour grapes".
Gotta agree on this one, I encountered a person just like that when I bought the first iPad, and when I told him that it's a never ending game of waiting for the better and newer one after another, the person just snapped and mad for lousy reasons..
I was glad, and am still is to have bought an iPad when it's finally available here. And I will buy the iPad 2 when it's officially sold here.
I can see rendering webpages fine but anything that requries more would need a lot of cpu power i would think.
It certainly would. The people wishing for a retina display on the iPad don't understand this apparently. The iPad would need a pretty powerful GPU to run that resolution with an acceptable performance. These same people would probably complain that their new iPad retina model only runs their game at 7 FPS.
There's a lot of people like that. They need to justify their actions by inventing fantasy scenarios like saying that I'm not going to buy an iPad 2 because it doesn't have a retina display. There's a lot of legitimate reasons for not buying an iPad 2, but not having a retina display is not one of them. Somebody might already own the first iPad, or maybe somebody simply doesn't need a tablet.
It's the same psychological disorder which causes certain people who bought the Xoom to claim that it has a better display than the iPad and to invent other fictitious reasons. They are fabricating facts and brainwashing themselves in order to feel better about their mistake. They are living in a state of denial.
Whatever works for you dude. Same song and dance. My point made.
If your point is that you add no value to the discussion, I would agree.
I have no idea what you are prattling on about or what you think you are dismissing but I own and am very happy with the original iPad. Irregardless (chew onthat grammar nazis) of my ownership, like/dislike, technical feasability or other contrived "objections" the fact is the iPad would benefit from a higher resolution display.
That doesn't mean the iPad 2 is a flop either.
Talk about people getting defensive and their panties in a bunch over nothing...
There's a lot of people like that. They need to justify their actions by inventing fantasy scenarios like saying that I'm not going to buy an iPad 2 because it doesn't have a retina display. There's a lot of legitimate reasons for not buying an iPad 2, but not having a retina display is not one of them. Somebody might already own the first iPad, or maybe somebody simply doesn't need a tablet.
It's the same psychological disorder which causes certain people who bought the Xoom to claim that it has a better display than the iPad and to invent other fictitious reasons. They are fabricating facts and brainwashing themselves in order to feel better about their mistake. They are living in a state of denial.
Yes, it is a matter of semantics, entirely. It's a 'bug', by the definition of the word in this context, only if it doesn't work as intended. If it works as intended but you don't like the way it's designed to work, it's simply something you don't like, or, at most, a poorly designed feature. While this may seem a bit pedantic, it's also not useful to dilute the meaning of words so that they in fact lose all useful meaning.
I agree. I heard much the same song and dance when HDTVs arrived but resolution did make a difference to consumers. --Even in the much debated 720p - 1080p comparisons. Higher res always won the day.
I'm sure that you are right that the majority of customers decided to purchase 1080p TVs instead of 720p. However, I bet that if customers had to choose TV sets without knowing this spec (1080p vs. 720p) that there would be a pretty equal split. Most customers would not be able to tell the difference in person, even if the two sets were side by side. Sure, some customers would be able to figure it out, but most wouldn't. People often buy the highest spec, just because it is the highest spec.
I am not buying a pad until there is a retina display on it.
you could be waiting quite a long time. it's not just a matter if the display manufacturer can make a higher density display, but one of a number such as: larger, high density display an order of magnitude larger than the iPhone 4; capacitive, thin, light, low power usage (2x resolution is 4x number of pixels which taxes the rendering engine, memory usage, and power drain to light them all up), high yields, low cost (customer affordability), and high quality. If all of these features were available now, meeting Apple's high standards, I would bet that the iPad would already include it.
If the world is lucky, we'll get it in two to five years. If we're not lucky, well....I recommend that you get one now, and upgrade later.
Soneira is quite simply an idiot, and I'm ashamed of AI for wasting space with this no-talent hack's sputtering garbage.
iPhone 4 overkill? Lol no
iPad almost as good? Lol No
Anti aliasing? Wtf? What an idiot
Spot on. This is the same prat who did the biased hatchet job on the Nexus One saying it only had a 16 bit display, when in fact the tard was only measuring the bit density used by an App. Why AI continue to quote this boof heads inane ramblings is beyond me.
There's a lot of people like that. They need to justify their actions by inventing fantasy scenarios like saying that I'm not going to buy an iPad 2 because it doesn't have a retina display. There's a lot of legitimate reasons for not buying an iPad 2, but not having a retina display is not one of them. Somebody might already own the first iPad, or maybe somebody simply doesn't need a tablet.
