Totally makes sense, Apple has trouble getting mass produced 326dpi 7.9" screens for the iPad mini retina, I'm sure they'll have no problem getting 12.9" screens at 500+dpi next year!
/sarcasm
By my calculation, a quadrupling of the current iPad's pixels on a 12.9" screen would require 396 PPI. That is not so far from the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 and the iPad mini retina, and is within the technology capabilities of display manufacturers, for example there are even higher resolution products by HTC and LG. The challenge of course is the screen size and the yield at that size. But that is just a manufacturing problem - all the other pieces are in place, so if Apple decides to do it it will happen.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that 396 PPI wold enable 2K resolution for a 5"+ screen on a larger iPhone in the future. Apple loves to use the same dot pitch on multiple products.
I also agree they wouldn't make this 16:9. They would have to have a special display driver and then all the apps would be screwed up. No way we'll see this by first of 2014. This is probably something we won't see until late 2014, if even by then. I do expect a bigger size though because of the enormous power of the A7.
Think of it this way. If you were Tim Cook and you wanted to find out which people at Foxconn are leaking information about upcoming Apple products, wouldn't you give them something crazy to leak like a 12.9" iPad with 4K resolution?
By my calculation, a quadrupling of the current iPad's pixels on a 12.9" screen would require 396 PPI. That is not so far from the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 and the iPad mini retina, and is within the technology capabilities of display manufacturers, for example there are even higher resolution products by HTC and LG. The challenge of course is the screen size and the yield at that size. But that is just a manufacturing problem - all the other pieces are in place, so if Apple decides to do it it will happen.
Ok so I was off about the 500+ PPI remark (was too lazy to calculate).
The "higher resolution" products from HTC and LG are ~5" screens. High density panels become exponentially harder to make as the size go up.
A 12.9" screen is several times larger than a phone/phablet display. And the 15" retina MBP screen is 227 PPI, which is pretty far from 396.
I don't understand why so many people seem to assume that PPI should go up on larger iPads even though it goes against manufacturing logic, and that a larger screen would likely be held even farther from the face compared to an iPad mini or iPhone, requiring an even lower PPI to be called "Retina" by Apple.
Makes sense if they named it Pro. That would mean Apple has the Mini, Air & Pro now they all have names.. I can see it now 2014 a year for Apple to bump up all the product displays Like Cinema Display 4k, iPhone 4.8 & 12in iPad prob With a keynote headlining "We got some big news"
Mapping advancements, 3D sensors, Social analytics engine?
Yep. I believe it all.
A whole new class of computing is coming.
Probably THE great scary/cool thing about the digital world is that a whole new class of computing is always coming....
...it's both incremental (e.g., the iterations of OS X) and lumpy when the accumulation of increments allows a disruptive new device class to come into being...
...but it's been constant since the first digital devices and the speed of change is increasing itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPilya
I am not sure I am sold on the larger size. I was very bullish on all previous iterations... but I am trying to get my head around the use cases and who the target users are. The only scenario I can see for average users is if they combine this with notebook capabilities that can morph back and forth into a tablet. For the pro market, I see it for targeted or selective markets.
It will be interesting to see what Apple has up their sleeves if this is truly a path they are taking.
Here's my shot at a business and long-term corp strategy case for such a device:
First, sales to consumers will be gravy if they take off, but the basic rationale would, I feel, come from elsewhere.
I can see many pro niche uses, e.g.: Photographers (studio and especially in the field) would find it a blessing. Directors would kill to see instant 4K playback on scene. There have to be lots of medical uses. Architects, engineers, and many (many) others. Not enough for iPad Air like sales, but with a full Apple profit margin as a pro-quality device and a decent money-maker.
And send the message even more clearly: if you're serious about tablet computing, there's iPad and then there's everything else. As they're doing with the new Mac Pro, the rMBP and the top configs of the iMac.
So an iPad Pro would be to the iPad Air what the 15" rMBP is to the MBA. Except much lighter, more portable and considerably cheaper. Depending on the screen and graphics processing cost, maybe starting somewhere between $799 and $999 (and since aimed at pros, also in considerably higher cost variants).
Tablets are already counted as computers in a growing number of major sales reports.
Apple, meanwhile, already quit worrying about cannibalizing Mac sales just by the act of bringing out the iPad. And they're not looking back because the sales multiples have made it a strong net growth driver, rather than hurting the company. Tablet computing is enough for most people most of the time.
And it follows that a pro tab will be enough for many (and eventually most) pros most of the time as well.
