I need phone with 4k display... sell it with magnifier. There are human constraints on senses. Angular resolution is the key.
It makes sense to have large display with high resolution to see more details where person can focus on different details, but small display with large resolution is like saying that it can display millions of colors while human eye recognizes only 300,000.
It used to be part of electorics masters education few decades ago and apparenlty it is not anymore. Chase for numbers continues.
4k is completely unnecessary in an iPad Air. The only way it would matter is if had 3D capabilities. Otherwise makes no difference to the human eye. Specs do impress dumb people though.
Agreed. Especially about the specs part. All of my Android loving friends love to quote their phone specs.
But "spec lover" Android owners represent a small minority of the community (as such tech folks make up a minority in general). And it is unlikely that Apple would ever entice them to purchase an iPad with more RAM or 4K specs, as there is likely some Android X vendor that makes (or will later this year...:) something in small quantities cheaper that they will say is better. These people are generally "anti-Apple" anyways. There is no business logic in pursuing them, with the possible exception that they might be above average income (but at same time pride themselves on paying less for things - or getting it for free - 'cause they know better:)
Having 4K resolution on a screen the dimensions of iPad Air would provide no visible benefit unless you hold it a few inches from your face. And 4x the pixels comes at a cost elsewhere - cost of the screen itself which reduces opportunity for upgraded components/materials elsewhere - and a cost of performance in the GPU to drive all of those pixels. It is of course possible to improve the screen quality and visual benefit in other ways, which Apple has done with iPhones & iPads over the years, and could be an improvement in Air 3 (let's hope).
Some with older devices (primarily much older) will upgrade just because it is new & better (A9 chip, better camera, maybe better screen, lighter, better battery, etc).
To improve beyond that will require targeting new use cases & markets that aren't possible (or as good) with current one. The easiest answer here is to get Apple Pencil support. This wouldn't cannibalize iPad Pro much & that isn't likely selling in large volumes - it can be kept "pro" with its size, screen, keyboard etc. Adding Pencil opens up for sketching apps across the board, from kids to pros, artists, education, benefits to business audiences - all that want more mobility than the Pro offers & at a price point for large volumes.
Media consumption as mentioned is also important, so the improved speakers are useful.
Lots of s/w improvements possible to ignite interest, but that wouldn't be restricted to a new Air 3. A huge requirement IMO is to ignite developer interest into creating "deeper" applications which drive more use cases. A developer approach for iPhone is not getting far enough to get the quality apps that an iPad needs. Allow trial periods, developer feedback, paid upgrades or subscription services with smaller % cut, etc. Hoping that Phil Schiller coming in helps here.
everyone is nagging about resolution. If you want to increase ipad sales back to growth, you need to give something new to consumers rather than keeping the same thing over and over again. Since ipad is primarily used for media consumption, 4k resolution will be a great incentive to upgrade. In fact also add in AMOLED screens, which is less likely right now, but still would give even greater incentive.
I agree that a 4K display done right, Apple-style, would be more of an upgrade draw that any other "spec bump."
Adding pencil support would be a draw too, but that seems like a further stretch than 4K somehow.
You lost me at AMOLED. We're a long way from that being possible, or even disirable.
4k is completely unnecessary in an iPad Air. The only way it would matter is if had 3D capabilities. Otherwise makes no difference to the human eye. Specs do impress dumb people though.
Agreed. Especially about the specs part. All of my Android loving friends love to quote their phone specs.
And the low prices they had paid for their devices with all that specs that obviously trounce your iPhone 6s spec sheet, 8-core processors, 6 inches screens with 4k, gazillions of GB storage, por half the price not of an iPhone, but a 16GB iPod Touch.
It's been a long wait and I am pretty sure Apple would not leave it with a simple performance upgrade. The iPad Air 3 will have much more tangible selling points in terms of new functionality/features to power the next major upgrade cycle.
