It is better to accept that they simplly want a better display and use the term "Retina" to express that.
No it isn?t. It?s either saucer-eyed delusion or ignorance of what the term describes. If we use the first three iPhones as examples, chances are the display will be ?better? than the previous year?s model even if they keep the resolution the same. So it fails on two levels.
Quote:
Let's be clear on one thing if you tell them it isn't possible the you are obviously out of touch with the technology going into current devices. For example hitting greater than 300 pixels per inch in mass production screens is now possible, iPhone 4 proves that. So it is now nothing more than a scaling up effort for a ten inch screen. Since that ten inch screen will most rationally only be scaled by 2X you don't even need 300 ppi. So the physical screen is not an issue.
Perhaps ?feasible? or ?viable? would have been a better choice of wording over ?possible? ut I think his comment is clear.
Not that the iPhone 4 display is 3.5?. To make the iPad display 326ppi do you think that it?s possible to use the same GPU as in the iPhone 4 (and in the iPad). But they both have Retina Displays so they both should work just fine¡ That?s not the reality. And even if you get a GPU that will work how well will it work and how much of a hit will the battery life take to run it. Unless you have some evidence to support this as ?possible for a shipping product? I?d say it?s not possible for a shipping product.
Note that doubling the resolution (4x the pixels) would likely make it qualify for ?Retina Display? status for 1 arcmin if we assume the iPad is held farther away from the eyes as a phone for normal use. (I?m not going to do the math, but I encourage others to prove me right or wrong )
I'm an old guy so I don't get to wrapped up in things that are hard to see anyways. I just don't like seeing the word impossible used in this context. Yes it is an engineering challenge but so was the trip to the moon.
Quote:
I think 4x as many pixels would be pretty tough on the GPU, perhaps to the point of killing the framerates of games and killing the battery way too quickly.
There is no doubt that it would be tough on both the GPU and bandwidth to memory. However Samsung has already indicated that their new Cortex A9 based SoC has 4x the performance for OpenGL. That might translate into a was with respect to gaming.
Quote:
Maybe in a couple years, but nothing from Imagination ? which I assume Apple will keep using since they are vested in them ? seems to show a dramatic improvement to make this happen.
On the other hand the clock rates on the GPUs is extremely low. Last I knew someplace in the range of 300 to 400 MHz. So they might be able to boost that with a process shrink. That only if they use the current GPU core which I don't believe is likely. Imagination already has better publically announced GPUs and the likely hood is that any thing Apple is likely to use is unannounced.
I don't dismiss that the GPU is an issue just that the current core in the A4 is rather old and that processes have improved significantly. A process shrink and a better GPU could keep us in the same performance territory or even bump things a bit.
Quote:
On top of that, if they can?t produce enough of the current 1024x768 IPS displays, it seems unlikely they could produce enough 2048x1536 IPS displays. Maybe in a couple years.
Well the issue of production is actually easy to address as you simply throw more money at the ptoblem. Rumors seem to support that this is Apples approach. In any event it looks like part of the problem was the result of being caught off guard by iPads success not so much technical issues.
Quote:
BTW, staying with the current resolution is not my wish. I do hope I?m wrong and we get a super high resolution without any perceived drawbacks, I just don?t think it?s likely.
It isn't a big issue for me except when I see the word impossible used. The reality is the current display isn't that bad and there are a bunch of other more glaring issues to address with respect to iPad. RAM, flash storage and general CPU performance are all bigger issues. Even things like USB and SD card support are likely more important to many.
Quote:
Apple could do a fractional resolution increase with minimal affect on devs with an SDK update, but they didn?t with the iPhone which still had the original resolution for three full years so precedence needs to be considered.
Actually just about everything needed is already in iOS to support a fractional increase in resolution. The question is how closely do developers pay attention to such issues.
In any event I prefer to look at this as possible even if maybe not probable. The idea that it is impossible just rubs me the wrong way.
Actually just about everything needed is already in iOS to support a fractional increase in resolution. The question is how closely do developers pay attention to such issues.
I recall seeing ?updated with Retina Display support? with iPhone app updates from at least last month. I figure most have done it already but there seemed to be a delay between the iPhone 4 demo and SDK update, and developers implementing it. Still, it?s not like running iPhone/Touch apps on the iPad, the pre-Retina Display iPhone apps looked as good as before, they just looked better after the update so no harm, no foul.
