Agreed. Haven't seen anything that rivals the iPad for battery life, so my guess is they'll let that alone for now (although of course there's always the possibility of further efficiencies in software and chip fabrication).
The iPhone has been besting the competition since day one (despite the complaints) and now it?s quite far ahead yet they still focus on it. I doubt they?ll let this slide and I would expect at least a marginal increase across the board.
Yup, thinking of hardware required to move that many pixels smoothly around... that would require some really hefty graphics and those would have to sweat a lot even for minor operations.
I don't think it will happen. I'd expect them to offer 720p screen with 1366x768, with old software working with black margins rather than stretching... or to stay with existing screen format and resolution. Even full HD resolution would be too much for 10" screen with current technology - I'm not even sure something like that is available today.
The more I think about it there is no way the iPad2 will have a 1024x768 screen. However because the new high-res iPad2 screen will also face production constraints I think we will see iPad2 and select iPad(1) models side by side. This way Apple reaps the most benefits - production scale, quantity, market leadership, and general all-round dominance.
I'm really feeling if Apple could push games at 1920x1440 on iPad2 they are a smidgen away from an AppleTV gaming console. Sure it will start as somewhere in-between Wii and PS3 but the next generation after that would take on even the Xbox360 which isn't due for a new generation until 2012?
And what sort of media (and internal storage) would you require to take advantage of such high resolution and all those beautifully detailed textures that would be possible with such resolution?
I think games would have to be at 1920x1080. I'm not saying that they couldn't be higher if the device could handle it, but if we're going to get video out for games, which is a possibility, even if not at first, but in the summer with iOS 5, then they would have to match the big screen capabilities, which is 1080p. Doing a live convert would be too much at the same times a live display. But the CPU is supposed to be able to run 1080p like "running water".
Of course, we would like to use the entire display of the iPad, so there would have to some thinking there.
But with these specs we're talking about, the iPad2 would be more powerful than the PS3 and 360.
Hmm... one word: heat. Even after shrinking it's logic, PS3 Slim still runs reasonably hot with its bulk, heatsinks and active cooling. Squeezing that sort of power - or better - into a tablet, if possible at all, would be painfully expensive.
Additionally... in order to utilise such gaming power, iPad would require adequate storage and distribution media. iPad cannot come with built-in DVD/BR, and if they would refer to DL games, iPad's storage would have to be really huge (which puts us back into price problem).
They could use something like SD cards for games media, but for that they'd have to include SD card reader - we'll see if something like that will happen.
Anyway, to cut the long story short - I don't think iPad as a platform is primed for hard core gaming. But I wouldn't mind to be wrong here - that would make iPad much more interesting for me.
2x on iPad is gonna be amazing! As long as the multitouch and CPU can keep up. You can really do some pretty detailed work. One example would be the autocad, which will allow you to see drawings in extremely good detail, possibly better then a monitor. Painting apps should benefit from this as well.
Video streaming like netflix would create a very vivid image, matching some of the top notch HDTVs on the market at such a close range.
Reading magazines would be easier as well, as even the smallest text would remain quite readable on the screen.
I still don't believe it. You might want it, and some others might too, but I just get the feeling that this is a particular subcategory of the product that Apple will continue to ignore. Just like how Apple won't make a stripped down minitower mac, I think they consider a 6-8" tablet either too niche or too wrong for them to make, for whatever reason.
I actually cannot imagine a smaller size for my personal use but I do think there might be a market for a smaller device
Quote:
The form factors are currently very distinct and clear because of their sizes. I think Apple prefers that, knowing that there are few very clear models and knowing that you as a consumer have to make hard choices in what to get. Now I could imagine them bringing the iphone/ipod up to 4", but that's about it.
I also think we could see a 4" iPone/iPod Touch
Quote:
I'll hedge my bets a little: if they did do it, it would be a 'reinvention' of devices at that size. Meaning it would be different, and not what you're imagining. Much like what they did in introducing the ipod mini, or mac mini or even the shuffle. Sure they might one day go into the subcategory you want, but not in the way you want. It will be the way Apple wants.
