Why high resolution screens matter for Apple's iPad 2

1246710

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    You're obviously unfamiliar with various Android devices, and how they actually function.



    An honest question: so Android does not use any bitmapped resources? Because that is the issue with resolution independence -- you really need everything to be vector. That, deal with scaling, or require multiple bitmap resolutions (which will eventually be too small).
  • Reply 62 of 198
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    sometimes the differences suck on the iPad. I really hate how they moved most of the useful buttons in Safari (i.e., forward, back, bookmarks and send to) to the top of the screen...the opposite edge where my hands are. Thanks Apple for placing all the one-hand buttons in such a way that i can't just thumb my way around the internet.



    Also, why doesn't the calendar/contacts and notes apps flip pages like ibooks? Why can't we do the three-finger forward/back in Safari like we do on the track pads? Let's get a little consistency in UIs here. And for goodness sakes, please let me free-hand sketch in the NATIVE notes app...with the ability to switch the paper to white or graph paper.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MFago View Post


    There are certainly UI differences between the two devices -- an iPad is not just a larger iPhone. Perhaps you have not used both devices extensively. Why would it be "drastically" different?! They are both touchscreen systems running the same version of iOS, but with the UI optimized for the different display sizes.



  • Reply 63 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


    sometimes the differences suck on the iPad. I really hate how they moved most of the useful buttons in Safari (i.e., forward, back, bookmarks and send to) to the top of the screen...



    Yea, that one bugs me as well.
  • Reply 64 of 198
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    I could easily see this new device unveil NOT as the iPad 2 but the iPad-Pro...you heard it here first.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NormM View Post


    Excellent points! Why dramatically increase resolution? a) To stand out in the market. b) To provide a new high end of benefit to anyone but particularly useful to the pros, and c) Increase the value of the low-end device (basically last year's model, sold cheaper) by keeping the OS and marketplace robust. Resolution independence means the low end (including last year's models) get the same apps and images, just not quite as crisp.



  • Reply 65 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I think is point is well supported by the SDK. The differences are there in the GAuI but they are very minor. In the end a vast portion of the SDK is identical on each platform. Even if you take the referenced picture in to consideration, the behavior of the list is virtually the same.



    Frankly it is hard to look at the iPad and not see a lot of the iPhone in it.



    Well, look at the same mail app on the iPad in portrait mode. It is noticeably different -- a content (detail) view with a list (popover) view.



    When you have developed an app for the iPhone you must rethink the app for the iPad or it just looks dorky.



    Say, you drill-down several levels of lists (single-column tables) on the iPhone to get to a detail view, e.g. Artist--->Album---Song.



    On the iPad you can/should replace it with a split view (combined list or popover with a content view).



    This makes it much faster, easier and more intuitive for the user. You drill-down the list/popover view only.



    But you must reprogram it -- it is a different UI construct. and not supported on an iPhone size display.



    I suspect a future API for the iPad would support multi-column tables -- similar to an iTunes list display on the Mac -- where you can rearrange, resize, hide and sort any column. This would not be possible on an iPhone-size screen.
  • Reply 66 of 198
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Yeah, I saw those but I?m not yet convinced of their legitimacy. One reason is they don?t state what kind of IPS technology is used. For instance, LG?s 2009 E-IPS tech reportedly has a "Wider aperture for light transmission, enabling the use of lower-power, cheaper backlights. Improves diagonal viewing angle and further reduce response time to 5ms.? This seems to be exactly what Apple would want. Add to that Apple?s patents to reduce to the power used in backlights and this could be pretty amazing.



    Yep sounds exactly like what Apple would want. People seem to get bent out of shape over the mention of a screen with that resolution but I really don't see a problem. As to the cost of that spare part, anything that isn't in mass production is going to be expensive. What the screens will cost Apple is another thing. More expensive possibly but grossly so I think not. Most likely LG and Apple have been working on this screen well before iPad was even announced with the goal of making it cost effective.

    Quote:

    As for performance, it?s not enough that the GPU can push 3 millions pixels instead of just 700k, it?s how this affects the battery and I?m not convinced that 4x as many pixels can result in about the same power usage in a YoY upgrade of the GPU.



    It is reasonable for people to be concerned about power usage with these rumors, however it looks like many things will come together at the same time to give us an iPad with similar battery lifetimes.



    The first thing that we need to have happen is to build the new SoC on a smalker process node. It looks like Samsung will be ready to go on 32nm just in time and their Process is very low power. (it would be even nicer to see a bleeding edge SoC at 22nm but that seems to be a stretch).



    The second issue is that lots of pixels require lots of bandwidth and bandwidth to memory is expensive power wise. That could be addressed in a couple of ways. One would be a large cache the other is a frame buffer right on the SoC. Either approach would reduce trips off die which eats power.



    Third the new screens might actually lower power requirements.



    With other enhancements iPad 2 should stay in the same ballpark run time wise. I'm optimistic at this point that Apple can give us all of this in the next update.

    Quote:

    That said, I can?t express enough how much I want this to be feasible.