Quote:
In any event I prefer to look at this as possible even if maybe not probable. The idea that it is impossible just rubs me the wrong way.
I can?t disagree with you there. I try to not use absolutes when writing about certain things, though sometimes implied meanings and word usage can get muddled as we tend to be a bit hyperbolic at time to convey a point.
No it isn?t. It?s either saucer-eyed delusion or ignorance of what the term describes. If we use the first three iPhones as examples, chances are the display will be ?better? than the previous year?s model even if they keep the resolution the same. So it fails on two levels.
This really isn't a technical forum where there is a high expectation of accuracy in a persons statements. More so Retina is nothing more than a marketing creation that only has meaning in the context of Apples products. So by definition somebody can easily use it to imply a desire for a higher resolution display.
Quote:
Perhaps ?feasible? or ?viable? would have been a better choice of wording over ?possible? ut I think his comment is clear.
Not that the iPhone 4 display is 3.5?. To make the iPad display 326ppi do you think that it?s possible to use the same GPU as in the iPhone 4 (and in the iPad).
Nope not at all. Then again I don't expect iPad 2 to use that processor anyways. The A4 has to many limitations to take Apple where they want to go with iPad. Rather I'm expecting at least dual core Cortex A9 derived processors and a 4x improvement from the GPU at the least. Will that be enough? That is a good question but I believe there is enough evidence around to believe it is possible.
In any event we have to remeber this is a brand new device it is not the intallations of a high res screen in the old chassis.
Quote:
But they both have Retina Displays so they both should work just fine¡ That?s not the reality. And even if you get a GPU that will work how well will it work and how much of a hit will the battery life take to run it.
These are really good questions. Many are thinking Apples next chip will target Samsungs 32nm node which would allow for a considerable performance increase at the current power levels. However if Apple went completely bleeding edge to 22nm then we might see another 40% increase in performance at the same power levels.
In any event back up to 32nm and look at Intels and others success at this node. Intel is packing an incredible amount of circuitry on those dies and still reducing power. That is for the massive x86, Apples entire SoC is far smaller.
Obviously we can't know exactly what Apple can achieve with a new processor/SoC but the writing is on the wall. So to speak, the actual writing is at a very tiny scale. All this noise aside I think Apple can double CPU performance and more than double GPU performance in the same general power profile if they really want to.
Quote:
Unless you have some evidence to support this as ?possible for a shipping product? I?d say it?s not possible for a shipping product.
One simPly has to look at shipping or about to ship Cortex A9 based products from Samsung, NVidia, Qualcom and others. To justify in house development Apple has to do better than what can be had on the open market. Some of these offerings are pretty darn good.
In any event if IPad 2 doesn't ship with at keast a dual core Cortex A9 based processor I will have to question Apples leaderships sanity. How good that chip will be is obviously open for discussion. The thing is does anybody realistically expect Apple to ship iPad 2 with a single core A4 derived SoC????? Especially when there will be a flood of dual core Cortex A9 chips on the market next year with many of those chips in very nice hardware. I realize it is a bigger stretch to have the capability to drive 4x the pixels but it isn't going to be far from run of the mill performance in 2011.
I recall seeing ?updated with Retina Display support? with iPhone app updates from at least last month. I figure most have done it already but there seemed to be a delay between the iPhone 4 demo and SDK update, and developers implementing it. Still, it?s not like running iPhone/Touch apps on the iPad, the pre-Retina Display iPhone apps looked as good as before, they just looked better after the update so no harm, no foul.
Part of the issue is that some apps are in greater need of updates that others. Apps that used lots of bit maps have had real issues.
Quote:
I can?t disagree with you there. I try to not use absolutes when writing about certain things, though sometimes implied meanings and word usage can get muddled as we tend to be a bit hyperbolic at time to convey a point.
I can't muddy this: I've spent to much time here today. Will check in later.
Not everyone has the technical expertise to quantify exactly what they want. It is better to accept that they simplly want a better display and use the term "Retina" to express that.
My criticism was not directed at those that cannot express exactly what they want. It was directed at those that when told that their precise desires are not technical possible, do not have the patience to follow a simple logical explanation as to why it is not possible.
Or did you mean that not everybody has the technical expertise (instead of just simply patience) to calculate (or look up) the current ppi of the iPad, to understand (or simply read up) that the only absolutely pain-free resolution increase from a app-compatibility point of view is to replace one existing pixel with four new smaller pixels, and to then compare the double of the current iPad resolution with that what has been used by Apple as a yardstick for 'Retina' (essentially they said roughly 300+ ppi), but that everybody has the right to criticise those with the expertise to do the above as elitist?
