Your chart shows Mac use of VGA stopping in the late 90s. However, the PowerBook G4 had a VGA port until early 2002 when Apple switched to DVI. Also, the chart doesn't at all mention S-Video, which was available on various Macs for several years.
I don't spend much time looking at hardware outside the Apple world, but the other day I was looking at the Nokia booklet and my initial thought was. About the same price as an iPAD, cheaper than a Mac Book and has an HDMI port. Maybe lots of other Netbooks have HDMI ports these days, but to me this seemed brilliant. I don't want an Apple TV as I would use it so infrequently, and I currently have the problem of iMac upstairs and want to watch the 2 episodes of a series I missed and therefor bought on iTunes downstairs, on a decent TV. The idea of having a cheaper portable device that could live in the lounge for browsing the internet and also connect to your TV is a seller for me.
I think an HDMI port would add a second big reason to get an iPAD. How many people actually want to watch films on it, or do any of the stuff other than go on the internet. An HDMI port would make it easy to connect to any TV in your house, for those few times you want to watch something off iTunes.
Zune HD can deliver 720p output. and it's enabled.
So get a Zune - I think most wouldn't even consider comparing a lowly Zune to the more sophisticated iPad. Apples and oranges my friend, MS oranges, but still oranges.
This article seems like a lot of after-the-fact rationalization on why Apple made this particular design decision. Yes, VGA is, sadly, still the lowest common denominator for projector-based presentation, but bringing the AppleTV up as an example of how to watch movies is a reach. Back in the 80s people were complaining to GM that they had no models to compete with the well-built, low-priced Hondas and Toyotas, and Roger Smith's reply was that people could buy a used Buick in the same price range. Needless to say, that wasn't a satisfactory answer at all.
I understand that Apple is stuck with a certain price target (sub-$500 for the entry model) and can't include everything, but this form-factor is the entire reason they bucked the industry to shrink the DisplayPort connector to its tiny size. I have to imagine that future iPad models will include DP as well, but the v1.0 buyers will simply miss out. As long as the early adopters understand this they shouldn't complain when a future hardware rev includes Mini DisplayPort (at which point the AppleTV argument will seem rather contrived.)
I think an HDMI port would add a second big reason to get an iPAD. How many people actually want to watch films on it, or do any of the stuff other than go on the internet. An HDMI port would make it easy to connect to any TV in your house, for those few times you want to watch something off iTunes.
I think you forget that there are a lot of us still out here with TVs that do not have an HDMI connector or the ability to display HD. Our master bedroom has my venerable older Sony XBR2 42" which was great when it was new and is still an excellent TV. Did I throw it out cause of the new HD? Hell no! I probably won't toss it anytime soon. So VGA/XGA is a good alternative for me.
The extra cost of adding HDMI (and not being able to then work with many schools and even some office AV equipment) is not justified. I suspect Apple did the research to support this choice - they make very few arbitrary choices in my opinion. (I use to work for Apple and I know what you go thru to add/remove/change a product/software feature.)
I think VGA/XGA was brilliant. I have not looked at the SDK yet but my hope is that it will be fairly trivial to add VGA/XGA output to an application. If anything is missing it is probably that feature is not always available but only with developer add-in, but again that could be for power consumption purposes or something I have not thought of - nothing is free.
Not for nothing, but I doubt they could have included a VGA connector on the iPad and still maintained it's streamlined shape. Sure, it's a way to get us to buy accessories, but then what company doesn't do that.
There's a big difference between publishing an article and making an off-hand remark.
In the former case, one expects fact checking.
That off-hand remark was criticism directed toward a person. In my opinion, personal attacks need to be just as well founded in fact.
It's one thing to contradict information presented in an article. It is one step beyond that to address the competence of the author and editor. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with either. But when you're found to be wrong in personal criticism, it is best to offer an apology rather than justification as to why it was ok to be wrong.
Releasing a device with an incompatible Dock Connector would have been a bad idea when they're trying to create new product category. It seems as though Apple is taking a price-hit on the iPad to move them, so they decided to stick with the standard iPod Dock Connector to...
A. Retain compatibility with the zillion Dock Connector compatible devices already on the market.
B. To keep costs down.
I bet that Apple would have preferred to go with a digital video interface of some sort, but why kill interoperability with how many hundreds of millions of existing devices and accessories?