And here is where we most agree. I think that a smaller iPad would not necessarily be aimed primarily at consumers; this could well be Apple's enterprise play - something similar to, but different from the 10" iPad. I think it could find wide acceptance there and, of course, there will also be those consumers prefer its dimensions.
This I don't get. Lighter? The thing already weighs less than 2 lbs. Maybe you need to get to the gym more often.
With all the extra power expected, I'm sure we will need some equally increased battery power. Likely that Apple will shave off a gram here and a gram there in the case, but I wouldn't expect the iPad 2 to be any lighter given the the fact that batteries are where most of the weight comes from and I expect more battery in the next version.
2 lbs is a lot. My wife's got Nook Color for a birthday from a friend and I've mostly stolen it from her. It's 7" and around 1 lb and depending on your reading habits, even that can feel heavy here and there.
2 lbs is a lot. My wife's got Nook Color for a birthday from a friend and I've mostly stolen it from her. It's 7" and around 1 lb and depending on your reading habits, even that can feel heavy here and there.
The iPad is 1.5-1.6 lbs. Its size is two times that of the 7" Nook. It is essentially two Nooks.
2 lbs is a lot. My wife's got Nook Color for a birthday from a friend and I've mostly stolen it from her. It's 7" and around 1 lb and depending on your reading habits, even that can feel heavy here and there.
It is actually 1.6 lbs. but I never considered the iPad heavy. I always have it propped up in some fashion just like a book. Even when reading a newspaper I rarely read it completely elevated. I support it with elbows on an arm rest or table. Sometimes I also use the Apple cover which has a stand. I just don't see the weight as an issue.
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.
So then you round that out with a laundry list of new or improved features. Dual cameras and Facetime. SD card slot. Improved audio/speaker system. Updated OS with a few new key features. Refined case design. Possibly lighter, possibly longer battery life, most probably thinner.
It will make the iPad1 look primitive by comparison, and I would argue that the iPad as it stands today is a pretty remarkable little PC.
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
It would be beyond remarkable, and I honestly don't think any of us would have seen anything even remotely comparable to it before.
If that all happens....it would absolutely decimate the competition, Complete market domination.
2048x1536 strikes me as a bridge too far. Sure pixel doubling is easy and looks better than other scaling for text but that's quite a bit of pixels to be pushing.
Going to 1920x1280 might be better for the iOS platform overall. It represents a bit of pain for iPad developers to support but it means a even uprez across the product lines after the original iPad fades away.
Heck, 8 hours is good enough for me. The 10-12 hours I get out of my iPad right now is kind of overkill, it's just amazing.
For me, a device's portability should maximize the amount of time it can be used. 8 hours would not suffice for me, and the 10-12 hours I get is borderline for me at most. More battery life should always be the objective for a device such as the iPad (to a point).
For me, a device's portability should maximize the amount of time it can be used. 8 hours would not suffice for me, and the 10-12 hours I get is borderline for me at most. More battery life should always be the objective for a device such as the iPad (to a point).
Personally, having to charge the device daily is a chore. I probably won?t be satisfied until I can go a full week (or 40 hours of video) between charges. While this in a very long way off I have a feel it will happen within my lifetime. Looking at the iPod?s history, it?s gone from 10 hours in the very first model to 40 hours in the latest iPod Touch and iPhone, not to mention these devices have a about a 25% smaller battery than the original iPod. New HW, and more efficient coding can make a big difference over time.
While I can see Apple going for a smaller battery if they do use a more power efficient backlight, the more power efficient E-IPS panel which also allows for more light to pass thus reducing the power needs even more, I hope they find a way to keep the battery the same mAh or larger. Now that they iPad is a success they could engineer a logic board as small as the iPhone and Touch. Still haven?t seen any other CE company go with that level of complexity on their boards.
"Retina" does not mean >300ppi, it means when holding the device at a normal viewing distance (12' on the iphone) the eye can not discern individual pixels.