Quote:
Let's be clear on one thing if you tell them it isn't possible the you are obviously out of touch with the technology going into current devices. For example hitting greater than 300 pixels per inch in mass production screens is now possible, iPhone 4 proves that.
Thanks for providing an example to my point (in your specific case, lack of reading comprehension). I nowhere said that a linear doubling of the resolution (ie, increase total pixel count by four) is not possible. I just remarked that people will demand 300+ ppi, perfect app compatibility (ie, the 4x), and the same physical size and unfortunately simple mathematics shows that only two of these three things are possible at the same time. But people won't even listen long enough to take that in before starting the criticism.
I'd love to see a combination of Samsung's super AMOLED, and Apple's retina display. Amazing contrast with very sharp images.
Yeaa... I loved the deep contrast of the Samsung Galaxy something-or-other smartphone when playing with it for a few minutes. But of course Retina is stunning, like HD video in any form, you wonder how you ever watched SD. The iPhone 4 contrast, visuals, IPS panels are all top notch. A little juice from whatever it is that makes AMOLED good, mixed with iPhone 4, will be a stunning iPhone 5 screen. Or one can wish.
Sure: The next iPad will have a retina display. Happy?
So now that we have that out of the way, how do you define Retina Display? It could mean many things. The top definitions are:
PPI that is ≥ the iPhone 4’s 326 PPI?
PPI that that is ≥ what is needed for the 1 arcmin for the typical eyesight (i.e.: 20/20 vision) for a stated typical viewing distance?
4x the number the of pixels (aka doubling the resolution, like with the 3GS to the iPhone 4)? (Note: this would give the iPad 262 PPI).
The point is, this marketing term needs to be qualified.
I was thinking for several months now, there will be two classes of display - Retina will be the smartphone standard, OK.
Now for iPad, 1024x768 would have to be beefed up in the easiest way to 2048 x 1536. This won't be Retina, but Apple could always come up with a new term for it. It's just marketing, as you allude to somewhat... Here's some of my brainstorming:
Cornea Display
Eyeball Display
Eyesight
Eyetangent
Eyes
BlackGradient
RainDisplay
RainGuard
NerveDisplay
EyeNerve
Optic Display
Optical Display
Haptical Display
Heads In Display
Heads Down Display
Precision Screen
Precision Display
Immersive Display
Real Time Screen
Big Screen
Dense Screen
Tight Screen
Big Tights
Dense Tight
Density Display
Reticule Display
Lens Display
Lens Tight
Iris Display
Of all the above Iris Display makes the most sense, but there'll be licensing fees I'm sure. Unless they call it EyeRis Display heh.
I'm an old guy so I don't get to wrapped up in things that are hard to see anyways. I just don't like seeing the word impossible used in this context. Yes it is an engineering challenge but so was the trip to the moon.
...
In any event I prefer to look at this as possible even if maybe not probable. The idea that it is impossible just rubs me the wrong way.
Its this thing with propellerheads that they dont seem what is viable for a consumer device, even a prosumer device if you look at the price of apple gear.
In this case impossible to a consumer/bussiness owner = something that will cost too much and have a too narrow market. As for spacetravel that you brought up. How many folks would buy a vacation to the moon for a week for 20 billion dollars/person? Maybe a couple, but I wouldnt invest my money as an investor on a headless idea NOW. Its all about timing. You have to have a feeling when it is going to be. Would the iphone been a hit in the year 2000. Probably not because of its price, size, cpu power etc. Actually it is impossible if your scope means that the price is the same as the old model. Otherwise you would give money away or barely make even. That is something shareholders wouldnt approve apple did asmuch as you would like that.
If the iphone cost 5000 Dollars, It would probably have a lot of nice things on it that the model thats on sale now doesnt have. BUT who on earth could buy it besides millionaires???
That said the iphone NOR apple gear in any category doesnt include anything that cant be bought from of the self parts. Its just what you do with it (software) and how you put that gear together that maters....
WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE 4X INCREASE IN RESOLUTION ON THE IPAD; END OF DISCUSION... Even 1080p is quite an expensive challenge that I dont think apple is able to master 2011 season, if they dont increase the price drasticly. Everything is possible but even 1080p is not very likely now with this pricerange. Maybe 2012 things have changed?
