It would be nice if they could keep the dock connector size the same. I don't want to have the confusion of "large dock connector" vs "small dock connector". or maybe they could just use mini USB instead, i've got 20 of those cables at home.
Real customers want ease of use and long battery life. Nerds only care about technical specifications whether they translate into actual performance improvements or not. Nerds still won't buy iPods because they don't support Ogg Vorbis. Apple can never satisfy the nerds so I hope they concentrate on their bread and butter customers and work on battery technology first. Then they can up the processor power and resolution.
I think you have to make a mental time adjustment whenever you read one of these stories (assuming it has any basis in fact).
The story reads as if this were breaking news-- that Apple is just now getting around to finding out that current LCD backlight tech isn't really cutting it and is now obliged to scramble to figure something out.
Of course we know that prototype iPad 3s have been in Apple's labs since at least the release of the iPad 2, in quite a few variants, and that Apple has been working on any technological hurdles to manufacturing a specific model with specific resolution, brightness, battery life, case design, etc. for some time now.
If differing solutions are on offer, or if some solutions have proven inadequate, all of this is an ongoing process that has been underway for at least the last year. With a probable release window for the iPad 3 around 3-4 months out I would expect Apple to have wrapped up the design and engineering phase and already be moving to the prepping for manufacturing phase. The iPad is simply too critical to Apple's fortunes to leave something as basic as pixel density vs. brightness to untested solutions this late in the game.
Seems to me 1280 x 960 would be a more usable format.
Can't we just have improvements we more need?
Upgrading to an intermediate screen resolution as you suggest would screw up all existing iPad applications and require developers to develop and maintain multiple versions of their apps for the different screens. This is the path that Android has taken, and the result - predictably - has been fragmentation and a dearth of quality tablet apps for Android.
By instead doubling the existing resolution, Apple gets to leapfrog competitors in display quality while making it a trivial effort to update all existing apps (flipping a switch to 2X existing resolution...)
While everyone's struggling to play checkers, Apple continues their game of chess.
personally, i think more people would be happier with similar resolution HD Super AMOLED display on the ipad3 for a number of reasons.
1) much better battery life, especially at high brightness levels
2) much better contrast, and therefore true blacks
I agree, Super AMOLED screens are fantastic. Samsung has already came up with the first Super AMOLED+ Galaxy tablet with 1280 x 800 pixels resolution (the highest pixel density we've seen on a tablet yet 196ppi). But unfortunately Super AMOLED screen is not going to happend to iPad anytime soon since currently these displays available only from a major competitor - Samsung. Major iPhone and iPad components already supplied by Samsung.
I don't think Apple is building a so-called "iPad 3." However, all evidence points to AppleInsider building a fictional iPad 3 using leaks and rumors.
I happened to have worked at one of San Diego's most successful mobile chip designer and I can tell you this: There may not be a device called "iPad3" yet but if Apple is a mature and sane device maker (and we know they are) rest assured there are at least 2 iterations of the iPad being modeled, debugged, tested, qualified, verified, environmental screened, etc. One of those will be the "iPad3" next year, and "iPad4" the following year, etc.
The "iPad3" will definitely happen next year. Apple is not one to milk a product to obsolescence. I concur the iPad2 is "almost perfect" but competitors will nibble at it from all directions (namely Samsung, Amazon, and BN). Those tablets with ICS 4.0 are not half-bad at all. I think ICS Android will start chewing off a lot more tablet share in a year. Apple will have to offer a lot more (like 2x the resolution? uSDHC slot like the Mac mini? faster dock connector? - hint: Thunderbolt?)
Talking about the presumed smaller dock connector. I recently upgraded to 64GB iPhone and that took way too long to load all my apps with that USB2-powered dock connector. Is Thunderbolt-powered dock on the way to the rescue. I don't see 128GB iPhones or iPads using USB2.0. Maybe USB3.0? That would be unusual considering Apple's/Intel's push for Thunderbolt on everything desktop.
I'm missing something. How does the pixel density require more LEDs on a backlit display, assuming the screensize is the same. That makes no sense - the light from the back lighting is still being dispersed over the same area, and shone through the same amount of 'screen'.
It might have something to do with the size of the cross-sectional channels for light dispersion.
Quote:
personally, i think more people would be happier with similar resolution HD Super AMOLED display on the ipad3 for a number of reasons.
1) much better battery life, especially at high brightness levels
Maybe not so happy, if they want decent battery life!
AMOLED actually consumes higher power with a white/light background, which is typically used for e-mail, web browsing, and reading. This is why you'll see AMOLED smart phones configured by default to run with mostly black/dark backdrops, so as to conserve battery life.
In contrast (no pun intended), LCDs consume low power in white areas and high power in black areas. An LCD pixel is fully "on" when it's black and fully "off" when it's white. With a white background, the overwhelming power draw is the backlight, which I believe consumes far less power than AMOLED does in achieving the same brightness.