Since the iPad is held at a greater distance, like 18-20", I'm sure this resolution could be considered retina.
Could Apple continue this current display size for iPad 2 for the cheaper models and have the premium models be fitted with this double resolution display, better GPU and more RAM? They haven?t done this in the past, but the iPad may also be a unique device that sells a lot more in high end than other CE product I?ve seen (following Amazon.com?s best seller lists), thus warranting the extra cost. I?d likely buy the expensive model just to get this display.
i don't see them doing that. They'll either go retina or they won't.
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.
So then you round that out with a laundry list of new or improved features. Dual cameras and Facetime. SD card slot. Improved audio/speaker system. Updated OS with a few new key features. Refined case design. Possibly lighter, possibly longer battery life, most probably thinner.
It will make the iPad1 look primitive by comparison, and I would argue that the iPad as it stands today is a pretty remarkable little PC.
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
It would be beyond remarkable, and I honestly don't think any of us would have seen anything even remotely comparable to it before.
imho, one thing apple needs to do wrt the iphone/ipad screen is remove the ability to customize the wallpaper. I was in the city today, in several shops that sell idevices, and the sales staff always seem to change the wallpaper to something that makes the screen look crowded and intimidating to non-technical people who might otherwise have bought it.
By making the wallpaper configurable, apple are allowing people with no taste to make all their magnificent, painstaking design irrelevant (ok, that is hyperbole, but they are allowing people to ruin the overall effect).
Comments
Agreed. Haven't seen anything that rivals the iPad for battery life, so my guess is they'll let that alone for now (although of course there's always the possibility of further efficiencies in software and chip fabrication).
The iPhone has been besting the competition since day one (despite the complaints) and now it?s quite far ahead yet they still focus on it. I doubt they?ll let this slide and I would expect at least a marginal increase across the board.
And 4x less battery life. hehe
Yup, thinking of hardware required to move that many pixels smoothly around... that would require some really hefty graphics and those would have to sweat a lot even for minor operations.
I don't think it will happen. I'd expect them to offer 720p screen with 1366x768, with old software working with black margins rather than stretching... or to stay with existing screen format and resolution. Even full HD resolution would be too much for 10" screen with current technology - I'm not even sure something like that is available today.
The more I think about it there is no way the iPad2 will have a 1024x768 screen. However because the new high-res iPad2 screen will also face production constraints I think we will see iPad2 and select iPad(1) models side by side. This way Apple reaps the most benefits - production scale, quantity, market leadership, and general all-round dominance.
I'm really feeling if Apple could push games at 1920x1440 on iPad2 they are a smidgen away from an AppleTV gaming console. Sure it will start as somewhere in-between Wii and PS3 but the next generation after that would take on even the Xbox360 which isn't due for a new generation until 2012?
And what sort of media (and internal storage) would you require to take advantage of such high resolution and all those beautifully detailed textures that would be possible with such resolution?
I think games would have to be at 1920x1080. I'm not saying that they couldn't be higher if the device could handle it, but if we're going to get video out for games, which is a possibility, even if not at first, but in the summer with iOS 5, then they would have to match the big screen capabilities, which is 1080p. Doing a live convert would be too much at the same times a live display. But the CPU is supposed to be able to run 1080p like "running water".
Of course, we would like to use the entire display of the iPad, so there would have to some thinking there.
But with these specs we're talking about, the iPad2 would be more powerful than the PS3 and 360.
Hmm... one word: heat. Even after shrinking it's logic, PS3 Slim still runs reasonably hot with its bulk, heatsinks and active cooling. Squeezing that sort of power - or better - into a tablet, if possible at all, would be painfully expensive.
Additionally... in order to utilise such gaming power, iPad would require adequate storage and distribution media. iPad cannot come with built-in DVD/BR, and if they would refer to DL games, iPad's storage would have to be really huge (which puts us back into price problem).
They could use something like SD cards for games media, but for that they'd have to include SD card reader - we'll see if something like that will happen.