So just as pros tend to use rMBP's, pro tab users (and more non-pros because they'll be able to afford a wonderful gadget) enough ppl will queue up for it to make a tidy sum indeed. And keep sending out the warm fuzzies to the pro community that Tim's been strongly encouraging within the company.
Or it could be just prototypes that never see the light of a keynote. Or just a rumor. Anyway, that's my best argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
A 4K screen would be FOUR 1080p panels or (3840x2160) or about 8Megapixels. According to Wikipedia, 2K is 2048×1080 which is less than the 2048X1536 of the current iPads.
Neither, by definition, are 4x3 aspect ratio screens. Would Apple make a 16x9 iPad if it was 12.9" across? I doubt it. But would they do 4x the current iPad or 4096x3072? Hmmmmm...
I'm no expert on this, but I dabble a lot, so take with a grain of salt, but I think I'm somewhere close to accurate on the below:
Note that the "2K" spec you cite is simply a wider 1080p variant. With a horizontal res of 2048 px vs 1920 for "regular 1080p HD."
There are proposed or adopted standards in the works for "4K" (and discussions about "8K" which has been demo'ed in Japan). The standards are (as usual) not going to be the same everywhere, but the informal or new umbrella spec is going to be called 2160p rather than 4K. (I'm not quite sure how "UHD" is attached to or separate from 2160p).
Ergo, Apple can have any horizontal resolution they want in a screen with 2160 vertical pixels in panorama mode and be living in "4K" territory. Because it's really 2160p territory.
And while they want to tip their hat to pros (as shown with the new MP), I doubt that's worth giving devs another res to write for. And if you've held up 16x9 and other tabs in portrait mode you know that's ungainly, which is why MS focuses on their magnetic keyboards, i.e, it's a crap tab form factor.
So the right res for an IPP is an interesting question.
Unless my math is faulty, standard 1080p HD is 16x9. The iPad's 4:3 in different numbers is 16:12. Would Apple do 3240x2160 as their first tablet version of the 2160p spec (and a wider version for Macs)? Both would be 2160p compliant right out of the box for one thing.
Or it could go, well, otherwise...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbit
I don't see the point of having a higher definition screen on the iPhone. I can't see pixels, so why go high def and force battery life to suffer?
Screen's just too small for where the world's going and the tall factor will get ungainly in a 4.5+" iPhone unless they really chop the top and bottom frames (and maybe incorporate the touch ID and home button into the screen somehow).
Can't see the home button leaving, though, so given the sales volume of the iPhone, a whole new res and ratio to write for upcoming iPhones does seem a real possibility. With a minimum dimension of 1080 pixels. Whatever the width ratio.
I hope we don't see some type of hybrid device where if used as a laptop, the touch must be used. That's why the Surface has an identity crisis. It has no idea what it wants to be.
On the other hand I could see such a tablet/laptop having its screen disabled when in laptop mode. My true pipe dream would be a device that had an A7 and Intel processor all in one package. That would be a beast.
Who the **** needs 4K on a 12.9" screen? I'm sorry, thats just overkill. The power/battery/heat requirements aren't worth the payoff, which to 99% of people, will be negligible compared to the current resolution.
In reality, people generally use margins with letter sized paper, so a workspace of near 8 1/2 x 11 in a 12,9 inch 4:3 format wouldn't be a issue.
The use case may include a second display for an OSX device, so a DCI 4K crop of a 4096 x 3072 4:3 resolution (unlikely) or a UHD 4K crop of a 3840 x 2880 4:3 resolution would be desirable. Either way, this is the part where Apple wows us with iOS 8 resolution independence.
Edit: For the use case of DCI vs UHD at 4K resolutions. These would have to be TB2 capable to be used as second displays: bold move if it happens, but again unlikely. Would be interesting if Lightning cable has capability to "grow" to the TB2 bandwidth.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/161028/rumor-apple-considering-12-9-inch-ipads-with-2k-and-4k-resolutions-for-2014-launch#post_2442696" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>AppleInsider</strong> <a href="/t/161028/rumor-apple-considering-12-9-inch-ipads-with-2k-and-4k-resolutions-for-2014-launch#post_2442696"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/>Adding to rumors that Apple is seriously considering</div>
Very believable.
However, I would not take it this as any indication of anything other than what it is.
Apple makes all kinds of stuff that are simply testbeds for different technology/ideas and not as a prototype for an actual product.
Indeed. Apple is also proud of the products they didn't release.
Who the **** needs 4K on a 12.9" screen? I'm sorry, thats just overkill. The power/battery/heat requirements aren't worth the payoff, which to 99% of people, will be negligible compared to the current resolution.