AKA Highly Overrated Audio Format. The only reason the nerds jump all over it is because it is open source.
OGG is actually no better than a high bit-rate MP3 - its actually a direct competitor to MP3 so you didn't have to pay for MP3 codec licenses (that has been rendered moot since the introduction of the LAME codec). In fact, OGG and MP3 are rendered obsolete by M4A audio via the Advanced Audio Codec (AAC). The AAC Codec used by iTunes, Playstation, Nintendo (pretty much everything) achieves far better sound quality than both OGG Vorbis and MP3. if anything these nerds should be jumping all over the iPod for its high quality codec pack. Its just Open Source nerds defending open source tech for no reason other than it is open source.
Disclaimer: Audio/Music producer for 7 years, semi-pro for 3
It might have something to do with the size of the cross-sectional channels for light dispersion.
Maybe not so happy, if they want decent battery life!
AMOLED actually consumes higher power with a white/light background, which is typically used for e-mail, web browsing, and reading. This is why you'll see AMOLED smart phones configured by default to run with mostly black/dark backdrops, so as to conserve battery life.
We are not talking extremes. On average AMOLED consumes less power. Super AMOLED saves addional 20%. Quote: "AMOLED consumes less power, provides more vivid picture quality, and renders faster motion response as compared to other display technologies such as LCD. However, Super AMOLED is even better at this with 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection."
We are not talking extremes. On average AMOLED consumes less power. Super AMOLED saves addional 20%. Quote: "AMOLED consumes less power, provides more vivid picture quality, and renders faster motion response as compared to other display technologies such as LCD. However, Super AMOLED is even better at this with 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection."
I hate to be nitpicky, but let's not toss around statistics willy-nilly as though they're necessarily relevant. If you read carefully, that "20% brighter, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection" is AMOLED compared to OLED, not to LCD.
"On average" refers to what average? Is this while displaying a dark home screen? If it's the average white background typically displayed while the user reads e-mail, browses the web, and reads, I'll bet LCD easily bests AMOLED in power conservation.
I believe the iPhone and iPad use IPS displays, not TFT, so comparing OLED/AMOLED to TFT is irrelevant to Apple's products.
Remember the Zune? It had an OLED display that looked great in a darkened room but sucked outdoors.
I've also seen some recent Samsung AMOLED diplays and, aside from being larger than the iPhone, their image quality sucks--way oversaturated color being the most noteworthy aspect. Comparing them to the iPhone 4/4s is like comparing a 2005 LCD television display to a Pioneer plasma monitor.
Would you next like to discuss the drawbacks to Samsung's PenTile AMOLED displays?
We are not talking extremes. On average AMOLED consumes less power. Super AMOLED saves addional 20%. Quote: "AMOLED consumes less power, provides more vivid picture quality, and renders faster motion response as compared to other display technologies such as LCD. However, Super AMOLED is even better at this with 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection."
Your specs and claims may be totally correct but regardless of that I think everyone is forgetting one very important part of the equation. Is anyone capable of producing... say 80 to 100 million of this still rather new screen technology in 2012 at the required resolution and quality level?
It might have something to do with the size of the cross-sectional channels for light dispersion.
figured that would be the case, but i can't quite fathom how it would require upping the amount of LEDs, and therefore the amount of power draw by 100%. It just doesn't seem right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Maybe not so happy, if they want decent battery life!
AMOLED actually consumes higher power with a white/light background, which is typically used for e-mail, web browsing, and reading. This is why you'll see AMOLED smart phones configured by default to run with mostly black/dark backdrops, so as to conserve battery life.
not sure this is entirely true, at least on how phones come configured. WP7, for example, comes configured with a light theme (white background). That said, the averaged out battery life still works out favourable on screen models available today compared to IPS, and there are plans for future AMOLED standards to more than half the power consumption and life span.
In contrast (no pun intended), LCDs consume low power in white areas and high power in black areas. An LCD pixel is fully "on" when it's black and fully "off" when it's white.
but conversely, with an LCD screen you're always powering the illumination of the entire screen, no matter what the contrast of the pixels. This is why LCD screens are so bad.. wasted power, and god-awful contrast ratios when compared to AMOLED.
I think, battery concerns aside, if apple shipped their next phone or tablet with a AMOLED display people would be genuinely happy about it.
Comments
Real customers want ease of use and long battery life. Nerds only care about technical specifications whether they translate into actual performance improvements or not. Nerds still won't buy iPods because they don't support Ogg Vorbis. Apple can never satisfy the nerds so I hope they concentrate on their bread and butter customers and work on battery technology first. Then they can up the processor power and resolution.
real nerds convert ogg into mp3...
The story reads as if this were breaking news-- that Apple is just now getting around to finding out that current LCD backlight tech isn't really cutting it and is now obliged to scramble to figure something out.