Comments
It is better to accept that they simplly want a better display and use the term "Retina" to express that.
No it isn?t. It?s either saucer-eyed delusion or ignorance of what the term describes. If we use the first three iPhones as examples, chances are the display will be ?better? than the previous year?s model even if they keep the resolution the same. So it fails on two levels.
Let's be clear on one thing if you tell them it isn't possible the you are obviously out of touch with the technology going into current devices. For example hitting greater than 300 pixels per inch in mass production screens is now possible, iPhone 4 proves that. So it is now nothing more than a scaling up effort for a ten inch screen. Since that ten inch screen will most rationally only be scaled by 2X you don't even need 300 ppi. So the physical screen is not an issue.
Perhaps ?feasible? or ?viable? would have been a better choice of wording over ?possible? ut I think his comment is clear.
Not that the iPhone 4 display is 3.5?. To make the iPad display 326ppi do you think that it?s possible to use the same GPU as in the iPhone 4 (and in the iPad). But they both have Retina Displays so they both should work just fine¡ That?s not the reality. And even if you get a GPU that will work how well will it work and how much of a hit will the battery life take to run it. Unless you have some evidence to support this as ?possible for a shipping product? I?d say it?s not possible for a shipping product.
Note that doubling the resolution (4x the pixels) would likely make it qualify for ?Retina Display? status for 1 arcmin if we assume the iPad is held farther away from the eyes as a phone for normal use. (I?m not going to do the math, but I encourage others to prove me right or wrong
I'm an old guy so I don't get to wrapped up in things that are hard to see anyways. I just don't like seeing the word impossible used in this context. Yes it is an engineering challenge but so was the trip to the moon.
I think 4x as many pixels would be pretty tough on the GPU, perhaps to the point of killing the framerates of games and killing the battery way too quickly.
There is no doubt that it would be tough on both the GPU and bandwidth to memory. However Samsung has already indicated that their new Cortex A9 based SoC has 4x the performance for OpenGL. That might translate into a was with respect to gaming.
Maybe in a couple years, but nothing from Imagination ? which I assume Apple will keep using since they are vested in them ? seems to show a dramatic improvement to make this happen.
On the other hand the clock rates on the GPUs is extremely low. Last I knew someplace in the range of 300 to 400 MHz. So they might be able to boost that with a process shrink. That only if they use the current GPU core which I don't believe is likely. Imagination already has better publically announced GPUs and the likely hood is that any thing Apple is likely to use is unannounced.
I don't dismiss that the GPU is an issue just that the current core in the A4 is rather old and that processes have improved significantly. A process shrink and a better GPU could keep us in the same performance territory or even bump things a bit.
On top of that, if they can?t produce enough of the current 1024x768 IPS displays, it seems unlikely they could produce enough 2048x1536 IPS displays. Maybe in a couple years.
Well the issue of production is actually easy to address as you simply throw more money at the ptoblem. Rumors seem to support that this is Apples approach. In any event it looks like part of the problem was the result of being caught off guard by iPads success not so much technical issues.
BTW, staying with the current resolution is not my wish. I do hope I?m wrong and we get a super high resolution without any perceived drawbacks, I just don?t think it?s likely.
It isn't a big issue for me except when I see the word impossible used. The reality is the current display isn't that bad and there are a bunch of other more glaring issues to address with respect to iPad. RAM, flash storage and general CPU performance are all bigger issues. Even things like USB and SD card support are likely more important to many.
Apple could do a fractional resolution increase with minimal affect on devs with an SDK update, but they didn?t with the iPhone which still had the original resolution for three full years so precedence needs to be considered.
Actually just about everything needed is already in iOS to support a fractional increase in resolution. The question is how closely do developers pay attention to such issues.
In any event I prefer to look at this as possible even if maybe not probable. The idea that it is impossible just rubs me the wrong way.
Actually just about everything needed is already in iOS to support a fractional increase in resolution. The question is how closely do developers pay attention to such issues.
I recall seeing ?updated with Retina Display support? with iPhone app updates from at least last month. I figure most have done it already but there seemed to be a delay between the iPhone 4 demo and SDK update, and developers implementing it. Still, it?s not like running iPhone/Touch apps on the iPad, the pre-Retina Display iPhone apps looked as good as before, they just looked better after the update so no harm, no foul.