It's the same psychological disorder which causes certain people who bought the Xoom to claim that it has a better display than the iPad and to invent other fictitious reasons. They are fabricating facts and brainwashing themselves in order to feel better about their mistake. They are living in a state of denial.
I think you're overreacting a bit. Who cares if any random person doesn't want an iPad? Let them go buy a competing product. As long as I get to have my favorite Apple gadgets and gizmos, then I could care less if other people dislike Apple and/or their products, or even if they want to spread lies or troll here for drama. Who gives a crap?
If someone says, "I'm not buying an iPad because it is made by Apple", then this is a ridiculous reason. But, if they say that the only reason is that it doesn't have a retina display, then this is valid. If they really want this feature, then let them wait. Who cares? That just leaves more iPads for the rest of us who do want one.
Likewise, you need to acknowledge that not everyone who doesn't want an iPad is deluding themselves. It isn't for everyone. And it is better that people realize this now and not waste their money. Especially considering that if they do decide to snatch up an iPad on a whim during launch when they really don't need or want one, then one loyal Apple fan will be without their iPad. They should go to those who really want them. I think there should be a way to ban resellers too. It should be illegal to resell items like this for profit.
Let's be totally objective about everything he's said. He clearly has some irrational chip on his shoulder in regard to Apple, so he chooses to word even positive things in negative terms in an attempt to cast everything in the worst light possible. Calling it 'overkill' is just his way of saying it's fantastic.
I have to ask if you reached that conclusion based on the AI article, or if you read the original article?
In the original, the author states clearly in the introdcution:
Quote:
There is no question that a higher ppi is better, but the real question is whether the iPad 2 delivers good display performance when considering its price point and battery power constraints (and also availability in sufficient quantities for Apple).
But of course, AI didn't include that in their article. They selectively quoted only those juicy bits that would set off the faithful into furious rants. The original article was about defending Apple's use of a lower density display and not using a Retina Display in the iPad 2. And his conclusion is that Apple did, in fact, use a very good display in the iPad 2.
And then in the results he says:
Quote:
As we show in the Comparison Table below the display on the iPad 2 delivers almost identical performance to the impressive iPhone 4 Retina Display.
And you somehow reach the conclusion that he has a chip on is shoulder against Apple?
Comments
There are many display characteristics. Brightness, color accuracy, viewing angle. PPI is just one thing, and he qualified his statement in that regard.
When it comes to all of those characteristics, then I agree, the iPad screen is very good. I was playing with one in the Apple store a few days ago.
Here's the iPad screen compared to the Xoom screen, taken from arstechnica.
I have my own selfish and wishful desires for a "2K" ipad display as well.
The addition of "1080 support" on ipad2 is promising for ipad3's possible native screen rez bump however. Who's voting for iPad Pro? Anyone?
I also have mysterious, selfish reasons for a 2K screen. I think it's going to happen, maybe in the Fall, maybe next year. But with both Gruber's and Siegler's speculating, I'm keeping fingers crossed for a September surprise. It's needed not only for text, but also for certain kinds of photo and cinema display.
....
There are many display characteristics. Brightness, color accuracy, viewing angle. PPI is just one thing, and he qualified his statement in that regard.
Something that the Anandtech and Ars reviews noted as far superior to the Xoom.
Just sayin'...
I also have mysterious, selfish reasons for a 2K screen. I think it's going to happen, maybe in the Fall, maybe next year. But with both Gruber's and Siegler's speculating, I'm keeping fingers crossed for a September surprise. It's needed not only for text, but also for certain kinds of photo and cinema display.
Given the BOM estimates of the iPad 2's touchscreen display from a couple of supply chain research firms and witnessing Apple's inability to keep up with demand, it is highly unlikely that all manufacturers combined on this planet can furnish Apple with an ample supply of Retina-caliber 9.7" displays at a price point that Apple would need to maintain gross margin on this product line. Not this year, probably not next year either.
... Let's be a bit more objective about the statement he made. He said 326 ppi was overkill, but that doesn't mean he said it wasn't better than 132. Could Apple have made it 250 ppi and achieved the same great display qualities. Would you notice the difference between 250 and 326? (I'm just using 250 as an example. Maybe we use 280 or 300.)
So he said 326 was "overkill" but used for "app compatibility". So Apple could have used 280 ppi or 300 ppi and achieved the same stunning results, but they went to 326 because it scales better to the iPad dimensions to make scaling iPhone apps to iPad screen easier. ...