Anyway, to cut the long story short - I don't think iPad as a platform is primed for hard core gaming. But I wouldn't mind to be wrong here - that would make iPad much more interesting for me.
Video streaming like netflix would create a very vivid image, matching some of the top notch HDTVs on the market at such a close range.
Reading magazines would be easier as well, as even the smallest text would remain quite readable on the screen.
I still don't believe it. You might want it, and some others might too, but I just get the feeling that this is a particular subcategory of the product that Apple will continue to ignore. Just like how Apple won't make a stripped down minitower mac, I think they consider a 6-8" tablet either too niche or too wrong for them to make, for whatever reason.
I actually cannot imagine a smaller size for my personal use but I do think there might be a market for a smaller device
The form factors are currently very distinct and clear because of their sizes. I think Apple prefers that, knowing that there are few very clear models and knowing that you as a consumer have to make hard choices in what to get. Now I could imagine them bringing the iphone/ipod up to 4", but that's about it.
I also think we could see a 4" iPone/iPod Touch
I'll hedge my bets a little: if they did do it, it would be a 'reinvention' of devices at that size. Meaning it would be different, and not what you're imagining. Much like what they did in introducing the ipod mini, or mac mini or even the shuffle. Sure they might one day go into the subcategory you want, but not in the way you want. It will be the way Apple wants.
And here is where we most agree. I think that a smaller iPad would not necessarily be aimed primarily at consumers; this could well be Apple's enterprise play - something similar to, but different from the 10" iPad. I think it could find wide acceptance there and, of course, there will also be those consumers prefer its dimensions.
[I]Here's a repost for reference I made in [url]http://forums.appleinsider
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.
EyeRes
This I don't get. Lighter? The thing already weighs less than 2 lbs. Maybe you need to get to the gym more often.
With all the extra power expected, I'm sure we will need some equally increased battery power. Likely that Apple will shave off a gram here and a gram there in the case, but I wouldn't expect the iPad 2 to be any lighter given the the fact that batteries are where most of the weight comes from and I expect more battery in the next version.
2 lbs is a lot. My wife's got Nook Color for a birthday from a friend and I've mostly stolen it from her. It's 7" and around 1 lb and depending on your reading habits, even that can feel heavy here and there.
2 lbs is a lot. My wife's got Nook Color for a birthday from a friend and I've mostly stolen it from her. It's 7" and around 1 lb and depending on your reading habits, even that can feel heavy here and there.
The iPad is 1.5-1.6 lbs. Its size is two times that of the 7" Nook. It is essentially two Nooks.
2 lbs is a lot. My wife's got Nook Color for a birthday from a friend and I've mostly stolen it from her. It's 7" and around 1 lb and depending on your reading habits, even that can feel heavy here and there.
It is actually 1.6 lbs. but I never considered the iPad heavy. I always have it propped up in some fashion just like a book. Even when reading a newspaper I rarely read it completely elevated. I support it with elbows on an arm rest or table. Sometimes I also use the Apple cover which has a stand. I just don't see the weight as an issue.
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
- 4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
- 4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
- 4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.
So then you round that out with a laundry list of new or improved features. Dual cameras and Facetime. SD card slot. Improved audio/speaker system. Updated OS with a few new key features. Refined case design. Possibly lighter, possibly longer battery life, most probably thinner.It will make the iPad1 look primitive by comparison, and I would argue that the iPad as it stands today is a pretty remarkable little PC.
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
It would be beyond remarkable, and I honestly don't think any of us would have seen anything even remotely comparable to it before.
If that all happens....it would absolutely decimate the competition, Complete market domination.
Going to 1920x1280 might be better for the iOS platform overall. It represents a bit of pain for iPad developers to support but it means a even uprez across the product lines after the original iPad fades away.
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1975.wss
Heck, 8 hours is good enough for me. The 10-12 hours I get out of my iPad right now is kind of overkill, it's just amazing.