In any event I prefer to look at this as possible even if maybe not probable. The idea that it is impossible just rubs me the wrong way.
I can?t disagree with you there. I try to not use absolutes when writing about certain things, though sometimes implied meanings and word usage can get muddled as we tend to be a bit hyperbolic at time to convey a point.
No it isn?t. It?s either saucer-eyed delusion or ignorance of what the term describes. If we use the first three iPhones as examples, chances are the display will be ?better? than the previous year?s model even if they keep the resolution the same. So it fails on two levels.
This really isn't a technical forum where there is a high expectation of accuracy in a persons statements. More so Retina is nothing more than a marketing creation that only has meaning in the context of Apples products. So by definition somebody can easily use it to imply a desire for a higher resolution display.
Perhaps ?feasible? or ?viable? would have been a better choice of wording over ?possible? ut I think his comment is clear.
Not that the iPhone 4 display is 3.5?. To make the iPad display 326ppi do you think that it?s possible to use the same GPU as in the iPhone 4 (and in the iPad).
Nope not at all. Then again I don't expect iPad 2 to use that processor anyways. The A4 has to many limitations to take Apple where they want to go with iPad. Rather I'm expecting at least dual core Cortex A9 derived processors and a 4x improvement from the GPU at the least. Will that be enough? That is a good question but I believe there is enough evidence around to believe it is possible.
In any event we have to remeber this is a brand new device it is not the intallations of a high res screen in the old chassis.
But they both have Retina Displays so they both should work just fine¡ That?s not the reality. And even if you get a GPU that will work how well will it work and how much of a hit will the battery life take to run it.
These are really good questions. Many are thinking Apples next chip will target Samsungs 32nm node which would allow for a considerable performance increase at the current power levels. However if Apple went completely bleeding edge to 22nm then we might see another 40% increase in performance at the same power levels.
In any event back up to 32nm and look at Intels and others success at this node. Intel is packing an incredible amount of circuitry on those dies and still reducing power. That is for the massive x86, Apples entire SoC is far smaller.
Obviously we can't know exactly what Apple can achieve with a new processor/SoC but the writing is on the wall. So to speak, the actual writing is at a very tiny scale. All this noise aside I think Apple can double CPU performance and more than double GPU performance in the same general power profile if they really want to.
Unless you have some evidence to support this as ?possible for a shipping product? I?d say it?s not possible for a shipping product.
One simPly has to look at shipping or about to ship Cortex A9 based products from Samsung, NVidia, Qualcom and others. To justify in house development Apple has to do better than what can be had on the open market. Some of these offerings are pretty darn good.
In any event if IPad 2 doesn't ship with at keast a dual core Cortex A9 based processor I will have to question Apples leaderships sanity. How good that chip will be is obviously open for discussion. The thing is does anybody realistically expect Apple to ship iPad 2 with a single core A4 derived SoC????? Especially when there will be a flood of dual core Cortex A9 chips on the market next year with many of those chips in very nice hardware. I realize it is a bigger stretch to have the capability to drive 4x the pixels but it isn't going to be far from run of the mill performance in 2011.
I recall seeing ?updated with Retina Display support? with iPhone app updates from at least last month. I figure most have done it already but there seemed to be a delay between the iPhone 4 demo and SDK update, and developers implementing it. Still, it?s not like running iPhone/Touch apps on the iPad, the pre-Retina Display iPhone apps looked as good as before, they just looked better after the update so no harm, no foul.
Part of the issue is that some apps are in greater need of updates that others. Apps that used lots of bit maps have had real issues.
I can?t disagree with you there. I try to not use absolutes when writing about certain things, though sometimes implied meanings and word usage can get muddled as we tend to be a bit hyperbolic at time to convey a point.
I can't muddy this: I've spent to much time here today. Will check in later.
Not everyone has the technical expertise to quantify exactly what they want. It is better to accept that they simplly want a better display and use the term "Retina" to express that.
My criticism was not directed at those that cannot express exactly what they want. It was directed at those that when told that their precise desires are not technical possible, do not have the patience to follow a simple logical explanation as to why it is not possible.
Or did you mean that not everybody has the technical expertise (instead of just simply patience) to calculate (or look up) the current ppi of the iPad, to understand (or simply read up) that the only absolutely pain-free resolution increase from a app-compatibility point of view is to replace one existing pixel with four new smaller pixels, and to then compare the double of the current iPad resolution with that what has been used by Apple as a yardstick for 'Retina' (essentially they said roughly 300+ ppi), but that everybody has the right to criticise those with the expertise to do the above as elitist?