Let's be totally objective about everything he's said. He clearly has some irrational chip on his shoulder in regard to Apple, so he chooses to word even positive things in negative terms in an attempt to cast everything in the worst light possible. Calling it 'overkill' is just his way of saying it's fantastic.
So colour me confused...
On a side note, who manufactures the displays for iOS devices? LG?
More like "I can't afford the iPad 2 and my Mum won't buy me one either, so I'm going to find some picky reason to justify to myself why I don't really want it anyway."
See also: The Fox and the Grapes.
Exactly. Because the person doesn't have the money to buy an iPad, he badmouths it. This is called "sour grapes".
You two should stop there. It is actually called being smart with your money. The iPad does not work for everyone. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you should spend it on every Apple product released. It kind of sounds like a dig on your parts to make you feel better about your purchase (if you bought one).
I have been spoiled by the iPhone 4. My use case is mostly for e-mail, pdf and ebook reading with web surfing thrown in. I am not a gamer so have no real use for the larger screen size in playing games but it would be nice for reading. Comparing font clarity on the iPad 2 in store to my iPhone 4 was underwhelming to say the least.
The iPhone 4 works "for me." There is no need for me to spend my money on an iPad just to have another Apple product. That is what I call making informed decisions. I decide what works and does not work for my needs.
Dont Desktops have dual slot cpus and dual gpu solutions that get extremely hot to run things at 30fps on those resolutions now?
I can see rendering webpages fine but anything that requries more would need a lot of cpu power i would think.
Exactly. Because the person doesn't have the money to buy an iPad, he badmouths it. This is called "sour grapes".
Gotta agree on this one, I encountered a person just like that when I bought the first iPad, and when I told him that it's a never ending game of waiting for the better and newer one after another, the person just snapped and mad for lousy reasons..
I was glad, and am still is to have bought an iPad when it's finally available here. And I will buy the iPad 2 when it's officially sold here.
I can see rendering webpages fine but anything that requries more would need a lot of cpu power i would think.
It certainly would. The people wishing for a retina display on the iPad don't understand this apparently. The iPad would need a pretty powerful GPU to run that resolution with an acceptable performance. These same people would probably complain that their new iPad retina model only runs their game at 7 FPS.
Gotta agree on this one.
There's a lot of people like that. They need to justify their actions by inventing fantasy scenarios like saying that I'm not going to buy an iPad 2 because it doesn't have a retina display. There's a lot of legitimate reasons for not buying an iPad 2, but not having a retina display is not one of them. Somebody might already own the first iPad, or maybe somebody simply doesn't need a tablet.
It's the same psychological disorder which causes certain people who bought the Xoom to claim that it has a better display than the iPad and to invent other fictitious reasons. They are fabricating facts and brainwashing themselves in order to feel better about their mistake. They are living in a state of denial.
Does the technology exist to run the ipad at the equivalent dpi to the ipone 4 at ipad sizes?
Dont Desktops have dual slot cpus and dual gpu solutions that get extremely hot to run things at 30fps on those resolutions now?
I can see rendering webpages fine but anything that requries more would need a lot of cpu power i would think.
Oh I do believe Apple already have the technology, but to actually build it for mass production? Doubt it..
Whatever works for you dude. Same song and dance. My point made.
If your point is that you add no value to the discussion, I would agree.
I have no idea what you are prattling on about or what you think you are dismissing but I own and am very happy with the original iPad. Irregardless (chew onthat grammar nazis) of my ownership, like/dislike, technical feasability or other contrived "objections" the fact is the iPad would benefit from a higher resolution display.
That doesn't mean the iPad 2 is a flop either.
Talk about people getting defensive and their panties in a bunch over nothing...
There's a lot of people like that. They need to justify their actions by inventing fantasy scenarios like saying that I'm not going to buy an iPad 2 because it doesn't have a retina display. There's a lot of legitimate reasons for not buying an iPad 2, but not having a retina display is not one of them. Somebody might already own the first iPad, or maybe somebody simply doesn't need a tablet.
It's the same psychological disorder which causes certain people who bought the Xoom to claim that it has a better display than the iPad and to invent other fictitious reasons. They are fabricating facts and brainwashing themselves in order to feel better about their mistake. They are living in a state of denial.
Exactly.
