With the iPad 2, you could mirror or output the image to a TV via AirPlay at 1080p resolution. Now that the new iPad has an even higher resolution, I wonder if Apple will release a TV that nearly matches the resolution of the iPad.
They could brand it as the first ever Retina Display TV, and use some of the iPad display technology in it. This would differentiate the Apple branded TV from other brands, and give it that premium quality associated with Apple products.
With the iPad 2, you could mirror or output the image to a TV via AirPlay at 1080p resolution. Now that the new iPad has an even higher resolution, I wonder if Apple will release a TV that nearly matches the resolution of the iPad.
A 4:3 TV?
Quote:
They could brand it as the first ever Retina Display TV
Except it wouldn't be first and it wouldn't be 'retina'.
Quote:
This would differentiate the Apple branded TV from other brands, and give it that premium quality associated with Apple products.
Apple's never gonna make a TV. Heaven's sake!
You differentiate by creating a brand new service that kills off all older means of getting television content and pushing said service out to every television already on the market. It's not 1951, people.
BTW are you ordering the new iPad or did you already replace the one you lost?
Held off on getting another iPad 2. Punished myself for being careless. Ordered 32GB black AT&T w/ AC+ for delivery on the 16th.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
A 4:3 TV?
I don't think he meant the aspect resolution. While we're in a holding pattern with TV resolutons due to content for the home being 1080p and HDTVs not being profitable there is still a lot of room they can grow.
Quote:
Except it wouldn't be first and it wouldn't be 'retina'.
I think that is quite easy to achieve. The equation is: 3438 * (1/n) = PPI, where n is the distance in inches from the display you have to be sitting for the minimum PPI to effectively be Retina Display for someone with 20/20 vision.
Example: 52" HDTV with 1920x1080 (16:9) resolution has a PPI of 42.36. If you are sitting 6' or 72" away you get: 3438 * (1/72) = 47.75 PPI, just short of Retina Display. So that TV falls a little short. If are sitting another foot away you get: 3438 * (1/84) = 40.93 PPI, or just inside Retina Display.
I think are plenty of other factors with a display this large that come into effect that would surely allow you to perceive a much better picture at an even dense PPI even if your vision was 20/20 or wore.
Quote:
Apple's never gonna make a TV. Heaven's sake!
You differentiate by creating a brand new service that kills off all older means of getting television content and pushing said service out to every television already on the market. It's not 1951, people.
I certainly don't see it but i would like to see higher resolution TVs become more mainstream.
I certainly don't see it but i would like to see higher resolution TVs become more mainstream.
I don't think there'll be an Apple HDTV but I would 100% approve of one if it was Super Hi-Vision. No more, no less. Once we hit Super Hi-Vision, we won't have to have this nonsensical fight for resolutions anymore, because that truly IS retina.
I don't think there'll be an Apple HDTV but I would 100% approve of one if it was Super Hi-Vision. No more, no less. Once we hit Super Hi-Vision, we won't have to have this nonsensical fight for resolutions anymore, because that truly IS retina.
For a typical living setting and panel size it absolutely would be, but note that the definition is not based on any single resolution or display size. It's a factor of the pixels-per-inch and your distance from them.
The ergonomics of a device are (or should be) designed by utility alone.
The size of the components are designed to be the "perfect" size for the end user not the perfect size for the display manufacturer. To alter the device's ergonomics for reasons of economics is the exact wrong way to go about designing a product and one of the main reasons why other designed from other companies often fail.
I think a bit larger iPad would be ergonomically better, certainly easier on the eyes. And I don't see how having slightly larger targets to touch would make things worse.
My point wasn't that they should have grown the screen for economic reasons. My point is that they should do it anyway, and thus I find it hard to understand why they went through so much trouble to get to the size pixel that they are using. There is nothing sacrosanct about 9.7".
The battery capacity is a whopping 70% larger. That must mean idle battery life is much longer too, unless they did something very wrong. The main power draw increase is from active components like the radios and screen. I'd like to see this tested, maybe it lasts longer than the 2 on lower brightnesses since it would be using fewer of its LEDs?
The battery capacity is a whopping 70% larger. That must mean idle battery life is much longer too, unless they did something very wrong. The main power draw increase is from active components like the radios and screen. I'd like to see this tested, maybe it lasts longer than the 2 on lower brightnesses since it would be using fewer of its LEDs?
Apple has been good about their devices besting the stated times but they are pretty accurate. If they could have gotten, say, 15 hours from the same testing methods I have think they would have stated that... or just used a smaller battery to further reduce the need for added thickness or, more importantly, weight.
I remember Apple switching to a more strict method of measuring battery life in the last year or two but that may only apply to a Mac since those machines are used differently, as in more complex ways.
Hopefully Anand has gotten one and we'll see a nice thorough review as soon as they can be released.
I've been wrong a half-dozen times here, and admitted to every one of them AFAIK. It's not terribly frequent nor do I post half-truths. ...
Quarter-truths, then? There's really not much point in splitting hairs, though.
Quote:
Trollish behavior would include "childish commenters who deploy inflammatory and boorish antics". There's also an egregious troll who according to ArsTechnica is "Any troll that personally attacks someone else in our community. If you're not bright enough to criticize ideas without personally criticizing individuals, we're not interested in having you around. If a user chooses to venture into the territory of trolling others, it is their fault and their fault alone for what happens to them next. We will not weep for trolls, nor will we feel any remorse."