Eventually, the iOS devices will get digital video out.
That's pretty disappointing IMO. Apple TV can go scratch, that's not my idea of an alternative to just plugging in my portable device...
Think of it from Apple's perspective. If they enabled 720p video out from the iPad, then it would compete with one of their own existing products. Since the AppleTV probably doesn't see much in the way of sales, even a little bit of competition from the iPad could spell doom for it.
This thread raises the question, will it ever be common to connect tablet computers to things via wires? Other than charging, my bet is no. The tablet form and wires/connectors will never be a popular combination.
This isn't motivated by technological limitations, but rather by the form factor. Wired devices are more practical the more stationary they are. Connecting a wire to a laptop is somewhat troublesome but is tolerable because laptops tend to be put in on something and then used in that position for a while. Meanwhile, tablets are constantly held and shifted into different positions while sitting, standing, lying, or walking. For this reason, the cord is more troublesome than it is for desktops and laptops.
720p resolution requires 1280x720 resolution...The display on the iPad only is capable of 1024x768. Does that mean some clipping occurs? If that is the case I do not see how they can claim its 720p capable.
When I read that spec I assumed it would do 720p playback when connected to an external source that was capable of actually showing that.
This article (and Apple's other tech specs) seems to refute that. The only output options with be xga via dock to vga cable,576p via dock to component AV cable,480p via dock to composite AV cable.
Think of it from Apple's perspective. If they enabled 720p video out from the iPad, then it would compete with one of their own existing products. Since the AppleTV probably doesn't see much in the way of sales, even a little bit of competition from the iPad could spell doom for it.
I completely understand, and I think in 2010 it is pretty poor on Apple's part to have their worst product as the only gateway to HD output.
Many would say it's practical. Maybe it is, but the Apple TV is a failure, so iFail to see why they need to continue propping it up by crippling NEW products.
The iPad has 720p playback. It can watch YouTube HD, it can Rent/Buy HD Movies/TV Shows. Ok, that is a big step for the Apple portable....no such feature on the iPhone or iPod Touch to date...
But the iPhone has been able to output its highest capable resolution via component cable since day one.
iPad is intentionally crippled in that it outputs less than it does on the screen. It's lame, no matter how you slice it.
Man I want this thing to replace my laptop so bad but it's cripled on purpose. SJ knows that if he puts to much into the iPad then his MacBook sales would decrease alot.....pisses me off. I understand it from a business stand point but from a consumer one its so frustrating.
After the phenomenal success of the iPad 1.0 in 2010, Steve will allow us to purchase the new improved iPAD HD in 2011. It will sport a 16:9 screen at 1280 x 720 and have a mini-displayport driving 720p out in addition to the dock connector. Prices will be the same, but the new iPad Classic that looks like 1.0 with more memory than before will sell for 349 USD (for those still using VGA projectors and 4:3 monitors).
Comments
Good thing we don't expect better from you.
There's a big difference between publishing an article and making an off-hand remark.
In the former case, one expects fact checking.
I think an HDMI port would add a second big reason to get an iPAD. How many people actually want to watch films on it, or do any of the stuff other than go on the internet. An HDMI port would make it easy to connect to any TV in your house, for those few times you want to watch something off iTunes.
Zune HD can deliver 720p output. and it's enabled.
So get a Zune - I think most wouldn't even consider comparing a lowly Zune to the more sophisticated iPad. Apples and oranges my friend, MS oranges, but still oranges.
only a few support HDTV-style resolutions such as 720p (1280x720) over an HDMI or DVI port
HDTV style resolutions like 720p have no relation to HDMI. HDMI can also output VGA resolutions, so this argument is irrelevant.
They chose VGA for other reasons, probably price.
I understand that Apple is stuck with a certain price target (sub-$500 for the entry model) and can't include everything, but this form-factor is the entire reason they bucked the industry to shrink the DisplayPort connector to its tiny size. I have to imagine that future iPad models will include DP as well, but the v1.0 buyers will simply miss out. As long as the early adopters understand this they shouldn't complain when a future hardware rev includes Mini DisplayPort (at which point the AppleTV argument will seem rather contrived.)