Yes, it is a matter of semantics, entirely. It's a 'bug', by the definition of the word in this context, only if it doesn't work as intended. If it works as intended but you don't like the way it's designed to work, it's simply something you don't like, or, at most, a poorly designed feature. While this may seem a bit pedantic, it's also not useful to dilute the meaning of words so that they in fact lose all useful meaning.
Awesome
I agree. I heard much the same song and dance when HDTVs arrived but resolution did make a difference to consumers. --Even in the much debated 720p - 1080p comparisons. Higher res always won the day.
I'm sure that you are right that the majority of customers decided to purchase 1080p TVs instead of 720p. However, I bet that if customers had to choose TV sets without knowing this spec (1080p vs. 720p) that there would be a pretty equal split. Most customers would not be able to tell the difference in person, even if the two sets were side by side. Sure, some customers would be able to figure it out, but most wouldn't. People often buy the highest spec, just because it is the highest spec.
I am not buying a pad until there is a retina display on it.
you could be waiting quite a long time. it's not just a matter if the display manufacturer can make a higher density display, but one of a number such as: larger, high density display an order of magnitude larger than the iPhone 4; capacitive, thin, light, low power usage (2x resolution is 4x number of pixels which taxes the rendering engine, memory usage, and power drain to light them all up), high yields, low cost (customer affordability), and high quality. If all of these features were available now, meeting Apple's high standards, I would bet that the iPad would already include it.
If the world is lucky, we'll get it in two to five years. If we're not lucky, well....I recommend that you get one now, and upgrade later.
Soneira is quite simply an idiot, and I'm ashamed of AI for wasting space with this no-talent hack's sputtering garbage.
iPhone 4 overkill? Lol no
iPad almost as good? Lol No
Anti aliasing? Wtf? What an idiot
Spot on. This is the same prat who did the biased hatchet job on the Nexus One saying it only had a 16 bit display, when in fact the tard was only measuring the bit density used by an App. Why AI continue to quote this boof heads inane ramblings is beyond me.
There's a lot of people like that. They need to justify their actions by inventing fantasy scenarios like saying that I'm not going to buy an iPad 2 because it doesn't have a retina display. There's a lot of legitimate reasons for not buying an iPad 2, but not having a retina display is not one of them. Somebody might already own the first iPad, or maybe somebody simply doesn't need a tablet.
It's the same psychological disorder which causes certain people who bought the Xoom to claim that it has a better display than the iPad and to invent other fictitious reasons. They are fabricating facts and brainwashing themselves in order to feel better about their mistake. They are living in a state of denial.
I think you're overreacting a bit. Who cares if any random person doesn't want an iPad? Let them go buy a competing product. As long as I get to have my favorite Apple gadgets and gizmos, then I could care less if other people dislike Apple and/or their products, or even if they want to spread lies or troll here for drama. Who gives a crap?
If someone says, "I'm not buying an iPad because it is made by Apple", then this is a ridiculous reason. But, if they say that the only reason is that it doesn't have a retina display, then this is valid. If they really want this feature, then let them wait. Who cares? That just leaves more iPads for the rest of us who do want one.
Likewise, you need to acknowledge that not everyone who doesn't want an iPad is deluding themselves. It isn't for everyone. And it is better that people realize this now and not waste their money. Especially considering that if they do decide to snatch up an iPad on a whim during launch when they really don't need or want one, then one loyal Apple fan will be without their iPad. They should go to those who really want them. I think there should be a way to ban resellers too. It should be illegal to resell items like this for profit.
Let's be totally objective about everything he's said. He clearly has some irrational chip on his shoulder in regard to Apple, so he chooses to word even positive things in negative terms in an attempt to cast everything in the worst light possible. Calling it 'overkill' is just his way of saying it's fantastic.
I have to ask if you reached that conclusion based on the AI article, or if you read the original article?
In the original, the author states clearly in the introdcution:
There is no question that a higher ppi is better, but the real question is whether the iPad 2 delivers good display performance when considering its price point and battery power constraints (and also availability in sufficient quantities for Apple).
But of course, AI didn't include that in their article. They selectively quoted only those juicy bits that would set off the faithful into furious rants. The original article was about defending Apple's use of a lower density display and not using a Retina Display in the iPad 2. And his conclusion is that Apple did, in fact, use a very good display in the iPad 2.
And then in the results he says:
As we show in the Comparison Table below the display on the iPad 2 delivers almost identical performance to the impressive iPhone 4 Retina Display.
And you somehow reach the conclusion that he has a chip on is shoulder against Apple?