I don't know what those features will be, but I would be very surprised, if they don't surprise me at the reveal!
everyone is nagging about resolution. If you want to increase ipad sales back to growth, you need to give something new to consumers rather than keeping the same thing over and over again. Since ipad is primarily used for media consumption, 4k resolution will be a great incentive to upgrade. In fact also add in AMOLED screens, which is less likely right now, but still would give even greater incentive.
You do know this is a 9.7 inch tablet that you don't put your nose up to when "media consuming" don't you? What GPU are you going to use to do this magic and what effect will that have on performance and battery life? Ohhh, 4K screen that lasts 5h... fantastic. If they put 4 corner speakers and 4K and a9x running at a high clock rate to be able to give good performance on the 4K screen, the tablet would likely last 5h tops.
— Sooner or later, every device line will have to display 4K, just like the rest of the industry is headed. Your iPhone can already capture 4K. Your video editor can handle it, you must have a way to look at it. Not everybody has an iMac on the desk to look at it. Laptops will be 4K, so will iPads. Also note, "the eyes can't see the difference" is a bogus, low-concept argument. The brain can tell the difference. Video is tactile, as Marshall McLuhan pointed out 50 years ago. Side by side comparison will make this obvious or Apple wouldn't do it.
—GIS, General Interface Solution, is a Foxconn subsidiary, so this report might make sense of the deal-making between Sharp, Foxconn, Apple and even Samsung over all the oxide-film technology that this part of the display industry has been spending so much on over the past six years, and now even Dell is coming out with 4K IGZO monitors and (feeble) laptops.
Against this report is the obvious threat to the iPad Pro's prestige position.
The brain can tell a difference between color gamut, contrast, dynamic range and all more than resolution, current screens need to work on that first.
I'd also like them to not gimp the tablet by putting a ridiculous screen on it for the current GPU tech (like they did for the Ipad 3).
And please show me the studies done on an actual screen, not a infinite contrast black on white doc that proves your point. There is none, Why? Because such studies would be very hard to do (read expensive); that's why they use printed paper. Even with those perfect environments (infinite black on white reflective material in good lighting conditions), only certain types of differences are perceived by a limited set of people.
I don't doubt eventually will go to 4K (430ppi on the Ipad), even if
it's to simplify programming between platforms and not have to scale down native 4K video programming, but the advantage is not
a slam dunk, far from it.
And that's with static documents, when there is movement, our eyes are much much worse.
Two words: Battery Suck. A 4K screen represents a drain on the battery that I don't think the iPad Air is really ready for.
And not just the screen itself, also the GPU to drive it. I would expect a 4K iPad Air to run hot, and drain its battery fast.
The problem with the iPad 3, as hinted above, was that they went with "Retina" before the hardware could really cope, so it was heavy due to the increased battery needed, and ran slow. That in turn was behind the decision to replace it six months later with the iPad 4. If they do announce a 4K iPad Air in March, I'll be waiting to see what happens in October before deciding whether to buy one.
— Sooner or later, every device line will have to display 4K, just like the rest of the industry is headed. Your iPhone can already capture 4K. Your video editor can handle it, you must have a way to look at it. Not everybody has an iMac on the desk to look at it. Laptops will be 4K, so will iPads. Also note, "the eyes can't see the difference" is a bogus, low-concept argument. The brain can tell the difference. Video is tactile, as Marshall McLuhan pointed out 50 years ago. Side by side comparison will make this obvious or Apple wouldn't do it.
—GIS, General Interface Solution, is a Foxconn subsidiary, so this report might make sense of the deal-making between Sharp, Foxconn, Apple and even Samsung over all the oxide-film technology that this part of the display industry has been spending so much on over the past six years, and now even Dell is coming out with 4K IGZO monitors and (feeble) laptops.
Against this report is the obvious threat to the iPad Pro's prestige position.
The brain can tell a difference between color gamut, contrast, dynamic range and all more than resolution, current screens need to work on that first.
I'd also like them to not gimp the tablet by putting a ridiculous screen on it for the current GPU tech (like they did for the Ipad 3).