Of course we know that prototype iPad 3s have been in Apple's labs since at least the release of the iPad 2, in quite a few variants, and that Apple has been working on any technological hurdles to manufacturing a specific model with specific resolution, brightness, battery life, case design, etc. for some time now.
If differing solutions are on offer, or if some solutions have proven inadequate, all of this is an ongoing process that has been underway for at least the last year. With a probable release window for the iPad 3 around 3-4 months out I would expect Apple to have wrapped up the design and engineering phase and already be moving to the prepping for manufacturing phase. The iPad is simply too critical to Apple's fortunes to leave something as basic as pixel density vs. brightness to untested solutions this late in the game.
Seems to me 1280 x 960 would be a more usable format.
Can't we just have improvements we more need?
Upgrading to an intermediate screen resolution as you suggest would screw up all existing iPad applications and require developers to develop and maintain multiple versions of their apps for the different screens. This is the path that Android has taken, and the result - predictably - has been fragmentation and a dearth of quality tablet apps for Android.
By instead doubling the existing resolution, Apple gets to leapfrog competitors in display quality while making it a trivial effort to update all existing apps (flipping a switch to 2X existing resolution...)
While everyone's struggling to play checkers, Apple continues their game of chess.
personally, i think more people would be happier with similar resolution HD Super AMOLED display on the ipad3 for a number of reasons.
1) much better battery life, especially at high brightness levels
2) much better contrast, and therefore true blacks
I agree, Super AMOLED screens are fantastic. Samsung has already came up with the first Super AMOLED+ Galaxy tablet with 1280 x 800 pixels resolution (the highest pixel density we've seen on a tablet yet 196ppi). But unfortunately Super AMOLED screen is not going to happend to iPad anytime soon since currently these displays available only from a major competitor - Samsung. Major iPhone and iPad components already supplied by Samsung.
I don't think Apple is building a so-called "iPad 3." However, all evidence points to AppleInsider building a fictional iPad 3 using leaks and rumors.
I happened to have worked at one of San Diego's most successful mobile chip designer and I can tell you this: There may not be a device called "iPad3" yet but if Apple is a mature and sane device maker (and we know they are) rest assured there are at least 2 iterations of the iPad being modeled, debugged, tested, qualified, verified, environmental screened, etc. One of those will be the "iPad3" next year, and "iPad4" the following year, etc.
The "iPad3" will definitely happen next year. Apple is not one to milk a product to obsolescence. I concur the iPad2 is "almost perfect" but competitors will nibble at it from all directions (namely Samsung, Amazon, and BN). Those tablets with ICS 4.0 are not half-bad at all. I think ICS Android will start chewing off a lot more tablet share in a year. Apple will have to offer a lot more (like 2x the resolution? uSDHC slot like the Mac mini? faster dock connector? - hint: Thunderbolt?)
Talking about the presumed smaller dock connector. I recently upgraded to 64GB iPhone and that took way too long to load all my apps with that USB2-powered dock connector. Is Thunderbolt-powered dock on the way to the rescue. I don't see 128GB iPhones or iPads using USB2.0. Maybe USB3.0? That would be unusual considering Apple's/Intel's push for Thunderbolt on everything desktop.
A quad core cpu, 2 led bands for the display and a high res display , would this make for horrible battery life?
Real Apple fans never question authority.
You only take what is given to you.
You ALWAYS OBEY WITH YOUR WALLET.
I don't think Apple is building a so-called "iPad 3." However, all evidence points to AppleInsider building a fictional iPad 3 using leaks and rumors.
On the face of it, your assertion is ridiculous. Apple isn't working on the next iteration of one of the most successful products in the industry?
Or maybe your complaining about the name iPad 3? Maybe whats-his-name can show up in this thread explaining why the next one will be the iPad 6!
Real Apple fans never question authority.
You only take what is given to you.
You ALWAYS OBEY WITH YOUR WALLET.
Well said
Well said
Well parroted.
I'm missing something. How does the pixel density require more LEDs on a backlit display, assuming the screensize is the same. That makes no sense - the light from the back lighting is still being dispersed over the same area, and shone through the same amount of 'screen'.
It might have something to do with the size of the cross-sectional channels for light dispersion.
personally, i think more people would be happier with similar resolution HD Super AMOLED display on the ipad3 for a number of reasons.
1) much better battery life, especially at high brightness levels
Maybe not so happy, if they want decent battery life!
AMOLED actually consumes higher power with a white/light background, which is typically used for e-mail, web browsing, and reading. This is why you'll see AMOLED smart phones configured by default to run with mostly black/dark backdrops, so as to conserve battery life.
In contrast (no pun intended), LCDs consume low power in white areas and high power in black areas. An LCD pixel is fully "on" when it's black and fully "off" when it's white. With a white background, the overwhelming power draw is the backlight, which I believe consumes far less power than AMOLED does in achieving the same brightness.