That's why these reports also state something absurd the other way; less pixels that the current iPad. But hey, Korean Times and all that; they really seem to like their big screens.
What OS will it run? They would have to either make some changes to iOS, such as letting it run more than one app at a time, or graft a touch interface onto OS X. Full screen calculator apps make sense for a 4 inch phone with limited screen space, but not so much for a 13 inch tablet.
Comments
I thought a LegalPad at 8.5 x 14 would be cool.... But for those that use such documents an e-ink device would probably work fine.
By my calculation, a quadrupling of the current iPad's pixels on a 12.9" screen would require 396 PPI. That is not so far from the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 and the iPad mini retina, and is within the technology capabilities of display manufacturers, for example there are even higher resolution products by HTC and LG. The challenge of course is the screen size and the yield at that size. But that is just a manufacturing problem - all the other pieces are in place, so if Apple decides to do it it will happen.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that 396 PPI wold enable 2K resolution for a 5"+ screen on a larger iPhone in the future. Apple loves to use the same dot pitch on multiple products.
Think of it this way. If you were Tim Cook and you wanted to find out which people at Foxconn are leaking information about upcoming Apple products, wouldn't you give them something crazy to leak like a 12.9" iPad with 4K resolution?
Yeah. That's what I'd do.
By my calculation, a quadrupling of the current iPad's pixels on a 12.9" screen would require 396 PPI. That is not so far from the 326 PPI of the iPhone 5 and the iPad mini retina, and is within the technology capabilities of display manufacturers, for example there are even higher resolution products by HTC and LG. The challenge of course is the screen size and the yield at that size. But that is just a manufacturing problem - all the other pieces are in place, so if Apple decides to do it it will happen.
Ok so I was off about the 500+ PPI remark (was too lazy to calculate).
The "higher resolution" products from HTC and LG are ~5" screens. High density panels become exponentially harder to make as the size go up.
A 12.9" screen is several times larger than a phone/phablet display. And the 15" retina MBP screen is 227 PPI, which is pretty far from 396.
I don't understand why so many people seem to assume that PPI should go up on larger iPads even though it goes against manufacturing logic, and that a larger screen would likely be held even farther from the face compared to an iPad mini or iPhone, requiring an even lower PPI to be called "Retina" by Apple.
I believe it.
64 bit OS, Desktop class architecture?
Mapping advancements, 3D sensors, Social analytics engine?
Yep. I believe it all.
A whole new class of computing is coming.
Probably THE great scary/cool thing about the digital world is that a whole new class of computing is always coming....
...it's both incremental (e.g., the iterations of OS X) and lumpy when the accumulation of increments allows a disruptive new device class to come into being...
...but it's been constant since the first digital devices and the speed of change is increasing itself.
I am not sure I am sold on the larger size. I was very bullish on all previous iterations... but I am trying to get my head around the use cases and who the target users are. The only scenario I can see for average users is if they combine this with notebook capabilities that can morph back and forth into a tablet. For the pro market, I see it for targeted or selective markets.
It will be interesting to see what Apple has up their sleeves if this is truly a path they are taking.
Here's my shot at a business and long-term corp strategy case for such a device:
First, sales to consumers will be gravy if they take off, but the basic rationale would, I feel, come from elsewhere.
I can see many pro niche uses, e.g.: Photographers (studio and especially in the field) would find it a blessing. Directors would kill to see instant 4K playback on scene. There have to be lots of medical uses. Architects, engineers, and many (many) others. Not enough for iPad Air like sales, but with a full Apple profit margin as a pro-quality device and a decent money-maker.
And send the message even more clearly: if you're serious about tablet computing, there's iPad and then there's everything else. As they're doing with the new Mac Pro, the rMBP and the top configs of the iMac.
So an iPad Pro would be to the iPad Air what the 15" rMBP is to the MBA. Except much lighter, more portable and considerably cheaper. Depending on the screen and graphics processing cost, maybe starting somewhere between $799 and $999 (and since aimed at pros, also in considerably higher cost variants).
Tablets are already counted as computers in a growing number of major sales reports.
Apple, meanwhile, already quit worrying about cannibalizing Mac sales just by the act of bringing out the iPad. And they're not looking back because the sales multiples have made it a strong net growth driver, rather than hurting the company. Tablet computing is enough for most people most of the time.
And it follows that a pro tab will be enough for many (and eventually most) pros most of the time as well.