And please show me the studies done on an actual screen, not a infinite contrast black on white doc that proves your point. There is none, Why? Because such studies would be very hard to do (read expensive); that's why they use printed paper. Even with those perfect environments (infinite black on white reflective material in good lighting conditions), only certain types of differences are perceived by a limited set of people.
I don't doubt eventually will go to 4K (430ppi on the Ipad), even if
it's to simplify programming between platforms and not have to scale down native 4K video programming, but the advantage is not
a slam dunk, far from it.
And that's with static documents, when there is movement, our eyes are much much worse.
It would be great to cite a study or two, but do they exist? A 430ppi IPS oxide-backed LCD may not itself exist in the wild, because only recently would be the first time it's reasonable to prototype this combination for manufacture. But I wouldn't be the one to know about any literature because I'm not at all in touch with display R&D.
Anyway, what I have in mind are the "differences . . perceived by a limited set of people" at first, such as those who've trained their eyes as photographers, and who will be able to see differences that can't necessarily be measued by objective tests, in other words, subjective qualities that you feel. If the differences are really there, as they were, say, with fine-grain Kodachrome 25 vs 64, average people will be brought forward into the perceptual state where they can see it too. Like when we became really, really aware of the "retina" screen difference when we first looked back at a previous nonretina screen after a period of living with the new resolution.
everyone is nagging about resolution. If you want to increase ipad sales back to growth, you need to give something new to consumers rather than keeping the same thing over and over again. Since ipad is primarily used for media consumption, 4k resolution will be a great incentive to upgrade. In fact also add in AMOLED screens, which is less likely right now, but still would give even greater incentive.
I agree that a 4K display done right, Apple-style, would be more of an upgrade draw that any other "spec bump."
Adding pencil support would be a draw too, but that seems like a further stretch than 4K somehow.
You lost me at AMOLED. We're a long way from that being possible, or even disirable.
Existing AMOLEDs prove your point otherwise. Content viewing is vastly superior on AMOLED over LCD.
The brain can tell a difference between color gamut, contrast, dynamic range and all more than resolution, current screens need to work on that first.
I'd also like them to not gimp the tablet by putting a ridiculous screen on it for the current GPU tech (like they did for the Ipad 3).
And please show me the studies done on an actual screen, not a infinite contrast black on white doc that proves your point. There is none, Why? Because such studies would be very hard to do (read expensive); that's why they use printed paper. Even with those perfect environments (infinite black on white reflective material in good lighting conditions), only certain types of differences are perceived by a limited set of people.
I don't doubt eventually will go to 4K (430ppi on the Ipad), even if
it's to simplify programming between platforms and not have to scale down native 4K video programming, but the advantage is not
a slam dunk, far from it.
And that's with static documents, when there is movement, our eyes are much much worse.
It would be great to cite a study or two, but do they exist? A 430ppi IPS oxide-backed LCD may not itself exist in the wild, because only recently would be the first time it's reasonable to prototype this combination for manufacture. But I wouldn't be the one to know about any literature because I'm not at all in touch with display R&D.
Anyway, what I have in mind are the "differences . . perceived by a limited set of people" at first, such as those who've trained their eyes as photographers, and who will be able to see differences that can't necessarily be measued by objective tests, in other words, subjective qualities that you feel. If the differences are really there, as they were, say, with fine-grain Kodachrome 25 vs 64, average people will be brought forward into the perceptual state where they can see it too. Like when we became really, really aware of the "retina" screen difference when we first looked back at a previous nonretina screen after a period of living with the new resolution.
The difference they'll see is not resolution mostly, but all the other deficiencies there are in current screen, dynamic range alone is pathetic and refresh rate slow. That's why such a comparison will be senseless; you;re not going to be comparing just resolution. There is a lot of difference between reality and a smartphone screen and resolution is not the biggest difference.
There are actually real test being done on non smartphone screen "reality" and as I said, the difference only in certain very specific material, for certain people. Not sure how those tests would not translate to something that at most will be the same (if they do miracles) and at worst, never be as good.