AKA Highly Overrated Audio Format. The only reason the nerds jump all over it is because it is open source.
OGG is actually no better than a high bit-rate MP3 - its actually a direct competitor to MP3 so you didn't have to pay for MP3 codec licenses (that has been rendered moot since the introduction of the LAME codec). In fact, OGG and MP3 are rendered obsolete by M4A audio via the Advanced Audio Codec (AAC). The AAC Codec used by iTunes, Playstation, Nintendo (pretty much everything) achieves far better sound quality than both OGG Vorbis and MP3. if anything these nerds should be jumping all over the iPod for its high quality codec pack. Its just Open Source nerds defending open source tech for no reason other than it is open source.
Disclaimer: Audio/Music producer for 7 years, semi-pro for 3
Cool post
It might have something to do with the size of the cross-sectional channels for light dispersion.
Maybe not so happy, if they want decent battery life!
AMOLED actually consumes higher power with a white/light background, which is typically used for e-mail, web browsing, and reading. This is why you'll see AMOLED smart phones configured by default to run with mostly black/dark backdrops, so as to conserve battery life.
We are not talking extremes. On average AMOLED consumes less power. Super AMOLED saves addional 20%. Quote: "AMOLED consumes less power, provides more vivid picture quality, and renders faster motion response as compared to other display technologies such as LCD. However, Super AMOLED is even better at this with 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection."
http://www.differencebetween.net/tec...-super-amoled/
http://data.4dsystems.com.au/downloa...esentation.pdf
We are not talking extremes. On average AMOLED consumes less power. Super AMOLED saves addional 20%. Quote: "AMOLED consumes less power, provides more vivid picture quality, and renders faster motion response as compared to other display technologies such as LCD. However, Super AMOLED is even better at this with 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection."
I hate to be nitpicky, but let's not toss around statistics willy-nilly as though they're necessarily relevant. If you read carefully, that "20% brighter, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection" is AMOLED compared to OLED, not to LCD.
"On average" refers to what average? Is this while displaying a dark home screen? If it's the average white background typically displayed while the user reads e-mail, browses the web, and reads, I'll bet LCD easily bests AMOLED in power conservation.
http://www.differencebetween.net/tec...-super-amoled/
http://data.4dsystems.com.au/downloa...esentation.pdf
I believe the iPhone and iPad use IPS displays, not TFT, so comparing OLED/AMOLED to TFT is irrelevant to Apple's products.
Remember the Zune? It had an OLED display that looked great in a darkened room but sucked outdoors.
I've also seen some recent Samsung AMOLED diplays and, aside from being larger than the iPhone, their image quality sucks--way oversaturated color being the most noteworthy aspect. Comparing them to the iPhone 4/4s is like comparing a 2005 LCD television display to a Pioneer plasma monitor.
Would you next like to discuss the drawbacks to Samsung's PenTile AMOLED displays?
We are not talking extremes. On average AMOLED consumes less power. Super AMOLED saves addional 20%. Quote: "AMOLED consumes less power, provides more vivid picture quality, and renders faster motion response as compared to other display technologies such as LCD. However, Super AMOLED is even better at this with 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection."
http://www.differencebetween.net/tec...-super-amoled/
http://data.4dsystems.com.au/downloa...esentation.pdf
Your specs and claims may be totally correct but regardless of that I think everyone is forgetting one very important part of the equation. Is anyone capable of producing... say 80 to 100 million of this still rather new screen technology in 2012 at the required resolution and quality level?
It might have something to do with the size of the cross-sectional channels for light dispersion.
figured that would be the case, but i can't quite fathom how it would require upping the amount of LEDs, and therefore the amount of power draw by 100%. It just doesn't seem right.
Maybe not so happy, if they want decent battery life!
AMOLED actually consumes higher power with a white/light background, which is typically used for e-mail, web browsing, and reading. This is why you'll see AMOLED smart phones configured by default to run with mostly black/dark backdrops, so as to conserve battery life.
not sure this is entirely true, at least on how phones come configured. WP7, for example, comes configured with a light theme (white background). That said, the averaged out battery life still works out favourable on screen models available today compared to IPS, and there are plans for future AMOLED standards to more than half the power consumption and life span.
http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-soo...er-consumption
In contrast (no pun intended), LCDs consume low power in white areas and high power in black areas. An LCD pixel is fully "on" when it's black and fully "off" when it's white.
but conversely, with an LCD screen you're always powering the illumination of the entire screen, no matter what the contrast of the pixels. This is why LCD screens are so bad.. wasted power, and god-awful contrast ratios when compared to AMOLED.
I think, battery concerns aside, if apple shipped their next phone or tablet with a AMOLED display people would be genuinely happy about it.