    Yes you are alone, I'd buy one as soon as I could. Given that they deliver everything to properly run more complex apps this should be one nice machine. My biggest worry is that Apple will skimp on RAM.

    Quote:

    I?m also aware that the success of the iPad could easily allow Apple to add more expensive HW to maintain their lead in the tablet market, and even push so far ahead at the beginning of this market that it could create another natural monopoly like it did with the iPod by making the iPad the only reasonable choice for the average consumer.



    Apple does have the lead at the moment but they have to be real agressive to keep it. Personally I don't want them to have s monopoly as that leads to stagnation in many cases. However I really don't know what the competition will be. Android seems lost innthe mess that is Goggle, Playbook has potential if they ever get past the Adobe software and then you gave the rest.

    Quote:

    PS: iSuppli listed the iPad?s 1024x768 display as costing just over $28.



    The price to third parties does drop significantly over time. Again though I wouldn't trust iSupply to much. In any event people look at the price on an unreleased screen that a third party is selling and think OMG iPad is going to be so expensive. That price has no relation to what Apple will be paying. Besides the E variant is supposedly a bit cheaper to make.



    As I see it many in this thread (and other threads) dismis this jump in performance as impossible. The evidence though is a bit different. For example dual core A9 chips are already available with quad cores soon this year. Manufacturing a 9" screen at 260ppi is not a big deal anymore. Honestly I don't think Apple has much of a choice.
  • Reply 67 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    The only thing that's remotely 'straining' on the iPad (for the reader) is the excessive weight after holding it for extended periods- IMO.



    The excessive weight probably comes from buying 3 for each member of your family. Use one at a time and you'll find the weight much more manageable.
  • Reply 68 of 198
    For now I dont see the purpose of running higher than 1920x1080 as a resolution, as this is the highest for movies.

    It's also sufficient for things like work, iphoto, and editing imovie shorts.



    It is a 10inch screen only.
  • Reply 69 of 198
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    I appreciate your explanation but if there were true resolution independence then there would only be a need to supply one set of assets for a project.



    No because you mis the point resolution independence is about what is drawn to the screen. Bit maps, pictures and the like are not drawn to the screen. It is certainly possible to resize them but resizing bit maps is not reliable so Apple offers an easy solution.

    Quote:

    The ui could take the higher resolution image and scale it for the lower resolution display. Clearly that is not the case here



    No it is not because techology is going in the other direction. That is our ability to put more pixels on screen is increasing. So old programs need higher resolution art work to manage well on newer devices. Even if we had started in the opposite direction even downsizing images is not exceptionally reliable so delivering an image that is exactly what you want is smart. On top of all of this is the issue of performance and the horse power required to resize all of these bit maps.



    In the end what you want to have happen with bit maps is possible but I just don't think it is wise. Especially when Apple can drive developers to very very easy updates.
  • Reply 69 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    I use both my iPad and my iPhone4 on a daily basis, and again... the APPS are what are optimized, the UI is essentially the same in both look/function, even down to the (rather wasteful) icon spacing utilized on the iPad.



    Here's a link:



    http://developer.apple.com/library/i...6556-CH13-SW30



    Scroll down and start reading at "Content Views".



    Apple thinks the UI is different, especially since it recommends a different UI on the iPad that is not available on the iPhone.
  • Reply 71 of 198
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Yes you are alone, I'd buy one as soon as I could. Given that they deliver everything to properly run more complex apps this should be one nice machine. My biggest worry is that Apple will skimp on RAM.



    1) You meant *not* alone, right? I can?t imagine anyone but competitors to not want this to happen.



    2) If the quadruple the pixels I don?t think 512MB will suffice. I think 1GB would be a certainty.



    Quote:

    As I see it many in this thread (and other threads) dismis this jump in performance as impossible. The evidence though is a bit different. For example dual core A9 chips are already available with quad cores soon this year. Manufacturing a 9" screen at 260ppi is not a big deal anymore. Honestly I don't think Apple has much of a choice.



    Just to be clear, I?ve stated that I don?t think it?s likely at this point, but never said it?s impossible. I never use absolutes unless I can have some proof to back it up or I?m making a bad joke.
  • Reply 72 of 198
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by funkdis View Post


    For now I dont see the purpose of running higher than 1920x1080 as a resolution, as this is the highest for movies.



    Current movies yes but they can be up scaled.

    Quote:

    It's also sufficient for things like work, iphoto, and editing imovie shorts.



    Let's take a look at these:



    First I assume you mean iWork. The first benefit to the user is crisper text and graphics. Presentations and other documents can have a far more beautiful rendering of the compositions.



    Second is iPhoto which should be vastly improved on such a screen. Mainly because most cameras still outstrip the abilities of the screen to display the images generated. IPhoto and this screen would go together like peanut butter and jelly. In fact such a screen would justify an Aperture like program for iPad 2 if it comes with enough RAM.



    Third for movie editing again we have a win. 1080p can be displayed while maintaining area for controls and editing tools.

    Quote:

    It is a 10inch screen only.