For me, a device's portability should maximize the amount of time it can be used. 8 hours would not suffice for me, and the 10-12 hours I get is borderline for me at most. More battery life should always be the objective for a device such as the iPad (to a point).
For me, a device's portability should maximize the amount of time it can be used. 8 hours would not suffice for me, and the 10-12 hours I get is borderline for me at most. More battery life should always be the objective for a device such as the iPad (to a point).
Personally, having to charge the device daily is a chore. I probably won?t be satisfied until I can go a full week (or 40 hours of video) between charges. While this in a very long way off I have a feel it will happen within my lifetime. Looking at the iPod?s history, it?s gone from 10 hours in the very first model to 40 hours in the latest iPod Touch and iPhone, not to mention these devices have a about a 25% smaller battery than the original iPod. New HW, and more efficient coding can make a big difference over time.
While I can see Apple going for a smaller battery if they do use a more power efficient backlight, the more power efficient E-IPS panel which also allows for more light to pass thus reducing the power needs even more, I hope they find a way to keep the battery the same mAh or larger. Now that they iPad is a success they could engineer a logic board as small as the iPhone and Touch. Still haven?t seen any other CE company go with that level of complexity on their boards.
"Retina" does not mean >300ppi, it means when holding the device at a normal viewing distance (12' on the iphone) the eye can not discern individual pixels.
Since the iPad is held at a greater distance, like 18-20", I'm sure this resolution could be considered retina.
Insanely high res if true, in any case.
That won't stop Apple.
If this is true, it's going to blow the top off my skull. I seriously don't think they could put a display of that quality in such a low cost product.
Those Best Buy SKU's have the starting price at $599.
Could Apple continue this current display size for iPad 2 for the cheaper models and have the premium models be fitted with this double resolution display, better GPU and more RAM? They haven?t done this in the past, but the iPad may also be a unique device that sells a lot more in high end than other CE product I?ve seen (following Amazon.com?s best seller lists), thus warranting the extra cost. I?d likely buy the expensive model just to get this display.
i don't see them doing that. They'll either go retina or they won't.
If Apple really is doing all of this (and I personally still find it hard to believe) the sales pitch becomes clear: The iPad2 is 4x more powerful than its predecessor.
- 4x more RAM. They could easily go from the current 256MB to 1GB. This is probably the easiest one to achieve.
- 4x the processing power. Making this claim with the GPU would be no big deal, GPU power tends to explode upward fast. But to make the claim with the CPU as well, may be stretching a bit, but is within the realm of possibility. *If* it's dual core, and if it's a stepping above the current chipset, that could lead to a 3-4x increase in speed. But for marketing purposes, they can just call it 4x.
- 4x the resolution. 2048x1536 would be the key quality feature nobody else has or will have anytime soon.
So then you round that out with a laundry list of new or improved features. Dual cameras and Facetime. SD card slot. Improved audio/speaker system. Updated OS with a few new key features. Refined case design. Possibly lighter, possibly longer battery life, most probably thinner.It will make the iPad1 look primitive by comparison, and I would argue that the iPad as it stands today is a pretty remarkable little PC.
And if they did all this, still not convinced they will, but if they did I think it would take them some time before we see another power jump of this magnitude in such a short time. To go from launch with a whole new device, having it for 1 year and it shaking up the industry the way it has, no signs of sales slowing down, and just 1 year later to add all this to the device, when people are clearly pretty happy with the v1 model would be... gosh I dunno... unprecedented even by Apple standards.
It would be beyond remarkable, and I honestly don't think any of us would have seen anything even remotely comparable to it before.
So earth shattering life will still move on.
imho, one thing apple needs to do wrt the iphone/ipad screen is remove the ability to customize the wallpaper. I was in the city today, in several shops that sell idevices, and the sales staff always seem to change the wallpaper to something that makes the screen look crowded and intimidating to non-technical people who might otherwise have bought it.
By making the wallpaper configurable, apple are allowing people with no taste to make all their magnificent, painstaking design irrelevant (ok, that is hyperbole, but they are allowing people to ruin the overall effect).
1984?