Let's be clear on one thing if you tell them it isn't possible the you are obviously out of touch with the technology going into current devices. For example hitting greater than 300 pixels per inch in mass production screens is now possible, iPhone 4 proves that.
Thanks for providing an example to my point (in your specific case, lack of reading comprehension). I nowhere said that a linear doubling of the resolution (ie, increase total pixel count by four) is not possible. I just remarked that people will demand 300+ ppi, perfect app compatibility (ie, the 4x), and the same physical size and unfortunately simple mathematics shows that only two of these three things are possible at the same time. But people won't even listen long enough to take that in before starting the criticism.
I'd love to see a combination of Samsung's super AMOLED, and Apple's retina display. Amazing contrast with very sharp images.
Yeaa... I loved the deep contrast of the Samsung Galaxy something-or-other smartphone when playing with it for a few minutes. But of course Retina is stunning, like HD video in any form, you wonder how you ever watched SD. The iPhone 4 contrast, visuals, IPS panels are all top notch. A little juice from whatever it is that makes AMOLED good, mixed with iPhone 4, will be a stunning iPhone 5 screen. Or one can wish.
Sure: The next iPad will have a retina display. Happy?
So now that we have that out of the way, how do you define Retina Display? It could mean many things. The top definitions are:
- PPI that is ≥ the iPhone 4’s 326 PPI?
- PPI that that is ≥ what is needed for the 1 arcmin for the typical eyesight (i.e.: 20/20 vision) for a stated typical viewing distance?
- 4x the number the of pixels (aka doubling the resolution, like with the 3GS to the iPhone 4)? (Note: this would give the iPad 262 PPI).
The point is, this marketing term needs to be qualified.I was thinking for several months now, there will be two classes of display - Retina will be the smartphone standard, OK.
Now for iPad, 1024x768 would have to be beefed up in the easiest way to 2048 x 1536. This won't be Retina, but Apple could always come up with a new term for it. It's just marketing, as you allude to somewhat... Here's some of my brainstorming:
Cornea Display
Eyeball Display
Eyesight
Eyetangent
Eyes
BlackGradient
RainDisplay
RainGuard
NerveDisplay
EyeNerve
Optic Display
Optical Display
Haptical Display
Heads In Display
Heads Down Display
Precision Screen
Precision Display
Immersive Display
Real Time Screen
Big Screen
Dense Screen
Tight Screen
Big Tights
Dense Tight
Density Display
Reticule Display
Lens Display
Lens Tight
Iris Display
Of all the above Iris Display makes the most sense, but there'll be licensing fees I'm sure. Unless they call it EyeRis Display heh.
I'm an old guy so I don't get to wrapped up in things that are hard to see anyways. I just don't like seeing the word impossible used in this context. Yes it is an engineering challenge but so was the trip to the moon.
...
In any event I prefer to look at this as possible even if maybe not probable. The idea that it is impossible just rubs me the wrong way.
Its this thing with propellerheads that they dont seem what is viable for a consumer device, even a prosumer device if you look at the price of apple gear.
In this case impossible to a consumer/bussiness owner = something that will cost too much and have a too narrow market. As for spacetravel that you brought up. How many folks would buy a vacation to the moon for a week for 20 billion dollars/person? Maybe a couple, but I wouldnt invest my money as an investor on a headless idea NOW. Its all about timing. You have to have a feeling when it is going to be. Would the iphone been a hit in the year 2000. Probably not because of its price, size, cpu power etc. Actually it is impossible if your scope means that the price is the same as the old model. Otherwise you would give money away or barely make even. That is something shareholders wouldnt approve apple did asmuch as you would like that.
If the iphone cost 5000 Dollars, It would probably have a lot of nice things on it that the model thats on sale now doesnt have. BUT who on earth could buy it besides millionaires???
That said the iphone NOR apple gear in any category doesnt include anything that cant be bought from of the self parts. Its just what you do with it (software) and how you put that gear together that maters....
WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE 4X INCREASE IN RESOLUTION ON THE IPAD; END OF DISCUSION... Even 1080p is quite an expensive challenge that I dont think apple is able to master 2011 season, if they dont increase the price drasticly. Everything is possible but even 1080p is not very likely now with this pricerange. Maybe 2012 things have changed?