    Yes it is! However that doesn't mean it can't be crisper or display more of an imported JPEG in a more pleasing manner. In any event the convincing will come when you look at the screen. We only need to figure out when this new product will hit store shelves.
  • Reply 73 of 198
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Here's a link:



    http://developer.apple.com/library/i...6556-CH13-SW30



    Scroll down and start reading at "Content View".



    Apple thinks the UI is different, especially since it recommends a different UI on the iPad that is not available on the iPhone.



    How many people who bought an iPad, copied over their iPhone or Touch apps and found instantly either at 1x or 2x that they were absolutely horrific to use. I deleted them immediately. For apps like FaceBook I found the app was great on the iPhone but for the iPad using Safari with a Home Screen link icon was best.



    For those that haven’t seen how these iPhone/Touch apps look on the iPad, they don’t mirror the size of the device on the 1x size, they mirror the pixels. Since the iPad’s pixels are larger. Apple cares so much about the UI that even the icon sizes between the iPhone and iPad are different, and they even created a new font for iPhone that I assume made the text look better.
    • Image of all iOS icon sizes: http://panic.com/~neven/pub/iOS%20icons.png
    PS: Remember when people said that the AppleTV using ARM architecture couldn’t possibly be iOS-based because to be iOS you also must use CocoaTouch?
  • Reply 74 of 198
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    They need to go ahead and tack on WebM support if it's possible at all.



    Go get a life! Google is the new evil and you my friend are....never mind.
  • Reply 75 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I never use absolutes unless I can have some proof to back it up or I?m making a bad joke.



    So is this a bad joke or do you have proof to back this up?



    Just kidding -
  • Reply 76 of 198
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) You meant *not* alone, right? I can?t imagine anyone but competitors to not want this to happen.



    Exactly! I spend so much time correcting the iPhone auto correct that I often mis simple omissions like this.

    Quote:

    2) If the quadruple the pixels I don?t think 512MB will suffice. I think 1GB would be a certainty.



    I would agree but does Apple? The current iPad is pathetically short on RAM so I see this as a big issue.



    I was going to figure out how many bytes would be needed for a frame buffer for 4x pixels but it is getting late. I still think the biggest technical hurdle is getting the GPU to do it's job without a lot if energy wasted driving the screen which in reality is moving a lot of data quickly and constantly. It would be huge if a cache or memory array could be implemented to avoid those of chip data accesses.

    Quote:



    Just to be clear, I?ve stated that I don?t think it?s likely at this point, but never said it?s impossible. I never use absolutes unless I can have some proof to back it up or I?m making a bad joke.



    Let's put it this way I'm very hopeful that all the rumors come true. If so iPad 2 would be one impressive machine. More so it might remain useful to the user for much longer than iPad 1. I suspect that many titles will become iPad 2 very quickly. In large part that will be due to the expected extra RAM, with CPU performance a quick second.
  • Reply 77 of 198
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Yep sounds exactly like what Apple would want. People seem to get bent out of shape over the mention of a screen with that resolution but I really don't see a problem. As to the cost of that spare part, anything that isn't in mass production is going to be expensive. What the screens will cost Apple is another thing. More expensive possibly but grossly so I think not. Most likely LG and Apple have been working on this screen well before iPad was even announced with the goal of making it cost effective.



    I've mentioned this in a number of threads but Apple's prepaid component deals have no doubt lowered the component cost substantially. That $500M deal with LG probably included R&D and dedicated production lines for Apple.



    I think Apple may get more aggressive with these prepaid deals. The only question is will the component makers eschew the deals feeling like they are limiting their customer base.
  • Reply 78 of 198
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    "when Apple introduced the iPad and its 9.7 inch, 1024x768 screen, it did not simply deliver a bigger version of the existing iPhone interface. Instead, it created a distinct user interface that took advantage of its physically larger screen real estate"



    No It Didn't, and there's very little that visually or functionally differentiates the manner in which IOS works/looks on the the iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad.



    What makes the iPad user experience different are the apps/physical size, and little else.



    DaHarder - you are truly a tiresome troll - there is no one in the tech news / analysis space more knowledgeable and articulate than Daniel. And who are you again?
  • Reply 79 of 198
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post


    Daniel, only you can make 3 pages of endless dribble from



    "It will look better."



    And then we have sprockkets, another boorish toll trying to suck the air out of the room. Keep on sucking sprock...
  • Reply 80 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Second is iPhoto which should be vastly improved on such a screen. Mainly because most cameras still outstrip the abilities of the screen to display the images generated. IPhoto and this screen would go together like peanut butter and jelly. In fact such a screen would justify an Aperture like program for iPad 2 if it comes with enough RAM.



    Third for movie editing again we have a win. 1080p can be displayed while maintaining area for controls and editing tools.



    So, if we assume: dual-core (or more) CPU, Dual-core (or more) GPU, 2048x1536 display, 1GB RAM (or more)...



    We have a pretty powerful little device.



    What if Apple were to port the ProRes codecs to the iPod -- and maybe some iPad versions of Pro apps or ProSumer apps;



    http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/...le-prores.html



    what would that mean to video production?



    Drool!
Sign In or Register to comment.