What's the point in having 4K resolution on a 9.7-inch display when the human eye can't even resolve such pixel density? Seems like a waste of resources and nothing more than marketing hype to me.
Marketing hype aside, the human eye resolves such pixel density when zoomed. Instant zoom is one of the many strengths of iOS implemented in the graphic primitives of the operating system, called Quartz. Android doesn't have such a strength, cannot provide a lag-free zoom, and forces its users to zoomless user interfaces and obviously to gigantic screens.
It is a visual pleasure to discover more and more subtle details as you zoom, so the highest resolution is the first to implement on any device.
Durability is crap, so what's your point, Samsung doesn't care if their panel are accurate beyond 2 years?
Is this speculation? Did you know the LED backlighting in LCDs also degrades?
I wonder if this factor will have changed with the significantly lower wattages needed to backlight oxide-film displays. The reduction in energy to run them is said to be 30%, mostly due to the greater transparency of the backplane, as I recall. Thus, maybe longer time to degradation . . .
Durability is crap, so what's your point, Samsung doesn't care if their panel are accurate beyond 2 years?
Is this speculation? Did you know the LED backlighting in LCDs also degrades?
Man, who do you think I am? At least make your argument non insulting. The degradation is slow and there's something that mostly fixes within the time people own their device (5-6 years tops). OLED's got a partial fix (only recently), degradation per color.... Especially on a screen with much static images.
Go, on Avsforum and asks them about Oled, they'll tell you all about it....
Next time, try harder!
BTW, I'm all for OLED if they can actually fix their crappy durability. My own TV is a plasma because I think LCD/LED aren't the best image for TV, but they're fine for computer monitors and gaming.
The key here is being good at many things; not just one.
Is this speculation? Did you know the LED backlighting in LCDs also degrades?
Man, who do you think I am? At least make your argument non insulting. The degradation is slow and there's something that mostly fixes within the time people own their device (5-6 years tops). OLED's got a partial fix (only recently), degradation per color.... Especially on a screen with much static images.
Go, on Avsforum and asks them about Oled, they'll tell you all about it....
Next time, try harder!
BTW, I'm all for OLED if they can actually fix their crappy durability. My own TV is a plasma because I think LCD/LED aren't the best image for TV, but they're fine for computer monitors and gaming.
The key here is being good at many things; not just one.
I do have experience with OLED. Anyone who relies on color accuracy calibrates on a schedule.
I would much rather have OLED on a TV, I would also have Plasma over LCD, but not plasma over OLED. I have quite a nice plasma set and it is worlds better than LCD, but it still shows blacks unlike OLED.
The fact is, all technologies have their shortcomings, but I feel that OLED as of 2016 is the best viable future display technology and would love to see it on an iPad and really on a future rMBP over an iPad.
Comments
Having 4K resolution on a screen the dimensions of iPad Air would provide no visible benefit unless you hold it a few inches from your face. And 4x the pixels comes at a cost elsewhere - cost of the screen itself which reduces opportunity for upgraded components/materials elsewhere - and a cost of performance in the GPU to drive all of those pixels. It is of course possible to improve the screen quality and visual benefit in other ways, which Apple has done with iPhones & iPads over the years, and could be an improvement in Air 3 (let's hope).
Some with older devices (primarily much older) will upgrade just because it is new & better (A9 chip, better camera, maybe better screen, lighter, better battery, etc).
To improve beyond that will require targeting new use cases & markets that aren't possible (or as good) with current one. The easiest answer here is to get Apple Pencil support. This wouldn't cannibalize iPad Pro much & that isn't likely selling in large volumes - it can be kept "pro" with its size, screen, keyboard etc. Adding Pencil opens up for sketching apps across the board, from kids to pros, artists, education, benefits to business audiences - all that want more mobility than the Pro offers & at a price point for large volumes.
Media consumption as mentioned is also important, so the improved speakers are useful.