I think an HDMI port would add a second big reason to get an iPAD. How many people actually want to watch films on it, or do any of the stuff other than go on the internet. An HDMI port would make it easy to connect to any TV in your house, for those few times you want to watch something off iTunes.
I think you forget that there are a lot of us still out here with TVs that do not have an HDMI connector or the ability to display HD. Our master bedroom has my venerable older Sony XBR2 42" which was great when it was new and is still an excellent TV. Did I throw it out cause of the new HD? Hell no! I probably won't toss it anytime soon. So VGA/XGA is a good alternative for me.
The extra cost of adding HDMI (and not being able to then work with many schools and even some office AV equipment) is not justified. I suspect Apple did the research to support this choice - they make very few arbitrary choices in my opinion. (I use to work for Apple and I know what you go thru to add/remove/change a product/software feature.)
I think VGA/XGA was brilliant. I have not looked at the SDK yet but my hope is that it will be fairly trivial to add VGA/XGA output to an application. If anything is missing it is probably that feature is not always available but only with developer add-in, but again that could be for power consumption purposes or something I have not thought of - nothing is free.
i have about 9 of this things
i never knew whar they were for
the ipad is crippled on purpose
SJ wants us to buy all his products
the ATV >> IPAD .. DREAM JUST died
Not for nothing, but I doubt they could have included a VGA connector on the iPad and still maintained it's streamlined shape. Sure, it's a way to get us to buy accessories, but then what company doesn't do that.
There's a big difference between publishing an article and making an off-hand remark.
In the former case, one expects fact checking.
That off-hand remark was criticism directed toward a person. In my opinion, personal attacks need to be just as well founded in fact.
It's one thing to contradict information presented in an article. It is one step beyond that to address the competence of the author and editor. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with either. But when you're found to be wrong in personal criticism, it is best to offer an apology rather than justification as to why it was ok to be wrong.
That's pretty disappointing IMO. Apple TV can go scratch, that's not my idea of an alternative to just plugging in my portable device...
A. Retain compatibility with the zillion Dock Connector compatible devices already on the market.
B. To keep costs down.
I bet that Apple would have preferred to go with a digital video interface of some sort, but why kill interoperability with how many hundreds of millions of existing devices and accessories?
Eventually, the iOS devices will get digital video out.
There is no 720p video out?
That's pretty disappointing IMO. Apple TV can go scratch, that's not my idea of an alternative to just plugging in my portable device...
Think of it from Apple's perspective. If they enabled 720p video out from the iPad, then it would compete with one of their own existing products. Since the AppleTV probably doesn't see much in the way of sales, even a little bit of competition from the iPad could spell doom for it.
This isn't motivated by technological limitations, but rather by the form factor. Wired devices are more practical the more stationary they are. Connecting a wire to a laptop is somewhat troublesome but is tolerable because laptops tend to be put in on something and then used in that position for a while. Meanwhile, tablets are constantly held and shifted into different positions while sitting, standing, lying, or walking. For this reason, the cord is more troublesome than it is for desktops and laptops.
H.264 video up to 720p
line in the official Apple page tech spec mean?
720p resolution requires 1280x720 resolution...The display on the iPad only is capable of 1024x768. Does that mean some clipping occurs? If that is the case I do not see how they can claim its 720p capable.
When I read that spec I assumed it would do 720p playback when connected to an external source that was capable of actually showing that.
This article (and Apple's other tech specs) seems to refute that. The only output options with be xga via dock to vga cable,576p via dock to component AV cable,480p via dock to composite AV cable.
Think of it from Apple's perspective. If they enabled 720p video out from the iPad, then it would compete with one of their own existing products. Since the AppleTV probably doesn't see much in the way of sales, even a little bit of competition from the iPad could spell doom for it.
I completely understand, and I think in 2010 it is pretty poor on Apple's part to have their worst product as the only gateway to HD output.
Many would say it's practical. Maybe it is, but the Apple TV is a failure, so iFail to see why they need to continue propping it up by crippling NEW products.
The iPad has 720p playback. It can watch YouTube HD, it can Rent/Buy HD Movies/TV Shows. Ok, that is a big step for the Apple portable....no such feature on the iPhone or iPod Touch to date...
But the iPhone has been able to output its highest capable resolution via component cable since day one.
iPad is intentionally crippled in that it outputs less than it does on the screen. It's lame, no matter how you slice it.