So just as pros tend to use rMBP's, pro tab users (and more non-pros because they'll be able to afford a wonderful gadget) enough ppl will queue up for it to make a tidy sum indeed. And keep sending out the warm fuzzies to the pro community that Tim's been strongly encouraging within the company.
Or it could be just prototypes that never see the light of a keynote. Or just a rumor. Anyway, that's my best argument.
A 4K screen would be FOUR 1080p panels or (3840x2160) or about 8Megapixels. According to Wikipedia, 2K is 2048×1080 which is less than the 2048X1536 of the current iPads.
Neither, by definition, are 4x3 aspect ratio screens. Would Apple make a 16x9 iPad if it was 12.9" across? I doubt it. But would they do 4x the current iPad or 4096x3072? Hmmmmm...
I'm no expert on this, but I dabble a lot, so take with a grain of salt, but I think I'm somewhere close to accurate on the below:
Note that the "2K" spec you cite is simply a wider 1080p variant. With a horizontal res of 2048 px vs 1920 for "regular 1080p HD."
There are proposed or adopted standards in the works for "4K" (and discussions about "8K" which has been demo'ed in Japan). The standards are (as usual) not going to be the same everywhere, but the informal or new umbrella spec is going to be called 2160p rather than 4K. (I'm not quite sure how "UHD" is attached to or separate from 2160p).
Ergo, Apple can have any horizontal resolution they want in a screen with 2160 vertical pixels in panorama mode and be living in "4K" territory. Because it's really 2160p territory.
And while they want to tip their hat to pros (as shown with the new MP), I doubt that's worth giving devs another res to write for. And if you've held up 16x9 and other tabs in portrait mode you know that's ungainly, which is why MS focuses on their magnetic keyboards, i.e, it's a crap tab form factor.
So the right res for an IPP is an interesting question.
Unless my math is faulty, standard 1080p HD is 16x9. The iPad's 4:3 in different numbers is 16:12. Would Apple do 3240x2160 as their first tablet version of the 2160p spec (and a wider version for Macs)? Both would be 2160p compliant right out of the box for one thing.
Or it could go, well, otherwise...
I don't see the point of having a higher definition screen on the iPhone. I can't see pixels, so why go high def and force battery life to suffer?
Screen's just too small for where the world's going and the tall factor will get ungainly in a 4.5+" iPhone unless they really chop the top and bottom frames (and maybe incorporate the touch ID and home button into the screen somehow).
Can't see the home button leaving, though, so given the sales volume of the iPhone, a whole new res and ratio to write for upcoming iPhones does seem a real possibility. With a minimum dimension of 1080 pixels. Whatever the width ratio.
I would buy one immediately.
However, the ability to run a 4K screen (i.e., a TV) makes perfect sense.
Check this out, I remember this keynote: http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-touch-screen-mac-2010-10
On the other hand I could see such a tablet/laptop having its screen disabled when in laptop mode. My true pipe dream would be a device that had an A7 and Intel processor all in one package. That would be a beast.
Who the **** needs 4K on a 12.9" screen? I'm sorry, thats just overkill. The power/battery/heat requirements aren't worth the payoff, which to 99% of people, will be negligible compared to the current resolution.
In reality, people generally use margins with letter sized paper, so a workspace of near 8 1/2 x 11 in a 12,9 inch 4:3 format wouldn't be a issue.
The use case may include a second display for an OSX device, so a DCI 4K crop of a 4096 x 3072 4:3 resolution (unlikely) or a UHD 4K crop of a 3840 x 2880 4:3 resolution would be desirable. Either way, this is the part where Apple wows us with iOS 8 resolution independence.
Edit: For the use case of DCI vs UHD at 4K resolutions. These would have to be TB2 capable to be used as second displays: bold move if it happens, but again unlikely. Would be interesting if Lightning cable has capability to "grow" to the TB2 bandwidth.
Indeed. Apple is also proud of the products they didn't release.
One can have a software boner as well¿
And the purpose being...? Never mind; pipped by Timbit.
That's why these reports also state something absurd the other way; less pixels that the current iPad. But hey, Korean Times and all that; they really seem to like their big screens.
What OS will it run? They would have to either make some changes to iOS, such as letting it run more than one app at a time, or graft a touch interface onto OS X. Full screen calculator apps make sense for a 4 inch phone with limited screen space, but not so much for a 13 inch tablet.
Are you willing to pay more than a Mac Pro for an iPad that can only run App store software?
The very fundamental of this rumor is absurd.
• http://www.anandtech.com/show/7563/dell-24-uhd-up2414q-gets-a-price-28-uhd-4k-3840x2160-announced