Lots of s/w improvements possible to ignite interest, but that wouldn't be restricted to a new Air 3. A huge requirement IMO is to ignite developer interest into creating "deeper" applications which drive more use cases. A developer approach for iPhone is not getting far enough to get the quality apps that an iPad needs. Allow trial periods, developer feedback, paid upgrades or subscription services with smaller % cut, etc. Hoping that Phil Schiller coming in helps here.
I agree that a 4K display done right, Apple-style, would be more of an upgrade draw that any other "spec bump."
Adding pencil support would be a draw too, but that seems like a further stretch than 4K somehow.
You lost me at AMOLED. We're a long way from that being possible, or even disirable.
I don't know what those features will be, but I would be very surprised, if they don't surprise me at the reveal!
What GPU are you going to use to do this magic and what effect will that have on performance and battery life? Ohhh, 4K screen that lasts 5h... fantastic.
If they put 4 corner speakers and 4K and a9x running at a high clock rate to be able to give good performance on the 4K screen, the tablet would likely last 5h tops.
I'd also like them to not gimp the tablet by putting a ridiculous screen on it for the current GPU tech (like they did for the Ipad 3).
And please show me the studies done on an actual screen, not a infinite contrast black on white doc that proves your point. There is none,
Why? Because such studies would be very hard to do (read expensive); that's why they use printed paper.
Even with those perfect environments (infinite black on white reflective material in good lighting conditions),
only certain types of differences are perceived by a limited set of people.
I don't doubt eventually will go to 4K (430ppi on the Ipad), even if it's to simplify programming between platforms and not have to scale down native 4K video programming, but the advantage is not a slam dunk, far from it.
And that's with static documents, when there is movement, our eyes are much much worse.
And not just the screen itself, also the GPU to drive it. I would expect a 4K iPad Air to run hot, and drain its battery fast.
The problem with the iPad 3, as hinted above, was that they went with "Retina" before the hardware could really cope, so it was heavy due to the increased battery needed, and ran slow. That in turn was behind the decision to replace it six months later with the iPad 4. If they do announce a 4K iPad Air in March, I'll be waiting to see what happens in October before deciding whether to buy one.
Anyway, what I have in mind are the "differences . . perceived by a limited set of people" at first, such as those who've trained their eyes as photographers, and who will be able to see differences that can't necessarily be measued by objective tests, in other words, subjective qualities that you feel. If the differences are really there, as they were, say, with fine-grain Kodachrome 25 vs 64, average people will be brought forward into the perceptual state where they can see it too. Like when we became really, really aware of the "retina" screen difference when we first looked back at a previous nonretina screen after a period of living with the new resolution.
1- longer battery life
2- Apple Pencil support
3- lower price
That's why such a comparison will be senseless; you;re not going to be comparing just resolution.
There is a lot of difference between reality and a smartphone screen and resolution is not the biggest difference.
There are actually real test being done on non smartphone screen "reality" and as I said, the difference only in certain very specific material, for certain people.
Not sure how those tests would not translate to something that at most will be the same (if they do miracles) and at worst, never be as good.
It is a visual pleasure to discover more and more subtle details as you zoom, so the highest resolution is the first to implement on any device.
At least make your argument non insulting.
The degradation is slow and there's something that mostly fixes within the time people own their device (5-6 years tops).
OLED's got a partial fix (only recently), degradation per color.... Especially on a screen with much static images.
Go, on Avsforum and asks them about Oled, they'll tell you all about it....
Next time, try harder!
BTW, I'm all for OLED if they can actually fix their crappy durability.
My own TV is a plasma because I think LCD/LED aren't the best image for TV, but they're fine for computer monitors and gaming.
The key here is being good at many things; not just one.
I would much rather have OLED on a TV, I would also have Plasma over LCD, but not plasma over OLED. I have quite a nice plasma set and it is worlds better than LCD, but it still shows blacks unlike OLED.
The fact is, all technologies have their shortcomings, but I feel that OLED as of 2016 is the best viable future display technology and would love to see it on an iPad and really on a future rMBP over an iPad.