I do my utmost to be respectful to even those with trollish behavior(!), just as I avoided responding in kind to you. The forums would be better off if we all did.
Comments
They could brand it as the first ever Retina Display TV, and use some of the iPad display technology in it. This would differentiate the Apple branded TV from other brands, and give it that premium quality associated with Apple products.
With the iPad 2, you could mirror or output the image to a TV via AirPlay at 1080p resolution. Now that the new iPad has an even higher resolution, I wonder if Apple will release a TV that nearly matches the resolution of the iPad.
A 4:3 TV?
They could brand it as the first ever Retina Display TV
Except it wouldn't be first and it wouldn't be 'retina'.
This would differentiate the Apple branded TV from other brands, and give it that premium quality associated with Apple products.
Apple's never gonna make a TV. Heaven's sake!
You differentiate by creating a brand new service that kills off all older means of getting television content and pushing said service out to every television already on the market. It's not 1951, people.
BTW are you ordering the new iPad or did you already replace the one you lost?
Held off on getting another iPad 2. Punished myself for being careless. Ordered 32GB black AT&T w/ AC+ for delivery on the 16th.
A 4:3 TV?
I don't think he meant the aspect resolution. While we're in a holding pattern with TV resolutons due to content for the home being 1080p and HDTVs not being profitable there is still a lot of room they can grow.
Except it wouldn't be first and it wouldn't be 'retina'.
I think that is quite easy to achieve. The equation is: 3438 * (1/n) = PPI, where n is the distance in inches from the display you have to be sitting for the minimum PPI to effectively be Retina Display for someone with 20/20 vision.
Example: 52" HDTV with 1920x1080 (16:9) resolution has a PPI of 42.36. If you are sitting 6' or 72" away you get: 3438 * (1/72) = 47.75 PPI, just short of Retina Display. So that TV falls a little short. If are sitting another foot away you get: 3438 * (1/84) = 40.93 PPI, or just inside Retina Display.
I think are plenty of other factors with a display this large that come into effect that would surely allow you to perceive a much better picture at an even dense PPI even if your vision was 20/20 or wore.
Apple's never gonna make a TV. Heaven's sake!
You differentiate by creating a brand new service that kills off all older means of getting television content and pushing said service out to every television already on the market. It's not 1951, people.
I certainly don't see it but i would like to see higher resolution TVs become more mainstream.
I certainly don't see it but i would like to see higher resolution TVs become more mainstream.
I don't think there'll be an Apple HDTV but I would 100% approve of one if it was Super Hi-Vision. No more, no less. Once we hit Super Hi-Vision, we won't have to have this nonsensical fight for resolutions anymore, because that truly IS retina.
I don't think there'll be an Apple HDTV but I would 100% approve of one if it was Super Hi-Vision. No more, no less. Once we hit Super Hi-Vision, we won't have to have this nonsensical fight for resolutions anymore, because that truly IS retina.
For a typical living setting and panel size it absolutely would be, but note that the definition is not based on any single resolution or display size. It's a factor of the pixels-per-inch and your distance from them.
The ergonomics of a device are (or should be) designed by utility alone.
The size of the components are designed to be the "perfect" size for the end user not the perfect size for the display manufacturer. To alter the device's ergonomics for reasons of economics is the exact wrong way to go about designing a product and one of the main reasons why other designed from other companies often fail.
I think a bit larger iPad would be ergonomically better, certainly easier on the eyes. And I don't see how having slightly larger targets to touch would make things worse.
My point wasn't that they should have grown the screen for economic reasons. My point is that they should do it anyway, and thus I find it hard to understand why they went through so much trouble to get to the size pixel that they are using. There is nothing sacrosanct about 9.7".
I know that chick from somewhere else
Probably from here --
The battery capacity is a whopping 70% larger. That must mean idle battery life is much longer too, unless they did something very wrong. The main power draw increase is from active components like the radios and screen. I'd like to see this tested, maybe it lasts longer than the 2 on lower brightnesses since it would be using fewer of its LEDs?
image: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5663/44816.png
Apple has been good about their devices besting the stated times but they are pretty accurate. If they could have gotten, say, 15 hours from the same testing methods I have think they would have stated that... or just used a smaller battery to further reduce the need for added thickness or, more importantly, weight.
I remember Apple switching to a more strict method of measuring battery life in the last year or two but that may only apply to a Mac since those machines are used differently, as in more complex ways.
Hopefully Anand has gotten one and we'll see a nice thorough review as soon as they can be released.
I've been wrong a half-dozen times here, and admitted to every one of them AFAIK. It's not terribly frequent nor do I post half-truths. ...
Quarter-truths, then? There's really not much point in splitting hairs, though.
Trollish behavior would include "childish commenters who deploy inflammatory and boorish antics". There's also an egregious troll who according to ArsTechnica is "Any troll that personally attacks someone else in our community. If you're not bright enough to criticize ideas without personally criticizing individuals, we're not interested in having you around. If a user chooses to venture into the territory of trolling others, it is their fault and their fault alone for what happens to them next. We will not weep for trolls, nor will we feel any remorse."
I do my utmost to be respectful to even those with trollish behavior(!), just as I avoided responding in kind to you. The forums would be better off if we all did.
I wonder how ArsTechnica feels about paid shills?